CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 30, 1994
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 8472
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 8474
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 8474
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8475
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8475
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8475
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8479
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8479
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8479
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8490
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8490
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8490
Consideration resumed of motion 8491
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8499
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8505
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8507
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8508
Bill C-57. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 8511
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 185; Nays, 7 8511
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 8512
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 143; Nays, 49 8512
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8522
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 8523
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8523
8471
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 30, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is
World AIDS Day.
The presence of HIV and AIDS in our communities is a
constant reminder of our vulnerability as individuals and as
members of the human race. Many members of this House, and
far too many Canadians, many of whom live in my riding of
Rosedale, will be familiar with the human tragedy associated
with living with HIV and of grieving for the loss of friends and
loved ones.
The effects of HIV and AIDS are suffered by individuals and
families now estimated worldwide at 17 million men, women
and children. Measures to reduce the vulnerability of women to
HIV/AIDS, the need to strengthen AIDS associations, and the
need to address related human rights and ethical issues are now
of paramount concern to us all.
These issues, as well as the cure and immunization against
AIDS, can only be effectively dealt with by co-ordinated,
intensive, national and international efforts which Canada must
not only support but lead.
Therefore we should all welcome the Prime Minister's
attendance at the Paris summit on AIDS.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, hon. members are familiar with the scandal around the
attempt to privatize Pearson Airport. However, despite a long
debate on Bill C-22, the government has refused to reveal all the
information on this patronage horror story.
Today we heard that the Pearson Development Corporation is
asking for compensation totalling $440 million. The
consortium's demands include two million dollars for lobbying
expenses, contributions to the Conservative Party in 1993 and
baseball tickets for the Blue Jays.
To eliminate any possibility that the consortium's outrageous
demands would be successful before the courts and to avoid any
recurrence of such events, the Prime Minister must realize he
has a responsibility to provide all the information available on
the Pearson affair and to appoint a royal commission of inquiry
that will consider all the ramifications.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to read a few sentences from a speech given by Mrs.
Deborah L. Ure whose 19-year old son Wes and his friend Santo
were shot and killed in 1992:
Wes and Santo are dead. It doesn't matter to me that they were killed by a
gunshot wound. They could just as easily have been stabbed, beaten or mutilated.
The end result is the same. Our children are dead. The gun didn't kill them. Two
poor excuses for human beings did. Now, when these men came into possession
of this gun, the murder weapon, did they have an FAC? Did they register it? Did
they store it safely? Of course not. Criminals or wanna-be criminals don't respect
our country's gun laws. Safe storage to them is having the gun stuck down the
back of their pants or inside a boot until they need to use it. This is the problem that
our justice minister should be addressing. We need criminal control, not gun
control.
In response to the pleas of this mother of a murdered teenager,
Reform does not support the registration of rifles and shotguns
unless it can be shown to be an effective control for reducing the
criminal-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
House recently witnessed a scene that was more like theatre than
parliamentary debate.
The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata protested
against a statement made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
in which he indirectly associated the House of Commons with
theatre.
8472
The member of the Bloc said that the minister's comments
``cast discredit on an institution such as Parliament, implying
that what goes on in this place has more to do with play acting
than real life''.
Would the hon. member feel more comfortable with what was
said by her own colleague, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois? In
an article in the Journal de Montréal, he stated: ``We consider
both the question and the tone we want to use. Sometimes, all we
want to do is get the information. Occasionally, the question is
intended to embarrass the minister''.
Quebecers and Canadians expect Bloc Quebecois members to
take their parliamentary responsibilities more seriously.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the holiday season approaches, we see many acts of
caring and sharing by thousands of Canadian organizations and
individuals.
This past Sunday, the Woodstock and Florenceville, New
Brunswick, Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs hosted their 18th annual
Christmas Miracle Program displaying an abundance of
excellent local talent and raising thousands of dollars to assist
those in need. Having had the opportunity to personally take part
again this year, I was pleased to see the pledges of sharing and
caring that are prevalent among Canadians.
Congratulations to the Woodstock and Florenceville Kinsmen
and Kinettes for their worthy efforts to help others.
Congratulations to all Canadian clubs, organizations and
individuals who volunteer their time and talent in order to assist
others during this season. They truly represent the holiday spirit
and make us all proud to be Canadians.
* * *
(1405 )
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Friday, November 25, I had the privilege to
participate in Forum 94 in Charlottetown, P.E.I.
[Translation]
This conference was an affirmation of the important place
official language communities should have within Canada.
Forum 94 has demonstrated that provincial governments can
play a vital role in promoting official languages in Canada.
[English]
The Acadian community and the Government of Prince
Edward Island have shown leadership at a time when the
birthplace of Confederation is contributing more than ever to
our sense of national identity.
[Translation]
Participants were able to prove that the vision of a united
Canada that respects regional, linguistic and cultural
differences is still firmly rooted in the birthplace of our nation.
* * *
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, five
years ago, this House took the solemn undertaking to fight
against and eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. Since then,
the number of children living in poverty has grown from a little
under one million to nearly 1.3 million.
In its most recent report, the Canadian Council on Social
Development criticized the reform the Minister of Human
Resources Development is conducting. The Council considers
that the minister's reform plan may well make child poverty
worse because of cuts in assistance programs for poor families.
Single-parent families, in which 41 per cent of poor children in
Canada live, would be particularly hard hit by this reform.
The council has now joined the ranks of those who, like the
Bloc Quebecois, object to any reform that cuts blindly into
social programs. In his inaugural speech yesterday, the new
Premier of Quebec expressed concern for the difficulties facing
women and youth in particular, and we hope that the actions he
will undertake will be aimed directly at fighting poverty.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
current turmoil at the IRB is only a symptom of a greater
disease. Members of the IRB have approached me saying that
there is no cure for the lack of accountability in that institution.
They have told me that the IRB was a gross overreaction to a
court decision and should be scrapped.
Our current refugee system is out of touch with
internationally accepted norms of refugee determination. It
costs a horrendous amount of money and is ignoring the
desperate needs of tens of thousands of genuine refugees
overseas.
It is time to rethink our refugee determination system and the
Reform Party has. Very soon we will be releasing our proposals
for change to the system, changes that are going to be in the
8473
interests of not only refugees but of taxpayers as well. Our
proposals will balance the needs of refugees against the needs of
Canadians.
We have the guts to restore a little common sense to the
system. Once again the Reform Party leads the way. We will be
setting the agenda in refugee determination the way that we have
set the agenda in immigration policy.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
last spring gas prices jumped seven cents per litre across Canada
without justification. Only after I publicly called for the
government to investigate this industry for price fixing and
gouging did gas prices drop about three cents per litre. Public
protest followed and it dropped one or two cents more per litre
around the country leaving a two or three cent a litre increase
intact.
The Bureau of Competition Policy today said it does not see
price fixing. This is a bizarre conclusion with unanswered
questions. Why this conclusion? Could it be because the oil
companies and the Liberal government are in bed together?
For example, the Liberal Party received political donations
from Husky Oil of $14,000, from Amoco Oil of $27,000, and
from Imperial Oil of $47,000 last year alone. He who pays the
piper calls the tune. As far as Canadian consumers are concerned
the Bureau of Competition Policy and the Liberal government
are more like lapdogs than watchdogs when it comes to gas price
fixing.
The oil companies' donations in this case to the Liberal Party
are paying off.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to inform the House that November has been designated
Crohn's and Colitis Month.
Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are chronic digestive
disorders of the small and large intestines. Often referred to as
inflammatory bowel disease their cause is unknown although
stress can precipitate attacks. There is currently no cure,
however specific diets may control the symptoms. Crohn's
disease and colitis may affect as many as 200,000 Canadians of
all ages.
The Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada is a non-profit
voluntary medical research foundation dedicated to the finding
of a cure for this disease by raising funds for medical research.
The foundation with the financial support of Health Canada also
provides education programs for individuals with this disease as
well as for their families, health professionals and the general
public.
(1410 )
To the foundation and its many volunteers we extend our best
wishes and hope for future success.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to
congratulate the residents and the council of the township of
Bosanquet in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex.
On December 1, 1994 by order of the Ontario Municipal
Board the township of Bosanquet will be elevated to the town of
Bosanquet and its new town council will be sworn in.
The province of Ontario's newest town has a very storied
history commencing in 1821 with a 390 acre land grant to its
first settler, Mr. Asa Townsend. In 1850 electors met to elect the
township's first council. One of the first motions passed by the
council was the proviso that there was no qualification
necessary with respect to property for the several officers
appointed at that meeting.
It is not hard to deduce that the first councillors of the
township of Bosanquet displayed the highest democratic
principle. Their spirit lives on with the current mayor, Mr. Fred
Thomas, and the town's six councillors.
My heartiest congratulations to the town of Bosanquet.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
linguistic and cultural communities of Quebec are worried. In
recent weeks, statements by certain Quebec government
ministers and their officials have been increasing and have
given rise to speculation and suspicion.
We were apprised yesterday of what Yves Michaud, Quebec
chargé de mission in Paris, had written his boss and friend,
Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Landry. Referring to an article,
he said it was refreshing compared to the claims of cultural
communities, adding that we will have to do away with such
nonsense reminiscent of Trudeau, cooked up to make us
disappear in a sea of Canadian multiculturalism.
Louise Beaudoin, Quebec minister responsible for Canadian
Affairs, was quoted as saying: ``Why could I not live in my
country as I wish, instead of as English Canadians want me to?
They are the ones who want a multicultural society, not me''.
8474
This attitude of distrust toward ethno-cultural communities
goes against every aspect of our international reputation for
hospitality, openness and tolerance.
The Parti Quebecois government must quickly put an end to-
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The
hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry has the floor.
* * *
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau delivered
his first inaugural address.
Calling upon Quebecers' solidarity, the Premier launched a
major campaign to fight unemployment, revive the economy
and start thinking about our collective future.
Painting a positive picture of his government's first few
weeks in office, Mr. Parizeau outlined encouraging prospects
for Quebecers in the future.
Things will not happen overnight, of course, but Quebec now
has a real government with projects, resources and an ideal.
After several gloomy years, Quebecers are urged to take
charge of their lives, make choices and adopt a real plan for their
society.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this government and the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism
continue to deny Canadians their fundamental right to choose, to
choose for themselves how to protect and promote their heritage
and culture.
I will continue to ask questions that challenge the way we
spend our money while at the same time encouraging
ethnocultural communities to fully participate in Canadian life
adding to it their unique diversities.
We in the Reform Party reject a big brother, paternalistic
approach to cultural imperialism that the minister continues to
preach. Instead we believe we should provide jobs for
Canadians. We should tax them less. We should allow them the
freedom to develop and pay for those cultural programs that
interest them.
This government should realize the importance of
empowering ethnocultural communities to be themselves. Then
truly it will have abandoned its culturally imperialistic and
arrogant multiculturalism policies.
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to welcome the decision by the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development to appoint Donald
Johnston as the secretary general.
Mr. Johnston's five year appointment will represent the first
time in the OECD's history in which a non-European has been
chosen to lead this major policy forum for the world's
industrialized countries. Candidates from around the world
were vying for this position and yet in the end it was a Canadian
who was chosen.
It should come as no surprise that this longstanding member
of Parliament, former cabinet minister, Montrealer and resident
of Quebec should be chosen as the new leader of the OECD. He
is a highly respected lawyer with a strong background in
economic issues. Mr. Johnston will bring to the organization a
wealth of experience with a truly Canadian perspective.
By tradition the OECD leadership is a consensus decision.
Given the outcome of this announcement-
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to warn the House and the Board of Internal
Economy that some members of the Bloc Quebecois
shamelessly use their privilege as members of the House of
Commons by promoting Quebec's independence in their
Christmas cards.
In addition to being in poor taste, this practice probably goes
against parliamentary rules. Using taxpayers' money and the
great Christmas holiday for political purposes is reprehensible
and shameful.
Will Bloc members reimburse the Canadian government for
these immoral expenditures? Will Bloc members include these
expenditures in the ``yes'' campaign in order not to contravene
Quebec's referendum act?
I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to investigate and condemn
this outrageous practice.
An hon. member: Come on.
An hon. member: You exaggerate.
The Speaker: It is Wednesday, what do you expect?
8475
8475
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in this House, the Prime Minister agreed with the
verdict of the Canada-Newfoundland board which denounced
awarding a contract without tender to Saint John Shipbuilding.
The Prime Minister instructed the Minister of Natural
Resources to require the Hibernia consortium to review its
decision that was unfair to MIL Davie, the only bidder able to
carry out this contract which had been awarded to Saint John.
How can the minister explain the government's decision to
hold another call for tenders on this contract, when MIL Davie
was the only other shipyard that bid on it?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify that which the Prime Minister
and I said yesterday.
In light of the Canada-Newfoundland offshore board decision
which indicated all Canadian shipbuilding companies were not
given a full and fair opportunity to bid or tender for the contract
in question, we have asked through the president of the Hibernia
Management Corporation that the owners review their decision.
I understand from Mr. Hull, the president, that he will be in
contact with the other owners and seek that review. Pending the
outcome of that review, I think it would be unfair or
inappropriate for me to anticipate the outcome.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
everyone admits that MIL Davie was wronged in this affair, why
does the minister stubbornly refuse to recognize that the only
way to correct the injustice done to the Quebec shipyard is to
award it automatically and without delay this contract which it
should have had from the beginning?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate the position of the Prime
Minister and myself. What we are concerned about in this
situation is the process that was used by the Hibernia
Management Corporation. It is clear based on the report of the
offshore board that all Canadian companies were not treated
fairly. We have asked the management board of Hibernia to
review that decision. Our concern is with the process. We have
never commented on the ability or lack thereof of any shipyard
in this country to do the job in question. We are concerned that
everyone get the opportunity to be treated fairly.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we see
how complicated and difficult it is to obtain justice when a
Quebec company like MIL Davie is involved. Does the minister
realize that by reopening the bidding, she is leaving MIL Davie
vulnerable to its competitors since they will probably have
access to the documents from the first bid and find out about
their contents? Does she realize that?
(1420 )
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I simply reiterate the concern of this
government. It is with the process that was followed. We are
committed to ensuring that all Canadian shipbuilders have a fair
and full opportunity to bid on contracts.
I think, for whatever reason, my learned friend across the way
is having some difficulty comprehending the fact that our
concern is always with fairness.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. If
someone has problems in this House, that person is on the other
side.
The MIL Davie shipyard, in Quebec, is on the verge of
closure. The company needs new contracts to ensure its
survival. If the Hibernia contract for a sub-module of electric
equipment was transferred to MIL Davie, the company could
immediately recall 400 of its recently laid off workers. It is still
time to act, since the component housing the modules has not yet
left Marystown, in Newfoundland.
How can the minister explain that, with over six billion
dollars of economic spin-offs related to the Hibernia
megaproject, the MIL Davie shipyard, the only one in Canada
with the expertise to build drilling platforms, has so far been
awarded only one contract representing a mere $15 million?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that this government does
not wish nor is it in any position to comment upon the relative
merits of one shipyard over another in relation to this contract.
What we are in a position to comment upon is fairness and full
opportunity on the part of all shipbuilders to participate in this
contract. That is what we will ensure.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, let us not forget that Quebecers invested $800 million
of their tax dollars in Hibernia, only to see MIL Davie get a
small $15-million contract. In the meantime, the Sorel-Tracy
shipyard and the Montreal shipyard were closed and every
attempt is being made to also close the one in Lévis, while
8476
shipyards in Newfoundland and New Brunswick are being
subsidized and contracts are awarded without any tender to
Saint John Shipbuilding. Is this all part of a scheme to kill MIL
Davie? How can the government be proud of such an attitude?
How can the minister abdicate her responsibility regarding
management of Hibernia by always telling us the same old story
and hiding behind the private partners of the consortium, when
the federal government guarantees close to 50 per cent of the
funds for this megaproject, or some $30 billion?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me inform my hon. friends across the
way that the Hibernia project has been of considerable benefit to
the province of Quebec over the years that it has been in
operation and will continue to be in the future. Over half a
billion dollars worth of contracts for over 100 Quebec
companies.
They do not want to listen, but let me assure my hon. friends
that this government has no desire to hurt MIL Davie or any
shipyard in this country. What we want to ensure is that every
shipyard has the opportunity to be treated fairly.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, over the past year we have repeatedly seen the
government float proposals and legislative intentions without
having the faintest idea of what the cost or the value received
would be.
(1425 )
This is evident in the human resources minister's policy
paper. It has been evident in defence department commitments
to peacekeeping and other areas. Today the Minister of Justice is
once again putting forward legislative and policy proposals, this
time for firearms control.
Can the minister assure the House that comprehensive cost
estimates for the firearms control program exist and will be
tabled prior to the introduction of his new gun control
legislation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be announcing
this afternoon particulars of the decisions we have made in
relation to the firearms control program.
I can assure the hon. leader of the third party that we have
looked in detail at the costing of all the proposals we will put
before the House.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, like the social policy reform, any proposed firearm
control program cannot hope to succeed without the enthusiastic
support of the provinces.
The attorneys general of Saskatchewan, Alberta and
Manitoba have already implied that the minister's draft
proposals for a national firearm registration system are more
likely to increase paperwork than they are to increase public
safety.
Can the minister tell the House which provincial governments
are supportive of the minister's legislative intentions in this area
and which are not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the announcement of
our decisions will take place this afternoon.
As a matter of courtesy I have furnished copies to my
provincial counterparts. In answer to the question put by the
hon. member, let me express my own belief that when all the
provincial attorneys general look at these proposals and
decisions in their entirety, they will support these initiatives.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, time will tell.
With respect to consultation, first the justice department leaks
its gun control proposals to the media with appropriate spin
doctoring. Then it breeds the support of the interest groups and
only then, five days later, does Parliament get to see the
documents and the provinces are included almost as an
afterthought.
The government puts public relations and interest groups
ahead of Parliament every time. It has done this on social policy.
It has done it on immigration, on finance and gun control.
Does this order of preference, media leaks first, interest
groups second, Parliament third and provinces dead last, reflect
the government's consultative priority?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I make no
apologies for the four months of personal consultation that I
conducted across the country.
During the course of the last several months, I have been in
continuous touch with senior officials and indeed with
provincial counterparts, attorneys general and ministers of
justice, exchanging views about the proposals that will be
decided upon and announced this afternoon.
May I make it clear that any leaks to the media were entirely
beyond the control of the Department of Justice. What steps we
took were as a matter of courtesy to furnish representatives of
the hon. member's party and of the official opposition with
advance copies of the material so that they could see it before
this afternoon.
8477
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Minister of Transport.
We heard the news that MIL Davie was treated unfairly by the
Hibernia consortium in the matter of a contract that would have
maintained several hundred jobs at the Lévis shipyard and,
meanwhile, the federal government has yet to announce what it
intends to do about the proposal by the Government of Quebec
for the construction of a ferry for the Magdalen Islands.
When is the minister going to respond to the proposal made by
the Government of Quebec on November 14, and how can he
justify his government's slow response?
(1430)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Transport Canada is responsible for providing a safe
and efficient service between the Magdalen Islands and Prince
Edward Island, and we will do everything we can to ensure that
the people of the Magdalen Islands have this service.
However, I want to point out to the hon. member that we have
asked the operator who is now responsible for providing the
service with the Lucy Maud Montgomery to advise us of his
requirements, and then Transport Canada will award him a
subsidy.
Acquiring, leasing or building a ship is the sole responsibility
of the service operator, not of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when we
started our first session a year ago, I asked the same question and
today, the answer is still the same.
Considering how the government deals with matters that
concern MIL Davie, how can the minister expect us to believe
that the government is not making a concerted and deliberate
attempt to close down MIL Davie?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made some progress in trying to determine
exactly what is required to provide the service between Iles de la
Madeleine and Prince Edward Island.
I want to say to my hon. colleague that we have made
significant progress in this place since yesterday. One of the
things that has been cleared up, I hope to the satisfaction of
every one, particularly my friends who are concerned about the
future of MIL Davie, is that in the future whenever the
Government of Canada is concerned there will be no question of
sole sourcing ships. Any process for acquisition will be through
a clear, transparent and competitive bidding process.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Terence Wade report commissioned by the Department of
Justice reveals that the handgun registration system is replete
with confusion, inconsistencies, non-compliance and
mismanagement. Most important, the report reveals how
completely useless the handgun registration system has been as
an aid to law enforcement agencies and in reducing the criminal
use of handguns.
I ask the Minister of Justice why this report, which was
available in July, was not tabled with the standing committee on
justice, why it was not tabled in the House, and why I was denied
access to the report by his officials when I requested it three
weeks ago.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will get answers to
those questions and I will put them in writing to my hon. friend.
As I told him yesterday, he should have a copy of that report and
I shall see to it that he does have one.
Let me make clear, before we lose the point the Terence Wade
report made, that the manner in which the registration system
for handguns was organized during the past two decades was
flawed and needed improvement. It did not condemn the
principle of registration nor the purpose of registration.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, right now
there are firearm interest groups locked up pending the
announcement of the Minister of Justice regarding gun control
later today.
The minister has expounded upon his virtuous cross-country
consultation process this summer. While in consultation with
these various groups did the minister inform them of the
findings contained within the Terence Wade report, or was the
report concealed from them as well?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the course of those
dozens of meetings I had across the country I took it as a given
that the registration system in place at present in the country for
handguns will not serve as a model for any future registration
system. It is indeed flawed, without argument.
The point of the discussion in those consultations was how
such an approach could be effected to serve the very important
social goals that registration can and will achieve.
8478
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
On the issue of the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, the
Quebec government is prepared to discuss with the federal
government how the transition plan proposed by the mayor of
Saint-Jean should be implemented. In Quebec's view, this is an
interesting proposal, as it could ensure the survival of the
college the long term.
Now that he has finally seen reason, or so it seems, can the
minister who welcomed with interest this proposal by the mayor
of Saint-Jean tell us if he intends to assign federal officials to
resume talks with the Saint-Jean authorities and the government
of Quebec?
(1435)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Minister Beaudoin should know that negotiations
are not conducted through the media. I have received nothing
official from the minister yet. I therefore have no answer to give,
since no question has been asked in the first place.
It is essential however that any negotiations regarding the
mayor's proposal be conducted on the basis of the two
conditions the mayor and myself have agreed upon, that is to
say, first, that the conversion of the military college to civilian
use must take place and, second, that there must be a transition
period. These two basic principles are part and parcel of the
agreement proposed on July 19, which the government of
Quebec has yet to comply with.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
not negotiating through the media. I have put a question to the
minister and I would like to get an answer.
How can this minister have the gall to parade about with the
``Sauvons Saint-Jean'' badge on his lapel when, once again, he
is showing bad faith in refusing to resume talks?
The Speaker: Members must refrain from assigning to other
members motives that are not honourable. Perhaps the hon.
member could rephrase his question.
Mr. Bachand: Mr. Speaker, does the minister intend to
resume talks, yes or no?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the opposition may be under the impression that
using unparliamentary language will improve the negotiation
climate, but that, of course, is wrong.
The reason I am wearing the ``Sauvons Saint-Jean'' badge is
because we hold the key to the continuation of the college in
Saint-Jean and this key is the July 19 agreement. I sent a letter to
Mrs. Beaudoin two weeks ago, indicating that I was prepared to
resume negotiations on the details of the agreement which is in
effect under the terms of the agreement signed on July 19.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's mission to
Sarajevo today has failed. The Bosnian Serbs refused to meet
with him and the Bosnian government refused to agree to a
ceasefire.
Should Canada not now take the position that unless all UN
detainees are immediately released, there be no further
aggression against UN personnel, the Sarajevo airport be
reopened to humanitarian flights and convoys allowed to
proceed and an effective ceasefire be put in place, Canada
should call for the withdrawal of all UN forces from Bosnia?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has been quite clear on Canada's participation in this
very troubled mission and I do not propose to repeat it.
I subscribe to some of the points raised by the hon. member.
We in Canada believe that obviously those detained should be
released, that the hostilities should cease, that there should be a
ceasefire, and that the Sarajevo airport should be reopened. We
believe all of that and we believe that can be accomplished by
negotiation.
We are very sorry that the Secretary-General of the UN was
denied a meeting today. I would only hope that this is yet another
bargaining ploy on the part of those who refused to meet with
him and that they will get down to meaningful negotiations
within the next few days.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The situation in Bosnia is increasingly hazardous and is
causing great concern to all Canadians. All possible attempts
should be pursued in attempting to find a resolution.
8479
The contact group, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the
U.S., was formed last April to use diplomacy to minimize
tensions and to encourage agreements among the warring
factions. Why is Canada not a member of that contact group?
(1440 )
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I could
answer that I would certainly be a wise person.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister have
made the point that Canada should have been part of that group.
We are among the top contributors of forces in the
ex-Yugoslavia. It is a shame and a disgrace that we are not part
of that group. I hope the Prime Minister makes that point this
weekend in Budapest.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. On
November 30, 1993, exactly a year ago today, the Royal
Commission on New Reproductive Technologies published its
final report after studying the issue for four years and spending
over $28 million. We are still waiting patiently for the federal
government to respond to the commission's recommendations.
How can the Minister of Justice explain that, one year after
the Baird report was tabled, he still has not introduced a bill to
regulate reproductive technologies, research on human embryos
as well as the sale of ova and human foetal tissue in Canada?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and the
Ministry of Health have been working on the response to the
royal commission for quite a while.
As the hon. member knows, the royal commission created far
more controversy than it answered questions. We need to look at
how we can deal with provinces and with special groups, to look
at how we can set guidelines for recommendations and to follow
the recommendations.
However, as far as taking our time, I bring to the hon.
member's attention the fact that the royal commission was
supposed to have reported in two years. It took four years to
bring in its report.
Because the matter is so controversial I think it is quite
acceptable that we have to deal with the same controversies in
formulating our response.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I think that blaming the government's delay in
introducing a bill on the commission's own two-year delay in
tabling its report is a pretty poor excuse. Is the minister aware
that by delaying the introduction of his bill, he makes it even
more difficult, if not impossible, to counter abuses in research
on human embryos and to prevent the sale of ova and foetal
tissue on the black market?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member
mentioned the fact that we must counter abuses. We are dealing
with an extremely serious and extremely difficult and
complicated issue.
This department and the Minister of Health want to ensure
that we make the right choices that will ensure the safety of
Canadians and will ensure that all medical, ethical, social and
psychological issues are dealt with.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
In northwestern Ontario companies frequently lay off
employees due to seasonal and climatic factors. Through no
fault of their own affected employees end up having to claim
unemployment insurance frequently.
What is being done to ensure that this type of unemployment
insurance claimant is not unfairly affected by the proposed UI
reforms?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
we are particularly sensitive to the importance of a wide variety
of seasonal and cyclical work in the country. It is important for a
variety of regions.
As the House probably knows, for that reason we established a
special working group that represents different sectors and
different regions of the economy. We are now specifically
looking at the issue of seasonal work. We have established a
series of bilateral discussions with construction trades and other
affected sectors. We are working with them in a very
co-operative way to make sure that any new design of
unemployment insurance fits the requirements of Canadian
industry and Canadian seasonal workers.
* * *
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the House the Prime Minister stated and today the
8480
Minister of Natural Resources reaffirmed that they would ask
Canada's representative on the Hibernia holding company to ask
for a review of the contract to Saint John Shipyards. I have been
assured by the officials of the Hibernia holding company that the
awarding of this contract to Saint John Shipyards was done as a
fully justifiable decision in full accord with the provisions of
the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation
Act.
(1445)
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. How
can she justify interfering politically in this matter when the
Hibernia consortium clearly followed the rules contained in the
offshore accord?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me explain that in spite of whatever
contacts the hon. member may have and what he may think about
the processes that were followed, the Canada-Newfoundland
Offshore Board which is seized with the regulation and
determination of these issues, concluded late last week that
Canadian shipyards were not given a fair and full opportunity to
tender for the work in question.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, clause
45 of the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic accord states that in
instances where the budget or the time restraints are in question
the accord allows for contracts to be given without tender.
I would like to ask the minister why she would jeopardize the
budget and the completion date of the entire project by
demanding a review and/or tendering of the contract when it is
clear that all the rules have been followed.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate. In spite of what the hon.
member has asserted, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore
Board, a board created to deal with these issues, has determined
that the rules were not followed, that all Canadian shipyards
were not given a full and fair opportunity to bid on the contract.
I do not think there is anything else I can say on the issue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Canadian press revealed how generous the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans is when it comes to pleasing his friends with money
provided by Canadian taxpayers.
My question is for the fisheries minister. Can the minister
explain to us how someone can work for four months in his
office, quit his job voluntarily and pocket a bonus of $31,000,
then be rehired by the minister in the same office at an annual
salary of $93,000, without having to pay back even a cent of his
severance pay? How?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the individual in question is the executive
assistant to the minister of fisheries. Last February he was
named in a matter that was under investigation in the
Parliament of Newfoundland regarding fundraising practices in
the province of Newfoundland.
The individual in question, my executive assistant, resigned
his position in my office the next day until the matter had been
cleared up. As it turned out the matter in question was
subsequently referred to the RCMP because it involved a
provincial cabinet minister.
Seven and a half months later the RCMP concluded that
notwithstanding questions raised in the House initially by the
opposition, subsequently referred to the RCMP for a thorough
seven and a half months investigation, that individual was
cleared of any question of wrongdoing whatsoever.
In that seven and a half months period the individual, Mr.
Gary Anstey, sought no employment with any other operational
organization, received no other income, in fact went without
income for three and a half months.
After he was cleared of any wrongdoing he was restored to his
job as executive assistant. He has done without three and a half
months' salary in the process. How that can be described as a
golden handshake boggles the imagination.
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we well
understand, the minister's answer shows that he cannot deny
that the amount of severance pay was at his discretion.
How can the minister, who preached virtue when he was in
opposition, take refuge behind Treasury Board's lax rules to
explain such generosity to his friends when the government is
not ashamed to cut unemployment insurance for those who quit
their jobs voluntarily? That is what bothers us. How can he do it?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member would want me to
restate two points he made rather quickly.
First, the individual in question was away for seven and a half
months and in that period received no salary for three and a half
months.
8481
Second, Treasury Board rules provide in this kind of
circumstance-and I would be glad to lay a copy on the table
for the House-for up to six months' severance pay for an
individual who leaves a job abruptly for these kinds of reasons.
The assistant deputy minister of corporate affairs, when I
sought advice, recommended in writing four months' severance.
I accepted the advice.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, first
we learned about the limo service of the official language
commissioner and Ottawa digs at taxpayers' expense. Now we
hear that the part time chairman of Ports Canada has billed the
government $61,500 in extra pay on top of $53,000 in expenses,
$12,000 for an Ottawa apartment that is used 24 days a year and
$34,500 in travel from his home in Vermont. Does this sound
like fiscal restraint, Mr. Speaker?
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Will
he undertake an immediate review of per diems, honoraria and
expense accounts of all government appointees to federal
agencies?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows the government has already
undertaken a review of all agencies and boards, and we are doing
it very quickly.
I look forward to the assistance of members of the third party
and other members of the House as we review in depth the
operations on the maritime side of my responsibilities at
Transport Canada. We have already announced that we are going
to be looking at the structure of Ports Canada and how these
arrangements are arrived at.
The case that the hon. member raises today is a result of an
order in council appointment that I understand was made in
1987. It exemplifies the need to review all of these matters in
depth, whether they have to do with the per diems of the
chairman of Canada Ports Corporation or orders in council.
I can assure the hon. member that we are going to be doing it
as quickly as we can. I look forward to their co-operation on this
matter, unlike some of the things we have tried to correct where
they have gotten into bed with whoever is convenient.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
address my supplementary question to the Minister of the
Treasury Board.
Reviewing is one thing, we want action after the review. The
government is sending all the wrong signals to its federal
officials. How can we expect the bureaucracy to spend more
responsibly when the executive assistant to the minister of
fisheries received a $31,000 severance package for four
months-or seven months even, I could certainly live on
that-and is not even required to repay a penny when he is
rehired to the same position several months later?
My question is for the Minister of the Treasury Board. How
can the government dare to ask Canadians to tighten their belts?
What part of fiscal restraint does he not understand?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has made it quite
clear that the employee involved resigned.
Until an investigation could be completed that person was
without employment for some seven and a half months, which
means that the $31,000 covered only the first three and a half
months. There was a considerable period of time when that
person was not employed and yet that person had not done
anything wrong, as the minister clearly said.
The government is dedicated to ensuring the cost efficiency of
every taxpayers' dollar that comes into the revenues of the
government. We are tightening up on many of these procedures
which previous governments had put in place to make sure that
happens.
* * *
(1455 )
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
The Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia has
developed a proposal called Quickstart to rebuild stocks of coho
and chinook salmon. All sectors of the industry in British
Columbia, commercial, sport, and aboriginal fishers, will work
together in rebuilding the stock and also restoring habitat with
broad community involvement.
Has the government endorsed the Quickstart plan, and when
will it come into effect?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, receiving such a valuable, worthwhile and
sensible question gives me a quick start today.
We have had many questions about the state of the coho
salmon resource in British Columbia from members on all sides
of the House. The proposal of which the member speaks is a
private sector initiative that we welcome, one that will help
rebuild weak stocks of coho and chinook salmon through a
privately funded program of support of breeding and habitat
restoration.
The program Quickstart represents a unique partnership
between the private sector, the sport fishing sector and both
levels
8482
of government. It is a solid initiative. We intend to work fully
and quickly with the proponents to make sure it is a success.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. We just learned from Statistics Canada that the
tuberculosis rate among status Indians is 43 times higher than
for non-native Canadians born in this country. In fact, the
infection rate is higher than in some of the world's poorest
countries.
Since this incredible rate reflects appalling living conditions,
can the minister tell us which concrete proposal his colleague
from Public Works made to native leaders who recently met with
him, to improve the housing conditions which are at the root of
these health problems?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has brought
forward a question that is of great concern to public health and to
the Ministry of Health.
We have been spending a million dollars a year so far to curb
tuberculosis in aboriginal communities. We have now added
$2.8 million extra per year over the next three years to try to
eradicate tuberculosis so that by the year 2000 there will only be
20 per 100,000 affected and by the year 2010 we will have
eradicated it completely.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian Press has reported that an
interdepartmental working group co-ordinated by the PCO is
studying the issue of electronic surveillance by federal
authorities.
The group is concerned with the development of a clipper chip
that would ensure that government agencies like CSIS, the
RCMP and the CSE are able to intercept telephone, fax and
computer transmissions despite attempts to encrypt them.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he confirm the
existence of this working group and explain why, if CSE does
not have a mandate to spy on Canadians, it is concerned about
ensuring the ability of government agencies to spy on Canadians
when the CSE is supposedly prohibited from doing so?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the tasks of the CSE is to advise the government
on the protection of the data in its computers because of the
issue of cryptography.
It is quite normal that the CSE would be on a working group
within the government where the working group is looking at
developments in the United States and has been asked to give
advice to government of what measures we may have to take to
protect the privacy of information in our data banks from
possible questionable intrusion.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
It has to do with the stated intention of the government to
expand NAFTA to include first Chile and perhaps other southern
American countries. Recently the government opposed an
attempt by the NDP to inject a social dimension into the
legislation having to do with the Uruguay round.
I ask the Minister for International Trade whether in the
Canadian negotiations leading to the expansion of NAFTA it is
the intention of the government to continue to shy away from
introducing a social clause or a social dimension into these
treaties or whether he could say today that in those negotiations
leading to the expansion of NAFTA the government does intend
to insist on a social clause, charter, dimension, whatever you
want to call it so that we have a truly level playing field in these
agreements.
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the NAFTA agreement includes two side
accords, one on labour and one on the environment. Those will
be an integral part of the negotiation with Chile with regard to its
accession.
On the broader question of social policy and trade, that issue
is being addressed in the International Labour Organization and
indeed to a degree in the OECD. The recommendations and the
findings of the ILO will come in time before the World Trade
Organization.
The Speaker: It being 3 p.m., I have a point of order from the
hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief and to the point.
When the leader of the Reform Party questioned the Minister
of Justice regarding the leak of his statement on gun control, the
Minister of Justice suggested that confidential material
concerning his statement on gun control may have been leaked
by the opposition.
This is not only entirely untrue but it is impossible because
this material was broadcast on television last night and is in the
8483
Globe and Mail this morning. Our party and the Bloc received
the information only after eight o'clock this morning.
I would ask that the minister retract this statement and clear
the air so that there is no condemnation and no unfounded
charges against this party.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the record will show
that I said no such thing.
I make it clear if there is any doubt that I was not suggesting
that. Rather, I was responding to the statement that I was
preferring interest groups and journalists to the House of
Commons. I was making the point that I gave no information to
journalists. I do not know who did. The people I gave it to were
my colleagues in the House and in accordance with the time
honoured practice on a lock-up basis for those who are
particularly in the issue.
I did not suggest nor do I say that hon. members opposite
breached the terms on which I gave them the documents. I make
no such statement.
_____________________________________________
8483
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
certain petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the defining
characteristics of our country is its deep commitment to order
and to civility. It has been that way from the beginning.
Ours is a nation created by consensus, not by revolution. Our
domestic history is a chronology of quiet accommodation rather
than dramatic conflict. We are known throughout the world for
our distinctly peaceful character. Our proudest international
symbol is the blue beret. Our most valued asset at home is the
safety of our cities and of our streets.
(1505)
[Translation]
Canadians firmly intend to preserve and strengthen the
outstanding civility that has always distinguished them. The
political and legislative program on safety in public and private
places shows this government's commitment in this regard.
[English]
It is in the context of that unconditional commitment to public
safety that we undertook and have now completed a thorough
review of Canada's laws in relation to firearms.
I rise in the House today to announce the decisions that we
have arrived at and to table a document that sets them out in
detail.
Let me first report to the House on the process that I followed
in preparing the decisions that are being announced today. Since
May of this year when the Prime Minister asked me to take on
this challenge, I have worked with the caucus of the Liberal
Party to meet with Canadians from all walks of life who are
interested in this issue.
During the past five months I have visited for this purpose all
10 provinces and both territories. I have met with more than 150
national and regional groups of firearm owners and users: with
farmers for whom the rifle is a tool in their daily work, with
hunters, with gun collectors, and with sports shooters, some of
whom have achieved international distinction in their sport.
I have visited aboriginal communities and I have spoken with
families that hunt for sustenance. I have also met with police,
doctors, nurses and victims organizations. I have reviewed the
research relating to firearms safety and public health. I have
listened and I have learned. I now wish to report on this
extensive process of consultation.
In the first place there is of course no doubt that the entire
subject of the regulation of firearms is controversial, but I can
also report that there are broad areas of consensus. First,
Canadians believe strongly that they do not want a country in
which people feel they must own a firearm to protect
themselves. That is simply not the way we wish to live.
Second, Canadians want above all to have a lawful and safe
society in which the criminal misuse of firearms is dealt with
severely. Canadians do not want to follow the approach taken to
firearms by the United States. They want this government to
chart a different course that will lead us to a different
destination.
Third, I have learned that the firearms question is not a
rural-urban issue. Canadians who live in the rural environment
are just as concerned about their safety as are the rest of us.
Indeed, they have reason to be concerned. Studies have shown
that the homicide rate in rural areas is almost twice that in the
urban environment.
8484
Fourth, Canadians want our firearms laws to acknowledge
and respect the legitimate interests of hunters and of farmers.
They too are an important part of the Canadian way of life.
Hunting is a long and valued tradition in Canada. It is a pastime
enjoyed by many Canadians and, of equal importance, it is a
very significant economic activity for many regions of this
country.
[Translation]
Therefore our goal must be to strengthen and safeguard our
Canadian approach, which allows people to own and use a
weapon only for purposes that we as a society consider to be
justified. An approach that ensures a fair and reasonable control
on the possession and use of firearms. An approach that provides
safety standards for the use and storage of firearms throughout
the country. An approach that severely punishes any criminally
negligent use of firearms.
[English]
With the careful consultations now concluded, the time has
arrived to act. I wish to table in the House a document which
describes the approach that the federal government will take
through legislation.
Let me be very clear in doing so. The process of consultation
leading to legislation is now over. As I have said, we have
listened and we have learned but now we will lead. We will lead
with the support I hope of this House. We will continue to work
with the provinces, the territories and the aboriginal
communities to ensure that our proposals are implemented in
the fairest manner possible.
The areas in which we will act follow the three broad
categories: First, criminal sanctions for the use of firearms in
crime; second, controls over firearms in private ownership; and,
third, efforts to reduce firearms smuggling.
(1510 )
Let me turn first to the question of criminal penalties. There is
a disturbing trend particularly in urban areas toward violence
with firearms. Five Canadians each week are victims of
homicide by guns. The increased use of handguns in crime is
particularly troubling. To strengthen the law and to provide real
deterrents in sentencing we will introduce new strong penalties
for 10 specific serious crimes.
Where firearms are used for robbery, attempted murder,
manslaughter, sexual assault, and six other serious offences,
there will be mandatory minimum penitentiary terms of four
years together with a lifetime prohibition against the possession
of restricted firearms.
[Translation]
Those who choose to use a firearm in such a way must know
that they will surely incur severe consequences. We will also
propose minimum mandatory prison sentences for the
possession of a stolen firearms and the possession of handguns
without permits if they are loaded or if the owners have ready
access to ammunition.
[English]
Our second theme deals with the controls over private
ownership of firearms in Canada. There are two measures here.
The first is our proposal to ban most handguns and a wide
variety of military type weapons. The second is the proposal for
a universal registration system for all firearms.
I will deal first with the banning of military type weapons and
most handguns. I say at the outset that we start from the
principle that only those firearms that we agree as a country are
appropriate for legitimate purposes should be available for
private ownership. Hunting rifles and shotguns of course are in
that category.
[Translation]
But there are also several types of military and paramilitary
firearms that are designed to imitate weapons used by the army
and the police and are intended not for hunting or farming but
for combat.
[English]
I am able to tell the House today that we will prohibit effective
January 1, 1995, 21 types of such paramilitary firearms
comprising more than 200 individual models. When the laws we
propose are in place we will also ban, among others, the Ruger
Mini-14 used in the murders at l'École polytechnique.
We will also ban the further sale of most handguns because we
have determined they have no legitimate sporting purpose.
Almost 60 per cent of the handguns currently registered to
Canadians fall within that category, some 553,000 handguns.
With respect to those handguns that remain, we will strengthen
the controls over access and use and we will require their owners
to prove each five years that they continue to qualify or they will
lose the privilege of possession and use. We will also ban the
import, the manufacture and the sale of replica firearms.
Let me turn to the subject of universal registration. We will
introduce such a system for all firearms. Indeed such a system is
the foundation for all three strategies that I am describing today,
criminal sanctions, controls over private ownership and efforts
to reduce smuggling.
[Translation]
For years, the chiefs of police and medical community in
Canada have been asking the federal government to adopt such a
system. They believe that such a registration system can
contribute to greater public welfare without imposing excessive
constraints on hunters, farmers and target shooters. Our
government agrees with them.
[English]
During a reasonable period of transition a registration for all
firearms will be introduced in order to identify the owners of
firearms and to record all firearms they own. Registration will
8485
encourage compliance with safe storage requirements. It will
allow police responding to emergency calls to know the firearms
that are present before they arrive. It will allow police to seize
all firearms owned by someone who is the subject of a
prohibition order in the criminal court.
(1515)
I ask that the House not underestimate the importance of that
last point, of enforcing prohibition orders in the context of
domestic violence. The House must bear in mind that on average
one woman every six days is shot to death in this country, almost
always in the home, almost always by someone she knows.
Almost all of the firearms used for that purpose are legally
owned. Almost all of them are rifles and shotguns. The people
who pull those triggers become criminals by that very act.
We must also not lose sight of the fact that 1,100 Canadians
commit suicide with a firearm each year. Too many of them are
young people who act on an impulse. We must also remember
that in the years since 1970, 425 children have died because they
were accidentally shot and killed in Canada.
Increased compliance with safe storage, encouraged by
universal registration will make it more difficult for these young
persons to get access to a firearm either in a moment of torment
or by tragic accident.
Registration will also be the key to ammunition controls.
Once the system is in place only those persons who are 18 years
of age or over and who can produce proof of registration will be
entitled to purchase ammunition.
May I pass now to the control of Canada's borders and
emphasize at the outset how large a task that is. I need not tell
anyone how vast the frontier is we share with the United States.
In terms of preventing the illegal entry of firearms the challenge
is extraordinary.
We share the border with a country where guns are readily
accessible. There are 130 million border crossings a year. It is
simply impossible to open every trunk and glove compartment,
but there are ways in which we can and will do better.
[Translation]
Further to the vigorous measures already taken by the revenue
minister, we are announcing additional strict measures today to
control the importation of firearms and to reduce illegal imports
and gun trafficking.
First, we will end the practice of using Canada as a transit
point for deliveries of weapons to countries that would not allow
their direct entry.
Second, all shipments of firearms arriving in Canada will
therefore have to be accompanied with a permit issued in
advance.
[English]
Third, inspections and enforcement at the borders will be
enhanced.
Fourth, new criminal offences and stiff penalties for
smuggling will strengthen our hand.
Fifth, every firearm entering Canada will be registered. This
will allow guns that disappear from bulk shipments to be traced
and will permit us to follow every firearm to the point of sale.
May I finish as I began by talking about the kind of country we
want to live in. The laws we will introduce are for all of Canada.
They are sensitive to the concerns and the lifestyles in both the
rural and the urban environment but they are also designed to
achieve a single national purpose: safety in our homes and in our
streets.
It has been said that the best way to predict the future is to
invent it. Today we propose a way to invent a Canadian future
that will reflect the best about us and to preserve what matters
most.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice deceived us, fooled us, took us for a ride with
the help of the Prime Minister himself. He had been promising a
new gun control act for months, instead we get lip service from
the minister.
In September, the minister said that he would table a bill in
November and today he has the nerve to tell this House that it
will be delayed until February. And we are supposed to trust
him!
(1520)
We will not, Mr. Speaker. We took his word for it, but we will
not be caught a second time. We no longer believe the justice
minister's promises.
There is nothing before us today, but good intentions. A
ministerial statement does not commit the government to
anything in particular. The justice minister may very well
change his mind again tomorrow morning, and we will not be
any further ahead, we will be at a standstill. Since the past is an
indication of the future, the minister will probably change his
mind and postpone the tabling of his bill till kingdom comes.
I find it very suspicious to see the minister wriggle out of it.
Obviously, even if he takes the trouble to deny it, he yielded to
the gun lobby to which several of his cabinet colleagues belong.
A vocal minority easily won him over in spite of his supposedly
strongly held beliefs.
On September 22, the minister stated in the House that the
Liberal government was ``going to deal with illegal firearms in
this country, toughen the criminal law in its response to those
who use firearms in the commission of offences, and deal with
the regulation of firearms in the hand of lawful owners in a
8486
manner consistent with safety in our society''. When, Mr.
Speaker, when?
The same day, the justice minister stated that he had spent the
summer consulting with Canadians. In response to one of my
questions, he said, and I quote: ``I spent most of the summer
consulting Canadians throughout the country and I listened to
what they had to say''. Either he is hard-of-hearing or he
listened only to what the pro-gun lobby has to say. Apparently,
nothing positive has transpired from these consultations. We are
still dealing with good intentions.
Today, the minister tell us that now is the time to act. What is
stopping him? It seems that action does not mean the same thing
across the way as it does on our side of the House. On this side,
when we say the time has come to act, it means that appropriate
action is being taken and, in the present case, it should have
taken the form of a gun control bill. But for the Minister of
Justice, now means three months down the road, maybe.
The minister quoted disturbing statistics: ``on average, one
woman every six days is shot to death in this country''. How
many more will have died three months from now?
Does the minister need a better reason to act? He should
realize that the longer he waits, the worse it is. With its action
plan, the government is sitting on the fence.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if can you hear, as I do, the noise
coming from the back, but I must admit it interferes with my
concentration.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. colleagues. I give the floor
back to the hon. member.
Mrs. Venne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that the
government action plan is best characterized by
fence-straddling. It reflects in part the position of citizens
requesting gun control and gives in to the pro-gun lobby by
postponing indefinitely the universal registration of firearms.
The minister has no intention of seeing universal registration
implemented during his mandate. He expresses concern for the
number of victims of homicides by gun, but tables no bill and
puts off until 2001 the requirement for gun owners to obtain
firearms certificates. They will have until the next millennium
to comply with the minister's action plan.
As for firearms registration per se, owners are given until
2003 to register their firearms. How can the Minister of Justice
think that he can be taken seriously when he says that the time
has come to act and, in the same breath, tells us that weapons
currently in circulation will not have to be registered for nearly
ten years?
On the subject of penalties, the government action plan
proposes a number of improvements regarding maximum
sentences for crimes involving the use of a firearm. The list of
offenses, however, includes neither assault with a weapon nor
confinement.
(1525)
The Minister of Justice also promised us tough measures on
the smuggling and importation of firearms. Strangely enough,
his action plan suggests stiffer penalties for owners of hunting
rifles without registration cards than for those who import or
own smuggled weapons.
While the hunter will be liable to a minimum sentence of one
year in prison for a second offence, the smuggler may not even
have to go to jail. Today, the minister tried to cover all bases of
gun control, except perhaps when it comes to issuing
registration cards for cannons, without biting into any of the real
issues.
The Liberal government's lack of action does not take into
account the realities faced by gun owners. In this regard, the
regulations already in effect are inconsistent and difficult to
enforce, even by police officers, who often are not familiar with
them. On November 15, the minister replied to me in this House,
and I quote: ``We will make every effort to simplify (the
regulations)''. This does not seem to be among his priorities
today.
Nowhere in the paper tabled by the Minister of Justice do we
see an attempt at regulatory reform. The minister has failed to
ensure that the existing regulations, particularly on the display,
storage and transportation of firearms, are consistent and easy to
enforce. These regulations are not published in an equitable
manner. For example, the Minister of Justice is currently
distributing among police forces throughout Canada an
information booklet with different French- and
English-language versions. It is this booklet I am talking about.
The inconsistency can be found in the chapter on the
transportation of restricted weapons. Francophone and
anglophone readers do not have to transport the weapon in the
same way to conform to the regulations. In fact, the
English-language version specifies that restricted weapons
must be locked and stored individually, while the
French-language version stipulates that these weapons only
have to be stored individually. Does the minister promise to
withdraw this misleading booklet from circulation?
The Minister of Justice is quite aware of the investigation
conducted this month in Montreal by coroner Anne-Marie
David. For his information, some 20 witnesses representing
various organizations told coroner David how inconsistent and
confusing these regulations are. Their lack of clarity leaves
room for interpretation and its attendant dangers. In addition to
promising new measures attempting to plug all the holes, he
should have revised the faulty regulations already in effect.
8487
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
creation of gun control legislation in a democracy places an
obligation upon the government to balance the right of the
individual to own property, in this case firearms, with the
responsibility of the state to protect members of society from
the dangerous or illegal use of firearms.
Like many Canadians, Reform members support gun control
legislation based on common sense. In fact we fully support any
and all gun regulations that will enhance public safety by
reducing the criminal use of firearms. However, the onus is on
the Minister of Justice to prove to us and to Canadians that
current regulations have reduced the criminal use of firearms
and that his proposed restrictions will be successful in this
regard before we support the final product.
In his 1993 report the Auditor General of Canada expressed
some concern about the effectiveness of Bill C-17. He
questioned the motivating factor behind it, concluding that Kim
Campbell proceeded for reasons of public policy and without a
statistical base.
The Auditor General stated: ``Our review of the new
regulations indicated that important data needed to assess the
potential benefits and future effectiveness of the regulations
were not available at the time the regulations were drafted.
Because of this, we believe it is important that the measures
chosen by the government be evaluated at the earliest
opportunity''.
(1530 )
Although we had asked the minister whether he had taken the
advice of the Auditor General we never were quite sure of the
answer until today. Given the proposals the Minister of Justice
has introduced, I suspect he may have ignored the
recommendations of the Auditor General and proceeded to
implement his own agenda for gun control.
In November of last year the minister stated that only police
officers and the military should have guns. In respect to the
minister he has clarified that remark to me since. Nevertheless, I
see this sentiment still reflected in some of the proposals
presented today.
The minister has proposed the banning of certain handguns
from society without statistical justification for doing so. He is
saying to law-abiding Canadians that if you do not use your
handgun the government will take it away from you. I think this
is wrong and we will stand opposed to this if it appears in the
final legislation.
The minister has introduced mandatory minimum sentences
of four years in prison in addition to a lifetime prohibition
against the possession of a restricted weapon when committing
any of the ten specific violent offences with a firearm. He has
introduced a new mandatory minimum jail sentence for
possession of a stolen firearm and possession of a loaded
restricted weapon without a permit. The use of imitation or
replica firearms in the commission of an offence will draw a
minimum mandatory sentence of one year in jail under section
85 of the Criminal Code.
It is good to see that the efforts of the Reform members have
not gone unnoticed by the justice minister. It is indeed
encouraging to see the Minister of Justice following our lead.
On June 15 private member's Bill C-260 of my colleague
from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley was read for the
first time in the House. That bill expands the present offence of
using a firearm in the commission of an offence by including
replica firearms. It also increases the penalty for a first offence
from one to fourteen years to five to fourteen years and for a
second offence from three to fourteen years to ten years to life.
That same bill establishes the theft of a firearm as a new
offence with a penalty of three to fourteen years. It also creates a
new offence for the unlawful importation of a firearm for the
purpose of selling it or using it in the commission of an offence.
This offence would carry a penalty of three to fourteen years.
Finally, a person who sells a firearm other than by the process
proscribed by law would be deemed to have aided in an offence
later committed by the purchaser of the weapon.
Reform's position on justice has been very clear and
consistent from the start. We firmly believe that the justice
system should provide for harsh punishment as a deterrent for
committing crimes and for just punishments once a crime has
been committed.
The minister's position with regard to deterrence is however
questionable. In debates on the Young Offenders Act, the
minister has stated that he does not believe harsher penalties to
be a deterrent to preventing youth crime. It seemed he had to be
pushed to raise the maximum penalty for murder from five to ten
years. This was the only area under the Young Offenders Act
where the penalties were increased to any substantial degree.
Therefore, I place this on the record. The justice minister has
been inconsistent in his support of a deterrent principle in
criminal justice.
As well as supporting the criminal sanctions created by this
proposed legislation, we also support the efforts of the
government in regard to smuggling and the stiffer penalties
created for illegally importing and trafficking firearms.
However, we will remain sceptical about whether or not the
government will be successful in catching gun smugglers.
To date, the government has not been successful in catching
drug and alcohol smugglers. In fact there has been an increase in
smuggling activity in this country which I have reason to believe
in some cases is a result of the prohibitively high taxes and
prices found in Canada.
8488
The only way the government was able to stop the
proliferation of tobacco smuggling into this country was to
reduce the taxes, thereby making it an inexpensive item that
was not as lucrative on the black market. In other words, it was
not able to deal with the criminals who were involved in that
illegal trade. It simply reduced the taxes on cigarettes and was
able to reduce the smuggling by using that means.
We also have some concerns regarding whether the border
controls will be effective, given that Bill C-34 has granted the
Yukon Nation self-government. From statements the Minister
of Justice made on October 4 while in Yukon, we have reason to
believe that special legislation may be granted to reserves.
(1535)
Since a number of reserves are on the Canada-U.S. border and
the minister of revenue has stated that the U.S. is awash with
weapons, how does the minister propose to deal with smuggling
and black market activities that is already so prevalent on
reserves adjacent to the international boundary? In this regard
the proposals of the Minister of Justice do not go far enough and
we have some concerns in this area. What use are the penalties
on border controls if there are other areas that may be left wide
open?
Reform does not believe in tinkering and amending only parts
of the system. We believe in full reforms which are aimed at the
total picture, not just one small aspect of the problem. This is
true with our policies on immigration, deficit cutting, social
policy reform, and other matters.
I now turn to the area which poses the greatest concern to me,
my colleagues and constituents and that is the registration of
shotguns and rifles.
A confidential report commissioned by the research section of
the Department of Justice clearly points out the defects in the
current handgun registration system. In fact it identifies
approximately 30 problems with the registration system. The
system has been in place for 60 years and it has failed to work. I
cannot see how the minister can justify extending this failed
system. How can he honestly tell Canadians it will reduce the
criminal use of firearms when the criminal use of handguns has
been on the increase?
The statistical justification for the registration of rifles and
shotguns has not been made available to us in these proposals.
How can we and how can Canadians in the absence of such
information be confident that universal registration will in fact
reduce the criminal use of firearms and thereby make society
safer? We cannot.
We cannot afford ineffective legislation, particularly in the
area of criminal justice. We must have sound and proven
controls in place that ensure public safety.
On the banning of handguns, where is the information and
where are the statistics that the Minister of Justice used to
justify such a draconian measure?
It has been proven by various sources that gun controls do not
prevent criminals from getting firearms on the black market.
They do however make it more profitable for individuals to deal
in the black market of these items. Repeatedly governments in
this country have learned that prohibitive or restrictive
measures lead to an underground market where people thrive on
the challenge of obtaining something illegal and where ruthless
entrepreneurs profit tremendously.
We witnessed this years ago with the prohibition of liquor and
we have seen it for years with the trafficking of cocaine, speed,
marijuana and other narcotics into our country. Guns are not
immune from the underground economy. In fact trade in that
market has not been diminished but rather enhanced by
government action.
I observe the minister has outlawed hand-held crossbows and
the registration of other crossbows has been put into place
through these proposals. What is the justification for this? Does
this not indicate an unrealistic degree of fear or apprehension
underlying this legislation? I think it does. More murders are
committed with knives than with handguns. Are we to see the
justice minister move to the registration of these weapons?
We look forward in the coming months to the minister tabling
the legislation. We assure him and the people of Canada that we
will support legislation that is aimed at the criminal activity
involving firearms. The case for such action has been evident far
too long in this country. However, we will be closely
scrutinizing that legislation which is a further encroachment
upon the rights of law-abiding Canadians.
In closing I would like to quote from a letter written to me by a
loyal and dedicated Canadian. He stated: ``The people of Canada
will not accept the suppression of our rights and freedoms by
criminals and they will not accept the suppression of those same
rights and freedoms by our government''.
* * *
(1540 )
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present in
both official languages the report of the Canadian delegation to
the fifth annual meeting of the Canada-Japan
Interparliamentary Group which was held in Vancouver from
October 15 to 18, 1994.
The agenda at Canada-Japan meetings is always extensive
and wide ranging. The Vancouver meeting was no exception.
The delegates dealt with bilateral topics such as trade and the
8489
political situations in Japan and Canada. On the multilateral
front reform of the United Nations peacekeeping operations and
the environment dominated the discussions.
The range and depth of the discussions that took place in
Vancouver went a long way in allowing Japanese and Canadian
parliamentarians to better understand the issues. The
opportunity to put forth the Canadian viewpoint was critical and
the Canadian viewpoint was effectively expressed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee
on Public Accounts.
The report tabled today in this House concerns program
evaluation. In his annual report for 1993, the Auditor General
reviews program evaluation in the federal government.
After spending two meetings hearing witnesses, the public
accounts committee is convinced of the need to publish an
annual performance report on program evaluation.
The committee therefore recommends that Treasury Board
Secretariat produce a report on the departments' performance
with respect to evaluation no later than October 31, 1995 and
annually thereafter.
Several other recommendations are also in this report.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee asks the
government to table a comprehensive response to this report.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition which
states in part that the justice minister is proposing anti-firearms
legislation that will do virtually nothing to reduce violent crime
but will severely restrict the rights and freedoms of millions of
innocent firearms owners, contrary to the very principles of
justice upon which this great country of ours is based. The
petitioners insist that he bring forth legislation to convict and
punish criminals rather than persecute the innocent.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of approximately 300 petitioners from in and around the
city of Calgary living in the Wild Rose riding, I present this
petition today.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined
phrase, sexual orientation.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
this petition the petitioners point out that there is now easier and
greater access to capital for small and medium sized businesses.
They point out however that there needs to be more done to
remove red tape and impediments to business. They underline as
well that the GST is cumbersome and costly to business. They
note the government is currently studying options to replace the
goods and services tax. They want the government to consider
the needs of business as it goes forward with the various options.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions from the Carleton-Charlotte
riding to be presented today. They are signed by many citizens
from such areas as St. Stephen, St. Andrews, Moores Mills, St.
George, Rolling Dam, Back Bay, Deer Island, Pennfield, Blacks
Harbour, Beaver Harbour, Mace's Bay, McAdam, Harvey,
Grand Manan, Dipper Harbour and Bonny River.
I am certainly pleased to present the first petition regarding
societal approval of same sex relationships. The petitioners
encourage the Parliament of Canada not to take any action that
might be deemed as approval for same sex relationships. The
petition is signed by 313 citizens.
(1545)
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by some 312 citizens
residing in the same areas I previously noted.
They would like Parliament and all members to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
They petition the House of Commons to take action.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): The third
and final petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by 307 persons in the
same areas. They request that the House ensures that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced and that Parliament makes no changes in support of
euthanasia.
8490
The petitions have all been duly checked by the clerk of
petitions and I am pleased to present them to the House.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure today to present to Parliament a petition signed by
constituents in the riding of Red Deer.
These citizens express their sentiments and great concern
with respect to the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or
passive euthanasia.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and request that
Parliament ensures the present provisions of the Criminal Code
of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced and that
Parliament makes no changes in the law which would sanction
or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present to Parliament today two different petitions
from residents of my constituency.
First, the Union of B.C. Municipalities urgently requests the
federal government to amend the Young Offenders Act to
strengthen sentencing provisions for young offenders who
commit serious crimes. I concur with the petition.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): The second
petition prays that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present a petition with well over 1,000 names from
residents right across Ontario who support Mrs. Mahaffy's
efforts to have serial killer cards seized at the border.
The petitions were started well before the justice committee
tabled its report to have the obscenity code amended to reflect
these changes.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour
to rise in the House to present a petition, duly certified by the
clerk of petitions, on behalf of 198 concerned citizens
throughout British Columbia.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to
refuse the government's proposed anti-firearms legislation and
introduce legislation to convict and punish criminals rather than
persecute the innocent.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my constituents from
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt call on Parliament to reject
any proposals which might add to the existing regulatory
restrictions regarding firearms; to respect the integrity of
law-abiding, responsible firearms owners; to cause the
Government of Canada to take such measures as are necessary
to provide for strict enforcement of existing statutes governing
the use of firearms in the commission of a criminal offence, with
particular emphasis on the rigorous use of section 85 of the
Criminal Code; and to provide strict sentencing guidelines and
mandatory sentences for anyone convicted of the use or
possession of a firearm in the commission of a crime in which
violence is threatened or actually used.
I concur with my petitioners.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36 I would like to present a
petition signed by residents of the district of High Prairie in my
riding of Athabasca.
The petition requests a referendum of the people binding upon
Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English
and French, for the government and the people of Canada, the
acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be
determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole
of Canada, together with a majority vote in the majority of the
provinces and with the territories being given the status of one
province.
I present the petition and support the petitioners.
* * *
(1550)
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions be allowed to
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On
September 28, I directed a question to the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans concerning the possible conflict of interest of
members appointed to the Fraser River Sockeye Public Review
Board.
The board has started public hearings and I have yet to receive
a reply. Questions have been raised about the suitability of
certain board members. I believe the public and Parliament have
a right to know about the relationship of the appointees to the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans before the inquiry proceeds
much further.
My question deserves an immediate answer.
8491
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for
the production of papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: The point of order raised by the hon.
member for Delta had to do with questions. I assume the
parliamentary secretary, who does not usually do this, will take
it as representation and will try to speed the matter up.
Shall the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the leader of the
Reform Party I should indicate that pursuant to Standing Order
33(2) because of the ministerial statement Government Orders
will be extended by 35 minutes today.
_____________________________________________
8491
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 28 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate with three
purposes in mind: first, to hold the federal government
accountable for its management of public finances over the last
year; second, to put forward constructive alternatives where the
performance of the government has been weak or inadequate;
and, third, by accomplishing these first two things to endeavour
to assist the finance committee and the finance minister in the
preparation of the 1995-96 budget.
The focus I would like to make is on five major deficiencies in
the government's fiscal performance, all of which have negative
consequences for the economy and, second, to make some
recommendations for remedying those deficiencies.
The first deficiency pertains to the inadequacy of the
government's deficit reduction targets. The government's target
to date has been to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP in
three years. The target is simply inadequate. It is too modest.
The business community says that it is inadequate. The money
markets say that it is inadequate. Just this week the IMF said in
no uncertain terms that it is inadequate.
Why is it inadequate? It is inadequate because it does not get
the job done, because it permits the government to add over
$155 billion to the federal debt over the next two years, because
it does not stop the erosion of social programs, because it creates
upward pressure on taxes, because it fails to stimulate private
sector confidence thereby retarding job creation.
Most important, the 3 per cent of GDP target is inadequate
because it will not eliminate the deficit during the current
upward swing in the business cycle. When the business cycle
turns down, the deficit will not have been eliminated and it will
be infinitely more difficult to make the spending cuts required
under those conditions.
In other words, the government will have missed its window
of opportunity for deficit reduction just as the Mulroney
government missed its window in 1984-85. The reality is that
the government's deficit reduction target is totally inadequate
and our recommendation is that the government set a fiscally
responsible deficit target soon. That target should be to aim to
reduce the deficit to zero by the end of this Parliament.
The second deficiency is the inadequacy of the government's
grasp of the real costs and benefits of social spending. Over 50
per cent of total federal government's spending is now spent in
the social areas. Yet the Auditor General has pointed out that this
is the area where the federal government has the poorest grasp of
the actual cost of what it is doing and the values received.
(1555)
If the auditors of a resource company that had over 50 per cent
of its business in the oil and gas development area were to issue
a statement saying that the company's accounting was defective
with respect to both costing and values received in the principal
area of its business, the stock of such a company would be driven
through the floor.
This is, however, the great weakness of the discussion paper
produced by the Minister of Human Resources Development:
insufficient and inadequate data on the real costs of social
programs and values received and virtually no data on the costs
and benefits of alternative social programs proposed.
Professed social concern without fiscal responsibility makes
a mockery of social service. In the 1990s the politician who is
genuinely concerned about the well-being of the young, the old,
the sick, the poor or the unemployed will ensure that the
programs upon which those people are dependent are financially
sustainable. The old style Liberal politician who fails to ensure
that will do more to damage the people dependent on those
programs than the most hard headed fiscal conservative.
Our recommendation in this area is to bring the Minister of
Human Resources Development, the Minister of Health and the
Minister of Canadian Heritage before the finance committee of
the House and to grill them on the costs of their existing
programs and proposed alternatives; to have that committee ask
them the hard questions that they never ask themselves and are
8492
rarely asked by their own officials; to have them answer those
questions before they run the Canada pension plan into the
ground, before they run medicare into the ground and before
they run the Canada assistance plan into the ground; and to ask
them those questions until they learn the meaning of fiscal
responsibility in the 1990s.
The third deficiency concerns the insufficiency of the
government's spending reduction proposals. In October the
finance minister made a sobering presentation to the finance
committee and the public, saying that he could not meet even his
soft deficit reduction targets without cutting an additional $6
billion to $9 billion in spending. The minister presented no list
of spending cuts. The minister was coy and he asked the
committee and the public to provide that list for him.
Members of the business community have since presented
such lists to the finance committee. Last week Reform members
of the finance committee provided it with a detailed specific list
of $10 billion in spending cuts outside major social spending
areas.
During the same period of time, however, various
parliamentary committees have been treated to the spectacle of
ministers-the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism
and heads of agencies like the CBC-endeavouring to protect
and defend high levels of spending and high levels of
overspending rather than putting forward responsible proposals
for spending reduction, which is what the finance minister asked
for. In other words they just do not get it. They are not listening
to the finance minister. They are part of the problem, not part of
the solution.
Reform members of the finance committee have provided that
committee and the minister with a $10 billion spending
reduction list. We challenged the committee to endorse it and to
implement it. If we cannot persuade the government or Bloc
members to support our list, perhaps we can stimulate their
imagination to produce their own spending reduction list.
I ask Liberal members to put themselves in the place of the
finance minister and pretend they have just received a call from
their fiscal agent that the money markets are rejecting a major
Canadian government bond issue. The Government of New
Zealand once got such a call. The Government of Sweden got a
call like that a little while ago. What then?
They would have to reduce spending overnight. Where would
they make the cuts? They would have to produce the list. There
would be no other alternative. We are saying produce the list
now while there is time to buy time.
I ask the Bloc members to imagine themselves as finance
minister of Quebec, the most highly taxed jurisdiction in North
America, or soon to be.
(1600 )
They have just received a call from their fiscal agent saying
that the latest Quebec bond issue cannot be sold. It has been
rejected by the market. They cannot borrow any more. Quebec
Hydro cannot borrow any more. What then? It would have to
reduce its spending overnight. It would have to produce the list.
We are saying why not produce the list now while there is time to
make a difference.
The fourth deficiency: The incapacity of the government to
estimate the employment impacts of either government
overspending or deficit reduction. For 30 years the federal
government has operated on the assumption that government
spending and overspending is a stimulus to economic growth
and job creation. It is finally discovering the falsity of that
assumption. The finance minister acknowledged this in his grey
paper.
If government spending and government overspending could
indefinitely stimulate an economy and job creation, Canada
would have the highest economic growth rate and the lowest
unemployment rate of any country in the G-7. However, Canada
has over one million people unemployed. The premise that
government overspending creates jobs is false, particularly
when you are overspending at high debt levels and high taxation
levels.
Increased government spending and the increased taxation
that goes along with that kills private sector job creation,
particularly under those conditions. The policy models and the
econometric models used by the government do not measure
this. It is infected with the Keynesian virus that ignores the
negative effects of government overspending and
underestimates the positive employment effects of deficit
reduction.
The premise that deficit reduction, particularly deficit
reduction that leads to tax relief, is a powerful economic
stimulus to the private sector is not built into the equations of
those models. In effect we are flying blind when it comes to
estimating the negative employment effects of government
overspending and the positive employment effects of deficit
reduction.
The finance minister is flying blind, the finance department is
flying blind, the finance committee is flying blind and the Bank
of Canada is flying blind on both of those issues.
Recommendation: That the finance department, with the
assistance of the finance committee of the House and the Bank
of Canada, issue a request for proposals for a new econometric
model that accurately reflects the employment impacts of
government overspending and deficit reduction. The finance
department and the Bank of Canada need a new compass to chart
their way through the years ahead and they should order that
now.
The fifth deficiency: The unwillingness of the government to
explicitly recognize the connection between the management of
8493
federal finances and the management of the national unity issue.
One of the principal arguments that separatists will make
against the federal system is that the federal government
systematically mismanages its finances and then tries to offload
its mistakes and its debts on to the provinces.
The current size of the federal debt, the current size of the
federal deficit, the current federal tax burden and the decline of
federal-provincial transfers will all be offered as evidence in
support of this thesis. These arguments will be made by
separatists in Quebec despite the evidence shown every day in
this House that most members of the Bloc do not have the
foggiest notion how to balance a budget either federal or
provincial.
Two recommendations, one general and one specific. If the
finance minister and the government cannot be persuaded to
redouble their efforts to eliminate the deficit in the name of
fiscal responsibility, if the finance minister and the government
cannot be persuaded to redouble their efforts to reduce the
deficit in the name of social responsibility to preserve the
financial underpinnings of the social service safety net, perhaps
they could still be persuaded to redouble their efforts to
eliminate the deficit in the name of national unity, to
demonstrate that the federal government can balance its books
thereby refuting separatist claims that it cannot or will not.
More specifically, before the national unity debate begins in
earnest, federalism versus separatism, the finance committee
should also make a specific recommendation to bolster the
confidence of investors and lenders in the Canadian dollar and
the securities of Canadian governments.
(1605 )
They should recommend that the finance minister, the
Governor of the Bank of Canada, and all 10 provincial finance
ministers, including the finance minister of Quebec, make a
solemn public declaration that it is their intention to honour all
the debt obligations of their respective governments regardless
of the outcome of the federalist sovereignty debate or
referendum. Such a declaration would be in the interests of all
governments and the interests of all taxpayers no matter where
they live in the country.
In conclusion, I have identified five major deficiencies in the
government's management of the fiscal affairs of this country,
deficiencies that have a major impact on economic
performance. These are not insignificant things: the weakness of
the deficit reduction target, the inadequacy of the government's
data on real costs of social spending and values received, the
inadequacy of the government's spending reduction proposals,
its inability to measure the employment impacts of either
government overspending or deficit reduction, and its
unwillingness to recognize the connection between the federal
deficit issue and the national unity issue.
On the positive side, I have made six major recommendations
which I sincerely hope the finance committee, the finance
minister and the government will take to heart: one, set the
deficit reduction target at zero deficit by the end of this
Parliament; two, drag the human resources minister, the health
minister, and other soft headed ministers before the finance
committee and grill them until they understand the meaning of
fiscal responsibility in the 1990s; three, adopt the Reform
Party's list of $10 billion in specific spending cuts in non-social
areas or produce an equally specific alternative; four, issue a
request for proposals for an econometric model that will
actually reflect the employment impacts of both government
overspending and deficit reduction; five, urge the finance
minister and the government to redouble their efforts to
eliminate the deficit not only in the names of fiscal and social
responsibility but also for the sake of national unity; six,
recommend that Canada's finance ministers and the Governor of
the Bank of Canada issue a solemn declaration of their intent to
honour the debt obligations of their respective governments
regardless of the outcome of any federalist-sovereignist debate
or referendum in 1995.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to direct some questions
and comments to the leader of the Reform Party.
I listened carefully to what the leader of Reform Party had to
say. In fact, I always listen very carefully to what Reform
members have to say, and there are two points I would like to
make. My first point is that the leader of the Reform Party does
not have the foggiest idea of what is happening today in Quebec,
of what is shaping and promoting the sovereignist option in
Quebec to make a country out of the land we cherish. It is not
because of poor management by the federal government. It is,
first and foremost, about choosing the kind of society and
country we want, and above all, it is about getting out of a
system that is impervious to reform, a system that is doomed.
I think the Reform Party is accelerating the process in Canada,
because last week they proposed cuts to all the symbols that are
a source of pride for Canadians. I do not feel more Canadian than
the Reform Party, but I think they lack vision.
They brag about proposing $10 billion in cuts, but just look
where they want to make those cuts! It is so vicious and
shortsighted, for instance, to suggest cutting and slashing and
even destroying the CBC, as well as everything connected with
the language, culture, development and international presence
of the country they claim to defend. They want to save $10
billion by destroying the very foundations of what they claim to
defend. This is odd, to say the least.
8494
(1610)
About a month and a half ago, we in the Bloc Quebecois
presented proposals that would raise between fifteen to twenty
million dollars. Mr. Speaker, consider the difference between
our approach and theirs. Consider that $8 billion worth of
unpaid revenue is out there, $8 billion owed to the federal
government, a point that was raised in the Auditor General's
report last week. They are not talking about going after those $8
billion worth of unpaid revenue and taxes, and do you know
why? Because most of those accounts receivable are big
accounts, people with very high incomes who owe money to the
federal government and who can count on the right incarnate on
our left-I know it sounds peculiar-to defend them with blind
dedication. They know these people will defend them
practically to their dying breath. They are not interested in those
$8 billion because these are their pals out West.
They also ignored the fact that $1.5 billion could be cut in the
National Defence budget, as we suggested. They did not even
consider what the Auditor General had to say about wasteful
spending at National Defence. Why? Again, probably because
they have some friends there, so they will not admit there is any
wasteful spending in the Public Service and at the Department of
National Defence.
They did not take a look either-guess where, Mr. Speaker?
At the tax treatment of corporations. They do not want to touch
it. Why? Because they are so dogmatic. As far as the Reform
Party is concerned, these big corporations can do no wrong.
I suppose if they are prepared to say it is morally right-they
are very keen on morality-to have a classified ad in the
newspaper that says ``unused federal tax deduction for sale'',
and accept that, they will not look at the tax treatment of
corporations, which I think is disgraceful. They have no social
conscience and do not have the foggiest notion of what Canada
is all about.
They approve of an outrageous family trust system which
defers for 80 years taxes payable on capital belonging to the
wealthiest in this country, and there again, I think they lack a
sense of morality and they lack vision.
For all these reasons, I think it is disgraceful that Reform
Party members set themselves up as great reformers. It looks
more like they are out to destroy the country they claim to
defend. We are anxious to get out of this country because we are
sick and tired of these dogmatic speeches.
[English]
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
comments. Let me respond on two fronts. I believe the
member's comments demonstrate exactly what I was saying,
that with all due respect the Bloc members do not have the
foggiest notion as to how to balance a budget.
With respect to unpaid taxes, we could collect all the unpaid
taxes referred to in the Auditor General's report, the $5 billion to
$6 billion, every one of them, and we would not even help the
finance minister to get up to his soft target. He needs $6 billion
to $9 billion.
This idea that they can tax our way out of the problem we are
in, either in Canada as a whole or in Quebec, is completely
fallacious. Any government that attempts to do that will turn
itself into the most highly taxed jurisdiction in Canada. If they
followed their advice they would end up having the most highly
taxed jurisdiction in Canada.
On the second point, that Reform goes after all the things that
people hold dear, the $10 billion in spending reductions that we
advocated in front of the finance committee are outside the
social area. That is one of the reasons for focusing there first.
Second, I challenge this whole thesis. It has been people who
said: ``Don't reduce your spending because all these things are
sacred'' in many other countries that have helped destroy those
very things they said were sacred. They let the debt get higher
and they let the interest on the debt get higher until it eroded
every social service they considered important.
My point, and I conclude with this, is that to demonstrate
social concern today is not to use the rhetoric of the 1930s that
we need more social programs. It is to come up with ways of
making essential social services financially sustainable. That is
the social conscience of the 1990s.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what
I hear from the Reform Party leader. I want to ask him a specific
question and I would like to get a specific answer. If he does not
have it today he can table it some time soon in the House. Over
and over again during the campaign the Reform Party told
Canadians it would balance the budget in three years.
(1615)
I want the hon. member to give me the specific programs that
would be cut, the specific initiatives that would be undertaken,
item by item, and table them in the House before the end of the
week. Then we will see how they will eliminate the deficit in
three years.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, we have done this over and over
again for two years. We have tabled this already. We have tabled
the Reform Party zero in three program for reducing the deficit.
Now we are in the process of updating it, using the minister's
latest figures. The first phase was the $10 billion in detailed,
specific cuts that were laid before the finance committee last
week.
The problem is not getting the list. The problem is finding a
government with the political will to implement it.
8495
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I wish to advise
the Speaker and the House that from this point on government
members will be dividing their time, 10 minutes each.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
brief question for the hon. member. He said in his statement that
the government has not taken into account the impact of deficit
financing on jobs, et cetera.
Does the member not agree that the impact on the Canadian
economy of slashing the deficit at such a pace would drive
Canada into a worse recession than we have just come out of and
would create even more hardship on the Canadian economy?
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, the thesis that balancing the
government budget in that three year period would create
recession is a view that was in vogue 30 years ago if you
subscribe to Keynesian economics. In our view it does not
operate today.
The reason it does not operate is because at our levels of debt
and taxation, a dollar left in the hands of a taxpayer, a lender or
investor today is more productive than that dollar in the hands of
a politician or a bureaucrat. That is the 1990s economics.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
honoured to take part in the debate on Canada's budgetary
process.
It is important to spend a little time trying to realize how we
got to where we are. Studying the history of where we are and
how we got here may allow us to reach a conclusion on how to
get back out. We got here by getting on what I call the STB
formula for disaster, which is basically spend, tax and borrow.
The concept of spend, tax and borrow has caused a ratcheting
effect, constantly spiralling interest rates with the debt
expanding and growing ever faster. It is very much like a
mortgage where you never pay the interest. It just keeps getting
bigger and bigger until we get to the point where we cannot pay
it off. That is what we have done.
We started back in 1982, just to use a very short period of time
to reflect on. From 1982 until 1992 federal government
spending increased from $67 billion to $141 billion, a 210 per
cent increase. Governments have become insatiable spenders.
We have been sold on the idea that somehow we can continue to
enjoy services without paying for them.
It is partially the fruition of the baby boom generation. Some
of this is psychological. The baby boomers believed they could
continue to consume without paying. Politicians told us this was
possible and we wanted to believe it.
The exasperating formula of STB is also partially related to
the fact that there is no division of these powers within
government. In other words, the power to spend, the power to
tax, the power to borrow is all in the same hands. Some people
have suggested that we should have a special commission, one
that simply collects taxes so that governments would have to
match their spending to the taxes that were available, rather than
the other way around.
(1620)
In addition to the spending we also started building up a huge
civil service. Currently 6.5 per cent of our labour force, 866,000
people, is employed by government. We seem to have growth for
the sake of growth.
In most of these areas we did not actually add any productivity
into the economy. In spite of the fact we were told we could do
this for free, taxes slowly started rising. Many people in the
House have complained about the complexity of our tax system.
They search for some kind of new Utopia, a flat tax, a simple tax.
To me that is a recognition of not knowing why the tax system is
what it is and how it got to where it is.
The tax system is designed to extract the maximum amount of
money out of the pockets and purses of the people of Canada. It
gets more and more intuitive and more and more inventive as
our insatiable desire for more taxes increases. A simplistic tax
system is very easy but it may allow the escape of some moneys
in the system.
For instance, even in the Income Tax Act there is an
anti-avoidance section, which simply says in layman's terms
that if we cannot catch you somewhere else in here, we are going
to catch you anyway; we can override the income tax system. I
often thought that we should call the GST or a new value added
tax the value added cumulative user utility method or vacuum
tax which is basically what we want to do. We can put a vacuum
into everyone's house and suck every last cent out of it.
Not happy enough to increase our spending, to increase our
taxation levels to the point where people did not have any
disposable income, we then started borrowing. First we started
borrowing from ourselves. The baby boomer generation
borrowed from its predecessors who knew how to save, who had
gone through the depression and had great savings. Canadians
were the second highest savers in the world. Even so, we
outstripped that. We used all their savings.
Then we started borrowing from foreigners. We started
borrowing from people in the United States. We started
borrowing from people in Japan. Currently 44 per cent of our
gross domestic product is accounted for in foreign borrowing.
Twenty-five per cent of our total outstanding debt is owed to
people outside the country.
This creates an additional problem. We have to keep getting
investment money into the country so that we can earn foreign
exchange reserves to pay the interest. We are caught in a
constant ratcheting spiral.
8496
Where are we today? People talk about continuing to spend.
We have curtailed some of our spending. We have discovered
that some of the benefits in our current governmental system
are really earned by people going back to work, causing upward
changes in our revenue and a downward push on the UI account.
The reality is we continue to spend. Worse than that we
continue to tax.
I have some interesting statistics on the average Canadian
family that earns $57,696 in 1994. Here is the bill: social
securities, unemployment insurance, Canada pension plan and
medical taxes, $5,011; gas taxes, vehicle licences, $926; liquor,
entertainment taxes, $1,274; property taxes, $2,041; federal and
provincial sales taxes, $4,284; other taxes such as import duties,
$2,630; income taxes, $11,037; total, $27,203 which is almost
50 per cent of what it earns.
During the recession this got worse. Suddenly some lost their
jobs and half the income went out the window. The Auditor
General reports that he is concerned about the over $6 billion in
arrears of income taxes. What I cannot understand is why it is so
low. The reality is that when people could not put food on their
tables they stopped paying their income taxes. We only left a
small pittance for these people to pay their mortgages, feed and
cloth themselves and still we continue to borrow.
(1625)
Some of our smarter people started thinking: ``Wouldn't
another country be better to live in?''. Some people think we can
continue to tax. People earning over $250,000 pay a 53 per cent
marginal rate of tax. In the United States it is 32 per cent. In the
United Kingdom it is 42 per cent. Suddenly people start
thinking: ``Let's get out of here. There are better places to live''.
We talk about assisting small and medium sized businesses
but in reality the federal government crowds out the capital
markets. People cannot borrow. Why loan money to Joe's auto
body up the street when you can get a mortgage on all the people
of Canada?
The federal government, in trying to resist spiralling interest
rates, started shortening the length of its debt instruments.
Currently the federal government debt is out to four and a half
years. That is the equivalent of refinancing your mortgage 25
per cent every year. What does it mean? It creates all kinds of
volatility. What if some day somebody does not want to lend you
any money? That is exactly what is happening. People are
starting to look at Canada and wonder about our insatiable
appetite for spending. They start debating whether they should
lend to us at all. They certainly start pushing up the interest rates
and for a short term period of time.
In September in the private sector there was the greatest
conversion of Canadian denominated bonds in two years; $1.9
billion was converted into foreign currency away from the
Canadian market.
Where do we want to go? We want to get the ratchet working
the other way. We must look back at these three aspects of
spending, taxing and borrowing, and reverse the process. We
must cut spending but we have to be very judicious as to how we
do it.
Public sector unions are trying to maintain their existing wage
structure. The reality is that the public sector unions in all
segments of their employment are paid 20 per cent higher than
all private sector wages.
We have a guild system in our transportation network. These
are things from the past, from history. We cannot afford to
continue. Everybody, whether it is labour, business or
government has to be part of the solution. Everybody has to
realize that they have to accept less to make the country whole
again.
As well as the Reform Party, I have made some suggestions.
We should roll back RRSPs from $12,500 to $7,500. This would
save the government half a billion dollars a year.
On the question of international aid, I do not think it is a
matter of being mean. It is a matter of doing what we can afford
as a country. Canada's foreign aid is twice as high as that of the
United Kingdom as a percentage of our gross domestic product,
twice as high as the United States, and a third higher than
Australia. We simply cannot afford that degree of spending. By
cutting foreign aid by half so it is consistent with all these other
countries would save a billion dollars.
We have to restructure our social programs. This is not to take
money from the people who need it, it is to make those systems
work more efficiently. We are not eliminating them but we are
trying to cut those areas of abuse from the system. Over $3
billion could be saved in this area.
Money could be saved in the area of the CPP. We could make it
more efficient by being more efficient in collection
methodology. That would save a quarter of a billion dollars.
We need a further cut of $2 billion in defence spending. By
cutting the funding of cultural and advocacy groups a small
amount of money, $.01 billion could be saved. Agricultural
subsidies are another area that we are going to have to cut. We
just cannot afford it, a billion dollars.
I looked at civil service wage reductions. How we are going to
get them, I do not know, but the bottom line is savings of $3.6
billion. We can make our prison system more efficient by
making it more income sensitive, saving half a billion dollars.
By restructuring of our transportation industry, another half
billion dollars can be saved. That is $12.36 billion.
8497
(1630)
I also estimate that a reduction of that magnitude will actually
lower interest rates in Canada by 2 per cent. This will reduce
interest on the federal government debt by a further $12 billion.
That is a $25 billion reduction. These things are possible. These
things are necessary. We have to do this and we have to get on
with it.
In conclusion, regardless of whether they are in the labour
movement or in business all people in Canada realize we have to
address this problem. This country can no longer continue on the
road to wrack and ruin. We can no longer afford champagne
when we have a beer budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker,
because I believe we are allotted only five minutes.
One of the remarks that caught my attention in the speech of
my hon. Liberal colleague is the one to the effect that perhaps
civil servants are too well paid, unless I misheard because I was
listening to the interpreters. I find this is shifting the blame onto
someone else than oneself.
They are the ones, the Liberals, in charge of administering
government finance. They are the ones in charge of giving
instructions to civil servants. As far as I know, civil servants
listen and do as they are told. Personally, I always asked my boss
for pay increases when I was in the private sector, but I would
assure him at the same time that he would get his money's worth.
The problem-and it is easy for the Liberals to put the blame
on the civil service-is that employees are not given clear
orders. They are not given a mission. They are not instructed to
listen to what the public has to say. The message they get is: ``Do
as you are told and when you get on my nerves, I will beat you
over the head''. As I said, I think that using civil servants as
scapegoats is cheap. They should instead be given clear
instructions and mandates so that they can make savings. But
you cannot put the blame on they if you did not listen to what
they had to say earlier. This baffles me.
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
questions.
The reality is there are all kinds of factors and forces within
our economy. Needless to say in the public sector there are
public sector unions. They have signed contractual obligations
with the Government of Canada and the Public Service Alliance
is also involved with the provincial governments.
The bottom line is that some bummer contracts have been
negotiated over the years. The government has been very
judicious at trying to reduce the civil service by way of attrition.
It is not working in the sense that it is not working nearly fast
enough for what we need to do to make us more efficient.
We have to look at all aspects of government spending. This is
very much on the government's agenda, that is not necessarily
rolling back public sector wages but to negotiate with the unions
a more effective and efficient civil service.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
seems like only yesterday that we were sitting here listening to
the finance minister presenting the very first budget of this new
government. It brings home the fact that there is precious little
time left between now and the next budget.
The motion of this debate is that Parliament take note of the
views of Canadians on the fiscal situation in giving advice to the
finance minister and to the government of the day in developing
the 1995 budget.
I know that many of us are out there consulting with our
constituents. For the first time in the history of this country
consultations on the budget are taking place not behind closed
doors but in open and in public. In every corner of this land we
hope to engage Canadians in addressing the fiscal problems we
have, in addressing what kind of country they want and how
much they are prepared to pay for it. In my view this is the way
to do a budget.
(1635 )
I had what would be the first stage of input to the 1995 budget
in Ottawa West several weeks ago when we held a consultation
on the social programs review. The message that came out of
that consultation which was attended by over 150 people was
very clearly a budget message. The message was that yes, they
are aware of the fiscal problems of the country. Yes, they want a
sounder, economic situation for our country, but they want
fairness above all and a country that is still committed to those
values of sharing, of fairness, of compassion and of shared
responsibility for the collective well-being and for the
well-being of fellow citizens.
All of us have been receiving much input from our
constituents as the media has speculated about measures that
might possibly be taken in the budget. Therefore I certainly want
to share with this House and with the finance minister what I
have heard from my constituents and the specific messages
around that fundamental message I am hearing.
People are very much aware of the fiscal situation we are
facing. In the Liberal red book we said very explicitly that any
responsible government has to have the goal of a zero deficit.
We felt it was a responsible target to commit ourselves to reach 3
8498
per cent of GDP, that is, cutting the deficit in half compared with
our GDP in the first three years of our mandate, by 1997. That is
the goal we set and that is the goal we intend to reach.
I will spend a couple of minutes on why it is important that we
do that. For the people I am hearing from in Ottawa West certain
things are important to them about this country's programs and
values.
The fact is that the debt and deficit restrict our ability to move
our nation forward and to build our economic prosperity. Right
now close to one-third of every dollar we spend is being spent
just to pay interest on the debt. That is money we do not have for
other things that are important not only to the Canada of today
but to the Canada of our children and grandchildren.
Let me talk a bit more about some specific issues people have
been bringing to my attention. They realize that this level of
debt and this level of interest payment on our debt restrict the
sovereignty of a government. They restrict its ability to make
decisions and to make plans for the country and for its people.
The question then to my constituents and to every Canadian is
as to how they want us to deal with that, which means a better
balance between what we are spending and what we have in
revenue. That is what we are asking Canadians. How do they
want us to achieve that balance?
We indicated our direction clearly in the last budget where
cuts in spending were five times the increases in revenue. Those
increases were achieved on the revenue side by getting rid of
perceived special treatment for certain groups in society.
I want to express the concern that we not make decisions that
look good in the short term but that impact on our ability to be
strong economically in the long term. I am very concerned that
we not harm our scientific and research base to the point where
we may look better in this year's budget and in the budgets for
the next few years, but we are starting to undermine our ability
to have jobs 10 years from now.
I want to make sure we are not cutting back in areas now that
are feeding the economic growth of the small and medium sized
businesses. They provide 85 per cent of the new jobs in this
country. I want to make sure we are not cutting back on our
ability and our contribution to the development of countries
around this globe that are our future customers if they can
develop their economies and if they can develop their
democratic systems of government.
(1640 )
Above all I want to make sure we are not cutting back on the
development of our most important resource: the talent of our
young men and women, the young boys and girls who will
become our young men and women.
Fairness is a strong theme I hear. People want to know that
everybody is paying their fair share. They want to know that
they are not being targeted for cuts in benefits they now enjoy
while others continue to get away with not paying their fair
share into the pot from which we all benefit.
Seniors are particularly concerned. A very large proportion of
them live in Ottawa West. They want to remind this House that
old age security and the Canada pension plan are not charity and
are not welfare. I read the debates again from the fifties when the
old age security was implemented. It very specifically said that
this pension is a right of citizenship and everybody is going to
pay on their income tax for that pension. They did that and they
continue to do it.
A few years ago it was rolled into the general tax rate, but it is
still there, a special payment for old age security. That is a
pension people have paid for. They want me to remind this
House and our government how much they have sacrificed, the
hardships they have put up with, the things they did without, to
take responsibility for providing for their own retirement. They
want me to remind this House that we owe a debt to them, a debt
of gratitude and a debt for the quality of life we have in this
country.
I want to talk a bit about the public service as my colleague
before me has done. I remind the House that we could cancel the
whole public service tomorrow and we would still have a huge
deficit and a huge debt. We could cut all government spending
on the actual operating of government tomorrow and it would
not take care of our deficit and debt problem.
Everybody who works for the public service knows we are
going through a tremendous period of change. They know that
period of change will certainly mean changes in jobs and a
smaller public service. Again we have to be sure that we are not
targeting specific segments of our society, including the public
service, to bear an unfair portion of the burden that belongs to all
of us as Canadians.
We want to continue to reaffirm the value of government
services across this country. They are the kind of services that
keep our transportation and food supply safe, that keep goods
and services moving across this country and without which we
would not have an economy.
In the few seconds I have left I also want to say that above all
my constituents want to keep reminding us that the best way to
solve our debt and deficit problem is to have more Canadians
working, more Canadians employed and contributing to the
economy instead of requiring the assistance of their
communities and their society.
They do not want us to lose sight, as we have not done, that our
main target is jobs and economic growth, that fiscal
responsibility is part of that but so is social responsibility. We
should not solve our fiscal deficit by creating a social deficit.
They remind
8499
me and I remind the House that disparity is growing in this
country, not decreasing. Those who are well off, those for whom
the Reform Party seems to speak are better off than they have
ever been. It is below that where everybody is a little worse off.
That means our country is worse off.
Like the constituents I have spoken with, and I will be
speaking with many more when we hold another consultation on
the budget specifically on December 11, I wish the finance
minister the best of wisdom in the deliberations he has ahead of
him. I wish him above all an open ear to Canadians.
(1645)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the comments by the deputy whip. I wish to draw my colleague's
attention to a point: she talked about the finance minister's
budget, about the red book's objective of 3 per cent of GDP. She
repeated what people in her riding told her. I would like to
remind her that someone in my riding said that the Liberal
Party's objective of 3 per cent of GDP was like being in a sinking
ship and worrying about peeling paint.
With this comparison in mind, my question to my colleague is
this: What does she think of the lifeline thrown by Premier
Jacques Parizeau regarding areas of overlap? There are firm
proposals on manpower training, so that we can make rational
use of your surplus public servants. What do you think of
transferring job training to the provinces? That is a nice lifeline.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well
that we are carrying out a full review of federal government
programs and how we deliver them to Canadians. One of the
goals of our review is certainly to identify duplication and
overlap and reduce problems in this area, because it is indeed a
form of waste when two levels of government deal with the same
problems and programs.
Although my approach to the division of responsibilities
would be different from that of my colleague, we are certainly
trying, in co-operation with all the provinces in the country, to
rationalize services in order to reduce overlap and duplication.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask my hon. colleague her definition of the
relationship between the increasing debt load and the level of
employment. If there is such a relationship in her mind, how is it
affected by the fact that the target of 3 per cent really does not
eliminate the debt load? It is increasing the debt load.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, there are members in this House
who have different levels of private wealth or income. I
represent people who earn different levels of income. The
ability to borrow, the kind of mortgage you can carry and afford
depends on your income and wealth. It is the same with a
country. That is why we have chosen to express our debt and
deficit target in terms of the GNP, which is the wealth of the
nation.
Obviously if you have an income of $100,000 you can afford a
different kind of mortgage and can afford to borrow and pay
more for a car than if you have an income of $20,000. It is that
simple. That is why linking what is an appropriate target for
reduction of debt and deficit to the GDP is a proper way of doing
it.
I will answer the question, but not quite in the way I think the
member wanted an answer. I believe very firmly that in large
measure the debt and deficit have risen because of our declining
level of employment in this country. It has been increased by
major steps over several decades. Clearly if there are 10 people
contributing to paying for a project, it is more expensive for
each one of those 10 than if there are 20 people contributing to
pay for the same project.
(1650)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, unlike
my colleagues, I am not too pleased to speak on Motion No. 17,
because for me it is a waste of time. This motion is mainly about
tabling a committee report. Imagine the time we take while
people, taxpayers, Canadians are worried and unemployed and
have no solutions. What Canadians and Quebecers want is a
government that acts, a government that will present programs
and do things to put people back to work and give them some
pride. That is what Canadians expect of us.
Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I forgot to tell you at the beginning
that I was sharing my time with my colleague.
In the present economic situation, of course, the debt is $150
billion-everyone says so and condemns it. Everyone knows the
cuts that could be made when preparing a shopping list but no
one ever makes them. We are not presented with anything to do
it. When facing such an economic situation, of course they want
to hide and above all they want to avoid debating the
government's finances.
Why? I ask you why they want to avoid this debate. It is time.
The people have been consulted. It is time to come up with
something.
Are we ashamed of the budgetary policies that they want to
bring in to control the deficit? Are they ashamed to apply them?
Of course I would be ashamed to hold phony pre-budget
consultations, if my budget strategy, already established in
8500
advance, was to reduce the deficit on the backs of the poor,
welfare recipients, the unemployed and especially students and
to slash transfers to the provinces. This is what the Liberal
government wants to do, but it does not dare to put it on the table
for discussion. It holds phony consultations. It wants to limit
debate so as not to make too many waves.
The government set a target for deficit reduction of $39.7
billion. This same government also says that a change of policy
is needed to put its finances back in order. This government's
budget policy has three main thrusts: economic recovery,
attacking the poor and cutting transfers to the provinces, as I
shall explain.
On the subject of economic recovery, the Minister of Finance
says that 80 per cent of the federal deficit is structural. The fact
that it is structural means that the deficit has nothing to do with
the current economic conditions, or with the unemployed.
Contrary to what this government thinks, Quebecers and
Canadians are faced with a structural unemployment problem
and they are not out of work by choice.
The Liberals sincerely believe that a large proportion of
jobless people are lazy and are unemployed by choice. The
Liberals also think that they will stimulate employment by
forcing many unemployed individuals to look, and I emphasize
the word look, for work. Yet, jobless people constantly come to
our constituency offices to find out about programs. But these
programs are in a state of chaos. Employment centres cannot
keep up with the demand for work. The fact is that our
unemployed are energetic and more than willing to work. It is
the structure which is at fault.
The government's policy consists in targeting the poor by
making cuts in social programs. The government wants to cut
$7.5 billion in the budget allocated to these programs. However,
it will not eliminate the deficit by targeting the poor. Instead of
making thoughtless cuts through their social program reform,
the Liberals should define clear and specific objectives, and
they should also develop a job-creation policy, as they promised
they would in their red book and during the last election
campaign. They have failed miserably on this one. Indeed, they
only managed to create a few temporary jobs through the
infrastructure program.
(1655)
The Liberal government also wants to reduce the deficit by
making unilateral cuts, with no compensation, in transfer
payments to the provinces. The Minister of Finance is once
again passing the buck to the provinces. The debt will not go
away by depriving the provinces of $2.6 billion. Other solutions
are needed to eliminate that debt, as well as the deficit.
The Minister of Finance keeps asking us for suggestions. We
say that the time has come to eliminate duplication and
overlapping with the provinces. Ottawa must withdraw from
those sectors which fall under provincial jurisdiction, and it
must compensate the provinces accordingly. Eliminating
federal interference will translate into savings of $3 billion for
Quebec alone. Moreover, Quebec would finally be able to devise
its own integrated policy regarding job creation, a policy that
would really answer the needs of Quebec men and women.
However, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the Minister of
Finance when he says that the deficit cannot be eliminated
simply by cutting government spending. This is why we have
made fair and equitable proposals that would lead to savings of
$34.5 billion. These proposals should be taken seriously by the
government, because they are far above the $25.6 billion
savings that the government wants to realize at the expense of
the neediest, mostly by cutting unemployment insurance and
transfer payments to the provinces for education.
The Liberal government should draw up a budget which
would focus on cuts in government spending and in subsidies to
companies which do not undertake to create jobs, in its deficit
reduction measures. Programs should be managed more
efficiently, that is to say we should have sound management of
business subsidies. We should stop giving money to companies
which are neither productive nor competitive, money which is
very often a form of patronage. We are talking about $3.3 billion
here. It is high time that the minister and his government look
squarely at the problem and stop dumping their problems on the
provinces.
The red book promises jobs, and the Liberal government must
adopt concrete job creation policies to bring us back to
pre-recession employment levels. We need close to 825,000
new jobs, a far cry from the 45,000 temporary jobs they created
during the past year. They still have a long way to go.
Let the government keep another one of its promises: not to
raise taxes. To this end, the time has come to review certain tax
loopholes enjoyed by high-income earners and big
corporations. We all know in this House that family trusts,
which are an important tool used in tax planning, are for the
government a source of losses we can assess. According to some
tax experts, they amount to several hundreds of millions of
dollars.
The government has the tools to disclose the value of the
assets in these trusts. Let the government tell us how much
money is lost in tax revenues. This question was raised on
several occasions in different committees. We never got an
answer. But above all, let the government be true to its position
when it was in the opposition, when it opposed delaying
payment of taxes on capital gains until the death of the last
beneficiary.
(1700)
The finance minister and his government must come forward
and say how they intend to deal with the nation's finances. Let
them stop procrastinating and let us start tackling immediately
one of the most pressing problems for our future, namely public
8501
finance. This is the reason why the Bloc Quebecois is going to
vote against the motion.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great
interest to the presentation made by my hon. colleague from the
opposition. In his remarks, he attacks the federal government on
the grounds that apparently, the federal government does not
work in co-operation with the provinces.
In fact, this is exactly what this government is doing. With the
Minister responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs, we are
presently reviewing all federal programs to find out the best way
of delivering these programs. If, for example, it turns out that
the provinces are the ones in the best position to look after a
given program, this program will be transferred to the
provinces. If the most appropriate level of government is the
municipal level, then the program will be transferred to the
municipalities. That is how this program review works.
As for federal transfer payments, the problem we used to have
in the past is that the provinces did not know from one year to the
next how much they would be getting from the federal
government. Our government has assured the provinces that
arrangements will be negotiated to cover more than a year, at
least five years, so that the provinces will know in advance how
much they will receive from the federal government.
I can assure my colleague that, when he talks about education,
whether the money comes from the federal, provincial or
municipal government, the money all comes from the same
place, out of the same taxpayers' pockets.
Social services programs do not require additional funding,
but the system certainly needs to be simplified. Efficiency has to
be improved and money spent more wisely, especially in
education, where we spent $50 billion each year. This is more
than in almost any other country in the world. All these
programs must be assessed to ensure adequate program delivery.
We must make sure that essential services, national services,
remain national essential services. That is why a review is
necessary.
If my colleague wants the federal government to introduce
new programs, he is going to have to tell us where to get the
money. However, the idea is not to turn off the tap, as our
colleagues from the Reform Party are suggesting, and leave all
existing programs as they are. How can one eliminate the deficit
in this manner? They have yet to bring forth in this House a
single proposal as to how they plan to eliminate the deficit
within three years.
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I am quite pleased
with the comment that my colleague just made. He is ready to
transfer programs to the provincial governments. They are
analyzing them and want to disperse them either to the
provincial or to the municipal level.
That is what Quebec has been asking for for a long time; that
is what Quebec has been telling you for a long time, to eliminate
duplication and return jurisdiction to Quebec and also to the
other provinces. We quite agree on that.
Except that this government is not facing up to its
responsibilities. Why? Because it is not making any decisions in
this area. It is indecisive. Make some decisions and tell us what
field of jurisdiction you want to return to Quebec and to the
other provinces. That is what we want to do here.
The Liberal government should table a list of programs where
overlapping is very expensive so that these programs can be
administered directly by the provinces concerned. Do it and
table it so that we can discuss it as soon as possible. Quebec
could save $3.3 billion as a result. That is one reason we want a
sovereign country.
(1705)
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, before giving the floor
to the member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, I must inform the House of the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment: the hon. member
for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Northern Tax Allowance;
the hon. member for Calgary Southeast-CRTC.
Resuming debate.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, for someone who did not feel like speaking to
Motion No. 17, my hon. colleague from Chicoutimi has
delivered quite a passionate speech.
I, for one, am pleased to speak to this motion, which I would
like to read for the benefit of the Canadians who are listening to
us. It reads as follows:
That this House take note of the opinions expressed by Canadians on the
budgetary policy of the government and, notwithstanding the provisions of
Standing Order 83.1, authorize the Standing Committee on Finance to make a
report or reports thereon no later than December 7, 1994.
The committee was supposed to table this report on December
2. The motion under consideration asks us to authorize the
committee to postpone this report until a later date. This will
reduce the time allocated for consideration of this report. It is an
old magic trick involving reducing the attention span of those
who should be looking at this report, that is, the people of this
country. This is one of the numerous magic tricks being used by
the government to hide from citizens what they should see. Let
me give you a specific example, a simple magic trick now being
performed by the government.
8502
We know how magic tricks are done in general. We know how
they are performed but we still get fooled, so I will explain
again for the benefit of the people. Magic tricks are always
simple: the magician hides with the right hand what he wants
to hide while moving his left hand to draw the public's
attention. That is why people do not see what is really
happening. What is the government holding in its right hand?
Things that are totally amazing.
First of all, every year, the Auditor General of Canada tells us
about the shameful waste of billions of taxpayers' dollars. Every
year, it is the same story: we talk about it for two or three days
before shelving these reports, then the cycle repeats itself.
There is also the issue of overlap, which my hon. colleague
tackled just before me. The inefficiency cost of this overlap of
federal and provincial programs was estimated at $3 billion per
year in Quebec alone.
What lies under the right hand? Family trusts, where we find
enormous amounts of tax-exempt money that the federal
government refuses to disclose. There is no way to find out how
much money is involved.
We also have tax havens. On this subject, in 1992, the Auditor
General pointed out that many big companies had invested some
$16 billion worth of profits in tax havens around the world, thus
avoiding payment of their fair share of taxes. We are not talking
about peanuts but about $16,000 million.
The right hand also hides smuggling rings whose traffic in
cigarettes, alcohol, guns and drugs amounts to several billions
of dollars every year. They are apparently unable to solve this
problem.
Furthermore, the Auditor General has just told us about $6.6
billion in uncollected taxes.
Then there is the issue raised by the Liberal member for
Gander-Grand Falls, who just wrote to the minister, to the
effect that Canadian companies use a forward averaging
provision to defer the payment of $40 billion in taxes.
In his letter, the hon. member also mentions that 1,200
companies with profits of over one million dollars do not pay
taxes.
Then there is the Hibernia project. Huge amounts of money
are poured into this project which will never be a profitable
venture, and the government tries to keep that a secret.
There are also more mundane current issues such as the
situation of CN's president, Mr. Paul Tellier.
(1710)
Mr. Tellier, whose annual salary is $345,000 and who made
cuts in CN services to streamline that corporation, received, on
top of a $52,000 yearly allowance for petty expenses, an
interest-free loan of $432,000 to buy a house, all this at
taxpayers' expense. It goes without saying that Mr. Tellier's
case is another issue which this government does not want to
publicize too much. This is what the right hand is doing.
Then there is the case of Gary Anstey, which was discussed
today and yesterday, during question period. After four months
on the job, Mr. Anstey, who was executive assistant to the
Minister of Fisheries, received a severance pay of $31,000. Mr.
Anstey was rehired last month at a salary of $93,000 per year. He
kept the severance pay, even though he voluntarily quit his job.
As you know, people who have a job and who voluntarily
leave that job do not get any UI benefits. Yet, the executive
assistant of the Minister of Fisheries got $31,000 from
taxpayers. Fishermen in the Gaspe Peninsula certainly have the
right to wonder who the real suckers are.
Then there is Operation William Tell, during which the
Canadian Armed Forces had a good time in Florida, from
October 10 to 23, 1994, with artillery pieces worth $395,000
each. Always in Florida; all this sun is good for the army. There
is also a statement made by Mr. Yves Séguin, a prominent tax
expert and a former minister in the Bourassa government, who
said, not long ago: ``In 48 hours, I would get $3 billion for the
federal government by imposing a two per cent tax on shares''.
Meanwhile, the left hand is getting a lot of exercise. They
have to explain to the public what they are going to do to deal
with the problem of our public finances which are, as you know,
in a parlous state. It seems that the real problem in Canada, and
the Prime Minister said so himself, is those beer drinkers
slumped in front of their television sets, people who are totally
unproductive. This includes all those unproductive people who
lost their jobs at Hyundai, at CN, at CP, at MIL Davie in Lauzon,
the refineries in Montreal, fishermen in the Gaspé who cannot
go fishing any more because there are no fish, and miners who
cannot go down into the mines because the money is being used
to operate mines in Chile or somewhere else. So all these people
are drinking beer in front of their TVs and that is where the cuts
are going to be made.
They are going to traipse all over Canada, the MPs, the press,
the media and they are going to ask people: ``What do you think
is the best way to cut these people's benefits?'' They will cut
unemployment insurance, cut welfare benefits, raise students'
tuition fees, cut transfer payments to the provinces. They keep
waving their left hand but never say what the right hand is doing.
Meanwhile, our social fabric is starting to unravel. People
feel somewhat frustrated. So, as we saw yesterday in Toronto
and as we saw not so long ago in western Canada, people are
starting to fill the halls every time they organize meetings of
committees on social programs. People are invading the halls
and taking over the meetings from their members. They are
saying: ``Now you are going to listen to us''. There is a basic
feeling of frustration.
8503
We also had students who demonstrated here on the Hill, at
least 10,000 of them, and they told us they were not prepared
to pay for the sins of others and pay the full shot, on top of that.
These may not be huge demonstrations, but I may remind you,
and you were probably there, that huge demonstrations are not
necessarily the most effective ones. I remember an
extraordinary demonstration held on Parliament Hill a few
years ago, a demonstration by one person. This person went to
the Prime Minister at the time, the Hon. Brian Mulroney, and
told him: ``If you touch our pensions, Brian, goodbye Charlie
Brown!'' That sent a shiver through the government. So I hope
we will not be hearing that on the Hill.
Of course, some people are prepared to explain how this trick
works, and they actually do that. There are at least two Liberal
members, the hon. member for York South-Weston, for
instance, who told us that for ten years they were in the
opposition and they condemned what the Conservatives wanted
to do, which was to cut the deficit at the expense of the most
vulnerable. That is exactly what they are doing. I may remind
you that the hon. member for York South-Weston is not a
member of the Bloc Quebecois. He is a Liberal member. There
was also the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls, to whom I
referred earlier, who at the end of his letter to the minister gave
an excellent summary of our proposal, and he put it in these
words: As you can see, you can get the billions you need simply
by collecting taxes owing by the corporations that are making
the biggest profits and do not pay taxes. That is also the position
of the Bloc, and we will vote against the motion.
(1715)
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am somewhat surprised to hear the Bloc, the opposition, say the
same thing over and over. They keep saying that this deficit
reduction effort will be at the expense of the disadvantaged, yet
they have no positive alternative plan to reduce this deficit we
are faced with.
I would have a question for the hon. member. I would like him
to suggest some truly specific ways of bringing the deficit down
to three per cent of the gross national product, as we have
promised to do and the Minister of Finance fully intends to do. I
would really like him to tell us how exactly, within our global
budget, as relates to social programs in particular, we could
manage to streamline this deficit we are struggling with at
present.
An hon. member: We are all ears.
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, I have just given a ten minute
speech on the subject. I do not know if my hon. colleague paid
close attention to what was said.
An hon. member: Of course I did.
Mr. Pomerleau: Let me simply read this specific suggestion
back to her, a suggestion coming from the Liberals themselves,
from the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls: go and get the
$9 billion you need in the pockets of those who do not pay their
taxes. Start there and see what will happen after that.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary has
30 seconds to ask a question or make a comment.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the
hon. member did not answer my colleague's questions. We have
put forth a proposal through the Minister of Human Resources
Development, to receive feedback from the public. We would
like to know what the Bloc has to suggest.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has approximately
30 seconds to answer.
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, here is a suggestion, the
simplest one I can find in here: give us the exact amount, the
exact current amount, of capital invested in family trusts in
Canada.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to participate in this debate.
I intended to review some of the background of the
consultation process but in view of the drift of the debate in the
House I want to speak about specifics.
I would at least like to highlight some of the principles that
the finance minister has articulated to the members of the House
and to the Canadian public. He said that in approaching our
budget for this year deficit reduction indeed is part of our
overall strategy for jobs and for economic growth. He also
stressed that fairness is paramount so that the most vulnerable in
our society will not be left behind.
I think it is an extremely important part of the budgetary
process to ensure that whether it is the social security review, the
review of our social safety net, or whether indeed it is part of the
budgetary measures, we are constantly going to focus on the
needs of those who are most needy in our society first.
He also said that the deficit reduction must be selective and
strategic, clearly reflecting our priorities. He said that
budgetary action should weigh on the side of cuts in
expenditures and not, and I stress not, on increased taxes.
Finally he said that the economic assumptions must be
prudent to stimulate confidence so that our deficit targets would
in fact be achieved. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a problem of
former governments was setting targets that never were
achieved.
(1720)
I commend to all members and all Canadians the book
Canada's Economy: What Past, What Future? This workbook
which has been prepared by the Canadian Foundation for
Economic Education is available to all Canadians in all public
places; post offices, grocery stores, et cetera, and even through
8504
their members of Parliament. I find, having gone through this a
couple of times, that this is an excellent layman's language
discussion on the kinds of issues that the government is
addressing today in dealing with the challenges of balancing our
budget over the coming years.
In the last couple of hours there has been quite a bit of
discussion about whether or not the deficit should be eliminated
in three years, whether it should be five years or whether it
should be ever. These, as members well know, are the same
discussions that went on during the last election campaign. I
think that the Canadian people made their choice, a very clear
choice.
Members may recall that the Conservative government
proposed that it was going to eliminate the deficit in five years.
The Reform Party said it would do it in three years. It was almost
like a bidding war. The Prime Minister said during the election
campaign that we have to be realistic, picking targets which are
achievable within the time frames that are available to the
government.
The Prime Minister made a commitment in his election
platform that his government would achieve a deficit reduction
strategy which would achieve 3 per cent of GDP by the end of
the third year of the mandate. We are on target now. The minister
has assured the House and Canadians that we will continue to
introduce whatever changes are necessary to make sure that we
stay on track and that we meet that target.
That means that by the end of the third year our deficit will
reduce to some $25 billion. That is only an interim target. By the
time that third year is over and we have hit that $25 billion target
Canadians will have before them a further strategic plan for the
next period to balance the budget for Canada.
Yet today the leader of the third party comes again to the
House and reiterates: ``We could do it in three years: We could
slash that deficit''.
I was at the finance committee when the Reform Party
presented its program. I was astounded that of the $40 billion
deficit the Reformers just said: ``Here is our plan''. They started
off saying that $18 billion of the $40 billion deficit was going to
be eliminated by economic growth. That has absolutely nothing
to do with the Reform Party. It has to do with the initiatives that
have been taken within our country to ensure that we stimulate
economic growth in Canada. The Reform Party is somehow
taking credit for some $18 billion reduction in the deficit.
The Reformers then went through a mathematical exercise to
identify areas where they would cut. Not one explanation, not
one rationale of how that would impact on the delivery of the
services of those areas that they were going to cut; not one
analysis or statement as to the impact on jobs for Canadians;
indeed, not one indication of what that might do to the economic
confidence that Canada has been developing over this period
since the election.
The Prime Minister yesterday said in the House, and I quote:
``If tomorrow we were to eliminate the deficit, $42 billion to
zero, there would be a huge recession in Canada. The wise thing
is to do it in a progressive way''. I think that is the fundamental
difference between the approach of the Reform Party and of this
government, that we do have to keep control, we have to keep
things in perspective.
I want to move on because I know that my time is very short. I
want to share with Canadians a few facts which I think they may
find interesting as they go through their assessment of where we
are and the kinds of things that we should do. One of the key
areas in which Canada would like to make progress and our
budget would intend, and indeed our social security review, is to
help Canadians to acquire skills. We have to help Canadians
acquire skills to get jobs, to keep jobs and to find better jobs.
As Canadians know there has been much debate and much
discussion about potential cuts in funding for post-secondary
education. I want to share some figures.
Last year there was a 19 per cent growth in jobs for those who
had a post-secondary education. At the same time there was a 17
per cent decrease in jobs for those who did not have a
post-secondary education.
(1725 )
All of the experts say that over the next decade 45 per cent of
all new jobs will require a post-secondary education. The
government has included these facts, figures and initiatives in
its priorities because our young people who are now in school
must be given every incentive and opportunity to continue their
education. We do not want them to be sitting on the curb
watching the rest of Canadians go by.
During the 1990 to 1993 period, 190,000 jobs were lost during
the recession. However, if we look very carefully at how that is
composed, we find that 640,000 jobs were lost for Canadians
who had a high school education or less. Offsetting that, 450,000
jobs were gained during the recession by those who had a
post-secondary education. I think that indicates to all Canadians
how important that education component is in terms of our
overall strategy for Canada in the coming years.
The next area I want to share with hon. members is an analysis
I did of taxation from 1992 as to who paid how much taxes and
when. I found it very interesting that the top 10 per cent of
taxpayers made $50,000 or more. That means if someone made
more than $50,000 in 1992 they were in the top 10 per cent of
Canadians. Interestingly enough, that top 10 per cent of Cana-
8505
dians, approximately two million, contributed 32 per cent of all
taxes paid and 44 per cent of all charitable donations.
When people start discussing should we tax more, should we
raise our tax rates or should we go after the rich, they should first
understand that they are talking about people who make over
$50,000 and there are only 10 per cent of them.
Second, they have to understand that they already paid 32 per
cent of all taxes and of their disposable income they are the
major contributors to charitable donations. I find that very, very
important to understand when we start discussing whether or not
we should for instance cut RRSPs. At the $50,000 level one
cannot even contribute more than $9,000 to RRSPs. Therefore,
if the level were reduced we are basically talking about reducing
it only for those taxpayers who are making much more than
$50,000. Those things will have to be taken into account as we
discuss the measures with regard to RRSPs.
With regard to matters such as employer paid health benefits,
that has come up. Eight million employees receive employer
paid health benefits tax free. The fairness of that has to be
assessed.
Today in the newspaper it was reported that the mayor of my
city, Mississauga, said that if the government raises taxes it is
going to force more people into the underground economy than
it has now. It is also going to force people to withhold taxes. I
agree with the first statement but not with the second one.
With regard to the underground economy, there is no question
about that. If we make serious and tough but fair cuts as a result
of this budget there is no question that there will be increased
pressure on the underground economy. As a result, I believe the
government should as part of this consultation, and I hope
members will consider this, have a parallel defensive measure to
ensure that there is no increased pressure on the underground
economy.
I have many more things to say but I will-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Fraser
Valley West.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member says Reform is taking credit for assuming some
$18 billion in growth. On the other hand, the hon. member says
the economy has grown since the Liberals were elected, taking
credit for that of course.
I would ask the hon. member if he thinks that any growth in
the economy to date is really due to the natural business cycle
and not to the accomplishments of his Liberal Party? Surely he
does not think that way. I would like him to try to express
himself a little better as far as the business cycle as opposed to
what the Liberal Party has done and forget the red book rhetoric.
(1730 )
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that the member
would not give some credit to what has happened in Canada
since the election. One of the most important ingredients to
growth in the economy is the confidence of the Canadian
people, of the lending community and of business.
Three hundred and twenty-seven thousand jobs have been
created since the government came to power. Much of that has to
do with the confidence and credibility the Prime Minister has
brought to political life, which the member enjoys as well. The
hon. member should give credit where credit is due.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I must agree with my colleagues in the Reform Party
this time. The Liberal government has done nothing at all for the
economic recovery. On the contrary. A few weeks after Mr.
Martin tabled his first budget, interest rates shot up. That is why
we will have to pay $2.7 billion more for interest alone.
Not only the finance minister's credibility, but the measures
he advocated in his first budget did not help the economic
recovery and job creation; rather, they hurt economic growth
and the growth of employment. If he had taken effective-I
would say tougher-measures on February 22, more jobs would
have been created and the financial picture would have been
much better in the last few months.
I ask him where the Liberal Party contributed to greater
growth, when everyone says that it has not in the past six
months?
[English]
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that the
Government of Canada does not control global interest rates.
The member is an economist. He knows the national debt is
denominated in long rates, not in short. The Bank of Canada has
influence only on the short end.
He is somehow suggesting the government has not done
anything with regard to those rates. He is living in a fantasy
world that somehow the government flips switches to make
things happen. He knows interest rates have risen and are higher
than the assumptions that were included in the finance
minister's previous budget.
The finance minister has made corrections to ensure he meets
his targets. That is responsible government. The finance
minister understands the economy much better than the hon.
member.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with considerable pride that I stand in the House today to make
my submission to the first significant prebudget consultation
8506
process in Canadian history. On behalf of the constituents of
Vancouver South I want to thank the Minister of Finance for this
opportunity to express our views.
Let me begin by saying that there continues to be a
tremendous amount of confidence within my riding for the
Liberal plan for reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP by
1996-97.
As many have remarked in the House before, this 3 per cent
target serves as one of the major benchmarks for entry into the
European Union. It is also a target that has not been achieved in
Canada in 20 years. Still there are those on the opposition
benches who continue to argue this 3 per cent target is not tough
enough.
What is indisputable is that the Liberal government made a
promise to the Canadian people on October 26, 1993. We
promised Canadians we would meet this target within the
specified time. Then we would begin our ultimate objective, the
complete elimination of the deficit. I would like to quote the
Minister of Finance: ``Come hell or high water we will meet this
promise to Canadians''.
Recently the Reform Party attempted to bring some
credibility to its original zero in three claim, which I know is
very difficult for it to do. I am glad that today the leader of the
Reform Party has changed that zero in three to zero in five, to do
it in five years. He is learning that our goal is much more
rational and balanced. He has moved from a zero in three
approach to a zero in five. I ask my colleagues to check the
record.
(1735)
The members of the Reform Party have outlined a remarkably
vague and draconian plan to cut a number of government
programs. All one has to do is read the Edmonton Journal which
is often quoted on the other side to understand about what has
been brought forward.
This plan along with the announcement of more brutal cuts to
come to programs like post-secondary education and old age
pensions demonstrates what I will call the half-marble approach
to deficit reduction, an approach that only deals with half of the
whole solution. Dealing with the deficit in Canada requires a
two-sided approach: decreasing government expenditures by
streamlining programs and services and increasing government
revenues by promoting a healthy and vibrant economy.
Trying to solve Canada's economic problems through
extracting $25 billion from the economy in two years without
any plan for economic growth is like trying to roll half a marble.
Like the marble, it is an idea that will not go very far.
Further, anyone who believes that government revenues will
not be seriously diminished through a plan which, while cutting
regional development spending, also cuts Canada's social
security system is not only trying to roll half a marble but is not
playing with all the marbles.
If members take a moment to look at the plan of the
Reform-I do not know from where it gets its economics-it
thinks that by cutting $42 billion over three years that will
somehow create great confidence in the economy and will create
jobs. Then everybody will be spending money and we will get a
tremendous amount of growth. The Reform Party has a lot to
learn. What we are presenting is a much more balanced and
rational approach. Canadians see that.
Recently I took the question of how to solve some of Canada's
economic problems back to small business owners in my riding
through the venue of a public policy forum. I would like to share
some of their valuable ideas with the House today.
Overall, my constituents have requested that the budget
continue to reflect the commitment of the government to
promoting the health and growth of Canada's small business
community. I am sure all my colleagues would agree with that.
With regard to access to capital, my constituents feel that the
federal government should introduce strong measures to ensure
that Canadian financial institutions are more equitable and
accountable to small business owners.
With regard to federal deficits, my constituents feel that the
federal government should do everything possible to find areas
of waste and overlap, duplication and extravagance and
eliminate them immediately. I know I will get lots of support
from the other side on that issue. In terms of government
expenditures on programs and services, there is considerable
support among my constituents for the extensive program by
program review currently under way.
With regard to taxation, they felt that the federal government
should begin reducing the tax burden on average Canadians
through a reduction in personal income taxes. It should begin
harmonizing and simplifying the tax system so as to decrease
administrative costs, expensive paper burden and overall
taxation. It should lower payroll taxes through savings made
through the UIC system. It should give serious consideration to
the recommendation made by the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business and supported by the region's small
business working committee to increase the small business tax
deduction to $400,000 from $200,000.
As I have noted before, this measure has not been adjusted
since 1982 when it was first introduced and should be increased
to the rate of inflation.
With regard to the most effective role for government, small
business owners stated that they want their governments to offer
a hand up not a hand out. They feel that the best route to take is
not through grants, subsidies and expensive tax deductions, but
8507
through addressing wide ranging concerns such as
interprovincial barriers and global trade.
(1740)
They feel that government should promote a healthy business
environment with low taxes and minimal regulations and that
they should support the business sector in meeting their own
needs in job training and knowledge networks.
They feel that the federal government should target
businesses operated by Canadians with special needs but should
do so by reallocating current budget expenditures, not by
making further expenditures.
With regard to women in small business, my constituents feel
that the federal government should give serious consideration to
a system of affordable national day care, allowing more women
the freedom to begin small businesses. This can be done either
directly through the federal government or with government
support. They feel that the federal government should find ways
of offering training which will help female entrepreneurs get
started and expand their business operations.
In conclusion, there was a reason I went to my constituents for
their advice. I knew the government was listening to Canadians.
For the first time in Canadian history a government has gone to
the people for their input on the budget before the budget is
introduced. For the first time the government is making a
genuine attempt to include Canadians in the decision making
process that will affect them. These prebudget consultations,
like the other extensive government consultations currently
under way, are part of the Liberal election promise to do things
differently, to make government more inclusive and to make
government more responsive.
We promised to listen to Canadians and that is exactly what
we are doing. I am proud to be a part of this government.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to talk in terms of marbles to the hon. member. I
could say he has lost some but he has not. He is talking some of
the talk but that is really all it is. I want to ask him a question
about the infrastructure program.
The government is faced with a $40 billion deficit. One of the
answers to resolve this situation is to create an infrastructure
program. The infrastructure program uses $2 billion tax dollars
from the municipal level, which the municipality gets by taxing
people on their residences and so on. Then the infrastructure
program uses another $2 billion from the provincial government
which it gets from the same taxpayer. Then the federal
government throws in $2 billion to make $6 billion. It all comes
from the same taxpayer.
I would like the hon. member to explain the logic of another
$6 billion out of the taxpayers' pocket as a positive influence in
trying to balance a budget of $40 billion deficit a year.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon.
colleague for a very good question. There is a very good answer
for that question.
Some time last year I was in Singapore and I had an
opportunity to look at some of its infrastructure program. As
many members know, Singapore has been a miracle of economic
development over the past few decades. It is a model that other
countries have looked at.
The reason that country has been so successful is because it
has an incredible infrastructure program. It had a vision.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the member a quick question. I have not heard
any response other than the fact that we are going to meet this
goal that is so easy to achieve, of 3 per cent of GDP. Three years
from now we will only have a $25 billion deficit at which time
we can bring in new ideas and all that sort of thing.
(1745)
The IMF, the Globe and many economists nationwide
indicated recently that it was not nearly good enough, that it was
going to be a failure. They do not seem to read the newspaper or
they do not pay attention to what they read. It is one or the other.
There does not seem to be any mention of the fact that in three
years the debt is going to be another $100 billion deeper in the
hole. They do not seem to take into account that the interest on
the debt will go from $40 billion a year to probably $50 billion a
year, unless interest rates keep going the way they are.
I would like the member to address the future in that sense.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague
that the debt is going to increase. However, we have to make
sure that we deal with the deficit before we can deal with the
debt issue. That is what we are doing in a reasonable, common
sense approach.
If we say we will do it within a year, I guess if we cut every
program in government it could be done within a year. But what
would be the long term cost of that? It could be done in two years
if we wanted to cut every program. We would have to look at the
cost of the programs.
Let me respond to the question of my hon. colleague. I am
sure he is willing to listen to my response. In our cultural
industry and scientific community it takes years to build
infrastructure. They do not pop up from nowhere. We as the
government are not going to cut them wholesale, which would
cause serious problems in the future.
8508
It is the same with our social programs. We can ignore and
cut our social programs, but what price do we pay in the future?
I ask the hon. member to look at the future cost of cutting those
programs because in the end we will have to face the social
costs.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I only have one
very simple comment, since unfortunately I must admit that I
missed the beginning of the speech by my hon. colleague, the
parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister.
Since he is responsible for fisheries, instead of talking to us
about big infrastructure programs, I would have liked him to tell
us, in his area, his department, what he will suggest to his boss,
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Since the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans is to be reorganized, what kind of
reorganization does he foresee? The provinces are expecting
cuts but also policies.
[English]
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member.
Unfortunately he missed the first half of my speech. It was an
excellent part of my speech. I know he will not do that again.
I will be telling the minister, and I am very happy to share it
with the member, that we need to look at duplication. We need to
look at the overlap between the provinces and the federal
government. We need to look at that to see if we can save money
by dividing some of the responsibilities. Let us have a look at
them. We will look at the different departments.
Is there something in the coast guard? Can we amalgamate the
services of the coast guard fleet with the department of fisheries
fleet to create more efficiency? Can we consolidate those
services so a better job can be done in a more efficient and
effective way?
I will be telling the minister that we need to look at small craft
harbours. Maybe we can privatize them. Maybe they can be
privatized at a much lower cost than for us to continue holding
on to them.
I will be advising the minister that we have to look at overlap.
We have to look at duplication, not only between the provinces
and ourselves but between the different departments like the
Department of the Environment and the coast guard. Let us see
what services we can consolidate and save money.
Why should we have within a mile fleet maintenance services
for the coast guard and close by one for the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans? It does not make sense.
We have to look at the common sense approach. We need to
look at overlap and duplication. I hope the minister will listen to
what I have to say because coming from the business sector I can
provide some good advice on saving money for the taxpayer.
The Deputy Speaker: The bells will ring at 6.05 p.m. so if the
two colleagues in the Reform Party would like to divide their
time perhaps it would work.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
say to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister of
fisheries that the government had better soon decide whether it
is going to fish or cut bait. He should stick around; he may learn
something. Here we are in 1994. We have an overtaxed worker
and we have a frustrated taxpayer, all of whom depend on us to
relieve them of their concerns.
(1750)
I listened to the comments today. A Liberal member
suggested that because they were in office the economy was
growing and we were doing well. Let us imagine how the worker
in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or elsewhere
across the country thinks about the rhetoric in Ottawa. His
pockets are empty. He is overtaxed and he is frustrated. It is
abysmal that they can stand here and talk about how well we are
doing.
We are not doing well, folks. We owe $40 billion. We have a
debt load of $530 billion. We cannot delay any longer the
implementation of a tough budget. We often talk about the baby
boomers versus generation x, the next generation so labelled
after us. To some extent the generation of baby boomers has
been a fairly unrealistic group. We have overspent the last 20
years. Now we are whining about the fact that we have to cut.
That is exactly what is going on across the way. They are
whining.
We in this party have the courage to come up with a plan. That
is exactly what we are doing and what we are going to proceed
with. They can whine as much as they like. We are right and they
are wrong. It is as simple as that. I think fish or cut bait should
apply not only to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but to
everyone sitting across the way.
One of the jobs I have in the Reform Party is to look at
regional development grants. That is what I want to talk about
today. Many of my colleagues have spoken about areas in their
expertise, in their portfolios, but regional development grants
are of particular interest. They represent about $1.3 billion. We
are advocating the phase-out of regional development grants.
ACOA is one of them. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency has a budget of about $376 million. I spoke about
blueberry research the other day and a Liberal member
commented. He said: ``I am sick and tired of hearing
anti-Atlantic Canadian comments coming from members of the
Reform Party''.
That is clearly not the case. Regional development grants are
located in Atlantic Canada through an organization called
ACOA, in western Canada through an organization called West-
8509
ern Economic Diversification, and in Quebec through an
organization called FORD-Quebec. FORD-Quebec has a
budget of $437 million each year of taxpayers' dollars to give
out in its area and Western Economic Diversification has $452
million.
A taxpayer sits in his home and says: ``I am going broke. The
taxes are more onerous every day. How am I going to survive?''
And the government says: ``That is okay. We cannot look at
these programs because they are regional development
programs and we best know how to spend your money''. That is
basically the way it is.
These agencies have about $1.3 billion to know how best to
spend taxpayers' money. I will go through some of the ways in
which they spend the money and give some examples later.
The concept of regional development grants, as I understand
from the government, is that it wants to support and promote
opportunity for economic development and to foster
development of entrepreneurship. That is an interesting one. A
fellow who was given the entrepreneurial award of the year in
one of the regions had six or seven grants from a regional
economic development organization. I do not know what the
Liberal concept is of an entrepreneur, but to me it is somebody
who does not live off the taxpayers' dollars, who does not get
any grants whatsoever. It is somebody who has done it on his
own. He is not counting on government. They are not fostering
the development of entrepreneurship in regional development
grants. It is not happening. That is contrary to the concept, but
the award was good.
(1755)
One concept is to increase the rate of new business formation
and another is to improve the competitiveness of small and
medium sized enterprises. We have done a lot of research into
regional grants. How does one improve the competitiveness of a
small or medium sized business in an area when the government
comes along and says: ``Just a minute. You want to update a
motel. Here is $67,000 for you'', and the next motel says: ``Wait
a minute. What about me?'' The government says: ``There is
none for you; this is going to be a competitive world''.
He walks away with $67,000 profit from the taxpayer. It goes
out of the taxpayer's pocket to somebody else. That does not
improve competitiveness and is why we have to start
eliminating regional development grants. I am sure we will have
a great debate on this matter, because that is not the way the
government thinks.
The concept of entrepreneurs does not include government
handouts, at least where I come from. If we ask businessmen in
my community what an entrepreneur is, they will tell us that it
does not include government money.
We all know that Canada has a serious problem. We all know
the Liberals are facing a $40 billion deficit. They are
overspending each year. We know they have to cut it. They know
they have a $530 billion debt and the interest on that debt is
increasing by the day, by the hour, by the second.
What are they going to do about it? They are going to close the
gap. They are going to get it down to 3 per cent of gross domestic
product. That is around a $26 billion a year deficit. Imagine
going to the bank, paying our bills on more and more debt, and
the Liberals are saying: ``We are going to look after that, folks.
We are going to bring it down to about $26 billion a year''. That
is insufficient.
Over a short three-year period let us look at what we will
have. We could look at four years or over the whole mandate. We
are adding to the debt load in excess of $100 billion.
Who will pay for it? Our children will. If we think of nothing
else in the country, we have to think of the little ones behind us.
We have to think of the ones in university who are wanting to get
out and get jobs. Jobs are stifled by business being overtaxed
and by debt load. We have to give them something to look
forward to. It is time to make some tough decisions. We know
they do not like zero in three. We know they do not like to fish or
cut bait, but we know they have to deal with the problem.
The average taxpayer uses a litmus test when he hears about
giving a grant to any organization. A civil servant from the
Department of National Revenue knocks on the taxpayer's door
and says: ``The motel down the street needs $67,000 to upgrade
its facilities. Would you give us $3 out of your pocket to do
that?'' The individual would wonder why he would give him
money out of his pocket and would ask: ``Does he not make a
profit? If he does not make a profit should he be in that business?
I do not have $3 anyway so I really have to borrow it''.
What will the individual say? He will say: ``No, I need that
money. I am not going to the bank to borrow it and give it to
you''. That is exactly how the taxpayer feels.
(1800 )
The government has taken it upon it itself to make the
decision on behalf of the taxpayer to give out the taxpayer's
money to projects he does not agree with. I only have a minute so
let me mention a few: $38,000 to acquire fencing and improve a
go-cart race track; purchase of equipment for a luxury tour and
outdoor recreation, $15,000; purchase and renovate an inn to
higher quality; acquire office furniture and computer
equipment; construct a two bedroom cottage; and to refurbish an
existing cottage. If we ask the taxpayers they will say: ``No. If
you want that then you earn your own profit and you upgrade
your own facility''.
8510
I would love to say more but I am out of time. It is time to
fish or cut bait over there.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to congratulate the member for finally coming out of the
closet in front of the entire House, declaring that he is a baby
boomer that is.
The member continues to mention that we have a deficit and
we have a debt. Hypothetically if the Reform Party had formed
the government over $100 billion of additional debt would have
been incurred even with their plans. It is almost as if there would
be absolutely nothing happening.
The member said this very large debt was accumulated over
the last 25 years by the baby boomers and that they are the ones
who are going to have to pay it back. I wonder if he would care to
comment on whether he feels that seniors were in any way
responsible for any of this debt. Does he feel that seniors should
pay some portion of that debt?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, do you know
who is responsible for this debt? They are sitting in here. The
politicians in this place are responsible for the debt. The
Liberals and Conservatives are responsible for this country's
debt regardless of their age. Do not blame it on the average
taxpayer. It is politicians, the ones sitting right in here.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will try to be
brief. The point I want to make to the hon. member from western
Canada is that we are not only separated by distance: We also
have diverging views on economic development.
Economic development in the east means something specific,
whether it is in Quebec or in the Maritimes-I do not want to
speak for the Liberals, they are quite capable of digging a hole
for themselves. It is a development tool to help people; for
example, instead of providing transfer payments and social
assistance, you give people tools to look after themselves.
In this respect, I wish the hon. member would be careful when
addressing easterners.
[English]
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, once again I
have been informed to be careful about how we talk about the
east. I thought I opened this up with the Western Economic
Diversification Board, Quebec and ACOA. The facts are that a
lot of the dollars given out as grants in all three of these all
across the country are not serving the purpose for which they
started out, the concept which I described earlier.
Please, let us not get into being careful how we talk about
Atlantic Canada, or Quebec, or western Canada. It is the concept
that we have to look at, the larger picture of economic
development in this country. Is the money better off in the hands
of the taxpayer or in the hands of the politicians?
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. The hon. member
for Wild Rose will end the debate in about two minutes.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
speech was prepared for a lot longer than two minutes but I will
try to reduce it.
The basis of this whole topic which bothers me is that it
appears the government does not realize we are out of time and
that we cannot afford Cadillac services any longer. We have to
take a step backward. We have to drop the frills. It is time to
trade in the Cadillac for a smaller car and realize that the days of
wine and roses are over.
It amazes me. We asked for a simple thing. It would be a nice
gesture on the part of the government to give up $10 million a
year. Maybe it could go to the hungry children that the minister
of human resources keeps talking about. It would be a good
gesture. From the Bloc, from the Liberals and from everywhere
else but the Reformers we hear: ``No way, we are not giving up
the good old pension plan, not for a moment. It is the rest of the
country that has problems. Let them figure out what they are
going to do. We do not want to do anything''.
I look around the Hill and I see those blue cars courting
ministers wherever they want to go. There are green buses that
will take us any place we want to go on the Hill.
I understand that if they were willing to sacrifice a little, they
each could cough up $45,000 a year that would really go well in
the hands of the Children's Aid Society in Ottawa or Toronto.
That is the kind of attitude I would like to see.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.05 p.m., it is my duty
pursuant to the order passed on Thursday, November 24, 1994,
to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question
necessary to dispose of Motion No. 17 now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
8511
Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
(1825)
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent that we proceed with the vote on Bill C-57 and then
proceed with the vote on Motion No. 17.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
in that fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from November 29, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-57, an act to implement the agreement
establishing the World Trade Organization, be read the third
time and passed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 121)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélisle
Campbell
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jacob
Jennings
Kirkby
Knutson
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Payne
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Schmidt
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood
Young
Zed-185
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Blaikie
de Jong
Robinson
Solomon
Taylor-7
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Augustine
Bachand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Collins
Crête
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Lee
Marchand
Marleau
Nault
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Sheridan
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
8512
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I believe you will
find that the members of Parliament who just voted on the
previous motion could be recorded as having voted on the next
motion, with Liberal members voting yea. The whips of other
parties will indicate how their colleagues are intending to vote.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
as proposed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members oppose
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find all the Reform
Party members present today will vote yea.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, as the New Democratic Party
caucus whip, New Democrats in the House today vote no.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 122)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Flis
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jennings
Kirkby
Knutson
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Payne
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Schmidt
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood
Young
Zed-143
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Robinson
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-49
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Augustine
Bachand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Caccia
Campbell
8513
Cannis
Collins
Crête
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Lee
Marchand
Marleau
Nault
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Sheridan
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.38 the House will now proceed to the consideration
of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8513
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.) moved:
That this House support the principle of disclosing the salary ranges of all
senior executives of crown corporations and publicly traded companies
incorporated under federal charter.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in this motion I am asking the House to
support the principle of disclosing the salary ranges of all senior
executives of crown corporations and publicly traded companies
incorporated under federal charter.
I admit right off the top that I do not think this motion really
goes far enough. That was suggested by the Globe and Mail
newspaper which suggested that the motion include boards and
commissions of the federal government.
I tried to keep the motion as simple as possible. Adding other
entities, in my opinion, only complicates the issue. I wanted, in
a fashion, to set the bar as low as possible so that we could get
some kind of easy discussion on this matter.
I wanted to discuss this issue so that Canadians can get an idea
of how members of Parliament feel about generous and
sometimes extremely lucrative benefits which executives of
public companies and crown corporations receive.
(1840 )
Why did I introduce this motion? It has not been designed to
settle the impossible question of what executives are worth. I am
not trying to do that in this motion. After all we live in a free
market economy in which employers can pay employees
whatever they feel is acceptable.
If my purpose is not to determine an executive's worth then
why the motion? Consider how the public would feel if both
politicians' and senators' salaries and benefits were not
disclosed. People would be very unhappy. People want to know
how public servants or public representatives treat themselves.
Similarly, and I think in a growing fashion, people want to know
how powerful, influential people in the private sector treat
themselves.
Also consider the province of Ontario which under its
securities act requires companies currently trading on the
Toronto Stock Exchange to disclose the compensation packages
of senior executives. Ontario is the only province with this
requirement. The Ontario example provides a basis for us.
Summaries of all companies should be required regardless of
location in Canada and whether that company is publicly traded
or a crown corporation; in other words, extend the Ontario
example right across the country.
Ontario's securities act was implemented several years ago. It
was implemented to force companies trading on the Toronto
Stock Exchange to disclose the compensation packages of
senior executives. As well, the Ontario legislature has given
first reading to two private members' bills relating to salary
disclosure.
Bill 108 would amend provincial access and privacy statutes
to provide access to information relating to the salaries of public
service officers and employees at the provincial and municipal
levels. Bill 114, entitled an act to provide for the disclosure of
executive compensation in the public sector, would require the
Ontario government to report annually the salaries of the five
most highly paid officials in each government ministry and
crown corporation.
Perhaps through example we can more clearly understand the
motivation for the introduction of disclosure regulations. Let
me give some examples.
Hartland MacDougall, the former chairman of Royal Trust
was handed a combined salary, bonus and severance package of
$2.9 million for 1993. That came after the collapse of Royal
Trust.
Marvin Marshall is CEO of Bramalea Ltd., a real estate firm.
In 1993 even though Bramalea lost something like $90 million
Mr. Marshall was paid almost $1 million in salary, $971,225.
Bill Stinson, CEO and chairman at Canadian Pacific, received
a 31 per cent increase in salary in 1990, earning $1,181,895
despite the fact that Canadian Pacific's profits declined by 52
per cent in that same year.
Paul Stern, former CEO of Northern Telecom, left that
company in 1992, receiving $164,000 for two months of
employment. Stern also took with him a compensation package
totalling $6 million. Also we cannot forget another $1.5 million
in stock options.
When Stephen Banner joined Seagrams he received a signing
bonus of 200,000 Seagram shares with a market value of $5
million as well as his salary and a bonus package worth $1.2
million. In addition Mr. Banner received a $1 million interest
free loan to buy a house in Montreal and additional stock options
8514
worth $2.1 million. As for his performance that has to be yet
evaluated.
Those are examples. Some people might say those are
examples of lucrative benefits. Some people might say that is an
example of greed. There are cases where greed is not so
apparent.
Paul Desmarais, the chairman of Power Corporation of
Canada, a Montreal based firm, paid himself $1.6 million while
the firm's net earnings were $201 million.
(1845 )
In my opinion such salaries become more than a simple matter
of disclosure, but disclosure is at the heart of this issue.
Executives of large firms and crown corporations are powerful
people, perhaps in some instances more powerful than ministers
or even the Prime Minister. In this respect there needs to be
some legislation to inform Canadians how corporate moneys are
dispensed with or spent.
One reason for introducing this as a motion rather than a bill is
that several legislative changes would be required in order to
facilitate salary disclosure. I do think though that salary
disclosure means that salaries or compensation packages would
be tied more closely to performance: the better the performance,
the better the compensation package; lower performance, lower
remuneration.
Disclosure at the federal level would require all kinds of
legislative changes. For example, under the existing legislation
in section 3(19)(iii) of the Privacy Act the federal government is
now required to only disclose the salary ranges for senior civil
servant positions. The Federal Court has interpreted salary
range as meaning the exact salary amount of officials and shall
remain personal information and not subject to public scrutiny.
However, the Canada Business Corporations Act does permit
public access to documents such as letters patent and annual
returns which do not include certain information on a
corporation's directors.
Federally there has been an effort to amend the Privacy Act to
require the exact salary to be announced with order in council
appointments. In a 1987 report the Standing Committee on
Justice and the Solicitor General recommended but did not
implement the amendment which would have made specific
salaries of government officials mandatory.
Financial institutions are major corporations incorporated
under federal charter. Several acts would have to be amended to
effect this change, namely the Bank Act along with its
counterparts, the Insurance Companies Act, the Trust Loan
Companies Act, and the Co-operative Credit Associations Act.
The Canadian Business Corporations Act could also be
amended to include an order to state executive remuneration.
When filing annual returns with the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions a corporation could be required to report the salaries
of its senior directors. This information would be accompanied
by a report of the corporation's operations and activities of its
directors already provided to the superintendent in accordance
with section 262 of the act and open to public scrutiny as
required under section 266.
It may also be necessary to make an amendment to the
definitions in the Privacy Act to clarify the intent and need for
salary disclosure for the sake of public interest. The
amendments mentioned here could sufficiently cover the
salaries of private sector executives.
Those are some necessary legislative changes. That is down
the road. Right now we are more or less talking about the
principle of disclosure.
As politicians we are continually reminded of the notion that
absolute power corrupts absolutely. I am not trying to imply that
senior executives are morally corrupt or have ethics that are
worse than any other person. I do not think they are any more
greedy than anyone else, but I do think that because of their
influence and power they may be in a better position to act upon
the greed they may possess. I suppose we all have some greed in
us.
I am saying that senior executives are so powerful that even
though they are technically employees their compensation can
be extreme relative to the company's economic performance.
Currently some executives can virtually set their own salaries
and bonus packages. I suspect there would be a considerable
debate on this point, but they are very powerful, especially in
their own realm within their own companies.
Senior officials are also in a position to stack or heavily
influence advisory boards or shareholder boards with friends
and allies. Corporations are not the most democratic
institutions. One might ask at this point: Why not leave this
matter to the shareholders?
(1850)
I do not expect private companies to be as democratic as this
old institution we call the Parliament of Canada is. Given the
fact they are not that democratic I do think that shareholders
need a little helping hand to open up the process and to provide
better disclosure. We have to remember that shareholders in
private corporations are a disparate group and are spread all over
the place. It is very difficult for them to get together to make
things happen.
Legislation would do executives a favour in some instances,
in those cases where salary and compensation packages are
reasonable relative again to company performance. They would
receive strong public support and it would be good for their
image. In cases where remuneration is unreasonable there would
be some reason to worry and they would have to bring about
some adjustment on account of adverse public opinion.
8515
Countless times executives are quoted as saying that the
government should cut back on its expenditures. What I am
proposing in this motion would require that private sector
executives practise what they preach. Or, if one believes that
executives in private corporations already practise what they
preach maybe this kind of disclosure would ensure that they
would continue to practise what they preach.
During the recent recession a number of companies lost a
great deal of money, yet executives of some of these companies
were rewarded handsomely. In some cases executive salaries
went up despite the fact that the performance of their companies
went down. The greatest irony is that in many of these cases it
was these individuals who made decisions which cost their firms
a great deal of money, yet they were in receipt of greater rewards
and greater compensation. Should we be rewarding bad
decisions and bad choices? If we do that then I suppose the
Conservative Party would still be ruling this country.
Crown corporations also play a significant role in the
economy and should be subject to the same rules of disclosure.
The fact that executives can earn more money while the
companies they work for lose money suggests that executives
have the power to design their own packages in secrecy, behind
closed doors and out of sight of public scrutiny. The public
should know how the packages of crown corporations are
established.
In recent days there has been a controversy surrounding the
head of CNR. We discovered that as part of his package he was in
receipt of a $300,000 loan interest free, which probably makes it
worth another $30,000 or $40,000. There is no need in my
opinion to hide that kind of thing. If in this case the head of the
CNR deserves that kind of assistance, if we want to put it that
way, then it should be open and above board. He has no reason to
hide it. My guess is it was made as obscure as possible because
the man involved did not want that kind of information out. He
probably thought it would add to his discomfort.
Disclosure is not intended to embarrass executives. It simply
outlines the need for constraint. Disclosure gives us those
constraints.
Initially this action may be considered intrusive. However, in
the case of crown businesses they are the businesses of the
government. Because they use government money they are
using tax dollars. Furthermore, these businesses are important
to the Canadian economy. Consider for a moment the
significance of General Motors, Canadian National Railways,
the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance.
In conclusion, I wish this motion had been made votable but
the powers that be decided otherwise. I wanted it to be votable
because it would have given us the vehicle to express ourselves
on this issue. I think Canadians want parliamentarians to
express themselves on this matter.
(1855)
In the remaining 40 minutes of this debate, I welcome the
comments and the insights of my colleagues. If there are
members who believe that executive compensation is nobody's
business but their own, then let us hear about that. If in the
opinion of some members disclosure is deemed to be harmful to
the public interest or harmful to the private sector, I would like
to hear about that too. Let the debate continue.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
start by commending the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James
on the way he presented his motion. His motion was well
researched, and his arguments were excellent. I just wanted to
say that. I would also like to take this opportunity to bring
another perspective to the subject of this motion.
The hon. member for Winnipeg St. James moved: ``That this
House support the principle of disclosing the salary ranges of all
senior executives of Crown corporations and publicly-traded
companies incorporated under federal charter''. I think I should
add, for the benefit of those who are watching and listening, that
there are three types of companies. First, private companies
which usually belong to a single owner or are family-run
businesses. Publicly-traded companies are usually big
corporations or could be SMEs but, as a general rule, they are
traded on the stock exchange market and the owners are
shareholders. Finally, we have a third type of company, Crown
corporations, which have a single owner: the government.
I may recall that in October 1993, the TSE, following the
example of the New York Stock Exchange, required companies
traded in Toronto to disclose the salaries and bonuses of their
five most senior executives. The remuneration of these
executives includes salary, bonuses, options or share premiums
as agreed by the issuer. It also includes allowances, annual dues
and life-insurance premiums. This policy applies to all
companies trading on the TSE and the Montreal Exchange.
Companies trading on both exchanges are subject to the
regulations set by the TSE.
With this measure, the Ontario government makes it
incumbent on heads of Crown corporations to give an account of
their remuneration to shareholders. The TSE's policy follows
the example of American exchanges, and about 3,700 Crown
corporations have been affected by the TSE's new policy.
Quebec, however, seems to be the exception in North
America. The Montreal Exchange requires only disclosure of
the total remuneration of the five best paid executives of
companies trading on the exchange. Toronto requires disclosure
of the salaries of these executives, while Montreal simply wants
to
8516
know the total amount, without requiring detailed information
in each case.
(1900)
In December 1993, the Quebec minister responsible for
finance, Mrs. Louise Robic, said that she did not believe that it
was necessary to require the disclosure of individual salaries of
executive officers of companies listed on the Montreal Stock
Exchange. She mentioned their need for privacy.
The Conseil du Patronat in Quebec was of the same opinion.
Its spokesperson, Ghislain Dufour, opposed the Ontario policy
for the sake of protecting the right to privacy.
Yet, the Ontario policy already applies to a vast majority of
companies listed on the Montreal Stock Exchange. These
companies are usually listed on both exchanges and, since they
must abide by the rules of the Toronto Stock Exchange, they
have to make public the salaries of their best paid executives. At
the time, Mr. Dufour praised Mrs. Robic's decision.
We should add to this the opinion the Deputy Premier of
Quebec, Mr. Bernard Landry, expressed when his party was in
opposition. He said, in January 1994, that his party was totally in
favour of the disclosure of executive salaries. He said and I
quote: ``We are following the example of the Americans'', and
he went on to say that the public and semi-public sectors would
have to follow suite.
The Parti Quebecois favours openness. ``What worker would
agree to make sacrifices if he felt that the salary spread was
much too great?'' asked Mr. Landry. He points out that during its
first term in office, the Parti Quebecois came very close to
making the individual disclosure of top executives' salaries
mandatory. But at the time, it was not a requirement in Toronto,
and such a discrepancy in the rules of both stock exchanges
could have been a problem.
It is important to note that, in October 1994, the Quebec
Deposit and Investment Fund issued a different policy in this
matter. It is opposed to the individual disclosure of top corporate
executives' salaries, preferring instead the policy adopted by
the Montreal Stock Exchange. However, the fund adds in its
regulations that it expects corporations to abide by the
disclosure rules established by regulatory agencies such as the
Toronto Stock Exchange.
The Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund clearly states its
preference for a policy like that of the Montreal Stock
Exchange, although it expects companies listed on the Toronto
stock exchange to obey TSE regulations and authorize
disclosure, as well as other companies entitled to follow the
applicable regulations. Companies are expected to comply with
these regulations.
Let us go back to Motion No. 309 tabled by the hon. member
for Winnipeg St. James. It is apparently aimed at extending the
policy adopted by the Toronto Stock Exchange to everything
under federal jurisdiction, including Crown corporations and
publicly-traded companies incorporated under federal charter.
Crown corporations have a single owner and are not currently
required to follow the policy of the Toronto Stock Exchange
since they are not listed on the TSE.
To give our viewers an idea of what these Crown corporations
are, I would like to identify some of them. The list of parent
Crown corporations includes the St. Lawrence Seaway
Authority, the Canadian Wheat Board, the National Capital
Commission, Canadian National Railways, the Canada Council,
Canada Development Investment Corporation, Atomic Energy
of Canada, the National Gallery of Canada, Canada Post
Corporation, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the
Canada Lands Company, the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, VIA Rail Canada, etc. These are examples of what
we are thinking about when we talk about parent corporations.
(1905)
This motion would require not only parent corporations but
also other companies incorporated under federal charter to
disclose the salaries of their senior executives.
The situation of publicly-traded companies incorporated
under federal charter is more complex. We must keep in mind
that most of these companies are listed on the TSE but that some
Crown corporations are not. This matter comes under provincial
jurisdiction and does not require the adoption of a federal law.
In fact, the federal government has been unsuccessfully trying
for several years to control the securities industry. In any case, I
do not think that this law should apply to publicly-traded
companies incorporated under federal charter.
The motion should be restricted to parent corporations,
although federal public corporations are already subject to
Ontario or Quebec laws. I think that we should let them
administer their own affairs as they see fit and let the provinces
continue to regulate them as they have done until now.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the motion that stands before us today is interesting because it
highlights a problem that has existed for many years.
In particular, I would like to address the issue of disclosure of
the salaries of the executives of crown corporations. The motion
strikes at the balance between the right of the individual to his
8517
own privacy and the right of the taxpayer to know where his tax
dollars are being spent.
Allow me to quote from Hansard of November 21, 1983, just
about 11 years ago to the day. Hansard records a question in the
House of Commons on that day, a question that arose out of the
tabling of a report detailing all the orders in council appointees
by the government, a report that is still regularly published
today. The report was 264 pages long. It gave the salary ranges,
not the actual salaries, of all order in council, and by that I mean
cabinet, appointees.
On that November day 11 years ago, a Conservative member
asked the Deputy Prime Minister why salaries of the heads of
crown corporations were not publicly disclosed. In his
characteristic fashion, the Deputy Prime Minister replied: ``The
information that was tabled was in compliance with the law
passed by the Parliament of Canada. Obviously with respect to
public servants we have made public the range of salary. In this
particular case, because it is impossible to find anything
equivalent to a range, we have shown the maximum salary and
the minimum salary''.
I am not sure exactly what that means but in any case the
former Deputy Prime Minister in perfect Liberal fashion
avoided answering the question altogether. That member is of
course sitting in the Senate today.
The answer more coherent people usually give to this question
is that while the public has a right to know what civil servants
are being paid, those who are heads of crown corporations work
at arm's length from the government. They are not purely public
servants and therefore they have a right to their privacy when it
comes to personal information like salaries. In a grand Canadian
fashion we have compromised and split the issue right down the
middle by publishing salary ranges, allowing us to say that we
know but we do not know at the same time.
It kind of reminds me of the question: ``Why did the Canadian
cross the road?'' The answer of course was to get to the middle.
Almost immediately after the Conservative government took
power in 1984, it began to publish more accurate salary ranges
of the heads of crown corporations because they had been the
ones asking the government to do that for some time.
Please notice that it did not publish the actual salaries of the
executives either, but it published the ranges with one
significant difference from the Liberals. The ranges it began to
publish were much narrower than had been previously
published.
We learned from another question in the House asked by
another Conservative member, again in November 1983, that the
salary range of 18 employees of Canada Post was at the time
$63,000 to $228,000 a year. Given this range, appointees could
receive a salary anywhere within that range, maybe $170,000 a
year. That is a range.
That gave very broad anonymity to all 18 executives
appointed to Canada Post in 1983. Today the situation is much
different.
(1910 )
The salary range for the chief executive officer of Canada
Post is more accurately stated at $255,000 to $319,000 a year.
This still leaves the actual salary of the CEO unknown, but it
gives such a revealing hint that there is very little left to the
imagination.
In addition, most order in council appointees are given a
ranking number, called a governor in council rating that falls
between 1 and 11, each showing a progressively higher salary
with a range somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000. The
yearly reporting of order in council appointees called ``The
Governor in Council Appointment Guide'' also gives a complete
list of 15 CEO salary ranges of senior executives of crown
corporations and a few other executives. The salary ranges given
have about $30,000 between the minimum and maximum
salaries for these positions.
Over the last decade and a half a trend toward greater
disclosure has been established until we have today reached
what I would call almost virtual disclosure. Although interest
was high when salaries were fully veiled, now less is being left
to the imagination, so interest in the topic I think is naturally
waning.
If I were the CEO of a crown corporation I would argue that
my salary has been virtually revealed and there is no more
danger to the public from the small amount of secrecy that still
exists. What is the harm in a little bit of secrecy?
On the other hand the taxpayer would argue what would it hurt
to know the exact salaries? Since a trend toward greater
openness has already been established over a period of years and
since we already have full disclosure in all but name, since the
privacy of these individuals with respect to salary is only a
charade anyway, what is there to lose by revealing all? The
taxpayer would feel that a corporation may well be at arm's
length from the government in the legal sense, but the taxpayer
is not at arm's length in any way at all.
Every time the CEO receives a pay cheque the taxpayer feels
it directly in the wallet. The taxpayer would argue that he has a
compelling interest in full disclosure, knowing the exact salary
he is paying anyone, be it a clerk in a UI office or the chairman of
CN rail. We have two opposing arguments with two competing
interests. The question then becomes: Which group has a more
compelling interest, the taxpayer or the one who serves the
taxpayer either as a public servant or as an arm's length
quasi-public servant?
8518
In my former life I operated a contracting company with
about 230 employees. As the manager of those employees I had
to know their exact salaries or I could not have run the
company. The requirement of full disclosure is not only
important, it is necessary for the manager. Just let the listener
try to run his or her own household when they do not know all
of their expenses. It is, of course, impossible.
If full disclosure is necessary to the financial manager, it begs
an important question. Just who is the boss of Canada? Is it the
government or the people who elect the government? I would
say that the people of Canada are the boss and they have hired
this government for a short period of time to manage the public
affairs for them.
The government is not the boss, it is the servant. It is
impossible for the taxpayer, the employer of the government,
the real boss, to adequately judge the performance of its servant
without exact information. This applies across the board, not
just to the salaries of chief executive officers, but to government
information across the great span of the federal government.
As a matter of principle, the taxpayer deserves full disclosure
of all government expenditures. By receiving employment from
the public purse and by fulfilling some type of a public mandate
through their work, an individual gives up his or her right to
privacy regarding salary. We can see why this principle is so
important.
Just a few days ago the CEO of Canadian National revealed
that in addition to his salary of something between $324,000 and
$377,000 he has received an interest free loan of $300,000 to
mortgage his house. This practice of mortgage perks is
longstanding. I would refer the listener to the 1981 report of
Petro-Canada where we first got wind of this in which $16.5
million was listed as mortgages. Is there anything else that the
president of CN receives today for instance?
How can the ordinary member of the public judge whether the
taxpayer has received a fair deal without knowing the details of
the remuneration? If I owned a company and I found out that my
manager was hiding important financial information from me,
we all know what I would do. I would require that manager to
tell me everything immediately or I would find a different
manager. The principle becomes much larger and much more
important when the poor taxpayer begins to delve into the
government books and finds out how huge the whole system is.
(1915)
The governor in council appointment guide I referred to
earlier now has well over 286 pages in it, not 264 as in former
times. The guide has a list of political appointees, 51 pages long.
There are 2,500 names on the list.
If we are to assume that each one of those persons receives
$70,000 a year, which is a fairly conservative estimate, it means
that the salaries paid to those political appointees amount to
$175 million a year. If we consider that these employees receive
salaries within a range that is perhaps $30,000 a year more, then
the salaries build to $250 million and so on.
The electorate will never see this information because it is
hidden. The Liberal government, I would propose, has carefully
hidden it so that we will not be able to see who gets what.
When we move on to other sectors of government full
disclosure is even more necessary. For instance, the Department
of Canadian Heritage gives out $552 million in grants to 10,000
different groups every year. It is a shame. On August 18 I asked
for that list. It is somewhere in the bowels of the department. I
cannot get it. They will not give it to me.
To summarize my remarks today, the taxpayer has a
compelling interest in full financial disclosure from the
government. There are many aspects of individual privacy about
which the public does not have a right to know. When it is an
individual employed by the taxpayer to fulfil a public mandate
in service to the taxpayer, the interest of the taxpayer to know
outweighs the right of the salary to be held secret.
Disclosing where the taxpayers' dollars are being spent and
just who are the beneficiaries are valid principles. Where the
motion helps to accomplish this, I think I could support that.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to take part in the debate on a very worthwhile motion by
the member for Winnipeg St. James. I am very much in favour of
his motion.
The motion really addresses, even though it does not quite say
so, the concept of transparency and the possibility that people
should be remunerated based on their performance. I do not
think there is anything particularly wrong with that. In the case
of crown corporations the customers are the taxpayers of
Canada.
I have been involved with the Lobbyists Registration Act.
People are concerned about the accountability of government
and people working with government and interrelating with the
public in general. Basically the motion attempts to address that
accountability.
The Ontario Securities Commission requires the reporting of
salary ranges in publicly traded corporations. This is a
jurisdictional problem as the previous member from the Bloc
pointed out. One advantage of having federally chartered
corporations respond in that way is that it will actually be spread
across the country. We could have federally incorporated
companies which operate mainly in Vancouver now coming
under the guise of this legislation.
Another important aspect, although it was not really
addressed in the member's motion, would be to deal with some
of the problems of the securities exchange commissions in the
country. I firmly believe there is a definite need for a national
securities commission that would have a uniform standard of
8519
securities legislation across the country. There are many people
who believe that as well. It has an additional advantage in that it
could possibly create new capital markets for small and medium
sized businesses. That is an issue for another day.
We speak about transparency in corporations. The
shareholders are very interested in what their executives are
being paid. I can remember during some of the bad troughs of
the last recession when our banks were having problems with
Canary Wharf. I actually watched some of these institutions
raise the salaries and remunerations of their executive officers,
the very people who had made the decisions concerning that
project. It was amazing to note at the same time that some
foreign banks, especially some in the United States, were
actually firing those people. It gives a different onus.
(1920)
I am sure the people in the Royal Bank and others were very
happy to receive at least the information. Although they might
not have liked the results, they were certainly pleased to be in
receipt of the information that these people had decided to give
themselves a salary boost.
The transparency aspect in the recording of salary ranges is
not a matter of simple curiosity. The reality is that when we
expose them people start thinking the very thing we are
thinking: ``What is it that you did to earn that money?'' Having
crown corporations provide that information is nothing but
good.
For instance, Canada Post was mentioned earlier in the
debate. Why should its remuneration not be more directly linked
to its actions as a crown corporation? In other words there
should be a portion, if not dollar for dollar, of its remuneration
directly related to customer satisfaction which is basically the
people of Canada who use Canada Post services.
Today I attended an interesting interview. Some people from
IBM were telling us how they run their corporation these days.
Ten per cent of the remuneration of their employees is now
based on a combination of five per cent on the profitability of
the corporation and five per cent on customer satisfaction. They
have a way of measuring customer satisfaction. We have to go
more toward that in our governmental institutions.
I take the train to Ottawa quite often. I have often thought the
executive officers of VIA Rail should possibly be paid, at least
partially, based on the performance of that service. It seems that
every time that train is late we should focus on the profitability
of VIA Rail and customer satisfaction. Of course a lot of people
would understand that these people may well have to pay money
to work for VIA Rail today. If that focus were available, we may
well get more efficiency in government as well as in our private
sector.
I will conclude to allow other members to discuss the motion
by raising the aspect of the civil service. I do not want to be
getting into a position where I always seem to be bashing the
civil service. Many civil servants do worthwhile jobs. I am very
conscious of their concern for the Canadian citizen. I would,
however, like to restore the word civil to the term civil servant. I
looked it up in the dictionary on the way to the Chamber today
and the word civil means belonging to the citizens, polite,
obliging and not rude. Those are some of the things that we
would address by making the remuneration more directly
related to the citizens of the country.
I am very supportive of the motion of the member for
Winnipeg St. James. It is quite appropriate that he brought it
before the House tonight.
The Deputy Speaker: I might indicate that the debate is to
end at 7.37 p.m. If there are two members who wish to speak,
perhaps they could divide the time.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
quite brief. I rise in support of the motion. I congratulate the
hon. member for Winnipeg St. James on his motion that will
help to bring Canada fully into the 20th century in terms of
business.
Other countries are ahead of us by many years in terms of the
requirement to disclose. I approach the question perhaps a little
differently than my colleagues who have spoken before. It has to
do with the question of fiduciary responsibility. We know the
term fiduciary responsibility applies to business, to stock
companies and so on. That responsibility is to the stockholders,
to the people who buy the stocks, who are entitled to attend
annual meetings and who presumably are entitled to all
pertinent information about the company, the financial
information particularly.
(1925 )
We have lagged behind in this country by not acknowledging
that salaries, especially significant salaries of senior executives,
have been exempt. It would seem to me, and I do not want to
comment on the size of the salaries or the stock options, the
perks or whatever, that a lot of senior executives probably
deserve more than they are making. Perhaps some of them
deserve less. Those are privately held opinions as often citizens
hold about members of Parliament as to whether their salaries
are adequate, overadequate or under, or whatever.
Since the incomes of those senior executives have a direct
relationship with the profitability of the company and with the
dividends that are paid and so on and presumably in the end the
value of the stock that it would be in the positive interests of that
business if those things were revealed. A prospective
sharehold-
8520
er then would not be made aware of only part of the financial
information it needs but would have all of the financial
information. I believe that is correct.
In the case of crown corporations naturally the fiduciary
responsibility is to the people of Canada, to the citizens. It
seems to me that they are as entitled to that kind of information
as are private shareholders in companies.
It is for those reasons that I rise in wholehearted support. I
hope this goes ahead and the thrust of this motion prompts us to
adopt legislation that will bring us into line at least with other
countries we compete with around the world because it will be
good for our business and good for investment in this country.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Winnipeg-St. James respecting the principle of public
disclosure of salaries of senior executives of publicly traded
private corporations and crown corporations.
Unfortunately because of time I do not think I am going to get
through my whole presentation but I thank my hon. colleague
for sharing the time.
The issue as it relates to provisions of the Canada Business
Corporations Act rests mainly with my colleague, the Minister
of Industry.
[Translation]
For Crown corporations the government has a more direct
responsibility because of the public policy purposes these
corporations serve and has a strong interest in ensuring
appropriate compensation levels.
[English]
The subject of salary disclosure of executives in Canada's
corporate world has always been one of great debate and great
importance. Our government has traditionally attempted to
balance the right of the public to access information concerning
both public and private institutions against the rights of
individuals to privacy.
Disclosure rules in the private sector for publicly traded
corporations reflect an increasing desire on the part of investors
and creditors to exercise their corporate governance rights and
responsibilities in ways that ensure that compensation packages
to management harmonize to the degree possible with the
interests of the shareholder. Compensation should reflect
corporate performance and industry standards.
Provincial securities legislation deals with disclosure rules
for public companies. For example, Canadian companies which
do or may file debt securities which trade under the Ontario
Securities Commission jurisdiction are required to file
information on executive compensation for the presidents of the
companies and the four most highly compensated officers.
These rules appear to be well designed to meet the needs of
private investors and creditors. They provide assurance and
accountability.
Disclosure of compensation for CEOs and chairpersons
establish a reasonable and welcome degree of public
transparency concerning corporate affairs for some of Canada's
most important corporate bodies whose shares trade on the open
market.
Sound corporate governance for crown corporations continue
to be a matter of concern to this government. This past October
the President of the Treasury Board hosted a conference of
chairpersons and CEOs of crown corporations to discuss ways of
improving the performance and accountability of crown
corporation boards.
(1930 )
I think it is fair to say that all crown corporations represented
displayed sensitivity to the public's changing expectations
concerning the responsibilities of corporate boards. This
sensitivity extends to the development of appropriate
compensation policies for corporate employees.
In recent years a number of studies in the area of corporate
governance, including the report prepared by Mr. Peter Dey for
the Toronto Stock Exchange, have addressed the changing role
of the board of directors.
Crown corporation boards face difficult challenges
complicated by the need to balance the corporate agenda with
the public policy agenda. They also face problems similar to
those in the private sector such as ensuring open communication
programs with shareholders, stakeholders and other affected
parties, and that includes the taxpayers of Canada.
In the Dey report there is a particularly challenging concept of
a modern business corporation put forward by the Canadian
Centre for Ethics and Corporate Policy. The centre sees ``the
modern corporation as both an economic institution and a social
institution''. The role of the ``economic institution'' is ``to
conduct affairs with activities with a view to enhancing profit
for the benefit of the shareholders''. This of course is the
traditional role.
However, I think we can go further and say that ``as a social
institution a corporation in the conduct of its business activities
must take into account those ethical principles and
considerations that are reasonably regarded as appropriate for
the responsible conduct of business'' in Canada. This expands
the traditional view and puts the onus on boards of directors to
become accountable for much more than only the bottom line on
a set of financial statements.
Crown corporations by their very nature have always had to
consider the public policy principles and considerations to a
much greater degree of public scrutiny than private sector
corporations.
8521
Furthermore, the Treasury Board secretariat continually
reviews corporate government issues as they relate to federal
crown corporations. The review of annual corporate plans and
budgets, including salary budgets, is one aspect of their work.
In addition, much information on crown corporations is now
publicly available.
Hon. members are probably aware that for crown
corporations, directors, chairpersons and chief executive
officers, these are appointed by order in council and have their
remuneration fixed by the governor in council. Salary ranges for
these appointees are in fact now very much public information.
The practice has been to provide easy access to information
concerning the salary range of a particular person. This protects
the privacy of the individual concerned, especially with respect
to exact salary, while allowing the public to have access to
significant information. Similarly, the salary schedules of
senior appointments to federal agencies and commissions are
publicly available.
Crown corporations seeking to issue debt instruments follow
rules established by respective provincial securities
commissions. They too are subject to disclosure requirements as
are their counterparts in the private sector.
With respect to the current public sector wage freeze, all
crown corporations have been asked to follow government
policy. Order in council appointments such as board chairs have
had their wages frozen. Senior crown corporation officials who
are not government appointees have had their compensations set
by the boards of directors of their corporations. Crown
corporations subject to access to information or privacy
legislation can be required to provide salary ranges and
discretionary benefits of a financial nature for these officials.
The Financial Administration Act requires as well that any
benefits other than remuneration paid to directors, chair or chief
executive officers shall be fixed by the board of directors in
accordance with the regulations made under this act. The
regulations require that these benefits do not exceed any
industry norm.
I would like to emphasize that federal crown corporations are
subject to more stringent accountability and control rules than
are publicly traded corporations.
The Financial Administration Act, part X, sections 83 to 154,
establishes very thorough and comprehensive reporting
requirements. This law requires corporations to submit annual
corporate plans and budgets to Treasury Board for approval.
Corporations must conduct internal audits as well as being
audited externally. In most cases, external audits are undertaken
by the Auditor General who is empowered to make special
reports on the matters he believes require the attention of
ministers and Parliament.
In addition, crown corporations under part X must undergo a
special examination at least once every five years. These
examinations are established to ensure that systems and
practices respecting financial and management controls are
maintained in order to provide assurance that the resources of
the corporation are being managed effectively and efficiently.
How much more disclosure is reasonable for other crown
corporation executives? Is there a further need to add more rules
for Canada's 48 crown corporations? Should smaller
corporations which do not issue debt instruments and have only
a handful of employees be treated in the same manner as a larger
corporation? It would be premature to go beyond what we now
have in the area of salary information reporting by crown
corporations. Public accountability for crown corporations is
now well and adequately established under a sufficiently
rigorous statutory and regulatory framework.
(1935)
The corporate form together with this framework has served
Canadians well. In the 1993 report to Parliament, the Auditor
General of Canada stated:
In 1991, we reported that the control and accountability framework
established in 1984 represented a vast improvement over the previous situation
and provided for greater vigilance and stability. It has, in our view, improved the
management of crown corporations as well as the receipt of essential
information by Parliament on a more timely basis.
The government will continue to monitor this system to
ensure its effective functioning and make whatever amendments
are needed.
The Deputy Speaker: Under Standing Order 44, the member
who began the debate is entitled to approximately two minutes
in which he might close the debate.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not going to use up the whole two minutes.
In closing off the debate I want to express my sincere thanks
to all the members who participated in the debate. I want them to
know that I really appreciated their participation and
contribution.
Tonight's debate, even though we did not have a vote,
indicates that there is an interest, there are different points of
view and we should not let this debate go. Perhaps we can pick it
up again under some other format at some other time.
The public is interested and they too would not want us to let
this go. It is a matter of importance to all of us. We in Parliament
truly believe in transparency, openness and disclosure whether
it applies to crown corporations or private sector corporations.
8522
Again, I want to thank all those members of the House who
took part in tonight's debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for Private
Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing
Order 96, the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8522
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to again raise the issue of the northern
tax allowance, a matter that I and my constituents have
expressed concern about for many years. This was an issue that
concerned my constituents and other Canadians during my first
election campaign in 1988. It was an issue that the Mulroney
government completely misunderstood and in responding to the
complaints raised it made the situation worse.
I have always seen the northern tax benefit program as a
simple acknowledgement that not all taxpayers in Canada have
equal access to the programs and services to which they
contribute as taxpayers. Northern residents live at a
considerable distance from the majority of federal government
services and the northern tax program provided them with some
relief on their income tax as a result.
For example, an individual living in Pierceland,
Saskatchewan has less access to federal government programs
and services than does an individual living in Saskatoon.
Therefore, it seemed the right thing to do when the original tax
benefit program was initiated and brought into being.
However, there were problems in its implementation. Some
communities achieved northern benefit status and others did
not. There were arguments about why the residents in one
community received benefits while residents in another did not.
Instead of reviewing the criteria for the program and finding
ways to increase its fairness, the Mulroney government
appointed a special task force which reported to Parliament in
October 1989.
The task force recommended that instead of fixing the
problems the federal government should simply move the
eligibility line so far north that few communities would argue
about where the line was drawn. In other words, the task force
recommendation walked away from the problem, took the easy
way out and completely ignored the needs and desires of the
people who were living in the area previously defined for
eligibility.
(1940 )
According to the Mulroney government, which accepted the
task force recommendations, the people who were receiving the
benefits would be best served if they lost those benefits, not all
at once but slowly, phased out over three years.
Despite their protests, these residents will see the end of the
northern tax allowance this year. When taxes for 1994 are
calculated and the benefit taken into account, that will be it. In
1995 these hard working Canadians will lose their benefits.
As a result it also means that each and every one of these tax
paying families will see a dramatic increase in their tax bill
beginning in the 1995 tax year. At the time of the task force
report, I said it did nothing but address the cash grab needs of the
federal government and completely ignored the needs of the
people who live in the areas designated to receive the benefits.
I acknowledged the unfairness of the existing program, but I
suggested that a review and some new criteria would be better
than completely removing the benefits from so many tax paying
residents.
Although the Liberal government since its election one year
ago has refused to review the northern tax allowance program at
my request, I decided last week to try once again so that in the
development of the 1995 budget the government might consider
reinstating the program to ensure that additional tax increases
are not going to be unfairly forced on northern residents.
I was pleased to learn there is the possibility of a review. I
hope the government will again tonight confirm that it is going
to look at this program and give the residents of a part of my
constituency and other northerners some reason to be
optimistic.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked that
the government reconsider the phasing out of the tax benefits for
residents of the north and isolated areas.
I would first like to clarify that the program is not being
eliminated at the end of this year. Rather, a new approach to
providing benefits to residents of the north was implemented at
the beginning of 1991.
This new system was accompanied by a transition period
ending this year for those communities whose benefits were
being reduced or eliminated. I can appreciate that some
individuals living in communities no longer eligible for some or
all of the benefits might oppose these changes.
However, after reviewing the events that led to the
implementation of the current system, I believe that the zonal
approach is the right one. The current system was the result of a
comprehensive study. It was implemented on the basis of the
recommendations of the task force on tax benefits for northern
8523
and isolated areas established in 1988 and of further
consultations as well.
The previous community by community approach to
allocating benefits was widely criticized as inherently unfair
because it created border problems between adjacent
communities that were treated differently for tax purposes.
The existence of ill-defined boundaries made inequities
inevitable. The new system is based on carefully delineated
broad zones and it minimizes inequities. I believe that the
current policy will prove to be fairer, simpler and more effective
than any of its predecessors, providing tax assistance to
residents of northern and isolated areas.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
asked a single question of the Minister of Canadian Heritage
during question period on Friday, November 25.
I asked the minister to explain why cabinet had decided to
order a review of the CRTC exemption order on direct home
satellites. Even though cabinet had made its decision for the
review, even though cabinet had directed the details of the
review to be gazetted, even though cabinet had decided who
would conduct the review and who would be on its advisory
council, even though cabinet had decided that the CRTC would
not be the body to conduct the review, the minister refused to
answer the simple question I posed.
I was aware of the details concerning the review. Surely the
minister was informed so he could respond to my question. It is
unfortunate that he could not explain the reasons supporting this
decision. The decision had been made on Tuesday and yet three
days later, on Friday, he still refused to explain fully to
Canadians the basis of the decision and why it was made.
Telecommunications policy in Canada is rapidly being
outpaced by the developments that are being made in the
industry. Technological convergence is occurring at an
exponentially increasing rate and the government must
recognize that it can no longer adequately regulate the industry
while providing fair treatment.
(1945 )
Competitive fairness is what this issue is about. The Reform
Party does not oppose the idea of a review of the direct to home
satellite distribution policy. We encourage such a review.
However, we must ensure at all times that this review like all
matters of government is dealt with fairly.
In order to maximize the level of fairness the process should
be as unbiased as possible while still securing a high level of
competency. At no time has it been suggested that competent
people should be excluded from making contributions to the
debate. However, we must ensure that no one interest is given
more weight or is seen as being given more weight than any
other.
The cabinet also decided to appoint three members from
private industry to advise it on the decision. First, I would like to
know the criteria for the selection process. Second, how much
will this six month process cost? Third, how much are these
advisers to be paid? Fourth and last, what exactly is their role?
It is not even clear why the government needs advisers on this
issue. Surely there are competent people within heritage,
industry, and the CRTC who understand how DTH policy will
affect both the industry and Canadian culture.
As well, the review calls for interventions from the public and
then it allows for comments on the interventions. Without
advisers the only one who could influence the process would be
the minister. However, if the minister wants an independent
review of DTH policy and how it affects Canadian culture, then
he should either let the CRTC do it or give it over completely to
an independent public panel where there will be no undue
influence.
In conclusion, I support the review of this policy. It is
important that we ensure government regulations accurately
reflect the needs of the industry and allow for all interested
parties to compete on a level playing field.
Unfortunately, the minister's in house review with advisers
who many in the industry believe will favour one company over
another cannot accomplish these goals unless he makes it
non-partisan. No matter what decision results from the review it
will be viewed with skepticism from the industry because it will
appear to have been influenced. The only way to ensure a quality
review is to overhaul the process before it begins.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and the
Minister of Canadian Heritage have launched a review of
policies relating to direct to home satellite distribution
undertakings because of the impact these new services will have
on Canada's broadcasting and telecommunications system.
The new generation of direct to home satellites combine the
use of high powered satellites, digital technology and small dish
receivers to provide up to 200 channels of broadcasting and
other services.
Some of these systems are operating now in the United States
and there are plans to have Canadian direct to home systems in
the near future. However, if Canadian systems are not
competitive with the U.S. systems, then Canadians may choose
to get their TV direct from American suppliers which have no
requirement to offer any Canadian programming at all.
On August 30 the CRTC exempted Canadian direct to home
undertakings from licensing provided that they meet a number
of criteria. Some of these criteria limit the ability of the
8524
Canadian direct to home undertakings to compete with cable
systems and with American direct to home undertakings.
On September 12 the Ministers of Industry and Canadian
Heritage announced their intention to review policies governing
direct to home undertakings. There is in no way an overruling of
the CRTC decision. The CRTC has enunciated its views on how
it would issue such orders in the future.
A notice was published in the Canada Gazette on November
26 seeking public comment on a range of policy issues raised by
the introduction of direct to home satellite undertakings in
Canada.
Issues to be examined include competition, Canadian content,
programming distribution rights, and the use of Canadian
satellite facilities among other concerns. In addition, as the
member recognized, the Ministers of Industry and Canadian
Heritage have announced Gordon Ritchie, Roger Tassé and Bob
Rabinovitch as the panel who will review submissions and make
recommendations which will assist the government in
formulating policy in this area.
Although some have argued that the matter should have been
referred to the CRTC, it is the government's responsibility to
establish policy and the CRTC's job to implement it.
The introduction of direct to home systems will have an
impact on individual Canadians and on a range of industries.
Concerns have been brought to the government's attention from
a number of sources on this issue. We intend to balance the
interests of all parties and consider the best interests of the
Canadian public in formulating policy in this area.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38 the
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.50 p.m.)