TABLE OF CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 20, 1994
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 3271
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3273
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3273
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3273
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3273
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3275
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3275
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3275
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3276
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3277
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3277
Bill C-239. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 3282
Bill C-13. Motion for second reading 3285
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3287
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, byunanimous consent, the House went into
committee thereon,Mr. Kilgour in the chair.) 3290
(Amendment agreed to.) 3290
(Clause, as amended, agreed to.) 3290
(Clause 2 agreed to.) 3290
(Clause 3 agreed to.) 3290
(Clause 4 agreed to.) 3290
(Clause 5 agreed to.) 3290
(Clause 6 agreed to.) 3291
(Clause 7 agreed to.) 3291
(Clause 8 agreed to.) 3291
(Clause 9 agreed to.) 3291
(Clause 10 agreed to.) 3291
(Clause 11 agreed to.) 3291
(Clauses 12 to 36 inclusive agreed to.) 3291
Motion for concurrence 3291
Motion for third reading 3291
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 3291
Bill C-15. Motion for second reading 3292
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3292
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, byunanimous consent,the House went into
committee thereon, Mr. Kilgour inthe chair.) 3294
(Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.) 3294
(Schedules I to VIII inclusive agreed to.) 3294
Motion for concurrence 3294
Motion for third reading. 3294
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 3294
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 3295
Bill C-2. Report stage 3295
Motion for concurrence 3295
Motion for third reading 3295
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3297
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 3301
Bill C-206. Motion for second reading 3301
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 3307
3269
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 20, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, job
creation, economic growth and environmental improvement are
the challenges that face the government.
The development of an ethanol industry in Canada will help
us tackle these challenges. The proposed ethanol plant in
Chatham, Ontario, will create 1,100 construction jobs, employ
90 people permanently, generate another 400 indirect jobs,
contribute $125 million annually to our economy, provide a
market for Ontario corn, and manufacture a renewable fuel
which will reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
I urge our government today to commit to this development.
This industry is important for our future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic): Mr. Speaker, on April 24,
Armenians will commemorate the 79th anniversary of the
Armenian genocide in which 1.5 million people lost their lives.
This is a people that, despite its ordeals, has always shown its
determination to survive. Tragedy struck again in 1988, when
nearly 25,000 Armenians died in an earthquake.
I wish to salute the Armenian community in North Montreal
which is working to provide humanitarian support in Armenia.
The Quebec National Assembly recognized the Armenian
genocide in 1980, but the Government of Canada has yet to do
so. I therefore wish to ask the Canadian government to recognize
the historic truth of this tragedy.
We wish to extend our sympathy to our fellow citizens of
Armenian origin and wish them every hope for a better future.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker,
over this past weekend in Oberstdorf, Germany, Rick Folk of
Kelowna, British Columbia, led his rink to a second World
Curling Championship.
There is also a decidedly human side to the story. Just days
before Rick and his teammates left for Germany, Rick's father
passed away. After his victory Rick told reporters:
Definitely I was thinking of my dad. When I finished throwing my last shot,
and I knew I had it, that was the first thing that went through my mind. I wondered
where he was watching. I promised I would do my best and for my dad my best is
always the best.
Canadians appreciate Rick's victory all the more because he
was able to demonstrate that quality of triumph through
adversity that all Canadians find so inspiring.
I invite all members of this House to extend congratulations to
our new men's world curling champion, Rick Folk, his team and
his family.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River): Mr.
Speaker, Timiskaming-French River is a rural, northern
Ontario riding, and our way of life differs greatly from that of
urban centres. Solutions that work in Toronto will not
necessarily work in the north. The majority of gun owners in my
riding are law abiding and safe users of firearms for hunting and
sport. It is part of our way of life.
In the interests of public security it is important to maintain a
certain level of gun control in Canada. However, since 70 per
cent of all criminal acts involving guns are committed with
smuggled, illegal firearms, we need to have and enforce stricter
laws and penalties for criminal users of firearms. We do not need
more complicated regulations for law-abiding citizens.
3270
I will forcefully oppose any new legislation that will impose
further controls on law-abiding firearm owners.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the hon. member for Don
Valley North on his initiative in organizing the first citizenship
day for members of Parliament and senators to publicly reaffirm
their allegiance to Canada.
Yesterday the hon. member for Don Valley North brought us
together in the Hall of Honour because of his appreciation as an
immigrant to hold Canadian citizenship and because of his love
and commitment to this great country.
It was a moving experience and for many of us it was the first
time we experienced the joy of enunciating the words aloud,
declaring our allegiance for Canada. At a time when many
nations are being torn apart by civil insurrection and war, it is
imperative that we Canadians show the world through our
leadership and policy how people with many diversities live in
harmony as one nation.
Let this ceremony be the beginning for all members in the
House to publicly serve and pledge allegiance to one great
country, one Canada, our beloved country.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House that the Canadian Association of
Health Care Auxiliaries has declared this week of April 17 to
April 25 Canada Health Auxiliary Week.
This year's theme is the challenge of choices. Health care
auxiliaries across the country will be celebrating this week with
the goal of increasing public awareness of the tremendous
contribution made by volunteers to the health care system in
Canada.
Last year health auxiliaries across Canada worked to raise in
excess of $33 million for their respective health care facilities.
One hundred and thirteen thousand volunteers gave 8.5 million
hours to patient services, community health care, public
relations and fund raising.
I am sure all members will join with me in congratulating the
Canadian Association of Health Care Auxiliaries on its work
and in urging Canadians to support their local auxiliaries.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
there will soon be an general election in Quebec, and the
federalist troops, terrified at the prospect of being swept from
the Quebec political scene, are using underhanded tactics to
convince Quebecers that their option is the right one.
(1405)
Premier Daniel Johnson, with the hounds of sovereignty
nipping at his heels, went before foreign investors with a
message of gloom and doom, predicting political instability in
Quebec if the Parti Quebecois came to power.
These desperate and highly irresponsible tactics are unworthy
of someone who is supposed to defend Quebec's best interests,
especially when he is in another country. Now that die-hard
federalists can no longer scare Quebecers, they are trying to
scare foreign investors.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, in Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt we are
particularly proud of the efforts of our local volunteers. Lynn
and John Bremmer of the town of Oliver in my riding recently
returned from the Slovak republic where they worked with
CESO on a development project, helping a producer of
agricultural products with their expertise. Perhaps more than
money their volunteer efforts will help those people stand
proudly on their feet as their country emerges from the dark ages
of communism.
Volunteers have made a personal choice to make all our
communities better places to live, whether it be through working
with a service club, organizing a community event, helping the
disadvantaged or leading a youth group.
I call on all hon. members and all Canadians to join me in
honouring volunteers during National Volunteer Week.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage launched ``Speak
out Against Violence'', a campaign of public service
announcements by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.
The Government of Canada is a very committed partner in this
initiative which is another fine example of what can be achieved
on an important social issue through co-operation between the
public and private sectors.
To accommodate our federal contribution, Canada's private
broadcasters are committing $10 million in free air time to
broadcast these announcements.
3271
[Translation]
The government is aware that the media heavily influence our
attitudes, and we think this campaign is an excellent way to
make all Canadians think about the questions raised by violence
in our society.
[English]
I invite all Canadians to join us in this bold initiative to help
build the Canada of the future, a Canada where men, women and
children can be safe in their homes and can walk the streets
without fear of harm.
* * *
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris): Mr. Speaker,
today marks the day that the United States of America adopts the
Ryan White bill, a bill that was endorsed by President Bush but
is being enacted by President Clinton. It is a law that mandates
hospitals to notify emergency response personnel about the
infectious status of a patient who was treated by the emergency
worker.
This law prohibits involuntary testing of patients and only
requires the hospital to share any such information in its
possession. The program is also structured in a way that protects
the confidentiality of patients.
I would encourage all members of the House to co-operate in
establishing such legislation in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to call the attention of the hon. members of this House to a
recent initiative from our government to promote the economic
development of Quebec.
On April 14, we announced, in conjunction with the
Government of Quebec, a first set of projects to be implemented
under the Canada-Quebec agreement on infrastructure projects.
This program is being initiated a mere two months after the
agreement was signed. This is palpable proof that we do meet
the demands of the Canadian people. It also demonstrates
clearly that we are intent on putting Canada back to work as soon
as possible.
This first stage will see nearly $35 million invested in 50
projects involving 43 municipalities in Quebec. These projects
will result in the creation of 400 direct jobs over the weeks to
come because, as you know, this government was elected last
fall to put Canadians back to work, and this program is being put
into place to do just that.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to call the attention of this House to the statement Senator
Kennedy made yesterday, within the context of the Quebec
Premier's pre-election visit to the United States.
Senator Kennedy said that as far as the Americans were
concerned, whatever the outcome of the decision, they respect
the right of Quebecers' to self-determination.
(1410)
Now, Mr. Speaker, here at last is a level-headed statement
reflecting profound respect for democratic values.
Unfortunately, you are more likely to hear that kind of remark
abroad than within this chamber.
The universal standard for democracy is respect for other
people, respect for the decisions made by the people.
I urge the members from the other political parties
represented in this House to follow the example of Senator
Kennedy and show the same open-mindedness, the same
democratic regard, the same respect for political diversity.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, last week in my constituency we held two townhall
meetings to discuss gun control.
The message that I received from the people attending these
two meetings was loud and clear: do not handcuff together what
are two separate issues, gun control and criminal justice reform;
do not attempt to control the criminal abuse of firearms by
punishing the innocent, legitimate gun owners in the country.
This message has been supported by over 300 phone calls and
faxes to our ``let the people speak'' lines here in Ottawa. These
come from all across the country. The people of Moose
Jaw-Lake Centre say we need to get tough with violence and
violent criminals. We need to do it now, but let us leave
law-abiding citizens alone.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to condemn the savage, inhumane and ruthless actions
of dictator Saddam Hussein in the southern Iraq marshes
perpetrated on the one million marsh Arabs who live there.
3272
As Canadians we advocate and uphold human rights and must
protest both a human and an environmental catastrophe which
has been well documented and recently aired on CBC.
Water is being diverted from the historic wetland where the
Tigris and Euphrates rivers meet. The delicate ecostructure is
being destroyed to provide a huge military base. The native
marsh Arabs, Shia Muslims, are being harassed, arbitrarily
arrested and detained, tortured, killed and systematically
starved to death. Women, children and the elderly are
particularly vulnerable.
We as Canadians of conscience must uphold the human rights
of the Shia Muslims and express our outrage and indignation to
the Iraqi government and to the United Nations, immediately
addressing this matter of genocide and ecological disaster.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, the other
day I helped launch National Volunteer Week by attending a
celebration breakfast of the Association of Managers of
Volunteer Services in Peterborough.
During this week in Peterborough riding and across Canada
recognition events are being held to honour volunteers who do
so much to maintain our standard and quality of life.
Volunteerism is one of the unwritten secrets of democracy.
Healthy democracy demands the full and free participation of all
citizens. That is why during in this particular volunteer week,
while remembering all Canadian volunteers, we should save a
special thought for Canadians helping with the election in South
Africa. These people, including members of the House, people
from my riding and many others, are a special reminder to us all
of the importance of volunteerism in 1994. They are an example
to us all.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, over
the last few days many MPs have met with representatives of the
International Association of Firefighters.
The firefighters are asking for a number of things, all of which
I support, but today I would urge the government to act as soon
as possible on a number of them.
There is no good reason for delay on setting up the system for
tracking hazardous materials and right to know legislation.
Likewise there is no good reason to delay on setting up a
notification protocol for infectious diseases.
I call on the government to act swiftly on these two requests of
the firefighters. They serve our communities well in an already
dangerous job. It does not need to be made unnecessarily more
dangerous by government failure on these two particularly
responsible requests.
_____________________________________________
3272
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Despite yesterday's ceasefire, Serb forces are continuing their
assault on Gorazde. They have even shelled the hospital. The
emergency room was hit this morning by rocket fire and 10
people were killed and 15 wounded. According to a wire report
just in, even the wounded cannot be rescued because Serb fire is
preventing would-be rescuers from reaching them. At noon, we
learned that following a request from the UN, NATO countries
agreed today in Brussels to proceed with new air strikes in
retaliation for Serb atrocities.
Can the minister confirm to us if Canada has endorsed the
NATO resolution to proceed with new air strikes and can he also
confirm whether Canada has in fact expressed some reservations
about the effectiveness of such strikes?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, we are extremely concerned about the deteriorating
situation in Bosnia. The decision by the UN Secretary General to
ask NATO to order offensive, rather than purely defensive, air
strikes is obviously one fraught with implications.
In light of this change of policy, forces serving under the
auspices of the UN will no longer be in the field solely to
maintain peace and provide safe passage for humanitarian aid
convoys. They could be called upon to take action to impose
peace. Ambassadors to NATO are currently meeting to discuss
this request and once a final decision has been made, I will be
happy to convey it to the House.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the minister that the situation has reached
a critical stage beyond which major decisions will have to be
made. Must Canadian and other peacekeeping forces be content
to stand by, powerless to stop a disaster of inhumane
proportions, almost as if they were sanctioning what was
happening by doing nothing, or should they take more concrete
actions and intervene, as the minister said, to impose peace? The
other option is withdrawal. I think that the conscience of the
western world will lean more toward intervention. The fact that
the
3273
Russian security council convened a meeting this morning is a
sign that the conflict is getting worse.
My question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is this: Can he
tell us if Russia has agreed to back the UN resolution calling for
more air strikes?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, all I can say to the House today is that talks are
continuing between government leaders in an effort to thrash out
a unified policy. A short while ago, the Prime Minister of
Canada spoke with the President of the United States who
himself was scheduled to speak with the Russian president.
These talks will continue during the next few hours, the
objective being to devise a plan of action, one that has the widest
possible support, to bring an end to the conflict raging in the
former Yugoslavia.
[English]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, we have learned that the Russians could decide to retire
the kind of support, at least the sympathy they had for the Serb
movement. Now we hear that the conflict might expand to Iran
because the last dispatch is to the effect that the Ayatollah
Khamenei has just ordered Iranian troops to intervene in Bosnia
to defend the Muslims.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree that the situation
could deteriorate very rapidly?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I think we should be very cautious about all these
rumours. One thing is certain, and that is that members of NATO
are trying to put forward a unanimous position and to bring
along other important players in this area of the world to draft a
common approach to the current situation.
(1420)
I can confirm that there have been discussions at the highest
levels. It is quite clear that the involvement and the
co-operation of Russia with the European Union, the United
States and Canada could be very decisive in making sure we take
steps that will stop this conflict in the ex-Yugoslavia.
Our purpose is to arrive at a united front and to ensure that all
the parties in ex-Yugoslavia come to the table and respect a
peace initiative.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs claims that his government consulted
the provinces before announcing its youth strategy.
Yesterday, Quebec's Minister of Education categorically
denied having been consulted by Ottawa.
How can the minister continue to claim that the provinces
were consulted, when Quebec's Minister of Education denies
that he was consulted? Will the minister now withdraw his
allegations and admit that Quebec's Minister of Education was
not consulted?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, on February 28 I met with the
ministers of education who compose the Council of Ministers of
Education. The federal government was invited by the council to
develop a co-operative approach to a broad range of matters
affecting young people.
At that time we gave a full briefing to all the ministers of
education concerning the various youth initiatives: the
internship program, the youth services corps, the student loans
and the learning initiatives which were discussed at the request
of the provincial ministers themselves.
As the hon. member probably knows, they had issued a
declaration over a year ago asking that there be full
co-operation between the federal and the provincial
governments to undertake a common approach to the problems
facing education.
After the meeting, at which we outlined the approach we were
taking, we offered to establish a number of meetings with
officials to go over the specific parts of the program. There were
a series of meetings on the student loans program.
Specifically last Friday a meeting was held in Quebec
between federal and provincial officials to discuss the
internship program.
That is a fair description of the kind of consultation,
collaboration and co-operation we want to have with the
provinces. We outlined the approach and certainly in response to
any request by the provincial ministers we are very open to
continuing the dialogue to look at the specific implementation
of that program so we can once again work together to help
young people.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): How can the minister
seriously say that he made every effort to avoid further
duplication of responsibility between Quebec's programs and
his youth action plan, since this plan has three components that
directly overlap similar Quebec programs and are in no way
complementary?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I understand fully the inability
of the hon. member to understand the notion of co-operation.
That is probably not part of his vocabulary. It is certainly not
part of his behaviour in the House.
3274
However, I want to emphasize that at the present time we are
already-and I will just take one province as an example-in the
province of Quebec, co-operating with the province on the
development of the purchase of training courses. We are
working with the provinces directly on looking at labour market
needs. We work in a co-operative fashion with the SQDM. We
have joint management of co-operative education with the
province of Quebec. We have joint approval of stay in school
initiatives. There is a substantial number of areas where we
work in co-operation with the provinces and with the province
of Quebec. It is too bad the hon. member is not interested in
co-operation.
* * *
(1425)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister or any of the
senior ministers from Quebec.
All of us in the House know that the people of Quebec will be
making a fundamental choice later this year that will affect all
Quebecers and all other Canadians. That choice will be between
a federalist provincial government and a sovereignist provincial
government committed to the separation of Quebec from
Canada.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Because of the
seriousness of this issue I hope that she will not regard this as a
partisan question. What steps does the government believe
Parliament should take in the next two months to ensure that the
federalist option is chosen by a majority of Quebecers?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the admonition
of the leader of the Reform Party to take this issue seriously.
The Liberal Party believes that the future of the country is a
very serious matter. We do not consider it a family feud and we
do not consider it simply a matter to be discussed by Quebecers.
We think the issue of Canada staying together is an issue that
touches every single one of us in every part of the country.
That being said, we think that the best way to convince
Quebecers that Canada wants them as part of our country is by
showing Quebecers and the rest of the country that we are
capable of providing good, decent, honest government for all
Canadians.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister's reply makes myself and other
federalists uneasy because it suggests that status quo
federalism, simply ``good government'', is enough to rally
support for federalism.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister and the government not
acknowledge that what Parliament really needs to do is put a
new and better face on federalism; the face of a balanced budget,
the face of a more accountable Parliament, the face of economic
and social renewal, in order to deepen the commitment of all
Canadians, including Quebecers, to Canadian federalism?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, over the last six months the
government has shown it is not the party of the status quo. We do
not believe that by changing suits you are going to somehow
show people that you have a better government.
What this party has shown over the last six months and what
we will continue to show is balance in decision making. We will
also continue to fight, as we fought yesterday, for the rights of
every single minority wherever they live in our country. An
important part of a country is understanding that in building for
the future you also have to understand your history and that is
what the Liberal Party represents.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the Deputy Prime Minister's answer. However what
is missing from it is any deep commitment or acknowledgement
of the need for real reform of federalism itself.
If it can be demonstrated to the government that a majority of
Quebecers want a balanced federal budget, that a majority of
Quebecers want an overhaul of federal language legislation, that
a majority of Quebecers want systemic change, like many other
federalists in the country do, would that persuade the
government to offer Quebecers and indeed all Canadians
something more than status quo federalism?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, to understand what Quebec
wants I think the member has to start by electing some members
of Parliament from Quebec.
(1430 )
The member's unfortunate ignorance of the situation in
Quebec is reflected by the resolution put yesterday which
basically tried to carve up the city of Montreal into east and
west.
The reality is a nation is built by celebrating its differences,
by making sure every part of the country feels it is part of the
whole. Every single policy that passes through the government
is going to be based on principles of equity and fairness.
Therefore we say exactly the same thing in the city of Montreal
as we do in the city of Vancouver. We do not wait for a telephone
call to tell us what our policy should be.
3275
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in response to the federal finance minister's intention
to slash transfers to the provinces in order to reduce his deficit,
the Quebec minister of finance issued the following warning to
his federal counterpart:
-we told the federal government that this reform should not be achieved on
the backs of the provinces and that the issue of government debt in Canada will
not be resolved by offloading the federal deficit onto the provinces.
Will the Minister of Finance ever understand-now that his
Quebec counterpart has joined with the Official Opposition in
trying to make him understand-that he must cut federal
government waste and stop dumping his deficit problem on the
provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we fully agree that we
should not dump our problems on others. That is why we first
settled the issue of equalization that has been of enormous
benefit to Quebec and six other provinces. That is why we
agreed with finance ministers, including the Quebec minister of
finance, to impose a moratorium on social security reform. That
is why, as I said in my speech, we clearly stated in the budget the
objectives agreed on by the finance ministers in January.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
could the finance minister's insensitivity despite his Quebec
colleague's appeal be explained by his urgent need to carve out
for himself, at the expense of the provinces, enough fiscal
leeway to finance his colleagues' repeated, brazen and appalling
intrusions in areas of provincial jurisdiction?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, let me simply read what I said. I will do
this in English because it is part of the speech that was given in
English.
-then we took a look at the absolute necessity of renewing fiscal federalism.
The provinces agree with that. The minister of finance for
Quebec agrees with that.
-it is now crucial that we begin to take a look at what all levels of
government do, not with some political aim in mind, but in terms of its
affordability and efficiency.
The Government of Quebec agrees with that, as do all of the
provinces who want to solve our problems. Then I went on to say
that we have discussed that with the provinces.
-they have two years in which to complete with us this process. At the end of
that two years we will be taking massive amounts of money out of the
federal-provincial structure, hopefully not at their expense nor at ours, but as a
result of the more efficient programs between the two levels of government.
That is what the provincial finance ministers want. It is what
the provincial governments want. It is what the federal
government wants. It is what Canadians want. It is what we are
going to deliver.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance. I will give him a little hint on the
answer: billions versus millions.
Today's Financial Post reports that the Deutsche Bank has
recommended to its clients to reduce their Canadian bond
exposure to zero from 3 per cent which could represent up to $10
billion. One of the primary reasons given is that Canada's heavy
budgetary risks will result in further underperformance. It is
obvious the Deutsche Bank does not share the minister's
optimism and opinion that the budget was a success.
Why would the Deutsche Bank recommend pulling out of the
Canadian economy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the questioner being a businessman
himself understands that what makes markets are obviously
differences of opinion.
The fact is the analyst in the Deutsche Bank has expressed an
opinion. I had breakfast with the president of the Deutsche Bank
not long after that report and it certainly was not his. He wanted
to give you his best.
(1435)
The fact is the majority of investment houses in the United
States recommend a holding of Canadian bonds at 3 to 4 per
cent. That is what makes markets and that is why we are very
confident.
The member should have read the whole report because the
Deutsche Bank talked about provincial deficits and about the
very uncertain political situation in Quebec. Let me tell you,
once the political situation in Quebec is cleared up with a
victory to the provincial Liberals the Deutsche Bank will change
its mind.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, further to the
remarks of the finance minister I would like to add another
possible reason the Deutsche Bank gave this recommendation
despite the breakfast.
One of the reasons both foreign and domestic investors are
uneasy about the Canadian economy is that mixed messages
3276
keep coming from the Prime Minister and the Finance minister.
The billions versus millions controversy is only the latest
contradiction by these two senior ministers.
Could the Minister of Finance clarify once and for all for the
House and for foreign and domestic investors, whose comments
on deficit reduction can be relied on, his or the Prime
Minister's? And no double talk, please.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked the same
question yesterday. I will give him the same answer.
The fact is that in the red book, in the budget and in statements
in the House the Prime Minister and I have made it very clear
that the cuts have been made in the budget which are required to
get us to 3 per cent of the GDP within three years. At the same
time we have said a major review of every single program is
being carried on by the Minister responsible for Public Service
Renewal.
The Prime Minister has said it; I have said it; and you can keep
asking us. I would really suggest to the hon. member that he
come up with some new questions. Ask Canadians for some new
questions. I think your research well is running dry.
The Speaker: I am sure all hon. members will continue to
address the Chair.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans unveiled his new program
regarding income support and labour adjustment for fishery
workers adversely affected by the dwindling groundfish stocks
in the Atlantic.
How can the minister be satisfied with a program which does
not propose any measure to get the fishing industry going again
through the development of new markets or new products, and
how can he justify the reduced assistance, considering that
compensation cheques will now drop by 6 per cent?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, quite frankly I am surprised at the attitude of the hon.
member, given his previous experience with the fishery.
The fact of the matter is the Government of Canada is not
reducing the groundfish sector. The Government of Canada is
not shutting down the groundfish sector. The hard truth rather
than the easy rhetoric is that the groundfish sector today is
closed. There are 14 moratoriums in place. People in the
groundfish sector are not working today and a great many, the
majority, have not worked for two years.
The issue is not whether or not we are going to shut the sector
down, but how much of the sector we can reopen, how much of
the capacity we can employ based on the ability of the resource
to sustain that sector.
We are taking the hard and difficult choices but the honest
choices to work with communities, fishermen and plant workers
to restore as much of the industry as possible and, where that is
not possible, to give them the truth so they can make the
decisions to rebuild their lives.
Does the member want us to do something different? If he
does, we will not.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, this is all very nice;
however, what fishery workers need is hope. Right now, the
government is giving them false hopes; in fact, the package
offered is 6 per cent smaller than last year's.
Nevertheless, I will give the minister a chance. How does he
reconcile his will to help Atlantic economic diversification with
the fact that his government just reduced by $160 million
ACOA's budget for the next three years, as well as FORD-Q's
budget, an office whose role is precisely to promote regional
economic diversification? Perhaps the minister could clarify
this issue, because so far, rather than discussing he is cutting.
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member talks about empty hope. We are not
talking about empty hope. We are talking about a $1.9 billion
program. It is the only new major expenditure in the February 22
budget. That expenditure represents the commitment of the
Prime Minister and the government to the people of Quebec and
Atlantic Canada affected by the fisheries crisis to stand by them
in their time of crisis and to help them rebuild their lives. The
member ought to recognize that.
We have said clearly there are three legs to this program. The
first is assistance for individuals. That we have delivered on.
The second is to restructure the industry. That process begins
over the next six weeks through consultation. The third is to
diversify the economy of Atlantic Canada and Quebec.
I have the greatest confidence the Minister for the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency and the minister responsible for
FORD-Q will work hand in glove with the Minister of Human
Resources Development and me to see that commitment is
delivered in spades.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
3277
Yesterday the Reform Party suggested the concept of
post-secondary education vouchers given to students and
income contingent repayment plans for student loans.
Could the minister tell the House if education vouchers and
income contingent loans are specifically on his agenda?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, on the matter of income
contingency repayments, if the hon. member would look at the
announcement we made on Friday he would know the legislation
we propose to bring in the House very shortly will include the
opportunity for us to undertake a series of pilot projects with the
provinces to develop an ICR system.
That was based upon the meeting with the ministers of
education I spoke about earlier. Several of them requested that
we undertake that kind of approach. Others were not in
agreement. Therefore rather than bringing it in on a national
basis we thought we would work with those provinces that were
interested to develop it and see how the methodology would
work.
As for the question of a form of education voucher or
education investment that idea has been presented to us through
the work of the House of Commons committee by experts in the
field. It is one of the considerations I would like to raise when
we meet with the ministers of education and labour at the
provincial level.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, I hope the program the minister is talking about is not
the band-aid type variety but is a true reform to a commitment to
education.
One of the most appealing aspects of a voucher system is it
allows individuals to choose what is best for themselves.
Could the minister tell the House if he has already discussed
the idea with his provincial counterparts and, if so, what was
their general reaction?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I just told the hon. member but I
am glad to repeat it.
When we met on February 28 with the Council of Ministers of
Education we outlined the proposals we would want to
undertake to substantially improve the student loans program.
As the hon. member knows we substantially increased the
loan limit to bring it into reality with today's costs. We have
undertaken a program of more direct support for students,
particularly women going into graduate school, students with
special needs, single mothers, so that they can get back into a
higher education program.
What we did discuss with them is how we can provide a
program that would enable all Canadians to be able to go into the
educational system on a lifelong basis. We want to turn the
notion of lifelong learning from a cliche into a reality for
people.
Members in the entire House would be interested that the
co-chair of the Council of Ministers of Education who happens
also to be the minister of education for Quebec said in a speech
recently in Vancouver that it is a fact Canadians everywhere
have common expectations.
(1445 )
It is also a fact that we are faced with common problems. It is
clear that we must adopt a common approach in dealing with
them. That is our philosophy too.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Public Works. Yesterday, the
minister used decisions of previous governments to justify
awarding 50 per cent of the flu vaccine contract to Connaught.
Need we remind him that in 1991, when Connaught was awarded
this contract, the maritimes ran out of vaccine, and that last year,
100 per cent of the contract was awarded to BioVac?
On the substantive issue, does the minister know that
Connaught is only a distributor of flu vaccine in Canada and
imports this vaccine from the United States, while BioVac, the
only manufacturer of this vaccine in Canada, made a bid that
would have saved $600,000 of public money if the minister had
accepted it?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question.
The fact is that the Government of Canada, as I have said
repeatedly in the House, purchases approximately 1 per cent of
the total amount. Ninety-nine per cent of the vaccine is
purchased by the provinces. This is done through the auspices of
a co-operative committee by federal but primarily provincial
governments across the country. They are the ones that purchase
the vaccine.
As a result, there was an agreement reached by that committee
where 50 per cent would be purchased from the province of
Quebec, namely BioVac, and the other 50 per cent purchased
from Connaught.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister not realize that the direct result of his Canadian
solution is to export high-tech jobs from Quebec to the United
States and that it jeopardizes the development of BioVac on
international markets?
3278
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I will take the House into
my confidence and respond to the hon. member very clearly,
very directly.
This member and that party have been pushing this
government to be involved in the process. The hon. member
should know that BioVac's price to the Canadian taxpayers,
primarily the provinces, was $1.85. Connaught's was $1.69. A
compromise was reached whereby it would be $1.77.
If that is not a measure of fairness reached by provincial
governments across the country, I do not know what is. The real
thing here is that member and that party wish to sabotage this
deal in order that they can create political havoc in the province
of Quebec.
The Speaker: I know that all hon. members, both in their
questions and in their answers, will want to ensure that we never
impute a motive to any hon. member.
* * *
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the parliamentary secretary for transport.
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway is a viable economic
route. It is economic and it is friendly to the environment.
Unfortunately there is predatory and very unfair pricing by the
railroads of Canada when competing against commodities being
shipped by the St. Lawrence seaway and into the St. Lawrence
seaway system.
The railways in the country do that by and large by the almost
one billion dollars a year they receive in subsidy.
When will the government stop this abuse of this
transportation subsidy? When will it maximize the return to the
farmer where it should be? When will it create a level playing
field for all modes of transportation in the country in which to
compete?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate the member
for Thunder Bay-Nipigon on becoming chairman of the
subcommittee that is reviewing and will bring forward
recommendations on the seaway.
(1450 )
I want to thank the people from the mid-Canada port survival
task force that I met with yesterday. The National
Transportation Agency did make a ruling last year, for the most
part exonerating the railways but that decision has been
appealed and will be reviewed by the government.
At the same time, my hon. friend will know that the whole
question of western grain transportation reform is undergoing an
intensive review.
The Minister of Transport and the government are determined
to build a national, integrated, efficient transportation system,
one that is affordable to the user and to the taxpayer of the
country.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Justice.
There are many law-abiding, decent Canadians who choose to
own guns. They comply with the letter of the law respecting
handguns. Yet the government is considering taking away their
choice of responsible ownership of those guns.
Does the minister respect Canadians who have acted
responsibly? If so, why is he considering a ban on handgun
ownership?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, time and again studies have
demonstrated and our experience shows that guns inherently
dangerous fall into the hands of criminals either because they
are lost or they are stolen. There is a need for gun control in the
country.
Bill C-17 recently adopted by this Parliament and now in
place across the country constitutes an important measure
toward achieving that safety. However, more steps must be
taken. We campaigned for office on a platform that included
specific proposals for increased and stricter gun control.
I do not quarrel at all with the assertion by the hon. member
that there are honest and law-abiding people who are entitled to
the use of rifles for the purpose of hunting or other legitimate
purposes. However I say that we have an obligation to the public
and its protection to ensure that these inherently dangerous
weapons are under control so they do not fall into the hands of
criminals.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, with the
greatest of respect to the Minister of Justice, I suggest that he is
continuing to target those who choose to obey the law, the
law-abiding gun owners.
The minister should be focusing his concerns on those who
are breaking the law. The focus should not be on the gun owners
but on the criminals who are misusing them.
Why does the minister not enforce the law, stop the illegal gun
trade, get guns out of the hands of criminals and stop harassing
legal gun owners?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just
read from the list of priorities in the Department of Justice to act
effective-
3279
ly to deal with those guns that are being smuggled illegally into
the country.
I am meeting shortly with the Solicitor General and the
Minister of National Revenue with that very objective in mind to
ensure that the laws that are on the books at present providing
penalties for those who possess firearms in the commission of
offences are enforced and are effective and to take other steps to
ensure that the use of firearms in criminal activity is properly
punished.
However, the integrated approach to gun control and the
enforcement of the criminal law must happen at the same time
and that is precisely what we are going to do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The dramatic situation persisting in Rwanda could bring
many refugees from that country to Canada. We know that 800
Rwandans from the Tutsi minority already live in Canada, most
of them in Quebec.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what the Canadian
government's policy on Rwandan refugee claims will be and can
she promise that every case will be carefully examined so that
the people responsible for the massacres cannot seek asylum in
Canada to escape justice?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): I think that the hon. member shows a
good knowledge of the very difficult situation in Rwanda.
Clearly, our government has always had a very open policy
regarding the warm welcome extended to those who are forced
to flee their country, but we will also have to be very efficient at
turning away the people who contributed to terrorism.
I think we will take his suggestion and refer it to the minister
of immigration who has already done some work on this very
important issue for Canadians.
(1455)
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, given the
terrible situation now prevailing in Rwanda, can the Deputy
Prime Minister promise to put in place special family
reunification measures, as was done in 1992 for nationals of
Somalia and the former Yugoslavia?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my
colleague, the minister of immigration, I am happy to inform the
House that one of the main points of the new immigration policy
recently announced by the minister was an increase in the family
class.
Our red book recognizes that it is important for families to be
reunited here in this country, both for their integration and for
the good of Canada. I am sure that the minister will consider the
suggestions of the hon. member opposite and act accordingly.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Recently, after having asked the House Standing Committee
on Health to study the issue of plain packaging of tobacco
products, the hon. minister publicly stated: ``I would like to see
us move on that as quickly as we possibly can'' and ``I feel that it
would do a lot to discourage young people especially from
taking up smoking''.
Could the minister tell the House why she has requested both
her department and the health committee to study this issue, at
considerable expense to the taxpayer, when it is apparent from
her statements that she has already decided to go ahead with the
plain packaging?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for her question.
In January 1994 the Canadian Cancer Society released a
report ``The Effects of Smoking on Young People''. This report
concluded that it would discourage young people from taking up
this terrible habit of smoking.
In February 1994 when we released our anti-smuggling
strategy, the Prime Minister announced in the House that we
would look at the issue of plain packaging. The Standing
Committee on Health is looking at that at this time. I await with
great anxiety and I am anxious to hear the results of what the
committee is doing. I am sure it will have some very valuable
information to give to all of us.
In the meantime, I have asked the Department of Health to
undertake a research project, a very specific marketing project,
to look into allegations that it would discourage young people
from smoking. As the member knows, if we can prevent just one
death it is very worthwhile. In this case every year 38,000
Canadians die as a direct result of smoking.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the minister's answer. Considering that the
Department of Health has publicly stated that its study would
take until the end of the year and that the committee on health
care was also looking at this, is it fair to assume that the
government will not make a decision on this issue until those
reports are in?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
can tell the hon. member that no legislation has been drafted at
this time. I must add that when I met with provincial ministers of
health there was a great deal of interest on their part to look into
the matter of plain packaging. It is not just the federal
jurisdiction that is interested in doing some work in that area.
We will continue this as I truly believe that plain packaging will
3280
have an effect in influencing young people not to take up this
habit.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport.
Transport Canada has just issued a notice to airmen and the
marine industry advising of the possibility of space debris
re-entering the atmosphere and crashing off the east coast of
Canada, specifically the east coast of Nova Scotia.
What information could the parliamentary secretary give the
House concerning this matter, more particularly whether it is the
view of the government that this re-entry poses any threat to the
safety of Canadians on the east coast of Canada?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me this
opportunity of advising the House that Transport Canada has
been advised by Cape Canaveral that there is a possibility that
some space debris may re-enter the atmosphere and crash into
the ocean off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland on Thursday, April
21, 1994, between 1200 and 1500 hours, eastern daylight time.
This is a serious and important issue and Transport Canada is
working with the departments of National Defence, Foreign
Affairs and our respective American counterparts to monitor the
path of this debris. As the member mentioned, notice has
already gone out to the marine and aviation industries.
I also advise the House that it is intended that the
departmental satellite re-entry contingency plan, which
provides for Transport Canada emergency staff, will give the
authority to take whatever action within its sphere of
competence to-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: One would hope that contingency plans are
also in place to protect us here in Ottawa.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order under Standing Order 18 to
bring to the attention of the House a very serious matter with
respect to statements made by the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester both in and outside the Chamber.
Standing Order 18 states in part that no member shall use
offensive words against either House or any member thereof.
I refer to Hansard of Monday, April 18, 1994, page 3175:
The Reform Party proposes a form of ethnic cleansing.
Also, in response to a question I had asked the hon. member, I
refer to page 3176 of
Hansard:
I think you are a bunch of bigots.
The hon. member later withdrew this but only after the
Deputy Speaker insisted.
Also, in response to my colleague, the hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan, the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester stated: ``The Reform member should not
have worn a dark suit to address the House today but rather a
white sheet''.
Erskine May 21st edition of parliamentary practice also states
that insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder is
unparliamentary.
The only reason that these remarks did not create disorder
which has been seen so often in the House is that the Reform
Party has too much respect for Parliament and for the Canadians
who elected us. However, the words spoken by the member for
Carleton-Gloucester are offensive in the extreme. This type of
language has no place in the parliamentary forum or anywhere
else.
I would also like to draw to the attention of the House that
today outside the House the member for Carleton-Gloucester
once again-
The Speaker: As to the remarks outside the House, whatever
is said outside the House as a general rule we do not deal with in
here.
Does the member have something to add to the primary?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what you said.
What I was saying was that while these remarks were made
outside the House they were similar to those remarks made in
the House.
While I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot rule on
comments made outside the House, the repetition of remarks
made in the Chamber does nothing for the level of decorum that
Canadians expect from their parliamentarians.
Finally I would ask that you make a ruling on this
unacceptable language in the House.
The Speaker: Before I turn the floor over to the hon. member
for Carleton-Gloucester, I did read over Hansard and I did see
the tapes. It is my understanding that the hon. member has
3281
withdrawn the word bigots categorically. He has withdrawn that
and I turn the floor over to the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester.
(1505)
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to
respond to the Reform Party's House leader, the one who had
just thrown four sheets to the wind.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, we have here a prime
example of what the Reform Party--
[English]
The Speaker: Order. I would encourage the hon. member, as
he is directly involved, to please direct himself to the point of
order on the floor.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, the House leader is offended by
the fact that I talked about ethnic cleansing. He quoted some
pages of Hansard to support his contentions a short while ago.
I would like to refer to page 3147. A member of the Reform
Party stated yesterday that language fractures a country and he
made reference to Bosnia and suggested that all the problems
and wars in the world today are caused by ethnic problems. He
then continued to speak about the problems that the French
Canadians are creating in Canada by wanting to be recognized
for their rights, minority-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. Of course we are engaged every day in
very strenuous debate in the House. We all encourage one
another to use language which is not offensive in any way to any
hon. members. Sometimes in the heat of debate we use words
which are not entirely appropriate.
The hon. member has raised a point of order and rather than
get into a debate about perhaps what was said and what was not
said, I wonder if he would give me the time to review, in total
again, the specific words which were said. Then perhaps we
could take this up tomorrow when I could make a ruling on the
particular words that were put before us.
If we would agree to this, I would look into it and come back
tomorrow.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleagues
would be happy to drop this matter and not put you to the trouble
if the member would withdraw those statements.
The Speaker: I hope there is agreement in the House to give
your Speaker time to review all the words that were said and the
context in which they were said.
I believe there is agreement and, if so, I will come back to the
House tomorrow. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3281
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the
1992-93 annual report of the administration and enforcement of
the Energy Efficiency Act, pursuant to section 36 of that act,
chapter 36, Statutes of Canada, 1992.
* * *
(1510 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2), I have the honour to place before the House, in both
official languages, draft amendments to the Criminal Code and
the customs tariff dealing with crime cards and board games.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
four petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to present the first annual report on the
administration and application of the Energy Efficiency Act.
[English]
By promoting energy efficiency and alternate energy my
department will help increase economic competitiveness by
lowering energy bills and reducing the environmental impacts
associated with energy use.
3282
This report notes a variety of important departmental
activities which integrate economic and environmental
objectives. Through my department's programs and initiatives
the Government of Canada is working in partnership with
business to promote energy efficiency.
I will use these initiatives as a base for a more co-ordinated
program with higher visibility among Canadians. Energy
efficiency is widely recognized as the best short term strategy to
achieve our economic and environmental goals. I have
encouraged an expansion of voluntary action programs within
both government and the private sector.
We are working with the provinces and the Canadian
Federation of Municipalities to reduce duplication and expand
the scope of these programs, and we are participating in
initiatives to encourage fuel efficiency in transportation fleets
and residential energy retrofits.
[Translation]
I encourage all members of this House to support the gradual
direction in which Canada is moving for the sake of greater
energy efficiency.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, the report which the Minister of Natural Resources has
just tabled is another example of the form of centralizing
federalism which Quebec chose to move away from on October
25 last. Whereas the Government of Quebec already has
jurisdiction in this area, now the minister is announcing clearly
today her plans to move further into this field.
Responsible energy management is a provincial matter. It is
precisely this kind of jurisdictional overlap between levels of
government that we must eliminate if we are to avoid these
endless squabbles over jurisdiction which ultimately cost the
taxpayers a pretty penny indeed.
Must we remind the minister once again that Quebec has
already adopted a broad energy efficiency strategy, that it
administers sizeable budgets for energy efficiency research and
development and demonstration projects, and that it already has
in place an important energy productivity program? Through its
Department of Natural Resources, the Government of Quebec is
already involved in this area, acting in co-operation with Hydro
Quebec, the private sector and regional chambers of commerce.
If, as she claims, the minister really wants to reduce overlap
between the provinces, then she should be setting an example
and abolishing her department's own programs which only add
to the confusion and distort the efforts undertaken by Quebec. If
the minister cannot bring herself to do this, then she should at
least have the decency to allow Quebec to oversee its own
energy efficiency policy independently and turn over to the
Quebec government the money she was planning to spend in the
province under these nice Canada-wide programs.
(1515)
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, we appreciate the tabling of the document. We have no
further comments at this time.
* * *
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report
of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association of the 21st
annual meeting between the Canadian and European
Parliaments held in Vancouver, British Columbia, from
February 15 to 18, 1994.
Might I add that this is one of many examples of a
parliamentary association doing positive work on behalf of
Canadians on an issue that could potentially have been very
damaging to the Canadian economy and thousands of jobs,
namely the forestry industry.
I want to thank everyone who participated in this great forum
because I think we did good work for Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-239, an act respecting the decade of the brain.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce a bill to declare the
1990s the decade of the brain following an original initiative of
the World Health Organization in the late 1980s.
It is the human brain which makes us unique among living
creatures. Ailments of the brain carry with them heart rending
disabilities that can rob us of the very essence of personhood.
The real tragedy is not only the disease that may cause death but
the disintegration of the mind, with devastating impact on
family and on society.
A great threat to the independence of the elderly are diseases
of the brain, some treatable, most preventable. A healthy mind is
the greatest guarantee for continued independence.
A cognitive mental stability enhances the ability to heal and
recuperate, to cope and overcome physical ailments. It is also
important to note that diseases of the brain are among the
costliest, both directly and indirectly.
It is my fond hope that the bill will raise the awareness of
Canadians and will encourage further research and support to
those in our communities who are forging advances of
knowledge that will ultimately improve the lives of all of us.
3283
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, as
members know, music is one of the most effective ways of
communicating our love for Canada. In this week of national
citizenship some of us participated in the Hall of Honour
yesterday reaffirming our oath.
We sang ``O Canada'' like it has never been sung before, I am
sure, in these halls. In every one of our constituencies there are
gifted individuals, choirs, et cetera. Unfortunately music is
conspicuously absent from the daily proceedings here in
Parliament. After having given notice to the other two official
parties in the House I am seeking unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That Standing Order 30 be amended by adding the following words: ``and
shall cause Canada's National Anthem to be played or sung in the House every
Wednesday immediately preceding oral questions''.
(1520)
I think you would find unanimous consent in the House for
that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the substance of what the member is trying
to propose.
However, there are errors in the drafting of the text. Perhaps
the member would be willing to move that the item in question
be referred to the parliamentary committee on procedure. I am
acting chairman and I commit to her to deal with it forthwith. As
a matter of fact, we have a meeting as early as tomorrow
morning. There are errors in the text. It does not refer to what
subsection of section 30 the item should be addressed to.
It is traditional for amendments to the standing orders to be
made pursuant to a recommendation of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs.
If the member is willing to make that small modification, on
behalf of my colleagues I am willing to give consent to have the
matter referred immediately to the parliamentary committee in
question.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that when we
asked the Table and the clerks about this, it was in order. It was
given back to me saying that it was in order and we could
proceed with it. I appreciate the generosity of the member and,
barring unanimous consent in the Chamber now when we are on
national TV, that the secondary way we could proceed is as he
suggested.
As an individual member I believe I have every right and
privilege to ask if there is unanimous consent for the motion so I
would like the Chair to put the motion to see if there is
unanimous consent for it.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of whether this
issue is dealt with on or off television. I would like to think that
we stand for a bit more substance than that.
The issue is whether the wording is proper. I am acting
chairman of the committee this week. I have given my
undertaking to the member. If this is as serious as she claims it is
and I believe it is, then surely a commitment to deal with it at 10
or 10.30 tomorrow morning in committee would not seem like
undue delay in anyone's mind and in any reasonable Canadian's
mind, listening to the proceedings on or off TV.
The Deputy Speaker: As an alternative the hon. member for
Beaver River might wish to wait until tomorrow.
She has already indicated she wants me to ask if there is
unanimous consent now. We have not heard from the Official
Opposition. Perhaps she could put it off for 24 hours and bring it
back tomorrow, having discussed it with the deputy whip for the
Liberal Party.
It is entirely her right if she wants me to ask for unanimous
consent. I will do it as soon as she sits down.
Miss Grey: I did ask once, Mr. Speaker. That was my request.
Let me then put an amendment because the hon. member is
upset about the technicalities of it. I would move an amendment:
That Standing Order 30, subsection (1), be amended.
And everything further to that. Yes, we would like unanimous
consent but barring that we would be willing to send the matter
to committee.
This is a very large thing, but in fact a very small thing for the
House to deal with. There is no shame to it, and surely this is the
place for us all to say: ``Yes, we love this country''. Maybe we
should sing it right now. Who knows?
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion as
indicated a moment ago?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. There is not unanimous consent.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to table some 2,000 signatures that are supporting the
efforts of Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy, my constituent, in her quest to
have serial killer cards banned in Canada.
3284
These cards are published by a number of publishers
including Eclipse Comic Books, Rigamor Press and others.
Canadians do not want these trading cards in their
communities. We abhor crimes of violence against persons and
we believe that killer trading cards offer nothing positive for
children or adults to admire or emulate, but rather contribute to
violence.
(1525)
It is my great pleasure to support this endeavour and the
minister's motion today.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have
petitions on two subjects. The first petition contains 800
signatures ranging from such diverse places as Alberta, Ontario
and the maritimes. It concerns the subject of a unified national
witness and informant protection program. The petitioners ask
the House to enact such a program as quickly as possible.
I have another petition from my riding and the constituents
reiterate what the previous petitioners have said. It also asks that
the House enact Bill C-206 which is the bill I have put forward
to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have a
final petition from my constituents of Scarborough West. It
reads: ``Therefore, your petitioners pray that, first, Parliament
ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of
Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously, and
second, Parliament make no changes in the law which would
sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or
passive euthanasia''.
I want to go on record as saying I completely agree with my
constituents.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am presenting a petition on behalf of
slightly over 750 constituents of Wild Rose. They feel that the
stop work order imposed on Sunshine Village that calls for yet
another environmental study is an unnecessary cost to the
taxpayers.
Numerous studies and public forums have already been held
and expansion was approved by Liberal and Conservative
governments during the past 16 years.
The petitioners therefore have called on Parliament to allow
the expansion at Sunshine Village to go ahead as previously
agreed to and without further costs to the taxpayers for
repetitive environmental studies.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present petitions signed by residents of the Northwest
Territories and Yukon regarding the protection of the Porcupine
caribou herd.
The petitioners call on Parliament to formally reaffirm the
position stated in 1987 of the best way to ensure the future of the
many shared wildlife populations of the coastal plain. Canada's
preference would be for the United States to follow the example
already set in both the adjacent Arctic national wildlife refuge
lands and on the Canadian side of the border by designating the
1002 area as wilderness.
This was the position taken by the previous Parliament. I
agree with my constituents and those of the Northwest
Territories that the Porcupine caribou herd is a national treasure.
I would urge the government and Parliament reaffirm that
position as these petitioners request.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition from constituents of the
city of Quesnel, British Columbia.
My constituents are unhappy that Canadians were not
consulted before the Official Languages Act was entrenched in
the Constitution.
They call on Parliament to enact legislation providing for a
referendum of the people binding on Parliament to accept or
reject two official languages, English and French, for the
government and the people of Canada.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I have petitions signed by 4,460 people asking the
government to ban the product known as the serial killer board
game.
These petitions are in addition to the 105,000 signatures I
have tabled already for a grand total of 109,460 signatures thus
far.
With the indulgence of the House, I would like to take a
moment to thank a senior citizen by the name of Liana Cléroux
of Rockland, Ontario, who arranged that most of these petitions
throughout Canada were accumulated during the last two years.
I also want to thank the Minister of Justice for having tabled
today legislation which in my opinion proved that Mrs. Cléroux
is right.
3285
(1530 )
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from more than 100 residents of Peterborough and
surrounding areas. It is on behalf of long service employees who
lose their jobs and have locked in pensions.
These petitioners request changes to the Pension Benefits
Act, 1985, which was revised in 1990 to bring that act they say in
line with the economy of the 1990s and to improve the situation
of displaced long term employees.
The petitioners suggest that consideration be given to
releasing such pension funds in cases such as financial hardship,
the loss of a job, where someone is starting a new business, or
where there is no job available. They also suggest that the
eligibility age should be reviewed and lowered. I have signed
these petitions.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions with several hundred signatures of
citizens who want to ban the importing of serial killer cards.
Canadians who are offended by these killer cards will be
pleased that the minister has acted so quickly. Today draft
amendments to the Criminal Code have been tabled which
``would restrict or prohibit the sale or distribution of materials
such as serial killer cards and serial killer board games to
children under the age of 18''. He has suggested that this would
go to the justice committee which will be studying it starting
next week.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I too
have a petition to present on behalf of the constituents of
Calgary North, several hundred of whom have signed this
petition. They request that the serial killer board game be
banned from sale in Canada.
They will welcome the speedy passage of the legislation that
has been introduced today. It is clear these concerned citizens
and many others firmly support this legislation demanding the
banning of this alleged game from Canada.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I am always
honoured to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of my
riding of Kent.
I have several hundred signatures pursuant to Standing Order
36 concerning the ethanol plant they hope to have in the city of
Chatham through the help of the federal government.
They say: ``Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon
Parliament to maintain the present exemption on the excise
portion of ethanol for a decade, allowing for a strong and
self-sufficient ethanol industry in Canada''.
I am pleased to note the Minister of Natural Resources in
tabling her report was stressing energy conservation and clean
fuels.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that the notices of motions for the production of
papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the Notices of Motions for the
Production of Papers be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that
because of a ministerial statement, Government Orders will be
extended by five minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(3)(b).
_____________________________________________
3285
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Jon Gerrard (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
Bill C-13, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and a related act,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
(1535 )
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity today to reaffirm the government's
commitment to a fair and simpler sales tax system.
Our goal is to make it fair for consumers and business,
especially small business, and to have a tax structure that
promotes federal-provincial co-operation and harmonization.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance has
already begun to explore alternatives to the current GST. The
committee is focusing on the objectives of administrative ease
for registrants, enhanced competitiveness for Canadian business
and fairness for all taxpayers. It will also be mindful of the
transitional impact on taxpayers of any proposed changes.
3286
In addition the committee will have to be sensitive to the
impact on revenue, for we need a sales tax system that can be
relied upon as a stable source of revenue for the government.
The committee is consulting with Canadians. By June 1 it will
report back to the House on ways in which we might achieve
these goals.
The committee's report will help to set the agenda for
consultations with provincial governments. We will invite the
provinces to work with us to achieve a greater sales tax
co-ordination. The lack of co-ordination in the tax system,
particularly in the area of sales tax, increases the complexity for
businesses and creates many extra costs for governments, both
federal and provincial.
Through this process of consultation we will do our best to
ensure that improvements to the tax system rest on a broad
public and intergovernmental consensus. It will take time to
build this consensus. It will take time to reform the sales tax
system, to do it once and to do it properly.
It is therefore necessary for this government to take steps to
make the GST easier to comply with in the interim. Bill C-13
proposes amendments that will accomplish this.
In several areas the GST legislation needs to be brought into
line with what is practical on an administrative level both for the
government and the GST registrants. The bill contains measures
that have been developed and refined in consultation with
representatives from the business community and other sectors
affected by the changes. These measures will make the GST
easier for businesses and other entities to comply with in their
day to day operations.
Even though the GST will be replaced during the
government's mandate, we will do what we can in the meantime
to make the existing rules easier to understand for businesses,
taxpayers and their professional advisers. The bill contains
provisions that will ease the administrative burden on seasonal
and part time businesses.
Bill C-13 is beneficial for charities as well. In fact it will
allow some of the smaller charities to be excluded from the GST
rules altogether. For charities that do remain in the system there
are measures that would make the rules easier to follow.
This bill will also clarify and broaden the scope of the special
treatment in the agricultural sector and certain exempt sectors.
I would now like to take a few minutes to tell my hon. friends
about some of the specific measures in Bill C-13. I would like to
begin with the changes we are proposing for the business
community, especially small businesses, for it is in this sector
that the need for change is particularly critical.
The bill contains provisions related to a simplified method for
registrants to claim input tax credits, that is to recover the GST
they pay on their business expenses.
This simplified method will be available to businesses with
annual taxable sales of $500,000 or less. It will eliminate the
need for them to identify the amount of tax payable on each and
every purchase they make. Effectively this special approach will
allow them to calculate input tax credits by using the same
information they need for income tax purposes.
(1540 )
Other amendments in this bill will ensure that seasonal and
part time businesses will no longer have to file GST returns
during the off season.
Taken together, these small business measures will make the
current sales tax system easier to comply with for many
registrants in Canada.
There are other sectors of society that have special needs and
practices to which the tax system must adapt. Bill C-13 contains
provisions that respond to the concerns of the health, charitable
and non-profit sectors.
For example, the legislation will guarantee the tax free status
of adapting privately owned vehicles to the needs of the
individuals who use wheelchairs. Another measure will broaden
the GST exemption for homemaker services that are rendered to
people who require special assistance due to age, infirmity or
disability.
The bill will help charities by entitling them to rebates or
input tax credits on allowances and reimbursements they pay to
volunteers who have incurred expenses on the charity's behalf.
It will also make it easier for them to calculate input tax credits
on their meals and entertainment expenses. Another amendment
will make it simpler for charities to determine whether or not
they are required to register for GST purposes.
In the agricultural sector Bill C-13 guarantees the tax free
treatment of rabbits produced for food.
For suppliers of exempt services particularly in the financial
sector, the bill clarifies the extent to which they may claim input
tax credits in respect of expenses they incur in support of both
their exempt and taxable activities.
The measures contained in Bill C-13 will lessen the
administrative burden of the GST. They will resolve some of its
technical shortcomings until we, together with our provincial
counterparts, have an opportunity to forge a solid consensus for
a fundamental reform of the sales tax system.
I therefore urge the hon. members to give their full support to
the bill.
3287
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the House will consider three bills,
including one which concerns the Department of National
Revenue and, more specifically, the merger of customs and
excise. The other two bills deal, respectively, with legislative
provisions concerning the GST, Bill C-13 and Bill C-15 which
deal with certain Income Tax amendments.
The Official Opposition will support the government on the
adoption of Bill C-13. As the hon. member for Vancouver South
just pointed out, this bill, whose purpose is to revise or adjust
certain provisions of the GST legislation, will affect small and
seasonal businesses, charities, health care services, agriculture,
financial institutions and other exempt suppliers, and also sets
requirements for payments and remittances of $50,000 or more.
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss why the
government has to revise these bills from time to time. In the
case of Bill C-13, the bill before the House today, I must admit
this is an admirable attempt by the government to make our
taxation system more straightforward and more equitable.
(1545)
The Official Opposition certainly welcomes this initiative,
especially since it also aims to correct some technical
deficiencies in legislation adopted previously. However, I think
this would be a good time to explain how important it is for us,
as legislators, to produce legislation that is clear, concise and
consistent. The trouble with most of the legislation being passed
today, especially when the government is trying to move a large
number of bills through Parliament, is that the implementation
of all this legislation often creates problems that are even worse
than those it was supposed to resolve, which are often quite
simple. The result is that today, we have hundreds of laws that
merely complicate the lives of most citizens.
I think we should realize, as legislators, that there is the
federal government, the House of Commons, which passes bill
after bill, and the provincial legislatures which also produce a
considerable number of bills and regulations every year. There
are also municipal governments across Canada and Quebec
which adopt by-laws to be observed by all members of the
community. There are also school boards, each with their own
by-laws.
My point is that the well-known principle that ignorance of
the law is no excuse is often difficult to maintain in the maze of
legislation we find at all levels of government. Often the only
people who can be sure of enjoying the benefits of these laws are
the experts in the field, including lawyers, notaries and
accountants, for whom I have tremendous respect; but the fact
remains that more often than not, they are the real beneficiaries
of this maze of legislation at all levels of government.
How do you expect ordinary people whom we are supposed to
represent in this House to find their way through the incredible
labyrinth of legislation in this country? A law is never perfect,
but we should at least ensure it is worded as simply as possible.
Legislation that is not clear will inevitably be misinterpreted or
misused, sooner or later. As I said before, there are hundreds of
laws in Canada that would gain by being simplified or at least
clarified.
Bill C-13 fills that need to some extent, and that is why the
members of the Bloc Quebecois support it. We, on this side, are
able to recognize it when the government does it right and we
will never hesitate to support any measure or bill such as Bill
C-13 that makes it possible to simplify the Canadian legislative
system. Unfortunately, such is not the case with all Canadian
legislation. In some cases, it is almost ridiculous and Canadians
get the impression, in fact the conviction, that the legislator
does not know where he is going, that he has no vision and that
all we are asking of our fellow citizens is that they trust their
government and obey the many laws passed just about
everywhere.
(1550)
Survey after survey shows that current Canadian public
opinion on the confidence of the people in their governments
and elected representatives in general -and Quebecers agree
with their fellow citizens in English Canada on that- is lower
than the interest rates set by the Bank of Canada, although these
are relatively low.
All this to say that neither increasing the number of laws nor
enforcing them will improve the public's perception.
I will come back to that later, but we will also be debating Bill
C-15, which is a good example of the kind of legislation that
should be put before this House to make some sense of the
legislative and administrative jumble created by previous
legislation.
Bill C-13 clarifies the legislation that governs us. While a
step in the right direction, such efforts remain very modest in the
face of the masses of legislation which continues to make the
lives of people and corporations miserable in this country
because of their lack of clarity and transparency.
Let us not forget that each time a flawed piece of legislation is
passed in this chamber, that a statutory regulation providing for
the execution of a law is misinterpreted or applied incorrectly,
and that this has an impact on the everyday lives of our fellow
citizens. As legislators, we often acquire the annoying habit of
forgetting that the various bills we pass impact on the daily lives
of our fellow citizens.
Those were the main comments I wanted to make as the
Official Opposition critic concerning Bill C-13. In conclusion, I
would like to reiterate that the opposition will support this bill
because, as I pointed out, it improves several legislative
provisions on the GST. We hope that, under the GST review
initiative referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver
South-we know that public hearings and consultations are
being held on a new
3288
act, perhaps, or an in-depth review of the GST-the government
will take the time needed to table before Parliament a bill that
will make sense to Canadians, that will be equitable and that
will, in the end, benefit our society.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I will be the
only caucus member for the Reform Party addressing the bill
today.
I rise today to address Bill C-13, an act to amend the Excise
Tax and a related act. The bulk of the bill offers relief to small
business, charities, health care users and rabbit growers in
paying their GST. Yes, that is right, they now get back the money
they paid in taxes on rabbit food.
The bill makes life easier for them or permits them to pay less.
It makes permanent administrative practices already in place.
One section, however, prevents people who owe over $50,000
GST to pay by cheque on Friday afternoon and get a weekend of
extra interest credit because the cheque does not clear until
Monday.
(1555)
The only contentious section concerns financial institutions
that have been trying to get their GST bill lowered by claiming
that a section of the act is ambiguous. The ambiguity was
discovered by tax lawyers, which justifies their high pay. It
would take several paragraphs to explain the highly technical
nature of the ambiguity. However the weak position of the banks
is revealed by the fact that for four years they paid between $150
million and $300 million under protest. The new bill removes
the ambiguity and the money stays with the government. This is
a very good and sound decision under the current economic
circumstances.
It is particularly refreshing to note that Bill C-13 offers relief
to rabbit growers in the country. Now all the Minister of Finance
has to do is magically pull out one of these rabbits from a hat and
balance his budget.
My party supports Bill C-13 but it would like to point out that
it represents yet another example of a federal government
tinkering with an old idea that does not work.
Since its inception the GST has been a burden for business to
collect on behalf of the government the moneys owed and also
for the government to administer. With its countless exemptions
and high rate, the GST has become symbolic of the country's
chaotic tax system causing confusion and resentment among
Canadians.
I have said this before and I will say it again. Canadians pay
too much in taxes and want the current system overhauled, not
just tinkered with.
The problem is that governments have been spending in ways
that ignore both the need for a strong economy and the dangers
of continued deficit spending. The government, like those
before it, relies on the revenues generated by taxes like the GST
and the new tax sources to fund their programs and make interest
payments on the debt.
If the federal government were to truly attack the debt and not
just nibble around the edges as is currently the case, tinkering
with rabbits, interest payments to service it would be lower and
leave it with more revenue to fund other programs.
This would give the federal government the ability to reduce
its current tax hauls from hard working Canadians and give them
back their disposable income which will then be spent more
efficiently and effectively. They know how to spend their money
on their needs better than the government knows how to spend it
on their behalf on what it perceives to be their needs.
With more disposable income in the hands of taxpayers,
people in the private sector will stimulate the economy creating
jobs using at risk money that motivates and not government
money which wastes.
Continued government overspending of debt capital, not
equity capital, on rehashed programs from the 1960s and 1970s
has further encouraged taxpayer resentment, unemployment,
high deficits and debts. In today's world, real sustained growth
depends on trade, investment and strong industry.
Over the past two decades, the country has lost the
competitive edge that it once held in the world marketplace
because of poor government policies combined with
overspending and high taxation.
As Mr. David McLean from the Vancouver Board of Trade has
said:
Foreign investors do not just look at the costs of the goods and services tax
and provincial sales taxes, they add them all up. If the cost is too high then
capital will not come to Canada.
This is why we must re-examine all taxation, stop tinkering
and put in place a simple, comprehensible system that will take
the country into the future, leaving the old policies behind.
Enough reruns. Let us create an entirely new program. Canada
needs a proportional system of taxation. The Liberal member
who spoke first to this bill today mentioned that the finance
committee is looking for a replacement for the GST as promised
by its leader. One alternative it should consider is a proportional
system of taxation or, as is sometimes otherwise referred to, a
flat tax.
3289
The present system of taxation is too complicated, too high
and too unfair. These factors in combination with consistent
government overspending are stifling our economy. I
recommend the implementation of a proportional tax on
individual and corporate income.
A proportional tax is the only way to increase the revenue side
of the budget, remove the incentives for the underground
economy, restore fairness and, most important, stimulate
economic growth, which is a priority of all of us here.
(1600 )
While we are fighting with our high annual deficits, the high
debt and the interest on that debt, we could increase the
disposable income both for corporations and individuals
through a completely new taxation system. This would help
speed up the process of reducing the deficit to zero and starting
to supply some surplus funds to the debt. This is the kind of
signal, the kind of message that will really inspire and
encourage this country to be a haven for investment as it used to
be.
This concept is not new to the House or the government. It was
the member for Broadview-Greenwood who sits opposite me
who initially, I understand, supported a single or flat tax. He
wrote in his book The Single Tax: ``Lower marginal rates and
more take home pay would be an incentive to work harder and
smarter. The new incentives plus elimination of avoidance and
evasion would lead to this tax taking in more revenue''.
I unequivocally agree with the member for
Broadview-Greenwood. I am very impressed by his
intelligence and insight on this subject.
The objective of this tax would be threefold. First, it would
simplify current complicated tax forms so that all Canadians
could understand them. I challenge the 295 members of the
House for this taxation year to fill out their own income tax
forms by themselves and with no help go through the form.
Whatever they come up with then send it in to the Minister of
National Revenue and have two independent people within that
bureaucracy figure out their tax return. I would not be surprised
if over half the returns had two different answers with a lot of
mistakes which would prove that is very difficult and
complicated. Nobody understands the 2,300 and some pages of
the Income Tax Act.
This would also increase savings for the Department of
National Revenue in the collection of taxes and the monitoring
of all personal and corporate tax exemptions.
Second, it would restore equity in the tax system, eliminating
the perception that one group of taxpayers is favoured over
another by setting a lower fixed rate of tax over a certain
threshold for individuals. Corporations would also pay a low
fixed rate of taxation under this reform system.
Equity is when people who make relatively the same amount
of income pay relatively the same amount of tax. By eliminating
yesterday's incentives, which we refer to today as loopholes for
the rich people, we can ensure that we capture 15 per cent or 20
per cent, whatever the flat rate would be of that income. That is
what would increase the revenue for the government. We could
give a high enough tax deduction for the first $12,000 or
$15,000 of earned income so that nobody has to pay tax on that.
That would also relieve a lot of the pressure on our social
programs.
It would restore integrity and bring effectiveness to the
system by eliminating the need for so many tax concessions and
loopholes like those that the government is trying to close with
Bill C-13. We waste our time on old laws and old rules that are
not working.
The Liberal government must stop following the same path as
its predecessors and show some initiative. Stop just talking the
talk and walking the walk. Take some tough action and act
instead of talking about acting by setting up 15 new committees.
It will take six months before they come back with a
recommendation which the House will then have to review for a
further six months or a year. Let us take some action.
By maintaining the status quo with taxation and programs like
infrastructure and the Katimavik II youth job program,
Canadians are seeing nothing new from this government. When
will this government wake up and realize that you cannot keep
taking from Canadians higher and higher taxes and borrow
indefinitely in the bond market. One of these days and soon
somebody will not buy the bonds.
My hon. colleague for Beaver River said in the House
yesterday something which I believe is worth repeating: ``Old
songs by new singers are still old songs''.
The Liberal red book for example is now becoming an old
song book which offers a two-track policy of growth which will,
and I quote from the book, ``make possible a monetary policy
that produces lower real interest rates and keeps inflation low''.
The Liberals promise that their policies, measures, budget and
all the necessary budgets made to date will get the deficit to 3.5
per cent of the GDP, will keep the interest rates low and we will
have low inflation. Since the budget was released the Bank of
Canada rate has jumped to a two-year high of 6.26 per cent, an
increase of 2.16 per cent. Interest payments on our debt will now
increase which will likely force businesses and consumer rates
to follow as well in the marketplace.
(1605)
As a former professional football player, I would like to point
out that the current Liberal government playbook is not
working. It is time to write a new one.
3290
I finally have the attention of somebody from the government
side. He finally put down the trivia that he was reading and is
now listening to me. I got his attention.
The playbook is not working. It is time to write a new one, a
dynamic one. Let us create a new system of taxation which is
fair and simple for all Canadians, that will put to rest the need
for band-aid bills like Bill C-13. It is our collective
responsibility to develop new ideas and move the country
toward a future based on prosperity and away from the old
school ideas that just do not work.
I hope that in the Standing Committee on Finance where new
ideas are being presented by witnesses from all across the
country that the new proposals being suggested for a
replacement for the GST are really and truly listened to and that
the committee will not be just a job for backbenchers to keep
them out of the way while cabinet occupies itself on the greater
issues of the country.
There have been some worthwhile suggestions put forth in
that committee. Some good solutions have been put forward in
that committee. It comes from non-politicians, the intelligent
people in this society. They have put forth some good ideas and
we should be listening to them. If they do and it is on a
non-partisan basis, I look forward to a report in the House that
comes to you, Mr. Speaker, and says ``the replacement for the
GST is-''and that it has the unanimous consent of all members
of the three parties in the House who are on that committee. I
look forward to that and I hope it will be that conclusion.
In conclusion, easing the GST burden on the public is highly
desirable and we should support all such legislation. I encourage
the federal government to examine the benefits of a completely
new system of taxation, a proportional tax which would remove
the need for undesirable taxes like the GST and put money back
into the pockets of hard-working Canadians.
The Reform Party will offer any assistance it can to move this
country toward a proportional system of taxation and eliminate
the need for debate and talk by the bureaucracy and politicians
on useless bills like Bill C-13 when there are much better
solutions to the problems, new solutions to new problems.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
Mr. Boudria: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think
you would find unanimous consent for the bill to be dealt with
immediately at committee of the whole.
Also, you would probably find unanimous consent to have the
bill immediately dealt with at third reading after the bill is
completed at committee of the whole.
(1610 )
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by
unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr.
Kilgour in the chair.)
The Chairman: Order. House in committee of the whole on
Bill C-13, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and a related act.
Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1:
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, there is an
amendment to clause 1 that I would like to put forward.
I move:
That clause 1 of Bill C-13 be amended by striking out line 11 on page 1 and
substituting the following:
``come into force on December 17, 1990 and any regulations made for the purposes
of the definition estimated federal sales tax in subsection 121(1) of the Excise Tax
Act as enacted by subsection (1) may have effect from that date''.
The Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall Clause 1, as amended, carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause, as amended, agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to.)
3291
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 8 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 8 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 9 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 9 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 10 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 10 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 11 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 11 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 12 carry?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, in order to assist the committee
of the whole, you might want to ask if clauses 12 to 36 could
carry if there are no questions. Perhaps there are. In order to
expedite the proceedings, Mr. Chairman, you might want to
refer to it that way.
The Chairman: Is that acceptable to the Bloc Quebecois and
the Reform Party?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 12 to 36 inclusive carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clauses 12 to 36 inclusive agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
(1615)
[Translation]
Hon Jon Gerrard (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill as amended be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: When will the bill be read the third
time? Now, with the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gerrard (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the
bill now be read the third time and passed.
[English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to thank hon. members of the
Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois for supporting the bill.
I think the bill is an important bill because often we have had
in the House both the Reform and the Bloc talking about
duplication in government, talking about paper burden on small
businesses and the administrative difficulty of managing the
GST.
I think the government recognizes some of those concerns and
this bill shows that we want to ensure that the government is
aware of the concerns of small business in terms of the
difficulties of the GST.
As someone who has been a small businessman, I think that
doing things as simply as possible, as the hon. member said very
well, we can help small businesses to be more competitive. We
can help to ensure it is efficient and productive.
I want to thank the members for that and for the excellent
comments that were made by the hon. member on how we as a
government can work toward improving the environment for
small business so it can be more productive, efficient, create
more jobs and get this economy moving.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, I would
agree with what the parliamentary secretary just told us, but the
co-operation he received from the Bloc Quebecois shows that
we are always ready to co-operate on sensible and useful bills. It
is a very small step in the right direction and I think he could use
what we just did as a model to tackle real problems such as the
3292
overall review of government spending and the entire federal
bureaucracy. We would be more than willing to co-operate.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, as a point of
protocol, I guess, I rise to indicate that we do support the bill in
third reading. I hope that all the points we have exchanged here
today do flow back to the Standing Committee on Finance and
from the Standing Committee on Finance back to the House and
that the government some day in the near future, perhaps in time
for the next budget, can come up with comprehensive reforms in
taxation that would improve the system that we have.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
(1620)
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (for the Minister of Justice) moved
that Bill C-15, an act to revise certain income tax law
amendments in terms of the revised Income Tax Act and Income
Tax Application Rules, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-15 contains in its schedules a rewrite of the nine
income tax amending acts passed between November 30, 1991
and July 1, 1993; that is to make them consistent with the
revised Income Tax Act.
Amending acts passed prior to December 1, 1991 were
incorporated in the revision of the Income Tax Act and the
income tax application rules in the context of the statute
revision exercise which forms the fifth and last supplement to
the revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, which came into force on
March 1, 1994.
Between November 30, 1991 and July 1, 1993 nine acts
amending the Income Tax Act were passed. These acts amended
the old version of the Income Tax Act, which was in force at that
time.
In Bill C-15 the nine amending acts are being rewritten to
read as they would have read if the revised version of the Income
Tax Act had been enforced when they were passed. Each
schedule of Bill C-15 revises one of these nine amending acts.
What needed to be done to bring the form of the amendments
in line with the revised version is under question. In English, for
instance, where the Income Tax Act once contained a large
number of gender related terms, these have now been removed
or replaced.
In the French version terminology and style have been
improved and standardized to correspond as much as possible to
the improvements in the language of the general statute revision
of 1985.
The enactment of the bill will bring the revision of Canada's
income tax law to a close. It will provide the citizen and the tax
community with a uniformly revised, up to date version of the
current income tax legislation.
I wish to stress the point that this bill does not amend the
substance of the Income Tax Act. Indeed, Bill C-15 specifically
provides that this bill shall not be held to operate as new law
when it provides that the Revised Statutes of Canada 1985 Act
will apply to these schedules.
This is a technical bill that does not create new law and I am
seeking the co-operation of the House for its speedy passage.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech on Bill C-13, Bill C-15, as
was just noted again in this House, is intended to clarify several
provisions of the Income Tax Act and does not make any new
law. Accordingly, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.
My speech will be short. I want to come back to the point that I
raised earlier, and I think that this bill shows it even more clearly
than the previous one.
(1625)
We have before us a bill that is over 650 pages long, with some
150 clauses that, I repeat, are intended to amend some previous
legislative provisions in accordance with the legislator's desires
or with amendments made to other laws so that all these
amendments are in the Income Tax Act.
The point I want to make is as follows: although it is good
occasionally to have bills that clarify previous provisions or do
some housekeeping, this shows that legislators must act wisely
in passing these laws the first time. Of course, I am not saying
that once passed, a law must never be revised, but it should be
changed for substantive reasons, to adapt it to new
circumstances and to situations that prevail when the need for
change arises.
3293
This bill is meant to correct errors, if you like, that were made
or adopted in some other legislative provisions. Especially at
this time of year when everyone lucky enough to have a job must
file an income tax return, it is easy to understand how hard it is
for the ordinary citizen to make sense of all this mountain of
legislation. We add to that complexity when we have to pass this
kind of legislation.
Although it will be more understandable for specialists,
ordinary citizens will still have difficulty making their way
through it. That is what we want to emphasize to the
government. When you present a bill, you should ensure that it
is as easy to understand as possible for the citizens who will
have to comply with it.
That said, I repeat that the Official Opposition will support
the amendments contained in Bill C-15.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
if I am informed correctly I am the only speaker on this subject.
Today I rise in the House to comment on Bill C-15. This bill is
intended to revise certain amendments of the Income Tax Act. I
think the Reform Party generally supports the bill except for a
few minor suggestions that I would like to throw over to the
other side of the House. The bill does, however, provide this
opportunity to criticize somewhat what the hon. members on the
other side are doing with our tax money.
I was very surprised this afternoon in oral question period
when we were criticized for using the telephone to gather
information and opinion. I would like to suggest to the hon.
members on the other side of the House that it is probably a lot
more efficient than using Challenger jets to go and see
individuals or small groups of people, and I think we get better
information on certain subjects.
The Reform Party position on income tax includes a single
rate tax, with larger personal and family exemptions so that
families earning below a certain income would pay less tax or no
tax. We would also eliminate most of the tax deductions and
loopholes which are not general in application for most
Canadians. As a party we are opposed to any increases in general
income tax burden imposed on Canadians by the federal
government.
The flat rate system would be simpler, more sensitive and
fairer than the current system.
(1630 )
It helps to look at a few facts and figures since 1984. The
Canadian tax burden has been the largest among the G-7
countries. In the fiscal year 1991-92 the personal income tax
yielded $61.5 billion which accounts for 49.6 per cent of federal
revenues.
The root cause of this serious overtaxation is the problem of
government overspending. It seems incredible that government
after government refuses to recognize this.
In 1984 the Liberal government was defeated by Brian
Mulroney and the Conservatives on a platform of deficit
reduction and political patronage. The same thing happened in
1993 when the Liberals defeated the Conservatives on deficit
reduction and overspending.
Thank heavens there are 52 Reformers on this side of the
House now to watch the spending, even if they cannot do
anything on the revenue side. Therefore we have a little more
balance which I hope will be positive in this House.
I wonder sometimes why the governments have tried in vain
to get the government spending problem fixed by increasing
taxes. The notion that a deficit can be reduced from government
revenue increases alone is a misguided one.
Federally higher taxes have failed to reduce the deficit. They
have in fact stalled the economy by cutting the spending power
of the consumer, by dampening new investment and diverting
growth into a flourishing underground economy.
In my riding of Lisgar-Marquette agriculture producers
have seen along with the rest of Canadians a reduction in our
country's international competitiveness. Our income taxes to
our producers and businessmen have got to the rate that the
Americans are a lot more competitive just on that one simple
tax.
I urge the government not just for the farmers, but for the
businessmen, private enterprise, entrepreneurs and
constituents, to start thinking of lowering taxes and not raising
them.
The evidence is across this country. University educated
professionals leave Canada for nations where the income taxes
and cost of living are lower. This is after we have paid to educate
them.
The government should be looking at a tax break that would
help our farmers, businessmen and consumers to increase their
buying power, their productivity and our competitiveness.
I was shocked to learn recently that since 1961 Canada's tax
freedom day has advanced 73 days. In 1961 the ordinary
Canadian paid his taxes by May 5. Today that same taxpayer has
to use his wages or productivity until July 15. This type of
taxation whether it is corporate tax or income tax is
unforgivable.
We are rapidly approaching a point where we will be working
for governments full time just to pay for their debt-creating
policies and bad spending habits. If we do not break this cycle
soon and allow ourselves to implement useful, carefully
considered tax breaks, Canadians will see their incomes taxed
out of existence.
3294
What direction should the Government of Canada take in its
tax policy?
A good example is happening right now in Alberta. Since the
election, the premier of Alberta has been on a crusade to
eliminate his province's $2.5 billion deficit. He is on track to
achieve a zero deficit within three years. This has been done
with a commitment not to raise taxes. The message has gone out
that he will not raise taxes.
(1635)
It surprises me that where we live in our global economy
technology and freer trade will reduce the importance of
political boundaries. Investments and jobs will go to places with
highly skilled workforces, good public services and competitive
tax rates.
I can tell you what this means to my own province of
Manitoba. Recently I have seen two companies move their
Winnipeg operations to Calgary. A number of small businesses
have moved their production facilities from the
Morden-Winkler area to North Dakota. Why? One of the big
reasons is income tax, sales tax. Alberta has no sales tax.
Alberta has a lower corporate tax. The income tax in North
Dakota is about two-thirds of what we pay.
The blunt fact is that Canada's political establishments have
overspent and are on the verge of bankruptcy. Governments take
50 per cent of the average Canadian family's earnings. Multiple
layers of government drain off the highest personal income tax
burden in the G-7 countries and it seems not to be enough.
Reckless borrowing by government still continues as bond
rating agencies prepare to downgrade our government credit
ratings. Ridiculous tax levels are transferring people's spending
power to unaccountable governments. That means retail sales
and job growth shrinks and investment falls. It is a simple
message that government should heed, or beware.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Prior to
your putting the question, I wonder if we could again seek
unanimous consent after the question is put to proceed
immediately to committee of the whole, followed immediately
after committee of the whole stage by the third reading of the
same bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to do that?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by
unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr.
Kilgour in the chair.)
The Chairman: Order. House in committee of the whole on
Bill C-15, an act to revise certain income tax law amendments
in terms of the revised Income Tax Act and the income tax
application rules.
The parliamentary secretary would like to make the motion
that all the clauses be done on division by unanimous consent.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Chairman, I move that all the clauses be approved and adopted
by unanimous consent and give an undertaking that there is
nothing here untoward and that is not obvious or has not been
disclosed to all members of the House.
The Chairman: By unanimous consent shall all clauses,
schedules and the title be passed on division at one time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1640 )
(Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.)
(Schedules I to VIII inclusive agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
Mr. Dingwall (for the Minister of Justice) 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.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Dingwall (for the Minister of Justice) moved that the
bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank all members of the House for their
co-operation. It is a very worthwhile way in which we are
proceeding with the bill in the interests of achieving this, saving
a lot of time and getting this consolidation finished.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
inform our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice, that if his minister wants to move quickly to
bring in a bill on firearms, he would find as much co-operation
on this side as there was today. He may have some trouble with
his own
3295
party, but as far as we are concerned, we would be happy to
co-operate fully.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
like this co-operation. It is something I can really appreciate. I
have been in the House for only about six months. I have a
feeling we have accomplished something already and I hope we
will accomplish a lot more.
I plead with government members to listen to us carefully
when we admonish them on overspending. That input can be
used very wisely for the benefit of this whole nation.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
(1645)
[English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-2, an act
to amend the Department of National Revenue Act and to amend
certain other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. David Dingwall (for the Minister of National
Revenue) 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.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Dingwall (for the Minister of National Revenue)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to begin third reading of Bill C-2. This is an act to amend the
Department of National Revenue.
While the amendments are administrative in nature they go to
the heart of one of the fundamental concerns of the government
and the country. That concept is to reshape the instruments of
government and to provide both better service and better value
to the taxpayer.
Bill C-2 does that in terms of the services provided by the
department most involved with the concerns of the taxpayers,
the Department of National Revenue.
Since 1926 the Minister of National Revenue has had
responsibility for two separate functions: customs and excise on
the one hand and taxation on the other. Over this time these two
components of the department have operated as virtually
autonomous organizations. Yet the daily reality with which
taxpayers live has never been so easily compartmentalized.
Increasingly through technology, trade and travel Canadians
find their lives becoming more complex, more frustrating to
manage and more difficult to understand in terms of the burdens
government places on them.
All of us see this daily in terms of the complaints received
from our constituents of overlap and duplication, of paper
burden and red tape. The distinction between taxation on the one
side and customs and excise on the other has become more and
more an artificial distinction.
Increasingly the distinction denies rather than reflects the
way Canadians live their lives. The distinction renders
Canadians' lives more complicated than they need be.
Reversing that trend must be and is our first priority.
However, increasingly this artificial separation also impedes
rather than improves administration, making it more difficult to
redeploy resources and to employ new technologies as tools to
improve services on the one side and compliance on the other.
It is long past time that we brought the department in its
structure and operation into line with the reality with which
ordinary Canadians live. It is time we free the quality people
who work within Revenue Canada to do a better job. It is time we
eliminate overlap and duplication within the department for the
sake of the department's clients and the Canadian taxpayer. It is
time that we do this in law.
We have already demonstrated what consolidation can
achieve within the existing legislative framework. The savings
have been substantial. We have also demonstrated that we are at
the limits of what we can do within that framework. We require
Bill C-2 to remove those limits, to create new possibilities for
improvements, to continue our momentum toward the goals of
better service and better value and to free the department to
work to its full potential. By doing that we can better align what
we do with what Canadians want.
3296
(1650)
During the minister's appearance before the Standing
Committee on Finance on February 15 members asked him for
specific information on the benefits inherent in the
administrative consolidation of Revenue Canada and he has
responded to them.
I would like to share with all members of the House some of
the benefits administrative consolidation will bring to
Canadians and governments in terms of efficiency, productivity,
effectiveness in generating revenue, and finally lightening the
burden of the Canadian taxpayer.
First, let me speak to efficiency and productivity. Revenue
Canada has a solid record of providing Canadians with good
value for money. It administers more than 185 acts, regulations,
incentives, credits, surtaxes and international tax treaties, and
does so with its eye on the bottom line. Through ongoing
improvements to its operations and efficiency gains realized
through technological advancements, the department has
achieved productivity gains equal to adding more than 2,000 full
time staff in the last ten years.
These savings have permitted the department to carry out its
legislative mandate while also investing in better service,
enhanced enforcement and staff training and development.
At the same time, Revenue Canada has made a significant
contribution to deficit reduction through both enhanced revenue
collection and reduced spending. This will continue in the
future.
Bill C-2 will allow the department to go even further in
streamlining administration and generating savings for
reinvestment. Already the consolidation of corporate activities
and administration, which we have been able to pursue within
the existing legislative framework, has saved $30 million.
Some $13 million of this saving has been reinvested in critical
customs programs that are essential in protecting Canadian law
and sovereignty at the border.
These include $2.3 million for the primary automated lookout
system. This system provides a primary inspection line officer
with access to data base of local and national information to
determine the admissibility of travellers and their goods. The
cost includes the acquisition of a licence plate reader system to
streamline and speed the examination of travellers.
Also included is $1.2 million for the personal alarm security
system. Seventy-four isolated border posts will be connected to
ultra high frequency radio communications networks to enable
customs inspectors to summon help in case they face threats to
their health or safety.
Also included is $1.1 million for X-ray equipment. Four
X-ray vans will be purchased to enhance examination and
enforcement capabilities in Halifax, Toronto, Montreal and the
Pacific region for providing a less intrusive and more time
saving examination technique.
Also included is $1 million for the integrated customs
enforcement system. This project will integrate and replace a
number of customs systems to reduce overlap and improve
enforcement. The integrated customs enforcement system is a
comprehensive information repository and analytical tool that
ensures front line customs personnel have the most reliable
information to more effectively manage risk at the border.
Also included is $3.5 million for the new business
relationship. Significant funds have been allocated to
re-engineer processes such as electronic data interchange and to
develop profile based release, accounting, self-assessment and
audit processes. The benefits translate into real savings for
business.
Also included is $1.3 million for the Peace Arch crossing
entry. This initiative, which has been successfully piloted in
Douglas, B.C., enables frequent pre-approved travellers to use
an express lane at border crossing points. Duties and taxes are
billed electronically to the travellers credit card based on
personalized declaration forms. Additional funds will expand
the service to other locations.
(1655)
Also included is $2.6 million for specialized customs
enforcement tools and systems.
Funds have been allocated to purchase a number of devices
such as contraband detection kits to detect commonly smuggled
goods and to improve compliance.
The full consolidation of Revenue Canada which Bill C-2
enables will permit even further savings. We anticipate that
consolidation could generate a further savings of $30 million for
the year 1995-96.
Let me turn to the second area, our enhanced revenue
generating capability. As the Minister of Finance declared in his
budget speech on February 22, our government is committed to
take decisive action on tax compliance and to strengthen
enforcement.
Through administrative consolidation Revenue Canada will
have a stronger combined enforcement capacity and thus be able
to follow through on this commitment. Our experience has
shown that non-compliance in one area such as under reporting
income tax is often matched in other areas such as under
reporting on GST.
As a single unified department we will improve our
penetration into the underground economy and thus increase the
fairness of our tax system. It will do this by allowing us to build
bridges between our tax system, trade system and border
operations to improve the effectiveness of them all.
3297
We want to apply the benefits of such collective efforts to
target those who do not comply with the law and to level the
playing field for those who do. Efforts to date in co-ordinating
the administration of the two existing departments have
enhanced revenue generation by enabling increased
co-ordination and enhanced sharing of data bases as shown by
the following illustrative examples.
First, we have established a pilot in 15 district offices to
identify areas of major non-compliance through joint GST and
tax audit activities. As at December 31, 1993, $8.4 million in
additional federal tax has been assessed and 4,343 non-filers
and non-registrants have been identified.
Second, in November we enhanced our effort to identify GST
non-filers. It utilizes a combination of overtime, casual staff
and facilities from both taxation and excise. Results to date
include $417 million having been identified as additional
accounts receivable, of which $220 million has already been
collected.
Third, we have undertaken the cross-referencing of excise,
GST and taxation data base to identify non-filers and
non-registrants. The estimated recovery for 1993-94 is $240
million.
As members will see, the return in terms of revenue far
outweigh the cost. This will be enhanced by departmental
consolidation. The best examples of this is the initiative to
offset GST credit payments against income tax liabilities and
family court orders.
For 1992-93, $59 million was offset from GST credit
payments. Results for the first three quarters of 1993-94 show
that $56 million has already been offset. In similar fashion we
have made efforts to use better co-ordination to provide more
convenient and fair services in particular areas. As well, we
expect enhanced revenues from our recent efforts to clamp down
on smuggling.
The recent announcements concerning 42 additional customs
officers in the Windsor area and 350 customs personnel for the
government action plan on smuggling are examples of the
government's commitment to improve border protection.
Finally, let me turn to our efforts to reduce the burden on
Canadians of compliance with tax laws.
(1700 )
By eliminating the unnecessary barriers between the different
components of Revenue Canada, Bill C-2 will have a positive
impact on those who must deal with Revenue Canada whether
small and large businesses, professionals, importers or the
taxpaying public.
The following are but a few examples of the opportunity
presented by administrative consolidation to reduce burden and
increase service: an integrated collection program so that clients
and their representatives need deal with only one Revenue
Canada official; the provision of a convenient, one stop
shopping service whereby clients can obtain information,
acquire forms and make payments at any of about 130 customs,
excise and taxation offices across the country; a single business
registration number to replace the various identification
numbers that business is currently required to use in its dealings
with Revenue Canada.
The plan is to develop one single and common registration
process, a single registration form, an integrated approach to
payments, inquiries and account maintenance as regard
corporate tax, source deductions, GST and customs; a simplified
combined business return enabling small business with gross
sales of less than $500,000 to file a net payment in a single
annual return; simultaneous GST, income tax and source
deduction audits when necessary and where possible.
Revenue Canada has been entrusted with a significant
mandate that involves the lives and the livelihood of Canadians.
This is indeed a challenging mandate affected by national and
international elements. This consolidation will give Revenue
Canada an unprecedented opportunity to enhance its ability to
respond to these challenges without imposing any further
burden on taxpayers.
As I said at the outset, this legislation provides concrete
evidence of our commitment to reshape government to the needs
of Canadians. The unanimous report of members of the Standing
Committee on Finance is testament to the recognition of this
imperative.
I now seek the support of all members in the passage of Bill
C-2.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Once again, the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead has the floor.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, do you mean you are tired of listening to me? This
will be my last speech for the day, Mr. Speaker.
Today, April 20, 1994, we are witnessing an event of almost
historical proportions in the House of Commons. If I am not
mistaken, within a matter of hours the government and the
opposition parties will have agreed to adopt three bills which,
we hope, will have a positive impact on the lives of our fellow
citizens.
Bill C-2, whose purpose is the consolidation of the taxation
and customs and excise sectors in the portfolio of National
Revenue, seems very appropriate because it brings about a
reduction of current spending and overlap within one and the
same department.
In his speech, the hon. member for Vancouver South
described the savings that will result from this initiative. The
proof of the pudding is of course, in the eating, but we are
prepared to approach what was said by the hon. member for
Vancouver South with a very open mind. At the same time, we as
members of the Official Opposition will make a point of
ensuring that
3298
these commitments are met and that potential savings become a
reality in the months to come.
However, aside from this particular aspect, as you know, Mr.
Speaker, members of the Official Opposition have for months
asked for a reduction in all forms of administrative duplication
and even, I would say, of constitutional duplication.
(1705)
The Bloc Quebecois will support such initiatives in this
House, provided, of course, that the proposed changes do not
adversely affect Quebec interests. In other words, we remain
prudent but nevertheless very open to this type of proposal.
Bill C-2 is in itself a good bill, but I hope that when the time
comes to implement this legislation, the government will
consider all aspects of the question. In this respect, perhaps I
may remind hon. members of apprehensions expressed by the
president of the Customs and Excise Union, for instance.
In fact, the president of the union appeared last February
before the Standing Committee on Finance, when the committee
was considering Bill C-2, and he stressed the main concerns his
union had about this bill. One of the union's concerns arises
from the fact that as a result of consolidation, many employees
trained to collect income tax will turn up as managers in
Customs and Excise. However, the Free Trade Agreement, or
should I say the Free Trade agreements between Canada and the
United States and, more recently, between the United States,
Canada and Mexico, as well as the trend towards the
globalization of world markets, will mean that in the years to
come, there will be fewer and fewer tariff items to enforce at our
borders. Customs and Excise does not need more tax collectors.
As I see it, Customs and Excise should be more concerned about
the lack of protection at our borders.
A prime example is the smuggling problem we see today.
While the lowering of taxes on tobacco products had a definite
impact on smuggling, it would be naive to think that the whole
smuggling problem has therefore been resolved. Canadian
borders are said to leak like sieves in many places. Only last
week, a U.S. government report put Canada on the list of the
countries where it is the easiest to smuggle drugs in because of
the length of our borders, but that stands to reason considering
how few resources are allocated in that area by the government,
although some remedial action was taken recently.
The fact that Canadian borders are poorly guarded has
certainly given a boost to the black market phenomenon which is
now spreading, as we know, to alcohol. It has been spreading for
a long time, but loads of spirits keep flowing through our
borders. It has even spread to such things as clothing, drugs, as I
said earlier, but more dramatically to illicit arms dealing and
pornography, which goes to show how urgently action is
required in that area.
One of the purposes of Bill C-2 is to reduce the operating
costs of the Department of National Revenue.
(1710)
But if the government does not also step up our border
security-I repeat, action has been taken, but it must really do
more along those lines-it is likely to have much more serious
problems than those it now faces. It will have a rude awakening,
judging by what the president of the Custom and Excise Union
said when he appeared before the Standing Committee on
Finance.
Here verbatim is one of the warnings he served on the
government concerning the actual savings that might be realized
from this merger:
Decreased border protection will ultimately translate into more weapons in
our schools, more fraud and smuggling, and more expense in enforcing the laws
of Canada when the criminal element ends up a step closer to our daily lives. This
will cause the need for increased policing within Canadian communities. For
example, one missed cocaine seizure at the Canadian border could require
several hundred policing actions within the communities.
The government must deal with this problem before
implementing this bill.
It is also important to question the motives behind the
government's decision to merge the two departments in
question, namely National Revenue and Customs and Excise.
Why does the government now find it necessary to consolidate
these two administrative entities? The answer to this question
was given to us in this House on February 4 by the hon. member
for Essex-Windsor, who is also Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Revenue, who said unusual things for a member of
the government now in office.
She said: ``This bill would enable the Minister of National
Revenue to consolidate two distinct departments that have been
under his responsibility since 1926 into one''-which was
confirmed by the hon. member for Vancouver South a few
moments ago-``and thus eliminate unnecessary duplication
and overlap within government. It will also bring distinct
benefits to taxpayers and it will enhance the Department of
National Revenue's ability to provide more efficient and
effective services and programs''.
I recognized in this short quote several terms and expressions
often used by members of the Official Opposition in this House.
When the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National
Revenue talks about eliminating unnecessary duplication and
overlap to provide more efficient and effective services and
programs, I get the impression that her speech was inspired by
remarks made by members on this side of the House, and
especially by members of the Official Opposition. In fact the
comments made by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor seem
3299
to come straight from the mouth of a member of the Official
Opposition.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot logically oppose Bill C-2, as it is
perfectly consistent with the philosophy we are advocating with
respect not only to administrative management, but also to
constitutional issues. The fact of the matter is that the bill
incorporates principles which we hold dear: implementation of
efficient and effective government programs, and the
elimination of duplication and overlap; in other words, good
administrative and political common sense. The problem, for
the Liberal government, is that it is starting to sound a lot like
what Quebec is demanding in terms of job training.
(1715)
Why does the government not apply the same principle of
sound management when comes the time to negotiate with its
provincial partners, and Quebec in particular, to reach an
agreement on manpower training? All the stakeholders-they
are mentioned day after day in this House and several times each
day-all those involved, whether federalists or sovereigntists,
all agree to say that by repatriating all these powers in Quebec,
hundreds of millions of dollars could be saved in the area of
manpower, perhaps as much as $300 million a year. Yet, year
after year, the federal government keeps systematically
preventing any development. It does not even get along with the
ultra-federalist, if there ever was one, Liberal government of
Daniel Johnson.
Just last week, the Prime Minister used the word ``whim'' to
describe Quebec's demands in that area. Why is the Liberal
government forgetting the virtues and advantages of
effectiveness and efficiency, in so far as Quebec's demands are
concerned? How is it that overlap within the Department of
National Revenue is a more pressing problem to be resolved
than duplication in the administration of manpower training?
This is but one example.
By tabling Bill C-2 in this House, the present government is
unwittingly showing the inequities in the federal system and
laying bare for all to see the problem it is having setting serious,
credible priorities when it comes to managing its affairs. We
applaud the federal government-and I want to stress this
point-for taking the initiative to merge these two departments
which in any event had been the responsibility of a single
minister since 1926.
What worries me is that if the federal government needed 68
years to realize the damage created by overlapping authority at
the Department of National Revenue, how long will Quebecers
have to wait to see the same results, that is an end to duplication,
in the area of manpower training?
Therefore, the Official Opposition applauds the federal
government for recognizing the absurdity of administrative
overlap. If the merger of these two departments indeed results in
real savings and benefits, and I have no doubt that it will, then
we urge the government to be innovative and to explore other
similar initiatives, such as negotiating with the Government of
Quebec on the issue of manpower training.
However, the federal government, in keeping with its
reputation, apparently feels that the duplication hampering
Quebec's development is a necessary thing and should be
stepped up.
As we all know, Canada's political history is full of examples
of federal intrusion in provincial areas of jurisdiction. The
current Liberal government seems not only intent on staying this
historical course, but also bent on increasing the number of
areas in which it feels free to encroach, such as health,
post-secondary education and, as I mentioned, manpower
training.
Quebec taxpayers will not be satisfied with the simple
internal merger of the Department of National Revenue. Of
course they will reap the benefits of this merger and, like the
Official Opposition, they will applaud the government's action.
However, the majority of Quebecers are awaiting the day when
they will be answerable to only one national revenue
department, namely that of a sovereign Quebec which is master
of its own economic decisions. Perhaps when that day comes,
the expressions ``administrative overlap'', ``duplication'' and
``government inefficiency'' will become obsolete.
(1720)
In conclusion, despite some reservations, the Official
Opposition wishes to express its support for Bill C-2 which calls
for a merger of the two departments in question.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
support Bill C-2 at third reading. I addressed the bill previously
and have spoken favourably about it.
According to the Department of National Revenue, the
approval of Bill C-2 will ``enable it to be more responsive to
changing needs, to streamline operations, to reduce the
administrative burden on taxpayers, to reduce costs and
duplication and to improve the quality of its services and
programs''. That is a pretty tall order and we hope it can be
pulled off.
The Reform Party position on an objective like this is very
much supportive. The steps taken by the Liberal government in
an attempt to streamline departmental activities is a worthwhile
effort. Combining immigration and citizenship, customs, excise
and taxation and eliminating altogether the Department of
Public Security will help reduce duplication and overlap.
3300
I hope the current treatment of the overseas tax credit is not an
example of this new and improved department's modus operandi
in the future. The overseas tax credit is predicated on the
assumption that people who work outside the country for
extended periods ought not to pay full taxes since they do not
consume their full share of government services.
This virtually eliminates tax on 80 per cent of total income for
workers logging at least six months of the year abroad. I want to
go into this to show members an example of what this super
efficiency ought not to do.
By regulation, the tax credit cannot be claimed by employees
of foreign parent companies but for years Revenue Canada
permitted such workers to claim it anyway. They were taxed at
the same level as employees of domestic firms working abroad.
Last fall, however, during a routine audit of the Calgary arm
of Texas based Nabors Drilling, tax assessors said they would
disallow the overseas tax credit not only for 1994, which seems
legitimate, but retroactively for 1993, 1992 and 1991. The
decision would nail up to 600 workers with additional tax bills
of up to $48,000 each. Nabors' lawyers are currently disputing
Revenue Canada's attempt to disallow the tax credit for the
earlier two years, and so they should.
How can the Minister of National Revenue and the
Department of National Revenue change the rules four years,
three years after the fact? Once the department has set a
precedent-it always deals on precedent-it should stick to it or
change the law and give people warning so that they know what
to expect.
If U.S. parent companies move their overseas operations
centres back to the United States, that will kill office jobs in
Canada and deprive Revenue Canada of far more money than
allowing the overseas tax credit. It is not efficient. It is not
effective. It does not serve the purpose for what this
amalgamation is supposed to do. It gives the impression that we
are creating a tax collection police force that is going to squeeze
every penny, every dollar it can out of honest working Canadian
companies and individuals. The Minister of National Revenue
refused to be interviewed on this subject, so I plan to bring this
up during question period in the very near future.
(1725)
We need increased financial reviews and reforms for all
government departments to ensure that taxpayers' money is
being spent efficiently and effectively. The reduction of costs
associated with departmental consolidation and the removal of a
few individuals at the executive level are just the tip of the
iceberg when one considers the amount of government waste
that has existed over the years.
The ivory towers of the Conservative years have to come to an
end and I hope the government is serious in its attempt to do so.
The new super deputy minister of National Revenue Taxation,
Customs and Excise through this amalgamation told us in the
Standing Committee on Finance that he will save money. But I
have a concern. He also told us that the department employs
44,000 people at a cost of $2.2 billion. When asked what the
short term savings of this bill are, meaning within the next 12
months, his answer after much fumbling was $36 million.
He then pointed out in another part of the bill that through
amalgamation and the changes that had to take place due to the
smuggling problem that existed three or four months ago, the
department would be spending more money on customs
officials, et cetera, and there would be $50 million of new
spending. The net saving is not a saving. It is a $16 million
increase to the already high $2.2 billion cost of running the
department. Let us hope that is not something of which he is
proud.
Thirty-six million dollars is a lot of money and a savings of
that amount is very much appreciated. It would do well in a lot of
our pocketbooks and the pocketbooks of the taxpayers. It is very
important that those people should have that money back.
If that is all the deputy minister is promising to save out of
$2.2 billion, at the end of the current fiscal year I would hope the
Minister of National Revenue would look for a replacement.
There has to be a better objective than that. If that is all he can
save he is unfit for the job.
Our party would encourage the minister and the government
to initiate a line by line, item by item review of all departments
to find out where the money is going. If we took the time to find
the savings in the estimates, through the estimates of every
committee and if the backbenchers of the government were
allowed to point out where those savings are and if the cabinet
had the courage and the confidence in its backbenchers to listen
to their input, it would find a lot of further savings. If all the
millions of dollars that the Prime Minister is talking about in
savings and cuts are added together, it will come to the billions
that the finance minister is talking about in cuts and savings.
Therefore the two stories would go together and we could
restore some confidence in the economy and in the government
itself. It would then be speaking from the same song book
whether it is old or new.
We have some concerns about Bill C-2. Although we support
it, it is feared that the combination of Revenue Canada Taxation
and Customs Canada is designed to place more of an emphasis
on revenue collection, controlling the underground economy
and smuggling rather than designed to save overhead and this
ivory tower bureaucratic structure we talked about earlier.
Customs officials must not be hindered in any way by
legislation from performing the important duty of protecting
Canadians from illegal drugs, weapons and criminal elements
by reducing their ranks. By making administrative cuts at the
top, the minister must not reduce the number of customs
3301
personnel in the field which would hinder their ability to
function effectively.
Other concerns have also been raised by the customs union,
several municipalities and the media-I am sure the media is
doing it on behalf of the Canadian public-with the
consolidation of the two departments, customs officers'
resources to effectively defend the border will be strained. The
customs union is under the impression that increased emphasis
on these activities will lead to a reduction in resources for other
activities such as controlling illegal immigrants, firearms,
pornography and stopping child abduction.
(1730)
The Minister of National Revenue has said-
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just a
clarification, there has been discussion and there is agreement
that we should pass this bill before we move to Private
Members' Hour. I do not know how long the member has left but
if the House agrees not to see the clock so he can finish his
speech, then you could put the question.
The Deputy Speaker: In fairness to all members, the member
has not had long. We should go to private member's in five
minutes. Is there unanimous agreement not to see the clock so
that we might pass this bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the government
Whip. I will be under that time limit so we will watch the clock
closely and make sure we follow the schedule as pre-arranged
by the three party whips. I am sorry, we have a party
co-ordinator.
The Minister of National Revenue has said in relation to Bill
C-2: ``I believe a unified Department of National Revenue will
build on the strength of our existing customs, excise and
taxation administrations. It will better serve Canadians and
strengthen their confidence in Canada's revenue
administration''.
I hope so, but I hope my example about the overseas tax credit
is taken to heart and taken seriously because that is not the way
to treat Canadian corporations or individual taxpayers.
In conclusion, we believe that improved efficiency and
effectiveness can result from this bill provided that
reorganization and government cost savings will be done with
the security and the best interests of Canadians in mind, versus
empire building within the bureaucracy or a heavy handed tax
police force auditing and demanding tax dollars in a totalitarian
fashion.
We support the bill but we will be watching and I will be
watching as it is my duty to monitor the actions of this particular
bill and the effect that it has on government over the next year.
The Minister of National Revenue promises lower costs. The
new super deputy minister of this cabinet minister in the
Standing Committee on Finance promised lower costs.
Therefore we will expect substantial lower costs.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.35 p.m., the House will now
proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed
on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3301
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West) moved that Bill
C-206, an act to provide for the relocation and protection of
witnesses, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking my seconder for
seconding the bill. In the 20 minutes that I have allotted to me
under Private Members' Business I would like to deal with six
specifics of my bill, an act to provide for the relocation and
protection of witnesses in Canada.
The first point I would like to deal with is the genesis of my
interest in the subject.
In the previous Parliament I was the Official Opposition critic
for the Solicitor General. In that capacity I was approached by
someone who had difficulty with the existing witness relocation
protection program run by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I, like many Canadians, had assumed that such a witness
relocation program was a national program with rules and
regulations pursuant and subject to the laws of Canada. I was
shocked to find out that is not the case. In my capacity as the
Official Opposition critic I began to investigate to see what I
could find out about witness protection in Canada.
It came to my attention that we in this country do not have a
national witness protection program which would cover
potentially all witnesses to serious crimes in Canada. What we
have is ad hoc witness protection programs across the nation
with various police forces.
We know, for example, that there is an ultra secret witness
protection program for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We
know that there is a witness protection program of some nature
run by the Ontario Provincial Police. There may be one for the
Quebec provincial police. We know that some but not all
municipal police forces such as the metropolitan Toronto police
3302
force and the Calgary police force have witness protection
programs.
What is the common characteristic of these various witness
protection programs? I think there are really a couple. First,
there is really no legislative provision for any of them. There is
no accountability to the public for any of them and they are all
shrouded in complete secrecy. When I attempted to find out
about these witness protection programs I found that this cloud
of secrecy descended and became a fog of secrecy and we simply
were not able to find out any information.
This would come as a surprise to Canadians, to potential
victims of crime, to witnesses to crime and to the taxpayers of
Canada.
That is what got me interested. Am I alone in thinking this
way? Am I alone in feeling that there is a need for a national
witness protection program? Of course I would suggest not. In
fact I have presented in the last year or so numerous petitions
with thousands of constituents and Canadians across the country
asking that there be a national witness protection program
enacted.
In response to one of those petitions the Solicitor General of
the day, the Hon. Doug Lewis, said: ``Witness protection is
indeed a very important function of law enforcement and
equally a crucial service to witnesses who are at risk of
retribution as a result of giving testimony in court. It is accurate
to say that presently there is not a national legislated program as
exists in the United States, for example. My officials are
currently examining the state of witness protection in Canada''.
This was March 16, 1993. Over a year ago the officials were
examining the situation.
That was a different government at a different time.
Thankfully I note that the current Solicitor General of Canada,
when he appeared before the justice and legal affairs committee
on April 13, 1994, had this to say about the subject: ``An
effective witness protection program is critical to the successful
prosecution of serious drug and organized crime cases''. He has
also undertaken to report back.
The problem is that there have been studies and studies going
on and we do not seem to be getting anywhere. Therefore, I
brought forward my private member's bill. Is there some
experience in some other jurisdiction that might help us? Indeed
there is. In the United States, for example, a national witness
protection program has been in existence since 1970. We can at
least look at that to see whether it has served a useful purpose.
(1740)
That particular program was enshrined in the 1970 omnibus
crime control act and is currently in force in all 50 states.
Bill Dempsey of the U.S. marshall service in Washington
said: ``It is the most successful tool that U.S. attorneys have in
their daily work''. It merely buttresses what our own Solicitor
General has so eloquently said before the committee.
Are Canadians, those who are at least aware that we do not
have any rules and regulations pertaining to the protection of
witnesses, behind this program?
I received a letter from ``Canadians Taking Action Against
Violence''. The founder and president is Deborah Mahaffy. Her
daughter was violently murdered and the alleged perpetrator is
currently before the courts.
I think it expresses a lot of the intention I have in bringing this
bill forward: ``Dear Mr. Wappel, I am writing to commend your
action and offer our support of Bill C-206, a national witness
act. As we in Canada are guided by a national criminal code it is
logical and economically apparent that we should also have a
national witness protection act.
It is also very clear that there are a great number of people
who have not been afforded proper protection for their valuable
testimony in our criminal courts of law across the country.
Unfortunately witnesses have found themselves victims, always
looking over their shoulders for fear of reprisals from those they
helped convict or someone associated with them.
Agreements between witnesses to crimes and police should
not be left to chance. Written contracts would provide effective
protection rather than add further insult to injury. We are paying
far too great a price when witnesses and informants do not come
forward as they fear exposing personal safety or that of their
families.
When the general public becomes aware that Canada has an
effective and efficient national witness and police informant
program which would be accountable to the House of Commons
with respect to budgeting concerns, only then will we see the
desired reductions in delayed investigations and unsolved
crimes.
My husband and I continue to support a national witness act,
and in the memory of our daughter, murder victim Leslie
Mahaffy, and all victims of violence in Canada. All families of
victims of violence in crime need to see that justice is served in
an expeditious manner based on accurate and forthcoming
testimony and to achieve that it is imperative that Bill C-206 is
votable'', which thankfully it is, ``and that it becomes the
legislative framework of one national witness act which will aid
3303
in the prosecution of violent crime and show that our
government is willing to make public safety a priority''.
The Canadian Police Association as well as Victims of
Violence of Canada is also supportive of this particular bill and
the principle behind it which is the protection of witnesses.
There are approximately 1,400 unsolved murders in this
country, some of them clearly because witnesses are afraid to
come forward for fear of reprisal.
What is the subject matter of this bill? It is a relatively short
bill. I would like to discuss briefly some of its provisions and
then talk about what would happen if this House were to give its
agreement to this bill.
The underlying philosophy is in section 3. The minister may,
where the minister considers it appropriate in the interests of
justice, take action to relocate and protect the witness or any
member of their family where the minister believes that there is
a substantial risk of violence being directed toward that person
in an attempt to interfere with the course of justice.
Is that somehow different than what we have now? Of course
not. Any of these police forces using their current witness
protection programs can do precisely what I have put into this
bill. The difference is that they do it without legislative
authority and without a minister responsible to this House and
the Canadian people to answer for situations in which either a
witness has been refused or a mistake has been made. There is
nothing new except it is actually in an act giving the minister
some direction.
(1745)
The minister must consider certain factors. One is to
determine whether there is any other alternative to providing
relocation and protection. It is not mandatory. Every person who
is going to be seeking relocation is not going to get it. It will
depend on the minister's judgment whether the interests of
justice and the safety of the witness are dealt with and that there
is no other reasonable alternative.
One of the important features is in clause 5 because if the
minister feels that it is necessary to relocate it may also be
necessary to give a new identity. The bill provides that the
minister would have the power to provide suitable documents to
assist the person in establishing a new identity or to otherwise
assist in protecting the person. This would mean a new name, a
new social insurance number, new documents of all kinds.
It is my understanding, and I may be wrong, that the RCMP
currently does this. They currently provide in certain
circumstances a new name, new passport, new documents.
Under what legal authority? There is no legal authority yet they
are doing it.
However if someone happens to be a witness to a crime that
the RCMP is not investigating, if it happens to be a municipal
police force or if it happens to be a province, the province has no
power to provide a new identity. Arguably the RCMP has no
power, but at least they are doing it because they are a federal
agency. Certainly there should be even treatment of all
witnesses across Canada, just as there is even treatment of all
people who are accused of a crime across Canada.
Another aspect of the bill I would like to highlight for the
House concerns the responsibilities of the parties. I have set out
in clause 7 that there must be a written memorandum of
understanding. The memorandum of understanding would set
out the rights and obligations of the parties. The federal
government is currently being sued by a number of people who
are in the witness protection program. Disputes arise as to
whether or not the RCMP agreed to something or did not comply
with some promise that was made. Why? The answer is because
often there is no document to which to refer and to see whether
or not the parties met their obligations.
I have set out there should be a memorandum of
understanding and of course, because of confidentiality and
protection, there should be a mechanism short of a court of law,
short of requiring a witness to go public, if you will when they
are trying to hide from criminal retribution, a method whereby
those breaches or alleged breaches could be dealt with in a
private way.
To protect the minister, to protect society I have provided that
no decision made by the minister would be subject to review in
any court in Canada. This would prevent all sorts of frivolous
lawsuits by people who feel they were unfairly denied an
opportunity. However it would not allow the minister to escape
responsibility from certain decisions that were made and from
questioning about those decisions in the House of Commons.
Finally, we have no idea how much money is currently spent
on witness protection. We do know that money is spent, but there
is no way of finding out how much. There is no way of
budgeting. There is no way of suggesting that there should be
another allocation. My bill provides that no payments shall be
made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to defray the
expenses necessary for the implementation of this bill without
the authority of an appropriation made by Parliament for such
purpose.
We need a witness protection act. Everybody seems to be in
agreement. This provides some legislative framework for it. It
provides some legal authority for the act to proceed and it
provides also an opportunity for the aggrieved witness or the
aggrieved crown to deal with problems of interpretation.
(1750 )
In drafting the bill I tried my best, but by no means do I
pretend that it is absolutely perfect. I know that the minister has
a department and I know the justice minister has a department
that spend its days looking at legislation. I am not adverse to
amendments to the bill. I am not adverse to any suggestions that
would keep the spirit and the intent but make the bill better. I
3304
have no desire to pretend that the bill as drafted is necessarily
perfect, although I would like to think that it is pretty good.
However, it is important to realize that what I am asking, and
those people who have petitioned the House over a course of 16
months or so are asking, is that we accept the principle of
witness protection and relocation across Canada so that all
people are treated the same way under law pursuant to
legislation.
If the House is favourable to voting in favour of the bill, it
would then be referred to the justice and legal affairs committee
for intensive study. At that time the department, witnesses,
everybody could come forward and put suggested amendments.
The committee could deal with the bill on a clause by clause
basis, accept those amendments which are thought appropriate
and needed and then refer the bill back to the House for final
passage.
What I am saying is very simple, an affirmative vote would
not mean that the bill is cast in stone. It would mean that the
principle, which is the protection of witnesses, would be
espoused by the House. The fine tuning, the drafting, the repair,
if any is needed to some of the drafting that was done by me and
by the counsel who help us in doing these things, would then be
done at the committee level.
In a nutshell then, I ask the House to very seriously consider
this bill over the course of the time that it has to debate it, to look
at the principle, look at the forest not the trees, examine the
principle and remember that currently it has no legislative
foundation. We are operating in a vacuum. We are operating
under a cloud of secrecy We are operating under a system that is
not fair because it does not apply equally to all people across
Canada and is not accountable to the House of Commons.
I would ask my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-206 at
the appropriate time so we could take the matter to committee,
get it addressed and protect witnesses as soon as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to Bill
C-206, an act to provide for the relocation and protection of
witnesses, standing in the name of the hon. member for
Scarborough West. I would like to comment first on the
principle of the bill and then on its substance or content.
As far as the principle is concerned, I am glad to see that some
government members think about the issues. We have at least
one member who just showed us he had examined a situation
that was deplorable and who has now introduced a bill on his
own initiative, and he is to be commended for that. I agree it is
intolerable that today we have no legislation to protect these
people. Canada is a society that provides a lot of protection for
the rights of offenders and the rights of defendants, but very
little for the rights of people who go to court to testify so that the
accused will answer for the crime they committed.
(1755)
Yes, we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I
checked the Charter, because I thought there might be something
in it to provide for this. The only section is section 7, which
says: ``Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the
person-'' Other than that, there is nothing in the Criminal Code
or any other item of criminal or penal legislation that deals
directly with the subject the member has approached through his
private members' bill.
Today, there are certain ways, and certain funds are used, to
protect these witnesses, but that is not enough, and the trouble is
that it is at the discretion of the police. I think that a program of
this kind, when we are talking about taxpayers' money, should
be organized so that everyone is treated equally, and I think this
bill takes that approach.
On what basis do people make a decision, when we say these
decisions are discretionary? How do they decide whether or not
funds will be allocated in a given case? Does it depend on
whether one criminal is more dangerous than another criminal?
Does it depend on the fact that some crimes are more repugnant
than others? I think it is intolerable to talk about
``discretionary'' in this respect.
The police force that makes the assessment can also make a
wrong decision without being made to account for that decision.
Sometimes these mistakes are covered up. It is very difficult,
and I will give you an example of what I mean.
Since being appointed Official Opposition critic for the
Solicitor General of Canada on October 25, I have had two cases
that fit in very well with the bill of the hon. member for
Scarborough. I will ask this House a question.
What do Lucie Leblanc from New Brunswick, Sue Smith from
Alberta and Mireille Martin from Quebec have in common?
What they have in common is that they are the same person. In
five years this person changed names three times. I am giving
them because the last time she called me, she told me she would
be changing her name for the fourth time since her husband, a
criminal famous across Canada, had discovered her new
identity. How did he do it? The people dealing with her case had
made every conceivable change to her passport, driver's licence,
social insurance number and other pieces of ID but made a
mistake in registering the car she was provided with under the
name of Mireille Martin from Quebec. She had been living in
fear for a few months, not knowing exactly where to go, how to
proceed, or where to find money. She asked me to approach the
3305
Solicitor General of Canada to have her case dealt with
expeditiously because she was living in a terrible situation.
I too came up against a brick wall. I could not get information
or find anyone accountable in this case. However, she told me
herself that after a few calls her case was finally dealt with, but
only after a member of Parliament intervened.
If the mistake is very serious, the person who did not enforce
the law properly, who made the mistake, should be held
accountable and asked where the money went to.
I am not saying the mistake was intentional; honest mistakes
can be made but they can have serious consequences for the
individuals who are given money to protect them from potential
harm.
With all due respect to the hon. member, it is not a matter of
reinventing the wheel. I think this is a good bill but, as he said,
we must look at what is done elsewhere. There is a similar
program in the United States. I also looked at Italy where, given
what is happening with justice in that country, legislation was
passed to protect witnesses. Great Britain also has a similar
program.
(1800)
This means that all great societies concerned with the
protection of victims and offenders, whether accused or
charged, are also concerned with the protection of witnesses,
because I think it is all tied together in the system.
This kind of bill, if passed-I will address contents
later-will send a clear message to the criminal element as well
as to witnesses and the public, the message that this House takes
this matter seriously, that we will not let the people who testify
in court down.
I think that any legislation that supports, not informers
because I do not like that word, but let us say witnesses who
come forward, is good for the system we live in. If we encourage
people to come forward and testify, I think that it will show in
rulings, sentencing and the entire system. I think the judicial
system stands to benefit greatly.
In my legal practice, I have noticed that it is one thing for a
witness to testify, but quite another to give convincing evidence.
I may comply when served a subpoena, yet be extremely
reluctant to answer questions, knowing that my life could be in
danger as soon as I step out of the court. Perhaps I would feel
safer and my evidence would be more convincing if I knew that,
when I walk out of court, there will be people there to protect
me.
I am not saying that such a measure should be applied in all
criminal courts. The mere fact of witnessing a murder near my
home does not automatically endanger my life. However, my
life could be in danger if I testified in a case involving organized
crime or a major case of fraud. I think that work could be done
on this bill to amend it so that it could become very useful to
Canada and Quebec.
I knew from Quebec statistics that many crimes went
unpunished because no one was actually found guilty. I was
surprised to see Canadian statistics for the period 1980-1992.
Over this 12-year period, for murders alone, there were 1,455
unsolved murder cases. One can wonder how many cases of
fraud, robbery, assault and well-planned crimes also went
unsolved. We could then ask ourselves the same question about
smuggling. I think that it is a very important subject and that this
deficiency must be corrected as soon as possible.
So I think that this bill could encourage witnesses to come
forward and say what they know in order to clear up some crimes
and some cases for which the criminals go unpunished.
As for the principle, there is no problem, we agree 100 per
cent. The Official Opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, will support
you on this bill. I think that we have always shown that we
co-operate when presented with a good bill, and I think that is a
way to show it to you again and to tell you again that we will
co-operate with you on this bill.
I do not have much to say about the form and content. Of
course, some small adjustments could be made, including the
following. I would immediately take the matter to the Solicitor
General. I would say that he is responsible for applying this bill
once it is adopted, not a member of the Privy Council. In the
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, among colleagues and
people working on that committee, we will easily be able to
come to an understanding; I say ``easily'' because everyone
around the table will be on the same wavelength, so we will be
able to agree.
But on the whole-and I conclude with that-regarding this
bill, I would ask the whole House to be unanimous and I would
ask the government to pay very careful attention to this private
member's bill, and perhaps we will have something to show that
private members' bills can go somewhere, for the good of
society in general that will benefit from it.
(1805)
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I consider it both
an honour and a privilege to rise today to open debate on Bill
C-206, an Act to provide for the relocation and protection of
witnesses.
I would first like to commend the Member for Scarborough
West, the sponsor of this private member's bill, for bringing this
important issue before the House.
3306
His months of dedication and hard work to improve this
particular aspect of our criminal justice system are reflected in
the pages of this bill. The basic intent of Bill C-206 is very
clear: The government must ensure the safety and security of
persons who assist police and prosecutors in their efforts to
crack down on crime, particularly organized crime.
This makes sense not only from a moral standpoint but from a
practical standpoint as well. Past experience shows that
witnesses who provide evidence or assist in police and
prosecutors' investigations at the risk of harm to themselves or
to their families, are often one of the most effective tools our
justice system has against organized crime.
And we need that tool, today more than ever. Organized
crime, and especially transnational and international organized
crime, are growing concerns for Canada, and indeed for many
nations.
Organized crime threatens basic social, political and
economic institutions in countries around the world. And it is
seldom easy, given the power and influence of many criminal
organizations, for the authorities to obtain the information and
assistance they need to move effectively against organized
crime.
That is why we, as legislators, must take every step within our
power to ensure our criminal justice system is as well-equipped
as possible to respond to the threat posed by organized crime.
For these reasons alone, I believe that this bill is both timely and
well directed. However, having said that, I believe there are a
number of fundamental issues that need to be considered before
approval of the bill is given at second reading.
First, we must consider very carefully the scope of
application of a protection program. Under Bill C-206, any
witness appearing in a case prosecuted under a federal act could
be eligible for protection or relocation.
My concern is that this broad, umbrella approach could be
unwieldy and difficult to administer efficiently. Our experience
regarding the RCMP Source and Witness Protection Program
indicates that such a program should focus on very serious
offences and cases involving organized crime.
A related issue here is the question of cost. The provision of
protective services and relocation of witnesses or sources is a
very expensive proposition.
The Prime Minister has said to this House and to Canadians on
many occasions that fiscal responsibility is one of the basic
principles of this government.
[English]
Accordingly we want to make sure that any witness protection
program is not so broad that administrative overheads become
unacceptable. All members will agree I am sure that we owe it to
Canadians to make the best possible use of taxpayers' dollars.
Still on the subject of administration there is the question of
who will manage and administer the program. It would appear
that Bill C-206 seeks to provide a legislative base to the witness
protection services provided by the RCMP. However it may be
desirable to review other administrative options.
For instance in the United States an independent body, the
Office of Enforcement Operations within the Department of
Justice, decides who will be accepted into the U.S. marshal's
service witness security program. The decision is made after
this office has considered the recommendations for admission
from the responsible enforcement agencies such as the FBI and
the U.S. attorney's office.
(1810 )
The point I wish to make is that in the United States it is not
the law enforcement body that makes the decision whether or
not to give witness protection.
As well, once the witness is accepted into the program the
protection is administered by the U.S. marshal's service. Again
it is not the originating law enforcement agency that provides
the protection but an independent agency, the U.S. marshal's
service.
I raise these administrative issues as points that warrant
further consideration and review before determining and
legislating our own arrangements for witness protection in this
country.
A second issue we need to carefully consider is the legislative
basis for a witness protection program. It may be appropriate for
example to link a program to provisions in the Criminal Code or
other legislation.
Protection of people who assist in criminal investigations or
prosecutions may involve changes in identity. This requires the
active participation of federal authorities outside of law
enforcement agencies.
[Translation]
It would seem to me to be appropriate to indicate that the
responsibilities of these authorities also be captured in any
legislation. The same rationale applies to the roles and functions
of provincial authorities involved in the provision of protective
services. Provincial interests in this area are a very important
consideration given the constitutional responsibilities of
provincial government for the administration of justice. At a
minimum, I believe that legislation should permit provinces to
opt in to a federal program. All of this is to say that we would
want to work closely with the provinces in all respects.
There is also the question of cost sharing between the federal
government and provinces desiring to participate jointly in a
protection program. This could be addressed directly in
legislation, or perhaps indirectly through the establishment of a
statutory instrument or specific ministerial approval.
3307
A last concern I would like to raise deals with the limitation of
Bill C-206 to witness protection alone. Witnesses are not the
only persons who provide information to the authorities in
criminal cases and who may require protection for having done
so. Many police investigations would never lead to arrests
without the assistance of sources or informants, most of whom
are paid for their services. Source information is just as vital to
police investigations as witness testimony is to court
proceedings.
I note that the RCMP source witness and protection program,
which I referred to a few moments ago, protects both police
sources and Crown witnesses.
These are the type of factors that must be examined before
this government can, in good conscience, proceed further with
legislation for a witness protection program. However, I do not
want these concerns to overshadow the basic accomplishment of
this bill. With this proposed act to provide for the relocation and
protection of witnesses, the hon. member for Scarborough West
has focussed the attention of this House on an important
component of our criminal justice system. For that he deserves a
vote of thanks from all members of the House, and indeed, from
all Canadians.
I understand that other members will now take the
opportunity to touch, in more depth, on the points I have raised,
as well as discuss other key considerations.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support for
Bill C-206. To me it is self-evident that anyone who risks his or
her personal or family safety to testify for the crown is entitled
to protection. This is especially true if protection has been
promised as an inducement to take the stand.
In general, formal witness protection and relocations are
needed for serious prosecutions involving drugs or organized
crime. The people needing protection are often pretty unsavoury
folks, criminals motivated by fear, vengeance or greed to turn
against their fellows and act as police informers. Nevertheless,
if they help us, for whatever motive, they have the right not to be
hung out to dry by law enforcement agencies which use them to
make their case. There must be national, predictable and
enforceable mechanisms to deal with such people and this is
what Bill C-206 is all about.
(1815)
Without informants who can testify without fear,
investigations and prosecutions of people involved in organized
crime sometimes lead nowhere. The cost in wasted effort by
police officers and courts is enormous. It must be incredibly
frustrating for police to have the goods but be unable to secure a
conviction because the safety of a witness cannot be guaranteed.
The type of protection envisaged through this bill is complex
and expensive, and it might be required for several years for
individuals. Nevertheless, if it helps to put dangerous criminals
out of business it will be a sound public investment. When
convictions are obtained, society wins.
Not all beneficiaries would be paid informants. In Canada the
most famous protected person, federally protected because of
his high profile, was Igor Gouzenko. He was given a false
identity. If my memory serves me correctly he was kept out of
sight for 40 years. I doubt that many Canadians begrudged him
his new life.
Although I support this bill I do wish that it was a little
broader in scope with provisions for increased penalties for
threatening witnesses and with more emphasis on in situ
protection for those witnesses who are not paid informers and
who do not want to have their lives disrupted by relocation. I am
referring to ordinary citizens who just happen to witness a crime
and who hesitate to get involved because of the possible
retaliation against them or their families.
I most especially wish that this bill would provide better and
longer term protection for victims who risk being victimized
again if they agree to testify against a dangerous individual, an
individual who might very well be out on bail awaiting trial or
who, if convicted, probably will be paroled after serving a
fraction of his sentence.
Consider this. Women who cause their husbands or lovers to
be jailed for assault face early confrontation with their
attackers. Some of them live in fear of the man they sent to
prison. The released criminals can walk around freely. If they
are vindictive and vengeful, their victims have to cower at
home, protected only by court orders which are scraps of paper
or by anti-stalking laws which are useful only if the abuser tries
to extract vengeance over an extended period of time.
A woman in such a situation cannot even keep a shotgun
handy to protect herself because in Canada the victim has less
rights than the brute who might want to kick her door down. She
can live in fear. She can run. She can hide. That is not fair.
In summary, I compliment my colleague on the other side of
the House for his initiative in this regard. Canada's witness
protection system is at best patchwork. We need national
guidelines and criteria so that from coast to coast the same
protection is available for all Canadians.
It is high time that informers are given the guaranteed
protection warranted for their assistance in bringing offenders
to justice and this bill is a short step in the right direction. It
merits our support.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak as well on Bill C-206, an act to
provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses.
3308
As we have already learned law enforcement agencies provide
protection to their sources and to witnesses where there is a
threat of retribution as a result of either the source informing on
the criminal activity or a witness providing crucial testimony in
a criminal proceeding. Generally witness protection
requirements arise out of cases involving the most serious
charges and by that I mean charges which upon conviction
attract the heaviest penalties. Probably we are most familiar in
this area with charges such as trafficking in large quantities of
drugs, murder, armed robbery, and other conspiratorial crimes
involving elements of organized crime.
(1820)
It is obvious that the more serious the offence and the stiffer
the penalty upon conviction, the greater risk to an informant or
witness. As the threat becomes more serious to the witness of
course, the more comprehensive must be the protection of that
witness.
Witness protection programs are a valuable tool in law
enforcement and in some areas an invaluable tool. They have
been developed in varying degrees across the country by
different police forces and services. The types of services
available under a witness protection plan also vary according to
the individual case. They vary as well according to the resources
that an individual police department may have.
Examples of these services which are currently available in
Canada include psychological counselling, escorts to and from
the court house or the prosecutor's office, guarding a witness'
residence at crucial times or on a full time basis if need be
during a trial, documents in a witness' name, housing upon
relocating a witness to a new location, transportation of the
witness' private property to a new home, payment of basic
living expenses to a witness for a period of time or assistance in
obtaining employment.
In Canada, depending upon the capabilities of the individual
police force, these services have provided some degree of
protection to informants and witnesses but again administered
individually through different police services.
Of all of these programs however the most comprehensive is
the RCMP source witness protection program. It was originally
established in the early 1980s for the RCMP to use, but now it is
increasingly used by other police forces and services across the
country.
The need for RCMP assistance would arise primarily when an
informant or witness must be relocated to another province and
where that police force needs to obtain some form of federal
assistance, such as federal documentation in a new name for the
witness or source. The RCMP has offices in every province and
every territory. They have an extensive witness protection
capability. It is easy to see why other agencies seek the
assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
There is no other department and no other agency in Canada
that can facilitate and co-ordinate the various aspects of
assistance and protection that are involved in a witness
protection relocation.
These considerations of witness protection are not just going
on in Canada. In fact, world wide there is a growing interest in
the criminal justice community in the enhancement of witness
protection services and the creation of national witness
protection programs. This is in part most likely a result of the
global growth in organized criminal activity and increased
reliance on the use of informants to obtain convictions.
Here in Canada we too are examining existing witness
protection services in light of increased organized crime and
shrinking law enforcement budgets. To that end in 1992 a survey
was undertaken of all police forces in Canada. This survey had a
twofold aim. First, the government wanted to obtain
information on police witness protection capabilities in general.
Second, the government wanted to know to what extent
provincial and municipal police services seek and obtain
assistance from the mounted police source witness protection
program.
Questionnaires were sent to 393 police services across the
country and responses were received from 284. Only data for
three years prior to 1992 was requested.
The great majority of police services, in fact 88 per cent of
them, said that they had not used the RCMP witness protection
program over the three years preceding the date of the survey.
They had not done so primarily because they just did not have
cases in which protection was necessary. This comes as no great
surprise to the government because most cases involving
witness protection occur in large urban areas.
(1825 )
The survey also shows that a very small number of provinces
either have or are considering developing a standardized
provincial witness program within their province.
We have to bear in mind that regardless of individual
provincial programs, there will always be a need for an agency
such as the RCMP to arrange out of province relocations. For
example, should Nova Scotia wish to relocate a witness to
British Columbia, it is probable that the provincial program
would not have the reach and would not be able to provide for
witnesses' various needs in British Columbia. As it stands, the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police source witness protection
program can and does accommodate relocated witnesses from
one end of the country to the other.
The survey also revealed that 15 police services can provide
some degree of witness protection. Again, this protection does
3309
not include out of province relocation and is limited according
to the availability of personnel and other resources.
Twenty-three police forces indicated that they had used the
RCMP program in the past three years, primarily to facilitate
name change and relocation. Of these, over 50 per cent were
satisfied with existing witness protection arrangements
including their own arrangements and those within the RCMP
program.
The greatest concern of those expressing dissatisfaction with
existing witness protection arrangements was lack of resources,
in particular personnel. Another concern was the need for
standardized witness protection procedures that are clearly
understood by all local police services.
Finally, the survey pointed out that mainly due to a lack of
resources, witness protection is not equally available to all
police services.
Based on this preliminary survey it is clear that an effective
witness protection program is a crucial part of the law
enforcement community's response to growing incidents of
organized crime and other types of serious crime. Further, this is
a matter that requires close attention to the various needs of the
general police community who are the potential users of this
service and we have to pay special attention to their financial
capabilities.
I believe that particularly in these times there is a requirement
on the part of the government to further only the most
cost-efficient and effective programs in co-operation with all
the relevant players. I would submit that there is yet some work
to be done before the government proceeds with legislation on
this issue. I am thinking here of further consultations with the
relevant players to define the parameters of an effective witness
protection program.
Once these issues have been explored and decided on, the
government will be in a much better position to bring forward
legislation on witness protection services.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on this particular issue and I
am thankful to my colleague for having drafted this bill. I hope it
succeeds.
Many areas of Canada's justice system need to be revamped. I
believe here too regarding witnesses there is a need to
restructure some of the existing programs. I believe a bill of this
nature would certainly help do that.
As a former police officer who served for 22 years, I have seen
more than my fair share of trials and certainly my share of
witnesses. Unfortunately I have run into some situations where
the safety of witnesses and informants and potential witnesses
has been threatened, compromised by organized and ruthless
thugs who know very well how to exploit fear to their advantage.
As a result of this experience I support this bill. I am confident
that witness protection will be improved by uniformity of
practice across the country. I hope in the future that my
colleague and I will be able to work together to write more
legislation that will help make Canada a much safer place.
I am quite frankly getting a little more discouraged at the fact
that it is taking private members' bills as opposed to unified
government action to cause changes to be made in the criminal
justice system. Too often it is a private member along with our
party, the Reform Party, that is interested in protecting the
victims, the defence of witnesses and informants, the
preservation of our peaceful way of life and swift justice for
those who deserve it.
The last time I rose to speak to a bill dealing with a justice
issue was on Bill C-8. It is a bill that will have the probable
effect of taking power away from police officers. This
government promises to regulate guns to such a degree that even
lawful ownership by responsible people will be threatened.
(1830)
The justice minister intends to regulate special rights for
homosexuals. The chairman of the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs wants to get soft on murderers. There
you have it: Disarm the people; take power away from the
police; disrupt the family by giving all the privileges that are
now accorded to married couples to homosexuals; and tap
murderers on the wrist. If that is not a recipe for disaster, I do not
know what is.
This government wants to make us totally incapable of self
defence. It wants to limit the power of our police officers to
defend us. It wants to contribute to the raising of a generation of
dysfunctional youth by undermining the best system of justice
preservation any society can have, the family.
It is no wonder we need witness protection legislation. The
need for witness protection legislation begs the addressing of
another issue. That is tough anti-gang and tough anti-organized
crime legislation. As yet, and it is no real surprise, I have not
seen any sign this government will be addressing those issues
either.
One of the main threats to witnesses comes from gangs and
organized crime. Fortunately this country has not been ravaged
by gangs and crime rings to the degree our neighbour to the
south has. However, with time and a vacuum of political will to
get tough on crime, gangs will very well extract the same sort of
toll on us as they have for years on the United States.
Incidents of witnesses who have been harassed either by an
accused or by friends or family of an accused are not that
frequent. Far more common is the terrorism people who come
forward either as citizens or as repentant members of crime
rings have to face before, during and after trial. This bill will
help to make it easier to protect threatened witnesses.
3310
There is so much more that could be and should be done. For
instance we should be legislating harsher penalties for people
who commit crimes as part of an organized crime ring. We
should be cracking down on gangs before they get into our
communities. We should be proactive in these areas.
While the legislation we are discussing today is a good piece
of work, it is nonetheless a reaction to the symptom of a problem
and not to the disease.
There is a disease in Canada. That disease is a growing lack of
regard for the law and for public order. That disease has been
allowed to spread and to contaminate more and more segments
of our society. There are reasons for increased crime. There are
reasons for a disregard of the law.
Canada has gone soft on crime. We are no longer doling out
justice where it is deserved. We have become a nation of people
claiming victim status. There has to come with that a subsequent
decline of individual responsibility.
This government has been an accomplice in spreading the
myth that somehow poverty or discrimination causes crime, that
if Statistics Canada raises its arbitrary poverty rate then we will
suddenly see a corresponding increase in the crime rate. That is
nonsense.
Canada has become a nation committed to protected symbolic
rights, arbitrary rights instead of basic common sense rights that
everyone can relate to. Rather than protecting a person's right to
have an income, a family, and a community that is unfettered by
government taxation and regulation, we are protecting the rights
of those who least deserve them.
We are attacking the family. We are burdening it with taxes so
that parents cannot take care of their own. We are regulating how
a family can raise its children. We are attacking its very
definition by enlarging it so much that the word family becomes
meaningless.
These things are leading to an increase in crime, an increase in
lawlessness and a decline in the morality that has built this
nation and has kept it so relatively free from crime over the
generations.
It is tragic how we have mixed up our priorities. I think it is
very tragic.
This government has a great opportunity to reverse the trend.
Instead, the rhetoric of the government indicates that more of
the same is coming. We can safely predict that rather than
cutting crime and making Canada a safer place to live, the
government's misguided and out of touch stand on justice issues
will lead Canada further and further down the path of becoming
the sort of society that none of us will want our children to live
in.
It is a shame that only private members are producing
legislation that makes sense. It is a shame that new and better
witness protection legislation is necessary. The fact that my hon.
colleague has felt the need to write this bill is a subtle sign of
what is going wrong with Canada and our system. I only hope
that his colleagues on the other side of the House will have the
perceptiveness to pick up on this issue, listen to the common
sense of the common people and take the correct steps to put
Canada back on the right track.
I urge the support of the House for this bill.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the matter goes to the bottom of
the list for two more hours of debate.
It being 6.35 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)