CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 17, 1995
(Motion agreed to.) 15443
Bill C-64. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 15444
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 15447
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 15449
Bill S-9. Report stage (with amendments) 15459
Motion Nos. 1 and 2 15459
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 15465
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 15471
Division on motion deferred 15472
Division on motion deferred 15472
Bill C-90. Motion for concurrence 15472
(Motion agreed to.) 15472
Motion for third reading 15472
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15478
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 15481
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15481
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 15481
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15481
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 15482
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15482
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 15482
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15483
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15483
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15484
Bill C-90. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 15488
Division on motion deferred 15500
Bill C-106. Motion for second reading 15500
Bill C-64. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 15503
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 156; Nays 41 15503
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 15504
Bill S-9. Consideration resumed of report stage 15504
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 12;Nays, 172 15504
Motion No. 2 negatived on division: Yeas, 15;Nays, 170 15506
Motion for concurrence 15507
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 179; Nays, 7 15507
Bill C-90. Motion for third reading 15508
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 125; Nays, 64 15508
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 15509
Bill C-317. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15509
15443
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 17, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
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 three
petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in English and in French, the report of
the 6th annual meeting of the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary
Group, held in Tokyo and Osaka from September 9 to 16, 1995.
[English]
Japan is Canada's largest trading partner after the United States.
The volume of trade has more than doubled since 1985 and is
increasingly diversified in composition.
In 1994 Canada's exports to Japan rose 13 per cent to $9.5
billion, resulting in an increase of over $1 billion for the second
year in a row.
Ignoring the impact of liberalized Japanese markets and
increased Canadian competitiveness, projected exports from
Canada to Japan will climb to $14 billion in the year 2002, which is
80 per cent greater than 1993 levels.
(1005 )
While in Japan, members of the delegation were able to express
Canadian concerns and promote Canadian excellence with our
Japanese counterparts. This will help ensure a growing Canadian
presence in the Japanese market and allow us to work with our
business communities in encouraging increased commercial
activity with Japan.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you might find unanimous consent for a House order along
the following lines:
That today the first item of business on Government Orders be resumption of
debate at third reading of Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, and
that at the conclusion of two hours of debate, or at such earlier time as no one
rises to speak, the question shall be deemed to have been put, a division deemed
demanded and the vote deferred until 5 p.m. this day, provided that no
amendment to the motion for third reading shall be received by the Chair during
such extended debate.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present this morning. I am pleased to do so on
behalf of many constituents of Regina-Lumsden as well as the
surrounding area.
The first petition is signed by a number of people who are
concerned about the approval of a synthetic bovine growth
hormone, known as BGH or BST, a drug injected into cows to
increase milk production.
These signators call on Parliament to take steps to keep BGH out
of Canada through legislating a moratorium or stoppage on BGH
use and sale until the year 2000 and examining the outstanding
health and economic questions through an independent and
transparent review.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have another petition concerning
the Senate of Canada. It is signed by many constituents of
Regina-Lumsden and other parts of Saskatchewan. The
petitioners are quite concerned about taxpayers' money being spent
on the Senate, an unelected, unaccountable institution which is
costing Canadians over $54 million a year.
15444
They request Parliament urge the government to abolish the
Senate, which would save taxpayers this money and eliminate a
body which is in essence useless for Canadians.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition today
with 26 names. The petition arises from proposals coming before
the Department of National Defence to change the tendering
process. Its signators believe the process we have now is fair and
equitable and serves all moving vans appropriately.
The petitioners call on Parliament to resolve the situation and to
veto any proposed change to the present tendering process of the
Department of National Defence and to support the present system
of tendering moving processes for all military personnel.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
15444
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 16 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, be
read the third time and passed.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
millions of Canadian workers experience barriers preventing them
from participating as fully as possible in the labour market. For
example, many women continue to be ghettoized in low paying and
part time work. In spite of that fact, in 1990 women obtained 55 per
cent of university bachelor degrees.
Unjust hiring criteria, attitudinal barriers and uneven training
and promotion practices still prevent women, as well as persons
with disabilities, aboriginal people and members of visible
minorities, from achieving equality in the workplace.
(1010 )
In light of these facts there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that
employment equity is not only a good thing, it is a necessary thing.
Good business practice would require that companies do something
to improve access to world markets. Members of ethnocultural
communities, with insider cultural linguistic knowledge as well as
contacts with their country of origin, can play a key role in
penetrating new markets. They are a rich resource in the workplace
environment.
It is puzzling to me how the Reform Party can fail to see the
desirability of the bill now before the House. My colleagues on the
opposite side of the Chamber seem frozen in time. I have news for
them, the past cannot be resuscitated. The 1950s are over.
We live in a radically restructured working world, different from
anything that has gone before. Rapidly changing technologies and
failing trade barriers are globalizing the economy, challenging us
to become more competitive.
Canada's export driven economy is heavily dependent on foreign
sales. Expansion into emerging markets, most notably in Latin
America and Asia, will change even further our economic reality.
This greater interdependence poses new challenges. It means
that our business organizations must be able to understand the
culture and outlook of our new consumers.
Another fact of Canadian life is Canada's evolution as a
technology based society. Knowledge is key to Canada's future
prosperity and our human resources are our greatest asset.
Consequently, policies that develop our human capital are
pivotal to our ability to compete. As everyone can see, employment
equity is nothing to be feared or shunned. It is a policy that permits
our society to move forward and to take into account the talents and
potential of all our citizens.
It is no surprise that Canadian companies with experience in
employment equity are often the strongest supporters of this
legislation. They have seen firsthand how employment equity
programs bring them numerous benefits. By having a fair and
efficient human resources development strategy and a very
efficient environment, employers have a chance to access a broader
set of skills, a base of skills that makes their companies more
productive. By improving the workplace they stabilize their
workforce, boost employer's morale and increase productivity.
They also enhance their corporate image in the community at large.
Employers cannot afford to exclude a wide segment of qualified
individuals if they want to survive and succeed in the global
economy. Private sector companies, and among them most
progressive business leaders, have long appreciated the added
value of employment equity.
Our challenge in the workplace is to accommodate the different
needs of our diverse workforce and to demonstrate flexibility.
These initiatives are in no way a threat to other Canadians.
15445
Bill C-64 is not about hurting the chances of white males to
earn a living and pursue a career. It is about creating real equality
of opportunity in the federal government, in the federally
regulated private sector and among federal contractors. It
recognizes that making overt discrimination illegal and
unacceptable in society was a critical step to that goal.
The next step is for employers and society to find and break
down the hidden barriers that discourage people from applying for
jobs or that keep them in certain occupational ghettos.
Bill C-64 ensures that employers look at their workforce and
their employment practices thoroughly in order to identify and
remove barriers. They then set targets for hiring and promotion that
create greater access for qualified people. With the proper tools and
strategy they will achieve these results.
Far from taking anything away from anyone, employment equity
offers something of value to everyone. It permits employers to
build greater trust and dialogue with all their employees and unions
moving forward from awareness to action.
The Reform minority report shows little appreciation of this
potential for creating a more level playing field for all Canadians.
Instead, it offers a narrow view of discrimination and exotic
examples of university admission policies, most of which are not
even Canadian.
(1015 )
The existence of systemic discrimination does not seem to
trouble the Reform Party. It boldly proclaims that Canadian
employers do not discriminate on a systemic basis. Contrary to
what the Reform Party members say with their usual confidence,
systemic discrimination unfortunately is still very much part of our
daily life. It continues to exist because organizations hold on to
workplace practices that place barriers in front of certain people.
Many companies and organizations inspired by the act have
chosen to eliminate barriers. The Royal Bank worked with
aboriginal Canadians to improve the interviewing process. In a
report issued by the Royal Bank it shared some of its philosophy
with regard to its activities: ``With a labour shortage predicted in
the future and a more diverse population, it is very important to get
off the mark quickly, before the labour crunch hits. Serving a
diverse group of clients well means having a representative
workforce''.
The Royal Bank's example and that of other organizations is
precisely the approach taken by the federal government with Bill
C-64. Far from dividing people, employment equity helps us to
forge a fairer future and build a better country. It is not about guilt
and punishment, nor is it about tearing down merit based hiring
systems so as to hire the unqualified. The bill actually forbids
quotas. It states specifically that employers do not have to hire
unqualified workers. The merit principle is only enhanced by this
legislation.
When we eliminate irrelevant criteria for hiring, does that not
strengthen the merit principle even further? When we ensure that
more people have more chances to apply for a job or get suitable
training, does that not strengthen the merit principle even further?
Bill C-64 makes merit work. It opens doors to opportunity that
have been closed for far too long. The fact that designated groups
are under-represented and concentrated in lower paying jobs is a
reality the Reform Party just does not understand. These groups
have historically had higher unemployment rates and lower
average salaries. They have also tended to be concentrated in a few
occupational groups.
If Canadians were to accept the Reform Party's stand on this
issue, they would also have to accept the fact that somehow
women, aboriginal Canadians, visible minorities and disabled
Canadians choose lower salaries and higher unemployment rates.
We know and Canadians know that aboriginal Canadians, visible
minorities and designated groups want good jobs and good salaries
like the rest of Canadians. The Reform Party wants us to believe
that those individuals love to be ghettoized in low paying jobs, that
they love high unemployment. That is not the fact.
The reality is quite simple. We can look at our society in a very
simple way or we can try to break down the barriers that have left
some people unfortunately in situations Reform Party members
certainly would not want to be in themselves. That shows the
hypocrisy of the Reform Party.
(1020 )
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill
C-64 today.
The government likes to talk about Bill C-64 in terms of
employment equity and it shudders when the terms affirmative
action or quotas are used. The reality is the bill is exactly about
quotas and affirmative action. What else can it be when numerical
targets are provided, employers are required by law to attain those
targets, and those who fail to do so are subject to significant fines?
This legislation is about quotas, pure and simple, and it is wrong,
pure and simple.
The entire premise of Bill C-64 is built on the concept of
correcting historical wrongs. There was discrimination in Canada's
past. I will use women in the RCMP as an example. Women were
not allowed to join the RCMP as regular employees until 1974.
That was discriminatory. Women who were born prior to the 1940s
were discriminated against because they were denied the
opportunity to apply to become regular members of the RCMP.
However, for the past 21 years women have had the opportunity to
apply for positions. There have been successes and failures. Now
we are
15446
starting to see women cracking the commissioned officer ranks of
the force.
If nature were allowed to take its course, over time we would see
the numbers in the RCMP change dramatically, as all those males
retire who were hired under a men only policy. This is not good
enough for the government, as it wants to legislate the ratios
immediately. It does not take into consideration the fact that fewer
women than men are likely to see police work as a desirable
occupation.
The reality of police work is that it is a dangerous job. People
shoot at you, punch you in the face and fight you when you try to
arrest them. For some strange reason this does not have a lot of
appeal for many women. I do not know why that is. The way I look
at it, if you are going to spend your Friday nights fighting drunks
you might as well get paid for it, but that is another matter.
The reality is that since the pool of male applicants for police
work is significantly larger than the pool of female applicants, it is
not surprising there are more qualified men than women applying
for those jobs. That is not to say there will not be a significant
female presence on any police force that hires solely on the merit
principle. I have absolutely no doubt that the top female recruits
compare favourably with the top male recruits. However, this bill
ignores the principle of hiring based on merit. We will have a
situation where the RCMP will be hiring some female applicants
who are less qualified than some male applicants, who will not be
hired because of this legislation.
The government says that this discrimination is justified. When
we look carefully, we will have a system whereby females will
receive a special advantage because their mothers were
discriminated against. At the same time, the government will
endorse state sponsored discrimination against males because their
fathers had an unfair advantage over 20 years ago. I guess this all
makes sense to the government, but it sure does not give me any
positive feeling. The convoluted logic behind this argument is
surprising, to say the least.
I ask the government, when has one form of discrimination ever
righted any wrongs created by a different form of discrimination?
People are already being hurt by employment equity programs, and
this bill is going to make it worse. I have met a number of young
men who want to become police officers. They have degrees in
criminology and they meet all the other criteria. However, when
they happen to be white males not only can they not get hired, but
they have been told they should not even waste their time applying
for the position. These men have never received any specific
advantages because they are white males, yet this government
believes they must be punished because at some point in time white
males did receive unfair advantage.
Perhaps these young men should be instructed to turn their
career sights to the nursing profession. Here is an occupation that
has been traditionally staffed by a disproportionate number of
females, so with the new employment equity legislation many
more men will be hired for this profession because of their
under-representation. Right? Wrong. Since men do not qualify as
one of the designated groups, they do not rate protection under Bill
C-64. Despite the fact that men have traditionally been
under-represented in the nursing profession, just as females have
traditionally been under-represented in the policing profession, this
bill works only in one direction, and that is in itself discriminatory.
(1025)
Is that not what Bill C-64 is all about, the creation of state
sponsored discrimination? Let us treat people differently because
of their gender or their race. Let us punish young white males today
because their fathers may have received special and unfair
advantages decades ago.
We all know that it is easy to pass legislation due to which other
people are expected to make sacrifices but not the lawmakers. That
was quite apparent when the government dealt with MP pensions
and it is quite apparent here. The government has no problem
imposing these quotas on others but is it prepared to live up to the
spirit of the legislation itself?
When one looks at the cabinet one sees an extreme
over-representation of white males. Of the 23 cabinet ministers in
the House, excluding the secretaries of state, only four are female.
If we were to make the cabinet demographically correct there
would be more females.
Once the government passes Bill C-64, I am very curious to
know which eight white males will resign their cabinet positions
and give up their spaces for females. Which eight are prepared to
sacrifice the additional $46,645 of the cabinet salary? Which eight
are prepared to sacrifice their jobs, just as they expect others to do
in the name of employment equity?
I am proud to belong to a party that believes that the only
criterion in hiring or promoting is that the best qualified person
should be given the job. If this principle were followed I am sure
we would have a workforce that is truly reflective of the Canadian
mosaic.
As a female I find it extremely insulting to suggest that I need
special legislation to compete with a man. I believe the things I
have accomplished have been because of my abilities, not my
gender. I am proud that when I won the Reform Party nomination
for my constituency I competed on an equal basis with five males
and I won a first ballot victory, not because of my gender but
because of my abilities.
15447
During the election campaign the Liberal, Conservative and
NDP candidates were all male. While I certainly do not believe
I won just because of my gender, it obviously was not a detriment
to my campaign.
There are a number of people in this country who are sexist and
racist and who engage in other forms of discrimination. They will
not disappear just because Bill C-64 is passed. If the government
wanted to deal with discrimination in hiring or in promotion
practices in the public service all it had to do was make it clear that
anyone who engages in such a practice will be immediately fired. If
this approach had been taken we would have obtained the same
results without instituting the state sponsored discrimination that
Bill C-64 brings.
I cannot support any legislation that is discriminatory and racist
in content and institutionalizes the concept that individuals in
Canada will be treated differently because of their gender or race.
I will not ask government members to vote against Bill C-64
because I look forward to going into the next federal election with
them having to defend it, just like Lyn McLeod had to defend her
support for employment equity in the recent Ontario election. As
the old saying goes, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat
it. I take it the Liberals are saying they are intent on following the
footsteps of the Ontario Liberals in the next federal election. That
is just fine with me.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was intending to ask the member a
question. I have immense respect for the member for
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. In her opening remarks she
said the bill was enshrining quotas and numerical targets and I
immediately became concerned and consulted with my colleague,
the parliamentary secretary to the minister of human resources.
(1030)
It is very important that the House and the people of Canada
specifically understand clause 6 of Bill C-64 because it basically
abolishes the entire premise of the member's speech:
6. The obligation to implement employment equity does not require an
employer
(a) to take a particular measure to implement employment equity where the
taking of that measure would cause undue hardship to the employer;
(b) to hire or promote unqualified persons;
(c) with respect to the public sector, to hire or promote persons without basing
the hiring or promotion on selection according to merit in cases where the
Public Service Employment Act requires that hiring or promotion be based on
selection according to merit; or
(d) to create new positions in its workforce.
With respect to the member for Surrey-White Rock-South
Langley, the premise of her entire speech goes right down the chute
when we read the exact wording. It is not a written speech where
people want to take partisan, political gimmick shots. They know
there is a current in the community right now which thinks that a
bill like this is designed to tell the senior management of business
that it must hire 15 people from this country or that country, that it
must hire 20 per cent of people of this colour or that colour, or this
language or that language, or with this disability or that disability.
That is what the Reform Party is trying to spin on this bill. Quite
frankly I find it distasteful. I find it distasteful because the very
first day the leader of the Reform Party stood in the House of
Commons he said they would not come into the House and take
cheap, political, partisan shots. If they saw something good coming
from the government, they would not get into political gimmickry,
they would support the government. What we have today is a
beautiful example of Reform Party gimmickry.
Mr. Epp: Strong principles.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): This has nothing to do
with principles. I want to repeat clause 6 for Canadians from coast
to coast. I will even go to the person who hates me most in my
riding, the biggest Reform Party supporter in my riding who will
never vote for me. I will look him in the eye and hold up clause 6 of
this bill:
6. The obligation to implement employment equity does not require an
employer
(a) to take a particular measure to implement employment equity where the
taking of that measure would cause undue hardship to the employer;
I am a businessman; my background is in business. That is all I
need as a business person. If I can prove for my small business that
it will cause undue hardship, then I am fine.
(1035 )
I am a passionate believer in the government's policy on
multiculturalism. I am also one of the few believers in the vision
for the country that Pierre Trudeau put forth. He was so far ahead of
his time as a Prime Minister that the Reform Party does not even
understand it. In 1971 Pierre Trudeau stood in the House and said:
``We will have a policy on multiculturalism in which no culture is
less than or greater than another culture''. I know the member
supports that.
We have spent taxpayers' money to encourage people who came
here, whether they were from Germany, Italy or Austria, to keep
their language and culture of origin. We have become a globally
trading nation. Today the greatest trading advantage this country
has is that there are Canadians who have preserved their language
and culture of origin. They can go back to their country or that of
their parents and talk about doing deals.
15448
I will give a concrete example. Last week during our recess I
spent four days in Austria with my former employer, Frank
Stronach, chairman of Magna International. In the last 18 months
he has returned to spend a lot of time in his country of origin.
Part of this was because of our rotten tax system; the government
has to get up to speed on changing the tax system.
I will go back to the notion of multiculturalism. Last week I saw
Frank Stronach doing deals in Canadian technology in the
automotive industry. He was selling that Canadian technology in
Austria. We all think that the Europeans are far ahead of us but they
are not. Canadian automobile manufacturing technology is much
further advanced than in many parts of Europe. He was over there
with Canadians doing deals. Because he has preserved his language
and feels comfortable with his country of origin, he is doing deals
left, right and centre. Is he doing this just for the Austrian
community? No, he is exporting Canadian jobs and Canadian
manufacturing.
That is why I am so passionately committed to the notion of
multiculturalism. It is the greatest trading strength our country has.
I do not give a darn what anybody says about Pierre Trudeau's
being a centralist. I am a centralist. People knock him for building
a strong national government. I think our government is
dismantling too much too fast.
I call this multiculturalism, phase two. With this bill on
employment equity we are further sensitizing our communities,
especially our business communities which build on the policy of
multiculturalism. Wake up people, because if we can have a
business organization that is sensitive to all cultures, all
communities of the world, then the chances for our survival will be
far greater than if we lived in a cocoon.
There may be one or two minor flaws in the bill but I have
absolutely no problem supporting the bill. I will have even less
problem going door to door selling it. I will take on any Reformer
who wants to go with me, street to street. In the end the Liberal
policy will win, if it is properly explained by the words in the act
and not by spinning little aspects of it that make it look as if we are
trying to punish white Anglo Saxon males. This bill is not about
that.
(1040 )
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the
words of the hon. member. He defended Pierre Trudeau by saying
that Mr. Trudeau was far ahead of his time. Not that long ago I was
up on the sixth floor of this building looking at a series of
photographs which started with Lester Bowles Pearson and went
right through to Kim Campbell. I thought that if one wanted to
graphically illustrate the trouble with Canada, one could use those
five pictures of those Prime Ministers starting with Lester Bowles
Pearson, with Mr. Trudeau's picture being the pre-eminent one in
the whole lot. That is the problem with Canada.
I come from a business background. The reason I am here in the
House of Commons is not that I ever wanted to be a politician. It is
not that I wanted to come to Ottawa and be part of this. It is that the
policies and the actions of this government over a period of 25 to
30 years annoyed me to the point where I could no longer sit at
home and watch what was going on without becoming actively
involved.
What we have here is an elitist group of people who believe they
know better than anyone else how the country should run. They
want to dictate from the top down how we are to organize our lives
and run our affairs. That is what the member is talking about.
The whole idea of employment equity is repugnant. Anywhere in
the world where this has been tried it has not worked. The
employment equity philosophy is that we somehow have to help
people because they cannot make it on their own. I cannot think of
anything more patronizing. If I were part of one of the minority
groups being targeted to be helped by this legislation I would find it
extremely offensive. Not only that, this kind of legislation creates
divisions in our society that we do not need. It creates an us versus
them mentality.
I do not know how many times I have listened to people saying:
``I feel like a second class citizen in my own country''. That is the
kind of feeling this type of legislation generates in people. They
feel they can no longer walk around this country and feel they are
part of a nation.
I suggest to the hon. member and the members of the
government that if they think this legislation would ever be
supported by the Canadian people, then put it to a referendum. Find
out whether the Canadian people would accept this kind of top
down management, this kind of elitist attitude that we somehow
can control society and make it better.
These people have the attitude that government has solutions.
The attitude of the people on this side, certainly people from the
Reform Party, is that government in most instances is the creator of
problems not the solver of problems. That is why I am here. The
government made so many problems for me in my business that I
eventually got tired of being in business and sold it. The
government does not create solutions; it creates problems. It is this
kind of attitude and this kind of legislation that creates more
problems for Canadian businesses and industry.
After this bill is passed the quota police will be going into small
and large businesses looking over their shoulders to see who they
hire. The whole idea of hiring and elevating people on the basis of
merit is going out the window. We will be looking at what kind of
disadvantaged group people come from or what kind of
multicultural aspect they have to offer to a business rather than
whether they have something to contribute in terms of ability,
effort and merit.
15449
I find the bill absolutely repugnant. I find the philosophy of the
bill absolutely repugnant. I cannot believe that grown men and
women would support it. I certainly do not believe that a vast
majority of Canadians from coast to coast would support it.
Therefore I will be voting against it. I am sure any thinking person
in the House will be voting against it.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour
to join in the debate on Bill C-64 not only as a legislator but as a
practitioner who in the private sector has applied this legislation
very effectively. I reiterate what my colleague from
Broadview-Greenwood has pointed out. This act when utilized to
its fullest potential allows Canadian businesses to be more
competitive than any other businesses in the world.
(1045 )
Let us look at the act and figure out what it really asks employers
to do. First the act says that employers should look at the
demographics of the labour force around their businesses. They
should look at the percentages of white able bodied men, women,
the disabled, visible minorities and aboriginals, and then look
inside at the representation of their employee bases. In almost
every case companies look inside and find that they are not
representative, not even close to being representative.
When they see that displayed in front of them so clearly very
often they ask how they can possibly be serving their customers or
clients effectively when they do not have members in their
employee bases that come from those communities, that have those
ethnic backgrounds or that have that gender understanding.
They then say there is something to the legislation, that there is
something they have to do. They begin to ask themselves how they
have let this happen. How have they allowed their employee bases
to become so homogeneous? What is it about the way they do
business that has encouraged this?
In the bill the government requests employers to take a look at
the numbers, at the representation, and build targets for
themselves, targets and not quotas to give themselves a time line so
that they can make shifts and their employed population is more
representative of the surrounding society, their customers, their
clients. The recommendation in the regulations is that they look at
the employment systems that exist within companies: how people
hire, how people promote, how they recruit, how they fire and how
they retire.
When we actually start to look at the internal mechanisms of
how these activities occur it is fascinating to find, unfortunately
very often, aspects of systemic discrimination. This is not to
suggest that we want to be discriminatory. People do not want to
discriminate. However over time things have become systemic or
part of the way we do things.
The value of the legislation is that it says that we should stop and
think about what we are doing. Is this really what we want to be
doing? Every time the answer is no.
For purposes of illustration let us look at some examples. When
people decide they want to hire a new employee they think about
the skills, the abilities and the qualities that need to be filled by the
person who is going to take the job. They may take a lot of time.
Some companies take no time to do it; other companies take time.
When they get into the interviewing process natural human
characteristics sometimes take over and we tend to hire people who
are most like us.
Even though we may say we need someone with a particular
education, with particular life and job experiences to fill the job
effectively, sometimes in the course of interviewing we find
somebody who looks like us, likes to play golf, perhaps goes to the
same church, and we know he or she will fit in. All of a sudden that
is the person who is selected for the job.
We need to recognize we want to make employment decisions
based on skills, based on qualifications and based quite frankly on
merit. We do not want to mix in things that are not bona fide
requirements. When companies sit down and think about how this
happens, they prepare for the interview and recruitment process
more effectively and as such get better results.
We can think about how jobs are advertised. For example, large
companies typically advertise in the Globe and Mail. They know a
certain kind of person reads that newspaper. Do they think about
advertising in the ethnic newspapers, in the Teka in my local
community that goes to the Six Nations, to broaden the base and
increase the numbers of people who are on the slate for
consideration?
There is nothing in the legislation that says companies have to
select anyone but the most qualified, but they have to create a
situation so that the slate is broad enough to include all members of
society.
(1050 )
When people start to see the impact of the decisions they make
in terms of the recruiting process they say that they do not mean to
be but they are being selective. The system has generated itself to
be this way and we need to change it. We can think of how jobs
become available through word of mouth: the president says to the
vice-president who says to his sister or whomever. That is a very
selective source of candidates.
Companies need to use different strategies to broaden the slate,
but there is nothing in the legislation which says once a slate is
determined they have to pick someone from a particular designated
group.
We start by going through the employment systems analysis at
the hiring stage and at the recruitment stage. Then we start looking
15450
at what happens with the day to day norms in the company, the
activities and the way employees interact. One important matter
that has come from the legislation is an understanding of the
importance of having policies that support a harassment free
workplace so that once people come together in a workplace
community they can work effectively together. They understand
each other's differences. They know they have to treat each other
with respect and dignity.
One important learning as a result of the legislation which has
not been developed very quickly but with patience, understanding
and education over 20 years is that harassment free workplace
programs are vitally important.
Another thing which I have seen magically take hold in
communities is the value of cultural diversity training where we sit
down and understand social, economic and ethnic differences
among Canadians. When we sit down, talk about them and
understand them suddenly the barriers that stopped people from
working together are gone and the value of being able to enjoy
differences, celebrate diversity and understand different ways of
getting to the same end makes a company a thriving, competitive
organization.
First they have to take a look at the demographics. Then they
have to take a look at their companies to see if there are processes
that are systemically stopping them from engaging all Canadians in
the workplace. This is not a bill that revokes the merit principle but
quite the opposite. It says to use the merit principle but use it fairly
and equitably. Their decisions should be based on skill, bona fide
job requirements, qualifications and characteristics; not on a
person's social history.
I can tell a personal story about working for a company. After I
had been there for a couple of years and had been identified as
perhaps being someone who could progress through the system, I
was given a test to write. It had nothing to do with whether I could
do mathematics or whether I could relate to people. It asked me
about the history of my parents. Did my father belong to the Moose
Lodge? Did my mother belong to the UCW? How many children
were in my family?
This was not very long ago. I sat back and thought these were the
measures they used to determine success in the organization. They
were building a homogeneous population of white able bodied men
at the top, typically from the same university and with the same
graduating degree. Thanks to this legislation that company looked
inside and discovered it was a detriment to its capability and its
competitiveness and it is no longer there.
The bill is not about revoking the merit principle. It is not about
reverse discrimination. It is about reversing discrimination and
making sure we have a level playing field for all Canadians to
participate. It is an important piece of legislation.
As a human resources practitioner I can say that if they follow
the model presented through regulations they will effectively
create for their companies a very good, strong working human
resources plan and process. It is all there in the bill. Quite frankly it
is all about treating individuals with dignity and with respect.
(1055)
Like my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood I am proud to
stand in the House in support of Bill C-64 as we continue very
slowly but very effectively with the changes we need to make the
country's workplace the engine of our future: competitive, fair and
equitable.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I feel very
privileged to be able to stand in the House to enter in this important
debate.
When I was first elected as a member of Parliament in 1993 I
came here with very high ideals. I have grown to like this place. We
have here, for the most part, freedom to debate ideas and concepts
which profoundly affect society and have a huge impact on our
well-being as a country.
I begin my intervention by clearly stating that I do not question
or judge the high motives of some hon. members opposite. Those
who have spoken favourably with respect to Bill C-64 for the most
part are sincere. I accept that. I also invite them to consider that I
believe sincerely in the views I will put forward in the next while.
It is important not to reduce ourselves to name calling but rather
very honestly and openly question the bills before us. We should
have the freedom to amend bills so that the end product is the
absolute best for the people of Canada.
I believe very strongly that I am not only fulfilling a role as a
member of the opposition by being against these things. Certainly
there are elements in all bills which bear reason for support. I say
as a member of Parliament-and I think I would do this if I were a
government member-that if I identified a flaw in a bill I would as
forcefully as possible bring it to the attention of the House and urge
the House to amend the bill or defeat it. Unfortunately in the way
Parliament works that is not an option. I regret that. It is
unfortunate that government members opposed to the bill lack the
freedom to effectively influence change.
I agree with the premise that people ought to be treated equally.
Members opposite have said quite often that this is a bill about
equality. The word equity comes from the same root word meaning
equal or equality. We cannot tell a book by its cover. In this
instance the bill labelled a bill about employment equity, implying
employment equality, just does not deliver. It so happens that while
the bill speaks of equality it actually entrenches inequality. I say
that with all due respect.
15451
Members opposite are correct when they say that we have a
history in which some people have been discriminated against on
invalid grounds: grounds of race and grounds of gender. When I
was a young man we were discouraged from entering the nursing
profession because it was a job largely filled by females. There
was a prior bias in the different ways of hiring.
Every time there is a position to be filled certain discriminatory
principles will be applied. I was for a long time in charge of hiring
in the place where I worked. It is true. Sometimes we had 200
applications for three positions. We had to apply criteria to decide
who would get the jobs. I believe I did this with honesty and
integrity throughout. I always asked the question who is best able
to do the job?
(1100)
I did not ask the gender of the person. I did not ask what was
their racial background. I did not look at the colour of their skin.
My records will show, if anyone would like to check, that as a
private businessman and a supervisor in a technical institute there
was no evidence of discrimination. All I asked was that this person
be the best qualified to do the job. That is to me an overriding
principle.
The intrusion of these various elements into evaluating a
candidate for a position is totally unrelated to the ability to do the
job. They are entrenchments of inequity and inequality. I urge
members of the government to think very carefully about this. Do
not pass it off. Do not get emotional about a bill that you have come
to love, but ask yourself whether it really does the job.
At the beginning of this bill it states that the purpose of the act is
to correct disadvantages in employment experienced by women,
aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of
visible minorities.
I would be the first one to get up and scream if someone were
denied a position because she was a woman and for that reason
only, or because he or she was native and for that reason only. I
would object strenuously. As I said before, my policies in my past
and even as a member of the House of Commons are that I do not
look at those things, I look past and beyond.
We have heard quite a bit of talk, especially from the member for
Greenwood, about the fact that this bill does not require quotas,
that there are exemptions for employers. The bill says ``where there
is undue hardship to the employer''. I beg to ask what is the
definition of undue? It is so loose it does not mean anything. There
is no reason for people to obey this bill if it means that they would
have to hire or promote unqualified persons.
This is a good reason to vote against this bill in its entirety. It
gives two conflicting messages. One says that you must hire these
people based on their numbers in these groups. On the other hand,
it says that you do not have to because you should test them based
on their abilities. You should not have to hire unqualified persons.
In that case, the bill presents a real conundrum. There is no
solution to this problem because you have two conflicting sets of
criteria.
I also challenge the member's statement that this is not about
quotas. Liberal members talk over and over again about the fact
that business practice is going to be enhanced by this bill. I beg to
differ and I differ strongly because right now, to my knowledge, no
legislation in Canada says you cannot hire the best people if they
are in one of these groups. The absence of this bill does not present
any difficulty to business at all.
We have had examples mentioned of different businesses that are
working toward providing more equality in the hiring place and
eliminating barriers. They have done it because it is good practice.
If they are doing it because it is good business practice, then the
legislation is redundant. The only thing that this legislation is going
to do is develop a huge bog of bureaucracy that will once again
slow down the efficiency of business and of our economic
well-being. What am I talking about? I am talking about what the
employer is required to do because of this act. ``Every employer
shall collect information and conduct analysis of the workforce.
With respect to whether or not there is a degree of
under-representation of persons in these designated groups, he or
she is to conduct a review to identify employment barriers. Only
those employees who identify themselves are to be counted''.
(1105)
I digress for a moment but there is a flaw in this bill right there
that gives me a reason to vote against it. I beg the members on the
government side to consider what they are voting for when they
follow their party leadership later today and all dutifully, one after
the other, stand up and say, yes, we are in favour of this bill. Listen
to what it says: ``if employees choose to identify themselves they
are to be counted''. Otherwise they are not counted.
Let us say one of the groups in the area represents 20 per cent of
the population. Let us say a business actually has 20 per cent in this
group. Let us say they exercise their constitutional right not to
identify themselves. The reason the disclaimer is in the bill is
because it is so close to being unconstitutional, it requires
identification of oneself.
Let us say that the 20 per cent of people working for this
business exercise that right and do not identify themselves. They
cannot be counted. Though in truth they occupy one-fifth of the
positions in this business, they are not counted. When a position
becomes open, they are under-represented according to the books.
Therefore there is an obligation to hire another one of them.
15452
They could by simply not identifying themselves keep that ball
rolling until that workplace is entirely filled with people in that
group, discriminating against everyone who is not in the group.
That is a major flaw in this bill.
We tried to amend it. Reformers moved amendments in
committee and the Liberals dutifully voted them down. I guess they
did not want to think for themselves. The people who were telling
them how to vote were not thinking very clearly either. That is what
happened.
I urge all Canadians to ask themselves if this is such a wonderful
bill and if it reflects what Canadians are truly about and if the
members of the government truly believe this-I ask again in this
context, why is the bill necessary if that is really true-why these
draconian enforcement measures?
Why do we have enforcement that says that every employer shall
make all reasonable efforts to implement its employment equity
plan and to monitor it? Why is it that the government requires that
employers maintain these employment equity records and that they
file with the government, annually, a report respecting how they are
fulfilling their quota.
Government members do not like to use the word quota because
quota unfortunately is a word that means force. It means big
government. While they want to do the same thing, they do not like
to use the word quota.
They will say that nowhere in the bill is the word quota
mentioned. Proportions are mentioned. The numbers are there. If
that is the case and each business has to report, it has to report the
salary ranges of people in these different groups. It has to report the
number of employees hired in each group. After it has reported and
only those employees, by the way, who have agreed to identify
themselves are counted, in fact the employer could be doing it and
it does not even hit the record.
In all instances we find it is just big brother. In the end-
The Deputy Speaker: I am very sorry to interrupt the member
but through an error on the Chair's part he has had five minutes
more than he should have had.
(1110)
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this bill.
I like to call the bill respecting employment equity an act
without respect for the abilities and sensibilities of Canadians. I put
forward that the act perpetuates several myths: there is systemic
discrimination that will be cured by systemic remedial measures;
the myth of righting the historical wrongs of the past by proactive
reverse discrimination in the present; the myth of addressing the
problem of racism with a far more dangerous version of the same;
and the myth that government mandated crutches to groups when
those groups only desire to compete in that race from the same
starting line.
I speak in opposition to the bill and its policy of affirmative
action in all matters related to government operations that is
dressed in the guise of the euphemism of employment equity.
I noticed the member for Brant mentioned that in making an
application for a job the government is asking about membership in
a club or background or whatever. She took offence to that and I
agree with her offence to that kind of thing.
This weekend I was looking at an application for a university for
my daughter. That application was for a post graduate position in
the university and included a page to ask her if perhaps she was
disabled, or if she was from the aboriginal community. She was
asked to identify herself presumably to gain entry to a program that
should be equally available by academic achievement and by
ability in one of our public institutions. As she takes offence at the
questions asked of her, I take offence that my daughter should be
asked certain questions that are outside her academic ability to
enter an academic institution in the public realm.
That is very much the case in many of the areas in our society.
We have taken one situation and given it another solution which is
going to create a larger problem.
I speak not just as a Reformer but for the vast majority of
Canadians who I know feel as I do, that people desire to be
recognized for their ability-my daughter, myself and members of
the House included-for their personal qualities and not for the
colour of their skin or for their personal characteristics.
Along with a colleague from this side of the House I served on
the committee on human rights and the status of disabled persons. I
took part in the examination and hearings on this bill. We
submitted over 40 names to be considered as witnesses to come
before that committee. Those witnesses' names were submitted to
offer balance to the discussion and what we felt was a majority
perspective, the public perspective on many of these issues. Of the
40 names we submitted, only four were brought before that
committee. From what I see in the report which the government
produced, of those four none were heard.
When the Liberals came to power they trumpeted a new and
open process of government. They chose to refer this bill to our
committee before second reading. In reality what that did, and
certainly at the end of our sessions in the spring, was remove that
bill from public scrutiny and then allowed this orchestrated
affirmation of the broad concepts of the bill.
I was interested in many of the witnesses who did come from
across Canada through the choice of government. When we asked
trade union representatives for instance how their experience of
employment equity came about, they were very pro this bill. They
supported what the government had to say. When questioned
15453
concerning their own advancement or achievement of the goals of
this bill, their own structures denied the fact that they took it
seriously. They were very willing to apply it to companies or to
businesses but not to its own administrative structure, where there
was an obvious lack of representation from the disabled
community and the aboriginal community. Generally speaking,
women were not doing too badly in most of these situations.
(1115)
I get the feeling that some of these programs put forward by the
government are simply vehicles for certain groups to put forward
their agenda. The groups that perhaps need government
consideration for programs the most are denied or shunted aside
while the more vocal groups take the stage.
I want to comment on an aspect in this bill that has not yet been
addressed. It is in terms of my recent experience at the fourth world
conference in Beijing. This applies very much to the concept of
employment equity. Our government signed the document to that
conference, which was very much in support of affirmative action.
It becomes very plain after reading the document that it is an
affirmative action program our government signed in the name of
the Canadian people on the platform for action.
The platform for action from the Beijing conference commits all
signatory nations to implement over 500 actions by the year 2000.
In the next five years we are supposed to put in place 500 things
that nobody really knows about here. They were signed on to half a
world away.
I question our government's accountability in that process.
Certainly around the world and across Canada employment equity
has been denied by the public-certainly not by this government,
because it has not been listening to the public. It has now extended
that, again completely unaccountably half a world away.
Let me read one section into the record. This is part of the
platform for action: ``Implement and monitor positive public and
private sector employment equity and positive action programs to
address systemic discrimination against women in the labour force,
in particular women with disabilities and women belonging to
disadvantaged groups, with respect to employment, hiring,
retention, promotion and vocational training of women in all
sectors''.
We are working on a bill here that I believe does not have the
support of the Canadian people. Our government has put this not
only in the public sector but in a private sector agreement in an
international document it has signed on to. I am not even sure if
Canadians know that. It has done that without resolution of debate
on this issue in this House and certainly no debate on its signing on
to the documents from the United Nations.
Will this document from Beijing ever come to the House? Here
we have positive public and private sector employment equity
agreed to elsewhere, but will we be able to discuss it here? We have
signed on to something with no accountability coming through
from the status of women people or anybody telling us what they
have done, let alone the fact that they should not have done it
without accountability. I question whether they will even admit it
when they get back here.
We are committed to an aggressive program of affirmative
action. It is an umbrella program that covers all federal
departments. This is not simply the status of women people who
are going to work with special interest groups. The program that
has been defined in our signing on to this document encompasses
all federal departments in all areas, looking through what is called a
gender lens, which would reflect public and private sector
employment equity and positive action programs.
I am amazed to hear the government saying it is open and
available to Canadian opinion when it goes behind closed doors or
behind the globe and signs on to documents that are not only
against public sentiment but have no accountability in the House. I
object strongly to the denial of open government and of the wishes
of the Canadian public.
(1120 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to stand and speak to the bill. In the last session this bill
was kind of my baby. It was something I was supposed to shepherd
through the committee process, through the amendment process,
and so on. I think it is only proper that I spend a few moments
talking about the bill and why the Reform Party feels it must
oppose the bill in its current form.
I should mention a little bit about the whole process. This was
one of the bills that was referred to committee after first reading.
Supposedly at that time it was to encourage debate and
amendments and the creation of the bill at first reading stage in
committee.
I remind the House that during that session things happened in
committee that I think are almost unprecedented in the history of
the House. We had limited debate of only five minutes per clause.
We were not allowed to submit amendments because they were not
in both official languages, only in English. Certain portions of the
bill were passed without a vote. It was a real travesty.
The ironic part is that it was on the human rights committee that
this all occurred. It was a very souring experience. I did report it to
the House at the time. I re-emphasize that it is a very poor way to
draft what is very controversial legislation.
15454
I will speak on a few points about the bill and then I will talk
briefly about the Reform Party's alternative. Contrary to some of
the bafflegab that has been coming from across the way, the
Reform Party does have a solution to what the bill is supposed
to be addressing. We do have some ideas on hiring practices and
how to encourage employers to make sure their workplaces are
without discrimination. I will put those on the record as well.
I find it interesting that in the bill the Prime Minister's office is
not included as being covered under employment equity. It is
interesting that the top office in the land will not be subject to
employment equity. Why is that? Why are private enterprises that
do business with the federal government, the federal government
itself, crown corporations, the armed forces and so on all covered
but the Prime Minister's office does not want to be covered under
the legislation?
I remember making that proposal in committee and it was
rejected by the Liberals. I find it interesting that when it comes to
their own significant offices they are not prepared to allow
themselves to be covered under this employment equity legislation.
It is an interesting thought. I wonder if sometime the Prime
Minister could expand on why he and his office should not be
covered.
There has been recent controversy about the statistical base this
whole thing is predicated on and the problems with the statistical
base. In the last census 10 per cent of aboriginals refused to even be
enumerated in the census. That is just one example of how the
statistical base is often skewed. When supposedly the workforce is
to be exactly representational, sometimes it is not possible to know
because of the skewing of the statistics.
Another thing that was brought out in question period a little
while ago is that in the last census almost a million people refused
to designate themselves by ethnicity and background. They said ``I
want to be called a Canadian, please. Just call me a Canadian. Treat
me the same as everybody else and I will be happy''. Of course the
Liberals will not allow that. The next census will make sure all
people have to indicate which category they fit into. They will not
be allowed to call themselves just Canadian; they will have to
indicate they have some form of ethnicity. That is a shame. We
should be working toward commonality but instead we are driving
in a wedge, trying to drive people apart.
(1125)
I have heard a lot of talk today that this legislation is not about
quotas, that this does not force people to hire a certain percentage
of people of certain gender, minority status, and so on. That is
simply not true. For example, say we had witnesses from the
RCMP who said that in the RCMP in the coming year there will be
the following people hired: 238 females, 238 people of visible
minority status, so many people from aboriginal groups. In other
words, they would be providing exact numbers. When we start
quoting numbers like that, what is the difference between that and a
quota? There is no difference. We are talking about exact numbers
to meet numerical goals arbitrarily set by the government. That is a
shame. The government can say that it does not include quotas, but
the numbers and the proof are there, which again is why we oppose
this legislation.
This legislation is opposed by the Canadian people. In British
Columbia, the area I am most familiar with, only 11 per cent of
people say they are supportive of this legislation. This includes
almost exactly the same proportion of people from any of the
so-called designated groups, who do not want to be patronized, do
not want to be told the only way they can get a job is because the
government is going to somehow pave the way for them. Most
people from all groups say: ``Just give me a chance, just let me
have an opportunity. I will get a job and I will be able to hang on to
it because of my abilities, not because the government has said so''.
Self-designation is supposed to be a voluntary process. In other
words, you do not have to self-designate yourself into any group if
you do not want to. At least that is what the government would
have you believe. The problem is the lines are already being
blurred on that. The Department of National Defence put forward a
questionnaire for employment equity purposes. The top part of the
form is compulsory, including your name, your rank, your serial
number, your whatever from the military. In the fine print it says
that you do not have to fill out the second part if you do not want to.
Already there is a record of everyone in the military who is
willing to co-operate with the government and those who are not.
They already have that information. If you have been a good boy or
a good girl and you have done what you have been asked to do, then
you get that in your file. If you did not fill out the form, that is also
there. In other words, you are not co-operative if you did not fill out
the form. You did not help them do what they think is their job.
The lines are very blurry between this voluntary
self-identification and the compulsory self-identification that
characterized stricter forms of apartheid such as happened in South
Africa. It becomes a very blurry line when we force people or even
ask people to indicate on an application form whether or not they
are a visible minority. To think that this is possible in Canada.
Taking this same attitude to an extreme, during the committee
hearings we heard about what happened at the University of
Guelph, for example. They put a line down the middle of the
student lounge and one side of the lounge was for visible minorities
and the other side of the lounge was for whoever was not a visible
minority. This is the attitude this sort of legislation promotes: think
of yourself not as Canadian; think not as an employer or an
employee; think not as a person with equal rights and worth in the
15455
world; think of yourself first and foremost as members of groups,
divide yourselves up, divide the workforce. If you are working
beside someone, do they have the job because they are the most
qualified? That is to be hoped, but is it the case? Is it like the
student lounge at the University of Guelph where it was said: ``Let
us separate the people. We will put all the coloured people on this
side and all the white people on that side''? Is that where we are
heading? This type of legislation promotes that.
(1130)
This legislation was designed in Ottawa. I wonder if these people
have ever been to the west coast of Canada. I wonder if they have
ever been to the greater Vancouver area. Have they been to
Richmond? Have they been to Abbotsford? When Mr. Spicer
appeared before the committee I put it to him that if he were to say
he would not hire visible minorities he would go broke. He would
have to hire visible minorities in order to hire the most qualified
people or he would go broke. The marketplace would determine
that. In British Columbia that is a fact.
I told Mr. Spicer there is a Hindi language radio station in the
lower mainland. Under CRTC rules, compounded with these rules,
more hoops and more bureaucracy, the radio station will have to
show in its designated groups how many people are visible
minority status, their gender and all the rest of it. This is a radio
station which is addressing the needs of the Hindi speaking people
of the lower mainland of which there are quite a few, over 100,000.
To say to that station we would encourage it to have so many
aboriginal people in its workforce is ridiculous.
The employment opportunities will come and will be determined
by the marketplace. We have said that the Canadian Human Rights
Commission is there to protect individuals from discrimination.
That is its job and I encourage it to do that. The Canadian
government could serve a role by advertising jobs properly and
extensively; by implementing a comprehensive system of student
loans; by making post-secondary education responsive and
accessible to local people, in other words not denying people
educational opportunities; by performing objective job testing; and
also by being a model employer in the area of access and
reasonable accommodation for the disabled.
We can deal with the problems in Canada without this
legislation. This legislation is bad for Canada. It is unnecessary, it
is coercive and I believe it should be dropped.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-64. I had prepared a speech for this bill
some time ago but a lot of what I had intended to say has been said.
However, there are some things about the legislation which I must
present to the House today.
The stated purpose of the legislation is to put equality in the
workplace and to correct some conditions which are in the work
place or had been in the workplace in the past and are unfair. That is
the stated purpose of the legislation. Who could speak out against
that as a goal? All of us in the House would like to correct the
unfair situations in our society, particularly those concerning
employment. None of us wants discrimination and none of us is
willing to tolerate in any way discrimination in the workplace
based on race, gender, or any other factor. The stated intent of the
legislation in terms of the problem which it is meant to fix I do not
believe is a problem for any of us.
Bill C-64 is oppressive legislation which is not only unnecessary
in today's society but is very damaging. What is in the legislation
disturbs me and many of my constituents and others across the
country to whom I have spoken about the legislation. It bothers a
lot of people. Polls have shown of course that people across the
country do not support the concept of employment equity or
affirmative action, call it what you like.
(1135)
There are two schools of thought when it comes to employment
equity. The first is that legislated programs are necessary to fix a
wrong, especially wrongs that were in the workforce in the past.
The second is that employment equity is flawed because it
advocates hiring of individuals based on personal characteristics,
not on merit. Those are two opposing schools of thought.
A third view I have heard expressed is that possibly sometime in
the past there was the need for some type of affirmative action or
employment equity legislation. It was necessary sometime in the
past because of discrimination in the workplace. That position is
tolerated by a lot more people than the position of bringing this
piece of legislation forward today, where conditions are not nearly
as they were in the past. Empirical evidence and good information
has shown that there is much less discrimination in the workplace
now than there was in the past.
I repeat that there should be no tolerance of discrimination in the
workplace, period. I do not and will not tolerate it and I do not
believe any member of the House will tolerate it.
I will read five points to lay out the Reform position briefly.
First, all Canadians are equal before and under the law and all
workers have the right to be free of discrimination in the
workplace. Again, I do not think anyone in the House and hopefully
no one across the country would argue with that point.
Second, the market will provide solutions to a representative
workplace in the private sector. The hon. member from Fraser
Valley West who spoke before me and others of my colleagues have
spoken to this issue. Business which is practising good business
will hire people who can best relate to the customers. That in itself
15456
should mean there will be people from all visible minorities hired
in the workplace in a way that makes sense, not because of quotas.
Third, the role of government is to ensure equality of
opportunity rather than to determine equality of employment
outcomes in the public sector or beyond the public sector. Equality
of opportunity, that is a role of government, but a government
cannot ensure equality of outcome, nor should it try.
The fourth point Reform puts forth with regard to employment
equity is that the workplace should be free from arbitrary
obstructions to hiring and promotion. Merit must be the sole hiring
criteria. I believe this and evidence has shown that a majority of
Canadians believe in this. That would mean that Canadians do not
support Bill C-64, the employment equity bill.
The fifth point is that employment equity legislation is coercive,
discriminatory in itself, unnecessary and costly and it should be
discontinued. Bill C-64 should be thrown out. The vote this
afternoon should throw this legislation out because it is bad
legislation. Not only that, employment equity legislation from the
past should also be thrown out.
I congratulate the Mike Harris government in Ontario for
promising to do exactly that. I sincerely hope the Ontario
government will carry through on that promise. I believe it will.
(1140)
What do various groups involved in the workplace have to say
about employment equity? First, when it is known that
employment equity is involved in the hiring practice, employees
going about and working in the workplace look across the room.
They see another employee from one of the groups designated in
the employment equity legislation and they have to wonder was
that person hired because they were the best and most qualified for
the job, or was that person hired to fill a quota under an
employment equity program?
What kind of a work environment is that? It is not a healthy work
environment at all. Fellow employees would always have that
doubt in their minds that members of visible minorities and so on
were hired based on quotas rather than merit. It is not fair to them
and it does not make for a healthy environment.
What about the very groups that are targeted to fill these quotas
in this employment equity legislation? What about the visible
minorities, women and others who are targeted in these quotas?
How do they feel about legislation like this? Although I cannot say
how many, I can say that many people from these designated
groups this legislation is intended to help have said to me they want
no part of it for two reasons.
The first reason is that they have doubts as to whether they were
hired because they were the best qualified or whether they were
hired to fill a quota. Imagine what it would do to a person in the
workplace, feeling that they were well qualified for a job but
always having that doubt, wondering whether they were hired to
fill a quota rather than because they were the best qualified. That is
not a healthy work environment for those people either.
What about that other group, the people excluded from jobs
because they do not fill one of those categories set out to be filled
by quota? For example, I have had several people say to me that
they do not like not even being eligible to apply to the RCMP.
Employment equity has been in the RCMP for some time. White
males simply are wasting their time if they apply to the RCMP and
this is one example.
How do those people feel? They feel resentment against not only
the body that has put these rules in place but against the groups
targeted through quotas. That is sad and unacceptable. This kind of
thing must end. It is not a healthy environment for that type of
person. They can never find their way into that working
environment.
There are a couple of people I have come to know well since I
have been involved in politics. It is only because they talk to me
about being part of the excluded group. They are indeed upset.
Both of these people whom I have talked with many times on this
issue have been excluded from what they want to do with their
lives. They are young males, 25 years old. They want to join the
RCMP but have been excluded because of these quotas. It is sad. It
is wrong and it is unacceptable.
Another group in the workplace affected in a negative way by
these quotas is the employers. Other members from my party have
made it clear these are quotas we are talking about. The companies
will be affected by this legislation. They have been affected in the
past by previous employment equity legislation. How do they feel
about this?
(1145 )
I have talked with a couple of companies in my constituency that
depend to some extent on government contracts. They have been
excluded in the past, before the new legislation, because they
simply could not get the proper mix required under the quota
system to qualify for jobs from the federal government. They could
not fill the quotas.
These companies are upset not only about the fact that they could
not get the contracts but because it costs them money. These are not
extremely large corporations but they are large for the area. It cost
them money to hire someone to see how they were doing with
regard to quotas, to keep track and to hire people to fill the quotas.
It is damaging to the employers as well.
15457
I have gone through the list. I think everyone in the workplace
falls into these four groups. I ask members of the governing party
in the House and members of the not so loyal opposition why they
would support this piece of legislation when none of the groups
think it is good legislation. There is not a good answer.
It is sad that we will pass the legislation. Because of the
dictatorial style government across the Chamber I know it will
pass. Those members will not dare vote against the government
position so legislation will pass that very few people want.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when I read Bill C-64 for
the first time I could not help but wonder if George Orwell might
have had something to do with its drafting. Most people have read
the book Animal Farm and would remember the pig who made the
famous statement so often quoted: ``All animals are equal but some
are more equal than others''.
That is the sort of thing the bill will create in Canada. The bill is
not about equality. It is not about putting people on an equal
footing. It is quite the contrary. It is about creating divisions among
us. It is about creating different classifications of Canadians. That
is wrong.
We have long had a public policy of hiring and promoting by
merit. It is also generally the policy in private industry. A speaker
earlier said if we do not hire by merit we will very quickly go
broke. When we hire by merit and if the meritorious person
happens to be within one of the designated groups in the
legislation, obviously the person should and would get the job.
Rather than being about the equality of persons the legislation is
about the Liberal propensity for regulating, controlling, creating
bureaucracy and in general getting in people's faces. Why do we
not leave people alone? Canada is working very well. Canadians
are basically good people, people of goodwill. We are friends. We
have a multiracial society. It is working. Why do we have to poke
our finger in a wound that the government will create by itself? It is
nonsense.
I worked overseas both in a private capacity and for several years
with the United Nations on a large number of highly motivated,
highly skilled technical teams. They were multiracial. They were
not multiracial because somebody wanted them to be. They were
multiracial because applicants had been selected from all over the
world for these jobs and they took the best. We were the best and
we were proud of it. If they had been created by affirmative action
programs I would not have had anything to do with those groups. I
would have slunk away and hid.
(1150)
This will happen in Canadian society if affirmative action is
enforced. We will see very good, capable people belonging to
minority groups that have jobs either in private industry or in
government but feel self-conscious, demeaned and patronized.
There will always be a question hanging over their heads about
whether they got their jobs because of qualifications and ability or
a bit of tokenism. Were they hired because of colour, race,
language, gender, or whatever? Government has no place getting
involved in telling people who they can or should not hire. It is
offensive. It is wrong.
I was probably campaigning for equality of races before most
members of the House were born. I recall when I was a young
teenager collecting the occasional lump because of my curious
attitude on the matter. I find it terribly offensive that some
members opposite who spoke earlier had a self-righteous and smug
attitude toward me and my fellow party members. They inferred
that because we opposed their racist legislation we were racists.
They are turning sociology on its head.
Mr. Benoit: Liberal logic.
Mr. Morrison: This is Liberal logic. When I came to the House
today I did not intend to speak to the bill. However I had to get up
because I was so incensed by the remarks of some people opposite.
I do not have a long, prepared speech and therefore having made
my case I will return to my seat.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
should like to add something to the debate. I had not intended to do
so but I cannot believe the government is rushing through the
legislation in a self-serving and smug manner. It is pretending that
it is only concerned about fairness and giving everyone a fair
chance when the legislation is so incredibly flawed that no
intelligent, sensible person could possibly support it.
Anyone who does not support the bill, however, is branded
racist, sexist or lacking in compassion and fairness. It is a sad
commentary of the debates of the House of Commons when people
cannot attack bad, flawed, unworkable legislation. Instead of being
met with logic, reason and persuasion, they are met with labels,
brands, sneers and distortions of their motives.
I appeal to members of the House to serve Canadians better by
looking at the issues, at logic and at what is good for the country
instead of hurling epithets and questioning motives. We know that
is not the way to get good legislation for the country.
There are seven reasons why the legislation should not be
supported. I will go through them quickly because I think
Canadians watching the debate need to know about this piece of
legislation. Not only their elected members should not be
supporting it, but the public should not be supporting it and should
be extremely concerned that the legislation will be foisted upon
them by a Liberal government looking at doctrinaire and running
ahead to say that it has done something rather than doing what is
right and best and proper for the country.
15458
(1155 )
The first reason, which should be enough of a reason in itself, is
that it institutionalizes discrimination. How can anyone possibly
support a piece of legislation that discriminates against people in
the marketplace on the basis of race, sex or skin colour?
We have built Canada by being open and fair minded to
everyone. Why on earth would we institutionalize a terrible process
whereby we would not be Canadians or people with skills, abilities,
knowledge and services to offer other people? We would be hired
because of the pigment of our skin. Surely we can do better than
that.
We should not encourage or institutionalize discrimination in
any way, shape or form, and that is exactly what we are being asked
to vote for. I cannot believe members opposite would do such a
thing to our country.
The second reason out of the seven is that the legislation
demeans designated groups as not having equal ability. Why would
we put into place legislation that says since certain people cannot
cut it on their own employers will be forced to give them extra
breaks? It is an insult to tell people in certain groups that they do
not have the guts, the brains, the ability, the competence and the
merit to make a life on their own without other people being forced
to give them special and extra consideration. That is not what we
should be doing. It will not be any kind of help to people in the
designated groups.
The third reason is this kind of legislation divides rather than
unifies the country. A number of other speakers have mentioned
this point with great eloquence, but Canadians need to think about
it. Instead of being a Canadian, being someone who has particular
skills, being a good employee, being someone with initiative, drive
and ability, we will now be in little groups. We will be women in
the workplace. We will be persons of colour in the workplace. We
will be aboriginals in the workplace instead of employees who are
damn good. This is not the way to build strong businesses and it is
not the way to build a strong country.
The fourth reason is the legislation places unfair and unwise
restrictions on job creation. What does it say to employees who
know they do not have to show a lot of merit in the job because the
employer needs them to fulfil the quotas under the legislation? The
businesses cannot do without them; they need them. They need
these token people in the workplace so it does not matter if they do
not strive to do the best job possible. They have to be there anyway.
It will mean all kinds of bureaucracy, legislation and regulations
on businesses already completely overburdened by the economic
tinkering of governments that think they know better than anybody
else how to run an economy. Instead they are just burdening them
with the weight of unreasonable demands and economic and social
tinkering.
It is time to stop that. It is time to let businesses create jobs for
our young people. It is time to let businesses get on with running
efficient and effective service oriented businesses. It is time to quit
letting governments that pretend they are helping everybody do it
on the backs of business. That is one of the reasons we are in
trouble.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Ablonczy: The member opposite is making a lot of noise.
He knows that very well. He has been talking about how to get
businesses economically viable again. He might give some thought
to how we can do that. It certainly is not by another big, fat, thick
layer of red tape for businesses.
The fifth reason is the legislation places undesirable coercion on
businesses to be good co-operators with bureaucrats. Surely we
have seen enough in other countries where bureaucrats make life
miserable for people who are working and running businesses.
(1200)
Here we have another instance in which if you are not a good
little business person you will be punished, harassed, hassled. You
will be given all kinds of requirements and restrictions and will
have to fill out more forms and have some pointy headed
bureaucrat breathing down your neck before you can even do your
job of running your business. Why would we have this kind of
coercion and interference to the people of our country?
The sixth reason is it violates the principles of natural justice. To
me this is a huge area. It says we are not all equal before the law,
that some of us are more equal than others. It contravenes the basic
democratic principle that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Instead
we have an employment equity tribunal, which is like a kangaroo
court from which there is no appeal at all and which does not even
have fixed rules of law under which to operate. Incredibly enough,
it also entitles search and seizure of business records and business
premises in order to ensure compliance.
Last, I point to the undue haste with which this legislation has
been put in place. Other speakers have mentioned this but even in
committee it was not properly looked at. It was not properly
debated. This is not the way to put good legislation in place for our
country.
I am afraid it is a futile effort because we know the top echelons
of the Liberal Party have told their backbenchers that everyone has
to vote for this legislation. I urge us to look at what is best for the
country for a change instead of having a knee-jerk vote, putting in
bad legislation and having all the problems I have just mentioned
down on the heads of a country that is already struggling.
15459
The Deputy Speaker: There being no further members rising
on this bill, pursuant to the order made earlier today the question
is deemed put, the division deemed demanded, and the recorded
division deferred until 5 p.m. today.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-9, an act to
amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, as
reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, a ruling with respect to this
bill.
[Translation]
There are two motions in amendment in the Notice Paper at the
report stage of Bill S-9, an act to amend the Canada-United States
Tax Convention Act, 1984.
[English]
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted on
separately. I pose Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.) Moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill S-9, in Clause 3, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 21, on page 1, with the following
``3.(1) The Act is amended by adding, after''; and
(b) by adding after line 23, on page 1, the following:
``(2) The amendment to the Convention in paragraph 1 of Article 5 of
Schedule IV, as set out in the schedule to this Act, shall not apply after 2000.''
Motion No. 2
That Bill S-9, in Clause 3, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 21, on page 1, with the following:
``3.(1) The Act is amended by adding, after''; and
(b) by adding after line 23, on page 1, the following:
``(2) Benefits otherwise payable under paragraph 4 of Article 21 of Schedule
IV, as set out in the schedule to this Act, are not payable where no tax is payable
in Canada in respect of the property or income that is taxed in the United
States.''
Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does this
mean each member gets only 10 minutes on both amendments
before the House?
The Deputy Speaker: That is the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, I will have to cram into 10 minutes the
substance of two things, an enormous tax break of 50 per cent for
American companies operating in Canada on their profits, a 50 per
cent tax cut-
The Deputy Speaker: In light of what the member has just said,
is there unanimous consent to give the member 20 minutes to speak
to this?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. members of the House. That
relieves me somewhat. I will calm down and try to explain to
members and the Canadian people and members of the Liberal
caucus why I make such strong objection.
(1205 )
This Senate bill is supported by the Reform Party and it is
supported by the Bloc in the House. They are the official opposition
and they are the back-up for the official opposition.
Mr. Silye: It is supported by the government.
Mr. Baker: The hon. member from the Reform Party says it is
supported by the government.
The Bloc as well stood up in the chamber on second reading and
in the committee of the House when this bill was being dealt with
and said ``We love this bill. Give us more bills like this that give
huge tax breaks to American companies operating in Canada''.
However, that is not all the bill does. The bill gives a tax credit to
anybody who has property is the United States valued at over
$600,000 and who happens to die and is subjected to the estate tax
in the United States. Now the Canadian public will have to make
the payment on behalf of that person to the U.S. government.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, if you die in the United States, in
come the people from the Internal Revenue Service and they assess
the value of the paintings on the wall, the value of your car, your
garage, your backyard, your orange trees and your grapefruit
trees-they look at everything. If it comes to over $600,000, they
sock it to you with what is called the estate tax. We had it in Canada
prior to 1971, but not on the scale it is in the United States. The
normal grab is about 54 per cent of everything you have over
$600,000, which includes stocks and bonds, even if they have been
obtained through a Canadian broker, if you have that property in
the United States.
In Canada we have unrealized gains upon death, capital gains,
but that is a different story from the estate tax. Nobody comes in
and looks at your home. If it is valued at $20 million it is not taken
into account because that is your residence. Nobody looks to see if
you have a $100,000 Rolls Royce in the driveway. That is not
counted in Canada because that is your personal property for
personal use. It is a different form of taxation. This Senate bill
15460
gives you a tax credit, which is paid for not just by the Canadian
treasury; this is out of the pockets of Canadian citizens. That is a
tax expenditure. That is what is wrong today.
People wonder where the money has gone over the years. Why
could we afford health care and education transfers to the provinces
and a big public service 20 years ago and we cannot today?
Auditors general since 1985 have identified the main culprit as
being tax expenditures. This tax expenditure will mean the
Canadian people will pay for your estate tax in the United States of
America. The Canadian people will pay for a 50 per cent reduction
on the tax on profits to American multinationals operating in this
country, on dividends. The Canadian people will pay for the 33.33
per cent tax decrease on interest that travels over the border into the
United States. The Canadian people will pay for the elimination of
royalties on practically everything, down to trademarks, which
have been bifurcated. It will be divided. They will be examined
each part separately.
Let me give the House some idea of how much this will cost the
federal treasury.
(1210 )
The person in charge, the chief of corporate and international tax
in the Department of Finance, testified before the Senate
committee. He was asked: ``Why do you need to have a 5 per cent
tax? Under this bill we are reducing it by 50 per cent. Why not
reduce it by 100 per cent on the withholding tax? Why not give the
American corporations their entire profit tax free?'' The person in
charge of corporate taxes in Canada stated: ``The principal reason
is money. I have not looked recently, but I believe that our annual
withholding tax take is approximately $1.5 billion. Certainly it
would be difficult to sustain completely walking away from that''.
What are we doing? We are cutting by 50 per cent the
withholding tax on dividends from American corporations
operating in Canada and sending their profits back across the
border to the United States. What does that do to a Canadian
business that is trying to compete? It is fine to give Wal-Mart a 50
per cent tax break, but what about the Canadian company that is
competing against the American company?
It is interesting to look at the flow. I have the evidence given
before the committee on foreign relations in the United States
Senate. It is the Jesse Helms committee. It talked about the treaty
with Canada. It did not like it last year. After the Minister of
Finance signed it in Washington the American Senate changed it.
The Minister of Finance had to return in March of this year to
re-sign the amended protocol.
I will read a couple of things into the record. Here is the
Secretary of the Treasury for tax policy for the Government of the
United States: ``The protocol reduces the rate of withholding on
cross-border flows of interest from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. This
reduction will provide a substantial benefit to many U.S. recipients
of Canadian source interest payments. It will have a lesser effect on
U.S. outflows of interest to Canada because much of this flow is
already exempt from U.S. tax under the portfolio interest
provisions of the code''. In other words, we are giving the
Americans a 33.3 per cent tax cut when Canadians will not benefit
from that interest provision because the Secretary of the Treasury
in the United States says that it is already exempt under the code.
The other provision is on royalties. Here is the assistant treasurer
for tax policy, the Hon. Cynthia Beerbower: ``Being freed of tax on
royalties is cash in hand. Now we pay royalties to Canada. With a
zero rate in effect in this protocol, I cannot imagine that anyone
would sit on this''.
Then we go to the big one, the $1.5 billion the treasury is getting
today in this Senate bill, which is supported by the Reform Party
and by the Bloc.
The vice-president of tax policy, Robert Green, for the National
Foreign Trade Council Inc., 1914, which represents 500 American
multinationals doing business in Canada, said in his evidence:
``The investment flow between the two countries is substantial and
favours the United States. We have substantially more investment
there than they do here. The dividend withholding rate reductions,
which are phased into five per cent over three years, are a
tremendous benefit to the United States, to U.S. multinational
companies doing business there. And because of the reduced
withholding rates the amount of net repatriated earnings to the
United States for investment will be substantially increased''.
Then he goes on to talk about the reductions in the withholding
rates on royalties: ``The additional amount of repatriated earnings
will substantially benefit the United States''.
Let there be no guessing about this. The United States business
community says it will take that from Canada and repatriate it right
back to the United States of America.
(1215)
It is funny, Mr. Speaker, you stand here in the House and hear
some Liberal backbenchers objecting to this, and you have the
Reform Party and the Bloc in total agreement. How did it start? In
1988 the U.S. made a tax change. It was a change to the estate tax
rules for foreigners. It stated that any foreigner with property in the
United States would have to pay estate tax on everything above
$60,000, not $600,000. That was in 1988.
The record shows that the Canadian government in 1988 took a
week to respond. It sent people down to Washington. It said: ``We
15461
want to relieve Canadians of this tax that is being imposed on them
in the United States''. That is where it started.
The United States said: ``In order for us to give you a break for
wealthy Canadians, you will have to give us something in return''.
It went back and forth. The negotiations started in 1988. It has gone
on since then. It has gone on to include huge tax expenditures that
nobody has an estimate on. Revenue Canada and the Department of
Finance say they do not know-
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. We have now been
listening to the hon. member for the last 10 minutes and so far I do
not see the relevance to the two motions he has before him. We
gave him 20 minutes to speak on them. I do not see where there is a
tie-in to either one of the motions and why he represents and
recommends these motion be adopted.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member will bring it
around to those motions very quickly.
Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, this is what I was building up to. Under
our laws in the Chamber we are not allowed to amend a tax treaty.
It states that clearly in our standing orders. We can amend the
legislation that brings in the tax treaty. However in introducing an
amendment to that legislation we cannot negate the principle of a
clause in the tax treaty.
Just imagine the power of the U.S. committees. They actual
change treaties. The Minister of Finance had to go back to
Washington twice. He signed one, they changed it and he had to go
back again.
According to our standing orders our House of Commons is not
allowed to change anything in a treaty. The amendments I put
forward are amendments that do not negate a clause. The first
amendment is that all of these huge tax decreases to American
multinationals operating in Canada come to an end in the year
2000. That is amendment number one. We cannot afford giveaways
any more.
We are cutting public servants. We have got to. We are cutting
back on UI. We are cutting back on this and cutting back on that
and at the same time we are introducing this whole new set of tax
expenditures, gifts.
That leads me to the second amendment, the gift part. Motion
No. 2 relates to the dating back of the tax credit on the estate tax to
people who had died since November 10, 1988. Do you get the
significance of the date, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps somebody of great
wealth did die on November 11, 1988, I do not know. The very date
is the date the protocol came into effect in the United States that
decreased the maximum from $600,000 to $60,000.
Under this bill there are estates today in Canada verified by
Revenue Canada to me and to the committee that are just waiting to
put in their bill. Now the Canadian government has to pay for the
amount of estate tax that they pay in the United States that was
taxed as U.S. source revenue.
(1220 )
The Canadian people have to cough up the money now out of the
treasury. I am told that one chap who died had $20 million in the
United States. He really got hit with the estate tax, almost $8
million of it had to be paid to the U.S. treasury. He has a nice rebate
coming to him from the U.S. government but he has a much bigger
rebate coming to him from the Government of Canada. Only $12
million went to the family. Now the people concerned who
received the benefits from the estate will be able to bill the
Canadian government for an additional $5 million or $6 million in
that one year.
The second amendment, seconded by the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood, is that since the Canadian delegation and
the U.S. delegation said this is reciprocity, this is to eliminate
double taxation, that if there is not double taxation then there will
be no money granted. That does not negate the clause at all. It just
says if no taxes were paid no rebate will be given as far as the
Canadian government is concerned.
The auditor general in 1985 said the Canadian Parliament
reminded him of a group of automobile engineers trying to build an
automobile that was more efficient, that burned less gas but had the
same energy. He said that Parliament is like that because we are
trying to find ways of cutting while still maintaining our services to
the Canadian people. He said the problem is this.
When the engineers changed the engine of the automobile from
eight cylinders to six cylinders to four cylinders and brought in all
those modifications to save energy, at the end of the day they
discovered they were burning just as much gas as they were before.
They did not know what the problem was until they looked under
the car and saw all these little holes in the gas tank. Those, the
auditor general said, are the tax expenditures of the Government of
Canada.
The government cuts and slices and chucks. It lays people off
who have children going to school and to university who do not
know where their next dollar is going to come from. It changes the
system of unemployment insurance. When a primary producer
working in this country has as a part of his income unemployment
insurance, it says: ``Oh no, we are going to take that away because
that was not intended for that''. That person is worried to death
today.
While we do all of that, we turn around and take a Senate bill that
will give enormous returns to very wealthy people, very rich
people, and we say to the multinationals we are going to cut your
taxes by 50 per cent.
We are not going to do anything for the very poor. We are not
going to do anything for Canadian corporations operating in
Canada. That is why I think, after looking at the bills we are
15462
discussing, what is really happening in real terms of tax
expenditure is that we take from the poor and give to the rich.
It is Robin Hood in reverse. He is now working for the great
companies that represent those very multinationals in the United
States that are working so well in this country, a country that
according to the World Bank is the second wealthiest country in the
world because we have resources.
The House of Commons today, with the Bloc and the Reform
Party supporting this legislation wholeheartedly, is not working.
The Canadian people are saying that we need a change in the rules
of procedure or we need to get rid of the two opposition parties.
(1225)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I found
the Liberal member's grandstanding amusing. His closing
reasoning was obviously somewhat illogical. He was more critical
of the opposition parties than of the government. I would gently
remind him that, if he does not agree, he need only settle his
differences with his own colleagues. This bill comes from the
government, which is made up of people from his own party. So
they will have to talk among themselves and try to reach an
agreement. It was even a bit sad to see them in such disagreement
this morning. However, I agree with my colleague on some points,
on others, I do not, but I will get to that.
Obviously, we share his concern for society's disadvantaged. We
agree on this, and I hope, when the time comes to adopt the
unemployment insurance reform and other such things, he will
again rise, as he did today. It seems to me that only one member
was opposed last time. I am not sure I heard him. I am not sure he
was present. Next time, we will watch to see where he stands in the
upcoming debate on cuts to the transfer payments, in particular,
and on social programs. We will see where he stands and whether
his concern is real or whether he is just giving a political
performance here, once in awhile, to please his constituents and
ensure his re-election.
I want to point out that we have have to consider both the
substance and the form of this bill. We agree with what the auditor
general said about tax conventions, which is that there is going to
have to be a code of conduct for signing such conventions with
other countries. There can be major differences in taxation levels
between Canada and the other country signing the convention. In
such cases, there is clearly a problem, and we must ensure that we
are not threatening economic transactions and running the risk of
losing revenues here in signing such agreements.
Before us we have a tax convention with the United States.
Obviously, a person can oppose it if they like, but they have to say
so directly. They cannot, in our view anyway, oppose something
that aims to maximize economic exchange between Canada and the
United States.
For a long time it was believed that our markets in Canada were
east-west and now increasingly we see that they are north-south.
There is a great deal of potential for development there. I can
understand that there are still some pockets of resistance among
those who are opposed to free trade and everything that goes with
it, but we must think of where we are headed in the next century.
And this is where we are headed. Consistency and logic is required.
When one agrees to get involved in something like free trade, one
has to live with what that implies. One has to live with reciprocity
as well. Now, I want to get on to the content of these amendments,
which strike me as suffering either from bad drafting, technically
speaking, or from a fundamental problem.
Of course, there is the first amendment. I have heard what the
Liberal member has had to say, waxing so eloquent in his attack on
the tax rate cut from 10 per cent down to 5 per cent. Yet his
amendment is aimed at ensuring that this will not apply after the
year 2000. Why before that date? Why not after that date? Why
2000? Why not 2001? Why not 2002? It is very hard to grasp the
reasoning behind his first amendment and I have not found anyone
able to explain the real meaning and scope of his first amendment
to me.
Obviously, one cannot agree with something that is poorly
written. You have to be for something or against it. You cannot be
against something for a few years and then in favour of it after that.
There comes a time for logic.
The second amendment reminds me of those who are in favour
of free trade but only one way free trade, with others opening up
their borders to us, but our borders being closed to them. But this is
in the area of taxation. We are told that we must not allow this
retroactive refund, as one might call it, not allow it if there has been
income taxable in Canada during that period. There is another side
to that coin also. What reasoning applies to the reverse situation,
American residents whose assets were in Canada or Quebec?
But the amendment does not address the opposite situation.
Accepting the second amendment means asking the Americans to
follow suit and to reopen the tax convention. This is, I suppose,
what they had in mind, because consistency is required with what is
proposed. I shall be surprised if they do so, because these are the
same people who tell us sovereignists in the speeches they make
here: ``It will be just dreadful if you vote yes. Perhaps NAFTA
would have to be reopened''. Yet they want to reopen tax
conventions. And they spoke of their desire to reopen NAFTA
during the election campaign.
15463
(1230)
I sense a strong desire on their part to reopen the whole
discussion about relations between Canada and the United States.
Of course, that is their right, but I do not think this desire is shared
by the majority of the House or by the majority of the public.
Of course we are concerned about the most vulnerable in our
society. And as far as the future of our social programs is
concerned, I think we can all agree that some serious debate is in
order regarding the approach suggested by this government.
However, we must not exaggerate, and the figures quoted by the
hon. member to indicate the economic impact of these amendments
or these motions are clearly exaggerated. There was a reference to
hundreds of millions of dollars. I read what happened in
committee, I followed the proceedings, and no one could
extrapolate the same figures as the hon. member and say that
hundreds of millions of dollars were involved in this particular
case.
It is easy to quote figures out of the blue, but you have to support
those figures, justify them and provide documentation. We cannot
afford to keep throwing figures at the public and say: Yes, that is
the way it is, without further ado. We have to be more serious, more
credible than that.
And that is why we cannot support these amendments, and this
applies both to Motion No. 1 and Motion No. 2. Motion No. 1 is
poorly drafted, complicated and not consistent with what the hon.
member said, in my opinion. The second amendment makes no
provision for compensation or reciprocity. After all, this is a
two-way street. When we sign tax treaties, there must be
reciprocity. We cannot get away from that. However, there is
nothing in the second motion that refers to this.
If they want to renegotiate the whole tax treaty, that is their
problem. What we would prefer and what we always suggested is
to go along with what was said by the auditor general. We now have
a certain number of tax treaties that cause problems because of the
differences in tax rates. In such cases we will need certain
guidelines for adopting tax treaties, because this is going to
escalate in the next few years, considering current economic
trends.
So we will have to get much stricter guidelines when we send
people to sign this kind of tax treaty, to avoid being faced with a
situation that will be difficult to change subsequently.
In concluding, and I do not intend to speak at greater length on
this matter, we agree with the tax convention. I must admit,
however, that the retroactive aspect bothers us too. It bothers us
that compensation is given retroactively.
That being said, these two amendments will not correct that,
neither the first nor the second motion-they will not correct that
because, as I said earlier, the amendments make no provision for
compensation or reciprocity. When the time comes to vote on the
tax convention on third reading, we will have to evaluate Bill S-9
as such. On the whole, we think it is important to pursue this
approach.
I repeat, the retroactive aspect bothers us. But in any case, what
the hon. member suggested does nothing to correct this particular
aspect. We will vote against both amendments and we will vote in
favour of Bill S-9 on third reading. I am sure the hon. member will
listen to his colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who will
explain what amounts are involved with this bill and tell him they
are nowhere near what he suggested.
I find it amusing to hear him attack the Bloc Quebecois in this
debate. He should be more concerned about ensuring that his party,
the government party, has certain guidelines for adopting tax
conventions. He should get that message across to his supporters
and eventually to the government, and then we will get somewhere.
We cannot backtrack and change things that have been signed and
that arise from the whole North American free trade context. Any
action that is taken should be logical and consistent, and that is why
the Bloc Quebecois will support this bill and will reject, as the
government and also the Reform Party have done on many
occasions, the two motions proposed by the hon. member.
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on the
amendments being presented by the member for Gander-Grand
Falls. I would like to make a few comments on the specifics of the
amendments. These questions were addressed not only in the
Senate but also in the House of Commons finance committee by
witnesses who appeared from the department, including myself, to
go through each of these points.
(1235 )
For people trying to follow the logic of the bill, the protocol was
required as a result of changes in American tax law in 1988. Once
those were put into place it became incumbent upon the Canadian
government to revise the tax arrangements between the two
countries.
The member for Gander-Grand Falls was quite keen to point
out there were witnesses in the American Senate and the House of
Representatives who found this bill to be very helpful. It does not
surprise me that a bill should come out to be win-win and that there
should be supporters in the United States who think this is of
benefit to them. That is why the country adopted it. Also on the
public record, our department has been very strong and this is also
of benefit to Canadians.
15464
It does not only help the wealthy Canadians who certainly are
helped by this, but it also helps a number of ordinary Canadians
who have second properties in the United States under relatively
moderate circumstances. It also helps a number of corporations
operating in the United States.
The United States is the largest trading partner we have, not only
in the corporate sense but in the personal sense. It is the largest
travelling relationship we have. It is the largest second investment
for a lot of families. We have to be very careful not to develop a tax
regime in isolation while totally not thinking of what happens to
people in other regimes. What happens to many Canadians in the
United States is a major tax consideration. It is incumbent upon this
government to make sure those conditions are matched and that we
do the best for Canadians.
As with any treaty and protocol, there are conditions that are
more satisfactory to the opposite side. Either we do things to
accommodate them or we have no agreement. To think that none of
the American interests were reached in this protocol would be a
silly assumption. It would also be equally silly to think that none of
the objectives of the Canadian government were reached in this
bill.
Dealing with the first motion, the 5 per cent withholding rate on
direct dividends has been adopted by many of our major trading
partners. Zero withholding is the standard among EEC countries.
We are perfectly within our legal rights to insist upon higher rates
as is suggested in the amendment, but we must recognize in doing
so that our ability to attract additional investment and to retain
existing investment would weaken with adverse revenue effects.
If we are concerned about the cash flow of the federal
government, we must be cognizant of what we do in tax policy
which aggravates taxpayers and causes them to engage in tax
avoidance. Canadian firms attempting to enter or expand in foreign
markets would be at a competitive disadvantage.
A second point on this is that a temporary reduction in the
withholding tax rate, as proposed in this amendment by the
member for Gander-Grand Falls, would be the least favourable
option. First, it would allow corporations to withdraw past earnings
from Canadian operations at the reduced rate. The guarantee of
higher future rates would create a positive incentive to do so.
Second, it would eliminate the value of the rate reduction
encouraging U.S. corporations to make any long term investments
in their Canadian operations. In other words, it would be better not
to go to 5 per cent at all rather than apply the reduced rate for only a
few years.
Finally, on the first motion and concerning a point already made
by the mover, any change to the protocol will necessarily endanger
if not scuttle it inasmuch as it represents an agreement between two
parties that can only be changed with the agreement of both
parties. If we make changes on our side we have to understand that
part of our obligation is to allow parties on the other side who may
be dissatisfied with one part or another to make additional changes
they would like. We cannot pick and choose among the pieces.
The second motion presented by the member is also opposed by
the government. By way of background, most of the benefits of the
article dealing with taxes on debt are required to be provided by the
United States. Specifically, the U.S. must grant to Canadian
residents an estate tax exemption based on the same $600,000
exemption that U.S. citizens receive, rather than the $60,000
exemption currently provided. The U.S. must credit capital gains
tax paid by U.S. citizens on properties situated in Canada against
the U.S. tax payable by those citizens in respect of that Canadian
property.
The only real obligation imposed on Canada by this article is to
provide a reciprocal credit for its own residence. That is, Canadians
who die owning U.S. property will be entitled to credit any U.S.
estate tax owing on that property against their Canadian income tax
payable on U.S. properties and income from U.S. sources.
(1240 )
Accordingly, if there is no Canadian tax payable at the outset,
there does not seem to be any sort of benefit that Canada would be
required to provide under this article. If that reasoning holds, and I
do allow for the possibility that what the motion literally provides
may not be what the member was looking to accomplish, then the
motion makes no substantive change and should be voted down on
that basis. If on the other hand members believe the motion does
have substantive effect, I would refer to the argument set out in the
third point concerning this first motion.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to address the amendments put forward by the member for
Gander-Grand Falls. Before I comment on them, he took a heck
of a long time during his 20-minute oration to point out in a very
partisan and grandstanding fashion how the Reform Party and the
Bloc Quebecois support this bill. However, he conveniently
ignored the fact that his very own government supports this bill. In
every comment the member made about the opposition parties
supporting this bill, he conveniently and purposely left out
mentioning that his government is in favour of this bill.
I respect the member's right to disagree with his own party. We
believe in that on this side of the House. We believe it is an
advantage to allow members of a party to speak out on the
negatives of a bill, especially if members so passionately feel there
is something wrong with it. However, to carry the game to the
degree the hon. member has in terms of giving the general
impression that his party was not a part of it disappoints me. I
respect the hon. member, but I must put on the record that in this
15465
case the way he presented his comments is taking political
partisanship one dramatic step too far.
Let us get to the crux of the matter which are two amendments to
the bill. I agree with the member for Témiscamingue. He is right.
These two amendments are poorly written and poorly thought out.
They have been served up to circumvent the bill itself so that this
gentleman could have one more opportunity, one more platform to
give his speech and to hear himself talk.
What the member accomplished in the process was to show us
the typical Liberal attitude that where there are tax breaks available
for Canadians, where there are advantages for Canadian citizens in
the form of reduced taxes or where it eliminates double taxation to
help solve a problem in our tax system, the Liberal government is
against it. The Liberal government and this member are against it.
The hon. member wants to generate as much revenue for the
government as possible on the backs of what he calls the so-called
rich. The mythology that the rich somehow or other get a
disproportionate share of the advantages and benefits of
infrastructure is crap. That kind of philosophy and attitude has to
stop, which is why Liberalism is slowly coming to an end as well.
For the member to give a speech one way and to ignore the
benefits of the bill, never once addressing the advantages and the
good aspects of the bill, is terribly one sided. It is the Liberal way
of arguing. I believe the only way government members can defend
themselves is by presenting a biased and prejudicial point of view
without looking at it from both sides.
The reality and the weaknesses of these two amendments to Bill
S-9 are that by trying to strike the bill down, the member is not
accepting the realities of today's economic climate. The global
economy requires that everybody, as closely and as much as
possible, deals under the same rules and rates of taxation so that
there is no unfair competition and the flow of capital is not more
advantageous in one country or another. If Canada does not keep in
step with globalization and with the same rates of taxation by
convention with all other countries, we are at a great and serious
disadvantage.
(1245)
In light of the personal crusade of the member for
Gander-Grand Falls to strike down Bill S-9 on technical grounds,
that it did not originate in the House, he is ignoring the wonderful
advantages and benefits of the bill.
I was being taunted by the other side to say what those
advantages were. It offers relief for Canadians residents from the
application of U.S. estate taxes. It has tremendous advantages for
all people in eastern Canada who have residences in Florida. If they
happened to sell them they would have to pay estate taxes on
anything over $60,000. It raises the limit to $600,000. Is that not
an advantage to Canadian residents?
Yet when we listened to this member's speech he made it sound
like it is a tax expenditure we are giving up that will cost Canadian
taxpayers. It is not costing Canadian taxpayers. It is costing U.S.
taxpayers. That is the other side of the story the member failed to
point out.
That is what I mean by balanced and representative argument
and presentation when we are discussing bills. We will be
discussing complete fundamental tax reform in the country very
shortly. It is a burning issue; it is an issue that will come up. It
includes issues like taxation and rates across borders nation to
nation. We will have debate on various forms of flat tax. The
member for Broadview-Greenwood has a proposal for a flat tax
that his party members conveniently choose to ignore, which is
typically Liberal. It offers a wonderful solution to our complicated
system but they ignore the member. I do not know why but they do.
When the debate takes place we will have people speaking for it
and against it. No tax reform and no taxation system, no matter
how much it is simplified, has all the answers and has all the
solutions. It requires debate; it requires looking at both sides of the
story. That is what I would like to see happen when we discuss
taxation bills especially and bills that affect our pocketbooks as this
bill does.
As critic of this topic and this bill on behalf of our party I will be
making a recommendation to our caucus. We on this side of the
House have the right to accept my recommendation or not. We will
see what happens on that side of the House when the amendments
are voted on. I will recommend to our party that we oppose the two
amendments because they are strictly for grandstanding purpose.
They are very poorly written. They are extremely hard to
understand except for Motion No. 1 which I can understand.
As the Bloc member said, how can they be for it for a few years
and then against it after? As the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance pointed out very well, the member probably
does not understand the implications of his motion. As soon as I
heard that, it verified the fact even the Liberal government felt it
was very poorly written.
Therefore on those two grounds I will be recommending that we
oppose them. However, when it comes to Bill S-9 itself, I will be
recommending to our party that we support the bill. That is where
my comments end on the matter.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my responsibility to speak on
these amendments because for seven years in the House I have
been trying to generate debate on behalf of my constituents and
15466
others across Canada who believe the current tax system is not fair,
not efficient and complex.
For years we have been amending the tax act of Canada. We have
made amendments to amendments that have generated a
complexity. Most tax lawyers and most tax accountants when
speaking privately say that the current tax act is an unmitigated
disaster.
(1250 )
After the last election when the Reform Party came to the House
I was hopeful we could generate real solid debate on
comprehensive tax reform. Granted it takes a couple of years to get
our feet wet in this place. Most Reform Party members would
admit that governance of a country like ours is complex. We cannot
come here on day one and expect our ideas to be totally understood.
There are all kinds of variables and difficulties that make
implementing legislation difficult in comparison with the view we
had in the private sector. I have certainly learned the hard way that
it is difficult. I respect the fact that the Reform Party took a couple
of years before it began the debate on total tax reform.
I will support my government on the bill. I would never vote
against a money bill because it is a confidence bill. The hon.
member for Gander-Grand Falls and I are not saying that we want
an election over the bill. However we are trying to illustrate what I
have been saying in the House for seven years. The bill is another
example of how amendments to amendments of the tax act can be
brought forward.
I do not mean to be disrespectful but probably 85 per cent to 90
per cent of the members of the House do not know the full
ramifications of the bill. We expect the opposition to challenge
bills like this one. If I were in opposition right now, quite frankly as
I forced debate on the bill, I probably would have put a lot more
heat on the government and asked when we would move the debate
forward on total tax reform. But no, they wanted to let it go
through.
The difficulty I have with the bill is that we are giving tax
reform. We are harmonizing with the United States. The bill
harmonizes Canada with certain aspects of U.S. tax law. The one
great feature about the bill is that when the United States of
America wants to amend its tax act we move quickly to be in
harmony with it.
We can reflect on the ongoing debate in the United States in
terms of single tax, flat tax and all the various democrats,
republicans and independents who are talking about total tax
reform. If it gets to the front burner of their agenda hopefully
Canada will not be far behind. Obviously we will move in a micro
second. Part of the reason we are moving in the bill is that the
Americans want it to be done quickly.
One positive feature is that we move quickly to harmonize, but
the difficulty is that it only gives tax reform to the elite in Canada. I
have immense respect for my colleague from Winnipeg, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, and I will
support him in the bill. However I would not call people who have
residences in Florida ordinary Canadians. They are wealthy. I
consider someone who has $600,000 worth of property in Florida
or in some other place in the United States to be fairly wealthy.
I also have great concerns about article XI. Essentially once the
bill is passed, and it will be passed, it will affect Canadians who
want to send their children to an ivy league school such as Harvard,
Yale, Cornell or Rice. I have nothing against ivy league schools in
the United States. I am proud of Canadian universities but I would
have liked to have gone to UCLA or one of those big ivy league
universities. It costs $25,000 or $30,000 a year for four or five
years. Under the bill Canadians who can afford to send their
children to the ivy league schools will get a tax credit. I have great
difficulty when essentially the bill will create a market for wealthy
Canadians.
(1255)
If I were the president of Notre Dame or one of those places I
would take out an ad in all Canadian universities. I would go to
Upper Canada College in my community in Toronto, go to Bishop
Strachan or take out a flyer telling parents about the tax credit they
would get for all the money they spend sending their son or
daughter there.
We listened to the member for Yukon last night give her closing
remarks. I have had immense respect for the member for Yukon
since I came here seven years ago. She said that we were here for
people who cannot always speak for themselves. It is obvious the
people who can afford to speak for themselves certainly have the
ability to get the bill through the agenda in the first two years of our
mandate. Quite frankly I think it is a question of priorities, but in
this bill we are forgetting a bit of our Liberal tradition.
Mr. Morrison: So stand up and be counted.
Mr. Silye: You are voting for it.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): I will not vote against
the government on a bill that could bring the government down.
Mr. Silye: It won't bring it down.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Yes, it will. It is a
principle. It is a money bill and on anything to do with confidence
in the government I would resign from the party. That is what the
opposition does not understand.
I suspect, and this is not partisan, members of Her Majesty's
Loyal Opposition are feeling a bit guilty as part of their
responsibility is to challenge us from time to time and they were
totally asleep at the switch and could not generate a debate in the
House on a bill which essentially in my judgment caters to the elite.
15467
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy today to rise in support of the motions of the member for
Gander-Grand Falls. I have always been impressed by him. He
is one of those rare individuals who inevitably speaks his mind.
He does his homework, analyses legislation and makes up his own
mind about whether it is good or bad. For some members that
seems to be a rare piece of behaviour.
What is the bill all about? What are the motions all about? I have
to go back to Kamloops at the end of this week. Whenever I do that
I go to Main Street and have coffee with a few of the folks who ask
what has been going on in Ottawa. What has the government been
up to? What legislation is before the House? What is the
government dealing with? What are the priorities of Parliament and
so on and so forth? Part of my responsibility is to reflect as
accurately as I can what the priority is. They will be perplexed
when I tell them about all of the challenges that confront us as a
great nation.
(1300)
Here we are almost on the eve of a major referendum about the
future of the country and there are horrendous economic, social,
cultural and environmental problems confronting us from coast to
coast. I have to tell my constituents the government's priority at
this time is to bring forth a piece of legislation that will benefit only
the very wealthiest families in the country in terms of their tax
returns.
Just the other day a major report in newspapers across Canada
indicated that 75 per cent of Canadians willfully carry out their
business transactions in cash to avoid paying income tax or sales
tax or whatever. In other words, 75 per cent of Canadians are
participating knowingly and up front in the underground economy.
Are they doing that because they are tax cheats and because they
participate in illegal and unethical activities? No. They have lost
faith in the integrity of the tax system of the country. They see all
kinds of people who do not pay their fair share.
There are small business investors and small business
entrepreneurs who are struggling and who see all kinds of tax
breaks going to large corporations but none to them. They are
working 60 and 70 hours a week and are struggling to get by, and
they see tax breaks going to certain firms, not to small firms, and to
certain Canadians but not to the ordinary Canadian.
What does this tax provision do? Let anybody in the House stand
up and argue after I sit down, but this is designed for the wealthiest
families in the country.
I wish my friend for Broadview-Greenwood were going to vote
differently, but at least he is speaking up for what he believes in,
which is more than most people in the House are doing on this
particular occasion. Why are Canadian taxpayers being now asked
to subsidize those families that want to educate their sons and
daughters and family members in the United States? That is what
this does. That is what the member for Gander-Grand Falls is
saying. That is what the provision is.
Those people who are sending their sons, daughters and other
family members to American universities will not even have to be
on the short list any more. For any college or any university in the
United States, tax credits are available for any donations made to
the foreign university or college.
Why should struggling Canadian taxpayers and small business
operators in the country be subsidizing American colleges and
universities? Why should hard working men and women be
subsidizing American colleges and universities? It does not even
matter what their credentials are. They could be colleges that
simply hand out PhDs or masters degrees for the price of a few
dollars. Any American college or university is eligible to receive
donations from Canadians and they will receive a tax credit for
that.
How can my friends in the Reform Party support this kind of
provision, which is so unbalanced in terms of fairness? This will
cost us money. It will cost the taxpayers of Canada hundreds of
millions of dollars every year from now on. If we were a wealthy
nation and had all kinds of extra coinage, perhaps we could
consider this. I ask my friends in the Reform Party, who remind us
regularly about their concern for the deficit and debt of the country,
why they are supporting a piece of legislation that will drain
hundreds of millions of dollars out of the treasury every single
year.
I have been listening carefully to the debate. I could not listen
too carefully when the bill was in the Senate because it went so
quickly. Quite frankly, it is going awfully fast in the House. It is a
tax provision, tax reform for the wealthiest people in the country,
for the elite of Canada. Is this our priority? Yes, it is. Is
comprehensive tax reform taking place at this time? No, it is not. Is
it called for by every single Canadian man, woman, and child in the
country? Yes, it is. What are we doing? What is the government
doing? The government brings forward a piece of tax reform via
the Senate that will harmonize certain corporate tax structures with
the United States and bring in provisions that are absolutely
astounding.
I would like to hear from my friends opposite before the debate
ends why we are subsidizing American colleges. Why are Canadian
taxpayers subsidizing American universities? Why do we consider
it a priority at this time to give tax breaks of hundreds of millions
of dollars to the wealthiest families in Canada?
(1305 )
My friend from Broadview-Greenwood, an individual for
whom I have much respect, asks whether it is really a priority at
this time to be passing tax legislation that will benefit people who
have investments in the United States in excess of $600,000. I
15468
suppose we could feel sorry for these folks. If you have
investments over $600,000, the tax system could be more to your
advantage. How many Canadians do we know with investments in
the United States in excess of $600,000? A lot of people might have
a cottage, an apartment in Florida or in California or someplace.
How many people are worried today in terms of their financial
realities who own $600,000 worth of real estate in the United States
or have $600,000 worth of investments in the United States?
I say to my friends opposite in the Liberal Party, is this your
priority? Are these the Canadians you want to go to bat for today?
What about the people at the food banks who are lining up this
afternoon? What about the single parents who are struggling
simply to make ends meet? What about the small business
operators in this country struggling daily to simply put food on the
table for their families? Why are you not bringing in legislation for
them?
I am referring to the second amendment which tries to bring at
least a shred of credibility to this debate. As my hon. friend from
Newfoundland has indicated, it is not perfect; it is sort of half a loaf
because it says we are to limit this tax break to the year 2000. I see
this as a bit odd, but I think it is at least going to end this particular
tax buffoonery that is going to benefit a handful of very wealthy
Canadians, at least to the year 2000.
When I go back to Kamloops later this week and I have to
explain to the people on Main Street in Kamloops, struggling
business people, people who are struggling simply to put food on
the table and unfortunately an increasing number who find
themselves out of work, jobless, that this somehow is a priority of
this Parliament and this government, they will shake their heads in
disbelief and say that this place has lost touch with reality, that this
place somehow deals in some Walt Disney version of the real
world.
I look forward to hearing other participants in the debate explain
why on earth this is a priority.
I say in conclusion to my hon. friend from Gander-Grand Falls,
thank you for standing up and putting forward two amendments
today that will bring at least some sanity to this legislation and
indicate on your behalf and a handful of your colleagues your
disgust with this legislation as well.
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask members again to please put
their remarks to the Chair. The Chair gets lonely and feels not a part
of the debate and so on.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to take a few moments and clarify what I believe to
be some misconceptions or possibly attempts by particularly the
person who just spoke to put things that are not in the bill before
Canadians. I feel that is extremely unfair.
What we are talking about here is a bill whose purpose is to put
into place a protocol to amend the 1980 income tax treaty between
Canada and the United States that was signed on March 17, 1995.
The purpose of this is to put these measures into force. It has
nothing to do with the member for Kamloops' statement of us
wanting to give rich people more money or some such nonsense.
One of the provisions of this bill will be, for instance, the
elimination of withholdings that are there now. For instance, some
people have estates in the United States. The example was given of
a Florida winter home. I have a case a constituent brought to my
attention of a mobile home in Florida owned by senior citizens and
one of them died. I would not exactly call those rich people. Rich
people do not own $10,000 mobile homes when they are 70 years
old.
(1310 )
I know the amounts. I know very well the amounts that are in the
bill. The limits that are there now in terms of estates would barely
cover a mobile home, its furniture, and a car.
An hon. member: That is not true.
Mr. Boudria: The member across says that is not true. That
could be his opinion. I am looking forward to his speech, which he
seems to be wanting to make simultaneously with other hon.
members. Perhaps he is in a hurry and cannot wait the extra 10
minutes to speak. Perhaps then he had nothing substantial to say to
start with. Either way, we will find out in 10 minutes what the hon.
member wants to say.
The point I am making here is that we are trying to amend the tax
treaty between two countries. Under the terms of this treaty, gifts
by Canadians to American colleges and universities will qualify for
charitable donation tax credits, as has been said. However, half of
the sentence was not said. That is the fact that gifts made by
Americans to Canadian post-secondary education institutions will
also qualify as charitable donations for the purpose of computing
the donor's U.S. tax liability. In other words, it will permit people
to donate money to a university-which we all recognize, I would
hope, as being something legitimate and worth doing. It will enable
us to continue doing that, and for a Canadian to donate to a U.S.
institution should there be such people, and I am sure there are.
Given that the U.S. population is at least 10 times the size of ours, I
would say there is at least a fair chance that the reverse will also be
true.
That was not said by the hon. member for Kamloops. Why?
Because the member for Kamloops did not feel it injected part of
the partisan debate he was trying to portray in the House. We
should remember what the bill does. Perhaps we should go beyond
the rhetoric of the hon. member for Kamloops.
15469
I ask the hon. member from the New Democratic Party, who a
minute ago could not wait for 10 minutes to make his contribution,
to speak to us about that and to admit to this House that in fact
Americans will be able to donate to Canadian universities. Inject
that into the debate so that all of us can understand. Maybe he can
tell us if he is against that, particularly at a time when we are
seeking assistance for our post-secondary education institutions.
I believe these tax protocols are for the benefit of residents of
both countries. The protocol has to be ratified by both countries
before it takes effect. Some people have withholdings right now
that have been there for years, and they cannot get their money
back because this ratification process is not yet complete.
Let us get on with it and pass this bill. Let these people have their
funds and allow for the kind of investment that I brought to the
attention of the House a moment ago.
Let us look at other changes that are included in this treaty:
bilateral reduction of withholding taxes on dividends, interest,
royalties, reflecting the rates now accepted in force between most
industrialized countries-is that so terrible; complete withholding
tax exemptions for payment for the use of technology-I hope we
are not against that; relief for Canadian residents from the
application of U.S. estate taxes-that is the issue I raised earlier;
and expansion of the exemption from U.S. tax for income earned
by RRSPs, RRIFs, and Canadian pension plan-are we against that
too? I would hope not. That is in the bill. Should we not be
supporting that? I suspect we should.
The bill also provides for authority to impose withholding on
CPP and OAS payments made to American residents. Is the NDP
against that too? I am still awaiting the speech from the hon.
member across the way, the speech he could not wait to give us 10
minutes ago.
(1315)
In addition, the bill provides for mutual assistance in the
collection of taxes owed. Are we not in favour of collecting taxes
that have not been paid? That is part of the protocol as well. That is
what we are trying to do today. Are the NDP members against that
too? Presumably they are, otherwise they would be supporting this
bill. I cannot wait to see how they vote on the final outcome. I
cannot wait for the third reading debate.
Finally, the bill provides for authority to enter into arbitration to
resolve disputes where the two countries' revenue authorities
cannot agree. In other words, there is even a mechanism in here for
dispute resolution in the whole process. In my book that makes this
a good bill, notwithstanding the rhetoric. It makes it a bill that we
should be supporting and passing. I cannot wait to see what the
NDP will do particularly after the remarks of the hon. member for
Kamloops.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in opposition to Bill S-9 and in support of the amendments put
forward by the hon. member opposite, the member for
Gander-Grand Falls.
Since 1988 the Americans have required all non-residents to pay
a 55 per cent estate tax on all U.S. property worth more than
$60,000. However, the agreement before our House which is not
yet ratified means that Canadians with less than $600,000 in U.S.
assets will now be exempt from American estate taxes. That also
means that Canadians with more than $600,000 in assets will pay
the American tax and then will be allowed to claim a portion of it in
foreign tax credits here in Canada. This means a $600,000 U.S.
exemption which is a $900,000 Canadian exemption in real dollars.
This is a tax bill which is helping the very rich.
I want to say a couple of things about this bill. Members of the
Liberal Party opposite, including the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, talk about how important this bill
is to education. It is very peculiar that medicare, the health care
system and the education system in Canada are being squeezed by
these very Liberals through the drastic cuts in this time bomb
budget which is before our country now.
We are hurting the education system in Canada as a result of it,
yet we are going to give the very wealthy an opportunity to make
contributions to the education system in the United States and we
are going to subsidize it through our tax dollars. My colleague, the
member for Kamloops, clearly delineated and outlined the outrage
of Canadians with respect to the approach of this government
cutting back on education in Canada but providing an opportunity
for wealthy Canadians to get tax credits for making contributions to
the American education system.
Now we see whose interests this government is working on
behalf of in this House of Commons. It is not for ordinary
Canadians, not for unemployed Canadians who require
unemployment insurance or who require some assistance with
respect to health care and education. They are not the interests of
the Liberal federal government. The interests are those who feed
the Liberal government, those who make substantial financial
contributions to the Liberal Party. The very wealthy in this country,
the large corporations, the wealthy families are getting their
interests high on the agenda of the House of Commons because
they own the Liberal Party, they contribute millions of dollars to it
every year.
As a result, their agenda is what is on the agenda of Canada.
Their agenda is to accumulate more wealth. That is the agenda of
the wealthy, the individuals, families and corporations in this
country who bought and paid for the Liberal Party. This is a bill the
Liberal Party is putting forward in the House of Commons which
will thank them in spades for their generosity over the last couple
15470
of years. The Canadian population is going to be paying for this
generosity by the Liberal Party to their wealthy friends.
Bill S-9 is an absolute disgrace for the Liberal Party. The
Liberals should be embarrassed out of their shorts with respect to
this bill. I hope they are feeling as bad as some of the members
opposite look like they are feeling because this bill is a wrong
priority for Canada. It is a wrong priority for the House of
Commons.
(1320 )
What about the farmers? This bill gives the wealthy families a
break with retroactive tax breaks back to 1988, but what about the
farmers in the prairies? What has the government done for the
farmers? It eliminated the Crow benefit, which is a transportation
subsidy. In effect 25 per cent of Canada's farming population will
be eliminated from earning a living using their farming skills, yet
the government is going to give the very wealthy additional
hundreds of millions of dollars. This is tax reform of the very worst
kind.
What about a fair taxation system where Canadians who are
earning a living feel confident that their load is being shared by the
very wealthy? The Liberal government is not providing that sense
of confidence to the ordinary Canadians, to those who are working
and to those who are looking for jobs.
This is an issue on which typically, Liberal members have
mastered speaking out of both sides of their mouths. The hon.
member for Gander-Grand Falls did an exceptional job of
articulating the pitfalls of the legislation and the lack of priority it
has with the Liberal government. That is common practice in the
Liberal Party. Whenever it has a bill which is embarrassing, which
will hurt the majority of Canadians at the expense of the very few
wealthy, it always tries to have a few members of Parliament say:
``What we are doing is not the right thing, but we are not going to
vote against it. We are not going to make any public contention that
it is a bad bill. However, we are going to put it on the record that we
are not happy with what is going on''.
It is time for Canadians to recognize the fact that members of the
Liberal Party of Canada speak out of both sides of their mouths.
They do it effectively. I want them to understand that Canadians
will not accept that very much longer.
This is not the first piece of legislation to help wealthy
Canadians. In the budget last February the government dealt with
family trusts. Family trusts are costing Canadian taxpayers
millions and millions of dollars each year in terms of lost revenue,
hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of the last four or
five years. A family trust allows very wealthy families to shelter
their income and their assets from Revenue Canada. Therefore,
they do not contribute in a fair way to the revenues of our country.
In the last budget the Liberals said they would do away with the
family trust situation to obtain more money for the population of
Canada. When? In 1995? No. 1996? No. 1997? Well no, it takes a
bit of time to unwind these things. Maybe in 1999, a year or two
after the next federal election is when the Liberal Party will address
the issue. It is helping the very wealthiest families and corporations
in Canada.
The New Democrats are four square against this sort of priority
when there are a large number of people who are unemployed,
when the unemployment insurance program is under attack, when
education is being cut back and when there is a vicious, unrelenting
attack on medicare. The New Democrats will continue to stand up
for ordinary Canadians on these issues, including fair taxation. We
are asking the government to reconsider the bill, to make amends
and to return it to the Senate, telling the Senate that we will not pass
the bill.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wanted
to rise today to say that I consider this entire debate to be
pathetically irrelevant. I reflect on the words of the hon. member
for Kamloops that it is a frosty Friday when we have a member of
the Reform Party agreeing with a member of the New Democrats.
We should be bringing forward issues like true tax reform, such
as the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood and our member
for Calgary Centre have suggested. We should be bringing forward
legislation for proper protection, particularly under the CPP and
protection for seniors. We should be bringing forward realistic
reform to health care and returning room to tax and powers to the
provinces. I look at the Order Paper and I see that in addition to this
totally irrelevant and pathetic Bill S-9, the next orders of
government are: Bill C-90, the Minister of Finance, an act to
amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act; Bill C-106, the
Minister of Justice, an act respecting the Law Commission of
Canada; and Bill C-105, the Minister of Finance, Income Tax
Conventions Implementation Act. We should be doing some real
legislation in this House.
(1325)
It is a very unusual day but I underscore the fact that I stand very
strongly behind the member for Kamloops when I say that this bill
along with the rest of the legislation that is being brought forward
by this government is pathetically irrelevant. Why not bring
something to this House that has some meaning to the people of
Canada?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak on Bill S-9 to draw out some of the points that are in the bill.
First I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for
Gander-Grand Falls, for bringing this important issue forward in
a number of ways.
15471
There are a number of good points in this bill and there are a
couple of points I have very grave and serious concerns about.
It is important to try to put on the record what some of those
changes are so that we can distinguish between the areas of
concern and the areas that may be positive.
The agreement makes a number of important changes to the
earlier treaty, including bilateral reductions in withholding tax
rates and dividends, interest and royalties reflecting the rates now
accepted and enforced between most industrialized countries. That
is an area I have some concern with.
A complete withholding tax exemption for payments for the use
of technology, I think is a good point.
There is significant relief for Canadian residents from the
application of United States estate taxes, increasing the maximum
estate tax exemption from $60,000 to between $600,000 and $1.2
million U.S.
The expansion to the exemption from United States tax for
income earned by RRSPs, RRIFs and Canadian pension plans I
believe is a good point.
There is the authority to impose withholding on CPP and old age
security payments made to American residents. The 1980 treaty by
contrast allowed only the state of residence to tax such payments.
There are two other points I should mention. There is the
provision for mutual assistance in the collection of taxes owed by a
citizen of one country who resides in the other, thus assisting in the
prevention of tax fraud and evasion. Finally, there is authority to
enter into arbitration to resolve disputes where the two countries'
revenue authorities cannot agree.
My point is that there are good points in the bill but also some
areas which I think we should be concerned about. I want to draw
attention to my major area of concern. I agree fully with the
member for Gander-Grand Falls on this point. The member raised
it in his point of order with the Speaker. He referred to a letter dated
July 17 from the Minister of Finance. That letter makes these
points. I quote from that letter:
I am not aware of the basis for your suggestion that the cost associated with
the reductions in withholding tax rates and certain dividends will total $250
million annually. The only estimates that have been made post that figure at
$125 million for 1995-96 and $145 million for 1996-97. It is important to note
that these figures do not attempt to account for the effects of increased
investment and the consequential growth of income tax revenues that may be
anticipated because of the steps we are taking to bring our withholding tax rates
in line with our major trading partners.
That is the nub of the issue. To me the statements indicate there
is certainly a benefit to the wealthy in that part of the bill which I
have to be concerned about. To be up front about it, one of the
concerns I have about this Parliament is that I firmly believe for a
Parliament to operate effectively, one has to have good
government and good opposition.
(1330)
I am amazed. I am extremely angry at what I hear from the
opposition parties in terms of the issues sometimes. They have
failed in previous debates to draw out these points so that they can
be looked at early enough to try to address them.
The Reform Party is always willing and able to criticize some of
the social programs in Atlantic Canada, to criticize the
unemployment insurance program. Here is a case where there are
benefits to the wealthy and its members have kept mum and been
highly supportive. As members of a good opposition party, they did
not even draw out these points in debate.
I am confident as a member of the government that there will be
a counterbalance found in future legislation to reinstate some of the
money back into the tax system, either by looking at RRSPs,
corporate taxes or other taxation. As the government whip said in
his speech, there are certainly some areas where we will gain
finances as a result of this bill in terms of what is happening to the
American residents.
In the future we have to find a counterbalance to the mesh, to the
finances, that have been lost as a result of the tax dividends being
forgiven here.
I would hope and encourage the government to look at that in the
future.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The next
question is on Motion No. 2.
[Translation]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
15472
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76, recorded
division on the motion now before the House stands deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House. The
first vote will be on Motion No. 1.
Call in the members.
(1335)
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: It has been proposed that the matter be
deferred until 5 p.m. this day.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-90, an act to
amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion agreed to on
division.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
With the permission of the House, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
Bill C-90 be read for the third time and passed.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-90 contains legislative provisions permitting the
implementation of a number of amendments to the excise tax
announced earlier this year.
Most of these proposals are linked to amendments announced in
the February 27, 1995 budget, including amendments to the air
transportation tax, the excise tax on gasoline, the marking
requirements on tobacco products for sale in Prince Edward Island
and the seizure and notification provisions relating to violations of
the Excise Act.
Other proposals concern amendments to rates of excise tax on
tobacco products for sale in Quebec, Ontario and Prince Edward
Island. These amendments were announced in February and March
along with provincial tax increases on tobacco.
[English]
Let me begin by addressing the key budget measures contained
in Bill C-90. First, proposed changes to the air transportation tax
will enable the government to recover a greater proportion of the
costs of the air transportation services and facilities that are used by
air travellers.
The proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act will increase
the maximum air transportation tax on higher priced domestic and
trans-border air travel and the tax on international air travel
purchased in Canada from $50 to $55.
In addition, the maximum tax on trans-border air travel subject
to the United States' 10 per cent air transportation tax and the tax
on international air travel purchased outside Canada will increase
from $25 to $27.50.
These changes to the air transportation tax, effective May 1,
1995, will generate additional revenues of $27 million in the
1995-96 fiscal year and $33 million in the 1996-97 fiscal year.
Second, Bill C-90 proposes an increase in the rates of excise tax
on gasoline equal to 1.5 cents per litre effective February 28, 1995.
In a budget that focused almost entirely on reducing the
spending of government and delivered expenditure cuts by a
margin of seven to one over tax increases, a move that I know was
applauded by members of the Reform Party, this measure is
necessary to raise an additional $500 million per fiscal year to
ensure that the government meets the deficit reduction targets that
are integral to a strong and growing economy. The Minister of
Finance has reaffirmed repeatedly the government's commitment
to meet the deficit reduction targets outlined in the budget in 1995
and will undoubtedly reaffirm those in the next budget.
(1340)
Third, in addition to these rate changes affecting the air
transportation tax and gasoline, Bill C-90 also enacts amendments
to the
15473
marking requirements for tobacco products for sale in Prince
Edward Island. These amendments will phase out the sale of black
stock or unmarked tobacco products in Prince Edward Island and
allow for the sale of Nova Scotia marked tobacco products in the
province.
This change in the tobacco marking scheme is being undertaken
at the request of the two provinces and will allow for greater
efficiency in serving the Prince Edward Island market.
The final budget measure contained in Bill C-90 concerns the
seizure and notification provisions in respect of offences under the
Excise Act.
The proposed amendments will rectify certain enforcement
difficulties by allowing officers discretion in their ability to seize
vehicles while stipulating that reasonable efforts must be
undertaken to provide notice of seizure to known third party
interests.
The bill also implements important changes in respect of excise
tax rates for tobacco products for sale in Quebec, Ontario and
Prince Edward Island.
As all hon. members are aware, modest federal excise tax
increases were announced earlier this year in conjunction with
provincial tobacco tax increases in these three provinces.
These tax increases follow the success to date of the national
action plan to combat smuggling in significantly reducing
contraband tobacco activity and restoring the domestic tobacco
market to legitimate Canadian wholesalers and retailers.
In Quebec and Ontario, federal excise tax rates are being
increased by 60 cents per carton of 200 cigarettes, while in Prince
Edward Island excise taxes are being increased by $1 per carton of
200 cigarettes and 32 cents per 200 tobacco sticks.
The excise tax increases in respect of cigarettes for sale in
Quebec and Ontario are effective February 18, 1995 while the
increases in respect of cigarettes and tobacco sticks for sale in
Prince Edward Island are effective April 1, 1995. These changes
will generate an additional $65 million in federal revenues on a
fiscal year basis.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of the
provisions contained in Bill C-90, notwithstanding the flippant
remarks made by the hon. member of the Reform Party while
speaking earlier and saying that the legislation on the government's
agenda was unimportant.
The proposed changes to the air transportation tax and the excise
tax rates for gasoline are an important part of the government's
commitment to increased cost recovery and deficit reduction.
Amendments to the tobacco marking scheme will allow for
greater efficiency in serving the Prince Edward Island market,
while amendments to the seizure and notification provisions of the
Excise Act will improve the delivery of enforcement activities.
Finally, the changes to the excise tax rates for tobacco products
for sale in Quebec, Ontario and Prince Edward Island represent
important first steps toward the long term restoration of uniform
federal excise tax rates for tobacco products across Canada.
[Translation]
I encourage my colleagues to pass this bill without delay.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-90 is now at the third reading stage. We have already had an
opportunity, as the official opposition, to state our position on this
bill at the second reading stage and in committee, the Standing
Committee on Finance.
Although some of these measures may be positive, there is one
that bothers us particularly, so much so that we would vote against
this bill. I am referring to the proposal to increase the excise tax on
gas by 1.5 cents per litre.
I will be brief. I want to make a connection between this debate
and the one we had when we were discussing the excise tax on
cigarettes.
(1345)
In fact, this bill contains measures that would bring about a
gradual upward adjustment of the tax on tobacco products. Of
course we all realized at the time that the purpose of the drastic
reduction in taxes on tobacco products was to destabilize
smuggling networks. However, everyone agrees that now the price
is so affordable it could have a disastrous impact on the demand for
these products in the long term. The lower the price, the better a
product sells.
No one objects to an adjustment. However, we should be careful
not to do this too quickly and in the process give these networks a
chance to regroup and take control again.
That being said, the government still has a duty to monitor the
situation, because there are other ways besides taxation to ensure
that people engaged in smuggling various products are arrested.
This still goes on. It is still the case for various kinds of products.
Enforcement is not as strict at that level. Much remains to be done
to improve the way we deal with various smuggling networks.
As far as the excise tax on gas is concerned, everybody knows it
can be very irritating, and it is so easy for the government, when it
needs money quickly, to use the excise tax on gas, because this is
instant revenue. We are talking about $500 million which the
finance minister quickly took out of taxpayers' pockets.
It is hard for the consumer to see this happening, because when
the price of gas goes up at the pump, the consumer is not sure
whether the price of oil has gone up or the retailer, the manufactur-
15474
er or someone else has raised his profit margin or whether the
government has just increased the excise tax.
Unlike other types of products, when we buy gas, it does not say
what proportion of the price we pay for a litre of gas is actually
taxes. It is just as well, because taxpayers would be even more
furious with the various governments. They would be constantly
reminded of all the taxes levied on gasoline products.
In this case as in the case of tobacco products, when the
government goes to the other extreme and tax levels rise beyond
the acceptance threshold, taxpayers feel they have every right to
buy contraband goods. We may deplore it, but the taxpayers'
feeling is that this is a legitimate action they are taking.
We must not do anything to bolster this trend, because we know
all the problems there are with the underground economy, the black
market economy. At some point, the tax on gasoline reached the
limit people would bear. We feel that any increase will only
contribute to pushing consumers toward an underground economy
which is extremely counterproductive for everyone.
Counterproductive not only for the taxpayers who make use of it,
since those using the black market economy are penalizing
themselves without knowing it, but also for everyone in the long
run. At some point we have to learn our lesson.
It does not seem that we have learned any lesson from what
happened with tobacco products. Certain products in a number of
different areas are still being heavily taxed.
However, it is not abnormal for there to be higher taxes on
gasoline than on other products, because of the environmental
effects everyone is aware of. Steps must be taken to ensure that
when what the economists call externalities result from the
consumption of a product, there are provisions to make the users
bear the cost of those externalities. At some point, however, there is
some uncertainty as to whether we have gone too far in this.
Essentially, we strongly disagree with this measure and feel that
raising the tax again by 1.5 cents a litre in his last budget was not
the route the Minister of Finance ought to have taken. We do not
feel this is a measure that will contribute to any great extent to
economic recovery. Everyone knows that there is a lot of work to
be done on the expenditure side. If the Minister of Finance has no
ideas of his own, we might suggest that he hasten before the
finance committee to discuss it, something he has refused to do
because of his fear of presenting his financial statements before the
referendum. That is understandable.
If he wants to discuss it in more detail, we invite him to do so.
This will provide us with the opportunity to debate the matter with
him and to point out that there may be other avenues he ought to
explore when he needs to balance his books, instead of constantly
digging into the taxpayers' pockets for more revenue.
(1350)
So, essentially, it is our intention to oppose adoption of Bill C-90
on third reading and, as I have said, essentially because of this
measure. There are others on which I have not spoken but which we
were able to bring up during second reading or in committee on
which we do agree. But we have a major disagreement with this
one.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in opposition to Bill
C-90. This is a Liberal taxation bill. I want to comment on how
easily the words ``Liberals'' and ``increased taxation'' flow
together; they seem to be a naturally united phrase.
This bill amends the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act in order
for the Liberals to bring in the increased taxes they proposed in
their budget last February. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you and
probably every other working Canadian will agree that this country
simply does not need any more new taxes. Canadians are probably
one of the most overtaxed people in the entire world, and we have a
government in power that is intent on continuing to make sure we
do not lose that mantle of taxation.
Taxation ultimately drains the lifeblood out of our economy.
This is something Canadians are very aware of and very concerned
about, how the high taxation levels in our country have such a
devastating effect on the economy. We will talk about two areas of
harmful effects of taxation, which probably account for 90 per cent
of how we build and keep our economy buoyant, and that is
investor confidence and consumer confidence.
High taxation levels have delivered a tremendous level of
uncertainty to the investors, the people who would build and
expand businesses in our country, who would hire Canadians to run
their factories and operations, creating jobs in the country. Because
of the rising taxation levels there simply is no certainty of the
future for these investors, who have no incentive to increase their
investments.
The average working person in Canada probably has less
disposable income than ever before. There is no certainty that
disposable income will not continue to shrink. Therefore consumer
spending has been drawn back, thus creating a harmful effect on
our economy.
The Liberals respond not with a plan to decrease their spending,
to decrease their deficit spending, not with a plan to offer some tax
relief to Canadians, the two things that would probably serve in
more ways than any other measures to restore some buoyancy to
our economy. No. The Liberal Party does not respond with these
two natural solutions. Instead, they implement more taxation in
15475
their February budget. Now they are seeking the authorization to
put that into force.
Prior to the election in 1993, the Reform Party said that if the
Liberal government were elected, using their own red book
predictions on the financial aspect, over the term of this 35th
Parliament the Liberal government would add $100 billion to our
national debt and would increase the annual interest payments on
that debt by some $10 billion. That is $100,000 billion and $10
billion. The Liberal Party is right on target.
(1355 )
By the end of the 35th Parliament our national debt will have
increased by $100 billion, our interest payments on that debt will
be up somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50 billion to $52
billion, and all because the Liberal Party has not taken what could
be considered a common sense solution to the financial crisis in
this country, which is to reduce taxes and reduce its deficit
spending. Instead the Liberals chose to increase taxes. Bill C-90
gives them authorization to implement, for example, the 1.5 cent a
litre tax on gasoline, which is going to add $500 million more taxes
on the middle class alone.
While the government talks about tax fairness, in its last budget
it in fact raised taxes by over $1 billion. In fact if we look at tax
increases in the last two government budgets, the Liberals have
increased taxes by about $2.5 billion, with another $500 million in
user fees or hidden taxes.
Canadians should be pleased that these increased taxes have in
fact been put to good use. I would like to give some examples of
Liberal good use. The U.S. Department of Energy-and this is
small potatoes, but there are about 5,000 of these, I
understand-received a $35,000 grant from the Canadian
government. The United Steel Workers of America received
$116,000 from the taxpayers of Canada via the Liberal
government. Here is a good one: the Prison Art Foundation
received $51,000 from the Canadian taxpayers, compliments of the
Liberal Party. And the Feminist Literacy Workers Network
received another $57,000 from the taxpayers of Canada, thanks to
the Liberal government. This is only part of about 5,000 or 6,000 of
these grants that have gone out.
This type of money does not fall down from the sky in some
miraculous manner. We do not pick it off a tree, as some Liberals
would like to believe. This kind of money comes from the pockets
of hard-working Canadians, who are among the most highly taxed
people in the world.
It is said that the average middle class Canadian worker in this
country in all forms of taxes pays about 63 per cent of their gross
income in taxation. In a country as rich as Canada is, with the
potential and the opportunity Canada has, the fact that Canadian
workers are paying this much taxation out of their gross income is
absolutely obscene.
The Speaker: My colleague, of course you will have the floor,
should you so desire it, after the question period.
It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to statements by members.
The hon. member for Dartmouth.
_____________________________________________
15475
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
real pleasure for me to rise in this House today to acknowledge the
contribution to Canadian life by Carolyn Thomas, who is an
outstanding Canadian and who is a constituent of mine.
Mrs. Thomas, from the community of East Preston, yesterday
was the recipient of the 1995 Governor General's award in
commemoration of the persons case. This is a particular honour for
me because I have known Mrs. Thomas and worked with her and
her husband since I was elected to this House in 1988. In that time I
found her to have dedication and determination practically
unrivalled in my community, not only pertaining to the betterment
of women, but for the betterment of her community of East
Preston, the oldest indigenous black community in Canada, and for
Canadian society as a whole.
In addition to her work in the struggle for equality for women,
over her lifetime Carolyn has been a visionary in her struggle for
human rights and better race relations. She was a founder of the
Human Rights Commission in the province of Nova Scotia and
continued her good work with them for 23 years.
I ask that my colleagues here in the House and the people of the
great city of Dartmouth and-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
international day for the elimination of poverty provides an
opportunity for all Quebecers to take a moment to reflect on the
dramatic living conditions of some of our fellow citizens.
Nearly a million and a half Quebecers live below the poverty
line. We live in a province that suffers from the highest rate of
poverty in Canada, by far. Despite all the efforts of the Government
of Quebec, one child in five in Quebec comes from a poor family.
Quebec seniors continue to be much poorer than seniors anywhere
else in Canada. We are struggling with a huge problem that is
tearing us apart.
15476
Quebec must become sovereign so its government will have the
means to combat poverty effectively. This is why Quebecers will
vote yes.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
week, for the first time ever, Canadian MBA teams took to the
courts to the great delight of their fans across the country. How
ironic that at the same time as we are welcoming the MBA to
Canada we are closing the door on North America's largest sports
magazine,
Sports Illustrated.
Essentially the government has said that Sports Illustrated
cannot be allowed split runs in Canada because SI is too efficient in
its production and too effective in attracting readers and therefore
advertisers. By all means let us not encourage that; we do not want
people to go around thinking it is all right to be efficient and
successful.
By shutting Sports Illustrated out of Canada the government is
taking a 200-year leap back in time. While other Canadian
communications technologies compete head to head with
companies from around the world, the magazine publishing
industry in Canada has adopted the views of communist Bulgaria.
Sadly Canadian magazines will be the big losers in this policy. If
advertisers cannot reach their market in magazines they will do so
in other media that do not respect laws issued by sentimental
Canadian regulators who pine for the good old days before the
telegraph.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as
NDP health critic on April 2, 1994 in third reading debate on the
Canada Health Act, I welcomed the move to eliminate extra billing
and user fees. But I also asked the Liberal government of the day,
which was the first federal government to unilaterally cut back on
federal transfers, ``to sit down with the provinces and renegotiate
that funding relationship so we can have a full-fledged financial
partnership with respect to medicare''.
The Liberal government's new Canada health and social transfer
with its $7 billion cut is just another Liberal unilateral cut and a
further erosion of the partnership that was medicare.
Dealing with private clinics is one thing, but it is a form of
straining out gnats while swallowing camels if the federal
government continues to set up medicare for destruction by
starving it to death.
When it comes to medicare the Liberals are into a form of
passive euthanasia that plays into the hands of those who would
like to actively destroy it by what I would call right wing assisted
suicide.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
recognition of Dr. May Cohen of Burlington, Ontario, a keen
promoter of women's health issues and a powerful advocate of
gender equality in the medical profession. She was a recipient
yesterday of the 1995 Governor General's award in
commemoration of the Persons case.
A physician, researcher, educator and activist, Dr. May Cohen
has repeatedly challenged the medical profession on the way it
deals with the health concerns of women patients. As a volunteer
and in her capacity as Associate Dean of Health Services at
McMaster University's faculty of health sciences, she has taken a
lead on an impressive array of issues, including gender equality,
sexual harassment, sexual abuse of patients by physicians, the role
of women in the medical profession and women's health in the
context of women's lives.
I ask colleagues to join with me in celebrating Dr. May Cohen's
achievements and extraordinary commitment to women's health.
Her family and friends are justifiably proud, and so am I.
* * *
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
approach the anniversary of the Persons case I am honoured to pay
tribute to Alice E. Tyler of Edmonton, Alberta, the province where
the Persons case got its start.
Alice Tyler has made the portrayal of the famous five champions
of the Persons case and the promotion of their accomplishments a
major focus of her life's work. In recognition of her efforts Alice
Tyler was recognized as a recipient of the 1995 Governor General's
award in commemoration of the Persons case.
Alice Tyler's portraits of the famous five in the Persons case
have been hung in the Alberta legislature, the Edmonton Law
Courts Building and the Edmonton City Public Library. They have
been displayed elsewhere in Canada and abroad.
(1405)
On a personal level, she has always been an ardent believer in the
abilities of women. During her 24-year career as a high school art
director she consistently encouraged young women to live up to
their potential, helping many to set their sights on meaningful
careers.
15477
For her unique efforts to preserve the legacy of the Persons case,
Alice E. Tyler is a most deserving recipient of the 1995 Governor
General's award in commemoration of the Persons case.
* * *
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the singular contribution made
by Ruth Flowers of Makkovik, Labrador, a recipient of the 1995
Governor General's award in commemoration of the Persons case.
The voice of the women in her community, she has sought to
protect women victimized by violence, to involve women in
community economic development and to preserve and promote
the traditional culture of Inuit women.
A committed advocate of women's rights, Ruth Flowers was the
catalyst behind the creation of Inuit Women of the Torngats and its
first president. Under her leadership the organization established
the first safe house for abused women on Labrador's north shore.
For her dedication and selfless efforts on behalf of the women of
the north shore of Labrador, the Government of Canada has today
honoured Ruth Flowers with the 1995 Governor General's award in
commemoration of the Persons case. I ask all colleagues to join me
in conveying our congratulations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by causing
the Centre francophone de santé et de services communautaires in
southern Ontario to close, the Harris government has just revealed
its true intentions with regard to Ontario francophones.
For Franco-Ontarians, the message is clear: if you really want
services in French, move to Quebec. This action, which speaks
volumes, unfortunately confirms that Quebec's presence in Canada
does nothing to prevent decisions that flout the fundamental rights
of francophones outside Quebec.
Where is the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the
self-styled defender of francophone rights? Why is he hiding when
it is time to act? There is no longer any doubt, the future of the
french speaking community in North America lies in a sovereign
Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the Prime Minister stated in the House:
Any citizen can request information from government departments. It is in
keeping with our government's policy of openness to provide as much
information as possible.
Why then is the government denying access to information
requests regarding the severance package for Claude Bennett, the
former chair of CMHC. Mr. Bennett agreed to step down last
August after a back room cabinet deal sweetened his severance
package.
It is time the government came clean with its backroom deals.
Either we have a policy of openness as the Prime Minister states or
we do not, or perhaps the policy is opaque as recently stated by the
parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Bennett's severance package was paid for with taxpayer's
dollars, yet now the government is blocking requests to divulge the
details of the deal. So much for open government.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Government of Canada I am proud to salute Sheila
Kingham of Victoria, British Columbia, for her many years of
service on behalf of rural women. Today Ms. Kingham received the
Governor General's award in commemoration of the Persons case.
Ms. Kingham's accomplishments have been many. An articulate
and persuasive public speaker, she has given countless
presentations and briefs on topics ranging from the rape shield law
to women's health. She has encouraged others. As a firm believer
in the power of collective action, she has helped other women to
organize and lobby for advances in all areas of women's political,
social and economic equality.
[Translation]
Mrs. Kingham created the position of rural coordinator for the
Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women and helped
establish the Western Manitoba Coalition for equality rights in the
Canadian constitution, an organization formed to give voice to the
concerns of rural women about constitutional change.
I am sure all members of this House will agree that Sheila
Kingham is most worthy recipient of the 1995 Governor General's
award.
15478
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to Marthe Asselin Vaillancourt of
Jonquière, Quebec, one of the recipients of the 1995 Governor
General's award in commemoration of the Persons case.
A long-time educator, researcher and grassroots activist, Marthe
Asselin Vaillancourt has never missed an opportunity to improve
the status of women.
(1410)
Over the years, she has spoken out regularly on sexual assault,
pornography, employment equity and family violence.
Within her community, she was the initiator of and the driving
force behind the establishment of a shelter for women and the
development, in cooperation with the Quebec provincial police, of
a pilot project to oppose violence against women. This project gave
birth to the Centre d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels de
Chicoutimi, which she currently heads.
She has served as national co-chair of the Canadian Panel on
violence against women, which conducted the first national study
in the world on this serious social problem.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the people of Quebec will be deprived of the opportunity to view a
television debate between the presidents of the committee for the
yes side and the committee for the no side during the present
referendum campaign.
A consortium of television broadcasters has announced that the
deadlines for organizing such an event cannot be met and
consequently it will not take place.
Despite repeated appeals from the no side for such a debate to be
held, and despite all of the concessions made, the yes side
continues to refuse a public debate on the basic issues.
After successfully blocking the television debate, now the yes
side is pulling the leader of the Bloc Quebecois out of the House so
that he will not have to defend his statements concerning the plan
for separation.
Following the example of the separatists' saying ``no'' to debate
and to the disclosure of information, on October 30 the people of
Quebec will vote ``no'' to separation.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning the Leader of the Official Opposition, accompanied by
Françoise David, President of la Fédération des femmes du
Québec, had the opportunity to explain what he said this past
weekend.
Those of us who are in favour of change feel it is imperative for
parents to be given assistance in reconciling jobs and family
responsibilities. It is not a matter of making people have more
children than they want.
In a sovereign Quebec what we are aiming at is better paid
parental leave, increased services for young children, more daycare
spaces, more flexible working arrangements.
The women of Quebec do not wish to be used as a red herring.
Quebecers, both men and women, want the focus to be on true
debate, not on blackening the character of a man of integrity, a man
without a racist or sexist bone in his body.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over
and over again Reformers in the House have tried to tell the Liberal
government that Canadians want their safety and the safety of their
families to be the top priority of our justice system.
In two days time, on Thursday night in Oshawa, the Reform
message that the rights of law-abiding citizens must come before
the rights of criminals will be reinforced by hundreds of Ontarians
in a rally at the civic auditorium.
The Reform Party leader joined by the justice critics, the hon.
members for Calgary Northeast, Crowfoot and Wild Rose, will
deliver Reform's clear common sense plan for strong and effective
changes to Canada's justice system.
Canadians are tired of having to look back over their shoulders in
fear rather than ahead in security and confidence as they build their
lives and their futures.
15479
Reform is committed to solid measures to safeguard the future of
Canada. I invite Canadians everywhere to look at what we are
proposing and to give us their support.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the PQ premier made a great effort to
minimize and make a mockery of the significance the public
attaches to what the leader of the Bloc had to say about the low
birth rate of the white race in Quebec.
When questioned as to the meaning of what his separatist
colleague had said, the leader of the Parti Québécois found nothing
better to reply than ``So what would you have me say? The
pale-faced race?''
Whether white or coloured, Quebec women are, just like Quebec
men, persons who will be called upon shortly to decide the future
of Quebec.
The tendency of the yes side to pigeonhole people according to
sex, language or race does not correspond in the least to the values
of our society.
This coming October 30, the women and men of Quebec will be
saying no to a project that seeks to divide them.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the imagination of the people who design the ads for the
separatists has no bounds. Yesterday, the Yes committee placed an
ad in several Quebec newspapers, showing a page of help wanted
ads, under the heading: ``This is how we see the future''.
The jobs offered in the ad for the Yes side included the
following: ``Sexy waitress required for new bar on South Shore'';
``Barmaid required, experienced, nice appearance''. Another ad:
``Sell pantyhose from your home''. Listen to this: ``Sexy
restaurant-bar requires pretty waitress and sexy barmaid, nice
personality. Duties: lunch, dinner and manager''. Yes, those were
the duties.
Since yesterday, the Yes side has been trying to provide an
explanation for what its leader said, but they have their work cut
out for them. On October 30, the women of Quebec will say no to
those who would determine their future for them.
15479
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all,
I want to say I am appalled at the statements made by the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs who said this morning that Quebec
sovereignists were racist. I think that is entirely unacceptable.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Increasingly,
francophones see their language and culture threatened in Canada.
The CRTC, whose mission includes preserving the cultural identity
of francophones in the broadcasting sector, is being forced to shift
its decisions as we saw recently when an exemption was granted to
Power DirecTv for the use of an American satellite for television
transmissions.
Now that Power DirecTv has applied to the CRTC for a
broadcasting licence for pay per view television, what guarantees
do francophones in Quebec and the rest of Canada have that the
regulations now in effect at the CRTC will be enforced this time,
unlike what happened in this recent case before the CRTC?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what is important is what it says in the act, and I am
referring to the Broadcasting Act which established the CRTC. I
am very pleased that the CRTC will consider representations on the
subject raised by the hon. member. That is how the legislation
works, and it is there to protect Canadian content on our airwaves.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
minister has decided to come out of his shell, we will ask him about
the CRTC.
Would he agree that Power DirecTv's application for permission
to broadcast 63 English channels, 60 of which are American, and
only one French channel on pay per view will leave the door open
for Canada and Quebec to become a mere extension of the
American market, which would be extremely harmful to the French
fact in America?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously, in Canada the interests involved can apply
for whatever they want, but it is up to the CRTC to decide. It makes
its decisions on the basis of the legislation, the Broadcasting Act to
which I referred earlier.
When the CRTC has made a decision with respect to a licence,
that decision can be appealed to cabinet. That is how the legislation
works, and its purpose is to protect Canadian content.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the House
will recall that in a recent case, when the minister was gagged by
15480
the Leader of the Government, CRTC regulations were
circumvented to ensure that Power DirecTv obtained a special
authorization.
(1420)
My question to the minister raises the same concerns. How can
the minister expect francophones in Quebec and Canada to feel
secure in the belief that the federal government will protect the
French fact and their cultural identity in the broadcasting sector,
when we know perfectly well that recently, the federal government
bent the rules of the CRTC to give Power DirecTv an advantage and
that now the same company proposes a pay per view service
including 63 English channels, 60 of which are American, and one
French channel? How can francophones say they are being well
defended by this government?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question would be valid if it were
based on fact, which it is not. The federal government never
violated the act and never instructed the CRTC to contravene the
act, on the contrary.
We wanted to ensure there was no penetration of Canada's
airwaves via American satellites. We acted for the purpose of
protecting Canadian content.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, cultural groups in Quebec rallied together yesterday to ask
the CRTC to not compromise the present linguistic balance in
broadcasting, specifically by granting a licence to Power DirecTv.
For its part, the federal government claims to be acting, again in the
case of Power DirecTv, in the name of free competition. This new
episode demonstrates that Quebec has no control over its
broadcasting environment.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the Power DirecTv
project would seriously compromise the linguistic balance of the
Quebec broadcasting system and consequently risk weakening
Quebecers' cultural identity? Is this what awaits Quebecers
following a no vote in the referendum?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the CRTC has received a number of applications for
licences. Next comes the perfectly natural process whereby they
are heard, everyone's comments are heard, those in favour and
those opposed-this is the point of the process.
The government will not intervene in the debate, because the law
prevents it. We will, however, see at the end of the process whether
the CRTC's decision is wise and, if it is not, interested parties will
certainly be appealing to the government. At that point, we can
decide. Let us allow the process to take its course, and then we will
have some answers.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister acknowledge that, in the present federal
context, Quebec has no power over broadcasting enabling it to
protect its cultural identity against the massive influx of new
English language television channels into Quebec? Is this not
another good reason to vote yes in the referendum?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like our colleague to respond to questions I
have often put to my friends in both the Bloc and the Parti
Quebecois.
As a country separated from Canada, how is Quebec going to
block the American programs that spill over its borders via
satellite? They will need the mechanism that we already have-the
CRTC and the Broadcasting Act.
They should be delighted to have such a mechanism and vote no.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada
Health Act will not allow private clinics to provide services that are
insured by medicare. Most Canadians feel they should have a
choice if medicare does not meet their needs.
(1425 )
Will the health minister finally agree to amend the Canada
Health Act to allow fully opted out private clinics in Canada?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unlike the opposition Reform Party, we have stood by our red book
promises. We have said that we would continue to support the five
principles of medicare. The medicare we have in Canada is one of
the great reasons why it is wonderful to be Canadian.
In this country, Mr. Speaker, we have a system where it matters
not how wealthy you are. What matters is how sick you are. That is
the way it should continue to be. We should use our resources the
best way possible to have the best technologies, the best
pharmaceuticals in order to treat our sick Canadians and make
them healthy.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have trouble
figuring out why waiting lists do not seem to bother the Liberals.
An American firm is now selling waiting list insurance for
Canadians. If you have to wait more than 45 days you can ship off
to the states. Not only do the Liberals say line up and shut up but
they also say ship out.
What is the minister doing to reduce waiting lists or is she
content to have Canadians travel to the U.S. for medical attention?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Perhaps, Mr.
Speaker, if the Reform Party really wants to know about waiting
15481
lists they should speak to the 38 million Americans who have
absolutely no insurance at all.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Marleau: Mr. Speaker, a survey conducted last year by the
Alberta Consumers' Association found that ophthalmologists who
only operated in hospitals had waiting lists for surgery of two to
five weeks while those who worked in both private clinics and
hospitals could perform surgery on a private patient in two to four
weeks but a hospital patient could wait up to 20 weeks.
Private clinics are not necessarily the answer to long waiting
lists.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, these are facts.
The wait for elective heart surgery in Manitoba is over two years;
for a hip replacement in P.E.I. it is over one year.
This minister clings to her bureaucrats and her beloved
legislation-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): The minister clings to her beloved
bureaucrats and her old-fashioned legislation. In the nineties that
means medicare is literally bad for everyone.
Will the minister put health before petty politics and arbitrary
deadlines, sit down with the provinces and reform the Canada
Health Act so we will not have to choose between death on a
waiting list or travelling to a foreign country?
(1430)
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will work and I am working with the provincial governments to
shape the future of medicare. The National Forum on Health is also
working and will be consulting with Canadians.
When it comes to waiting lists in this country, allowing the
wealthy to get to the head of the line does not shorten the line; it
only pushes others to the back.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
After two years of Liberal government and 25 years of the
Official Languages Act, the situation of francophones outside
Quebec continues to worsen. One third of them now speak English
at home. In British Columbia, the assimilation rate is even 75 per
cent. So now we are not speaking of more than a million
francophones outside Quebec but rather of 640,000 who are still
using French.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the poor results obtained
from the Official Languages Act shows the failure of his vision of
Canada, since it has not been successful in blocking the increasing
assimilation of francophones outside Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, recently the magazine L'Actualité reported that Canada
has made more progress in recent years than any other country in
the world with respect to the use of French.
I cannot understand the hon. member. She is prepared to abandon
francophones outside Quebec. She is prepared to abandon the
million francophones living outside Quebec.
They show no consideration for these people because they want
to separate from Canada. We on the other hand want to remain
within Canada because we want to offer real protection to those
who really have the merit of speaking French, the francophones
outside Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to remind the Prime Minister that it is he who
has separated us from Canada, it is not Quebec which wishes to
separate from Canada.
Secondly, may I remind him also to consult the figures from
Statistics Canada. There are one million francophones, yes, but just
640,000 of them use French at home and are therefore considered
French speaking.
An hon. member: They are becoming assimilated.
Mrs. Tremblay: They have been assimilated.
Mr. Godin: Poof.
Mrs. Tremblay: The francophones-poof.
An hon. member: The francophones-poof.
Mrs. Tremblay: Does the Prime Minister then not acknowledge
the very opposite, that the future of francophone culture in America
rests with a sovereign Quebec, for only a sovereign Quebec will
constitute the anchor point for all francophones. In it they will find
a true and tenacious ally in solidarity with them, one that will
defend their most legitimate demands everywhere.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this very day the newspaper representing francophones
outside Quebec has asked Quebecers to vote no in the referendum,
because the future of francophones outside Quebec depends on the
federal Official Languages Act, and on the fact that there is a
government here in Canada, in Ottawa, which has always defended
francophones outside Quebec.
Certainly some people have more difficulty than others in
retaining their French, but they do want to retain it. Not only that.
Every year 350,000 English speaking Canadians learn French
because they live in Canada, a country where there are
francophones, and this raises the number of people speaking
French in Canada and in the world. The reason French is alive and
well in
15482
America is that the French have remained in Canada since
Confederation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians were stunned by the admission
of the defence minister that the National Defence Act will prevent
certain charges from being laid at the conclusion of the Somalia
inquiry.
(1435 )
Yesterday, the Minister of National Defence told the Globe and
Mail that charges could be laid under the Criminal Code of Canada.
The chairman of the Somalia inquiry stated: ``Most of the matters
we will be dealing with might end up in some findings that could
perhaps call for disciplinary action as opposed to criminal
charges''. As opposed to criminal charges.
Will the minister admit that there will be no judicial remedy for
certain charges when the Somalia inquiry is finally concluded?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered this
question rather clearly yesterday.
There is sufficient flexibility in the National Defence Act to
ensure that justice will be done. The government well knew the
statute of limitations on certain disciplinary matters under the
National Defence Act when the inquiry was called. Indeed the
justice who chairs the commission, Justice Létourneau, knows it
well because he was a former judge of the court martial appeals
court.
There are other ways in which justice may be done
administratively. If the hon. member is afraid that those people if
identified cannot be brought to justice or are somehow not going to
be dealt with fairly, I assure him to the contrary.
This will be a matter that will be done in a very deliberate way
after all the evidence is brought forward. I would like him to let the
commission get down to work so that justice can be done.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that I am afraid of
nothing, but the minister should be very afraid of his
mismanagement of this entire affair.
I will read from the National Defence Act. It sets out a three-year
limitation period for everything except mutiny, desertion, absence
without leave, and death penalty offences. That is it.
Canadians know there is a separate code of law which applies to
our military to enforce discipline and leadership which expires in
March 1996. Canadians want to know why the minister has so
mismanaged the affair that now discipline and leadership cannot be
enforced in our Canadian Armed Forces.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member quite frankly does not know what he is talking about. He
has cited rather selectively sections of the National Defence Act. I
want to assure him that there are ways of dealing with culpability
other than with criminal charges. He should go back and look at the
National Defence Act and perhaps get some advice on how to
interpret it and then come back with some decent questions
tomorrow.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Premier Roy Romanow of Saskatchewan, that great Canadian
who was a party to excluding Quebec from the Canadian
constitution during the night of the long knives in 1982, said
recently that if Quebec voted yes, that was the end of French school
boards in Saskatchewan.
Does the Prime Minister intend to protest against this kind of
blackmail at the expense of francophone communities, or does he
agree with his 1982 accomplice?
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, this question is not the
administrative responsibility of the Prime Minister. This question
would be out of order but if the Prime Minister wants to answer it, I
will let him answer it. If not, I will go on to the next question.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the best way to protect the education rights of
francophones outside Quebec-which we put in the Canadian
constitution in 1982, it was not there before-the best way to
ensure that French schools outside Quebec are protected by the
constitution adopted by this Parliament in 1982, when I was
Minister of Justice, is to stay in Canada. The best guarantee
francophones have is to stay in Canada.
When I see francophone members abandoning francophones
outside Quebec, I find that shameful, Mr. Speaker.
(1440)
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
asking the Prime Minister whether he dissociates himself from
what was said by Premier Roy Romanow of Saskatchewan. That is
what I am asking, and he is evading the question.
15483
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Premier of Saskatchewan, like the other premiers
today in Canada, has an obligation under the Canadian constitution
to protect French schools outside Quebec. If Quebec separates
from Canada-
An hon. member: That is blackmail.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): It is not blackmail. There will
be only one million francophones outside Quebec who will no
longer have the support of francophone members from Quebec,
like me and others who have spent their careers defending
francophones outside Quebec here in the House of Commons. I
have been doing that for 32 years. It produced results. But they
want to abandon them because they want ambassadors from
Quebec driving around abroad in their limos.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the February budget the defence minister announced the closure of
CFB Chilliwack, the only land force base in British Columbia. Yet
in a memo marked secret and prepared for DND just prior to that
announcement, land forces command made the following
observations: ``Land forces command requires an army base to
support the domestic operations in B.C. LFC feels Chilliwack is
ideally suited to fulfil those operations. The closure of CFB
Chilliwack should be opposed and CFB Chilliwack should be
retained''.
Why did the minister ignore the advice of his own officials and
choose to close B.C.'s only land forces base, CFB Chilliwack?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary,
I accepted the advice of my officials. It was the department that
recommended the consolidation of the army base in Edmonton
with the closures of Chilliwack and Calgary.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
another memo obtained under the Access to Information Act,
Brigadier General Stephenson, director general of land forces
development, questions whether there will be any savings by
closing the base. Colonel Daigle of land forces command says that
the cost of moving the engineering school for example will negate
the savings achieved by closing CFB Chilliwack.
If land forces command argued it needed the base open for
military reasons and the experts said that closing the base was not
going to save any money, did the minister close the base because of
mismanagement or did he merely choose to move it to Edmonton
because his Liberal seatmates live there?
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would ask you to please consider
not to impute motive in any sense. The first part of the question I
would say is in order. The second part is not in order. If the hon.
minister would like to answer the first part, I would give him that
option.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon.
members opposite read selectively from documentation. They did
not look at the full range of advice that was provided to the deputy
minister and to the chief of defence staff. The fact is the savings
generated by the closing of Chilliwack will be $46 million a year.
I find it rather odd that the Reform Party, a party that comes into
this House everyday and tells the government to cut spending,
objects when that spending is cut close to home. ``Not in my
backyard'' is the way Reformers play politics.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. In causing the closure of the
Centre francophone de santé et des services communautaires in
southern Ontario, the Harris government has revealed its true
colours. For Franco-Ontarians, the message is clear: If you want
services in French, move to Quebec.
How does the Prime Minister explain his silent complicity with
Mike Harris, as he cuts services to francophones in Ontario?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not aware of this matter. I will certainly look into it,
because I intervened successfully in the matter of the French school
in Kingston, not very long ago. I want to see if there is a valid
reason. I find it absolutely incredible, however, that suddenly, two
weeks before they want to leave Canada, they are worrying about
the francophones outside Quebec, who will be left to their own
devices if Quebec separates.
(1445)
But I can reassure francophones outside Quebec: do not worry.
Quebecers-not the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois-but
Quebecers themselves will never drop francophones outside
Quebec.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
nevertheless unbelievable. The Prime Minister, who claims to be
the defender of francophones outside Quebec, is closing his eyes to
the treatment being given francophones in southern Ontario. Is he
confirming he is totally incapable of ensuring equality for
francophones throughout Canada?
15484
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member patted herself on the back. This is most
uncommon. I like this last minute conversion. I like it because
it gives me the opportunity to say once again that there may be
problems, there have always been problems, things have always
been difficult, but one thing is clear: francophones outside
Quebec-
An hon. member: There are none left.
Some hon. members: Oh! Oh!
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Would the members who are
francophones from outside Quebec please rise so we can see there
are still francophones outside Quebec?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would remind you that I am not
in this game. I am the referee.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
According to a recent analysis by the Centre for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington, an independent Quebec could
acceed to the various international treaties.
Can the minister explain to us the stages and steps a country
must pass through to acceed to NAFTA and to the World Trade
Organization?
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, I can quote some of the conclusions and even produce the
report. Mr. Roh's main conclusion is as follows: An independent
Quebec would have no automatic entitlement to existing trade
agreements such as NAFTA, the World Trade Organization
agreement and the Auto Pact. Accession to these agreements would
have to be negotiated.
Second conclusion: American law does not allow the President
of the United States to grant an independent Quebec access to the
trade advantages it enjoys at the present time as part of Canada,
until such time as Congress approves and implements such
accession.
In addition, it would be a long and difficult process to negotiate
accession by an independent Quebec to the WTO, NAFTA and the
Auto Pact. Bowing to congressional and private sector pressures,
American negotiators would try to obtain changes in key sectors
such as agriculture.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this entire
House declared its opposition to drunkenness as a defence with the
swift passage of Bill C-72.
(1450 )
The decision of the Supreme Court to hear the case of convicted
child murderer Alton Royer shows clearly that the unelected
Supreme Court has ignored the views of the elected members of
Parliament and millions of Canadians.
We were told yesterday that the justice minister is seeking
intervenor status in this case. Could the justice minister tell the
House what his objective is in doing so?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government appreciated the
support of all parties in respect of Bill C-72, which changed the
criminal law in this country, as all hon. members know, to make it
impossible for someone to rely upon their own self-induced
intoxication as an excuse when they commit crimes of violence
against another involving general intent.
The case to which the hon. member refers included acts that
occurred at a trial that was held prior to the enactment of Bill C-72.
Therefore, when the Supreme Court of Canada grants leave to
appeal in that case it will consider that case in reference to the law
as it stood at the time of the alleged acts. Bill C-72 will not have
any application.
Carriage of that prosecution rests, of course, with the provincial
attorney general. However, as the parliamentary secretary told the
House yesterday, we are considering asking the Supreme Court of
Canada to allow us to intervene. If we did so, it would be to provide
whatever assistance we can to the court in deciding the issue
presented by that particular case.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as it seems
there is some question as to whether Bill C-72 has been effective in
preventing the use of extreme intoxication as a defence, what will
the justice minister do to ensure that extreme drunkenness is not
used as a defence in these cases?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should emphasize for the hon.
member that Bill C-72, which has now been approved by
Parliament and proclaimed in force, is the law of the land.
I would simply point out that no such criminal law amendment is
retroactive, so it would not affect a case that arose in the courts
prior to its enactment. The case to which the hon. member referred
is proceeding on the law as it stood before Bill C-72.
15485
I can assure the hon. member that the enactment of Bill C-72
did in fact change the criminal law in this country. It made it
impossible from that date onward for anybody to rely upon their
own act of intoxicating themselves to escape the consequence of
criminal conduct when it involved violence against another and
general intent.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
According to the Official Languages Act, public servants in
Ottawa-Hull have the right to work in their own language.
However, in his latest report, the Commissioner of Official
Languages confirmed that only 11 per cent of francophone public
servants regularly write in French and that for three-quarters of
francophones, English is still the only language of communication
with their boss and at meetings at work.
Will the President of the Treasury Board acknowledge that the
federal policy on language of work has failed pitifully in the
Ottawa-Hull region and that once again, francophone employees
are paying the price?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was a Liberal government that brought in the Official Languages
Act. It is a Liberal government that has in fact advanced the cause
of speaking in the official language of a person's choice in the
federal public service right across the country.
There is more work to be done. We have recently put out a
brochure, together with the Commissioner of Official Languages,
to help encourage people to use the official language of their choice
at their place of work in the federal public service. We will
continue to try to improve the means of using the language of
choice because that is part of this government's policy.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the choice is
there, but the result is always the same.
Would the President of the Treasury Board agree that federal
public servants in Quebec working in the Ottawa-Hull region are
treated by the federal government as second-class citizens and that
only the sovereignty of Quebec would be able to make French a
language of work in government offices located in the Outaouais?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Certainly
not, Mr. Speaker. I hear French and English used frequently,
constantly, every day in my work. I am sure others in this
government do as well.
(1455 )
We will continue to encourage people to use the official
language of their choice. That is a commitment this government
has made. It is made to the people of Quebec, it is made to the
people of every part of this country, all francophones in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Spending on the Atlantic
groundfish strategy is spinning out of control. The Department of
Fisheries and Oceans has now admitted that this year's deficit
alone is $105 million.
Last week the minister announced his so-called brilliant solution
was to siphon money away from the $300 million capacity
reduction portion of the plan to cover the shortfall. Will the
minister tell this House exactly how much of the $300 million
allotted for capacity reduction will be diverted and confirm what
many fishermen already suspect, that there will be no further
licence buybacks?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the only thing spinning out of control, after only his
second question as the new fisheries critic, is this member's
credibility.
This government is consulting with fishermen's organizations,
including the Canadian Council of Fish Harvesters, representing all
of the major fishing unions and associations right across Canada.
The adjustment that has thus far been made by the Minister of
Human Resources Development and by the Department of
Fisheries and the Minister of Fisheries to the TAGS program has
been made after consultation, a foreign concept to the Reform
Party, with the fishermen's unions representatives. Any
adjustments that may occur in the future will be made after the
same kind of consultation.
If the member is interested in reflecting properly the reality of
Atlantic Canada and the tough challenges Atlantic Canadians face,
he ought to do at least a minimum of homework.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): The minister has managed to blow the
hopes of Atlantic Canadians right out of the water. Capacity
reductions were supposed to fix the problems of Atlantic
fishermen, but this government's failure has left Atlantic
Canadians with
15486
no hope for a viable future in the fishery. All they can hope for is
that the cheques from Ottawa do not run out. That is not hope, it is
dependency. Atlantic Canadians deserve better.
Will the minister now admit that his attempts at capacity
reduction have been an abject failure and that he has quashed the
last hope of Atlantic fishermen for a livelihood in the future?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member's question is will we admit that Atlantic
Canadians are defeated. Will we buy the policy of the Reform Party
to buy everyone a one-way ticket to Toronto? Will we give up on
the region and see it cut and cast adrift? Will we assume that all
Atlantic Canadians are losers? Will we assume there is no future
for our people? Absolutely not. We are going to work to rebuild the
region.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The
Public Service Alliance of Canada recently conducted several
talks, unsuccessful so far, aimed at reaching an agreement with the
Government of Quebec on hiring 26,000 federal public servants
now residing in the Outaouais, in the event Quebec separates from
Canada.
Mr. Speaker, are these promises not rather unrealistic and liable
to create false hopes, considering the obvious fact that this cannot
be done, administratively speaking?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Quebec is talking about a public service of the
size of 110,000 people to serve a population of some 7 million,
whereas after the current downsizing is completed at the federal
level we will have 190,000 public servants serving a population of
28 million.
Those numbers do not add up. Federal public servants in Quebec
should be very concerned about the ability for the separatists to
meet those kinds of numbers. They are simply out of proportion.
They are simply unbelievable. Federal public servants should
beware of the false promises coming from the separatists.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Prescription drug costs comprise 17 per cent of the cost of health
care. These prices have increased 13 per cent each year over the
past eight years due to Bill C-91 which the Liberals opposed in
opposition.
The government can save hundreds of millions of dollars yearly
by doing one thing, by repealing Bill C-91 or at the very least
abolishing the automatic injunction clause of the patented
medicines regulation.
Why will the government not do this? Is it because
pharmaceutical drug manufacturers contribute too much money to
the Liberal Party?
The Speaker: The question is out of order and this concludes
question period.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Nawab Mahammad
Talpu, Minister of Agriculture of Pakistan.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I also wish to draw the attention of the House to
the presence in our gallery of Marie-Noëlle Ande Koyara, Minister
of the Status of Women and National Solidarity of the Central
African Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House the fact that Bill C-64,
an act respecting employment equity, on which we are to vote
tonight has passed through the House from report stage to the
conclusion of third reading in five consecutive sitting days. This is
as a result of a new procedure whereby the bill went to a committee
after first reading.
However I also draw to the attention of the House that the new
procedure, which was instituted for the very best reasons, has made
it impossible for some MPs like myself who have serious
reservations about the bill at report stage to have our reservations
answered by bringing witnesses to committee, because the
committee no longer sits after report stage reading.
Consequently the speed with which the bill has gone through the
House presents a problem for MPs who would like to see all
legislation going through the House given full and due
consideration so that they know how to vote in the most informed
way possible.
15487
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I guess the comments of the hon. member deserve some reply. I
am not sure he has raised a valid point of order, but I submit in
respect of the procedure on this bill and others that are dealt with
in this way that hon. members are able to go to the committee
to which the bill stands referred. Hon. members are also in a
position to move amendments to the bill in the House at report
stage.
There was an extensive debate at report stage. There was
extensive debate at third reading. Indeed third reading debate was
extended today by unanimous consent because some members
apparently missed an opportunity to speak last evening. The
government has been most solicitous in its efforts to ensure fair and
reasonable debate on all aspects of the bill.
I submit the procedure followed was correct and in accordance
with the rules. If the hon. member is suggesting-although I do not
think I heard it in his comments-that there was in any way a
problem with the procedure, I think if he looks at it and sees what
happened in the committee he will agree there was not really a
point of order.
(1505 )
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the point of order raised by
the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth. We previously
brought to the attention of the House the fact that legislation
submitted to committee prior to second reading has not had proper
analysis at the committee level and has been denied adequate
debate in the House.
Once the legislation goes to committee it does not come here for
second reading, one of the most extensive reviews of legislation
available to members of the House. That is gone. We are limited to
a 180-minute debate just to review sending the legislation to
committee, not to review the contents of the legislation.
When we agreed to this change in the rules we thought the
potential was there to make committee work much more
meaningful. However we have experienced in committee clause by
clause study of legislation that is restricted to a few seconds per
clause or a minute or so per clause. Things are rammed through.
Then without second reading we came to third reading where the
bill is approved in principle and no further amendments could be
brought forth by members.
The Speaker: This is a new procedure that the House has
adopted. If there are flaws in the procedure I suggest these can
probably be looked at in committee again.
The hon. member has made his point. I appreciate the
interventions of both the parliamentary secretary and the member
for Kindersley-Lloydminster, but this is not a point of order.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I
think is a very grave matter regarding the behaviour of the member
for Burnaby-Kingsway during question period just earlier today.
His heckling was excessive, was obnoxious and was
extremely-
The Speaker: From time to time I have asked all members of the
House to be very considerate of other members when they are
either asking questions or giving answers.
The hon. member raises a case in point. I am well aware of the
point he is raising. That we do not like how one member or another
acts is not necessarily a point of order. In my view it is a point of
debate.
I think I know where the member was going with his point. It
was that all hon. members should respect one another. We should
be listening to one another either when we ask questions and when
we give answers. I encourage all hon. members in the House to do
just that.
I think the point was well taken. It is on the table and I am aware
of what it says in the book.
Mr. Epp: I want the whole world to know, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I would like to let this point of order rest now.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during Question Period the President of the Privy Council and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs quoted a study. Does the
minister intend to table this document for the benefit of all
members?
The Speaker: Is the minister-? Well, could someone go and
fetch him?
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order with respect to something that happened in
question period. I referred primarily to the fact that prescription
drugs represent 17 per cent of the cost of health care.
(1510)
The question put to the government was why the would
government not repeal Bill C-91. I perhaps elaborated more than I
should have but I was attempting to give the minister a multiple
choice with respect to his answer.
The Speaker: The Chair has ruled on the admissibility of the
question. In the course of the question period I turn up my hearing
gismos as high as I can. I try to listen to what all hon. members are
saying.
15488
It seemed to me that I did not know where the member was
going in his question. It seemed to me from what I could hear
and from what I could understand that the question was out of
order.
The hon. member does not have a point of order now but if he
would like to discuss the matter further with me, I would be happy
to do so in my chambers if that is agreeable.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
for clarification on the last tabling of a document. If documents are
to be tabled a minister is allowed to do that during Routine
Proceedings.
A government backbencher from Ottawa-Vanier asked for a
document to be tabled. When I tried to table something last week
Your Honour asked for unanimous consent. What is the problem
here?
The Speaker: There is no problem really. What has happened is
that when a minister quotes from a document in the House the
minister can be asked to table the document.
When an ordinary member like you or me, again forgive my
words, quotes from a document in the House, we need unanimous
consent of the House. The rules are quite clear on that.
Do you want another clarification?
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, if any minister is quoting from a
document we may ask for it and demand that it be tabled. Does he
have the option of yes or no, that he might or might not?
The Speaker: Citation 495(1) at page 151 of Beauchesne's
Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition, entitled
``Documents Cited'' reads:
A Minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not
before the House without being prepared to lay it on the table.
Therefore the minister quoted directly from a document. He was
asked to lay it on the table. The House has accepted it. That is the
rule.
_____________________________________________
15488
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-90,
an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the
third time and passed.
The Speaker: Before our interesting question period the hon.
member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley had the floor. He has
approximately 30 minutes remaining.
Some hon. members: Thirty minutes?
The Speaker: That is what I was talking about the heckling.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for the extra time. I am sure my colleagues will
be pleased to hear that.
Before question period I was talking about some of the free
spending habits of the Liberals. I pointed to the U.S. department of
energy receiving $35,000 from the Liberal government. It really
needed the money. The United Steelworkers of America received
$116,000 from the Liberal government; Prison Art Foundation,
$51,000 from the federal government; and Feminist Literacy
Workers Network, $57,000 from the government.
(1515 )
This is where the taxpayer's money is going. This is what is
contributing to overspending by $30 billion every year. Why are
the Liberals continuing to do this, continuing in the same habits as
the prior Tory government? Because all of these special interest
groups that are receiving these funds year after year are constantly
in Ottawa lobbying the government, talking to the government,
yapping away at the government for more money, being obnoxious
almost to the point the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway was
earlier in question period. All these special interest groups are
standing in line for this free-wheeling, free-spending handout from
the Liberal government.
In order to continue these free-wheeling, free-spending ways,
what does the Liberal government do? It simply raises taxes, as it
did in the February budget. It seeks approval in Bill C-90 to
increase the taxation on gasoline by a cent and a half per litre to
raise another billion or two billion dollars or so. This goes on and
on and on. Canadians are tired of the deficit spending of this
Liberal government and they want it to stop.
Study after study after study has shown that deficit spending will
not create a buoyant economy. Study after study by economist after
economist has said that we cannot spend our way out of a recession.
The only way we can get out of a recession is to get the economy
going again, and we are not going to get the economy going if we
keep increasing the taxation levels on the Canadian workers and
Canadian companies. This is not rocket scientist stuff. Why can
they not understand this?
One of the reasons most of the economists around the world
agree with the Reform Party's method of getting this economy back
in shape and getting Canada out of its fiscal crisis is because when
the Reform Party stands up to talk about fiscal responsibility and
curing the fiscal ills we are prepared to put it on paper, in writing,
very clearly and very distinctly showing exactly how we would get
the economy going again, how we would reduce taxation and
reduce overspending without seriously harming the Canadian
people.
15489
This Liberal government stands up every day and calls us
hackers and slashers, saying that we want to cut off all these
programs for the Canadian people, the programs that we never
could afford in the first place and that this group over here have
used year after year-and the Tories before them-to get elected.
I would like to suggest something that is not only my own
opinion but also the opinion of many economists. The biggest
threat to the social programs in this country is the out of control
spending by the Liberal government. The biggest threat to the
social programs in this country, to medicare, to education, and to
things Canadians have come to depend on is not the fiscally
responsible Reform Party on this side of the House but the out of
control Liberal spenders on the other side of the House, and the
Tories before them.
It is time this government got serious about getting the economy
going again. It is time this government got serious about addressing
the concerns the Canadian people have about the high taxation
levels in this country. It is time this government got serious about
what it takes to create real and long-lasting jobs in this country. It is
time this government got serious about its out of control deficit
spending.
I guess I am sad to say that I cannot believe for a minute that this
party and this government ever will get serious. Let me make a
suggestion to this government. If they are not prepared to get
serious about addressing the concerns the Canadian people have
about the economy, jobs, and taxation, maybe they should just
move over and let someone else move in who will get serious about
it. That of course is the Reform Party of Canada.
(1520 )
Unfortunately, the Canadian people are going to have to bear the
pain for another couple of years. I wish it were over sooner, but it
looks like another couple of years of out of control deficit
spending.
I am sorry, I forgot to mention something in my speech. The hon.
member for Beaver River reminded me that I should never stand up
and talk about out of control spending by the Liberal government
without talking about the pensions. I thank the hon. member for
Beaver River for walking by at the right time.
The Reform Party did the responsible thing in this Parliament
when 98 per cent of the Reform MPs in the House opted out of the
pension, giving our personal commitment to the Canadian people
that we are serious about cutting spending. We intend to save the
Canadian taxpayers some $35 million by our simple act of opting
out of the MP pension plan.
It is interesting to note that while 98 per cent of Reform MPs
chose to opt out, chose to do the right thing, unfortunately 98 per
cent of the Liberal MPs chose to stay in, chose to do the wrong
thing. What kind of a message does that send to the Canadian
taxpayers, who are watching their disposable income shrink more
and more on a daily basis? What kind of message does that send to
the Canadian middle income taxpayer who is suffering under a 63
per cent tax burden on their gross income? Does that send the
message to them that this government is prepared to get serious
about the financial crisis we are in?
I just hope that before this Parliament ends we will see the
Liberal government make some distinctive, specific plan to reduce
the spending habits they have, which they acquired from the Tories
and which they taught to the Tories.
We have heard the Minister of Finance talk about targets, but he
will never let a target stand still. He uses the phrase of ``rolling
targets''. Rolling targets are a good way to set them, because if you
miss them you can always blame the fact that they were not
standing still.
The IMF, the C.D. Howe Institute, and almost every economic
think tank in Canada and many in the U.S. have sent a clear
message to the Canadian government, this Liberal government:
``Get your spending in control and get your level of taxation down
or you guys are going to be in a whole bunch of trouble''. I hope
they got the message.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to enter the debate on Bill C-90.
Some members have suggested that Bill C-90 is part of the other
side of our budgetary commitments. Our budget in 1995 stated it
would reduce spending by $7 for every $1 of revenue increase.
Unfortunately, this bill deals with the revenue increase side of that.
Needless to say, most people do not like the idea of tax increases. I
do not think anybody does.
One aspect of the bill reports a 1.5 cent per litre tax on the cost of
gasoline. I think we are mature enough to admit that it will hurt
people, small and medium-sized businesses that use gasoline in
their business, commissioned salesmen and so on. We also realize
that Canada has one of the lowest retail prices for fuel in the world.
We are still very much the recipients of a very cheap fuel program
in Canada.
I would like to address other aspects and areas that some of my
Reform colleagues talked about today when they asked when we
are going to get our spending under control. I do not know where
the Reform Party has been for the last two years, but I have seen
some tremendous changes in cost reductions of the federal
government in the area of the civil service in particular, with
45,000 civil servants being cut from expenditure programs. I have
watched the Department of Natural Resources be cut in half. There
have been the bills to privatize CN Railway. There have been bills
that deal with the government's commitment to its shareholding of
Petro--
15490
Canada. It goes on and on. There has been all kinds of evidence of
cutting.
(1525)
The trick about cutting, of course, is that it has to be done
equitably and fairly. The whole object of program review has been
to go to each department of government to try to find those areas
where it is possible to cut while at the same time maintaining the
very important aspect of our social fabric, the underpinning of our
social network in Canada.
I am very proud to be a part of a government that took that kind
of approach to deficit and debt reduction. I look at some of my
colleagues, especially those in the province of Ontario, and often
wonder whether they have gone through that kind of thought
process and whether in fact we have properly dealt with some of
the people who can least protect themselves in society.
It is interesting to note that the Auditor General of Canada two
weeks ago tabled his report, in which he questioned whether
Canada's level of debt was sustainable. What does that mean?
Quite frankly, if you were running a corporation, there is a level at
which the debt structure compared to the income structure is so
onerous that you can no longer continue and you become insolvent.
Indeed, some people have suggested that if we apply that test to the
country we may well discover that Canada may be an insolvent
nation, unable to pay off our debt. Our debt is increasing due to
interest rates. As long as interest rates exceed the level of growth in
the economy, we will continue to have an accumulation of debt and
we will have to cut even deeper into the expenditure side of
government.
Some people think we are in an endless situation. However, the
government, particularly the Minister of Finance, has taken a
specific course of action to reduce the debt to three per cent of the
gross domestic product. That is not an end in itself. I have heard the
minister say over and over again that with the concept of two-year
rolling targets in fact we will continue to focus on reducing the debt
on a year-by-year basis and go beyond the three per cent of GDP
target.
There are a number of tax bills before the House. There was
some interesting debate on Bill S-9, which is the Canada-U.S. tax
treaty. I do not want to speak on that bill, as we are debating Bill
C-90, but some of the aspects that came out of that debate were
interesting. The hon. member for Kamloops was surprised that the
Reform Party had accepted some of the negative aspects of the
Canada-U.S. tax treaty, those things that specifically appear to
assist people in the higher income groups. I wondered why the hon.
member felt that way, because he also seems to be interested in the
concept of tax reform and some of the Reform Party's discussions
about a flat tax. I notice that the hon. member is taking part in a
conference to be held later this month that deals with that area.
I would like to talk generally about the concept of a flat tax. In
my mind, it also represents a form of tax change and a shift of the
tax burden within the Canadian taxation system.
A lot of things the Reform Party has come out with sound
simple. Why do we not have a simple system? The income tax
system to many people in Canada is complex. There is no question
about that. I do know, however, that less than half of the population
actually requires professional help in filing their tax returns. The
average person can still file a tax return without the need of an
accountant or a tax lawyer. The people who require tax assistance
are usually those who are in the higher income brackets. They
usually are trying to take advantage of certain tax credits and tax
advantages which exist in the system.
(1530)
The whole concept of taxation is also an element in fiscal policy.
The government attempts to get aspects of the economy energized
by using certain tax legislation which gives advantages to certain
sectors as opposed to others. I would think members of the Reform
Party would be quite aware of the oil and gas sector out west. It has
been greatly assisted by a number of concepts, flow through shares
and other kinds of tax driven investments which have encouraged
exploration.
If we look at the history of a flat tax aspect, it is interesting to
note that its actual birth occurred in England. At the time it was
originally brought in, it was thought of as more of an income
redistribution process. It actually entertained the concept of
moneys flowing from the government back into the taxpayers'
hands. It was used as a method of negative income tax. It was used
as a method of doing away with the multitude of social programs
that existed. It used the tax system to allocate these resources to
people. People in the lower income bracket would actually be net
receivers from the government, looking at a guaranteed annual
income or whatever that means is. Of course people over a certain
means would be the net payers.
Surprisingly enough that has changed appreciably. In
presentations I have heard it is especially becoming very popular in
the United States. It does not talk about redistribution at all. As a
matter of fact it talks about flattening the existing tax rates.
In Canada we have three basic classifications of tax rates. A flat
tax essentially would eliminate that and would create one rate of
tax. At the same time, as I understand the proposal, it would also
eliminate certain members from the lower income stream. In a
sense it is like a two rate system. Some people would not pay tax
and everybody else would pay a flat tax. It does not take a lot of
arithmetic if we actually sit down and start figuring it out to know
who is going to pay this tax.
15491
Some people like to say that if we took away all the benefits,
all the bells and whistles from the existing system there would
be so much efficiency that we would not have to change the
quantum of tax. The quantum of tax would be reduced and when
the smoke cleared nobody would be paying any more taxes than
they were before. Some people would be paying a little bit less
and everyone would understand the system better. Therefore it
would be an efficient system.
These are all great ways to sell something but the reality is it is
not true. It is just not true. Right now, 63 per cent of all income
taxes paid in this country are being paid by the top 30 per cent of
income earners. That tells us right away that the system is
progressive. That is to say, as one makes more money one pays
more tax.
People in this House will say they can point to somebody who is
a millionaire and did not pay any tax last year. There are situations
like that but the reality is they are very rare. I will repeat it because
it bears witness and deserves to be repeated, the reality is that on an
ongoing basis 63 per cent of all income taxes in this country are
paid by the top 30 per cent of the income earners.
What happens if we do tax flattening? There is only one
assumption which is that we are going to allocate tax liability away
from that top 30 per cent, not to the bottom 20 per cent who do not
pay any taxes at all, but we are going to shift it to the middle class. I
do not have to tell anyone that the middle class are fed up with the
taxes they are already paying. They think they are paying too much.
It is those people, the two income earner families that are going to
be paying the expense of a flat tax situation.
The hon. member for Kamloops was amazed that the Reform
Party would be supportive of the Canada-U.S. tax convention and
some of the good things it was doing for the very wealthy in that
treaty. At the same time I suggest it is the same element and the
same people that this party is representing that also want the flat
tax.
(1535 )
The benefactors of this tax will be the very, very wealthy. It is
not just me who is saying that. The U.S. Business News states that
those people who earn in excess of $200,000 in the United States
will be substantially better off with a 19 per cent flat tax. David
Bond, an economist with the Hongkong Bank of Canada, says there
will be significant income allocations of taxes with a flat tax. Most
economists all over the world who have studied this will say that
the flat tax is not viable mainly because it creates increased taxes
for the people who can least afford them.
What is wrong with the tax system? Quite often people come
along giving us solutions for the wrong problems. Yes, the existing
taxation system in Canada is very complex. Does it need to be as
complex as it is? No, it does not. We can get simplification in the
system. Some of the simplifications are to stop fiddling and
changing it every week. Every week we change some aspect of the
income tax system. This constant change creates a situation where
nobody understands it. If we just had a moratorium on tax changes
perhaps we would understand it.
What is the main frustration people have with the taxation
system? It is not so much the filling out of the forms as it is the rate
of tax. People in this country are constantly referring to the fact that
we have an underground economy. People will take their money to
the Turks and Caicos Islands or wherever their favourite tax haven
is to avoid taxes. That has nothing to do with the taxation system
but it has to do with the rate and quantity of taxes we pay.
There have been countless international studies of every regime
which has increased its taxes. There constantly was a correlation
between an underground economy and tax evasion. The GST is
another symptom of people avoiding taxes. The problem is the rate
of tax. Canada's rate of taxation is the second highest in the OECD,
just slightly less than that of France. When tax rates are as high as
they are today we are also going to have tax evasion and tax
avoidance.
Changing the system is not going to change the fact that we are
bringing in about $123 billion in taxation. Our deficit and debt
relationship do not allow us to change those numbers today. What
we want to do of course is get on to a program of deficit and debt
reduction so that somewhere after the year 2000 we can actually
see a rationing down of tax rates. With that rationing down of tax
rates it will create a greater confidence in our taxation system and
hopefully domicile some of our lost tax revenues.
As a matter of fact I have often been a great supporter of asking
the Turks and Caicos Islands to become one of our provinces. This
was the subject of a debate in this House some years ago. I have
been to the Turks and Caicos and have talked to some of those
people. I think it would be a great thing. We could re-domicile all
of those tax revenues that are now hiding down there.
The whole area of fiscal and monetary policy is very complex
but the taxation system is still very much an important aspect of
our fiscal tools to stimulate various aspects of the economy. The
flat tax of course would eliminate that kind of manipulative
approach to the economy and force the government to treat
everybody much the same.
Is the forestry sector the same as the car manufacturer? Is the
Saskatchewan wheat farmer the same as the Ontario beef farmer? I
suspect they are not. I suspect the industries in this country, for
example the oil and gas industry or the mining sector which rely
heavily on capital intensive aspects of their businesses look at
15492
rapid depreciation within their businesses which are all different
and all unique.
(1540 )
We can say we do not want the mining sector and indeed that is
what is happening in this country. The mining sector is going south.
The mining sector says there are too many inhibitions to set up here
in Canada and that it is cheaper to set up down in Chile. That is
because of the tax regime. We have to remember how they got
going. There were also tremendous tax incentives to get those
businesses started. There is not any country in the world that does
not use the concept of some kind of form of favouritism of various
sectors it wants to promote.
Today we want to promote our science and technology sector.
Our government is now giving something like $1 billion away in
scientific tax credits. These scientific tax credits are to provide an
underpinning that Canada will get into the science and technology
revolution which we see creating jobs in the small and medium size
business sector in Canada. Personally, I feel that those science and
technology tax credits are misguided. They are not going to the
small and medium size companies that really need them. A lot of
that expenditure is being focused at the multinational level and
larger corporations. It is not actually doing what we want it to do.
That is the kind of debate we need in this House. That is the kind
of change to our tax system we need in order to fine tune it, so that
it is working in the best interests of all Canadians and creating jobs.
Simple solutions for complex problems are not going to do that.
This bill, of course which I support, is a money bill of the
government and it is one necessary aspect of the 1995 budget. I am
happy to be part of a government that continues on its commitment
to meet its objectives which were laid out in that budget.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to address some of the comments made by the member for
Durham, specifically his attack on a flat tax. Based on the way he
was making his comments I do not believe he understands what the
flat tax is. The flat tax is a simple equitable system for all
taxpayers. It will greatly increase the incentives to work, invest and
save.
He talks about the problem in this country. The problem is the
debt and the high taxation levels. It is not the deficit. We can
change the deficit: just raise taxes, lower spending and it is gone
any time we want to. This government is saying that the deficit is
the problem and it is going to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of
GDP. The government is adding to the problem. It is digging the
hole deeper by adding to the debt.
We need to look at our spending. We need to look at a way of
stimulating the economy, developing a taxation system that is pro
growth, something that will get the government off our backs, out
of our pockets and leave us alone with more disposable income.
In the name of deficit reduction, I am getting sick and tired of
government after government not addressing change in the taxation
system. We need fundamental tax reform. Every other country is
looking at their high rates of taxation. Every other country is doing
something about it and this gentleman from Durham on the
government side says it is a simplistic solution.
In the months and the year ahead, he will see that it is not a
simplistic solution; it is a very complicated solution. The simple
flat tax is harder than it looks. The simple flat tax is not as easy to
implement as he claims the Reform Party suggests. There are a lot
of items in this area that need discussion and debate. We cannot
argue with the fact that if there is a broad tax base and the tax base
is redistributed we could have a lower rate. A flat tax would get rid
of all the tax loopholes, incentives and shelters the hon. member
was talking about.
It is not income from the forestry business or the oil and gas
business or wealthy people, middle income people, lower income
people. A dollar is a dollar. We want to tax that dollar as little as
possible. We want to broaden the base as wide as possible, so we
can have the lowest maximum rate. That is what equity is. That is
what fairness is.
A flat tax, whatever form it is, whether it is a pure flat tax, a
proportional flat tax, a Mills flat tax, a Hall-Rabushka flat tax,
whatever kind of flat tax it is, the key is that we want to protect the
lower income people, people who are making minimum wage or
close to minimum wage. We do not want them paying taxes. That
will reduce the pressure and the strain on the social programs.
Middle income earners will not be affected. They will remain
relatively the same. However they are going to be happy knowing
that when the tax loopholes and incentives and shelters are taken
away from the wealthier people they will pay more in tax dollars
even though their rate is low. That is what makes it interesting to
look at a flat tax and why we should be doing so. It may sound like
a simple solution but it is not.
(1545)
A flat tax is not as simple as it looks. It is very complicated. In
fact, it is harder to bring in something simple than it is to bring in
something complicated.
The Minister of Justice brought in the gun control bill. It was a
very complicated bill. It was a very elaborate bill, but he got it
through, no problem. Is that not right, Mr. Speaker?
The flat tax is going to be a very difficult tax reform to get
people to look into and to look at. I would like, in my section of
comments, to point out that it is not simple. I am not saying on
behalf of the Reform Party that a flat tax is simple. It is just
simplifying the system. That is where the merit lies. Simplification
15493
of the taxation system will save us billions of dollars in
compliance costs.
Does the member want to know what else it does, Mr. Speaker?
It would also get the government out of the business of trying to
micromanage the economy. It would reward initiative by leaving
75 to 80 per cent of every dollar earned in the pockets of the earner
which is a better place than in the pockets of the government.
The Speaker: I would imagine the hon. member for Durham
would like a counter commentary.
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the member reading from
a piece of paper. I guess it is the hymn book of the Reform Party. I
suggest that Reform members start going back and actually looking
at the whole structure of taxation in Canada.
I could not believe my ears when he said it is a difficult tax, it is
not simple. Then he turned around and made the statement that is
so simple it is hard to get in here. I cannot quite understand his
philosophy.
I am going to repeat one more key statistic. It comes from their
favourite Fraser Institute. Sixty-three per cent of all income taxes
in Canada are paid by the top 30 per cent of taxpayers.
It does not matter what the Reform Party members want to
argue, they are not going to change that statistic. Realistically,
when you start saying you are going to let the lower bottom people
off, fine, I understand that.
There are some problems with that because you create a wall of
taxation. It keeps poor people in debt. It keeps people down
because they have no the way to make progress. As soon as they
earn an extra dollar, they are hitting the 23 per cent tax rates. That
is the philosophy of the Reform Party. Keep the poor people poor
and while we are at it, let us shift the tax burden from the very
wealthy, which that party represents, to middle income earners.
That is not going to fly. It is not going to fly out west and it is not
going to fly down here either.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I know the member for
Durham was telling you through me.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-90 which specifically
enables the government to increase the already high levels of
taxation imposed on Canadians.
It never ceases to amaze me the disregard the government seems
to have for the intelligence of Canadians. This bill is an outright
betrayal of the commitment in the red book or the election platform
of the Liberal Party. In addition to the betrayal, the Liberals
promised not to increase taxes to Canadians. There is the
dishonesty, the deceit and the rhetoric surrounding the cuts that
have to come and inevitably will come whoever is the government
some day if we are to reach a balanced budget.
We just heard the best example of this rhetoric that we hear all
the time. The member for Durham rises to join the debate on Bill
C-90, a bill to increase tax levels. In his speech he says there is
nothing wrong with the tax system. All that is wrong is the rates are
too high, the second highest in the OECD. Yet he is speaking in
support of a bill that raises the level of taxes higher. That is rhetoric
and double talk and we hear so much of it.
(1550)
I would like to discuss a couple of other examples of the betrayal
of red book promises. The Liberals said during the election
campaign they could solve the problems of the country simply by
economic stimulation and job creation. They did not need to cut
programs. They did not need to raise taxes. They could solve the
problems of the nation by job creation and economic stimulation.
It is now two years into the mandate. We have seen lots of cuts in
programs and services but we have not seen problems solved
through economic stimulation and job creation. We consistently
remind the government day after day of the GST fraud which it has
imposed on people. The Deputy Prime Minister told us she would
resign within a year if the GST was not gone. She is still here. I saw
her in the House today.
The government tells Canadians these things during an election
campaign because it knows those topics are popular and that it will
get votes. The Liberals tell Canadians what they want to hear. After
they get elected they abandon their promises and hope Canadians
will forget them before the next election.
Another bit of dishonesty is the story the government told the
federal civil service that it would not be cut, that it would protect
their jobs and honour the job security clauses in their contract. We
are only two years into the government's mandate and it is talking
about cutting 50,000 civil servants. What happened to the
commitment to the civil service? It seems to have been abandoned.
There was the promise to maintain funding for social programs.
The government said that it would never slash and burn like the
Reform Party proposals would do. It would protect the precious
social programs, the fabric of the social safety net system. Only
two years into its mandate, the government has cut and cut far
worse than what would have happened under what it called our
slash and burn policies. The government's measures have been
even more draconian than the Reform Party ever suggested they
should be. If the $7 billion cut to provincial transfers in support of
social spending is not slash and burn I do not know what we could
refer to it as.
I do not think Canadians are so naive or so easily deceived that
they are prepared to forgive all this before the next election. The
Reform Party is here to do everything it can to see the government
is not forgiven. I am sure that come next election time it will have
some real answering to do to the Canadian taxpayers.
15494
I hear all the time from the other side of the House about how
caring the members are, that they are not hard hearted and without
compassion like the Reform Party, that they care about the human
deficit. I have never heard such arrogant hypocrisy in all my life.
They do not have the market cornered on compassion or caring.
The very reason I became involved in the profession with the
lowest regard in this country-at least outside of this place-was
simply because I care and I am compassionate. I care very deeply
about the things the Liberal and Conservative governments have
done to the future of my children and my grandchildren in the last
30 years. That is not caring and compassion. It is selfishness. It is
the me generation saying that not only will the next generation, my
kids and my grandkids, have to look after themselves but the next
three or four generations will be paying for the greed of this
generation. That is not caring and compassion. It is the me
generation.
(1555)
Today we are debating Bill C-90 which is about tax increases.
The area I wanted to talk about specifically is the 1.5 cent a litre
increase in tax on gasoline. For the last 30 years every time there is
a cash crunch, a squeeze, governments have turned to the cash cow,
the sin taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and gasoline. It turned in a big
way to gasoline in the last budget to make up the shortfall.
The finance minister made a commitment to have a ratio of tax
increases to expenditure cuts that was not in the red book. As I
mentioned earlier, the red book said no increase in taxation. Now
we have moved to a commitment to keep it in balance, so many
dollars of cuts to so many dollars of tax increase. That is a serious
betrayal of an election promise.
We still have the GST that applies on top of the 1.5 cent per litre
tax increase. That is the GST that was supposed to be gone.
Therefore, we have a double tax increase on gasoline.
It is important for members of the House to remember where the
excise tax on gasoline started. It was back in 1975 when a Liberal
government placed the excise tax on gasoline. It was a special tax.
It was the first time an excise tax was applied to gasoline and was
to be a one-time tax. How many times have we heard that before?
This one-time tax was to cover the gap between oil import
compensation payments and the oil export charge revenues. In turn,
this compensation system was as a result of the 1974 decision to
maintain domestic oil prices at levels below world prices.
In essence, the federal government of the day had adopted a
made in Canada oil pricing policy which saw the proceeds from an
export tax used to protect consumers of imported oil from the full
impact of the international price. A noble intent I am sure. As we
so often experience with taxation, we are shown that taxes which
are meant to be one time or special or temporary, quickly have a
habit of becoming permanent.
One must only refer back to the imposition in 1917 of a
temporary income tax and see where that has gone, how temporary
it was and how complex and expensive it has become.
The same is true in every sense about the excise tax on
transportation fuels. The excise tax has remained in place and its
revenue objectives certainly have changed. The tax is no longer
used for what it was originally intended but the tax remains and
continues to be increased by 2 cents, 1 cent, 1.5 cents every budget
that is presented in the last number of years. Obviously it has
changed from a special tax for a specific purpose to a general tax
for a source of general revenue.
In the last session of Parliament, in the natural resources
committee of which I am a member, the members of the NDP
introduced a proposal for the committee to study gasoline pricing
in Canada. They thought there was some bogeyman causing the
price of gasoline to be so high when we were facing a surplus of oil
on the international market and low prices for crude oil.
It does not take a genius to look at this. There have been
numerous studies over the last number of years that the bogeyman
in this scenario is the government. If we look at the price of
gasoline in Vancouver at 59.6 cents per litre, 28.9 cents goes
directly to provincial and federal taxes. That is not oil royalties or
corporate income tax, that is simply gasoline taxes hidden at the
pump. The 28.9 cents leaves the remaining cost of that litre of
gasoline to cover the cost of exploration, production, marketing
and refining and only another 3 cents to the dealer for his costs and
overhead.
(1600)
We can example after example of a gasoline price. The figures
provided by the government's statistics for Calgary shows the price
of gasoline is 52.3 per litre; 22.4 cents of that goes directly to
governments in taxes, leaving only 3.5 cents for the dealer to cover
his costs, with the remaining going for exploration, refining and
marketing. I have example after example of almost 50 per cent of
the cost of a litre of gasoline everywhere across the country being
the tax on gasoline by government.
We continue to have these kinds of tax increases rammed down
our throats with no choice. Because they are hidden they are often
put in and the consumer does not realize the taxes have risen. The
cost increases which we have seen so dramatically in the last
number of years are not the result of the oil companies' getting
together to fix the price of gasoline. It is the result of governments
starved for cash continually coming back to that cash cow.
15495
Members can ask their constituents if they realize what
percentage of the cost of a litre of gasoline is government taxation.
I will wager very few consumers realize the level of taxation. If
we are to continue to tax Canadians in this way it is time we were
up front and open and let Canadians see where their dollars are
going.
When we look at these increases in taxation levels and what they
are doing to us internationally there is an important implication of
these tax increases as well. Gasoline is one of the things that gives
our natural advantage which allows us to be competitive in the
global marketplace to compensate for the huge distances and the
expensive transportation costs we face in getting our products to
market.
It is very important that we are able to take advantage of that
natural advantage to compensate for other disadvantages. Our
natural advantage is being seriously eroded when the Americans
can come to Canada with a $1.30 dollar, buy our crude oil, take it
home, refine it and sell it at almost half the price we have to pay. I
do not think that is what Canadians want. I do not think that is what
the government wants, to simply become and exporter of raw
natural resources.
This is not the way to create jobs, to create wealth, to stimulate
the economy. It is time we support Canadians industries and
manufacturers and allow them to take advantage of the natural
advantage we have in our abundance of natural resources.
Instead, the government seems to stick to its historical way of
raising revenue, that cash cow. I suggest this poor cash cow is
milking at capacity and is in danger of dying from mastitis from
forced overproduction.
(1605 )
I can go on about the unfairness of this endless taxation. The
government should seriously look at what it is doing to the
economy through high taxation and what the debt and deficit are
doing to the country.
I ask the Prime Minister and the finance minister to heed the
words of F.J. Clarke that a politician thinks only of the next
election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
make a few comments on Bill C-90 as it emanates from the
Department of Finance and the finance minister. I will review for a
few minutes what he said when he was in opposition during the last
budget he criticized.
I have direct quotes from Hansard dated April 27, 1993:
``Canadians are demanding an end to the volleys of taxation that
issue from the nation's capital every spring. They are demanding
that governments cease their political fiddling while our prosperity
burns''.
Bill C-90 is nothing more than a tax grab. It raises taxes through
excise taxes. It raises taxes on gasoline. It raises taxes on air
transportation from $50 to $55. It raises taxes on cigarettes. Pure
and simple, it is hitting Canadians in their pockets, at the pumps
and in the air.
This flies in the face of what he said. As critic to the finance
department he said Canadians are demanding an end to the volleys
of taxation that issue every spring. He has been in charge for the
last two springs and we have sprung taxes higher, albeit he never
touched our personal pocketbooks which is why we can thank him
a little, but he is taxing everywhere else. Revenue Canada is even
squeezing businesses and individuals on audits in every way, shape
and form it can.
I have a second quote: ``Canadians are demanding nothing less
than an end to the political economy of governments that can
neither follow the wishes of their citizens today nor bring before
them the questions that must be decided tomorrow''. Does the
minister think Canadians want gasoline taxes to increase at the
pumps? Does he think Canadians want to pay more taxes on
products and goods and services? Does he think Canadians want to
pay more taxes at the airport? They do not want to do that.
Does the minister think the people of Canada want the
government to add to the problem of the debt? He has committed
the country to bankruptcy by committing it to a 3 per cent of GDP.
That is all he will reduce the deficit to? He will keep digging the
hole deeper, slower than the Conservatives, but he will keep
digging the hole. Is that the kind of Canada he thought Canadians
were demanding, to keep adding to the problem?
Here is his chance as the finance minister to correct and follow
his points of view to the letter. He has an opportunity to be in
control and do the things that are required to stimulate and help the
economy. He says it is through jobs. Governments do not create
jobs. The private sector creates the majority of jobs, 85 per cent.
Nobody disputes that. It takes consumer and investor confidence to
create those jobs.
When the government keeps increasing taxes through excise
taxes, personal taxes, corporation taxes, payroll taxes or property
taxes, it is hurting and impeding confidence. By just talking about
it, like the finance minister does, he is using smoke and mirrors to
fool the Canadian public. He is doing a great disservice by making
Canadians believe he is solving the problem when in fact he is
adding to the problem.
I have already shown two examples of where the finance
minister can do something about the very things he criticized, but
he has done nothing. He keeps doing it the same way. He is
defending the status quo. It is as if the Department of Finance
regardless of who becomes finance minister will do it its way or no
way and it is the only way. That should change.
15496
(1610)
I have a third quote from the finance minister: ``Irregular
taxation among jurisdictions has produced economic distortions,
inefficient and wasteful collection costs and a perverse sense that
the tax system is irrational and unfair. Canadians are prepared to
pay their fair share of taxes. What they object to is when they see
discrimination against them in favour of others. What they object
to is when they see that the services that they have come to expect
cut back and their taxes going up. There is a deep feeling that the
system is warped against Canadians''.
If that opinion was really believed then by the finance minister, I
would like to refresh his memory. If he still believes it today what
that really means is that we need to review the entire taxation
system, the way we collect taxes, why we collect taxes, what those
taxes are for, what the program costs are in the government.
We need to diffuse and separate tax expenditures from direct
spending. Very few MPs know the total we spend on child care
through the four or five various programs that exist. We do not
know because we use the Income Tax Act to do it.
If we would simply use income tax as a method of raising taxes
other than a personal exemption and nothing else, then decided we
wanted to subsidize or support various groups, people who cannot
work, who cannot help themselves, whether we want to help
education or health care, all the programs we want to fund, that
would be fine. We should put that under direct spending.
Then we can set the rate to raise the money we need to pay for
those programs. Simplification will lower compliance costs.
Simplification will satisfy the concerns he had in opposition about
the tax system, the very one he is defending now, to which in his
two years of tenure as finance minister he has added over 1,000
pages of clarifications, rulings and justifications so that people can
understand it better.
He said it was irrational and unfair. In two years he has done
nothing about it except tinker around by raising an excise tax here,
trying to do that over there. He has not addressed the problem the
way he could and should.
I would like to see him match his rhetoric, his belief, his ideas
and deep felt conviction that the current system is unfair and allow
the Standing Committee on Finance to explore fundamental tax
reform for Canadians.
The time has come for that. If he really believed in what he said I
challenge him to allow that kind of debate, to allow that kind of
exploration to begin so that it is outside the realm of bureaucracy,
so that it is outside the realm of deputy ministers who want to have
it their way and only their way.
Put it back into the purview of members of Parliament who can
come to the finance committee and represent their constituents'
wishes and their constituents' point of view.
I am sure if he lets that happen he will find there are a lot of
Canadians who would like to see tax reform. They would like to see
some form of system they can understand, a system in which
everybody can do their own return, in which fairness is
reintroduced whereby everybody pays their proportionate share of
taxes after a certain level of exemption. If I make 10 times more
money than another, I pay 10 times more taxes.
Eliminate all those tax shelters and incentives that distort the
economy and allow the government to manipulate and direct our
social and economic lives. We have to separate the income tax
system away from social and economic engineering.
I look at the comments the finance minister made in opposition
because I am on the finance committee and a critic of finance.
Therefore I have to go back to find out what this gentleman
believed in, what he fought for, his values, where his goals and
objectives lie. Now that he is finance minister he is not following
his own beliefs. I do not understand that.
(1615)
Year after year MPs say one thing to get elected and when they
get elected they do another thing. I am very disappointed the
Liberals have already broken about 15 promises in their read book.
They said one thing to get elected and did exactly the opposite.
We commend and compliment them for some of the promises
they have broken, because we know they are heading in the right
direction. We know spending has to be cut and social programs
have to be looked at because they represents 67 per cent of the
budget. We understand that. We were hoping the government
would listen to us and make those kinds of tough decisions.
However, there is room for more spending cuts. The spending
cuts that could really help are those direct subsidies for business
and individuals, the billions we do not need to spend.
The compliance cost of the taxation system is $12 billion in a
country of 27 million people. This includes accountants hired, the
audits that must be done and the cost of departments such as
National Revenue and taxation: customs is at $2.2 billion; the GST
group, $500 million; all the tax lawyers and services. Twelve
billion dollars changing hands just to collect this money, to
interpret our tax rules.
Members of the House should spend three months on tax
simplification, trying to improve the system to make it more
simple, more equitable and fulfil the concerns the finance minister
had when he was in opposition that the tax system is irrational and
unfair.
15497
If we want to bring reason and fairness back into the system,
why does he not empower the Standing Committee on Finance to
do something about it? Why does he not empower all the members
of the House to do something about it? It could be fixed so fast
to the benefit of all Canadians. It would make so much more sense
than some of the weak-kneed insignificant bills we are debating
and issues we are discussing in the House right now.
I know why that is being done and why the government feels it
has to do that, so I will not dwell on it. Instead of debating
employment equity and legislating in the board rooms of
businesses, in the offices of the private sector who must be hired
and policing them to ensure it happens, a waste of time, why not
introduce a system in which more people would gain confidence?
More people would have a hope for the future of the country and
feel the leaders, the politicians, are looking after their interests for
the long term, not the short term.
We have a deficit and a debt problem but the solution is not just
spending cuts and cuts and cuts. If all we ever look at is the solution
we will never solve the problem.
In the name of deficit reduction too many governments are afraid
to look at other means of helping businesses and creating jobs. The
government cannot keep spending and stimulating the economy
through direct subsidies. That has to stop. We must look at a system
and a method whereby the government will get out of the business
of looking after a lot of people, companies and the creation of job
stimulations and helping the development of hockey rinks. Leave
more money in the hands of business. I know that is a sensitive
spot, Mr. Speaker. I did not mean that as a personal remark. I
believe in hockey players. I enjoy watching the game.
Let us look at a way of empowering the people who know how to
create jobs. Let those people and those institutions do what they do
best. I think the private sector can create jobs better than the
government.
It has taken about 15 years for everybody to learn this. I believe
everybody in the House is beginning to recognize there is some
merit in that. I am asking the finance minister to look at what he
said when he was in opposition two years ago and the last budget he
criticized. I am criticizing his budget and Bill C-90. I know almost
everything has already been implemented. I am criticizing his role
as finance minister the same way he criticized Mr. Wilson and Mr.
Mazankowski.
The finance minister has an opportunity to do something about it
but he is not doing anything about it. He is letting the status quo
live. He is letting the Income Tax Act survive. The Income Tax Act
should be explored and reviewed. We need fundamental tax
reforms with the idea of lowering those marginal rates. I do not
care how we make it fair, I do not care whether it is a flat tax or not.
We need tax reform in a way that we can then give instant tax relief
to Canadian individuals and Canadian businesses.
(1620)
This is where we get stimulative effect on the economy. This is
where we create optimism. This is where people get security. When
they go to work in the morning they now know they will have a job
at the end of next month. Right now that is what is lacking.
I do not care how much money the government throws at job
creation, it will not work. It drives up the spending. It will actually
put more pressure on increasing taxes. It works in the exact
opposite way the government and the finance minister believe.
Bill C-90 is a tax grab. It is the very thing the finance minister in
opposition spoke against. He wants fairness. Fairness is lowering
taxes. Fairness is lowering spending. Fairness is smaller
government and less intrusion. Fairness is making it more
equitable for all walks and classes of life and giving hope to people,
not false hope saying ``come hell or high water'', as he said, ``we
will reach our goals and objectives of 3 per cent of GDP''. That is
like highjumping six inches. That is not a very difficult target to
reach from the high levels of spending the government has.
Another disadvantage of high taxation and spending is we are
not competitive globally. We are already worse off than the States.
Look at the hockey players there compared with what the hockey
players get here. They all want to get paid in U.S. dollars. Why?
Their tax rates are lower than ours and they even want to lower
them to 17 per cent. The Americans are competitive and their free
market system has worked better than ours. We have too much
government involvement in our economy and we need less
government intrusion, less direct government involvement and that
way we would eliminate this high tax burden. The uncompetitive
tax systems lead to choices by consumers which adversely affect
government revenues.
I challenge the finance minister to fulfil those three promises,
the concerns he had when he was opposition critic to the
Department of Finance. There are three items he said he would
fight for and that he believed. He felt they should be looked at. I
wish the finance minister would practice what he preached.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened with a great deal of interest and sympathy to the comments
by the member from Calgary Centre. I believe the tax system is so
broken that it cannot probably be fixed and that a new and
innovative approach to the whole area of taxation has to be
undertaken.
The member mentioned two very interesting points. One, a
partial conversion I hope on behalf of the member of the Reform
Party, was with respect to cuts. Throughout the election campaign
and shortly after this Parliament was convened all we heard from
the other side was to cut, cut, cut. What the member has said today,
however, and it probably comes from having been in this place,
understanding the complexity of some issues that we do not quite
15498
get to understand on the campaign trail, is that cutting is not the
answer.
Governments must do everything to ensure that each dollar spent
is spent in a manner that is prudent, focused and that maximizes
our wish to attain certain goals as a government and as a Parliament
and as a people.
On the revenue side I agree with him. I am one of those
individuals on this side of the House who believes the taxation
system, albeit attempting to be fair, is inherently unfair to many.
Each time we try to fix this monster created by dozens of
amendments in this place by this and previous governments, it
makes it even harder to attain our goal.
He mentioned single taxes and flat taxes. I agree that is a
direction we have to go in. My colleague from
Broadview-Greenwood in the last Parliament and this Parliament
continues, and sometimes I know he must feel he is alone, to
promote a different system of taxation. It is a system I supported in
opposition. It is a system I supported during my campaign and it is
a system I will continue to support on this side of the House.
(1625 )
The member wishes the Standing Committee on Finance would
be specifically asked to review this. I do not usually wait for
somebody to tell me what I can do. If there is an opportunity for me
to work with other members to build a consensus across party lines,
across this aisle which is only a few feet but many times feels like
miles, I will rise to the challenge.
I ask the member not to wait for the mandarins at finance or for
the government or for officials of his own party to say the time has
come for parliamentarians to work together in a non-partisan
fashion to come up with solutions. We all know what the problems
are. We all try in our respective roles in opposition or government
to put the best solutions forward we think can be implemented.
I throw a challenge out to him to work with me and other
members on this side. I will work with him and other members on
that side to look at what can be done, real tax reform, single tax,
flat tax, to work together to put a challenge not just to the
government but to all parliamentarians. I am prepared to put the
time in. I ask the member if he would be prepared to put the time
in. Canadians are looking for those types of solutions from
Parliament and I think they are looking for them now.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his
remarks. I accept his offer. I openly say in the House I will work
with any member toward a simplification of the tax system, to
share any of the points of view I have and to also get input from any
other member as to what direction they think we should go in. The
current system is not good and needs some fixing.
I know the biggest concern of Department of Finance is that in
the name of simplicity we will give up fairness. The test is any new
system has to be as fair as the current system.
I had discussed a single tax, a flat tax, quite a bit with the
member for Broadview-Greenwood. It was reading his book four
years ago that got me interested in this subject. I believe many of
the problems he pointed out were true. They were true then and
they are more true now.
I am not waiting for the Standing Committee on Finance. I use
my opportunity to speak in the House freely to challenge the
finance minister to get every committee we can on board. Even the
Department of Industry should be looking at this. IT controls
business. The minister knows what businesses are concerned about.
What can we do to attract more businesses? It is not higher taxation
levels but lower taxation levels.
We are presenting various alternatives to tax proposals. The
member for Capilano-Howe Sound is presenting one on October
31 at the Fraser Institute symposium in Toronto. The member for
Broadview-Greenwood will be there presenting his as well. I
believe there will be officials from the government there although
they will be listening and not presenting anything. I believe the
Conservative Party is also looking at a proposal for a flat tax. It is
important that we get this movement and momentum going. In the
end, in the final analysis, if we can simplify the taxation system all
Canadians will benefit, which is the important target here.
In terms of my conversion, I ask the hon. member not to hold out
too much hope because I am not being converted. I am just getting
tired of hearing everything about cuts, cuts, cuts. If the member
does not believe cuts are important why has his government made
$7 billion in cuts already?
When we campaigned on cuts our point was that when we make
them we should make them wisely, judiciously and quickly because
they will hurt. Whether we cut $1 billion, $7 billion or $10 billion,
we will end up with a lot of special interest groups riled up and
upset and we will hear all the barrage just like what is happening in
Ontario now in response to the 22 per cent cutback in welfare
payments. All it sufficed to do was reduce the welfare payments in
Ontario to the same level as everywhere else in the country. Look at
some of the extremists voicing their concerns.
Cutting is important. We feel the Liberal government has not cut
enough. There is still too much fat in areas where there is
subsidizing failure. Those are the areas the government is not
looking at. The other program cuts it has done are excellent.
15499
The government is cutting and then spending money on
infrastructure programs, building hockey rinks on direct subsidies
to regional development grants to businesses. Not all but many
are wasted. That money does not need to be spent by government.
Cut that out. Give the equivalent tax cut to the businesses and
individuals and I will guarantee that they will do more with those
billions of dollars than the government will. That is the point
which I am trying to make. Therefore, we need both spending cuts
and a review of the taxation system. We can have tax relief at the
same time. That is my argument.
(1630)
If we really want to solve the deficit, we can. Just lower
spending, raise the tax rate and the deficit is gone. However, we
cannot do that. We have to ignore the deficit. It is not the 3 per cent
of GDP that matters. We have to look at a way to stimulate the
economy and have a pro-growth taxation system so we can apply
those extra revenues to the debt. That is what is important.
I thank the member for his kind intervention.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member. However, I am not
too certain that the solution is as simple as he purports.
The corporate tax rate in Canada is 38 per cent. When provincial
corporate taxes are added the average is 43.4 per cent. In the United
States the tax rate is 35 per cent nationally. When state taxes are
added the average is 40.3 per cent. In Japan the corporate tax rate
has never been below 50 per cent. In fact, the corporate tax rate
today in Japan is 52.5 per cent. The corporate tax rates in France
and Germany, which are major trading partners of the largest
nations in the world, in Germany range from 56 to 44 per cent, with
France at 33 per cent.
The hon. member is suggesting a substantial decrease in
corporate taxes, with a single rate of tax. In fact he has expanded
that to personal income taxes. He suggests that there should be a
simple direct rate which would be the same for everybody
regardless of income. I would ask him what deductions, if any, he
would allow for corporations if that were the case.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right that the
corporate tax is complicated in Canada with all the provincial and
federal taxes. However, I believe that in a reform of the taxation
system, businesses and individuals should be taxed at the same
rate, that the income generated by individuals or businesses should
only be taxed once and that the rate would be based on federal
expenditures. However, we have to move expenditures under direct
spending, not under tax expenditures, so we will know exactly what
these programs are costing us.
When it comes to business directly, there are deductions which
we can explore when looking at tax reform. Decisions have to be
made. Currently we treat active and investment income the same
way. The Hall-Rabushka model for a flat tax makes interest
payments that are received by individuals non-taxable and
non-deductible and all of the capital gains and dividends are paid at
the corporate level. The corporations actually end up paying more
taxes in that model.
When we explored that we found that the pure flat tax system for
corporations would allow wages, benefits and salaries to be
deducted, as well as input costs and the cost of sales. If they were
allowed a 100 per cent write off in the year of acquisition for
taxation purposes, for balance sheets purposes, they could still
amortize it out or depreciate it. However, no interest deductibility
on the cost of borrowing money would lower interest rates.
Effectively there could be a rate of 20 per cent which would be
revenue neutral.
We could probably get rid of the GST with another 4.5 per cent
on that. With a rate of 24 per cent or 25 per cent it would be gone.
There is a whole department gone and a half billion dollars in
collection costs gone. There would then be $5 billion to $6 billion
more in revenue from the corporate sector than there is now.
The trade off is that there will be CFIBs, but all businesses will
be treated the same, whether they are manufacturing or high tech.
Manufacturing could be 21 per cent, instead of the 38 he is talking
about.
The small tax on business is a concern. The member for
Broadview-Greenwood found a lot of lobby groups came to him
and complained that we would lose that 12 per cent tax on the first
$200,000. If we had this kind of a tax reform, where we put it out
there to everyone and said: ``We are looking for equity and
everybody has to share in this equity'', we could then have a system
that is simple enough so more people could understand it. The rate
could be low enough that people would work in the surface
economy instead of the underground economy. It could high
enough that it would generate close to the revenues that we want
and need now. I do not accept the conclusions of economists who
say that we have to be revenue neutral right now. I argue that if I am
a little bit short the money will come through the effect of the
growth in the economy. If it is combined with more spending cuts,
if we spend the money on behalf of businesses, if we give people
the money to start a business, we are-
(1635)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. It is with great
hesitation that I interrupt the question and comment period. The
full time has elapsed. I must ask for a resumption of debate.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
15500
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the division on the question now before the House stands
deferred until five o'clock today, at which time the bells to call in
the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-106, an act respecting the Law
Commission of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in connection with Bill
C-106. May I say at the outset that by tabling this bill the
government fulfils a commitment which it made during the
campaign of 1993, a commitment that was expressed clearly in the
red book to restore the important machinery for law reform that had
been abolished by the previous government.
This bill fulfils that commitment by creating a new body to be
known as the Law Commission of Canada, a commission whose
object would be continuously to monitor the evolution of Canadian
law, to advise the government, and Parliament, on its improvement
and modernization, and to do so in a manner that would reflect our
unique bijuridical system of law: the common law and the civil
code.
[Translation]
In short, this Commission will play a major role in fulfilling the
responsibility-common to every generation-of keeping
Canadian law relevant to the needs and conditions of our time. The
task is a much more difficult and complex one than it was in the
early 1970s, when the former Law Reform Commission was
formed.
[English]
Now in the mid-1990s we are swept along on a tide of social
change, change involving technology, change involving social life
itself. In some areas, these transformations have rendered existing
law either obsolete or inadequate. In others, we confront issues that
have not yet been addressed by law or by precedent.
(1640)
It is the view of the government that we need a commission with
respect to law, a commission that is independent and objective to
provide informed commentary to government on the directions it
should take.
Let me provide some examples to hon. members about the kinds
of challenges to which I refer. One is the increased risk and
incidence of economic crime flowing from the application of
computer technology in financial markets, the way funds are
transferred from person to person and, indeed, from continent to
continent. Another is the steady parade of new questions that
accompany the commercialization of biotechnology. A third is the
emergence of issues raised by the mass application of new
information technology, such as the use of the Internet for hate
messages or pornography.
In addition, there are issues that concern the functioning of the
criminal justice system itself, including the effectiveness of that
system or the effectiveness of incarceration for certain offences as
compared with other sanctions.
[Translation]
To compound the challenge, these issues are coming on to the
screen at a time of profound social and political change. In many
respects, Canadians are not the same people they were a quarter of
a century ago.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has changed the way we
look at the law and at each other. People are no longer content to
leave government to politicians and bureaucrats, and law to
lawyers. They insist on having a hand in decisions which affect
their lives.
[English]
Something else that is different in the 1990s is the fiscal
environment. We must cope with these challenges with drastically
reduced budgets. The quality of every option and of every decision
must be tested not only for theoretical effectiveness but also for
financial feasibility.
For all these reasons, the government is not proposing in Bill
C-106 a restoration of the last Law Reform Commission brick by
brick. We propose the creation of an entirely new institution, a new
kind of institution, to deal with new issues in new ways.
The law commission visualized in Bill C-106 will first of all be
an independent and accountable body working at arm's length from
government and operating in a mode that matches the challenges
and the constraints of our time, that is to say, it will work with the
15501
windows open. It will make law reform a visible, understandable
process in which not just legal professionals but Canadians in every
walk of life can play their part.
Furthermore, because of its structure, the commission will not be
remote or isolated. Last but not least, it will approach its task with a
vigilant attention to cost.
The principles that will govern the make-up of a commission and
guide it in its work are set out in the preamble of Bill C-106. The
House should know that these principles were not developed in a
theoretical test tube. They emerged in a rigorous nationwide
consultation that preceded the drafting of the bill. They reflect the
synthesized thinking of many disciplines, sectors and groups.
These are the characteristics that Canadians tell us the process must
embody if it is to work effectively.
The first principle is related to the unwritten goal of every aspect
of this work, the building and the maintenance of confidence in our
system of justice. To that end, this principle points to the need to
democratize and demystify the making and remaking of the law.
It provides that the commission must be transparent, must
involve disparate interests in its work. The door to the workshop of
law reform must be open to all who want to watch or join in the
process. The results of that work must be available for inspection
by all in a form understandable by all.
(1645 )
The second principle is that the commission must not only have
keen foresight, it must also have wide peripheral vision. It must see
the challenges of law reform in their full social and economic
context. To achieve this end, the commission will have to be
multi-disciplinary in its approach. It will focus not just legal
expertise on the issues, although that will be needed, but the talent
and training of all the relevant disciplines-for example, in
economics, in technology, in the social and natural sciences, in the
field of law enforcement.
The third principle is that the commission should be responsive
and accountable. Specifically, it should forge partnerships with a
wide range of interested groups and in particular with the academic
community. The law is never static. Only in this way can the
commission keep ahead of endless change to avoid gaps or
duplication in agendas and to make the most of limited resources.
[Translation]
The fourth principle is one that would have seemed odd in
legislation drafted 25 years ago, but it seems perfectly natural in
our time.
It is a requirement that the Commission, as it tackles today's
tasks, employ today's technologies, wherever it is appropriate to do
so. The Commission must take advantage of the capabilities of
new tools and new methods, particularly in information
technology. This is essential to success in every aspect of the
Commission's operation-to its ability to share work with other
groups and institutions-and to operate effectively on its modest
budget.
[English]
The fifth principle relates to the overriding requirement that we
arrive at solutions we can pay for. This principle requires that the
commission in its deliberations must never fail to consider the
elements of cost and economic impact. This too is a matter of
relevance in the 1990s.
These then are the five principles as set forth in the preamble.
There is a sixth, which may not be spelled out expressly but which
hon. members will find implicit throughout the statute. That is to
say, the requirement for balance, the need for the commission to be
both independent of government in its decisions and accountable to
the public for its actions. This principle and indeed all the others
find expression in the structure of the commission as set forth in
clause 7 of the bill. Let me touch briefly on that structure.
The executive branch of the Law Commission would be
appointed by order in council. It would comprise five members, a
full-time president and four part-time commissioners, who may all
be drawn from different disciplines. In terms of size, it seems to me
this is the balance we need: large enough to be diverse, but small
enough to be decisive.
The fact that four of the five commissioners will serve part time
has many important advantages. First of all, it means that these
individuals will not run the risk of becoming isolated from the
world beyond the national capital region. They will retain their
roots in their home communities and in the sectors they represent
and their careers will not be interrupted. There is another benefit. It
will make it easier for government to attract the calibre of person
we want on such a commission to join in the work of law reform.
The second element is an advisory council made up of 25
members representing a variety of viewpoints and disciplines and
backgrounds. All of these people will serve as unpaid volunteers,
except for reimbursement of expenses. This arrangement supports
the independence of the process. The council will be appointed by
the commission, not by the government, and the commission, not
the government, will be the client of the council.
The third component also fosters independence of the whole. It
comprises the study panels that the commission will set up as
required to focus on specific issues. Each panel would be headed by
one of the commissioners and the other panel members would be
drawn from the relevant disciplines or interested groups. For
instance, a study panel on biotechnology might include
representa-
15502
tives of the industry, the health sciences, consumer groups, and the
legal profession.
(1650)
The use of these panels will also contribute to the
cost-effectiveness of the process. These bodies will be transient
rather than permanent. They will come into being as the issues
emerge. They will then do their work and they will disband. Panel
members will perform this public service on a voluntary, unpaid
basis.
These then are the components of the Law Commission of
Canada as proposed in Bill C-106. The structure is simple. It is also
economical. The commission will be served by a small secretariat
of no more than eight people. Instead of retaining an in-house staff
to conduct studies, the commission will contract for research from
outside sources. In this way we will avoid duplicating the effort of
provincial reform bodies or work being done in the academic
communities. As a result, the commission will be highly
cost-effective.
Although the last law reform commission, abolished by the
previous government, cost $5 million a year to run, the law
commission proposed in Bill C-106 will have a budget of $3
million, all of which will be found through a redeployment of
existing funds. It seems to me that we can be confident of getting
the job done within these constraints because of the new
commission's composition and because of the way it is
approaching its work: the use of new technology, a commitment to
partnership endeavours, and the reliance on voluntary advisers and
panel members.
That brings me to my final observation. The legislation would
give the new commission a mandate to explore and to innovate.
That requirement is explicit in the purpose section of the bill,
which provides that the commission's tasks will include the
development of new approaches to law and new concepts of law.
What does that mean? Among other things, it means that the
commission will not feel compelled to recommend as the solution
for every problem a new law or even an amended law. Its mandate
requires the commission to look at the full range of options. It is
vitally important that it do so. One of the most urgent challenges of
law reform is to cope with change without creating an impassable
morass of litigation, administration, and enforcement.
The system is close to being overburdened now. A primary goal
of the commission will be not only to avoid increasing that load but
indeed to lighten it. As the purpose section of the bill provides, the
commission's task will include, and I quote, ``the development of
measures to make the legal system more efficient, economical and
accessible''.
As to the balance in that architecture of independence and
accountability, obviously both elements are indispensable:
independence because the value of the commission will depend in
large part on its ability to provide expert impartial advice to the
government on legislative programs and policies; accountability
because the commission will be a public body serving the people of
Canada, and as such it must answer to the people and their elected
representatives for the conduct of its affairs and the quality of its
work.
I believe these principles are reflected in the arrangements the
bill describes. The commission will submit its reports and
recommendations to Parliament through the Minister of Justice of
the day. That minister must forward these products of the
commission to Parliament untouched, unaltered, and must respond
to them in a specific period. On the other hand, the responsibility
for the final decision about their disposition remains, as of course it
must, with the government.
[Translation]
Hon. members will find balance built into not just the general
design but the detail of this legislation. One example is to be found
in the section on Purpose, Powers and Duties. The Commission
will draw up its own agenda-but will consult with the Minister of
Justice before making it final.
[English]
The legislation would also require the minister to consult with the
commission before referring other matters to it for consideration.
(1655)
As I have said, the essential purpose of the bill is to bring a
wide-ranging integrated approach to the reform of Canadian law.
The law is more than a book of statutes. It is a living thing, a
presence in our individual lives. The law is also the infrastructure
of our social and economic life. Seen in that context, the task of law
reform is part of the wider work of nation building, of advancing
our collective and individual well-being, of building social
harmony, improving our competitiveness, our standard of living,
our quality of life, and our relations with each other.
It was in the 18th century that the British jurist Lord Mansfield
said that as the usages of society alter the law must adapt itself to
the changing needs of all. At the end of the 20th century that is still
the task. I suggest that the instrument proposed in Bill C-106 will
help us meet that continuing challenge.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before yielding the floor to
the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, may I suggest to the House that
it is 5 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
15503
The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-64, an Act respecting employment equity, be
now read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 45(5), the House will now proceed to a deferred
division at the third reading stage of Bill C-64, an Act respecting
employment equity.
Call in the members.
(Motion agreed to on division.)
(Division No. 349)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Dubé
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed -156
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Bryden
Chatters
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Mayfield
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Strahl
Wayne
Williams-41
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Asselin
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Canuel
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dingwall
Discepola
Duceppe
Finestone
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Keyes
Lalonde
Langlois
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maclaren
Maheu
Marchand
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Ménard
Mercier
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
St. Denis
15504
(1725)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-9, an act to
amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, as
reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the House will now proceed to the deferred divisions at report
stage of Bill S-9, an act to amend the Canada-United States Tax
Convention Act, 1984.
The first question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it you might find
unanimous consent. One or two members may wish to vote
otherwise, but you might find consent for the members who voted
on the previous motion to be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay on
this motion.
Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not give unanimous
consent to vote the same way as other Liberal members on the bill,
in fact not the same way as the Reform or the Bloc will vote on the
bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if I might ask for
clarification from the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls. Is he
stating his own intention of voting or is he also declining the
unanimous consent?
Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, I moved the motion so obviously I
would support Motion No. 1.
On Motion No. 2 perhaps there are other members who may feel
the same way as I do about the amendments I have put forward so I
would suggest that the vote proceed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is not unanimous
consent.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 350)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Baker
Blaikie
Caccia
Easter
McLaughlin
Nunziata
Riis
Robinson
Simmons
Solomon
Taylor-12
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Gilmour
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speller
St-Laurent
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
15505
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Walker
Wayne
Whelan
Williams
Wood
Young-172
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Asselin
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Canuel
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dingwall
Discepola
Duceppe
Finestone
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Keyes
Lalonde
Langlois
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maclaren
Maheu
Marchand
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Ménard
Mercier
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
D (1735)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 2
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe that
you would find unanimous consent in the House to apply the vote
just completed on Motion No. 1 to Motion No. 2.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc members will vote nay.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: All right thinking Reformers will also vote no.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, all New Democrats present in the
House this afternoon will be voting yea on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, all the PCers will be voting nay.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion.
Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I presume you
will have me down as voting in favour of the motion. That is
exactly what I want, and in case any other members want to do the
same thing they are free to do so.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In response to the
intervention by the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls, the vote
just taken on Motion No. 1 will be applied to Motion No. 2. Is that
agreed?
Mr. Ianno: Mr. Speaker, on this motion I would like to vote
contrary to what I did on the last vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair will need some
clarification from the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina. Could he
could be more specific? Is he voting yea or nay?
Mr. Ianno: I am voting for the amendment. I am voting yea.
(1740 )
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I know we are
applying votes in the interest of saving time and that is great.
However I am wondering about the members who leave.
There were members who voted on the first one. Will there
names automatically appear? Who knows who has left? Can they
leave after one vote and then just have their names on the list for
the rest of the night?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In response to the hon.
member for Beaver River, unless we have a very definite way of
doing things such as through a roll call, the Chair assumes that
members would be staying for the subsequent vote that would be
applied.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a
fundamental principle of the House, and you are the guardian of the
principles of the House, that in order to be recorded as voting on a
particular matter the member's presence is required in the House.
Is the hon. member opposite indicating that certain members left
the House?
An hon. member: That is right.
Mr. Nunziata: Then I do not see, Mr. Speaker, how you can
apply a previously held vote to this vote when certain members
have left.
If you take that position, I would suggest that you are setting an
unfortunate precedent and that in future when this type of approach
is taken to multiple votes in the House it would be open for any
member to leave the House once the first vote is taken and to have
his or her vote applied to each and every other vote taken in the
House.
I would ask that you reconsider that position.
15506
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I
wish to inform the Speaker and the House that when this
arrangement was made for the sake of speeding up the vote it was
assumed that all members would remain in the House during the
course of the speeding up of the vote.
I support the contention of the hon. member opposite that if this
precedent is set it would be unfavourable and unacceptable to the
NDP caucus.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that you take
the vote row by row, as usual, on report stage Motion No. 2.
Hopefully that will get the process started again.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I just want to set the record
straight if I misled any member of the House. I have no dispute
whatsoever with the hon. member for York South-Weston, the
hon. member for Regina-Lumsden or any other member with
respect to the tradition of the House. I was simply trying to clear
the air by saying that yes, the Chair assumes members are staying.
Unless we can actually verify the absence of someone clearly
and definitely, obviously the best measure is to take the advice of
the chief government whip and take the vote on Motion No. 2.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 351)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Baker
Blaikie
Caccia
Easter
Ianno
McLaughlin
Minna
Nunziata
Riis
Robinson
Simmons
Solomon
Taylor
Wells -15
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Dubé
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Gilmour
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Mayfield
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speller
St-Laurent
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Walker
Wayne
Whelan
Williams
Wood
Young-170
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Asselin
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Canuel
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
15507
Daviault
Debien
Dingwall
Discepola
Duceppe
Finestone
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Keyes
Lalonde
Langlois
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maclaren
Maheu
Marchand
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Ménard
Mercier
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
St. Denis
(1750 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 2
negatived.
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 352)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Dubé
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Gilmour
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Mayfield
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speller
St-Laurent
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Wood
Young-179
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Blaikie
McLaughlin
Riis
Robinson
Solomon
Taylor-7
15508
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Asselin
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Canuel
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dingwall
Discepola
Duceppe
Finestone
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Keyes
Lalonde
Langlois
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maclaren
Maheu
Marchand
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Ménard
Mercier
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
St. Denis
(1800)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of
the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-90,
an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act be read the
third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division at the third reading stage of Bill C-90, an act to amend the
Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 353)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Rock
Serré
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young-125
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
de Savoye
Dubé
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gauthier
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Wayne
Williams-64
15509
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Asselin
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Canuel
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dingwall
Discepola
Duceppe
Finestone
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Keyes
Lalonde
Langlois
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maclaren
Maheu
Marchand
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Ménard
Mercier
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
St. Denis
(1805 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This concludes the votes for
this evening.
It being 6.10 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
15509
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from June 15, 1995, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-317, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code
and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (scabs and essential
services), be read a second time and referred to the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to speak to Bill C-317 standing in the name of my
colleague and friend from Manicouagan. The purpose of this bill is
to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff
Relations Act so as to deal with the issue of scabs and essential
services in the case of labour disputes.
I am somewhat surprised to be in this position in 1995, because it
seems to me this kind of legislation should have been passed long
ago at the federal level.
The history of labour relations has more often than not been one
of struggle and sometimes, unfortunately, one of violence. When
we study the history of the labour movement, we realize that when
violence occurred, either on picket lines or as a result of a strike, it
was in situations where the employer had hired strike breakers. In
other words, he had replaced his employees who were legally on
strike with people who were supposed to do the same work.
An hon. member: Scabs.
Mr. Caron: As my colleague says, scabs, to use a colloquialism.
I think it only makes sense that in 1995, the Canada Labour Code
should contain a provision of this kind that would harmonize
labour relations in situations where a strike may turn violent and
ensure that employees who have temporarily lost their jobs are not
replaced, since otherwise violence tends to develop on the picket
lines and we get situations that are truly appalling.
I actually thought the Canada Labour Code contained a provision
to that effect, because the Government of Quebec passed similar
legislation in 1978, if I am not mistaken. At the time,
representatives for the employers protested that it was not
appropriate to intervene in labour relations in a conflict situation of
this kind, the excuse being that employers should be free to take
any action necessary to continue their operations.
I think that at the time Quebec society made a wise decision
when it told employers: Gentlemen, in our society, the government
has a responsibility to provide leadership, to identify potentially
violent situations and remove the cause of violence on the picket
lines. In Quebec, if I remember correctly, we had two major
disputes in which strike breakers were hired by companies and
there was violence on the picket lines.
I remember the infamous strike in the sixties at United Aircraft
in Longueuil and seeing on the news that armoured buses were
bringing in people who were supposed to replace the workers who
were legally walking the picket lines. This was a violent situation,
and I think it is not in the interest of society to allow such situations
to continue.
There was another case referred to at the time as the strike at
Lapalme. This was a company connected with the Post Office
Department. Its employees were on strike and, again, had been
replaced with strike breakers or scabs. This dispute poisoned
labour relations in Quebec for months and months. There were
demonstrations supporting the workers, and petitions were signed.
When the PQ government came to power in 1976, there had been
considerable debate on the issue, so that legislation was adopted to
regulate the whole issue of hiring strike breakers.
In fact, since that time, Quebec has had no violent conflicts
comparable to those we saw in the sixties and seventies. Employers
finally understood, although for a long time they were against this
legislation. They were supposed to go to the Supreme Court but, if I
remember correctly, the case was withdrawn in the eighties when
the employers realized that the situation had improved since the
passage of this bill.
I am very surprised that the Canada Labour Code did not take its
cue from the Government of Quebec, especially since this concerns
a large number of employees in Quebec. There are more than
200,000 employees in crown corporations, corporations regulated
by the Canada Labour Code. In Canada, there are more than one
million. I think that the House of Commons should act responsibly
15510
and realize there is a major problem which should be dealt with as
soon as possible.
(1815)
Why is this still a problem? I think there are two reasons. The
first, obviously, is negligence. The official opposition has put a
number of questions to the Minister of Labour since her arrival in
the House. We asked her if the Canadian government was going to
introduce legislation. Her replies have always been evasive. The
questions put to her by the official opposition concerned a labour
dispute which still today, in 1995, poisons labour relations at a
flour mill in Montreal. The employees came and demonstrated
outside Parliament; they came to hear us in the House galleries.
The dispute lasted a very long time.
What is odd is that this dispute involved the same company and
the same people who were on the management side in a dispute
that, a few years or months before the Parti Quebecois enacted the
legislation in Quebec, forced the government to take immediate
action because one man had been killed. Somebody was shot at on
the picket lines, and a worker was dead. The government assumed
its responsibilities at that point.
Today we realize that the Government of Canada, with a minister
whose arrival was a bit strange and whose role was rather vague-
Mr. Boudria: She was elected.
Mr. Caron: She was elected and a department was found for her.
It could have been the department of the Canadian near north, it
could have been the department of Canadian rain, or the
department of the Rocky Mountains. It was simply a matter of
finding her a department so she would have some credibility when
she toured Quebec defending the option she is currently defending.
I am not saying this to criticize her work, but simply to point out
that she did not do what she had to do as Minister of Labour. We do
not feel there is a Minister of Labour in Canada in this case.
The second reason the Government of Canada is putting off
passing legislation like this is one of ideology. You know that there
was a law like this in Ontario. If I am not mistaken, it was passed
by the NDP government. The new Harris government-I might say
the harass government, but it is the Harris government-has
announced that this law will be repealed.
I have not heard that the legislation in question had caused any
more trouble in Ontario than in Quebec. It is being challenged for
only one reason, an ideological one, which is to allow employers
the freedom to do what they want with their property.
I thought that way of thinking was out of fashion in Canada
today. I thought that the Canadian state had taken certain steps to
oversee the action of employers in order to ensure a certain balance
between the law of the market place, the law of might makes right,
the law of the jungle, whatever you want to call it, and basic public
interest. I believe that the attitude adopted by the Government of
Ontario in this instance is a purely ideological one.
Nothing in Ontario labour relations in recent years has proven
that the legislation was not working. In Quebec, on the contrary, it
can be said that since 1978, which makes 17 years now, there has
been unanimous agreement that the act is working well.
Even the conseil de patronat du Québec gave up its Supreme
Court challenge by the late 1980s.
I hope that this House will examine the bill of our colleague
from Manicouagan with care, and will once and for all settle this
pressing problem of justice in labour relations for all Canadian
workers, and no doubt for a few months more for Quebec workers
as well.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would have liked to be able to say that I was pleased to
rise today on Bill C-317. Unfortunately, earlier incidents prevent
me from doing so.
(1820)
However, today, I will take a few moments to deal with it, and
then I will talk about related issues. They are indeed related
because, to a large extent, they have to do with remarks we heard
today and I want to spend some more time dealing with those.
The bill sponsored by the member for Manicouagan is aimed at
amending the Canada Labour Code with respect to public service
staff relations. As it stands, this piece of legislation respecting the
Canada Labour Code is relevant; unfortunately, I cannot support it.
I believe that the proposals cannot be examined independently
from the federal government's general approach to industrial
relations.
[English]
Prohibiting the use of replacement workers and maintenance of
essential services must be considered in the context of a
comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code.
[Translation]
Indeed, amending only one aspect of the Canada Labour Code is
the wrong way to proceed; a certain balance must be achieved when
considering changes to labour laws. I am sure that this is what the
government will be seeking when it eventually chooses to amend
the Canada Labour Code.
Mr. Nunez: When? When?
Mr. Boudria: The member opposite wants to know when. The
Canadian Parliament will undoubtedly have the opportunity in the
future, as it did in the past, to improve all the laws for the good of
the Canadian people. I commend the member who asked me when
for his concern for Canada's future. I know that when the
constitutional issue will have been settled, when we will have voted
no in a few days, he and I will continue to strive to improve the
legislation in the long term. So when he worries about the exact
date, I can tell
15511
the member for Bourassa that he will have ample time to examine
these issues because in two weeks he will vote no and refuse the
separation and Quebec will still be part of Canada.
The member who spoke just before me mentioned that the
Minister of Labour came to the House in a way that was a bit
strange. I respectfully protested without disrupting the decorum of
the House-
Mr. Nunez: As you often do.
Mr. Boudria: -as I do once in a while, and I specified that ``a
bit strange'' in that case referred to her election.
We heard that many times in this House. We even heard a Bloc
member say, a few weeks ago, that the labour minister was not as
legitimate as other Quebec members because her constituents were
mostly anglophones since she represents Westmount. We all
remember those comments made in the House last week. The
member for Bourassa heard them just as I did. He knows who
uttered those words and he knows these comments were made.
We also heard a member say in this House-no, it was rather
outside the House and the media reported it-that, in this
referendum debate, maybe only the so-called old stock Quebecers
should get involved in this issue. Surely the member for Bourassa
does not support that theory. Indeed, I would be surprised if he did.
Mr. St-Laurent: Could we get back to the bill?
Mr. Boudria: The member opposite asks me to get back to the
bill. It is not I who alluded to the supposedly strange way the labour
minister-and we are talking about the labour code
amendment-was elected.
A few weeks ago, or should I say a few months ago, we heard
derogatory remarks made against the member for Saint-Léonard,
the secretary of state for parliamentary affairs, just because he also
represented a riding composed mainly of an ethnic group that is
different from that of other Canadians.
(1825)
An hon. member: How is this relevant?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I did not raise the issue of relevance.
It is simply because, a few minutes ago, another member of this
House referred to what he called a rather curious situation. I want
to say a few more words about this curious situation because today
a member of the media was the target of what I would call virulent
attacks.
Joyce Napier, a well-known CBC reporter, was also insulted
because her accent-I do not even know if this is true-is
supposedly not quite the same as that of other Quebecers. This
journalist was insulted in this way because another
parliamentarian, this time the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata, has decided that such attacks should be
aimed not only at members of other parties and of some cultural
communities but also at members of the media.
Is this because the lady in question has a name that is-I do not
know if it is English, Irish or Scottish-but the fact is that it is
not-
Mr. Dubé: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been
listening to the hon. member for a while and his remarks are not at
all relevant to Bill C-317, which deals with anti-strikebreaking
legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have been in the chair since
the beginning of private members' business and I clearly recall
another member making a speech on the bill, in which he addressed
other issues as well.
On the other hand, the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was certainly on the right track at
the beginning of his speech.
An hon. member: Yes, at the beginning.
An hon. member: More or less.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): More or less, but still I feel
that in the little time he has left, he will certainly get back on topic.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to use another quote to
make a point and then go back to the main issue.
Here is the quote. It reads: ``Canada has always protected French
speaking people. It always let them be assimilated. If you know a
bit of history-given your accent and your language, you may not
have been a Quebecer at the beginning-did you study Quebec's
history''?
I now go back to the main issue, but I want the House to know
that, at least as far as I am concerned, those who applaud when the
member for Rimouski-Témiscouata makes such comments
should also be condemned, just like she was when she lashed out at
another person, thus showing once again the separatists'
intolerance. We saw that. We also saw that intolerance when the
Leader of the Opposition made his statement about little white
babies. We saw it in other statements too. We saw it today and we
see it again with the applause of another member.
[English]
I will conclude my remarks by saying that we do not intend to
support the legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We go to the trouble of introducing bills because we sincerely
believe that the House serves some purpose, and I still believe it
does. However, when I see the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell do what he just did for ten minutes,
I begin to seriously question the true role of this House.
15512
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This is not a point of order,
although we should always take great care to make our remarks
relevant. The rule of relevancy is interpreted with a great deal of
flexibility on both sides of the House.
I will now ask the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to conclude his remarks.
Mr. Boudria: I have finished, Mr. Speaker.
(1830)
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will try to make
my remarks strictly relevant to Bill C-317, an act to amend the
Canada Labour Code. On page 1a of this bill, it says, and I will read
very slowly so that everybody can understand:
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the hiring of persons to replace employees of
an employer under the Canada Labour Code or of the Public Service who are on
strike or locked out.
This is what the bill is all about. This bill was carefully prepared
by my colleague from Manicouagan, who carried out a study and
who is sort of making a new attempt to remind the House that we
must do something in this area. Another purpose of this bill is to
ensure that essential services are maintained in the event of a strike
or lockout in a crown corporation and in the public service.
Bill C-317 was introduced by the hon. member for
Manicouagan, whom I want to congratulate again for his insight.
He was able to come up with this piece of legislation by relying on
his work experience. The purpose of this bill is to expand on what
we already have in Quebec. It tries to influence this Parliament,
even though we are in the middle of a referendum, because a lot of
the federal provisions included in the Canada Labour Code affect
workers in Quebec. This is why my hon. colleague introduced this
bill.
May I remind you that it is not the first time that such an
initiative is undertaken and that such a bill is introduced in the
House. Without going into details, I want to mention as an example
that, in November 1992, the Conservative member for Abitibi had
brought forward Bill C-376 that had essentially the same intent as
the introductory paragraph of the bill introduced by the member for
Manicouagan.
Before that, during the postal strike, the present member for
Richelieu, who was then a Conservative, tried twice to get the
House to adopt legislation to prohibit the hiring of scabs by crown
corporations. The first time was in February 1988 with Bill C-282
and the second time was in April 1989 with Bill C-201. That last
bill was defeated by 18 votes only, which means that the member
for Manicouagan has a good reason for trying again today, having
seen that a good number of members from different parties in the
House had supported such a bill at that time.
The Liberal Party, then in opposition, had expressed its support
for the bill. Many Liberal members were in favour of the bill at that
time. If we go back a little further, in 1980, Ed Broadbent, then
leader of the NDP, had introduced an antiscab bill. Since that time,
several unions have asked various federal governments to pass a
similar act. So, this is nothing new.
In October 1994, the present Minister of Human Resources
Development promised that an anti-scab bill would be introduced
in the spring of 1995. We all know what happened. A part of the
responsibilities of the Minister of Human Resources Development
were transferred to the present Minister of Labour, who seems to be
to busy with the referendum because she has not yet introduced
such a bill. Yet, the minister had made a priority of that issue after
her appointment in February 1995. We are in October and nothing
has been done.
I would like to remind the House that in Quebec, provincial
anti-scab legislation was passed in 1977 and became part of the
Labour Code. Since then, Ontario and British Columbia have
passed similar legislation.
(1835)
The preventive, dissuasive and indicative role of the Quebec act
has resulted in a 35 per cent decrease in the average number of
labour conflicts since 1979. And 35 per cent is not a figure to be
sneezed at.
There is agreement between the partners in the Quebec labour
market on the beneficial effects of the Quebec legislation on scab
labour. Even the strongly federalist and strongly pro-business
Conseil du patronat du Québec has abandoned its challenge against
these acts before the Supreme Court, saying that there had been
improvements in labour relations in Quebec over the years since its
adoption.
And yet, as you know, there is a new government in Ontario and
the new Mike Harris government which is chummier with business
than with workers, has promised to do away with Ontario's Bill 40
by the end of this year. It is noteworthy that Chrysler Canada has
publicly advised the Harris government not to move too hastily on
this change and to weigh its consequences. The automobile
manufacturer fears that precipitous action might upset labour
relations in Ontario. This is a very recent happening and right in
Ontario. Chrysler Corporation is not just any company, it is a huge
company, an important one, and it is warning the government of
Ontario not to take away the legislation.
In Quebec, 10 per cent of workers are governed by the Canada
Labour Code, or about 217,000 people.
Now I will speak to you about one example of a labour conflict
in Quebec which dragged on because Quebec's scab legislation was
not enforced. That example is Ogilvie Mills Limited. Ogilvie
processes grain, and somewhere in the constitution, in Canadian
15513
constitutional law, it says that grain comes under federal
jurisdiction. So what happened at Ogilvie? Because it was
federally regulated, Quebec's anti-scab legislation did not apply.
This dispute, which was settled only recently, went on and on,
despite all attempts to reach a settlement. I remember raising the
matter as the member for Lévis. Although Ogilvie is mainly in
Montreal, there was an impact across Quebec. In the notorious
dispute at CN, we told the Minister of Labour: You do not seem as
anxious to appoint a mediator to settle the grain dispute at Ogilvie
in the Port of Montreal.
The dispute dragged on and on and on, until it was settled quite
recently, but it went on for many months, and in fact it lasted about
18 months, if I am not mistaken.
So what did the workers at Ogilvie want? What caused the
dispute? It seems they just wanted to maintain their working
conditions, not improve them, only maintain them. The company
wanted to backtrack on conditions that had already been agreed to.
In the circumstances, it was perfectly normal for the employees
to act as they did. Not many people, and I would even include
members opposite and, in fact, all members of the House of
Commons, would be prepared to go back to what conditions were
in the past. And that was the problem.
I could mention another case in Quebec to illustrate my point. I
come from the riding of Lévis. MIL Davie, a marine construction
firm, comes under the Quebec Labour Code because the sector is
regulated by the province. The company does not have the right to
hire strike breakers. However, a small shipyard like the one at Les
Méchins, which does ship repairs and is thus in a related sector,
would be subject to the Canada Labour Code because of the federal
government's jurisdiction over marine traffic, and so the anti-scab
legislation would not apply.
Today, these shipyards are being invited to bid for the same jobs
but they are not subject to the same conditions, the same bargaining
rules.
(1840)
In the minute I have left I would like to say that-and it might
look odd for a Bloc member involved in the current referendum
campaign to encourage the federal government to pass anti-scab
legislation-, if the yes vote wins, Quebec will do what it likes
once it is sovereign. We can envisage that.
However, at the same time, as the areas of worker intervention
are often interrelated and we want an open economy, we feel that
our future neighbour, Canada, should be subject to the same
conditions so that the rules for business-we are talking here of
free trade-are consistent.
This is to be expected, and we want the members opposite to
vote in favour of this legislation so that workers in all fields,
particularly industry, enjoy the same conditions in this part of the
North American continent.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to
be here tonight in my first duties as the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Labour and to speak briefly on Bill C-317.
I thank the member for Manicouagan for bringing this important
bill forward. The member proposes to amend the Canada Labour
Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act. As I read it, there
are two very important objectives here.
The first objective is to ban replacement workers when there is a
strike or lockout in the public service or at an employer covered
under the Canada Labour Code. The second objective is to ensure
that essential public services are maintained in the event of a strike
or lockout in the public service or at a crown corporation.
The issues raised in the bill are difficult and complicated. It deals
with peoples' pocketbooks, their livelihoods and their rights. To
those involved in labour relations, it will also influence Canada's
economic and social progress.
Thus the bill merits our time and consideration. Any decisions
taken on these issues have to be carefully thought through. Bill
C-317 proposes to change part I of the Canada Labour Code. This
part of the code is meant to achieve a balance of power between
labour and management.
As a former union executive I know a careful balance is needed
to keep the collective bargaining process running. Therefore I do
not think it is wise to isolate or grab on to certain issues without
considering the effect on the big picture. That is the point I want to
emphasize.
As I am sure the hon. member is aware, there has not been a
comprehensive review of the industrial relations provisions of the
labour code in over 20 years. The last amendments were made in
1972 and before that we have to go back to 1948.
In 1972 amendments were made involving the certification
process, new provisions to require good faith bargaining, the
extension of the unfair labour practices section and increasing the
authority of the Canada Labour Relations Board. Most important in
my mind, especially in light of today's economy, was the inclusion
of a section on technological change. This meant that unless a
collective agreement dealt with the issue, an employer was
required to give 90 days notice of any new technology likely to
impact on working conditions or job security of a significant
number of employees. That notice was lengthened in 1984 to 120
days.
15514
After such notice the union can apply to the CLRB for leave to
notify the employer of its desire to reopen negotiations to discuss
provisions for those workers affected by technology. Once notice is
received the employer cannot make technological changes until the
board denies the union application or an agreement is reached or
the parties negotiate and reach a strike provision.
These changes were made only after extensive consultations
with unions and employers and after two thorough studies. The
Freedman study in the 1960s looked at the impact of technology at
CN Rail and recommended a formula for labour and management
to resolve disagreements over the consequences of new technology.
As well, the Woods task force in 1968 examined just about every
aspect of labour-management relations under federal jurisdiction.
It commissioned a number of studies and submitted several
important recommendations to the government.
(1845)
I have touched on the history just to show that in Canada we do
not fool around when it comes to labour-management relations.
Hastily ill-conceived actions however well meaning can have
serious consequences in this area.
Our tradition is to only change collective bargaining laws after
thorough deliberation and consultation with all of the stakeholders.
This tradition has served us very well. It has allowed us to develop
at the federal level at least. I will refrain from commenting on the
radical and polarizing swings in my home province of Ontario over
the last five years. We had the NDP way over here at one end for a
little while and now we have the Conservatives, some would
suggest very right wing indeed, going the other way. That kind of
polarization and swinging back and forth does nothing for
labour-management relations. In fact, it does a disservice to the
people who have to make a living by collective bargaining.
Since the last amendments were made in 1972, the environment
surrounding industrial relations has undergone a revolution. Free
trade, deregulation, rapid technological advances and workplace
restructuring place new demands on both labour and management.
In light of this, we need a comprehensive review of the Canada
Labour Code, not piecemeal action as suggested tonight.
In fact, the Minister of Labour launched such a review just a
little while ago. This review is looking at the big picture. We want
to improve the labour code to encourage co-operation between
labour and management, to reduce unhealthy and
counterproductive levels of conflict and to ensure that
administrative bodies are responsive to the new and always
changing labour relations environment.
Since last winter, extensive consultations have been carried out
with labour, management and interested and knowledgeable third
parties. Many issues are being studied, including those that the
member proposes to deal with in Bill C-317. It is a difficult task, as
labour and management hold diametrically opposed viewpoints on
these issues. For example, there is the issue of replacement
workers. Let me quote Tom d'Aquino, whom we all know, and
what he thinks on this ban.
Tom d'Aquino writes: ``We would dramatically alter the delicate
equilibrium which has been established over the course of many
years between management and labour and firms which are subject
to federal jurisdiction. The obvious result would be to strengthen
the position of organized labour while simultaneously weakening
management's position, with clear implications for the outcome of
their private contractual negotiations. Government interference of
this sort would violate the most basic principles of equity and fair
play. It would be highly disruptive and entirely inconsistent with
our open market economy. It also would override the fundamental
rights of individuals to decide where and when they choose to
work''.
On the other side we have Bob White, whom we also know quite
well. He is on record expressing the CLC's strong support for
restrictions and even a total ban on replacement workers, including
management staff.
Our job is to try to reconcile these deeply held, apparently
incompatible positions. It will not be easy, but it is something we
simply have to do.
Last June the Minister of Labour established a task force to
conduct an independent review of part I of the labour code and to
recommend changes. I want to mention tonight the issues and areas
this task force will be looking at and to mention to the members
opposite who have suggested that the Minister of Labour has done
virtually nothing on this issue and that she has been somewhat
reluctant to get involved in these major changes that are necessary
for the economy and for the labour relations we have to deal with.
The review will be completed by December 15. I am confident the
people on the task force will do a thorough and professional job.
(1850)
The task force is dealing with very critical and important issues
which include the conciliation and mediation process with a view
to reducing delays and encouraging settlements and the possible
role of alternative dispute settlements; fact finding and special
mediation; the procedures for acquiring the right to strike or
lockout; and the rights of employees, employers and bargaining
agents once a strike or a lockout occurs. The general purpose of the
code will be looked at as will the need for labour management
committees, preventive mediation programs, grievance mediation
and expedited arbitration. Bargaining unit structures including
recommendations of industrial inquiry commissions into labour
relations at west coast ports will be made regarding geographic
certification provisions. Finally the need for alternative procedures
or bargaining structures for the non-traditional work relationships
15515
like telework, contract work and casual employees will be looked
at.
As members can see, although I did not lay them all out tonight,
the task force has a large task ahead of it. There is a lot to do and
not much time to do it. Then we will be able to make informed
decisions on the issues raised by the separatist party opposite and
on other issues as well taking into account the big picture.
In order to make sense of the whole process we will have to wait
until the ongoing studies are complete. Then we will all be able to
make an informed decision and a position will be reached by the
government on what we will put in front of the House as far as new
legislation is concerned.
That is what the federal government believes is the true way. We
have put comprehensive labour relations management proposals to
the House instead of the piecemeal approach suggested by the
member opposite.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to participate in the debate on Bill
C-317, sponsored by the member from the Bloc that deals with the
ban on replacement workers.
The Bloc member favours a ban on replacement workers. This
stems from the Bloc being very upset with the use of replacement
workers by the American owners of the Montreal company known
as Ogilvie flour mills. Because flour mills fall under federal
jurisdiction and Quebec's provincial anti-replacement worker
legislation had no effect on the company, I understand Bloc
members feel it is important to bring the legislation forward to the
House of Commons for us to review in private members' hour.
The proposal comes from a member of a separatist party that
wants to take the province of Quebec out of Canada. We feel they
do not realize the consequences of their actions. I do not think they
realize the consequences of the bill as well. It is a bit like sandbox
diplomacy where a youngster is playing in the sandbox and if he
does not get along with his companion he says: ``I am going to take
my toys and go play in another sandbox. No one else can play with
these toys; I will take them with me''.
Hopefully when we are dealing with legislation and labour
disputes we can get beyond sandbox diplomacy in politics. The
sandbox approach to labour disputes and to labour legislation,
particularly legislation such as the bill that would ban replacement
workers, is not the solution to the problem. It would exacerbate the
problem considerably.
I will not go on at great length debating the clauses of the bill
proposed by my colleague. However I want to take a brief look at
the consequences of labour disputes and perhaps a more
constructive and positive way of resolving them other than banning
replacement workers and getting into a frustrating battle between
labour and management where people take sides. I would also
advise my colleague from the Bloc that perhaps this approach to
labour legislation and a relationship with labour is not in their
political best interests.
(1855)
All we have to do is look at our political cousins, the New
Democratic caucus, and see what has happened to them over the
years and what happened to them over this past weekend. They
have always catered to the elite in the labour movement, the
leaders, and felt that was the key to their political success. Even in
their leadership convention over the weekend we saw where labour
played a significant role in determining who the leader of the party
would be. That has led to their political demise and even to an
erosion of support among rank and file union workers because of
their position on issues dealing with labour and management.
A word of advice to my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois is that
perhaps for their political well-being they might not be advised to
pursue this type of legislation.
I want to discuss labour relations on the west coast, which
impact on my part of the world. Western Canada is important. I
know we debate Quebec and its relationship within Canada quite a
bit these days. However, I just want to deal with the labour
situation and replacement labour and perhaps a better approach to
solving labour disputes from my perspective in Saskatchewan.
Since 1972, six labour disputes relating to the west coast ports
were settled by federal back to work legislation. Two other labour
disputes were settled by federal back to work legislation in 1988
and 1991. They were also directly related to grain handling
disputes in British Columbia, although they were somewhat
different.
Within the current term of this 35th Parliament, two labour
disputes have occurred at the west coast ports and there had to be
back to work legislation. Specifically, these are the West Coast
Ports Operation Act, Bill C-10, and the West Coast Ports Operation
Act 1995, Bill C-74. These relate to disputes occurring in February
1994 and March 1995.
That brings me to the principle of the right to strike, the right to
lock out workers, and the right to replace workers with so-called
scab labour, or the opposite of that, the right to implement
legislation that would ban the hiring of replacement workers.
The strike and the lockout are effective tools in the labour and
management arsenal. They have been using these for a long time to
bring about a resolution. Usually the side with the deepest pockets
and the strongest resolve to win will force resolution in their
favour. We respect this mechanism. If that is the approach that
labour and management want to take, we respect it. It is not a
15516
mature approach, but we live in a free country and that should
certainly be considered.
In the case of the west coast ports, however, labour disputes are
unique for a couple of reasons. One is that the federal government
does not allow labour and management to actually carry the
resolution process to the point where there is a disruption and it
gets into a replacement labour situation or the banning of it. It
passes back to work legislation as part of that. That has taught us
that there is an innocent third party that is damaged economically.
For that reason, there has been great pressure to find a better way to
resolve management and labour disputes than through strike or
lockout actions and subsequently through the use of scab labour or
the banning of that same labour.
We have suggested that what has been working and has even
been legislated by the House is the use of final offer selection
arbitration. I would be more encouraged if my colleague had
brought forward legislation that would take us from sandbox
diplomacy with regard to labour relations and move it to a more
mature ground, such as that of the final offer selection arbitration
process.
The cost of the west coast ports disruption is in the hundreds of
millions of dollars. The direct cost of the 1994 dispute was over
$125 million. The indirect cost in the loss of future contracts was
over $250 million. According to the Minister of Human Resources
Development, the threatened grain sales could amount to $500
million.
Having outlined these problems, we did not leave the people in
the lurch. We decided we had to do something constructive about
this. We suggested the final offer selection process. It is a tried and
true process. It is not a brand new idea. In fact, the process has been
legislated in this House.
(1900)
Perhaps it could have an expanded role beyond some of the
essential services, such as west coast ports and national railways. It
could be accepted by labour and management more readily, rather
than going the route of replacement workers or a ban on
replacement workers.
This is how final offer selection arbitration works. If, and only if,
the union and the employer cannot make an agreement by the
conclusion of the previous contract, the following measures are
immediately put into place without work disruption. If there is no
work disruption that means there are no replacement workers and
that step has been precluded altogether.
The union and the employer are requested to provide the name of
a person they would jointly recommend as a arbiter. The union and
the employer are required to submit to the arbiter a list of matters
agreed on and a list of matters still under dispute. For the disputed
issues, each party is required to submit final offer for settlement
and the arbitrator then selects either the final offer submitted by the
trade union or the final offer submitted by the employer. In the
event that one party does not submit a final offer, then the other
side's offer is automatically accepted and the arbitrator's decision
is binding on both parties.
This is the direction in which we believe labour and management
relations should be going. It is the way to more maturely settle
management-labour disputes. It precludes having to use
replacement labour or banning replacement labour altogether. It
prevents work disruptions. It prevents loss of pay for the workers.
The collective bargaining process is still in place. It is still allowed
to take its full course. The parties are brought together to resolve
their disputes more quickly, more fairly, more equitably and more
harmoniously.
I would ask the hon. member to consider when he brings future
legislation to the House this as a third option which might be
superior to others that have been considered.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-317 introduced
by the hon. member for Manicouagan.
This bill proposes to amend the Canada Labour Code and the
Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The purpose of this bill is, first, to prohibit the hiring of persons
to replace employees of an employer under the Canada Labour
Code or of the public service who are on strike or locked out and,
second, to ensure that essential services are maintained in the event
of a strike or lockout in a crown corporation or in the public
service.
Although this bill proposes to amend the Canada Labour Code as
well as the Public Service Staff Relations Act, I will deal only with
the amendments to the Canada Labour Code.
Furthermore, I want to examine two aspects of staff relations I
find significant: the use of replacement workers and the
maintenance of essential services in the event of a strike or lockout.
It is not the first time that such issues have been raised in the
House. Politicians must have raised them often. The spokesmen for
employers and unions expressed their views quite forcefully. And
industrial relations experts from our universities have tried to
explain to us the consequences of our decisions in this area.
The problems concerning the use of replacement workers and
essential services are not easy to solve because what is involved is
people's livelihoods and rights, as well as society's legitimate
expectations. We are asked, as membres of Parliament, to decide if
restricting the rights of one group is in the public interest. We are
also asked to strike a balance between the rights of employers and
15517
those of employees. Whatever legislative action we take, one group
will feel that it is being wronged, that its rights are being denied.
Therefore, it is essential not to make hasty decisions on these
issues. As I said, members have raised them often. It is all to their
credit that they did not act impulsively and incoherently. I believe,
however, that this bill's time has not yet come.
(1905)
As the hon. member probably knows, the government has
undertaken a complete review of part I of the Canada Labour Code.
That part defines the framework for industrial relations and sets the
rules for collective bargaining in federally regulated industries.
It applies to areas like rail and road transportation, pipelines, air
and sea transportation, longshoring, grain handling, banking and
broadcasting, as far as they concern interprovincial or international
activities. Some crown corporations, like Canada Post, are also
subject to the code.
For more than 20 years, the Canada Labour Code provisions on
labour relations have not been reviewed. However, the collective
bargaining process has changed tremendously during that time.
Due to globalization, deregulation, technological change, and work
environment restructuring, many requirements must now be met.
The government is holding major consultations with
management and labour organizations, as well as with academics.
Many concerned citizens have written to give their opinion on
labour relations.
The task force examining Part I of the Code must report to the
minister by December 15, 1995. Certain complex and difficult
aspects have been looked at already, particularly the use of
replacement workers in legal work stoppages and the question of
essential services. These are highly volatile issues, particularly the
issue of replacement workers.
At the present time, the Canada Labour Code does not forbid the
use of replacement workers but it does offer some measure of
protection to workers on strike. The employer may not take
disciplinary measures against an employee who takes part in a legal
work stoppage or who refuses to perform the duties of another
employee who is taking part in a legal work stoppage.
As well, according to Canada Labour Relations Board
regulations, employees are entitled to resume their positions after
the strike is over and to have priority over any other person who has
been hired to replace them. In the United States, there is no
measure of protection against hiring replacement workers.
Employers are in fact even permitted to hire permanent
replacement workers, although President Clinton is working to put
a stop to this practice.
Here in Canada, several provinces have passed legislation to
limit the use of replacement workers in legal strikes. Those who
favour a measure to prohibit the use of replacement workers feel
that, when collective bargaining breaks down, the parties will be
motivated to reach compromises by the economic difficulties they
face.
However, when an employer continues to operate his business
during a strike through the use of replacement workers, he loses the
motivation to bargain. Work stoppages last longer, and tension on
the picket lines increases.
Some claim that, in Quebec, where the use of replacement
workers has been banned since 1978, violence on the picket line
has dropped. Others say that using replacement workers poisons
labour relations and discourages employees from joining the union;
they know they can be easily replaced during a strike, and
consequently they doubt that belonging to a union would be of any
use. This is especially true of companies using untrained low paid
workers.
To those who say that banning the use of replacement workers
would tip the scale in favour of workers, unionists and the like
reply that globalization is already tipping the scale in favour of
employers. Those who do not support banning the use of
replacement workers say that it could discourage new investments
and drive some companies to the United States where there is no
law to this effect.
Those who oppose such legislation also maintain that most
businesses under federal jurisdiction are infrastructure industries.
Therefore, if these businesses have to stop all operations because
they cannot hire replacement workers, the whole economy will
suffer and we will have to use back to work legislation more often.
To those who say that the banning of replacement workers would
reduce tension and violence on picket lines, those who oppose the
banning reply that labour legislation is not the appropriate tool for
solving this problem. They think that the government should turn
its attention to those who commit these acts of violence.
This is obviously a very difficult problem, and it will not be easy
to reconcile the two sides. It is therefore absolutely essential to
continue to talk, to consult each other, to do research, to discuss
and to think.
The comprehensive review of the code undertaken by the
government should be allowed to continue before amendments can
be submitted to the House for approval.
The issue of essential services is also very complex. Coming up
with an exact definition of essential services is no small task. In his
bill, our colleague seems to establish a direct link between essential
services and services provided by Crown corporations.
Consequently, crown corporations would be covered by provisions
15518
governing essential services, while private companies offering the
same services would not.
To conclude, I would just like to remind the House that a
thorough review of the Code has been undertaken by the federal
government and that the two points raised by our colleague will be
considered as part of this review. It would therefore be premature
to adopt such a bill while the Code is under review.
Given the complexity and importance of the points raised, it
would be wise to wait until this review has been completed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
[English]
It being 7.13 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 7.13 p.m.)