CONTENTS
Monday, May 29, 1995
Bill C-316. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 12867
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12869
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 12875
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 12885
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12891
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 12894
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12895
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12895
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12896
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12896
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12896
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 12896
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12896
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 12897
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12897
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 12897
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12897
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12898
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12899
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12899
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12899
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12899
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12900
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12902
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 12903
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12903
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 12904
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 12904
Bill C-91. Consideration resumed of motion 12905
Division on motion deferred. 12908
Bill C-82. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 12908
Bill C-82. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 12912
Division on motion deferred 12918
Bill C-88. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 12918
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12918
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 12932
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 12939
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 12942
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 12960
12867
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 29, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-316, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the
Transfer of Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity
to congratulate the hon. member on his initiative. I know how
hard he has worked in order to introduce this private member's
bill. His constituents are very fortunate to have him as their
representative. He is hard working and I wish him well.
The bill relates to immigrants or refugees in Canada who have
criminal records. On the surface the bill would help the
government deport those refugees or immigrants immediately
after sentencing provided a provision is made to pass the
authority to the provinces to deal with this issue.
On the surface the bill makes a lot of sense. It is precise and to
the point. However, it causes quite a bit of confusion when one
goes a little deeper into it.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already
indicated publicly that he supports the intent and the spirit of the
bill but has raised a number of concerns which I will reiterate.
On November 1, 1994 the minister tabled a document entitled
``Into the 21st Century: A Strategy for Immigration and
Citizenship''. He made a number of comments but I will
mention only a couple which I believe are relevant to the
legislation before us.
(1105 )
The minister said: ``A number of legislative changes will be
considered to the control and enforcement provision of the act.
For example, currently deportation orders can only be issued by
an immigration official. Consideration is being given to
authorizing judges to issue deportation orders at the time of
sentencing rather than requiring a separate step''.
He also said there may be other improvements we can usher
into the system. One such recommendation coming from chiefs
of police is to permit judges to not recommend deportation at the
time of sentencing but to order deportation at the time of
sentencing so that the system is leaner and the issues of
individuals are all dealt with at the right time and that there is
full due process for the individual, counsel and lawyer to react to
the judge's ordering of a deportation rather than recommending
and then having it go back to immigration and before an
immigration appeal division and so on.
In other words, the minister is already trying to streamline the
process and make it easier for the justice system to deport
people with criminal records who are here as refugees or landed
immigrants.
He further stated that as parliamentarians we should be
interested in this issue and also be prepared to look at making
the relevant amendments if we think the amendments will work,
which is very important, and if we think those amendments are
fair. The minister supports the spirit and the intent of bill C-316.
However, I will outline some concerns of the Department of
Justice as well as the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Immigration falls under federal jurisdiction when it comes to
deliberation and delivery of the justice system. If we were to
pass on this jurisdiction to the provincial level there would be a
number of problems. The department which deals with the issue
of immigration is not the same department which deals with
delivery of other relevant aspects of immigration.
If this were transferred to the provinces since this is where the
issue would fall under Bill C-316, we would have to introduce
training for judges and lawyers in some cases. That would cause
more delays. Over and over we have seen cases tossed out of
court because they were delayed for too long. It would mean
more appeals. We already have an overloaded provincial court
system.
When dealing with the provincial justice system we know
attorneys can make recommendations to the court based on a
number of factors which are not part of immigration agenda but
are a part of other aspects of the justice system such as plea
bargaining. Judges would then require proof beyond a
reasonable doubt which would make the issue before the court
difficult to prove.
12868
This legislation contravenes the charter of rights when it
comes to challenges. A number of sections could be challenged
such as section 11(h) which deals with double punishment. It
could be argued that deportation is a second form of punishment
in addition to any other sentence; only a non-citizen would be
subject to this punishment.
(1110)
Section 12 deals with cruel and unusual punishment. It could
be argued that removing the permanent resident from Canada
would offend standards of decency by denying for life the
person's right to be with family and friends.
Under section 15, equality under the law, it could be argued
that permanent residents were being treated differently from
Canadian citizens under the law. Two persons convicted of the
same offence would be subject to different consequences based
on their immigrant status.
Simply by looking at these recommendations from both the
Department of Justice and the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration, while the intent of the bill is good I suggest my
colleague might want to take it back and look at it with the view
that if anything is put before the House it should be consistent
with the charter of rights and freedoms and should meet the
criteria set out by the Department of Justice and the Department
of Citizenship and Immigration.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remind members that
when in doubt in seeking the floor please rise; do not depend on
any lists that might or might not be in circulation.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill which if
successful and sufficiently improved could be a good first step
in ensuring the quick deportation of foreign born criminals.
I appreciate the work the Canadian Police Association has
done on the bill. I appreciate that my colleague from the Liberal
Party was brave enough to sponsor it. Clearly the goals of the
bill are not shared by the minister of immigration. If they were,
these measures would have been amended to Bill C-44 when it
was up for debate.
The minister knew the recommendations of the Canadian
Police Association but chose not to act on them. He chose to
ignore these common sense measures which, when the legal
language is cleared up by a competent lawyer, would take a
small step toward ensuring non-citizens who commit serious
crimes in Canada will make two stops after they leave the court
room, one to the prison and one to the airport where, unless
Canadian immigration allows them to run away on the tarmac as
was the case last week, they will be sent where they belong, out
of Canada.
The bill has a lot of serious problems that will require serious
study and fixing before the bill can be made effective. I trust it is
the intention of my colleague to work on these weak points. I
hope the bill is not window dressing, the sort of smoke and
mirrors tactics the minister of immigration loves to engage in.
My colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin dealt with the bill's
problems admirably during the last hour of debate. I will not
beat that dead horse. However, before the bill goes any further it
is necessary to look at the big picture of deportations. It is
necessary to understand what the Reform Party wants to see with
deportation policy.
The Reform Party's stand on non-citizen criminals is clear,
simple and in line with what the majority of Canadians want,
something the minister for immigration would have a hard time
understanding. Our policy for non-citizen criminals would not
result from bargaining with special interests or with refugee
lawyers but from consulting with our members, our constituents
and with the people of Canada.
I am sure my hon. colleague, the sponsor of the bill,
understands what the people are saying on immigration matters.
I understand a lot of Liberal backbenchers are feeling the heat
from their constituents. It is too bad they cannot do anything
about it. It is too bad they have to toe the Liberal Party line.
(1115)
We believe that the people who have not exercised a claim to
Canadian citizenship or who have not lived in the country long
enough to claim citizenship and who commit serious crimes
have violated a moral contract entered into with the people of
Canada.
The Reform Party believes that immigration to Canada is a
privilege, not a right. We believe that the people of Canada, the
citizens of Canada, have the collective right to determine who
comes into Canada, how many people are allowed to come into
Canada and under what conditions.
A newcomer to this country enters into a moral contract with
Canada. There are several terms of that contract. The most
important of them is that the newcomer must abide by the laws
of this country. There is nothing that angers my constituents like
recently arrived immigrants to Canada who commit crime. That
drives them up the wall, and rightly so. Canadians collectively
have the right to be morally outraged when the wonderful gift of
Canadian residency is extended and then the recipient of that
gift violates our laws.
We are above all else a nation of laws. That defines Canada.
We demand of anyone who immigrates here that those laws are
to be respected. That is a demand. When someone ignores that
demand, violates the moral contract with Canadians and makes a
12869
mockery of the Canadian generosity by breaking the law, then
that person should be removed quickly and permanently.
I challenge the government. I challenge the immigration
minister and the Prime Minister to poll Canadians, ask
Canadians if they feel that newcomers who break the law should
be removed quickly and permanently. Mr. Speaker, I will bet you
Sergio Marchi's pension that they will say yes.
Some hon. members: Order.
An hon. member: You know better. You are not a rookie any
more.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sure that although we
have been away from this place for a week, colleagues will
remember very well the traditions and rules of the House in
referring to one another either by riding name or portfolio in
terms of ministry.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I will heed that caution.
Immigrants are responsible for a small percentage of crime in
Canada. Immigrants are under represented in Canadian prisons.
That speaks to the character of immigrants to Canada. That
speaks to the gratitude of the immigrant population. The
immigrant population, like in all populations, there are some
who will break the law.
Immigrants have come to me on a tragically regular basis
asking me to do something about crime in their communities.
When we deport foreign born criminals, we are not picking on
immigrants; we are protecting them. Immigrants come to this
country seeking a better life and because the overwhelming
majority of immigrants do not break the law, Canada has a duty
to ensure that the problems and the crime that many immigrants
have left behind in their countries of origin stay there, out of
Canada. That is our duty.
Do immigrants who break the law deserve to be doubly
punished? No. Should they serve more time because they are
immigrants? No way. However, if a non-citizen breaks the law
then they have done more than just violate our law, for which the
criminal justice system will deal with them. They have also
broken a moral contract: they have broken their promise to obey
the laws of the country they have adopted and that has adopted
them.
As a result of the violation of that contract Canada has the
right to say we don't want to include them in our national family.
We have the right to view that period of time between the date
the newcomer comes to this country and the date they receive
their citizenship as a period of probation. If that probation is
violated, then there is no onus on Canada to provide a home for
that person any longer.
The Reform Party supports quick deportation after
conviction. We will support this bill on the condition that the
gaping holes in this legislation are plugged by the committee.
We will cooperate with the sponsor of this bill to work out those
problems, despite the fact that those are huge problems as the
bill is presently written.
Today let me speak briefly to one of the big problems in this
legislation, and that is the problem of reciprocal agreements
with other countries.
(1120 )
This bill says that a criminal court judge can only order
deportation back to countries with which we have a
co-operative agreement. In other words, the only countries we
can deport people to are countries that say they will take them
back.
The problem we run into is that a lot of our foreign-born
criminals come from countries that are notorious for not taking
back their own. What is this bill going to do about that problem,
the so-called travel document problem? It does nothing except
to give in to it. That is not good enough. It means that a large part
of the overall problem will not be dealt with by this legislation.
I do not expect my colleague to be able to single handedly fix
that problem, but the government can fix the problem. The
inability to secure travel documents is no excuse for not being
able to deport.
The Reform Party today is putting this government on notice
that we will no longer accept the excuse of not being able to get
travel documents. We give away far too much foreign aid for
that excuse to be valid. If a country will not take back its citizens
who commit crime in Canada, then the minister of immigration
should recommend to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that all
foreign aid in any form be suspended to that country until they
change their tune.
No deportation, no foreign aid: it is a simple solution. Most of
the solutions to Canada's immigration problems are simple
ones. They only require a little political will.
I thank my hon. colleague for sponsoring this legislation. I
hope this gesture has implications within his caucus. I hope we
can impress on the immigration minister the need to get serious
with immigration policy. So far the minister has not figured that
out.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Roberval would like to raise a point of order. Please give me a
moment, as I would like to check something.
(1125)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thank
you for allowing me to raise my point of order. I would like to
seek from the House unanimous consent for an emergency
debate. I realize that, according to the order of business-I will
12870
be brief-such a request can normally be made only after the
regular period of routine proceedings, which will end at
approximately 3.15 p.m. today.
However, given the importance of the issue in question and
the need to prepare ourselves for the debate, if the House were to
accept my proposal, I think that you would find unanimous
consent in this House for the following motion: ``That the House
take into consideration the situation of Canadian peacekeepers
in Bosnia-Hercegovina''.
Given the extremely serious situation there, it is important
that the House immediately consider this request for a three hour
emergency debate, to begin at 6.00 p.m. The details of the debate
could be worked out with the government later, but it is
important that we immediately make up our minds on the
necessity of the debate.
Therefore, I would ask my colleagues whether they will give
their unanimous consent right now to holding a debate at 6.00
p.m. tonight on the situation of the peacekeepers, an extremely
important issue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Firstly, I would like to
thank the hon. member for Roberval for his patience while I
verified the rules governing this process. I give the floor to the
parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Government.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the same point. I can see the hon. member's point of
view, but I am quite surprised that he did not inform me that he
planned to introduce this motion this morning.
[English]
I am prepared, to enter into discussion with him. We are
always willing to entertain such discussions with hon. members
in the opposition when they have suggestions concerning House
business. However, I am aware of no such discussions on the
subject this morning.
In the normal course the hon. member and others may wish to
bring forward an application under Standing Order 52 at three
o'clock. I think it is entirely appropriate that this be done, and
the Speaker then will consider whether the circumstances exist
for an emergency debate.
Tomorrow is an opposition day. It has been designated as such
and it is available for discussion on the subject should the
opposition choose. There is plenty of opportunity for the House
to engage in the debate, and I do not feel there is need for us to
set aside business and indeed the hon. member is not suggesting
that we set aside the business that is scheduled today for the
House. I suggest we proceed with it at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I give the hon.
member for Calgary Centre the floor I would like to remind the
House to be cautious. I do not intend to get into the debate at this
time. As soon as possible I would like to put the question to the
House with respect to the request from the hon. member for
Roberval for unanimous consent. I do not want to prejudge what
the decision of the House might be in the matter.
I will hear the hon. member for Calgary Centre on a brief
intervention.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to clarify whether in
fact under the standing orders other business can be brought up
or new items can be brought up during Private Members'
Business. Do we not have to stick to the agenda for the hour and
then seek unanimous consent? I am just questioning the timing
of the request.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): That is exactly the point I
was taking time to get more information on while I asked the
hon. member for Roberval to be patient before getting the floor.
I have been assured that the request can be made for
unanimous consent at any time and the House will deal with the
question as it arises.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I
would point out that the hon. member for Red Deer has already
made an application to the government to have an emergency
debate on Bosnia.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me deal with the
matter at hand, following the intervention of the hon. member
for Roberval.
[Translation]
You have heard the hon. member for Roberval's arguments for
unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): No.
Therefore, let us resume debate.
(1130)
[English]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to deal with private
member's Bill C-316.
I know there has been a lot of discussion surrounding this
issue in the larger cities of Canada, but make no mistake, this
issue is not just of concern to large cities. I represent the people
of Souris-Moose Mountain, a rural riding in southeast
Saskatchewan. Crime for them is of great concern as it is to all
Canadians.
The people of my riding are honest hard working individuals.
They work every day to see that the future of Canada is a good
one for their children. We are not so different from the people in
12871
Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. We dream of the future and we
hope for our children. We feel strongly that we live in the best
country in the world and we want to keep it that way.
Let me say that the murders of Georgina Leimonis and
Constable Todd Baylis were reprehensible crimes. The sad thing
is that these are not isolated events. We should be able to stop
these kinds of things from happening in our country. We must
work together to see that we reach a balance which protects the
rights of individuals and allows for freedoms, but also provides
for security for us to live and raise our families and walk our
streets in safety.
I congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
He has done an admirable job this past year and one-half in
producing reforms and actions that have and will greatly
improve our immigration and deportation system.
Measures contained in Bill C-44 have limited the rights of
serious criminals to appeal under the immigration system.
However, there still seems to be room for further tightening on
the rights of serious criminals. There is still room for a criminal
to fall through the cracks between the courts and the
Immigration Act.
Many appeals are available to a convicted criminal both
through the criminal process and the Immigration Act. Bill
C-316 would still permit the criminal to have access to appeals
through the criminal process. It would only limit his or her
access to the appeals in the Immigration Act. Remember, we are
talking about convicted criminals who have committed a serious
crime.
This bill applies to criminals convicted of an offence
punishable by a sentence of 10 or more years. The measures
contained in this bill will accelerate deportation by allowing the
court in addition to any other sentence to order the removal of a
non-citizen.
It would save the Canadian taxpayer money because the two
separate hearings, immigration and sentencing, would not be
needed. Instead of two hearings, the courts would decide both
the sentencing and deportation. It would not just save money; in
the case of Todd Baylis, it may very well have saved his life. We
believe strongly in freedom in this country but we cannot allow
our freedom to go so far as to limit our security.
Some people have criticized this bill because they believe it
punishes non-citizens more than it does Canadian citizens and it
treats them differently. Of course this is already true of our
current laws. Non-citizens cannot vote. Under the current law
non-citizens are already subject to deportation.
The only difference contained in Bill C-316 is that the sole
responsibility for both the criminal sentence and deportation
would lie within the courts and not within those two bodies, the
courts and immigration. Taking out this extra step leaves less
room for error, less room for bureaucracy to step in and less
room for criminals to get lost in the shuffle.
(1135 )
Let me cite one incident. Mr. Ng, the individual who came
from California, ended up in Calgary. There he stayed for five or
six years while the taxpayers had to absorb the cost. Hopefully
this mechanism put forward by my fellow parliamentarian
would alleviate this kind of excessive tax burden on individuals
having to put up with dangerous criminals hiding within the
existing law.
This bill has been endorsed by the Canadian Police
Association and the Metro Toronto Police Association.
Certainly that should tell us something. These are the people
who come face to face with these problems each day. They are
trying to make our streets safer. We would do well to give them a
hand.
An additional measure in the bill that ensures fair treatment of
non-citizens is the provision that it does not apply to anyone
who arrived in Canada before the age of 16 years, as long as that
individual remained free of criminal charges for a period of five
years. That is a very important feature. We do take
responsibility for those who have been raised in our society
whether they are citizens or not.
Before concluding let me touch upon a couple of issues that
have come forward with regard to party line. Within the
framework of this bill we have the ability to cross party lines to
support those initiatives that make good sense to all taxpayers.
The member of Parliament for Cambridge has wrestled with
the bill. I am sure he is prepared to entertain any amendments
that would strengthen it. In that way we can resolve that those
people who do not understand it is a right and a privilege to be
here and want to abuse both, we would rather not have them as
citizens of our country. It would be much better if they were
back in their own country.
Concerning the criminal element, we have some real
problems. As some amendments go before the committee we
will deal with the deportation aspect. I have strong reservations
about suggesting that because criminal elements come here
from foreign countries that we would then punish those people
by removing foreign aid. I would not support that.
The private member's bill by the member for Cambridge is a
good one. It has given us reason to think on how we can improve
our society.
In conclusion, I support and commend my colleague the
member for Cambridge for a job well done. He certainly has the
best interests of his constituents and his country at heart. I urge
other members of the House to consider the intent of this bill
very carefully. We want to make our streets safer. We want to
create a society which will continue to be the number one
country in the world in which to live, as stated by the United
Nations.
12872
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak in the debate on Bill C-316, an act to amend the
Immigration Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act.
I congratulate my colleague, the Liberal member for
Cambridge, for getting involved in this matter. Crime is a matter
of the highest concern to myself and the members of the Bloc
Quebecois, as it is to everyone. We believe that government has
the obligation and also the right to protect people against
criminals, whether they are born in Canada or elsewhere.
(1140)
The aim of Bill C-316 is to improve the process of deporting
those who have committed violent crimes and to transfer the
powers of the Department of Immigration to the courts. As
justification for this bill, the member cited two murders, which
took place in Toronto last year and which moved the public,
including the members of the Bloc Quebecois. We deplored
these two murders-one of a young woman, the other of a police
officer. We do not, however, consider the bill justified in the
present context. I believe it will create more problems than it
hopes to resolve. I note the hon. member included a clause
providing for an exception whereby, for example, young
immigrants under the age of 16, who had arrived in Canada at an
early age, would not be deported. This is an excellent principle,
but contained in a flawed bill.
I have often said that young people who arrive in Canada
when they are very young become the products of Canadian
society rather than their society of origin. Poverty and
adversity-problems we have here in Canada-sometimes lead
to crime, and we must fight these problems at their very root.
A few months ago, here in this House, we debated Bill C-44.
As we know, present legislation already gives the Department of
Immigration powers to deport criminals who have committed
crimes here in Canada and to prevent foreign criminals from
entering the country. Bill C-44 accords additional powers to the
Department of Immigration and, particularly, to the minister.
As you know, and my colleague knows this because he sits on
the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration with
me, just about every organization, except the police association,
came and testified against Bill C-44. We understand why the
police association always adopts the same position against
crime.
One of the observations made in the discussions on Bill C-44
was that the bill would impose a double penalty for the same
crime, that is, it would punish an individual twice for a single
crime. This is unacceptable in any legal system, here or
elsewhere. Under Bill C-316, this is even more clearly the case.
An individual would be punished twice, particularly by the
courts. The courts would punish the offence and then add a
second punishment: deportation.
To date, deportation, the expulsion of immigrants, has been an
administrative process. It is the responsibility of the
Department of Immigration, and, according to my colleague's
bill, it should be the responsibility of the courts. We all know
that the courts lack jurisdiction to decide on matters where
human life is at risk. There are matters of life or death involving
the application of the Geneva convention, which imposes
certain conditions on signatory countries, such as Canada.
Existing legislation provides a process whereby those
accused may turn to the law. Deporting an individual requires a
decision by an arbitrator. This decision may be appealed before
the Immigration and Refugee Board.
(1145)
This bill also addresses the issue of transferring criminals
from Canada to other countries. True, some bilateral treaties
now in effect allow such a transfer if requested by the offender;
if there is a bilateral agreement, these people are sent back to
their countries of origin. However, not all countries are willing
to sign such treaties. Why would the country of origin pay the
cost of incarcerating a criminal for several years for a crime that
was not committed on its own territory? In this sense, I do not
find this bill realistic.
This bill would also penalize the families of criminals.
Having been trained as a lawyer, I know that this infringes on the
most basic of rights. This is unacceptable. Why should two year
old or three year old children pay for their father's crime or a
woman for her husband's crime? In my opinion, the philosophy
currently evolving in Canada against immigrants with criminal
records goes too far.
I read the presentations carefully and I listened to my
colleagues earlier. No one in this House mentioned that the
crime rate among immigrants is lower than among those who
were born here. Statistics show that the percentage of immigrant
inmates in Canadian prisons is lower than the percentage of
Canadian-born inmates. So punishing an individual by
association is both unacceptable and inhumane.
I have noted that Reform members have serious reservations
in this regard and that Liberal members support this bill. I really
followed with great interest the speech by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and I
agree with her analysis.
I think that this bill raises many constitutional issues as well
as many questions in connection with the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. It violates the following sections-which
I did not have time to read-namely section 11, which provides
that any person charged with an offence has the right not to be
denied reasonable bail without just cause; section 12, which
provides that everyone has the right not to be subjected to any
12873
cruel and unusual treatment or punishment; and, above all,
section 15, which provides that every individual has the right to
equal protection and equal benefit of the law without
discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and so
on.
For this reason alone, this bill is unacceptable. But there are
other compelling reasons to reject this bill. There are always
humanitarian considerations that anyone can invoke. The
current law, as well as Bill C-44 now before the Senate,
provides that a person can always invoke humanitarian
considerations. This bill, however, would prevent these
considerations from being put forward.
The current legislation is adequate. In fact, every day, the
minister of immigration and his officials prevent hundreds of
potential immigrants with criminal records from coming here.
Every day, dozens of people are removed from Canada to
foreign countries. Since the minister already has this power, I
think that this bill is totally unnecessary, and that is why I will
vote against it.
(1150)
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as you are aware, Bill C-316 is a private member's bill
put forward by the member for Cambridge. In short, the bill
proposes to give provincial court judges the power to order
deportation at the time of sentencing.
On the surface the proposal seems to make sense. In spirit and
intent the bill would simplify the bureaucratic process,
eliminating the need for a deportation inquiry. Instead, a foreign
born criminal would be ordered deported at the time of
sentencing and hopefully be removed without incident
following the completion of his or her sentence.
Both the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police have called for this type of
legislative change. There are a number of gaps in the present
system through which foreign born criminals can disappear
underground between the time they complete their sentences
and the time they are called for the deportation inquiries.
The minister is sensitive to the concerns raised by the
Canadian Police Association. He has discussed the possibility of
such a change on two separate occasions. On November 1, 1994
the minister tabled a document entitled ``Into the 21st Century:
A Strategy for Immigration and Citizenship''. In the document
the minister raises a number of possibilities for legislative
change:
A number of legislative changes will be considered to reinforce the control
and enforcement provisions of the Act. For example, currently deportation
orders can only be issued by an immigration official. Consideration is being
given to authorizing judges to issue deportation orders at the time of sentencing,
rather than requiring a separate step.
That can be found at page 59. He further referred to such a
possibility in his speech at second reading of Bill C-44.
There may be other improvements that we can usher into the system and one
such recommendation, for instance, coming from some of the police chiefs is to
permit judges to not recommend deportations at the time of giving sentence but to
order deportation at the time of sentencing so that the system is leaner, so that the
issues of that individual are all dealt with at the right time, and that there is full due
process for that individual's counsel and lawyer to react to that judge's ordering
of a deportation rather than recommending and then having it go back to
immigration and before an immigration appeal division and so on.
In light of the foregoing it is safe to say the minister supports
the spirit and intent of Bill C-316. However, there have been a
number of technical concerns raised not only by the Department
of Citizenship and Immigration but also by the Department of
Justice and the Solicitor General.
Take a look at some of the concerns from the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration. This legislation raises some
serious constitutional questions. The supreme court has
established that deportation is not a form of punishment but
rather an administrative decision taken by Canada. Bill C-316
seeks to change this. By making deportation a sentencing option
it suddenly becomes a criminal punishment.
There are no fewer than three constitutional clauses that could
be used to argue against the sentence. For instance, section 15
deals with equality under the law. It could be argued that two
tiers of punishment would be available to judges if Bill C-316
came into effect, one for citizens and the other for non-citizens.
We would have a case where two people commit the same crime,
yet the punishment would be harsher for one than for the other.
Section 11 deals with double punishment. It could be argued
that removal from Canada would represent a second form of
punishment in addition to any other sentence. In effect,
non-citizens would face the prospect of being punished twice
for the same offence.
Section 12 deals with cruel and unusual punishment. It could
be argued here that removing a permanent resident from Canada
is tantamount to denying for life a person's right to be with
family and friends, to earn a living or to communicate freely in
the course of daily living.
(1155 )
Let us look at some of the concerns raised by the Department
of Justice. There is a clear potential that even the simplest case
could become mired in constitutional wrangling, which could
stretch on for years and cost the taxpayers hundreds of
thousands if not millions of dollars.
12874
If the bill were to pass we would be transferring the
responsibility for removing potentially dangerous criminals
from the federal immigration department, whose
representatives are experts in the field, to the provincial crown
attorneys and judges. We should not dilute federal
responsibility for something as important as the deportation of
violent offenders.
It would take both time and money to train lawyers and judges
to deal with immigration cases. The international obligations
that Canada has with respect to immigration matters are not well
known to judges acting in criminal matters.
Plea bargaining could become a convenient way for people
who should not be in the country to stay in the country. There
would be also be more appeals to our overloaded courts.
Deportation can be a complex process requiring travel
documents and international co-operation. These are affairs
which are best handled by the immigration department, which
will continue to be responsible for all other deportations of
persons who have entered Canada illegally, have been convicted
of serious crimes in other countries or have otherwise violated
the Immigration Act.
Judges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt before they
can issue any court order. Bill C-316 as it stands could not
withstand a charter challenge. The federal court has established
that deportation is not a form of punishment but rather is an
administrative decision taken by Canada.
Let us look at some of the concerns raised by the Solicitor
General. The purpose of the Transfer of Offenders Act is to
accommodate non-Canadians serving sentences by making it
possible, on the basis of an arrangement between states, to
transfer offenders so they can serve time in their homeland. This
act is not meant to support orders which may have been made by
the court.
Bill C-316 proposes that the act be amended to allow Canada
to remove any foreign criminal serving time in a Canadian
prison. There is absolutely no incentive for foreign countries to
pass treaties with Canada whereby we would transfer to them the
cost of punishing offenders who have committed crimes in
Canada.
The government wants to ensure that all dangerous foreign
offenders are ordered removed. We also want to ensure that the
humanitarian concerns, which are an important part of the
immigration system, are consistently applied to all persons
subject to removal orders.
Bill C-44 seeks to remove all appeal rights from the
Immigration and Refugee Board by dangerous criminals hoping
to delay or prevent their removal from Canada. It also would
prevent the release of unescorted convicted criminals under
deportation order from Canadian prisons until they can be
removed from Canada.
Many of the proposals which this bill would seem to resolve
have already been dealt with in Bill C-44. The system works,
but it could work far better than it does at the present time. The
hon. member for Cambridge is clearly pointing out that there is
need for change. We are taking action, but we must weigh our
options carefully. All too often there is a difference between
what sounds good and what is practical.
(1200 )
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to address the House of Commons today on the
issue of Bill C-316, an act to amend the Immigration Act and
Transfer of Offenders Act, tabled by the hon. member for
Cambridge.
There is no doubt that Canada is one of the most welcoming
countries in the world for those emigrating for family or
business reasons and for those fleeing persecution around the
world. Because of this tradition, the people of Canada were
awarded the Nanson medal by the United Nations high
commissioner for refugees, a recognition of the entire nation's
outstanding efforts on behalf of refugees.
We all want to preserve this tradition. However, it has become
apparent in the past few years that a system that was designed to
be fair, compassionate, and open became overburdened with the
number of applicants waiting to come to Canada. The system
showed signs of breakdown. Cracks began to appear. Some
immigrants and refugees were being processed who perhaps
should not have been. Many immigrants who had arrived as
youngsters may have found themselves in their teens or early
twenties in the midst of a recession and perhaps with a lack of
opportunities.
Any society during tough economic times sees the crime rate
rise as people become frustrated. Several high profile
horrendous crimes that were prominently reported in the
newspapers involved non-citizens. I think of the tragic shooting
deaths of constable Todd Baylis and Georgina Leimonis.
Canadians began questioning what had gone wrong. Why had
these young men with lengthy criminal records slipped through
the cracks?
When this government was elected it promised to make homes
and streets safer places for all Canadians. In response to our
promises and to address the problems demonstrated by these
high profile crimes, the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration introduced Bill C-44. This bill took steps to
eliminate the cracks that had previously appeared in the
immigration and deportation systems.
My hon. colleague from Cambridge has been moved by the
letters and interventions from constituents in his riding, young
12875
and old alike, and has therefore taken the initiative to learn what
could be done and to respond with legislation on the issue.
The highlights of Bill C-316 can be summarized as follows.
The proposed bill aims to improve the way in which
deportations of violent offenders who are non-citizens are
carried out. The bill enables the court, in addition to any other
sentence, to order the removal of a non-citizen convicted of an
offence punishable by 10 or more years. The bill accelerates the
deportation process, thereby saving Canadian taxpayers much
money.
The bill does not apply to anyone arriving in Canada prior to
16 years of age as long as that individual remains free of
criminal convictions for a period of five years. We must, as
Canadians, take responsibility for some of those who are raised
in our society.
Foreign offenders could be returned to their country of origin
if reciprocal conditional release conditions existed and if so
ordered by the courts. Currently an offender is transferred if he
agrees to be transferred.
I too have heard from constituents on this issue. Many are
outraged over the senseless killings of constable Baylis and Ms.
Leimonis. I support the general intent of this bill and I believe it
to be in keeping with both our immigration and justice policies.
I do have some concern that the dependants of individuals
would also be subject to removal. This perhaps could be an area
that could be revisited on a case by case basis as the practical
implications are considered.
It is my understanding that provisions allowing the judge to
order the removal of offenders is something that may be
considered by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration at
some future time. While some of our hon. colleagues have
difficulty with the constitutionality of this provision, some say
that such treatment would discriminate between citizens and
non-citizens. Non-citizens are, under the law, subject to
removal in any event under the current immigration policies.
This bill only provides for an expedient and cost efficient
alternative as to who might make this removal order. I do
recommend, however, that safeguards be built in as to the ability
to avoid plea bargaining to avoid the removal order. I would like
to see some provisions that the removal order not be dealt with
in conjunction with the sentence.
I certainly support the addition of the clause that provides for
exception for those offenders who entered Canada before the age
of 16 years and who have been free of criminal conviction for
five years. This is fair and in keeping with our immigration
policy principles. I refer to the situation of Mr. Clinton Gayle,
who came to Canada at a young age and was under a removal
order. It was over two years old. While Mr. Gayle may have been
socializing in Canada, it was determined that he should be
removed. These removal orders must be dealt with immediately.
The bill before the House does not deal explicitly with the
issue of enforcement and process. One can conclude that if an
offender is in custody and has been sentenced and a removal
order made, the offender will not be released back into the
community. Deportation of undesirables who have no respect
for the laws of our country and who jeopardize our safety and
security should be removed. This should be done swiftly, surely
and immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired.
(1205 )
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
12875
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. On Friday I sent letters to the Prime Minister, the Leader
of the Official Opposition, and the Speaker's office requesting
an emergency debate on the Bosnian situation. I believe that
Canadians are totally outraged by the lack of action and the lack
of information.
I rise and ask for unanimous consent to suspend the business
of the House for today and begin an immediate emergency
debate on this issue. Canadian troops are being held hostage and
are in imminent danger. It is therefore vital that Parliament
immediately deal with this issue.
I realize that the BQ has asked for unanimous consent to begin
debate at 6 p.m., but given the urgency of the situation I do not
believe we should wait any longer. We need a debate now and I
am asking for that decision now.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member heard my remarks
earlier in response to the House leader for the official opposition
when he rose a half hour ago and made essentially the same
request.
I am aware that the hon. member regards the situation as
urgent. Standing Order 52 of the rules of the House of Commons
provides an opportunity for the hon. member to ask the Speaker
to order an emergency debate. That opportunity will be afforded
to him at three o'clock this afternoon. That is only three hours
away. I am sure the hon. member can wait.
12876
We have a significant number of urgent government bills
before the House to be dealt with today, and members are here
and ready to deal with those.
Mr. Silye: MPs' pensions.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says MPs' pensions. That is
not one of the bills on today's Order Paper, and he knows that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would not want to
set the precedent that when any member from any party from
any side of the House should want to ask for unanimous consent
we would engage in a debate before the actual question be put to
the House.
I know the subject matter is one that is deemed of great
importance. This is twice today that we are dealing with this
question, and possibly we will deal with it again later today or
maybe even now, whatever the choice may be by the House.
I simply put the question to the House following the
intervention from the hon. member for Red Deer for unanimous
consent for an emergency debate. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
_____________________________________________
12876
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
On the Order: Government Orders:
May 29, 1994-The Minister of Industry-Second reading and reference to
the Standing Committee on Industry of Bill C-91, an act to continue the Federal
Business Development Bank under the name Business Development Bank of
Canada.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-91, an act to continue the Federal Business Development Bank
under the name Business Development Bank of Canada, be referred forthwith to
the Standing Committee on Industry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to begin debate on the
motion to refer Bill C-91, the Business Development Bank of
Canada Act, to committee before second reading.
I have every confidence that the members of the committee
will bring their ideas and convictions to bear on this legislation,
which establishes a new mandate for the Federal Business
Development Bank under the name of the Business
Development Bank of Canada.
The objective of Bill C-91 is to make government assistance
in the area of commercial financing more efficient, effective,
and relevant to the needs of small business.
[Translation]
The bill reaffirms the bank's mandate, which is to provide
management, consulting and training services to Canadian
entrepreneurs. Small business is faced with a variety of
challenges, ranging from the tax burden and deregulation to
skills improvement and technology acquisition. But the most
pressing need certainly remains sufficient financing and
adequate consulting services in commercial management.
Without financing and adequate consulting services, small
business cannot set out to conquer either the national or the
international market.
(1210)
It is essential that small businesses have access to financing
through debt financing, as well as equity financing at every
stage of their development, but especially at the initial stage.
Let us look at the challenges small businesses face when
seeking debt or equity financing, in terms of four weaknesses in
the services currently provided by Canada's financial markets.
First is the risk factor, as several lending institutions are
reluctant to grant loans to certain small businesses, even at rates
that take into account the higher risk associated with such loans.
Second is the size of the loan. Whether the loan requested is
for $1 million or $50,000, the cost to the bank or venture capital
holders to prepare and assess business plans and financial
proposals as well as to monitor the progress of the venture
generally remain constant.
Third is knowledge. Often financial institutions are not
familiar with the nature of industries emerging in the new
economy. They do not have any tried and true method to assess
the risk associated with granting a loan to new industries or
investing in them.
Fourth is flexibility. Lenders are often reluctant to provide
financing to potential winners on flexible terms. Traditional
lenders usually require payments to spread over the term of the
loan. This type of financing can prove overwhelming for
businesses at the product development stage, as these businesses
have not yet reached the point where they can generate enough
sales revenue to offset their debt.
These four problems arise from the fact that our economy is
changing rapidly. In meeting the challenges of a knowledge
based market, small business has modernized much more
rapidly than traditional financial institutions.
[English]
The small business community in Canada must move swiftly
to innovate and to secure a share of emerging business opportu-
12877
nities. The Canadian economy as a whole relies upon their
abilities and entrepreneurship to sustain economic growth and
to create jobs.
Here is an instance where government can make a difference
to the marketplace. No one is suggesting that governments can
replace private sector financial institutions in meeting the needs
of the marketplace, but it is in situations such as those I have
described where government can provide leadership. We need
leadership to demonstrate that it is possible to address the needs
of small business in the knowledge economy. One government
institution has experience and skills to provide that leadership:
the Federal Business Development Bank.
Members may be aware that the bank is approaching its $3.2
billion statutory ceiling for capital and liabilities. With no
change to this ceiling, the bank would have to ration credit,
turning away qualified entrepreneurs who otherwise are
positioned to create jobs. Under this legislation the bank's
capital and liability ceiling would be removed and the bank
would be subject to a 10-year legislative review, which is
similar to the requirements imposed on chartered banks under
the Bank Act.
Hon. members will recall that in the 1995 budget the finance
minister said that the bank and regional agencies will forge new
strategic alliances to ensure co-ordinated delivery of business
financing. The bank's new mandate will encourage stronger
partnerships and increased cooperation with the regional
agencies and other federal financial institutions such as the
Export Development Corporation.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue of regional
development by showing how important the Federal Business
Development Bank is in Quebec. Its head office is located in
Montreal, and nearly twenty per cent of its offices are in
Quebec.
(1215)
Over the course of 50 years, the FBDB has provided more than
$4.5 billion in loans to small and medium size businesses in
Quebec. At present, the loan portfolio for Quebec totals $1.1
billion, shared among 3,600 clients. These past five years,
FBDB clients have created 8,500 new jobs and more than 9,000
entrepreneurs in Quebec have benefited from management
consulting services provided by the bank.
[English]
A similarly impressive story can be told elsewhere in the
country. The arrangements we are making with regional
agencies, in co-operation with the provinces and territories, will
avoid costly overlap and duplication.
Finally, I want the House to understand that Bill C-91 is a key
element in our commitment to provide leadership in creating a
business climate that promotes small business growth,
innovation and job creation. I believe that the innovative
approaches the Business Development Bank of Canada will
take after this legislation comes into effect will show the
chartered banks in Canada that there is a profitable future for
them in the service of Canadian small businesses.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak on Bill C-91, an act to continue the
Federal Business Development Bank under the name Business
Development Bank of Canada. I want to draw your attention
immediately to the fact that the legislation proposes to continue
the Federal Business Development Bank. However, after my
comments, you will see that this is hardly the case.
We oppose this bill. As the critic for industry, I oppose this
bill for three main reasons, but also for another reason which my
colleagues will tell you more about and which concerns regional
development. The three main reasons we oppose this legislation
are the name change from Federal Business Development Bank
to Business Development Bank of Canada, the change in the
status or purpose of the new Business Development Bank of
Canada, compared to that of the original Federal Business
Development Bank and, finally, the issue of the new so-called
hybrid capital instruments, which we will discuss in greater
detail.
I will first deal with the name change from Federal Business
Development Bank to Business Development Bank of Canada.
The issue was discussed by members of the Standing Committee
on Industry, after the parliamentary secretary made that
proposal somewhat unexpectedly. The committee did not reject
the suggestion for reasons of courtesy and also to avoid any
conflict. However, even Liberal members seemed
uncomfortable with the idea. The proposal made by the
parliamentary secretary sought to change the name Federal
Business Development Bank to Canadian Bank for Small
Businesses.
Again, committee members accepted that proposal out of
respect for the parliamentary secretary. If you read the report
tabled by the committee, you will not see any mention of that
proposal. That recommendation was made out of the blue, and
everyone felt that the name Canadian Bank for Small Businesses
was too restrictive. The fact is that the Federal Business
Development Bank is involved in the financing of more than just
small businesses. Consequently, the proposed name was too
restrictive and should have been rejected, but was accepted out
of courtesy.
Now we find ourselves at the other end of the spectrum with
the name Business Development Bank of Canada. Please note
that the French name of the new bank makes no reference to
``business''. So what we have with this bill is a switch from
small businesses alone to the development of the whole of
Canada. And this is just as extreme. I do not think that Canada's
development is related to a bank, nor is that of Quebec. All this
is to say that the original name, Federal Business Development
Bank, is well-known and respected in Canada and Quebec, and
we do not see why it should be changed. Such a change would
12878
result in a waste of money and energy, given the costs generated
in terms of paper burden, logos, etc. Again, this change would
result in useless spending and a waste of energy.
The name Business Development Bank of Canada is no better
than that of Canadian Bank for Small Businesses.
(1220)
The second point that deserves criticism, and a fundamental
one, is the change of mandate implied by the so-called
maintenance of the Federal Bank, which is becoming the
Business Development Bank of Canada. This is being done
without debate or consultation. It has come out of nowhere and
is not based on any mandate. Nobody asked the federal
government to change the name of the Federal Business
Development Bank. This is done in a routine manner, on the sly,
by administrative means, the way this government likes to do
things; and that may be the Canada of the future, where things
will be done in a routine manner, on the sly. They have come up
with this proposal that has nothing to do with what the
proceedings of the Standing Committee on Industry, of which I
am the vice-chairman, led us to expect. There was no
recommendation to that effect.
Previously, the Federal Business Development Bank had a
very specific mandate as the last resort for small and medium
size businesses. Its primary concern was the development of
small and medium size businesses, as stated in section 20(1)(b)
which specified that the borrowing legal entity could get a loan
if: ``credit or other financial resources are not otherwise
available to that person on reasonable terms and conditions''.
That is what led the Federal Bank to be described as a last
resort bank. After one or two refusals at the hands of lending
institutions, the borrower, provided it had a good record, could
get a loan from the FBDB, once those conditions were met.
At that time, the federal bank was concerned only with
economic development through the assistance provided to small
and medium size businesses. As we can see in subclause 4(2) of
the Business Development Bank of Canada Act, the purpose of
the bank will now be to support Canadian entrepreneurship. In
carrying out its activities, the bank must give particular
consideration to the needs of small businesses.
What is being proposed is a far cry from the last resort bank
totally dedicated to small businesses development in Canada.
As we will see later on with my colleagues, the scope of the
bank's activities is being extended. Clauses 20 and 21 of the bill
allow outright interference in everything related to development
in Canada, at the expense of provincial governments, and more
particularly the Quebec government, by promoting regional
development in Quebec's stead by way of unconstitutional or
virtually unconstitutional dealings, with Quebec parties.
We already know the Canadian government will try to entice
Quebec institutions and companies by telling them: if you want
our money, you should ask an equal amount from the Quebec
government; if it refuses, that will put an end to our
involvement. We can see through that kind of trickery, specially
on the eve of the referendum.
If Quebecers vote no at the next referendum, it is that kind of
centralist instrument that will be used in the Canada of the
future.
With Bill C-91, the bank will not be a last resort bank but a
complementary lender to other traditional banks on the market.
It will be empowered to make agreements with any organization
to become its agent in order to provide services, programs, and
financing. It will also be allowed to set up lending consortiums.
This is a far cry from the development of small businesses.
Those lending consortiums could include both private and
public partners.
We think that the complementary role of the Business
Development Bank of Canada should be limited to filling the
gaps on the market and thus improving the situation. We should
specify that its primary role and mandate is to meet the needs of
small business, as is said in the act.
Before I conclude, I would like to touch briefly on the new
so-called hybrid capital instruments. That means that the
federal bank will be able to tap private capital instead of relying
solely on government funds, as it has up to now.
(1225)
Nowhere is it mentioned that, in order to attract private
capital, there will be a fixed rate of return. So, the new bank may
have to focus on profit maximization in order to provide the
most interesting rates of return possible. This will mean a
complete turnaround for the new bank, since the old one had
fixed rates and could focus solely on economic development.
I want to draw the attention of members to clause 36 that
provides for the confidentiality of the information held by the
bank. It says that the bank has to protect the information it
gathers.
Members have to remember that the committee recommended
that information be systematically gathered from all financial
institutions in Canada under the direction of the Bank of
Canada, Statistics Canada and the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions. This bill will hopefully include a provision in order
for the new bank to co-operate in inquiries supported by
Parliament.
12879
By the way, I see that the Bankers' Association is against the
bill, which is a good indication that the government has some
very concrete plans in mind. We all know that the Liberal
government and the bankers usually agree, but not this time.
Why? Probably because the government has some other
motives that are political and not economic, especially where
the province of Quebec is concerned, in order first to influence
the referendum and then to be the only one in charge of
economic development in Canada, hence building a centralized
and increasingly unitary state.
These are some of the reasons why we will vote against this
bill.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would like to take a
moment to remind the House that pursuant to Standing Order 73,
under which we are presently conducting our affairs, members
have 10 minutes for their interventions, without questions or
comments.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate. Once again I am
moved to ask myself the rhetorical question: What is it about
getting elected that makes venture capitalists out of us all? What
is it about getting elected that makes us feel we should be
imposing our collective wisdom on the private sector? I would
like to address my short remarks at this juncture to that basic
premise.
When those of us in this body get together to deliberate, to
create laws and entities, the overriding principle we should
have, is this: Government should not be involved in any
enterprise which is being carried out or could be carried out by
private enterprise. We have no business, in my estimation,
getting involved in any way, in setting up a crown corporation,
which is what we are doing, in competition with existing
businesses.
We may not like the banks. Canadians may not get up in the
morning and say: ``Thank God we have the Royal Bank'' or
``Thank God we have the Toronto-Dominion Bank'' or any bank
for that matter. We already have mature, functioning and very
capable banking institutions.
In the context of what the establishment of a crown
corporation in the financial sector will do to enhance the
competitiveness of Canadian business, to promote
entrepreneurship, to be an incubator of new business, or in any
way enhance the standard of living in Canada, we will find that
the legislation falls far short of the mark. All it does is create one
more bureaucratic organization.
Having said that, I do not fault the rationale or the thinking
behind the initial desire to do this. Not too long ago the people of
Ontario and Quebec, in particular, found that the heavy hand of
recession dealt a vital and terrible blow to the entrepreneur and
to the people involved in the business sector, particularly the
small business sector. In the west particularly in Alberta, we felt
that about 10 or 12 years earlier.
(1230)
The industry committee, in its report dealing with small
business which we worked on for months and months and
months, the whole idea was to make the banking institutions in
Canada far more responsive to the needs of Canadian business,
small business in particular. Then what is it about this new
expanded Federal Business Development Bank that is going to
change all that?
The role of opposition is to oppose legislation preferred by the
government. The intent is to make the legislation better, to point
out weaknesses in the government's legislation. Looking at it
from that perspective and looking at this legislation and the
rationale behind the change in the Federal Business
Development Bank, we would first have to ask what the mandate
is.
Looking at it from the devil's advocate point of view, what is
the mandate of the new Federal Business Development Bank,
renamed the Business Development Bank of Canada? According
to a news release under the minister's hand the mandate of the
new bank is to develop and deliver innovative responses to small
business financing and managerial needs. If ever there was a
motherhood statement, that has got to be it. How could we
possibly argue with such a motherhood statement?
I am a small businessman. The Reform Party is 100 per cent
behind the notion of incubating, helping and working with small
business. However we are not in the business of competing with
existing businesses, even if those competing and existing
businesses are, God forbid, banks. Banks already exist.
There is no need for Canadian taxpayers, however tenuously,
to be supporting or propping up yet another crown corporation
which is what this new entity will be. We are at this very moment
trying to get rid of crown corporations. There is the privatization
of CN and the recent privatization of Air Canada. Why on earth
would we want to set up a crown corporation in the banking
sector?
I have already covered the point that there are many people in
Canada represented by this side of the House, and I am sure
many people in Canada represented by the people opposite, who
feel that we should not be reinventing the wheel. We should not
be putting our energies into creating something that already
exists.
Then the question is: Will this new entity do something
different? I tried to find out if it would or would not. I went into
the historical record. A speech was delivered to the Board of
Trade of metropolitan Montreal on October 25, 1994 by Mr.
François Beaudoin. Mr. Beaudoin is now the president and chief
executive officer of the new Business Development Bank. He
quite accurately pointed out that there are three developing
sectors of our economy that need attention: export markets, the
12880
new economy, and working capital. He said that these are three
areas in which business really needs some significant support.
He makes the case that 85 per cent of Canada's exports are
generated by only 900 businesses. Only 900 businesses in
Canada represent 85 per cent of our total exports. The majority
of our total exports is in lumber and cars. That very clearly
identifies the fact that we should have far more emphasis in our
country on entrepreneurial zeal in exporting. What then is this
new bank going to do that the Export Development Bank does
not already do? We already have the Export Development Bank.
Its mandate is to do exactly that.
(1235 )
That portion of the business development bank's new mandate
that has as its central purpose the incubation and education of
entrepreneurs is something we can support very handily. This
new bank is to be nothing more than a bigger, broader
representation of the bank which is already in place.
The legislation allows the federally funded crown corporation
business development bank which is eventually backed by the
Government of Canada to have as an asset base almost $20
billion. The total small business portfolio of all the banks in
Canada combined is something in the region of $40 billion.
According to the banks, there is more money available than
there are people asking for it, based on quality loans.
The last thing in the world we want is the situation whereby
the existing banks in Canada are able to tell people who ask them
for a loan: ``Hey, we think you have a great idea but it is a little
risky for us. Why not go over to the new business development
bank and ask it for the money?'' Therefore, the government is
going to absorb the responsibility and liability for all these loans
which should rightfully go to the chartered banks. They are the
ones that exist in Canada and have the utility, ability and the
experience to do everything that is already being done. Our role
is to make sure they do the job. Our role is not to put together a
complementary lender.
One area the Federal Business Development Bank wants to
get involved in is providing working capital loans based on
receivables and inventory. Well, where has it been? Does every
bank not extend operating loans based on receivables and
inventory?
In the vast majority of loans existing with the Federal
Business Development Bank today, 53 per cent are in loans of
$100,000 to $500,000. The loan portfolio for loans of less than
$25,000 for the Federal Business Development Bank which is
really the incubator of small business is 1.2 per cent of its total
portfolio. Writing these small loans is very risky and very
expensive. Of course, the banks do not want to do it. However,
we in the House should be very careful that we do not increase
the liability to individual Canadian taxpayers just so we can
make it easier for the banks to slough off their responsibility to
the government funded bank.
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to support Bill C-91, the Business Development Bank of
Canada Act. The legislation represents the next step in the
evolution of an institution that has a long and honourable
tradition of helping Canadian business respond to the changing
demands of the economy.
Fifty-one years ago the industrial development bank was
created to help wartime manufacturers convert their facilities
for peacetime operations. These businesses needed special
attention because it was virtually impossible for them to obtain
term loans. At that time chartered banks were prohibited by the
Bank Act for making loans against mortgage security.
The majority of IDB loans during its early years went to
companies such as machine shops, sawmills, textile and
garment factories, flour mills and auto parts manufacturers. In
other words, the bank responded to the emerging industries of
the day in a nation that was converting its wartime industrial
capacity to new challenges.
As the nation's economy changed, so did the nature of the
bank's customers. The business community began to respond to
new opportunities of the post-war boom and the bank began to
lend to wholesalers, retailers, restaurants and the hotel industry
among others.
In the 1950s and 1960s the bank began to open branches in
non-metropolitan areas of the country. This was a bold move at
the time. The chartered banks followed the experiment with a
great deal of interest. By the end of its second decade, the IDB
had 22 branches across the country.
(1240)
[Translation]
In 1971, the bank began to give businesses regular advice on
how to run their operations efficiently. The bank became the
only national organization to provide management services,
such as consulting, training and planning, to small businesses.
In 1975, the Federal Business Development Bank was created
as a crown corporation. Since then, businesses could no longer
rely on government grants to execute their bank transactions.
The new agency also decided to take up the challenge of
providing risk capital to entrepreneurs. Today, the bank has
offices in all provinces and territories. It employs 900 people
who furnish financial as well as management services to
Canadian small and medium size businesses.
12881
Last year, the bank's share financing increased by 45 per
cent, for a total of $80 million. As the years went by, the bank
acquired an excellent reputation in the field of customer
services. According to the most recent survey, 97 per cent of
the bank's customers said that they would deal again with the
bank and the same proportion of customers said that they would
recommend the bank to other people.
[English]
It has become apparent that the FBDB must continue to evolve
to meet the changing demands of the economy. This need to
change has been widely discussed. In its report ``Taking Care of
Small Business'', the Standing Committee on Industry
recommended that the mandate of the FBDB be ``refocused as a
complementary lender to small and medium sized businesses
and that it be authorized to use new financial instruments to
fulfil its mandate''.
The small business working committee emphasized that
government sponsored programs should be refocused to fill
financing gaps that are not now served adequately by the private
sector. Among its recommendations are the following: ``To
enforce the FBDB's mandate to ensure that its activities are
filling the financing gaps, and funding small businesses in all
regions of the country including those associated with small and
micro businesses requiring loans of less than $100,000, as well
as addressing gaps in regional and sectoral lending and working
capital requirements''. The committee stated: ``These
objectives should be pursued on a full cost recovery basis''.
The Federal Business Development Bank Act has not been
amended since originally passed in 1974. It requires updating to
reflect market developments such as the use of financial
instruments that had not been invented in 1974. Moreover, the
bank is now operating at near its statutory ceiling and financial
ratios. To respond to forecasted business volume we need to act
quickly to provide the legislated authority to increase the bank's
equity. If the statutory lending cap is not changed soon, the bank
could be forced to ration credit to businesses in the near future.
Under its proposed expanded mandate the Business
Development Bank of Canada will be better positioned and
equipped to address the specific needs of small business through
innovative financing. It will operate where market forces fail to
provide access to financing for promising business ventures.
Under its new mandate the bank will continue to be active in
smaller loans and investments in its lending and venture capital
programs. It will increase quasi-equity and working capital
financings. It will also focus more on knowledge based firms
without abandoning its traditional activities.
The Business Development Bank of Canada Act will provide
the bank with the ability and resources to keep abreast of
changing requirements at a time when the small business
community in Canada needs the flexibility the bank can offer.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am glad to rise in the House to talk about Bill C-91, which aims
at changing the function and mandate of the Federal Business
Development Bank and at renaming it the Business
Development Bank of Canada.
I have a few questions to ask about the bill. It is a bit
disturbing because the Federal Business Development Bank as
we know it works very well.
(1245)
I met its president in Quebec City. As we know, the Bank
lends almost one third of its money-about $1.3 billion-in
Quebec. Finally, it serves very well its purpose of bank of last
resort. Moreover, the Federal Business Development Bank, as it
is now, gives training courses for people who want to start new
businesses. These are excellent courses and many Quebec
entrepreneurs have taken them. Right now, the bank is
self-financing and does not cost Canadian taxpayers one penny.
Nonetheless, Bill C-91 will change the mandate of the bank
and radically transform its capital structure. The bank now has a
statutory borrowing limit of about $3.2 billion but it is proposed
to eliminate that limit and to allow the new bank to borrow as
much as it wants. I will come back to that later. This change in
the capital structure is disturbing because it will allow the bank
to enter into partnership with other organizations and other
banks.
The capital structure and the mandate of the bank will be
changed completely. Right now, the bank is a last resort lender.
It makes loans to business people who cannot borrow from
commercial banks via the usual channels. There is a real need
for that kind of service. But the Federal Business Development
Bank will not necessarily have this last resort mandate any
longer since the new mandate will require the FBDB to support
other projects through partnerships or through top-up funding.
This compromises its original mandate which was to offer last
resort funding to businesses.
This is quite disturbing because one has to wonder who will
do this job if the Federal Business Development Bank is no
longer doing it. If the FBDB changes its mandate and works
increasingly in partnership with other banks, who will take over
the mandate that is presently carried out so efficiently by the
Federal Business Development Bank? It is just as though all last
resort cases will be ignored.
But the most troubling question regarding this bill relates to
the government's motive for introducing it. Why is the
government proposing to change the bank's capital structure and
mandate? Why is it removing the loan ceiling and telling the
bank not to be a last resort lending institution any longer but to
go into partnership with other banks and other agencies in
projects related mainly to small and medium size businesses
12882
and exports? There are good reasons for trying to find out the
motive for such changes.
(1250)
Do we really want to help small and medium size businesses
or do we want to compete with existing financial institutions?
We have to ask the question because this bill allows the Federal
Business Development Bank, under its new mandate, to
compete directly with existing financial institutions. It is
troubling.
In fact, should the federal government compete with the
private sector? The government has already made such an
attempt in another bill, Bill C-52 brought forward by the
Minister of Public Works, giving itself the power to compete
directly with engineering and architecture firms. Strangely
enough, this bill was withdrawn when we started to criticize the
government after realizing that these engineering and
architecture firms were concentrated in Quebec. We realized
that 90 per cent of the businesses that the government would
compete with were located in Quebec, and that is why the bill
was withdrawn.
But the government is at it again, giving the Federal Business
Development Bank a similar but broader mandate since we are
no longer talking about one sector, engineering and architecture,
but almost any kind of partnership for economic development.
And anybody who takes the time to read the definition of the
mandate in clauses 20 and 21 will see that it is very broad. There
are no limits to this new bank's mandate.
This is what is troubling, because we know that some of the
best examples of the growth of small and medium size
businesses in Canada have been in Quebec. It is well known that,
if there is one sector in Quebec that has distinguished itself, and
is on the cutting edge, it is the small and medium size business
sector.
We have established funds in Quebec for the development of
small and medium size business, such as the solidarity funds of
the FTQ and the CNTU, and a number of programs, such as those
of the caisses populaires. It is a very active sector. Why, then, is
Canada changing the mandate of the Federal Business
Development Bank in order to enter this sector? Does it want to
compete with Quebec's caisses populaires? Does it want to
compete with the solidarity funds of the FTQ and the CNTU?
Ultimately, can it overstep the authority of the province,
which has already established a regional development program,
in order to once again increase the visibility of the federal
government in Quebec, as it has done elsewhere in Canada
furthermore, but particularly in Quebec? Is there a hidden
agenda in this bill, a deliberate wish to weaken the many
programs that have been established in Quebec by the banks and
the solidarity funds, as well as the programs established by the
Quebec government itself?
These are some of the questions that come to mind with
respect to Bill C-91. There is no compelling need for the Federal
Business Development Bank to have a new mandate, when the
one it now has is perfectly sufficient. One could wonder whether
beyond the economic purpose of this bill there is not another
deeper political purpose. That, in fact, is why I personally will
not support this bill. Basically, the purpose of this bill is a purely
political one. Coming from Quebec, from the riding of
Québec-Est, I can see that the Federal Business Development
Bank, this new bank, holds nothing for us. It would be better to
keep it in its present form.
(1255)
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are debating whether Bill C-91 should be referred
to the committee before second reading. In many ways that is
positive in the sense that it opens up the debate and allows
elements to be raised which would otherwise be restricted
because of the conventions of the House. I hope that will be the
case and that it will not be a way to circumscribe or limit certain
amendments or debate which might otherwise receive the light
of day in the House.
I have concerns about Bill C-91 which we ought to look at
before we submit it to committee. Changing the name of this
bank I do not think will change anything at all. It will cost a lot
of money to print new stationery, to put up all the new signs and
all those things. What will changing the name do to the actual
purpose, function and operation of the bank? I submit it will do
nothing.
It sets up a crown corporation which has as its capitalization
part a number of instruments which are being used. It has
common shares which have a par value of $100. It has preferred
shares which are unlimited in number, as are the common
shares. The preferred shares have no par value. Hybrid capital
instruments will be part of the capitalization. These will be paid
in capital by the Parliament of Canada by a parliamentary
appropriation but there will be no indication as to how much.
There will be retained earnings and contributed surplus to a
maximum of $1.5 billion.
There are other provisions which I will draw to the attention
of the House, particularly sections 21 and 22, specifically
section 22(e). Section 22 includes the ancillary powers but
section 22(e) is particularly interesting. The bank may acquire,
hold, exchange, lease, sell or otherwise dispose of any interest
in real or personal property and retain and use the proceeds of
disposition. That kind of provision raises some very interesting
questions. How much real estate will the new business
development bank of Canada be prepared to buy? What will it do
with that real estate? Will it deviate from its traditional role,
which
12883
has been to lease real property in which it carries on its business,
or will it develop a series of branches throughout the country?
Other sections of the bill also give to the board, to the
Minister of Finance and to the cabinet powers which rightfully
belong to the Parliament of Canada.
Section 27 gives some very specific powers to the board:
Subject to the approval of the governor in council on the recommendation of
the Minister of Finance, the board may make bylaws
(a) setting out the rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions attaching to
preferred shares, creating one or more additional classes of preferred shares
and generally determining the rights and obligations of the holders of
preferred shares, including
(i) limiting the right of the shareholders to specific dividends or repayments,
whether fixed or variable,
(ii) authorizing the purchase or redemption of the shares by the bank, either
at the bank's option or at the shareholder's request, and
(iii) limiting or extending the rights of the shareholders in any other way;
That is the second class of shares which makes up the capital
of this bank, which really gives to the board the authority to
determine how the bank shall be structured. That kind of power
ought not to be given to a cabinet. It ought to exist with
Parliament because this bank through the Minister of Finance
and the cabinet, given this provision, allows that group to create
a liability of $18 billion for the Canadian taxpayer.
Who is the shareholder talked about in section 27? The
shareholder is the Government of Canada. The Government of
Canada now will be told it may or may not own these preferred
shares. It may or may not be paid a dividend. It may be paid this
much of a dividend or this little of a dividend. That becomes the
issue.
(1300)
Other provisions of the bill ought to be of direct interest to
each of us. In particular, I would like to look at subsections 18(4)
and (6).
Subsection 18(4) states that the bank may enter into any
transactions for the financial management of the bank,
including any financial instrument of financial risk such as
interest rate or currency exchange agreements, options, futures
contracts and any other similar agreements.
Another way of looking at this is that these are derivatives. It
permits the personnel of the bank to enter into futures contracts,
options, purchasing and selling of options with public money
which should be considered a sacred trust. If we look at the way
the options market operates and the futures contracts work it
means the bank is speculating with Canadian money or has the
opportunity to do so.
I am sure the argument will be presented that it will use this
only for purposes of hedging interest rate and currency
fluctuations. If the bill specified that there were limitations one
might not have such grave concern. Because there are no
limitations it does not prevent the manager or the president or
whoever is in charge from getting into the market directly. It
should be a major concern to all of us. Just remember what
happened in the Barings bank.
Other sections of the bill should give us grave concern. The
designated minister is identified in section 21. Who is the
designated minister? At the moment it is the Minister of
Industry. It is possible that cabinet could designate any other
minister. For example, FORD-Q is one of the regional
development portfolios. We heard the Minister of Industry say
this morning that one of the purposes of the new mandate is to
expand it so that it would include regional development and
things of that sort.
Would it not be interesting if for certain matters the Minister
of Human Resources Development were designated as the
minister of the bank and could direct the bank? In another
instance it could be the minister of FORD-Q and in a third
instance it could be the Minister of Industry and so on down the
line. There is nothing in the bill to prevent that sort of thing from
happening.
The obvious questions we have to ask is what can this bank do
that the other banks cannot do. What can the other banks do that
the this bank cannot do? If it is none of those things and this bank
is doing nothing more or less than what the other banks are
doing, what in the world are we doing this for?
Some specific arguments ought to be addressed as well. The
indication is that this bank shall be complementary to the
existing financial institutions, particularly the banks. Then the
bill does not define the word ``complementary''. The only
reference in the proposed bill that deals with the previous act is
that complementary is taken as that section which deals with the
previous section saying that it must be the bank of last resort. In
other words, the applicant has to be refused by some other
institution before he can apply for money here.
Does complementary mean that it will make loans of an
operational capital requirement? Does it mean that it will
become a deposit taking institution? What will the Business
Development Bank of Canada do that other banks do not? I
submit that it will do nothing more or less than is currently
available in the marketplace and it is not required.
12884
I want to throw out two more questions. First, will the bank
be able to expand its network of offices? Second, which is more
important, is: What is a hybrid capital instrument? It is not
defined in the bill. When asked what this means certain officials
were unable to answer that question but more significantly than
that hybrid financial instruments are different from any other
capitalization that is provided for in the other sections of the
bill.
(1305 )
The other one says that common shares, preferred shares and
hybrid capital instruments are not given to the government but
may be given to private individuals or persons other than the
government. What does it mean?
We must answer these questions before the bill is presented
seriously to the House.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to contribute to the debate on sending Bill C-91 to
committee before second reading.
Before that however I would like to address a couple of
statements made by the hon. member from Edmonton who
questioned the need of the FBD bank and indicated in his earlier
remarks that when there are already banks out there servicing
the community, do we need this?
I want to address those concerns because it is a fair question.
The very existence of this bank shows that the present banking
system does not meet the needs of small and medium sized
businesses. If it did, we would not need it. The present banks do
not service the financial requirements, sometimes the operating
line, and other needs.
As a small business person I and the hon. member who was
also in small business, know that there are a lot of good ideas out
there that often do not get financing, that do not get the funds or
the financial support from the community. For example, small
businesses may start as one or two person operations and expand
to become 100 and 200 person operations. As a government we
always have to look into the long term. We have to ensure that
we have a financial infrastructure to provide small business
people with the opportunities to expand and to create new
opportunities and employment.
As the hon. member knows, it is the small businesses that are
creating the jobs right now. We want to make sure that the
infrastructure is there for them to continue to do that. He will
know that many times many good ideas get lost because they are
not financed.
We can bury our heads in the sand and say: ``Everything is
fine. Everything is great out there. Every businessman, small or
medium, will be able to get financing. They will be able to get
the money when they need it for a very good idea that has great
opportunities,'' but that is not the reality.
Reality is a need for an organization such as the FBDB to
ensure the financing of those ideas that exist, that have a future,
that have potential. The government understands there is
tremendous opportunity not only in the short term but in the long
term to create employment and to create a strong, dynamic,
vibrant economy. That is what we have to do as a government.
We cannot stick our heads in the sand and say: ``Everything is
fine. We will leave it up to the big banks. We will leave it up to
the financial institutions. They will take care of small business.
They will do all the funding. They will fund the new
opportunities in the new economies''. That is not reality.
Innovation has always been the hallmark of the Federal
Business Development Bank. The secret of a bank's success has
been the close co-operation it has enjoyed with entrepreneurs
across the country. The bank has been able to stay abreast of
rapidly evolving markets and major trends such as the use of
information technology. It has always sought ways to offer new
services tailored to meet the increasing, complex needs of
entrepreneurs.
For example, a year ago the FBDB introduced a $50 million
financing program called working capital for growth. The hon.
member knows that one of the problems small businesses have is
getting working capital which is very important for their success
and growth.
Hon. members will recall that last year, the economy was
starting to gain momentum. For many businesses the new
opportunities were not matched by sufficient cash flow after
several years of a recession. They lacked sufficient cash to
finance the opportunities that arose.
The FBDB created its working capital for growth loans that
top up financing when conventional lending institutions that the
hon. member said would be able to provide these do not offer
sufficient lines of credit to support a company's growth.
In addition, FBDB business counsellors work with business
owners to ensure that their growth plan is well managed. The
maximum loan amount under this program is $100,000 and
repayment schedules are flexible and tailored to individual
needs.
(1310 )
Another example of innovation by the FBDB is the pilot
program called patient capital where returns take a long time
and where the return is not over a year or two years but a much
longer time. It responds to the needs of companies that do not
have the necessary financial resources to service debt during
their development stages. This is a problem particularly for new
companies in the knowledge based economy that may not have
tangible assets to offer as security.
These knowledge based economies have incredible barriers to
financing because they are difficult to assess. It is very difficult
for many bank managers to look at anything but basic fixed,
hard, tangible assets and assess the knowledge based assets, the
engineering, design and all the software knowledge. It is so hard
12885
to grasp the value of that and are very difficult to finance. They
do not have tangible assets to offer as security and therefore
financing is difficult.
The FBDB offers patient capital in quasi-equity forms of
financing which provides firms with long term capital on
flexible repayment terms. The repayment of patient capital can
be postponed for up to three years until a company begins to
generate revenues and a royalty on sales can be arranged.
The bank has been pilot testing this patient capital program in
Kitchener-Waterloo in co-operation with the Royal Bank and
Innovation Ontario. We hope that the test will prove successful
so that the FDBD can begin to offer this service across the
country. In this way the bank will help to close what the Minister
of Industry has referred to as the flexibility gap, one of the four
critical gaps that prevents small business from obtaining the
financing they need.
The flexibility gap refers to the problems small businesses
encounter when conventional lenders require a stream of
payment over the term of the loan. This can be impractical, for
example, for viable firms in the product development stages
which are not yet generating a mature cash flow.
The FBDB has already demonstrated innovative solutions by
providing quasi-equity financing approaches through long term
loans with flexible repayment requirements. This is what
Canada's small business communities need to obtain their
capital requirements and the FBDB is leading the way.
The other four gaps that the minister described have also been
addressed by the FBDB. Hon. members will recall that he spoke
of the risk gap. Conventional financial institutions, to which the
member would like to leave everything, are reluctant to set an
interest rate for high risk, smaller term loans that would
compensate them for increased risk. They tend to adopt
self-imposed ceilings with respect to the rates that are charged.
This has advantages for companies that are able to secure
financing. They will rarely pay more than the prime plus 2 per
cent. But many companies will be willing to pay higher rates in
acknowledgement of the increased risk the lender is taking.
A third structural weakness in the conventional financing
requirements in Canada the minister has described as the size
gap. I am sure many hon. members who have been involved in
business know about this. It is a result of the overhead costs that
a lender must incur in administering any loan, whether large or
small. The administrative costs associated with loans are similar
for the lender, whether it is a $50,000 loan or a $5 million loan.
Comparing the profits that the lending institution can make by
providing the two loans, there is no question that a conventional
lending institution tends to serve its larger customers first.
In Canada today we can point to hundreds of examples of
small customers who have grown to become big customers. The
$50,000 loan of today may become the $5 million loan of
tomorrow. The FBDB has been created precisely to respond to
the needs of the smaller customer.
The fourth gap in lending institutions the minister has
referred to is the knowledge gap. It is carefully interrelated to
each of the other gaps but has a particular emphasis on what the
lender understands about the nature of the new economy.
How does the lender take into account the assets that leave the
building each night? I am referring to the human assets, the
ingenuity, the creativity of engineers, the vision of the design
teams, the basic entrepreneurial skills of the owners? In the
knowledge economy these are perhaps the most valuable assets
of all.
(1315)
How can lenders assess the viability of new forms of
enterprise? By what standards can they compare the economic
performance of young companies in the newly emerging field of
environmental technologies? For example, how can they
measure the potential benefits and risks of a new software
design?
Industries emerging in the new economy have trouble
securing appropriate financing because they are knowledge
based and may not possess assets that could be realized in the
event of a default.
The team at the FBDB has made it its business to understand
the needs of the new economy. Its clients have evolved with
changes to Canada's industrial base. It is precisely because
those gaps do exist under the present situation that we need the
FBDB. That is why I am supporting this bill; to ensure small and
medium size businesses that we have the infrastructure to fulfil
their financial needs and create more jobs for Canadians and
greater opportunity.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
colleagues before me did a good job explaining the subject
matter of Bill C-91. Therefore, I will only say that it is mainly
aimed at transforming the Federal Business Development Bank,
commonly known as the FBDB, into the Business Development
Bank of Canada.
To create this new entity, the government is not amending the
Federal Business Development Bank Act; it is introducing a new
piece of legislation, Bill C-91.
I will deal with three aspects of this bill. The mandate of the
FBDB, as we know it, will be extended. Consequently, the
12886
modified FBDB will no longer be solely a financial institution
geared to last resort funding. From now on, the new Business
Development Bank of Canada will be able to provide
complementary funding to other financial institutions.
Second, it will now be easier for the Business Development
Bank of Canada to enter into agreements with public and private
partners, either at the federal or provincial level, to set up
financing syndicates.
Third, the bank will have financial instruments, such as
shares, which will enable it to increase its capital without
depending on government funds.
I will therefore focus on the disastrous consequences of this
amendment on regional development. Unfortunately, it would
appear that, under the guise of regional development, Bill C-91
is the new way the federal government has found to once again
interfere in provincial affairs.
As in many other areas, it has not been clearly established
whether regional development is a provincial or a federal
responsibility. Some provinces, such as Quebec, have long
demanded exclusive powers in this area. As you might expect,
the federal government has always refused to recognize regional
development as a strictly provincial responsibility.
At each round of constitutional negotiations, this claim was
summarily rejected. However, under Quebec-Canada
framework agreements the federal government had made a
commitment to the Quebec government to limit its regional
interventions.
(1320)
The Economic and Regional Development Agreement for
Quebec came to an end in December 1994 and the federal
government refused to renew it. Clauses 20 and 21 of the bill
will make the Business Development Bank of Canada more
visible in the outlying regions since it will have the authority to
sign agreements directly with other federal departments,
regional agencies like the conseils régionaux de développement,
and, eventually, with the corporations de développement
économique and even with individuals.
If the bank can deal directly with local stakeholders, it could
have a negative impact on provincial strategic plans since it
could induce the CRDs to model their priorities on Ottawa in
order to get money. Therefore, the bill disregards the joint
efforts made by the provincial governments and the local
business community. Once again the federal government comes
trampling in, saying: ``Make way, here we come with our
spending power!''
Let me remind you that this famous spending power has given
the federal government a debt which now stands at $550 billion.
Let me remind you also that this $550 billion debt has been
accumulated largely, if not totally, over the last 25 years. And
except for a period of nine years, who were the leaders of this
country during those last 25 years? We all know that the Liberal
Party of Canada was in office during those years. That is what
spending power gives us. They meddle in everything and often
spend ill-advisedly. Just look at the facts. In the present case, a
simple name change will cost Canadian taxpayers millions.
Mr. Nunez: It is a disgrace.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): This is indeed a disgrace. What is
even more regrettable is that the federal will, once more, impose
the same medicine to all the regions of Canada. Well-meaning
civil servants will decide, from Ottawa, what is good for the
regions and other civil servants, also well-meaning, will apply
the decisions made in Ottawa.
Decentralization is presented as the way of the future but Bill
C-91 shows that the federal government has no use for
regionalization. The Government of Quebec is trying to
decentralize certain powers and give regions the money they
need to exercise them. Bill C-91 goes blindly in the opposite
direction. At a time of cuts, when money is getting scarce, with
Bill C-91 the federal government is opting for a less cost
effective solution simply because it will get increased visibility.
This is very sad for taxpayers.
The federal government would rather withdraw from social
programs and use taxpayers' money to intrude needlessly on
Quebec structures designed to deal with small and medium size
businesses. These political choices are not made in the interests
of regions but rather in the interests of the federal government.
Therefore, I will oppose Bill C-91 because I respect the work
done by the Government of Quebec and by regional
stakeholders, and because I also respect the choices they have
made. Using these means to foster the popularity of the federal
government among the people cannot be justified.
(1325)
I could mention all the duplications that are already costing
taxpayers so much because they always end up paying the bill
through their municipal, school, provincial and federal taxes.
Let us take for example manpower training. It should come
under provincial jurisdiction. Yet, because of this duplication,
the federal government spent needlessly, in Quebec alone, $265
million in administrative costs. We are literally stepping on each
others toes.
I have no objection to the federal government meddling in
provincial affairs. It can show off its spending power all it
wants. But it should start by paying its own debts. We had to
fight, in this House, to obtain that the federal government pay its
share of the 1992 referendum, a promise made by the previous
Prime Minister that the present Prime Minister wanted to renege
on.
The native crisis in Quebec cost hundreds of millions of
dollars and we are still negotiating the federal government's
12887
share. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, rest assured that the Bloc
Quebecois will oppose this bill that we consider totally useless.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
very interested in the comments of the hon. member for
Vancouver South in response to the speech of my colleague from
Edmonton Southwest. He said the Liberals feel we have to have
a financial infrastructure to create a strong, vibrant and dynamic
economy. That is exactly the problem with Canada at this point.
The Liberals today feel the way they have felt for the last 25
years, that if the government does not do it then probably it will
not happen.
The Liberals consistently are coming forward with legislation
like this which will interfere even further in the affairs of
ordinary Canadians in its own small insidious way.
I will speak about this issue from the point of view of what I
call coffee shop common sense. There is a real vacuum of talk in
the Chamber which comes from the common sense that we hear
from Canadians as they gather in coffee shops, in their living
rooms or around their kitchen tables at home. There is very little
talk using the ordinary English or French used there. We always
seem to end up hearing speeches from people using wonderful
75 cent words to describe dead end situations.
I suggest to my friend from Vancouver South that the
Liberals, when using this act along with other acts to create a
financial infrastructure, to create a strong, vibrant, dynamic
economy, might do well to take a look at what capital is and
where capital comes from.
As far as the Liberals are concerned, and many people of that
thought process, the idea of taxation is to gather in the capital so
it can be redistributed as the people who supposedly know best
think it should be.
I believe, as do many people in my constituency, the big banks
are failing small business. There may be a good intention on the
part of the big banks, and certainly they do a lot of advertising
and window dressing, but the biggest single problem is there is
no real competition in the banking industry as it presently sits. I
would be in favour of our looking at creating a situation, not as
set out in Bill C-91, but a situation in legislation that would
create some real competition between banks so that we could
have a pool of capital.
(1330)
We know the big banks are asking to get into non-traditional
banking services. Of course they have gone into brokerage and
now they are asking to break into insurance. They are looking at
the fact that although they have countless billions of dollars
flowing through their coffers on a day by day basis, nonetheless
they can extract only a very small percentage of those dollars.
They are therefore looking to insurance, to brokerage. I do not
know what is going to come next.
The difficulty is that the banks are not in a situation where
there is real competition so that they have to go out and gain the
business. I say this on the basis of what I call coffee shop
common sense. If I were to walk down Baker Street in my
hometown of Cranbrook, or a street in Invermere, Fernie,
Creston, Golden, or any of the towns in my constituency, and
walk into a coffee shop and sit down with the local business
people and ask what the real problem was that they were having,
almost invariably they would tell me that the real problem they
are having is in getting a sufficient amount of working capital.
They are constantly constrained in the area of capital.
This government should really be looking at, and perhaps it
can be looked at under Bill C-91 in committee, the creation of
an independent investment pool of real dollars. These would not
be dollars that are extracted from business by way of a tax grab,
not dollars that are extracted from individuals by way of a tax
grab, not money lost under regulation harassment that
businesses are under these days, but real dollars that people
would put into an investment pool.
Let us look at why businesses are having difficulty
maintaining a capital base. They pay school tax and municipal
tax. In many cases they pay water, sewer and garbage collection
tax and provincial taxes. In my home province of British
Columbia if a person has the audacity to have too much money,
and it can be borrowed money invested in equipment in a
business, that person will be taxed on the money that is invested
in the items that are actually generating the profits in the first
place. There is federal income tax.
There is the GST compliance costs, which of course we should
talk very briefly about as a side bar issue. This government came
to Parliament telling Canadians it was going to be doing away
with GST and has done nothing. Anyway, there is the GST
compliance costs and regulation harassment. There are good
reasons for having municipal, provincial and federal
regulations, but in many cases the application of those
regulations for businesses becomes a harassment.
Why do many businesses have a problem keeping dollars in
the business? Let us look at the list. The dollars go out to school
tax, municipal tax, water, sewer, garbage, provincial tax, federal
income tax, GST compliance costs and all of those things. It is
no wonder that small business is having a difficult time
retaining capital. There is a tax grab by all levels of government
as they scrounge to find more dollars rather than doing the
obvious which is to cut down on the expenditures.
This bill is going to committee. It is excellent that this bill has
come to the House and under an agreement between the
government and the opposition parties will be going into
committee. There is the opportunity in committee for my very
competent and capable Reform Party colleagues to bring some
coffee shop common sense to that committee in order to move
forward in an active and proactive way to make something of
this bill which quite frankly I find to be a little questionable at
this time. They
12888
could bring it forward with the provision that there is no attempt
on the part of the industry committee to repeat the shenanigans
of the human resources and development committee. This
process has the opportunity to be open, constructive and
positive. I encourage all members who will be working on that
committee to be sure that process is capable of happening.
(1335)
I say again, the Liberals have the idea that if it is worthwhile
doing then surely the government has to do it. The Reform Party
believes that the government should get out of the lives, get out
of the faces, get out of the pocketbooks of ordinary citizens and
ordinary businesses and let them get on with doing what they do
best, which is to make profits, to reinvest them and to get this
country going.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
talk today to Bill C-91, an Act to continue the Federal Business
Development Bank under the name Business Development Bank
of Canada, that was tabled on May 15 by the Minister of
Industry. According to its drafters, over and above changing its
name, the bill aims at streamlining the bank and modernizing its
operations.
As we all know, the role of the Federal Business Development
Bank is to promote and support companies which are starting up
or at any other stage of development. It was created in 1944
under the name Industrial Development Bank. In 1974, it was
incorporated under its current name as a crown corporation in
accordance with a law passed by Parliament.
The Federal Business Development Bank offers three types of
services to companies: financial services, venture capital
financing and management consulting services, including
consulting, planning and information.
This bill broadens the bank's mandate so that it will not only
be a financial institution responsible for last resort financing. It
will also, from now on, be authorized to offer complementary
financing to other financial institutions and to set up
subsidiaries.
Moreover, clause 21 of the bill allows the Minister of Industry
to use the bank to promote entrepreneurship in Canada. Clause
20 gives more leeway to the bank to negotiate agreements with
other federal departments and provincial and local agencies in
carrying out its specific mandate and any other mandate that the
minister could assign to it under clause 21.
My first criticism is that I do not see the need to change the
bank's name. We are only wasting taxpayers' money.
However, the most important flaw of this bill is without a
doubt the fact that the federal government is going to interfere
even more in regional development throughout Canada. In
Quebec alone, it intervenes through the Federal Office of
Regional Development which implements all of the federal
programs. The mandate of this office is to create a dialogue
between federal stakeholders in Quebec. This office has already
established contacts with these consultation structures in
Quebec and even wants to sit at the consultation table for
Montreal.
Bill C-91 constitutes another centralizing offensive from the
federal government resulting in costly and needless overlaps.
(1340)
This bill completely negates the role of provincial
governments regarding support to small business. This goes
against the declarations of the Liberal government which said it
wants to eliminate overlapping and duplication with provinces.
Clause 20 of the bill allows the Federal Business
Development Bank to enter directly into agreements with a
person or agency, which means it will be able to sign agreements
with regional development councils among others.
However the Quebec act respecting the Ministère du Conseil
exécutif du Québec prohibits provincial agencies from entering
into agreements with the federal government without the
minister's authorization. Once more the federal government
dismisses the responsibilities of the Government of Quebec and
its very existence by giving itself the power to act without
consulting provinces.
In the area of regional development the centralizing offensive
of the Chrétien government goes directly against Quebec's
regionalization policy. The federal government has always
refused to recognize regional development as an exclusive
provincial jurisdiction. The government dismissed this claim in
all constitutional negotiations. Yet, the federal government had
promised Quebec it would limit its action in regions under
general agreements between Canada and Quebec. However, the
regional economic development agreement expired in december
1994 and the federal government has refused to renew it.
Federal intervention in regional development is becoming
scattered, without consultation with the Quebec government. It
is competing with Quebec programs while trying to increase the
federal government's visibility in the outlying regions and is
using the Federal Office of Regional Development to establish
Canadian standards in various departments.
12889
What I find really shocking is that the federal government
is financially getting out of social programs and using
taxpayers' money to unnecessarily overlap Quebec structures
that are dealing with small and medium size businesses. On the
other hand, it refuses to get out of manpower training, as was
asked by the Quebec government, labour and employer
organizations, as well as by economic and social sectors in
general.
In my riding of Bourassa, where there are numerous very
small businesses, the Federal Business Development Bank has
been involved with several projects that have created or
maintained jobs. However, some business people tell me that
this institution is taking too long to examine and respond to their
requests or is asking for too many guarantees.
This institution should also be providing more consulting
services and in particular, more consulting and training services
to students who wish to operate small businesses during the
summer. The government is already giving it grants large
enough to allow it to carry out that part of its mandate. I hope
that the FBDB will always be different from other financial
institutions in that it will not try to maximize its profits, but only
to recover its costs.
The Bloc Quebecois does not want the FBDB to compete with
other development tools available to Quebecers, such as the
Fonds de solidarité de la FTQ and the caisses populaires. Also,
we would like it to have the means to support Quebec
businesses.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the
accomplishments of the FTQ's Fonds de solidarité over its ten
year existence. I took part in the last annual meeting, during
which the fund's 10th anniversary was celebrated. This fund has
invested in, and helped, hundreds of businesses and has created
or saved over 25,000 jobs in Quebec. I would like to pay tribute
to its leaders, Louis Laberge, Fernand Daoust and Claude
Blanchet. I would not like to see the Federal Business
Development Bank duplicate the exceptional work already
being done by the Fonds de solidarité.
The potential impact of Bill C-91 on the bank's role as an
instrument of economic development is very worrisome.
(1345)
Firstly, the bank is no longer restricted to its role of a last
resort lender and will be able to offer complementary financing.
The danger lies in the fact that the bank is moving away from its
mandate of last resort financing and more towards
complementary financing.
The bill must clearly stipulate that the bank's primary role is
to offer last resort financing. Clause 21 gives the minister the
discretion to involve the bank in initiatives which have nothing
to do with its primary activity. Such a measure is unacceptable,
because it could prevent the bank from concentrating on what it
does best, which is providing last resort financing.
Clause 36 of the bill restricts access to information regarding
the bank's clients. This practice is normal for a financial
institution. It would be useful, however, to add a provision
stipulating that Parliament could access this information for a
parliamentary inquiry.
Like the other Bloc Quebecois members who preceded me, I
would like to state that I do not support this bill.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-91, the motion to
refer the bill to committee prior to second reading.
I know other members before me including my colleagues the
member for Edmonton Southwest, the member for Okanagan
Centre and the member for Kootenay East have spoken to the
contents of the bill and what they hope to accomplish in
committee, the weaknesses and strengths of the bill regarding
the Federal Business Development Bank.
I will take a slightly different attack. This motion refers the
bill to committee prior to second reading. As members know,
this is a new process which has just been implemented in this
35th Parliament. We are doing some experimentation with
regard to how we pass legislation.
The Reform Party agreed with the procedure of sending bills
to committee prior to second reading because the Liberals had
promised that under this new process there would be ample time
for substantive amendments to be debated and discussed in
committee before the bill was approved in principle as it is
during second reading debate.
I will read what the standing orders say with regard to
referring bills to committee prior to second reading. Bill C-91
falls into this category. Standing Order 73(1):
Immediately after the reading of the order of the day for the second reading
of any public bill, a minister of the crown may, after notifying representatives of
the opposition parties, propose a motion that the said bill be forthwith referred
to a standing, special or legislative committee. The Speaker shall immediately
propose the question to the House and proceedings thereon shall be subject to
the following conditions:
In the case of Bill C-91 these requirements were followed.
The minister did make a request that the bill go to committee
prior to second reading and there had been consultation with the
other parties.
Standing Order 73(1)(b) says: ``the motion shall not be
subject to any amendment''.
That means as we debate this motion today we cannot
implement any amendments. I can understand that because we
are not dealing with the substance of the bill. We are dealing the
12890
procedural matter, whether the bill should go to committee prior
to second reading. The standing orders preclude any
amendments to this motion.
Standing Order 73(1)(c) states no member may speak more
than once nor longer than ten minutes. Standing Order 73(1)(d)
states that after not more than 180 minutes of debate, three
hours, the Speaker shall interrupt the debate and the question
shall be put and decided without further debate.
We are not having a second reading debate right now. We are
debating a motion to refer Bill C-91 to the Standing Committee
on Industry. The committee will be challenged with the task of
reviewing the bill, listening to witnesses, proposing
amendments and having a vigorous debate on the value of Bill
C-91; whether it is a strong and good piece of legislation,
whether it needs to be substantially changed or whether it should
be defeated. I am sure when the bill goes to committee these
issues will be looked at.
(1350)
I am really concerned about whether we can take the
government at face value when it says it will permit open and
complete debate in committee prior to second reading. When we
agree to this process we forego debate at second reading.
We are not really having a full blown debate right now
because we are limited to 180 minutes. We cannot make
amendments because we are dealing with a motion, not with the
bill. It is critical that if we also lose our second reading debate
we have a committee that functions well, is open to
amendments, takes time to consider the bill and will not rush the
bill through committee stage without proper analysis, without
enough witnesses being called and without time taken at the
clause by clause review of the bill.
I am concerned, not because of Bill C-91 and the industry
committee, but about what happened in the human rights and
disabled persons committee which also received a bill through
this process. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that
bill was before the committee for five months. Let me tell the
House what the committee did for five months.
I think members of the committee allowed only four
witnesses Reform suggested to appear before the committee. All
others were government witnesses. That does not sound like a
very open process. Maybe the Bloc had a few, I am not sure.
Certainly the appearance of witnesses before the committee was
restricted. That does not sound like the spirit of Standing Order
73. It certainly does not fall under the spirit of the red book. We
are having some real problems with the credibility of the red
book in light of all the broken promises we see amassing at a
rapid pace. Almost on a daily basis we see new broken promises.
The bill came before the committee and it refused to hear our
witnesses. We were let to sit a simmer for a long time. Suddenly
it was time for clause by clause debate. Our members brought
forward amendments, some prior to the clause by clause debate
and some on the day of the clause by clause debate. These
amendments were refused contrary to Standing Order 62
because the chairman said they were only submitted in one
official language. I hope that does not happen with Bill C-91.
I understand the industry committee functions a little better
than the human rights committee. It almost sounds like an
oxymoron to use the term human rights when we are talking
about the actions which transpired in the committee the other
day.
The chairman ruled contrary to Standing Order 62 and refused
to even consider debating amendments put forward by my
Reform colleagues. Initially the committee refused to accept
amendments from the floor, saying they had to be submitted
ahead of time. It is contrary to the rules and spirit of the motion
to submit these bills to committee prior to second reading.
There were some other problems. Suddenly a motion was
passed limiting debate per clause to five minutes. I hope this
does not happen with Bill C-91 because this makes a sham of the
committee process. That five minutes included reading the
clause; some clauses were a whole page, some clauses were
difficult to complete in the time limit. After reading a clause all
three parties had far less than five minutes to comment on each
clause. That is not meaningful debate. It is not in the spirit of
Standing Order 73. It is not why Reform supported this change
to the committee process.
I trust this will not happen with Bill C-91. If this reoccurs it
will indicate the government did not bring the changes to the
standing orders forward in good faith. It was using this as a
mechanism whereby the debate on bills could be shortened,
particularly on contentious bills such as C-64, and therefore
prevent the House from dealing with the bill at a second reading
debate. This is a very serious matter and why I bring it to the
attention of the House.
(1355)
Furthermore, in the committee the chairman refused to hear
points of order. I know, Mr. Speaker, you have never in the
Chamber refused to hear points of order; neither have the
Deputy Speaker nor any of the acting speakers. The standing
orders indicate points of order must be heard. The chairman in
the human rights committee refused to hear points of order,
again a breach of the standing orders and the common
procedures we follow in the House.
Therefore I hope Bill C-91 when it goes to committee prior to
second reading will not face this type of abusive procedure on
the part of the chair of the committee. I am sure it will not
because I understand that committee works quite a bit more
co-operatively.
12891
In this committee the chair, if challenged on a point of order,
said: ``Do I have the agreement of the committee to proceed?
Is my ruling sustained?'' The Liberal members would jump up
and say ``sustained'', and there was no debate on the issue.
The debate on the Federal Business Development Bank is
important. It could be equally as important as the debate on
employment equity, although the employment equity bill is
certainly a more emotional issue. However, all bills are
important. If they are brought to the House we expect them to be
dealt with in a serious manner. We expect the rules of the House
and the rules as they apply to committees to be followed.
I implore the government to review whether it is really open
to honest debate in committee prior to second reading. When we
use Standing Order 73 and refer bills to committee prior to a
second reading debate, I challenge the government never again
to implement draconian measures which would restrict debate
on a particular clause to five minutes or less. That cannot
happen. That takes away all credibility from the legislative
process. It is demeaning to members of Parliament and, most
important, it is absolutely wrong.
We will in good faith agree to send the bill to committee prior
to second reading. I expect the discussion will be of a far higher
quality than was the case in the human rights committee. Not
only would I expect it, I think the House should demand it.
Members of Parliament deserve to be heard and deserve to have
their positions adequately expressed so there can be a vote taken
after full and free debate. I recommend that for Bill C-91.
[Translation]
The Speaker: My colleague for Abitibi will have the floor
immediately after Question Period.
It being 2 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the
House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 21.
_____________________________________________
12891
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have grave
concerns respecting the current status of infectious disease
notification in Canada. Without regard for their personal safety
firefighters, police and ambulance workers routinely provide
emergency medical treatment in unsanitary field conditions on
patients they know nothing about. As a consequence they can be
exposed to an increasing variety of dangerous, contagious and
sometimes deadly diseases.
Is it asking too much that these brave men and women be
entitled to notification about possible exposure to an infectious
disease? Is it asking too much that our emergency response
personnel themselves be given the right to early treatment? Is it
asking too much that their family, friends and literally everyone
they come into contact with be protected from further
transmission?
The answer is obvious. I implore the government through
Health Canada to set the standard for uniform notification
protocols in conjunction with those provinces that have
endorsed national guidelines. The confidentiality of patients can
and will be protected. The health of our emergency response
personnel can and must be protected.
Canadians are entitled to nothing less.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
racing driver Jacques Villeneuve won a brilliant victory at the
79th Indianapolis 500 on the weekend.
Overcoming a two lap penalty, Jacques Villeneuve made up
his time, caught and then passed all the other drivers, moved
into the lead, and stayed there to the finish.
This was the twenty-four year old driver's second time only at
this American racecourse and his first victory. Quebecers will
remember his father, Gilles, a Formula 1 driver and his brilliant
victory at the Montreal Grand Prix. They will also remember
with sadness his tragic death in 1982, during race trials in
Belgium.
Quebecers will now be keen to follow the exploits of Jacques
Villeneuve who, this weekend, reached the first milestone in a
motor racing career that we hope will be long and happy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Immigration says he is going to fix the refugee
system, so let us look at a typical case.
I have the selection criteria he has laid out for fast-tracking
refugees into Canada from Colombia. These are the people the
Liberals say are at risk in Colombia: the police, military,
judiciary, peace and human rights activists, political activists,
former guerrillas, union leaders, peasants thought to be
guerrillas or having perceived political affiliation, women,
homeless youth perceived to be involved in criminal activities,
journalists covering political or criminal issues, homosexuals,
deserters from criminal organizations, members of wealthy
families and prostitutes.
12892
Tell us dumb Canadians, Mr. Minister, will there be anyone
else in Colombia after you have opened the floodgates, or
should Canadians apply for immigration to Colombia? By the
way did the Liberals not leave Juan Valdez, the coffee man, off
their list?
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
child abduction is a serious problem in Canada. Each year
thousands of our precious young loved ones are reported
missing. They are either lost, runaways, or have been abducted
by parents or strangers.
Child Find Canada gives us hope in recovering our cherished
children and preventing the disappearance of many others.
The month of May has been designated the Green Ribbon of
Hope Campaign to stimulate awareness across Canada about the
serious nature of child abduction.
On May 25 National Missing Children's Day acted as a
reminder of the children who remain missing and the work that
still needs to be done.
[Translation]
Our children are important for the future. We must protect
them. The Missing Children's Network is vital in safeguarding
our children. However, the responsibility for finding children
and protecting them rests with the community as a whole. Let us
take our children to heart.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, National Access Awareness Week, which begins today,
is about learning, be it academic, vocational, or on the job
training.
Halls of learning and new technologies that facilitate the
learning process should be accessible to persons with
disabilities. Technology, remember, enabled physicist Stephen
Hawking, despite his disabilities, to share his brilliant scientific
insights with all mankind.
Technology has allowed many Canadians with disabilities to
share their special talents, one of whom is recognized annually
with the Centennial Flame research award of Parliament.
All Canadians benefit when citizens with disabilities are
integrated fully in our homes, schools, workplaces, and in
sports. This special week reminds us of our national dream for
our citizens with disabilities and of our will to realize this
dream.
I am pleased this government has heightened its resolve to
tear down the barriers that limit participation and to supply the
tools that facilitate integration.
* * *
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure today to rise on behalf of the District of Nipissing
to congratulate Sunset Park public school principal Rick Ferron
and vice-principal John Stephens for being named winners of
the 1995 national Reader's Digest leadership in education
award.
These gentlemen were selected from 197 nationwide
nominations for their efforts in creating a living community
where outside social agencies come into the school to counsel at
risk students and their families in a warm, nurturing setting.
Their approach is based on the old African proverb that ``it takes
a village to raise a child''.
Each gentleman will receive a $5,000 award and the school
will receive $10,000. This foundation award, initiated in 1989,
is considered one of the top prizes from a non-educational or
non-government body.
As word of the Sunset Park initiative spread, some of the
province's top education researchers jumped in to support it and
have held it up as a model for the rest of the country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more
than 370 UN peacekeepers and military observers have been
taken hostage or are surrounded by Bosnian Serbs. Seventeen of
them are literally being used as human shields.
(1405)
We would like to express our deep concern for the Quebec and
Canadian peacekeepers who are among the hostages and we
wish to express our profound empathy with their families in this
time of anguish and fear for them.
Of the 2,100 members of the Canadian military currently
deployed in the former Yugoslavia, ten have been taken hostage.
Eight of these ten are Quebecers, who are members of the third
battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment from Valcartier.
Forty-five other members of the armed forces are confined to
their observation post.
We all hope that the current negotiations will quickly lead to
their release.
12893
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during the election campaign the Liberals emphasized
strongly the issue of integrity. They claimed the Conservatives
had callously broken election promises and destroyed public
confidence in politicians. The Liberals promised to be different,
but they were not. During the coming months you will see just
how many promises they have broken. Reformers will parade
them before you.
Reformers are happy the Liberals adopted so many Reform
policies, but Canadians are rightly disappointed with the
Liberals' broken promises. They are asking if the broken
promises are a sign of Liberal incompetence or a sign of total
disrespect for the intelligence of Canadian voters.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, last November the Minister of Industry assured this
House that the appointment of a panel to review the CRTC's
decision on direct to home satellite services was ``in no way an
overruling or the setting aside of the CRTC decision with respect
to the exemption order that was issued. That order stands.''
Now the government is changing that order. The government
should not hold things up by retroactively changing CRTC
decisions and creating new hurdles. Already we have a large
grey market. Many Canadian homes are pulling in U.S. signals
without any Canadian content regulations and sending money
across the border.
We welcome Canadian competition. We urge more
competition and the public wants more competition. However,
further delaying the entrance of regulated D to H services will
make it more difficult to reintegrate grey market users into
Canadian regulated services.
Fairness to the public and program producers would-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa West.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for two children in my community the opportunity to learn, to
play, to grow, and to love will never come again.
Last Friday, 10-year old Wilson and 8-year old Margret
Kasonde were shot to death in their father's west end apartment.
I can think of no greater horror for a family to face than the one
their mother and little brother now face. Our hearts go out to
them as they try to survive this terrible tragedy.
The children's school and others in the neighbourhood are
seeking to reassure hundreds of children who have lost their
sense of security and innocence with this tragic event. The pain
of these two deaths permeates the whole community.
Tonight the people of Carlington will hold a candle light vigil
in memory of Wilson and Margret and to declare their
determination to end violence that destroys so many lives and to
control the instruments of violence that can kill so quickly and
so finally. I ask us all to join them in that determination.
* * *
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pride that I also take this opportunity to
congratulate Jacques Villeneuve on overcoming a two lap
penalty to win the race and that coveted purse at the Indianapolis
500 over the weekend. At age 24, he is the youngest Indy driver
in history to earn $1 million U.S. and the first Canadian to be
victorious at the distinguished race.
[Translation]
Jacques Villeneuve has obviously inherited the courage,
intrepidity and skill of his father, the famous Formula One racer
Gilles Villeneuve. He already demonstrated in competition last
year that he had a glorious future ahead of him.
I join all Canadians and Quebecers in congratulating him on
this great first Canadian victory in a world class race.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Ontario Conservative leader Mike ``just call me common sense''
Harris says if elected he would offer $4 billion in tax cuts, $3.9
billion in spending cuts, and a balanced budget in three to five
years. Imagine that.
(1410 )
Despite his slash and burn approach, Mr. Harris claims that he
can gut provincial programs without damaging the delivery of
essential services such as health and education. Furthermore, by
forcing the needy to work for welfare the Ontario Tories are
typically trying to carry out those massive spending cuts, as
usual, on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our society.
I wonder if Mr. Harris thinks a single parent struggling to
survive with children while conducting a job search has the time
and the energy to work for welfare.
12894
Mr. Harris's numbers just do not add up. I am sure that on
June 8 the people of Ontario will realize that what he is
proposing is actually a nonsense revolution.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
hundreds of Quebec women are marching on Quebec City to
draw attention to poverty, which is rampant in our society,
particularly among women. These women left Montreal,
Longueuil and Rivière-du-Loup to reach Quebec City on June
4, when 10,000 women will hold a protest rally.
One of their nine main demands is that the Quebec
government substantially increase the minimum wage so that
lower paid workers can break out of poverty. This is an
exceptional show of solidarity that is worth mentioning and
supporting.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to commend these
women, and particularly Françoise David, president of the
Fédération des femmes du Québec, who had the idea for this
march and organized it.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on May 29, 1987, a group of concerned Canadians made a
decision that in a few short years would change the course of
Canadian history. On that day delegates from the four western
provinces gathered in Vancouver to discuss Canada's economic
and political future. Most of these people had never met before,
but they were united by their desire to build a better Canada and
by a common belief that our political system was in need of
urgent and fundamental change.
After much debate, this assembly made an historic decision
by resolving to launch the Reform Party of Canada and thereby
revitalize Canadian politics. On the anniversary of this event, I
salute the visionary women and men whose courage eight years
ago provided hope to Canadians that we could build a more
prosperous and more democratic Canada for ourselves and our
children.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in Bosnia our peacekeepers and those of our
close allies are being used as human shields by those who have
no respect for humanity and no allegiance to international law.
At a time when the entire United Nations system is being put
through a severe test, it is important that we remember Edmund
Burke's words: ``All that is essential for the triumph of evil is
that good men do nothing''.
As of this moment, when many Canadians are going through a
trauma in the former Yugoslavia, it must serve to remind all
Canadians of the necessity to fully support and understand what
our Canadian forces personnel may well face on any day while
serving their country and while serving humanitarian principles
at the international level.
Our hearts go out to those soldiers and our support and
thoughts must be with their families. We must change and
improve the United Nations operations to deal with a vicious
and unpredictable world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we are to believe what the leader of the Parti
Quebecois said at his party's general assembly over the
weekend, the PQ is grappling with a communications problem.
The PQ Premier tried to explain his party's decline in popularity
among the electorate by saying that his government is better at
taking action than at communicating.
By its lack of conviction, this remark is surprisingly
reminiscent of the moral victories the PQ used to claim in the
old days. The PQ Premier need not look very far for the reason
why his government's popularity is dwindling. The people of
Quebec do not want to separate and they are sick and tired of
seeing their government waste time and money on trying to
come up with one question after another.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to question the statement of an hon. member who
promised voters that she would resign if the GST was not killed
within a year of the Liberals taking office. It has been almost
two years now since the election and the Deputy Prime Minister
and her cabinet colleagues have failed to follow through on their
commitment to kill the dreaded GST.
Reformers believe that a promise is a promise and the time
has come for the hon. minister to do the honourable thing, own
up to her promise and resign. After she demonstrates that kind of
honesty in politics I have no doubt in my mind that the Deputy
Prime Minister will have little trouble establishing herself in the
private sector. I am sure that the severance package and the $2
12895
million pension plan will help her through that difficult
transition to private life.
It would be truly encouraging to see a member of the
government fulfil a promise. We in the Reform Party would be
so overwhelmed with that display of integrity that we would
volunteer to throw the Deputy Prime Minister's retirement party
ourselves.
_____________________________________________
12895
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, in retaliation against the UN air
strikes, the Bosnian Serbs bombed civilian populations, in Tuzla
in particular, and took some 370 peacekeepers hostage,
including 10 Canadians. The Serb forces went so far as to keep
some peacekeepers chained to ammunition depots to be used as
human shields against further raids by NATO.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What concrete
measures does the government intend to take to free the 10
Canadian peacekeepers being held hostage by the Bosnian
Serbs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I would like to state that the Canadian
population is appalled by the events mentioned by the Leader of
the Opposition. As you know, all the troops engaged in the
humanitarian work that needs to be done in that troubled part of
the world are doing an exceptional job, and I would like to take
this opportunity to tell the soldiers posted over there and their
families that the government and Canadians are very concerned,
and that we will make every effort to support them.
We are currently in contact with most of the 10 Canadian
hostages. As members know, the same thing happened last year,
and we managed to have the hostages released after two weeks.
The current situation is no worse than last year's. We are now
making arrangements to talk with the Serbs. We may be in a
slightly better situation than the French or the British, because
our soldiers, those who were seized are only a few kilometres
away from the base at Visoko. We hope that, once the situation
calms down, our soldiers will be able to return to their base, and
to safety.
In the meantime, we spent the weekend in contact with our
allies who have troops over there to try, through diplomatic
means, to bring things back to normal in that very complex part
of the world. I spoke with the British Prime Minister, the French
President and the Secretary General of the United Nations over
the weekend. In particular, we want to change the troops'
mandate because of the imbalance between the resources at their
disposal and the positions they must take. The mandate must be
redefined to make it difficult for any one of the warring factions
over there, especially the Serbs, to engage in such hostage
takings.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, if this can be any encouragement to our fellow
citizens being held hostage, they should know that they have the
support and sympathy of all Canadians and Quebecers.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: As he just reminded us, the Prime Minister
consulted with his French and British counterparts and with the
Secretary General of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, over the
weekend. In the light of those discussions, can he tell us what
position his Minister of Foreign Affairs will defend at the NATO
meeting tomorrow with respect to the peacekeepers' mandate
and the safety of our fellow Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will meet
with his NATO colleagues and defend Canada's position that the
time has come for the United Nations to redefine the
peacekeepers' mandate.
(1420)
As I said earlier, the work to be done by our troops and the
resources available to them must be reviewed so that small
groups of peacekeepers are not as exposed as they are at present.
Through our ambassador to the United Nations, we outlined
our position. I spoke with Secretary General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali yesterday to express Canada's views before he
submits a new plan to the Security Council tomorrow. This
position will be defended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at
the meeting of NATO foreign affairs ministers tomorrow.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government is surrounded by
advisers, that the Prime Minister and his Minister of Foreign
Affairs have the opportunity to talk with their counterparts in
other countries, that they are well informed, and so on, but very
complex questions are being raised.
Many people in Canada and Quebec are asking themselves
whether we should keep sending troops over there, whether
changes should be made to the peacekeepers' current mandate,
and if so, what those changes should be. Will they continue to
stand helplessly by and fall victim to the events? If we maintain
a military presence over there, why, and on what conditions, will
we do so?
In other words, Parliament must be consulted on this. In this
context, can the Prime Minister tell us whether he will approve
the opposition's request that an emergency debate be held today
12896
on the safety of the peacekeepers in Bosnia and the mandate of
UN forces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the House had the opportunity to debate our presence
over there on three occasions-and I am very glad that it did.
I do not know the status of the discussions between the
opposition parties and the government. Tomorrow is an
opposition day and would be a very good opportunity to raise
this issue. There would be more time available, instead of
holding a debate late tonight.
I think that tomorrow's opposition day is reserved for the
third party, and I hope they will use the opportunity to debate
this issue. I know that the British Parliament will debate its
position on Wednesday. I would welcome a debate in this House
tomorrow.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I would like to remind the Prime Minister that it is
important that the debate be held today since the meeting is to
take place tomorrow morning. If we want the debate to be
relevant, it must be held today.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Jacob: My question is for the Prime Minister. In the
context of the mandate, the French Prime Minister set certain
conditions on maintaining troops in the former Yugoslavia.
First, that UN soldiers be regrouped in order to minimize the
likehood of further hostage takings; second, that those soldiers
be provided with heavy artillery and given permission to use it;
and, third, that a standing response force under UN and NATO
control be set up.
Can the Prime Minister tell us if he agrees with the French
Prime Minister on redefining the mandate, which he just
mentioned, for UN soldiers in the former Yugoslavia along these
lines?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is exactly what we are discussing with the UN
Secretary General.
In my answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I indicated that
it was important to redefine the role of our soldiers and to ensure
that they are not exposed, as they are right now, several
kilometres from their base, in small numbers and completely on
their own; we have been adamant on this. As for the right to
attack or take firmer defensive actions, they have the power to
do so, but right now, the engagement rules need to be reviewed.
As far as setting up a standing response force, I would like to
know exactly what they mean. In our view, we are there to
maintain peace, not to start a war with parties which are already
fighting with one another.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
his answer, the Prime Minister has shown once again that we
should have a debate today, and not wait until tomorrow.
This morning, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that
Canada intended to step up its diplomatic efforts and that a
military approach would be a disaster.
Are we to understand from this statement that the Canadian
government is opposed not only to redefining the mandate of the
UN troops, as proposed by France, but also to any new air
strikes?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not against any new air strikes. Last week we
said that we thought, and this was echoed by the French and the
British Prime Ministers, that the air strikes had probably not
been planned as well as they could have been.
Had we been given earlier notice, we could have taken the
necessary steps to protect our soldiers. I raised this issue with
the UN Secretary General who, to a certain extent, recognized
the validity of my argument. I was pleased to hear the new
French Prime Minister express the same point of view,
yesterday, on French television.
A review of the situation is needed, but we cannot say that
there will never be other air strikes because that would mean
that, if we were attacked, we would not defend ourselves.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are
rightly outraged that our soldiers are being held hostage and
their lives endangered. The government has failed our
peacekeepers and has failed Canadians. It renewed our mandate
in Bosnia without any criteria for evaluating the mission.
The facts are plain. The warring factions continue to target
UN troops. Ceasefires are not respected. Humanitarian efforts
are impossible and there is no peace to keep. The government
knew this in October, it knew this in March and it knows it know.
Will the government commit itself to the withdrawal of
Canadian troops as soon as possible?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that at this moment
when Canadian soldiers have been kidnapped it is not the time
for the Canadian government to run for cover and be subjected to
blackmail.
We are there to play a useful role. Thousands and thousands of
lives have been saved because our troops are there. The
Canadian troops are among the best, if not the best. I would like
to tell our soldiers that we support them. When they went there
they knew they were not going to a picnic. I am grateful to the
Leader of the Opposition who said that we are backing the
Canadian troops.
We have had similar incidents before and there will probably
be more. In the meantime we are saving thousands of lives there,
making sure that medication and food gets to the population.
12897
The Canadian people are proud of this role and the Canadian
people are backing the troops who at the moment are in
difficulty.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, no one is
questioning the calibre and the jobs our peacekeepers have done.
The Liberal red book promised that Canada would no longer
be a foreign policy camp follower. In Bosnia however, we have
become a camp follower to all of NATO and to a contact group
with limited involvement in the conflict. Germany for example,
does not have one single soldier on the ground, yet has more
voice than Canada. Our soldiers are being chained to posts
outside ammunition dumps. Why is the government being
diplomatically correct in letting the governments of France and
Britain make our decisions for what we do in Bosnia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not part of the contact group. As I said before,
25 countries are there, some with more troops than Canada in
Bosnia, and they are not part of the-
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Not troops.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Some are and they are not
members of the contact group. This is a diplomatic effort by the
Russians, the Americans and three European countries which
have more direct influence than we have. We do not have a
traditional presence there and I admit that. However neither are
the Dutch, nor the Belgians, nor the Spanish and many others.
We should not take offence at that.
We are on the ground and we are making the decisions in
relation to Canadian soldiers. We are participating in the
discussions at NATO. We are participating in the discussions at
the UN.
(1430 )
I had the chance to talk to many of the leaders, the president of
Croatia, Prime Minister Major and President Chirac, and the
minister of foreign affairs in Bosnia who unfortunately was
killed over the weekend. I met him in Paris. He told me the best
soldiers in that very difficult situation were the Canadians.
Therefore we will keep backing them up.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we agree we
have the best soldiers. They should also have a say in the
decisions.
The Reform Party warned the government not to renew
Canada's mandate. The situation was unstable and the lives of
Canadians would be placed in unacceptable danger if they were
recommitted to Bosnia. The government ignored this advice and
for a third time Canadian soldiers are being held hostage.
Canadians are demanding action. According to a recent poll
of thousands, 90 per cent wanted Canada to pull out now. Why is
the government refusing to listen to Canadians? Why is it
showing such a total lack of good judgment in setting its policy
toward Bosnia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have had discussions with the Canadian military
and we are supported by people who know something about this
very difficult circumstance. Canadians have always been there
in difficult circumstances. I am very happy that all parties
except the Reform Party are supporting Canadian troops and the
Canadian position.
It has been a tradition that when lives of Canadians are at
stake in a difficult circumstance we back them up. The
government is participating in discussions and decisions. We
will make the best judgments to save lives.
In the meantime I know the millions of people living in that
region are very grateful that Canadians are there to save lives
and provide food and medication in a terrible situation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
It is unjustifiable on the part of the federal government to help
a professional hockey club to the tune of $20 million, while
cutting billions of dollars in social program funding.
After deciding that the federal assistance was inadequate, the
Manitoba Entertainment Complex Save the Jets group applied to
Revenue Canada for charitable status, so as to become eligible
for indirect federal assistance in the form of tax deductions.
Can the Minister of National Revenue tell us what is the status
of the application made by Manitoba Entertainment Complex
and whether he intends to increase federal assistance to the
Winnipeg Jets through tax deductions?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the rules governing charities are set out by
the courts, not by Parliament or the government. They are set out
by a series of court decisions.
It has been determined over a fairly lengthy series of court
cases that an organization entirely for the promotion of a sport is
not a charitable organization. I cannot comment on the
particulars of any one organization and where it stands within
the process. I can as a general rule assure the hon. member that
any
12898
organization strictly for sporting purposes would not qualify for
charitable status.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
will the Minister of National Revenue confirm information
suggesting that the donations made to Manitoba Entertainment
Complex would be considered as donations to the state or to a
provincial Crown corporation, thus substantially increasing
federal assistance to the Winnipeg Jets by allowing the
deduction of such donations for federal income tax purposes?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again it is difficult to comment directly
about a specific case. It is not our practice to do that.
However, in general terms I can assure the hon. member any
attempt to avoid the existing law as it has been laid down by the
courts will be objected to by Revenue Canada. The law should be
applied directly and fairly to all, as it has been in the past. It is
always possible for people to attempt to alter the nature of an
organization's objectives or to alter the nature of gifts to a
charitable organization or to bring it within a charitable status.
That is within their right. We will examine it thereafter when we
receive that information and determine whether it meets the law.
(1435)
We insist any organization that attempts to get charitable
status meet the full requirements of the law.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will make it plain from the outset that the Reform
Party, like all parties in the House and all Canadians, supports
and has great respect and admiration for our troops in Bosnia.
The Bosnian Serb reaction to NATO air strikes on Pale last
week was entirely predictable, indeed a forgone conclusion.
Was the Canadian government consulted on the decision to carry
out the air strikes and if so did it approve?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a decision made by NATO and the UN. In my
discussion with the secretary general of the UN yesterday he
said he had agreed.
We have not been formally consulted like the others. It was a
decision made at that moment by the people who have the
authority. We were not formally consulted for this air strike. We
discuss policies all the time but the people on the ground make
these decisions. It was approved by the UN, as requested in the
policy of double keys.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, while Canada may not have the largest contingent of
troops in the former Yugoslavia, we certainly have had a
substantial commitment throughout the conflict and that
commitment is highly rated.
Why, with so many Canadians vulnerable to the hostage
taking which resulted, did the Canadian government not insist
its approval be sought before NATO air strikes were approved?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to
reiterate what the Prime Minister said.
A procedure was put down a year ago when NATO discussed
the possibility of using air strikes. The United Nations has the
authority in certain circumstances where warranted to ask
NATO to perform those air strikes.
That procedure was followed last week and there was nothing
abnormal about the procedures.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
With its bill redefining the mandate of the Federal Business
Development Bank, the federal government is once again going
over the head of the provinces by assuming the right to sign
agreements directly with organizations which come under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
How can the Prime Minister justify this new federal
interference in regional development through the signing of
agreements with organizations which come directly under
Quebec's jurisdiction? Is this another example of what the
Prime Minister calls flexible federalism?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's constitution clearly states that banks come
under federal, not provincial, jurisdiction.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the Prime Minister.
By refusing to renew the federal-provincial agreement on
regional development, Ottawa rejected any form of dialogue
with the Quebec government.
Will the Prime Minister recognize that the federal
government is laying the foundations of another confrontation
with Quebec by allowing the new Business Development Bank
of Canada to sign agreements directly with organizations which
come under Quebec's jurisdiction, and also by keeping the
province from playing any role in the process?
12899
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the
question is related to ERDA, that is the agreement between the
federal government and the provincial government. I should tell
the hon. member that, unless I am mistaken, I already had one
meeting with Mr. Chevrette. Two letters were written, and I told
Mr. Chevrette that we are ready, right now, to sit down to
renegotiate an agreement. The ball is definitely in the
provincial government's court.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
more questions have surfaced concerning the diversion of funds
from highway 104 in Nova Scotia and the role of the public
works minister.
The Prime Minister has said this is an issue for the Minister of
Transport, and when one of his caucus members called it
misappropriation of funds she was told to keep quiet.
If the minister of public works was such a minor player in all
this, how could he have announced the funding diversion in
February 1994 when according to a letter from the minister of
transportation federal and provincial officials amended the
agreement only three months after that? On whose authority was
the minister of public works acting?
(1440 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has been on a bumpy road with this
line of questioning.
A meeting was held with the minister of transportation for
Nova Scotia in January during which agreement in principle was
achieved on the reallocation of the funds. In February the
minister of public works on my behalf announced we had agreed
to the funds being spent as was consented to by the province of
Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada.
I reassure my hon. friend this situation has occurred over and
over again in these agreements. The reason it occurs is that,
unlike my hon. friend, most of us on this side of the House
understand that the construction of highways and the choosing
of routing for highways are within provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is ironic the minister said that because in 1986 the Tory
revenue minister diverted $20 million from a federal-provincial
agreement to a road through his Nova Scotia riding and the
Liberals here were incensed. Now the Liberal minister of public
works has diverted $26 million from a federal-provincial
agreement to his Nova Scotia riding and the Tories are incensed.
It is déjà-vu.
Since the minister of public works refuses to answer anyone's
question on this serious issue, we would like to borrow the
words of the minister. Would the Prime Minister ``put up or shut
up?'' Will he refer this issue to the ethics lap-person or is he
content to go down in history as being just as big a hypocrite as
Brian Mulroney?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very unfortunate the hon. member does not
understand that when the Government of Nova Scotia looked at
the funding available for the highway to which the funds were
originally dedicated it understood very little would be achieved
in the spending of the very limited amount of money available.
It deemed it was in the best interest of Nova Scotians to
allocate the funds to another highway. We consented to that, as
is provided for under section 12.2 of the agreement where the
agreement can be amended by consent. That is what occurred.
Unfortunately for the hon. member he will have to keep
beating his dead horse because he does not seem to be able to
find another one these days.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, according to John McCallum, chief economist with the
Royal Bank, the Bank of Canada's policy has been responsible
for the steady drop in the standard of living of Canadians since
1990. And the new governor of the Bank of Canada has admitted
that the bank is still implementing the policy introduced under
the Conservatives by his predecessor, John Crow, a policy which
the current Minister of Finance at one time denounced.
Does the Minister of Finance realize that the Bank of
Canada's current monetary policy and the Conservatives'
monetary policy are one and the same and that the policy is the
direct cause of high unemployment rates and the drop in our
standard of living, as he himself claimed during the last election
campaign?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I
find it difficult to understand why the hon. member has chosen
this time to raise this point, since over the past two months,
interest rates have dropped a total of close to 100 basis points.
It is very clear that the Bank of Canada's policy, which is to
anticipate inflation, has a big impact on job creation. We cannot
compare today's monetary policy to the monetary policy of four
or five years past. There is an enormous difference and that is
why the hon. member's claims do not wash.
12900
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in my opinion what does not wash is that the Minister
of Finance sang a different tune altogether when he was still
a member of the opposition. That is what does not wash.
I would like to know whether the Minister of Finance realizes
that since he took office-I am mot talking just about the past
five months-interest rates have gone up by one third. This
stopped the weak economic recovery dead in its tracks, for, over
the past five months, there has been no net job creation in
Canada-a figure supported by Statistics Canada.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all,
100,000 jobs were created in the private sector in the last
quarter. That is nothing to sneeze at.
(1445)
We must compare the Bank of Canada's current policy to that
of four or five years ago. As we all know, interest rates were at
their peak in 1989. Therefore, there is no comparison.
The hon. member was right to quote me and the solicitor
general, who was finance critic when we were both in the
opposition. We were opposed to the monetary policy of the Bank
of Canada then. The government of the time, in which the
Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet member, and many
erstwhile Conservative members who are now Bloc members,
defended the policy.
So, instead of putting his question regarding the McCallum
report and the Bank of Canada's policy to the government, I
would suggest that the hon. member talk to members of his own
caucus and maybe even have a private conversation on the issue
with his leader.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Can the minister please inform this House as to when he
intends to introduce proposed changes to the child support
payment system that would prevent parents from neglecting
their responsibilities for their children?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while the judgment of
the Supreme Court of Canada last week in the Thibaudeau case
may have resolved the question with respect to the
constitutionality of the present tax system in relation to child
support, it remains for the government to determine whether
that system is the fairest and most effective in providing for
children.
I have been working with my colleagues, the Minister of
Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development and
the Minister of National Revenue and the Secretary of State for
the Status of Women in reviewing not only the tax system but the
importance of enforcement mechanisms as well, as the hon.
member has pointed out.
We have also looked at and published proposals for the
establishment of guidelines to assist in the determination of the
amount of child support to be paid, depending on the income of
the parties.
Before the House rises at the end of June, we hope to put
before the House proposals for change in those areas.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in January the solicitor general was asked to initiate an
investigation into allegations of criminal activity by the
Canadian Wheat Board. The solicitor general wrote to me,
saying that the RCMP concluded there was not sufficient
evidence to support these allegations.
Could the solicitor general provide me with a copy of the
RCMP report, as was promised by his office to be done by May
22?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and solicitor general of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will check with the RCMP. I am not sure if it is
customary for them to release details of their investigation
beyond stating the conclusion of their work, but I will check into
it further.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I met with the chief superintendent of the commercial
crime division and two inspectors of the RCMP in Winnipeg and
I was advised that there had never been a request for an
investigation from the solicitor general. The information
commissioner validated this by confirming that no RCMP report
on this issue could be found.
Why did the solicitor general lie to me?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, sometimes in forming our
questions we use words that are inappropriate. I would ask the
hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette to reconsider and please
withdraw the word ``lie''.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, for four months I have tried to
get to the bottom of this. The facts speak for themselves. I have
two letters confirming-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1450 )
The Speaker: My colleagues, in the course of the question
period, in order to facilitate matters and to keep the flow of the
questions and answers, sometimes your Speaker has to inter-
12901
vene. Usually when words that are unparliamentary are used
hon. members will reflect and under the urging of the Speaker
most of the time they withdraw.
I would put it to the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette,
would the hon. member please withdraw the word ``lie'', a
simple yes or no.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I came to the House with
standards and I will not lower them.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I do not want to take the time of
this question period. Therefore, I will ask the hon. member to
please stay in his seat and I will deal with this matter after the
question period.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
The Quebec Minister of Public Security has criticized the
federal government's inertia vis-à-vis the expansion of the
Mohawk cemetery in Oka. According to the minister, the federal
government, which is paying its negotiator a handsome salary,
still refuses to buy the 60,000 square foot piece of land being
offered by the Municipality of Oka for the Mohawks.
How does the Minister of Indian Affairs justify the fact that he
and his department are dragging their feet and have yet to
purchase the land made available by the municipality to expand
the cemetery?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise.
On the houses north of 344, it was 100 per cent federal money,
several million dollars. On the houses the Province of Quebec
requested we purchase south of 344, there was not one cent of
contribution from the Province of Quebec.
We went in there and set up the Mohawk negotiator, the
facilitator and the mediator and we purchased those houses. All
the money being spent north and south of 344 has been 100 per
cent federal money.
It is okay for Mr. Ménard to sit there and give me a lecture, but
if he is serious about doing it they should be at the table offering
some kind of contribution, more than just tokenism.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, all I know is that the problem is not resolved. It has cost
over $350,000 for a negotiator to do nothing and leave.
How does the minister explain the fact that the negotiations
conducted by the federal government with the Mohawks, which
have cost a fortune to date, have resulted in absolutely nothing
tangible, when a matter such as the purchase of land, if settled
by the federal government, would prevent another confrontation
between the Mohawks, the City of Oka and the Government of
Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member
says there is nothing tangible. When we took over the
government there were 70 or 80 illegally held houses north of
344. Now I believe we have it down to a dozen. We have a
housing authority. South of 344 most of the houses are
purchased; there are only three that are illegally held, and we are
working on those. So there have been tangible results. There
have been tangible results at the Mohawk round table and
tangible results in individual negotiations with each of the three
First Nations.
We are supposed to be honourable here. When the hon.
member uses the death of two Mohawks and a funeral to further
a political agenda, I think the hon. member falls below what is
honourable in this House.
(1455 )
The Speaker: I wonder if the hon. minister would please
reconsider his last words. They are, in my view, a personal
attack and are not necessary in the course of the question period.
Would the hon. minister please consider withdrawing that any
other hon. member's conduct is less than honourable?
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Reform, I unequivocally
withdraw that remark.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, earlier
today the Minister of National Revenue, in answering a question
about the Manitoba entertainment complex applying for
charitable status, thereby extending the $20 million this
government has decided to throw at a professional hockey team
to a further loss of about an extra $22 million if it is granted
charitable status, bobbed and weaved as though there was a jet
going overhead.
Can he not take a position in this House that he will ensure
there will be no charitable status, no additional money coming
out of Canadian taxpayers' pockets for this professional hockey
team?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question
is incorrect. No money from the federal government is going to
the Jets hockey team, as has been said by the Prime Minister and
12902
every other member of the government time after time. The
basic premise of his question is incorrect.
With respect to the issue of whether any organization is
entitled to charitable status, I have to tell the hon. member what
I told my hon. friend from the Bloc a moment or two ago. That
is, past decisions of the courts have said that organizations that
are strictly for sporting purposes are not charities within the
definition that has been put forward by the courts over the years.
That is the situation in law. That is the law I must follow.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
point is that this government, which is cutting $7 billion from
public spending in the area of health care, social assistance, and
post-secondary education, suddenly found $20 million to put
into a building to house a professional sports team.
Why cannot the minister do something very simple? He has
given us the definition. Will he absolutely guarantee as a
minister of the crown that the people of Canada will not be
putting any more in than they are already going to be putting in
at the figure of $20 million?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions it has been
explained to the Reform Party that Calgary and Edmonton are
using infrastructure money for hockey arenas. It is strange to me
that in Winnipeg they want different rules. They want things to
be done differently from the two Alberta cities that are receiving
money in this regard.
With respect to the position in law, I cannot guarantee that I
will refuse any application that comes before me. They are
judged on the merits in accordance with the law. The hon.
member may not like that, his party may not like the application
of the law, but on this side of the House we obey the law in these
situations.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The government is restoring hope to young Canadians and
delivering on promised initiatives made in the red book.
Youth-oriented programs such as Youth Service Canada and the
youth internship program are giving young people the tools to
build better lives for themselves and for our society.
Will the minister outline for us some of the actions the
government has taken to ensure that Canada's youth gain
valuable work experience this summer?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first thing I should
point out is that we have made a substantial addition to the
budget for youth employment this year. We have increased the
actual employment program from $193 million to $236 million
so that we could ensure young people would have effective
work.
We have enough money to provide approximately 30,000 jobs
and to provide wage subsidies to private business and
community organizations. A major investment has gone into
loans so that students can start their own businesses, thereby
creating their own employment. There is a substantial amount
going into the summer youth service corps in order that they will
be able to work with the municipalities to provide better
policing and better environmental controls.
Overall, we are providing direct employment through federal
resources of well over 50,000 jobs for young people. That is an
indication of our interest in ensuring that not only do they have a
job, they have a job that will enable them to get the kind of
training they will need for permanent employment in the future.
(1500 )
The Speaker: That concludes question period.
* * *
The Speaker: I have the very pleasant task in the next few
minutes to tell the House there are 507 parliamentarians who
have served this House that are now outside of the House. Once a
year they come back to Ottawa to meet with their former
confrères, if you will, the former parliamentarians.
[Translation]
Today there are, on both sides and at the end of the gallery,
133 of our former colleagues who have come back to pay us a
visit.
[English]
It is my pleasure on behalf of the House of Commons to
welcome back our brother and sister parliamentarians from
years gone by, and to thank you for the service you gave to
Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, we are dealing as a House with a
problem that affects all of us. During the course of question
period one of the hon. members used the word lie in putting a
question.
The word lie used in this context, the word lie used the way it
was, I judge to be unparliamentary.
I ask the hon. member in the name of the authority that has
been placed in me by the House, squarely will he withdraw the
word lie, yes or no?
12903
Mr. Hoeppner: No.
The Speaker: Mr. Hoeppner, I have to name you for
disregarding the authority of the Chair.
Pursuant to the authority granted to me by Standing Order 11,
I order you to withdraw from the House for the remainder of this
day's sitting.
[Editor's Note: And Mr. Hoeppner having withdrawn:]
* * *
(1505 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, I have received notice of a request
for an emergency debate from the member for Red Deer.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as you have
mentioned, Standing Order 52(2) allows members to rise on a
point of order when they feel it is in Canada's best interest that
we debate a subject immediately.
For Canadians the lightning rod that created this urgency was
the picture of Captain Patrick Rechner chained in that
ammunition dump. That is the lightning rod that has Canadians
demanding action. To them it was like that GI dragged through
the streets of Somalia for the U.S. citizens.
The Canadian people have started to speak. Polls are asking us
as parliamentarians to make-
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a point of order. I wish to draw to your attention, with
the utmost respect, Standing Order 52(3) which reads as
follows:
When requesting leave to propose such a motion-
That is for an emergency debate.
-the Member shall rise in his or her place and present without argument the
statement referred to in section (2) of this Standing Order.
Section (2) states:
A Member wishing to move, ``That this House do now adjourn'', under the
provisions of this Standing Order shall give to the Speaker, at least one hour
prior to raising it in the House, a written statement of the matter proposed to be
discussed.
I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to insist that the hon.
member comply with the rules of the House.
The Speaker: The hon. House leader is quite correct. I did
receive notification one hour prior to this time. I would ask the
hon. member if he would put his case forthwith.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, the case that I am trying
to present is why you should rule in favour of us debating this
now. I am asking for your guidance. Can I present a case for why
the Canadian people are asking for this to be debated
immediately?
(1510)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I made
the exact same request, therefore, I will join the member in
asking, pursuant to Standing Order 52, if we could have an
emergency debate tonight, after the adjournment, on the
situation of the UN troops in the former Yugoslavia.
We know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be meeting
with his NATO counterparts tomorrow. In this context, it is
important for the House to give the minister its point of view.
The debate should enable us to assess the situation, analyze
and evaluate the new developments and, finally, determine the
conditions under which UN troops would remain in the former
Yugoslavia.
It is in the public interest that parliamentarians be able to
debate this matter before the government presents them with a
fait accompli and, given the importance of the positions the
government must take, it seems undeniable that there is every
advantage in having this Parliament debate this matter tonight.
The Speaker: As my colleague said, I did receive a letter
from the Official Opposition House Leader.
[English]
I would like to consider everything that has been said and
everything that has taken place concerning this topic. I will
return to the House as soon as possible, but I will return today
before the adjournment motion.
_____________________________________________
12903
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to table the report of
the Parliamentary Librarian for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1994.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
10 petitions.
12904
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second
report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages
on concurrence with vote 25, Official Languages Commissioner,
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of 25 Manitobans.
The petition calls on the government to amend the Income Tax
Act to provide a child care expense deduction that is available to
all families regardless of the income level of the parents, the
amount of child care expenses incurred or the form of the child
care chosen.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions. The first bears 100 signatures of petitioners
from my riding.
They pray that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition bears 125 signatures.
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 human rights act to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition also bears 100 signatures.
The petitioners pray that Parliament not repeal or amend
section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the
Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to
disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.
(1515 )
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege and honour to present a petition on behalf of residents
of Kamloops, Clear Water, Barriere, Vavenby, Chase, Logan
Lake, Little Fort, Birch Island, Blue River, Savona, Westwold
and Cherry Creek, which brings to a total of 87,422 signatures
on a petition circulated by JC-55 SuperCountry radio in
Kamloops.
The petition basically points out the need to have the Minister
of Justice take whatever steps are necessary to amend Canada's
Criminal Code and parole system to ensure safety and peace in
our neighbourhoods.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present a petition from citizens concerned about making
our streets safer for the citizens of Canada. They are opposed to
the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to
serving the full extent of their sentences. They pray that we
make our streets safer for law-abiding citizens and families of
victims of convicted murderers.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition to present on behalf of approximately 125
residents of Canada. They point out that discrimination against
lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians exists in every region of
Canada and that this is unacceptable in a country known for its
commitment to human rights equality and dignity for all
citizens. It calls upon Parliament to amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation and to adopt measures to recognize full equality of
same sex relationships in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Question No. 181 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 181-Ms. Beaumier:
With respect to the Department of National Revenue's Assessment 2000
effort, (a) why is there a provision for backhauling from a CW licensed
warehouse to a BW licensed warehouse in cases where the department will not
grant a BW licence, and (b) what is the threshold in terms of volum of business
for granting a BW rather than a CW licence where all other criteria have been
met?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): A BW sufferance warehouse is a primary public facility
licensed by Revenue Canada for the receipt of in bond freight
12905
imported by highway. These facilities are serviced by Revenue
Canada and are licensed when a demonstrated need exists for
either a new or additional highway sufferance warehouse in a
customs area.
A CW sufferance warehouse is a secondary facility for the
private use of an operator for the deconsolidation of in bond
freight arriving by any mode of transportation. In the case of
highway freight, goods must first be reported to the primary BW
highway warehouse before being transferred to a CW warehouse
for customs clearance. These facilities are operated by freight
forwarders, consolidators and deconsolidators for freight
carried in their system.
In reference to part (a) of the question, an increasing number
of companies have been applying for CW sufferance warehouse
licences in the Toronto area. Faced with limited resources, local
Revenue Canada officials introduced a system to allow freight
forwarders to backhaul goods requiring customs examination to
the BW sufferance warehouse rather than having Revenue
Canada provide the service to the CW facility. This arrangement
has permitted the department to license additional CW
warehouses since no on site customs service is required for
examination purposes.
In reference to part (b) of the question, the policy on the
licensing of BW highway sufferance warehouses is one per
customs area, with exceptions made for high volume locations.
Current departmental policy provides for the licensing of an
additional type BW facility if the volume of commercial
highway traffic handled at a particular customs office exceeds
40,000 shipments per year over a sustained period of time and
the potential operator demonstrates the ability to attract a
minimum of 20,000 shipments per year.
There is no volume of business criteria for CW facilities,
however the department must be able to service them within
existing resource levels.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to
present a petition.
The Deputy Speaker: Are colleagues agreeable to going back
to petitions so that the member can present his petition?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the residents of my riding of
Souris-Moose Mountain, I have the privilege under Standing
Order 36 to pray on behalf of the petitioners that Parliament
ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of
Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and
that Parliament make no changes in the law that would sanction
or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
_____________________________________________
12905
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-91 on second reading.
Through this bill, the government wants to streamline the
Federal Business Development Bank and modernize its
operations, two words that are undoubtedly tied to the reality of
markets as we near the end of this century, but which fool
nobody as far as the intentions of the federal government are
concerned. The government simply wants to interfere even more
in regional development, and in the case of Quebec, to increase
its presence in the most important economic development
mechanisms of the Quebec state.
The government is proposing major changes with this entirely
new act, the Business Development Bank of Canada Act, which
changes the name of the Federal Business Development Bank
and repeals the FBDB Act.
The Bloc Quebecois is therefore opposed to any amendment
of the actual Federal Business Development Bank Act. This
bank must not lose its role as banking service of last resort for
small and medium size businesses in Quebec looking for venture
capital and development capital.
In the past, the FBDB has always been a very efficient
development tool, greatly appreciated by Quebec's small and
medium size businesses.
12906
(1520)
It should be noted that more than 33 per cent of current FBDB
loans are made in Quebec, that 23 per cent of the bank's offices
are located in Quebec, that the annual volume of FBDB loans to
Quebec is in the order of $310 million, or 38 per cent of the
annual volume for the whole of Canada, and that 50 per cent of
the organization's staff is active in Quebec.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois is proposing the status quo
with respect to the FBDB. We should not forget that the Quebec
state exists and that it is trying to create its own development
mechanisms, despite strong federal interference in regional
economic development. The FBDB remains a parallel structure,
an administrative duplication, when it cannot adapt to regional
specificity because of so-called national policies.
Several structures and programs of the government of Quebec
are already geared to small and medium size enterprises in
Quebec. The Société de développement industriel (SDI), with
programs such as Aide à la production, which can contribute up
to 35 per cent of capital expenditures for a minimum investment
of $100,000, or Reprise de la PME, a program which provides
loan guarantees covering up to 80 per cent of the net loss on a
loan made by a financial institution, are among the many
examples that attest to the economic involvement of the Quebec
state in small and medium size businesses.
There is also the Fonds d'aide aux entreprises that is
administered by the Conseils régionaux de développement, an
association of individuals where a greater importance can be
given to the specific policies of these same regions. There is also
the Fonds décentralisés de création d'emplois that are
administered by the Secrétariat au développement des régions,
and other programs for small businesses, including Innovation,
administered by the Quebec department of industry, commerce,
science and technology, that also attest to the existence of a
small business financing structure in the province of Quebec.
Moreover, in his last budget, Quebec finance minister Jean
Campeau announced that he intends to really play the
venture-capital card by increasing regional funds and by
creating the Fonds de solidarité de la CSN. We already had the
FTQ solidarity fund. By adding another solidarity fund, we
expect to be able to create many more jobs. I would like mention
one of these regional funds in particular: SOLIDE, a venture
capital fund related to the SOLIDEQ program and designed to
promote local development. SOLIDEQ is a joint venture of the
Fonds de solidarité du Québec and the Union des municipalités
régionales de comté du Québec.
I must also mention the Caisses populaires Desjardins, which
play a major role in financing small business by granting loans
at the local community level. This network of more than 1,232
credit unions accounts for nearly 25 per cent of all commercial
loans in Quebec. This is unequalled anywhere in Canada.
There is no point in looking for more evidence of the fact that
the new bank will not operate at that level, that broadening the
Federal Business Development Bank's mandate as suggested in
Bill C-91 constitutes not only duplication of small business
assistance structures in Quebec and every other province in
Canada, but also overlap of responsibilities.
The question we must ask ourselves regarding the role of the
FBDB in Quebec is: How can this last resort institution be
integrated into the assistance facilities already available in
Quebec without causing duplication or overlap? For many years
now, the FBDB has been moving away from venture capital
financing and development assistance for new businesses.
The FBDB had its place in remote areas, where capitalization
through the creation of medium or large size businesses often
proves impossible. Why then mess with this assistance that
remote areas need so desperately and start competing with
provincial governments and traditional banking institutions?
The Bloc Quebecois members sitting on the Standing
Committee on Industry prefaced their dissenting report by
saying that the Quebec government is in a better position to
assess the financial requirements of small and medium size
businesses, as well as to develop and implement appropriate
programs; yet, the federal government has currently taken over
most of this area of jurisdiction, thereby causing many costly
instances of overlap. It is obvious that, with Bill C-91
broadening the FBDB's mandate, the federal government is only
reinforcing this tendency.
(1525)
Furthermore, this bill could also have a very worrisome
impact on the FBDB's role as an instrument for economic
development. Indeed, since the bank will no longer be limited to
its role of lender of last resort, it could provide complementary
financing.
The risk, of course, is that the FBDB might go the easy way
and concentrate on complementary financing, rather than on last
resort financing such as stock or risk capital. Since
complementary financing is less risky, the FBDB may naturally
be inclined to concentrate its activities on that type of financing.
The expansion of FBDB's mandate, combined with the fact
that it will now be able to issue hybrid capital instruments, is
likely to distort the bank's role of supporting economic
development, while also changing the nature of its mandate.
Before concluding, I want to draw the members' attention to
clauses 20 and 21 of Bill C-91, which are totally unacceptable to
the provinces, and particularly Quebec. Clause 20 reads: ``The
Bank may enter into agreements with, and act as agent for, any
department or agency of-a province-for the provision of
services or programs-on their behalf-''
12907
That provision in the bill goes against the decentralization
process undertaken by the Quebec state within its territory,
where the regions want to take control of their own
development.
With this clause, the federal government pursues its
centralizing strategy, a political strategy the objective of which
is to significantly reduce the power of the Quebec state to
become involved in economic development and, ultimately, to
keep it from achieving political independence.
By assuming the right to act, through the FBDB, as agent for
Quebec organizations or departments, the federal government
totally ignores the authority of Quebec's National Assembly and
its executive council act, which provides that any Quebec
organization or department must seek the authorization of the
Quebec government prior to dealing with the federal
government.
The new Federal Business Development Bank, or the
Business Development Bank of Canada as it is called in Bill
C-91, is now the federal government's main means of
interfering in Quebec's economic and regional development.
This government wants to act as a banker and take over the role
of financial institutions in Quebec and Canada.
This is a definite departure from the FBDB's current mandate.
The federal government wants to use the FBDB as a tool to limit
the powers of the Quebec state to become involved in economic
and regional development so as to take over provincial fields of
jurisdiction and, ultimately, weaken the Quebec government's
autonomy.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-91 and is in
favour of maintaining the existing structure if the government is
not prepared to propose new ways which would truly promote
regional development and which would also help the regions
take control of their development.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to add some observations about Bill C-91 before the
legislation is sent to the Standing Committee on Industry.
[Translation]
This new bill will enable the Business Development Bank of
Canada to expand its activities and to provide programs and
services to meet the changing needs of Canadian small business,
particularly with respect to improved access to financing.
[English]
It has been 20 years since the current Federal Business
Development Bank was established by legislation. At that time
the hon. member for Windsor West spoke in the House on the
incorporation of the FBDB saying it would further encourage
and assist the establishment and growth of Canadian small
business and indeed it has. The bank has lent over $4 billion to
Canadian entrepreneurs at no cost to taxpayers. This amount is
estimated to have created more than 30,000 jobs in the past six
years alone.
(1530 )
Hon. members are well aware of the important role small
businesses play in the new knowledge based economy that has
emerged in the 1990s, an economy characterized by rapid
technological change, intense global competition and
innovation.
As the economy becomes global the smaller players are
becoming more influential. Small businesses have the
flexibility to respond quickly to niche market opportunities;
they can keep up with change and innovate aggressively. This
was summarized by the Standing Committee on Industry in its
report last October entitled ``Taking Care of Small Business''.
The committee wrote: ``The smallness of these firms is a clear
advantage. It makes it easier for them to sustain innovation and
an entrepreneurial spirit. Indeed, several of the most prosperous
and competitive economies in the world today are based on
small firms.''
Canada now has about two million small businesses, an
increase of one-third since 1982. Today, 99 per cent of all
registered businesses have fewer than 100 employees. Since
1992, in the last three years, small businesses have created
virtually all of the net new jobs in Canada. Canadians will
continue to look to small business for new jobs and economic
growth. Small businesses, including the self-employed, now
account for almost two-thirds of private sector employment and
60 per cent of our economic output.
However, small businesses face unprecedented challenges. In
the face of intense global competition, small businesses need to
upgrade their management skills, find employees with the right
skills mix for their market niche, develop or acquire technology
that helps them to innovate, and develop very quickly the ability
to tap into foreign markets.
The government has addressed small business issues in a
variety of ways. I will point out that this government has placed
a high priority on responding to the challenges faced by small
businesses. We made small businesses the centre of our
economic platform in the red book. We published a position
paper entitled ``Growing Small Businesses'' to accompany the
1994 budget. Since that time we have received valuable input on
small business issues from a wide variety of informed sources
from within government, the private sector, and parliamentary
groups.
We have had numerous combined discussions within our
federal Liberal caucus, a working group set up under Industry
Canada with the private sector and leadership from within
Industry Canada. Throughout these various studies several
recurring themes emerged. One message was that small business
has a vast untapped potential for creating more jobs and more
wealth. Another theme was the government role must be to
facilitate the efforts of those outside government to build an
innovative and entrepreneurial economy. Finally, the various
12908
studies brought home the point that government programs must
become more efficient, effective and relevant to the needs of
small business.
This government has responded through initiatives
announced in the 1995 budget and in the report, ``Building a
More Innovative Economy''. This legislation is not in a vacuum;
it is in the context of a whole series of initiatives to allow small
business to do what business does best, which is to grow the
economy, grow new opportunities and new jobs for Canadians.
The Federal Business Development Bank has from its
inception been designed to help tap the potential of small
businesses to create jobs and wealth, and it has done so in a way
that is self-financing. This legislation has been drafted so the
new Business Development Bank of Canada can become more
efficient, more effective, more relevant to the needs of small
business.
The Business Development Bank of Canada will not compete
with private sector lending institutions but it will provide
complementary services.
(1535 )
The private sector banking community still faces many
challenges in adequately serving the needs of small and
medium-sized businesses. Four gaps particularly exist in the
financing of small business. The first is the so-called risk gap,
the unwillingness of lending institutions to provide certain
small businesses loans even at interest rates that reflect the
higher risks associated with those loans. The second is the size
gap, the high transaction costs associated with smaller loans and
investments relative to larger ones. Third is the knowledge gap,
the reluctance of lenders to provide financing to knowledge
based, soft asset firms. Finally, the flexibility gap, the
unwillingness of lenders to provide flexible financing to
promising businesses that have yet to reach cashflows sufficient
to service debts.
The FBDB has been one of the government's primary policy
instruments for responding to these gaps as well as to the need of
small business for management services.
It is important that we move quickly on this legislation. I do
not think there is a member of Parliament in the House who does
not regularly hear from and meet with small business
constituents who say consistently that lending, financing,
dealing with their bank is a major problem for them. There has
been a substantial change in that relationship. Whether it is an
existing small business that has been going for many years and
suddenly finds itself in a different situation because of a
changing economy or whether it is a new entrepreneur wanting
to start up and needing the foundation to get started, the
problems we hear from our constituents, and certainly I do from
many small businesses in Ottawa West, all focus around the
problem of financing, either start-up or continuing or expanding
business.
The initiatives being taken to give the Federal Business
Development Bank more flexibility under its new name to allow
it to seek out new partnerships will allow it to ensure that small
business can continue to drive the Canadian economy forward
into the 21st century. By supporting small businesses through
the evolving stages of their development, the FBDB helps them
create jobs and succeed. Now as the Business Development
Bank of Canada it will have greater flexibility to respond to the
changing needs of Canadian entrepreneurs.
I look forward to the range of debate that can take place in the
industry committee on this bill and to seeing it reported back to
the House of Commons quickly so that we can get on with the
task of helping small business in this country grow the economy
and grow prosperity for Canadians.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
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:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
[English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Defer until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the proposed
motion stands deferred.
* * *
The House resumed from May 19 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
12909
(1540)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: When we last examined Bill C-82,
there were 12 minutes remaining to the hon. member for
Edmonton Southwest.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak to Bill C-82, a bill
that would see the Canadian Mint issue a new coin for use by
Canadians. This would be a $2 coin to replace a $2 bill.
There apparently was a survey done by the mint that stated
that Canadians would support converting the $2 bill to a $2 coin.
It also stated that if this was implemented it would save
Canadian taxpayers $250 million. It may seem odd that perhaps
Reform would oppose a cost saving measure, but I do not think
the whole story was told when this survey was implemented. It
almost seemed like a bit of a fixed survey. Obviously the $2 bill
is costing Canadian taxpayers because of its short shelf life.
However, there were a lot of questions that were not asked in the
survey such as whether Canadians are in favour of having a $2
denomination at all. Do we need a $2 denomination? In fact if
we were to remove the $2 bill and not replace it with a $2 coin we
would save even more dollars. However, I do not believe that
option was included in the survey the mint used.
I think it is important that we not let this thing quickly slip
through but that we do point out that perhaps there were some
flaws in the survey and we do need to consider this matter a little
further.
Before I get into this, it does surprise me that this is a high
priority on the government's legislative agenda, that we are
talking about the minting of a $2 coin. The House denied
unanimous consent to debate the Bosnia situation. I guess the
government members felt that the debate of a $2 coin was more
important than our concern for our peacekeepers in Bosnia,
because this is on the Order Paper and we are debating it now
rather than debating the work of our peacekeepers in that very
ugly situation.
One would have thought the government would have hurried
the drunk defence bill through committee and to the floor of the
House so we could debate that. There are several justice bills
that the government tabled months and months ago. However, it
seems to be willing to let them lay dormant until the very end of
the session. It must want to just ram this legislation through at
the end of the session to try to avoid public exposure to its bills.
Here we are today, very near the end of the month of May with
just a few sitting days left and we are debating the minting of a
$2 coin. I wonder what Canadians think of the Liberal
government's priorities in this case. One would think that it
would be more important to be talking about balancing a budget
than creating new coins. This is just more money to go into the
hole with. It is really strange that we are debating the minting of
a $2 coin.
There has been lots of discussion as to what will be on this
coin. I may get to that later in my speech. However, I do want to
talk a bit about the survey the Royal Canadian Mint submitted.
Approximately 80 per cent of respondents in the survey
favoured the introduction of a $2 coin to replace the $2 bill.
However, as I said, this result was achieved only after telling
Canadians that they would be saved $250 million of their own
taxpayers' money.
The Reform Party is not questioning the fact that the
government will save the $250 million, which is over 20 years
by the way, but we are having a problem with the Liberal
government not taking the time to examine particularly what the
cost would be to the private sector. At odd times the government
pays lip service to the private sector and says it is supportive of
the private sector. But when the rubber hits the road, actions
always speak louder than words. Here we go again: the Liberal
government is making a proposition that will cost the private
sector a big bundle of their own cash.
My colleague from Elk Island outlined many of the different
groups that were not consulted in this survey and that had
opposition to the bill. The vending machine operators will take
the brunt of the cost. It is vending machine operators who are
dependent on coinage in their machines. The conversion of
existing vending machines to accept the new $2 coins could cost
up to $800 per machine. That is an additional cost to the private
sector, small business.
(1545)
What will it do with these added costs? Will it swallow them
and see lost profit? I doubt it very much. Business is usually a
little smarter than that. It will more than likely pass that cost on
to the consumer. It will come out of the same old pocket again.
The consumer taxpayer will be paying not only for the minting
of this coin but the additional cost passed on by the vendors.
It is interesting to note that soft drink manufacturers such as
Pepsi and Coca Cola are furious about the changes. Vending
machine operators have still not converted all of their machines
to accept the loonie. It has been eight years since the loonie was
introduced. We still do not have all the vending machines
accepting loonies and now we are talking about minting a $2
coin and all of the vending machines have to be adjusted to
accept the new coinage.
The Canadian Banking Association has concerns. I know
there is a member on the other side who was involved with the
Canadian Banking Association. It has some real problems with
issuing the new $2 coin. It estimates that right now it has
12910
between 30 and 50 million surplus loonies in its vaults. That is a
lot of money. If those are recirculated perhaps we would not
need a $2 minted coin.
Heather Sinclair, president of the Canadian Banking
Association, suggested recirculation of the surplus loonies
would provide all the coins needed during the removal of the $2
bill from circulation. We may be able to save Canadian
taxpayers much more than $250 million if we take a longer look
at this and do the right thing. The cost of this survey was
approximately $20,000. It seems a shame to spend $20,000 on a
survey that was incomplete and perhaps leads us to the wrong
conclusions.
In the survey the mint also asked what 10 themes Canadians
would prefer on the tail side of the coin. That is an interesting
question to ask Canadians. I can imagine some of the answers. I
imagine dead politicians were on the list, perhaps heroes,
wildlife, landscapes. I wonder if anyone suggested putting Brian
Mulroney's picture on the $2 coin. Nobody would use it in that
case. It would be a symbol of bad luck, bad taste and would settle
the matter right there and the coin would not be issued.
It seems the government wants to mint a new $2 coin and that
this bill will follow the usual passage through the various stages.
The Liberals will line up and like little voting machines they
will vote for this piece of legislation without giving it very much
consideration and we will have a $2 coin.
A number of groups have proposed designs for the new $2
coin. Some of them are rather plausible and certainly have some
credibility. Others we kind of smile at a little and say we doubt
very much whether Canadians would want that image stamped
on to the new $2 coin. Apparently Glendon, Alberta has
proposed the new coin take on the likeness of the town's symbol,
a giant perogie on a giant fork. That would be great. We also
have a big oil can in the town of Rocanville, Saskatchewan. I do
not know if it has submitted that but it would be another worthy
suggestion. There is the Ukrainian Easter egg from Vegreville. I
am sure if we had the former finance minister with us that would
be his suggestion.
I thought of a great Canadian symbol, probably the greatest
symbol we have of a white elephant in Canada, the Mirabel
airport. I do not know how we would stamp Mirabel airport on a
$2 coin, but I am sure our former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau,
would be very happy to see that stamped on a $2 coin in memory
of his great project, probably the most under used airport in
Canada.
We know the minister of public works is looking at a number
of plausible suggestions for design on his coin. Perhaps the
minister would want a dingy on it. Perhaps the minister of
fisheries would want a turbot on it. If it were a turbot we would
have to make sure it was not a small one. I am sure the minister
would insist on a sexually mature turbot. That would be only
reasonable.
(1550)
We know the Liberal government is to implement this new
design. It is very unlikely it will change its mind. It seems to be
bent on minting a new $2 coin. I thought in all seriousness, if the
House goes against my wishes and decides to mint a new $2 coin
without looking further at the cost perhaps it would be time to
have a prairie symbol stamped on a coin. The prairies have often
been overlooked and they have much to contribute to the
national perspective. We have contributed a great amount of
money to the national economy, as my hon. colleague from
Lethbridge has said. Canadians hold the prairies in high esteem
and it is only fitting the new $2 coin, if it is passed by the House,
be stamped with a prairie symbol.
I am sure even hon. colleagues from Ontario and Quebec, the
Atlantic provinces and our western maritime province in the
north realize they have had their fair share of symbols stamped
on our currency. Perhaps it would be time to show some more
recognition to the prairie region.
I have a proposal for the new coin. It is in the image of a white
tailed deer. These deer are common species on the prairies. They
are one of the primary game animals of the region. They are still
plentiful across the prairies and can be found in northern Ontario
and northern Quebec.
They are beautiful animals. They are enjoyed by sportsmen,
by shutterbugs, by artists and by nature lovers alike. They are
synonymous with Canadian history and the development of the
prairie region. They helped sustain our aboriginal peoples long
before white man even discovered the prairie region.
They were important to the pioneers who settled the area in
the late 19th century. They are very much an appreciated species
on the prairies.
White tailed deer hunting brings more money into
Saskatchewan than any other hunting or fishing activity. The
Saskatchewan ministry of the environment and resource
management calculates $800,000 per year is put into provincial
coffers alone from the sale of deer licences and a further $3
million is brought into the province each year by out of province
and out of country hunters.
In 1993 a constituent of mine, Mr. Milo Hansen of Biggar,
Saskatchewan, a progressive community in the
Kindersley-Lloydminister constituency, was fortunate enough
to shoot the world record white tailed buck. The old record was
set in Nebraska in 1914.
That is an incredible accomplishment on the part of Mr.
Hansen. It has become famous in my part of the world and it
needs some national exposure. Since the Hansen buck was
taken, hunting activity in the area has increased and more
American hunters are coming to Canada.
12911
A new $2 coin featuring the Hansen buck would be a fitting
way to commemorate this internationally acclaimed
achievement of my constituent.
Here are some historical reasons why a prairie symbol should
adorn the new coin. While other parts of Canada have been
represented on our coins in the past, none have strictly
represented the prairies. For example, the maple leaf on the
penny and the beaver on the nickel represent central Canada for
the main part. The sailing ship on the dime, the beautiful and
famous Bluenose, represents the Atlantic region. The moose on
the quarter and the loon on the dollar represent the Canadian
shield in the north. Putting a prairie symbol on the new $2 coin
would create a regional balance on our nation's coins.
I understand the mint has done some public consultation
about the nature of the new coin and I trust the continuing
tradition of representing Canadian wildlife remains a popular
option. I assure the House that the town of Biggar, Saskatchewan
is supporting this proposal, as are many other Saskatchewan and
prairie members of Parliament.
The Hansen buck is truly a great Canadian achievement and
therefore I propose the new coin be designed in the image of a
white tailed deer as nearly as possible in the minting of coins to
the actual Hansen buck. I have a poster of it in my office. If any
members would like to see this beautiful animal they are more
than welcome to stop by. I would be very happy and very proud
to show them how beautiful this specimen is.
I have been a bit facetious in some of my remarks about some
of the potential images that could go on the coin. Probably we
should not even mint the coin unless we are absolutely sure
Canadians understand all the alternatives.
If that does not happen, if that dialogue is not permitted, if the
mint goes ahead with this plan after it is approved by the House I
would ask the House and the mint, the department of public
works, to give serious consideration first and foremost to a
prairie symbol being on the coin. Second, if it pleases
Canadians, members of the House and the mint, and I hope it
would, I ask they give serious consideration to stamping an
image of the Hansen buck on the new $2 coin.
(1555)
[Translation]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon.
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.
First of all, I would like to remind him that during the last
election campaign and in our red book we undertook to reduce
the deficit, and we believe that by introducing this new $2 coin
we will realize some extremely interesting profits on the order
of $250 million.
I am a little confused because, since their arrival in the House,
the members of the Reform Party have repeatedly told us that we
must make cuts in every way possible and now what do I hear but
this member and the member for Elk Island telling us ``yes,
but''. The member for Elk Island actually said that the Reform
Party would go so far as to vote against the bill. I can hardly
believe my ears, and I would like some further explanation from
my colleague.
As for vending machines, it should be pointed out that
operators will not be obliged to conform immediately to the new
legislation and adjust to the new coinage.
It should also be said that vending machine operators will
undoubtedly take the opportunity to increase their profits, since
this $2 coin will make it possible to offer complete meals, that is
meals that will cost a bit more. With the new technology, it will
be possible to have hot meals, just as it will be possible to have
larger refrigerated meals.
I ask my colleague, in all fairness to the Canadian men and
women listening to us, to comment on what I have just said.
I would also like to say that during the survey done with
respect to this $2 coin, Canadians were split almost equally in
their response to the first question concerning their wish to have
such a coin. In response to the second question, which pointed
out that there would be savings of $250 million over twenty
years, the percentage in favour rose sharply to 79 per cent. I
would like my colleague's comments on this matter.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. I took a stab at answering that question in my speech
but I would be happy to review some of those facts with the hon.
member.
As I said in my speech, all the options were not considered in
that survey. We really should have asked Canadians whether
they felt there should be a $2 currency at all. Maybe we should
eliminate the $2 bill, which is very expenses, and not replace it
with a $2 coin. Perhaps in five years with inflation having done
its thing there would be a recommendation for a $5 coin. Then
we would have to revamp all the vending machines, mint a new
coin and go through the procedure once again.
We should be talking how we can save Canadian taxpayers the
most money. I suggest in that consideration we look at whether
there should be a $2 currency period, coin or bill. If it were
determined we do not need that it would save much more than
$250 million. That is what I was trying to get across to hon.
members on the other side, had they been listening a little more
closely.
(1600)
Another thing we should be looking at is whether we still need
the penny in Canada. Pennies are extremely expensive. We have
been minting pennies because people hoard them. Pennies are
put into jars and never get back into circulation. It is even worse
12912
than the loonie which apparently is being stored in bank vaults.
There are millions of them.
_____________________________________________
12912
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, forgive me for interrupting the
answer. Of course, the hon. member will have the floor when we
have finished.
Earlier today we had a request from the hon. member for Red
Deer and the hon. member for Roberval and I am prepared to
make my ruling in the application for an emergency debate.
I have listened carefully to the application of the hon.
members for Red Deer and Roberval under Standing Order 52
for an emergency debate on the current crisis in
Bosnia-Hercegovina. I have decided that the two applications
do meet the exigencies stipulated in Standing Order 52.
Consequently a debate will take place this day at 8 p.m.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been conversations among the parties in the House
in anticipation of the ruling of the Speaker. I think you would
find unanimous consent that the debate commence at 6.30 p.m.
rather than 8 p.m. and that the debate finish at 10.30 p.m. rather
than at midnight. The effect would be to have the usual four
hours for the emergency debate but to allow for the debate to
proceed immediately after adjournment at 6.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you were to offer that to the House, I believe
you would find in the spirit of co-operation that such an
agreement has been made among the parties and you would find
consent to commence the debate at the time I have just suggested
and to end it accordingly.
The Speaker: My colleagues, you have heard the explanation
of the government whip. Is there unanimous agreement that the
debate do begin at 6.30 p.m. and terminate at 10.30 p.m. this
day?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
12912
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the
penny in answering the hon. member's question. I suggested we
should view whether or not we need the penny in circulation
because it is of an extremely high cost to Canadians because
they hoard them.
The real problem why we need the penny is rather ironic. It is
because we have the GST which adds 7 per cent to everything.
The Liberals promised to do away with the GST. I am sure that
retailers and businesses across the country would be happy to
deal in increments of 5 cents and we could do away with the
penny. But how do they not charge GST on 39 cents or 59 cents
of goods? If the government had kept its promise to eliminate
the GST, perhaps we could be talking about not only doing away
with the $2 currency but doing away with the penny as well and
saving considerably more than $250 million for Canadian
taxpayers and consumers.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my understanding that a bimetallic $2 coin requires new
technology. My opinion is it would be a terrific advantage. The
Royal Canadian Mint and Canadian suppliers are working
together to compete for foreign production contracts for
bimetallic coins.
I would be interested to hear from the hon. member about the
advantages and the source of revenue this might provide.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I tried to follow the question
but I missed a little bit of it there.
(1605 )
It seemed to me that the hon. member was talking about the
opportunities to market the minting of coins which would
stimulate jobs and would have some economic spinoff.
Certainly, if we can do that internationally that is fine. If the
Mexicans want to mint a new peso and they ask us to provide the
technology, that is wonderful. If we can have a long term plan to
improve the minting of our own Canadian coin that would be
wonderful.
However, there are flaws with this survey. It states that there
are two main concerns with the implementation of the $2 coin.
First, it seems as though there is no overall strategy with regard
to our currency. We are talking about different weights and the
12913
fact that we may have to re-mint all of our coins. Why are we
going to implement a new $2 coin and then find out that we have
to change our loonie, quarter, nickel and dime because the
weights are not right?
It is going to be a cruel joke on Canadian business. Certainly it
will be a cruel joke on those who are manufacturing vending
machines because they are going to have to refit those machines
annually or every two or three years. It is just not well thought
out. We also have to consider the cost to the Canadian consumer
which would be immense, far more than $250 million and far
more than any economic stimulus generated by the minting of
new coins in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak about Bill
C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act.
Allow me to begin my speech with a digression. I am making
my comments in the House of Commons today as the Bloc
Quebecois' deputy critic for Government Services and Public
Works; the Bloc Quebecois' main critic for this department is
the hon. member for Québec-Est, Jean-Paul Marchand.
As deputy critic and member for Charlevoix, it is my pleasure
to take the floor regarding this bill. I may be present in the
House today, but my thoughts are elsewhere. In my riding,
workers are threatened by the closure of employment centres in
La Malbaie, Forestville and Baie-Comeau. I am also thinking of
all of the problems associated with unemployment in my riding,
which affect all workers, unemployed persons and welfare
recipients in the RCM of Charlevoix East and West.
The parliamentary secretary may feel that this has no bearing
on the bill. If he lets me continue, he will realize that what the
people of Charlevoix want is to work in order to have money in
their pockets, whether it be in the form of a bill or a coin. This is
a superficial issue and, in my opinion, discussing whether the
denomination is made of paper or another material is a waste of
time: the people of Charlevoix are concerned with working and
earning money.
I would also like to remind the parliamentary secretary of
what he mentioned earlier to the Reform member regarding the
red book, and I would ask him to reread the three little words
which got the government elected: ``jobs, jobs, jobs''. Closing
employment centres, declaring the employees of manpower
centres surplus and determining unemployment zones will not
stimulate local economies.
If this legislation is passed, the two dollar bill will be replaced
by a two dollar coin at the beginning of 1996. All two dollar bills
will be returned to the Bank of Canada for disposal. The federal
government can only introduce this new two dollar coin if it
obtains Parliament's approval, since the proportion of nickel,
bronze and aluminum in this new coin is not specified in Part II
of the schedule to the Royal Canadian Mint Act.
If Part II of the schedule to the Royal Canadian Mint Act
already specified the coin's composition, the government would
not be required to obtain Parliament's approval prior to minting
it.
(1610)
The government's main argument in an effort to get the House
to adopt the bill is that the introduction of a $2 coin will generate
savings of approximately $250 million over 20 years. They do
say every little bit counts, but, taken over 20 years, this amount
is almost negligible compared with the amount of the deficit.
In its information paper, the Royal Canadian Mint states that
the introduction of a $2 coin, which, in passing, will be larger
and heavier than the $1 coin, serves the needs of business. They
should have said, ``some businesses'', because not all business
people look kindly on this bill. The proof lies in the fact that the
federal government had to conduct two surveys of businesses
and consumers, since the results of the first survey were not in
favour of introducing the $2 coin.
The surveys were done by the Environics firm. It surveyed
1,020 people in Sherbrooke, Toronto and Calgary-far too few
in my estimation. The first survey revealed strong opposition of
46 per cent and weak support of 50 per cent. In the second
survey, they let it be known that the federal government would
save $250 million over 20 years. The government's project then
received the approval of 80 per cent of respondents.
Clearly the Royal Canadian Mint wanted immediate public
support for the introduction of a $2 coin. Further on in the
report, we note that some survey respondents felt that any saving
made by introducing a $2 coin would be offset by the start up
costs of producing the new coin and that jobs would be lost in the
pulp and paper industry as a result.
The government report also indicates, and I quote: ``The
introduction of the $1 coin was accompanied by increased use of
the $2 bill, indicating that the public might resist the
introduction of a $2 coin''.
Given that the trial coin chosen for the new $2 coin is heavier
and larger than the loonie, I am sure the public will not support
the introduction of such a coin.
Here is a surprising point about the survey questions. At no
point did the Environics survey include a question about
completely eliminating the $2 denomination. It is a bit odd, is it
not? Instead of introducing a $2 coin, the federal government
should simply eliminate the bill and the $2 denomination and
encourage people to use the loonie more.
12914
Many countries, such as the United States and Great Britain,
have never had a $2 denomination or have simply done away
with it. So, we can certainly do without it.
This is how the federal government could make real savings.
There would be no new coin to strike nor new bills to print for
the Royal Canadian Mint. There would be no expense for
retailers. And, finally, better use would be made of the $1 coins.
The Canadian Bankers' Association speaking on behalf of the
financial institutions, has reached the same conclusion. What is
more, many retailers' and consumers' associations have no
official position on Bill C-82, quite simply because they do not
know the government is preparing to introduce a $2 coin. They
have heard nothing about it and are surprised to discover that the
bill has gone so far.
(1615)
Once again, the government seems to be trying to pull the
wool over our eyes, if I may say so. If it had really wanted to take
the pulse of the nation, it would have launched an information
campaign on the possibility of legislating the replacement of the
$2 bill by a $2 coin. The response to such proposed legislation
would certainly have been negative. People are still having a
hard time accepting the loonie, and eight years later, the
government wants to burden their pockets with yet another coin.
Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary to the Minister
of Public Works and Government Services would have had us
believe, last week, the $1 coin is not as popular as the
government would like it to be. The proof is that more than 50
million $1 coins lay dormant in the vaults of Canadian banks.
According to its own management, the Royal Canadian Mint
must manufacture 1.25 times more $1 coins than it did $1 bills,
because people empty their pockets, stockpile the coins at home,
and then deposit them inn their bank or credit union account. It
is estimated that there are around $10 million worth of $1 coins
in Canadians' piggy banks. This is really incredible.
Subsequently, financial institutions must store these coins in
their vaults. I have trouble imagining the amount of space
necessary to store all these coins and the personnel required to
handle this job.
Moreover, I would like to point out to my colleagues that
financial institutions do not earn interest on the coins they have
in their vaults, which translates into lost revenues for them, and
that they cannot return them to the Bank of Canada. It does not
take back uncirculated coins, and banks and credit unions will
have to manage their own stock of coins.
Although the government is anticipating savings of $250
million over 20 years, one should not forget that there are costs
associated with the introduction of this new coin. We only have
to think of all the cash registers, the vending machines, the
parking meters, and the laundromat machines, and other
automated dispensers of all kinds which will have to be
modified in order to accept this new coin.
The government estimates that it will cost $25 million to
modify vending machines. Owners, for their part, will have had
to modify their machines twice in less than 10 years since, as
you may recall, the federal government introduced the $1
coin-also known as the loonie-eight years ago. And if that
was not enough, the government now wants to alter the
composition of the penny, the nickel, the dime, the quarter and
the fifty cent coin to make them lighter. This will entail the
additional cost of altering vending machines so that they can
take all Canadian coins whatever their composition. In addition,
the alloy used for the penny would be of much lower quality than
the current version. This will result in premature rusting of the
coin.
Who will pay for all these changes? You and I, Mr. Speaker,
along with all Quebecers and Canadians. The items now
available for $1.75 or $1.90 from vending machines will cost $2
tomorrow, as happened after the $1 coin was introduced, when
the cost of items formerly priced at 80 or 90 cents quickly rose to
$1. This point was also raised by the people polled by
Environics. As usual, the government passes the cost of the
changes on to retailers, who can only pass it on to their
customers.
(1620)
In conclusion, I suggest that the federal government should
launch a publicity campaign aimed at finding out the opinion of
the Canadian people on this issue. However, the government
must play fair and promote all possible alternatives, that is, to
issue a new $2 coin, keep the $2 bill or simply eliminate the $2
denomination.
I am sure that, in the end, the people would choose to abolish
the $2 denomination in order to achieve greater savings in the
short, medium and long term. Finally, with the developments in
debit card technology, people will see a gradual reduction in the
number of bills and coins in circulation, as they are being
replaced with electronic money.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. colleague from
Charlevoix said, and I note that he recognizes that substantial
savings, to the tune of $250 million, will be made.
Must I point out at this time that, if this measure were also
applied to the penny, nickel, dime, quarter and 50 cent coin, we
would save an extra $500 million? That is a rather significant
amount.
I must say that the technological know-how gained while
producing this new $2 coin will certainly be used in the future
for other Canadian coins and, as a bonus, we can export this
technology anywhere in the world for a profit.
12915
Although my hon. colleague from Charlevoix did not refer
to it specifically, I would like to address the initial remarks
made by the public works critic, my hon. colleague for
Québec-Est, who put forward extremely alarmist figures in his
remarks, stating that it would cost coin-operated vending
machine operators approximately $400 million to adjust to the
introduction of the new $2 coin. I am sure that my hon.
colleague from Charlevoix, who just spoke in support of his
colleague from Québec-Est, will be able to explain to this
House and to all Canadians where this $400 million figure
comes from, so as to not scare people needlessly.
Vending machine operators will have a full year after this bill
receives royal assent to adjust. Even then, they will not be
required to do so. We must always bear in mind that any vending
machine operator who decides to raise his prices will have to
hold up to the competition.
I would like my hon. colleague from Charlevoix to comment
on these two points, explaining where this $400 million figure
comes from and whether competition should continue to come
into play with respect to vending machines.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Speaker, first, it goes without saying that we
support the idea of saving money; the government mentioned
the figure of $250 million over a 20-year period by replacing
two dollar bills with two dollar coins. True, the coin would last
much longer; but there are costs involved in issuing such a new
coin. The government does not need to issue another coin; it
should simply abolish that denomination.
If the two dollar bill is replaced by a two dollar coin, it will
result in savings of $250 million over 20 years, but how much
would be saved if we issued more two dollar bills?
In reference to the figure of $400 million mentioned in the
speech made on Friday by the Bloc critic, the hon. member for
Québec-Est, Jean-Paul Marchand, it may be that I am missing
some element, but I said that, in my opinion, it would be
possible to save $25 million, in the short term.
I challenge anyone in this House to tell me just how much,
give or take two dollars, it would cost the municipalities to make
the necessary changes to their parking meters, not to mention
such other items as vending machines. What would be the costs
of such changes?
(1625)
I doubt anyone here can provide such an accurate figure.
However, before passing such legislation, we have to take a look
at the costs involved for those who own vending machines.
These costs will also be passed on to consumers. Indeed,
consumers always end up footing the bill.
In conclusion, the government should seriously consider
abolishing the two dollar denomination. This would help
circulate the $10 billion in one dollar coins which are currently
unused and kept in Canadian banks. The minute people have a
couple of one dollar coins in their pocket, they exchange them
for a two dollar bill, because they find these coins to be
cumbersome.
Indeed, when we have a few of these coins, we quickly
exchange them for bills. Consequently, if you add an even
heavier and more cumbersome two dollar coin, you will create a
problem for everyone, and that becomes a real nuisance.
[English]
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the hon. member. It would seem to me
that if someone gets $4 in change, four loonies would certainly
be heavier than two $2 coins, so I am having difficulty
understanding that argument.
Has the hon. member taken into consideration in any of his
numbers the value of the new technology and the advantages we
as Canadians could receive from exporting such technology?
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I explained that earlier. Consumers
are turning increasingly to electronic money, to cards from
various financial institutions. We must get used to this
technology. But I think that the purpose of today's debate is not
to determine whether four loonies weigh more than two $2
coins. Let us get real.
We are ready to help the government reduce the deficit, and
we are ready to eliminate the $2 denomination, and I am
convinced that, in the interest of eliminating the deficit, the
Canadian public will certainly agree. The loonie which was put
into circulation eight years ago, can be used for a much longer
period of time that the dollar bill it replaced. If we did away with
the $2 denomination, the loonie could be used more effectively.
The United States and Great Britain have eliminated the $1
coin and the $2 bill and the two pound note. Let us follow their
lead and we might save even more that what we are now
contemplating. The government just decided one day to issue a
$2 bill and today finds itself wondering whether this
denomination continues to serve any purpose.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate my colleague for Charlevoix for
taking such a responsible stance. He demonstrated, for example,
that we in this House are reduced to discussing bills of this kind
which are of little or no importance. This bill does not really
create savings, will actually cost consumers money and, to top it
off, does not even create any jobs. I agree that we should use
more of our time to debate bills that are much more serious than
this one.
I would also like to ask my colleague, if you will allow me Mr.
Speaker, if in effect he can see any good in this bill? Regarding
12916
the $400 million he mentioned, we calculated that business
people are going to have to buy new cash registers, that
municipalities may have to install new parking meters and that
all vending machines will have to be recalibrated and changed.
This will cost the private sector a lot of money and consumers
will ultimately foot the bill.
(1630)
The consumer will be the one who pays. In fact, the only party
that this bill will help is the Royal Canadian Mint. So I ask my
colleague for Charlevoix if he can see anything good about this
bill.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for Québec-Est for his question. It has enabled me to
digress and say that, this afternoon, I felt I was wasting my time
in the House. I would have preferred to be in the riding of
Charlevoix, working with the people there who are threatened
with losing their jobs and who will be declared redundant as the
result of the Axworthy reform.
I think we are wasting our time discussing such a trivial
matter as the introduction of a $2 coin. We are not talking about
the real problems of the economy. We are going to create
problems. The purpose of government is to resolve problems,
not to create them.
I am a bit embarrassed knowing that, in my riding of
Charlevoix, the unemployed have mobilized to combat the
Axworthy reform. Some of them are now on welfare. As I was
saying, as far as paying for groceries is concerned, it makes little
difference whether $2 is a bill or a coin; the main thing is to have
some money. People are willing to work to earn some money.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to
start with, I would like to tell my colleague from Charlevoix that
I am in complete agreement with him, especially on what he said
in the conclusion of his speech. Not knowing that he would talk
in the House about the workers in Charlevoix, and the relevance
of the $2 coin, I will start my speech this way.
I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the Liberals had given
in to the joint demands of the Bloc and of the Reform Party and
agreed to an emergency debate on Bosnia, but not before this
evening. In spite of the fact that 326 hostages, including 55
Canadians, are being held in Bosnia, that we have learned that
the head of Bosnian diplomacy was killed yesterday, that the
conflict has led to 200,000 deaths, that the Reform Party and the
Bloc Quebecois are asking for an emergency debate to be held
immediately on a matter of extreme urgency, we are told that
there are too many emergencies, too many important debates,
such as this one on the $2 coin.
We now know what the priorities of our colleagues opposite
are. Canadians soldiers and UN troops have to take a back seat to
the debate on the relevance of the $2 coin. In this context, I will
be pleased to spend a few minutes discussing whether the $2 bill
should be maintained or withdrawn from currency.
First, I would be pleased to provide you with a few facts and
figures. Today, in Canada, it costs around $30 million a year to
produce, print and issue $2 bills. They have approximately a one
year life expectancy, some do not last as long, but the average
life expectancy is around one year; as I said, the total cost of
producing $2 bills is approximately $30 million.
So, we question and rightfully so-the thinkers and
mandarins are probably conducting studies on the subject and
they will spend tens of thousands of dollars, maybe
millions-whether we should continue this great Canadian
tradition of a $2 bill with the Queen's effigy.
A $2 coin could save $250 million over a 20-year period.
Therefore, many Canadians will say: ``Down with the $2 bill and
up with the $2 coin which will make us save $250 million over
20 years''. A simple decision.
However, we should go a little deeper and look at more
rational arguments. Earlier we were talking about technology. If
we do not proceed with a $2 coin will we still have nickels,
dimes, quarters and loonies? Why not apply technology to this?
Do not try to make us believe in a lot of things which make no
sense.
First of all, the Royal Canadian Mint and it alone will save
money, not you and me, not the taxpayers, not the merchants and
certainly not the people operating vending machines.
(1635)
There was no lobbying from vending machine manufacturers
because the whole thing was obvious. We had estimations based
on the same principle as the figures given to us earlier. As the
member for Charlevoix said, it is estimated that the $2 coin will
necessarily cost vending machine manufacturers around $300
million.
This is an estimate just as our colleagues opposite used the
word ``estimated'' to say that there will be savings of around
$250 million. Why an estimate? Because there has been no
serious study on a change like the introduction of a $2 coin.
Therefore, I and the Bloc Quebecois propose to abolish the $2
bill or at least to undertake a serious study showing the real
savings that could result from the replacement of the $2 bill with
a $2 coin.
While bringing these changes to the Canadian monetary
system we could take the opportunity to abolish the penny,
which costs one and a half cents to produce. There are presently
an estimated 10 billion of those coins in circulation. Ten billion
one cent coins which cost one and a half cents each to produce. It
is important to repeat it. Lets put an end to that waste by
eliminating the one cent coin and the two dollar bill. For once
the government could recover that money, that is tens of
12917
millions of dollars a year, and put it clearly and totally into a
definite policy designed to create jobs and help the poor.
Tens of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars, are
currently being cut in transfer payments to provinces and
systems such as these will be allowed to continue.
What we are saying is that we will save tens of millions of
dollars by abolishing the $2 bills, but instead of losing this
amount in overall public spending, we should develop a good
framework and put in place a specific program of job creation or
assistance to poor people.
In view of the current economic and social situation, we have
neither the right nor the means to invest funds in areas such as
these, when thousands of our fellow citizens live below the
poverty line and destitute people are knocking at our doors every
day.
To quote only one example, a lady came to my riding office.
This 62-year old lady cannot get old age benefits from the
federal government and does not have any salary insurance
because she never had a job. Many women of her generation
stayed at home, so they are not eligible for salary insurance. So,
this woman is getting welfare payments of $642 a month. She
came to me asking: ``Is there a solution to my problem?''
Situations such as these, how many dozens are there in my
riding, how many thousands are there in Quebec and in Canada?
And here we are discussing changing $2 coins for paper bills. As
my colleague for Charlevoix was saying earlier, I think that it is
a shame to brag about such things in the House.
Do not tell me that the government has no other possibility or
place to spend the savings that could be made, to help people
like that woman or thousands of others in our ridings, rather than
perpetuating a timeworn system or replace it with a system just
as inappropriate, because the $2 coin would be inappropriate.
Our American neighbours have no $2 bill, and they are not any
worse off for it. The same can be said of other countries. It is a
very easy system to understand.
The Royal Canadian Mint-someone talked earlier about the
Royal Quebec Mint but there is no such thing-says its position
is based on a survey. Before we go to the questions and
comments period, it is important to put this survey in its true
context. This survey was biased because of the questions it
contained. You will ask how it was biased. Simply because it
asked people if they were in favour of keeping the $2 bill or if
they preferred to save tens of millions of dollars. People were
never asked if they were in favour of abolishing the $2
denomination, because the answer was known already.
Quebecers are used to biased surveys. They have seen many of
them in the past.
People never had a chance to ask themselves if they were for
or against the abolition of the $2 denomination. I am convinced
that we cannot allow such a waste of public and private money at
a time when our society faces serious problems and our country
is sick.
(1640)
My speech is a drop in the ocean of words spoken in this
House on this debate. However, it is through such savings that
we must show our concern for the population. If we wish to
restore people's confidence in politics, politicians and the
House of Commons, minor debates that may not seem very
important can enable us to save tens of millions of dollars per
year, as we have seen in this case, perhaps even hundreds of
millions of dollars with one cent coins and two dollar bills, in
order to ensure proper redistribution among our businesses,
create jobs and help the disadvantaged, as I said earlier.
Concrete examples such as those I just listed would allow us
to save millions of dollars and hopefully create thousands of
jobs.
In closing, simply eliminating the $2 denomination would
save some $30 million a year and the one cent coin, several
millions of dollars. In addition, except for children with piggy
banks, everyone would be happy not to have these coins in their
pockets.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a very simple question to ask my hon. colleague
for Terrebonne. He nevertheless recognizes that rather
substantial savings will be made, to the tune of $250 million. I
would like to say a few words about the metal content of the new
coin. It will be made of copper, aluminum and nickel. Would it
be more acceptable to the Bloc members if the base material for
this coin came from Quebec?
Mr. Sauvageau: Let me just say this to my hon. colleague that
I do not know the periodical chart by heart; perhaps a chocolate
coin wrapped in gold foil would be better. Seriously, our point is
that the $2 coin your are proposing makes no sense. The people
of Canada know it. Content-whether nickel, plutonium or what
not-is not the issue, but rather the basis or rationale for this
bill. Tell me which clause deals with coin alloys in the bill
before us, then I will take your question seriously.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
12918
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a),
the recorded division on this motion stands deferred until 5.30
p.m. tomorrow.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on internal
trade, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
afternoon I will finish the speech I started a couple of weeks ago
on Bill C-88, an act to implement an agreement on internal
trade.
Just to set the stage, Bill C-88 is like Bill C-85, which is the
bill dealing with pension reform. There is a lot more fluff than
real substance in this bill. Indeed it is another failure to deal
with the serious problems that we have in Canada.
Past federal governments have preoccupied themselves with
provincial concerns such as social programs. They have spent
time rewriting our Constitution over and over while failing to
live by the one already in place. They have stepped on
provinces, taken their resource revenues and used them to fund
their grant infrastructure projects, but they have not enforced
the constitutional provisions which require free trade among
provinces.
(1645 )
The federal government has also been and continues to be the
instigator or accomplice in a number of interprovincial barriers.
Because of various fiscal transfer programs such as regional
development and block funding, Ottawa manages to hide the
true costs to provincial residents of the barriers their provinces
have erected.
If jobs are killed in one province due to barriers, then federal
welfare dollars and federal grants to inefficient business help to
alleviate the fiscal pain that a province would otherwise suffer.
In fact, the more inefficient a province is, the more it is
compensated by Ottawa. There is no incentive here for a
province to correct its mistakes.
Ottawa also inhibits the free movement of labour. The
unemployment insurance scheme the Liberals so cherish has
provided incentives for the unemployed to remain in place
rather than moving to regions where jobs are more plentiful.
This is indisputably borne out by the facts.
For example, our Atlantic provinces continue to suffer from
chronic higher unemployment than the rest of the country. This
is due in most part to the incentive provided by unemployment
insurance for the unemployed to remain in place. The problem is
especially severe because in regions that do not fare worse than
others, the federal government has increased the benefits
available, sinking those who use the benefits further into
dependency on the government.
We have been hearing for a long time now about social
program reform and the wonderful job our human resources
development minister is doing, but we have yet to see
meaningful changes to the system that will actually give a hand
up to Canadians rather than just a hand out. When this happens,
consumers will see more clearly that certain provincial policies
have worked to their detriment and that eliminating barriers is in
everyone's best interests.
It is long past time for the federal government to take
leadership on these issues. This problem is costing the economy
billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Yes, the Liberals were
given a mandate to govern using the methods they find most
appropriate, but this was based on a series of promised outcomes
contained in the red book, most of which have been broken.
The red ink book promised: ``A Liberal government will be
committed to the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers
within Canada and will address this issue urgently''. Where is
the elimination of trade barriers which was so clearly promised
in the election rhetoric? Yes, it looks fairly certain that a few
barriers may be reduced with this agreement but as I have
already pointed out, new barriers could also arise.
We are a long, long way from barrier elimination. Based on
the current pace of progress, we are not going to see this promise
fulfilled by the next election. This is the time the Canadian
people will have an opportunity to judge these Liberals for their
failure to keep their promises. By then the Liberal inaction will
have cost billions more dollars and will have prevented
thousands of Canadians on the welfare and unemployment lists
from finding meaningful employment.
Reformers have the policies and the people to implement a
Canada-wide free trade plan. If the Liberals will not do this,
then I believe the Canadian people will give Reformers the
mandate to do it.
What are the problems I am talking about? Where are the
barriers today? Obviously, I am not going to list each of the
several hundred, but I would like to mention a few major
barriers that must come down quickly.
12919
The first barrier which comes to mind is one that has a large
effect on employment in my riding. There is a modern brewery
in Simcoe Centre that employs hundreds of Canadians. Over
the years this brewery could have employed more people,
expanded its operations and even become efficient enough to
compete with major American brewers. This did not happen
because its market has been restricted by trade walls erected
by provinces, including Ontario, in an attempt to protect their
local brewers.
The protectionism that insulated and sustained these
inefficient brewers for so long will now be the death of many of
them. International trade pressures are already forcing smaller,
inefficient breweries out of business. Brewing is a $9.6 billion
retail industry in Canada so even small reductions in production
costs due to greater economies of scale will produce better
prices for consumers and a more competitive economy.
To their credit, some brewers have taken the initiative and
have used our external free trade agreements to their benefit. As
a result, it is now easier to find certain New Brunswick brands of
beer on store shelves in San Antonio and Los Angeles than it is
to find them in Toronto or Montreal. It saddens me that this is the
current twisted reality.
(1650)
Unfortunately, the success story I just described has a
downside at least for those breweries that are not ready to
compete. American brewers are gaining more and more access
to our domestic beer market through GATT, NAFTA and free
trade and will force out those who cannot compete.
As an example, a single brewery in Colorado Springs,
Colorado produces all the beer under a particular label for the
entire United States market, a market of 250 million people. The
facility is so large it ships bulk product 3,000 kilometres to
Virginia for canning. Then it is distributed up and down the east
coast of the United States. How can we expect breweries that
produce only enough product for a few hundred thousand
consumers to remain in business? It is difficult to compete with
that economy of scale.
I believe Canadians wish to see these impediments to freedom
done away with and receive the most efficient and economic
value possible for their hard earned wages. Beer is such an
obvious area of concern for consumers that I was amazed to
learn the industry had been exempted from the provincial
agreement altogether. We need to focus serious efforts in this
area or risk losing thousands more jobs in an increasingly
competitive world.
Another barrier of major importance that must be dealt with
quickly is the barrier each province erects when conducting its
own government procurement. The provinces have a long
history of purchasing from within their own borders regardless
of cost. This raises the cost of purchasing.
According to the Consumers' Association of Canada some
provinces pay up to 10 per cent more for local products, which in
turn raises government expenditure and taxes. It also costs jobs
in other provinces because the most efficient producers cannot
sell outside their own provinces. Some jobs may be protected
locally but just like the brewing industry, these local producers
are insulated and inefficient.
The higher taxes affect all Canadians and cost more jobs in
total than attempting to protect the local industry they will save.
One writer on economics remarked 200 years ago: ``It is the
maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to
make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.
The tailor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys
them from the shoemaker. The shoemaker does not attempt to
make his own clothes, but employs a tailor. The farmer attempts
to make neither the one nor the other, but employs those who
can.
``All of them find it for their interest to employ their whole
industry in a way in which they have some advantage over their
neighbours, and to purchase with part of its produce, whatever
else they have occasion for. What is prudence in the conduct of
every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great
kingdom''.
Adam Smith wrote that in The Wealth of Nations. Yet it would
seem that centuries later our brilliant political elite has not yet
been able to grasp this simple truth.
The industry minister attempted to achieve a deal on the issue
of government procurement but due to the shortsightedness of
some provinces their agreement was window dressing only.
Crown corporations which do much of the procurement in
question are completely exempt from this arrangement. With all
the exemptions available elsewhere in the agreement it is
unclear if there will be any meaningful improvement in
government procurement either.
It is important that we make it a high priority to get the
provinces back to the table and to remove these barriers to
competitiveness. Interprovincial barriers to trade and financial
services create once again a higher cost to consumers, cost
financial institutions their competitive position and cost
Canadians jobs.
This also affects another major employer of my riding, a trust
company which finds restrictions on selling its services outside
Ontario. Conversely, trusts from outside Ontario also find
difficult and expensive barriers to entry to the Ontario financial
markets.
Trust companies find barriers to trade in the different
regulations each province sets up. A highest common
denominator approach must be taken to selling services in more
than one market, thereby increasing costs. A standard set of
regulations for all provinces would eliminate administrative
overhead,
12920
would produce more competitiveness, would lower costs for
consumers and ultimately would create more jobs.
A further barrier to trade is the restriction placed on various
types of labour mobility between provinces. This is a particular
concern to an area such as Ottawa-Hull which straddles a
provincial boundary but it still affects other Canadians in
serious ways.
(1655 )
Many of us are familiar with the dispute which erupted last
year between Ontario and Quebec on the issue of construction. It
was one of many trade barriers which prevented professionals
and labourers from offering their services across Canada. It
meant that competition was reduced and it resulted in higher
costs and taxes for consumers. Fortunately, Ontario and Quebec
managed to resolve their differences on this single issue to the
benefit of both.
That deal is the exception rather than the rule. It is time for us
to dispense with these issues once and for all. For generations
we have allowed the inefficiencies of small, protected, regional
markets in many goods and services to constrict the economy,
hurt our political and cultural objectives and cost us jobs.
Labour mobility is an area of trade which has been opened up
between Canada and the United States under the free trade
agreement. Once again as with beer, professionals such as
accountants and engineers can more easily ply their trade
between Ontario and the American states than they can between
Ontario and Quebec. If we are to remain a developed country we
must keep on developing our resources, especially our human
resources, or risk losing them to more developed countries.
It is important to look at other examples of trade
arrangements to determine what is best for us. The United States
is a good example of a country where wide open commerce
between jurisdictions negotiated and enforced by a national
government has led to greater prosperity for the whole nation.
Barriers were challenged and eliminated in the United States
early in the history of the country and it has prospered ever
since. The previous example of the Colorado brewery is a good
example of the reason that Canadians need the same freedoms.
In Canada we have spent great energy concentrating on our
external trading relationships which account for 25 per cent of
our economy. The Americans count on exports for only 8 per
cent of their economy and yet are a far more prosperous nation.
There is certainly a message for Canada in this. We must become
more focused on reducing barriers when it comes to domestic
trade.
The European Union is a modern day example of a trading
relationship which has sprung out of the realization that free
trade benefits everyone regardless of language or region. There
are some real lessons for Canadians in this. The European Union
has not only established free trade in goods, produce and capital,
but also has free trade in labour as well. The citizens of any
European country now have the right to work in any other
European country. Because labour was made more transferable,
common certification had to be implemented in a number of
areas.
While the system has not achieved perfection yet, it is an
improvement in the lives of all citizens. Surely if Europeans of
different languages and ethnic backgrounds can achieve such an
agreement over the borders of nations, then Canadians must be
able to resolve the few differences which exist between
provinces.
In present day Canada there is over $146 billion worth of trade
between the provinces. There are also at least 500 barriers to
interprovincial trade in Canada and each one costs jobs, money,
growth and competitiveness which has hurt all Canadians
directly. They are forced to pay higher prices for products such
as eggs, milk, beer and financial services. They have to pay
higher taxes in order that the provincial government can favour
inefficient local producers over best value for money producers
elsewhere.
These barriers are a problem which can be solved unilaterally
in many cases by a determined federal government. Even small
improvements in reducing barriers can mean big gains for the
country. It is time for us to get serious about dealing with them.
Reformers have written policies on these issues. I will share
them with the House.
The Reform Party supports the removal of interprovincial
barriers to trade through agreements which include trade dispute
settlement mechanisms among the provinces. Should the
provinces fail to co-operate in the removal of interprovincial
trade barriers, the Reform Party supports constitutional
challenges to such impediments wherever possible.
I believe this statement is self-explanatory and I mentioned
earlier that Reformers have a plan to deal with trade barriers. It
is the constitutional law already set in place to deal with exactly
such problems.
Section 121 of the British North America Act states: ``All
articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any one of the
provinces shall, from and after the union, be admitted free into
each of the other provinces''. Also, section 91 of the British
North America Act states: ``The exclusive legislative authority
of the Parliament of Canada extends to the regulation of trade
and commerce''.
12921
(1700 )
It is obvious from these two sections that interprovincial trade
is an exclusive federal jurisdiction and the provinces are
violating the intent of the Constitution when they erect barriers
to trade. A Reform government would do everything necessary
to enforce these constitutional principles.
The industry minister stated, after signing the deal last July,
that: ``Our governments have achieved this voluntarily, not
through arbitrary and contentious attempts to use federal powers
or other forms of coercion''. This statement underlines the
fundamental difference between Liberals and Reformers.
Liberals, always anxious never to rock the boat or step on any
toes, are happy with tiny steps or even stepping backward if they
think they can put a good face on it.
Reformers are much more interested in dealing with reality
and solving problems. It is plain to see that the provinces are
violating the intent of the Constitution. In the best interest of all
Canadians, Reformers wish to see the situation rectified. If this
means using some federal power or coercion to see fundamental
constitutional law complied with, then so be it.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, also a
constitutional appendix, states:
Every citizen or permanent resident of Canada has the right to move to and
take up residence in any province and to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in
any province.
This right has been successfully used in court challenges to
strike down provincial laws that prevent professionals from
working in different jurisdictions. Most notable was the case of
a New Brunswick accountant who wished to conduct some
affairs in P.E.I. Because island law prohibited him from working
there, he took P.E.I. to court and won, based on his charter
mobility right.
Reformers support the free movement of labour across
provincial borders. We believe the government must work
quickly to ensure that these goals are achieved.
In analysing the facts, it is all very well and good to say that
Canadians have these rights, but what businessman has the time,
money and patience to pursue court cases in every jurisdiction
just so he can go to work? This has to be recognized as an
impediment to the free flow of labour and it is past time for the
provinces to remove these impediments. They have
significantly added to the cost of doing business and have
deterred new business. We benefit our American cousins when
we abuse our own citizenry. Many now look south to expand
because the walls east and west in Canada are too high to climb
over.
Governments, not private citizens, have the responsibility to
deal with these issues and to do so urgently, as the industry
minister stated.
Reformers find themselves unable to support a bill that lends
credibility to the first ministers' failure of last summer. We
demand that the federal government enforce the Constitution
which contains the necessary authority to allow free trade
between the provinces, especially section 121, section 91 and
the charter mobility right and to do everything in its power to
ensure that all provincial barriers are eliminated.
We also demand that federal programs that compensate for
provincial barriers by redistributing wealth and programs that
inhibit the free trade of labour be eliminated.
The bottom line is that interprovincial trade barriers mean
lost jobs for Canadians, higher taxes and product costs, and a
less competitive economy with which to face the world.
As I said at the opening of my remarks, Bill C-88, approving
the trade agreement in its present form is a major
disappointment for two major reasons. The first is that it fails to
give Canadians a golden opportunity to create the thousands of
jobs so desperately needed today.
The second and perhaps more important reason is that it is
another broken red book promise. This is at a time when all of us
here should be doing all we can to restore that lost trust between
voters and the politicians. Another lost opportunity, another step
backward.
For all the reasons stated, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that''
and substituting the following therefor:
That this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-88, an act to
implement the agreement on internal trade because it fails to eliminate all
interprovincial trade barriers.
(1705)
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment of the member for
Simcoe Centre is receivable.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to participate in the debate on this very
important bill, which has almost gone unnoticed and has the
potential to alter the very basis of internal trade in Canada. That
is why I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-88, an act
to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade.
We will recall that this agreement is the fruit of very difficult,
very strenuous negotiations that went on from 1987 to July
1994, less than a year ago, when 11 governments, together with
the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories,
finally came to an agreement. The purpose of the agreement was
obviously to enter into some kind of domestic free trade
agreement for Canada.
This agreement affects 11 main fields of economic activity,
which I shall list for the sake of clarity. These fields of activity
are as follows: government procurement, investments, work
12922
force mobility, consumer standards, agri-food production,
alcoholic beverages, natural resources processing,
communications, transportation, energy and environmental
protection.
At this stage, I want to tell this House that the Bloc Quebecois,
as the official opposition, is for internal trade and, in that sense,
supports the bill. On the other hand, the Bloc Quebecois flatly
rejects the role, powers and importance the federal government
gives itself in this bill. And this is what we will be illustrating.
We disagree with this bill in three regards: first, the context in
which this bill was introduced; second, the actual wording of
clause 9, which is the main clause in Bill C-88; and third, the
rationale behind clause 9.
First, with respect to the context in which Bill C-88 was
presented, it is very shocking as it exemplifies this
government's logic, its habit of making decisions without prior
consultation with the provinces, preferring to do things on the
sly, while at the same time having no mandate to do so. We
learned from a reliable source that, at the last meeting of the
federal and provincial ministers responsible for internal trade in
Canada, which was held on April 10, 1995 in Calgary, the
federal government never stated its intention and never received
from the parties the mandate to do what is being proposed today.
Second point with respect to the context, although the parties
agreed that the dispute settlement mechanism, which is often the
stumbling block in this type of agreement, should be based on
the good faith of the parties and not on judicial procedures, that
is what the federal government chose to do, again without
consulting anyone. It chose the judicial route through clause 9,
to which I will come back in a moment.
Finally, still as regards the context, this bill shows how the
federal government sees its role in internal trade and gives itself
the power to interfere in interprovincial disputes, although this
power is not granted anywhere in the agreement.
(1710)
I now come to clause 9 which, as I said earlier, is the
cornerstone of this bill. I will read it to you because it is worth
reading. I can assure you that this clause will soon change the
way this country is run. Through clause 9, the federal
government gives itself the following powers:
9.(1) For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory
measures of equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the
Agreement, the Governor in Council may, by order, do any one or more of the
following:
(a) suspend rights or privileges granted by the government of Canada to the
province under the Agreement or any federal law;
(b) modify or suspend the application of any federal law with respect to the
province;
(c) extend the application of any federal law to the province; and;
(d) take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary.
(2) In this section, ``federal law'' means the whole or any portion of any Act of
Parliament or any regulation, order or other instrument issued, made or
established in the exercise of a power conferred by or under an Act of Parliament.
Two phrases are worthy of note: ``by order'' and ``pursuant to
Article 1710 of the Agreement''. I will look at this clause more
closely with the emphasis on the words ``by order''.
Therefore, the governor in council may, ``by order'', suspend
benefits or impose retaliatory measures of equivalent effect
against a province. ``By order'' means that, without
consultation, debate, or resolution of the House of Commons,
the rights or privileges granted by the Government of Canada to
said province at fault may be suspended under the agreement or
a federal law.
The governor in council may, ``by order'', modify or suspend
the application of any federal law with respect to the province.
The governor in council may, ``by order'', extend the
application of any federal law to the province. And, as if this
were not enough, the federal government may, again without
any mandate, ``by order'', take any other measure considered
necessary.
This is why Premier Parizeau referred to this as a trade war
measure. This is quite a statement, considering it comes from
the Premier of Quebec.
There is also the reference ``pursuant to Article 1710''. Let
me read you quickly the provision which, I feel, is the most
important one of the 13 paragraphs of Article 1710.
Paragraph 7 reads:
In considering what benefits to suspend, or retaliatory measures to impose,
the complaining Party shall:
(a) suspend benefits or impose measures in the same sector as the measure
found to be in violation of the Agreement; and
(b) only if such suspension or imposition would be impracticable or ineffective,
suspend benefits or impose retaliatory measures in other sectors covered by the
Agreement.
We are referring to Article 1710 which implies that, if there is
a problem with manpower mobility, and if it is not possible to
impose a similar retaliatory measure against the province at
fault, it is implied that retaliatory measures could be taken
regarding natural resources, communications or investment, for
example. This is what is provided.
It must be pointed out that this whole agreement, and
particularly Article 1710, is very vague as regards the role of the
federal government. Can the government intervene in a dispute
between two provinces, once it is determined which province is
at fault? This is not at all clear in the agreement as it is worded.
12923
Given our Canadian history, we know how much the federal
government resents any vacuum.
(1715)
Now, we are faced with a legal vacuum. We know how much
the federal government abhors a vacuum. Given the way it has
used its spending and residual powers in the past, we can count
on the federal government to take full advantage of vague
wording in the bill. As a matter of fact, it just took the necessary
means to be able to interfere freely to have unruly provinces toe
the line.
Reactions have been quite interesting. The Minister of
Industry, who is the minister responsible under the act, said that
the official opposition's reaction is paranoid and that our
remarks are weird. However, Manon Cornellier, who has been
following this issue for years, questioned two officials of the
internal trade secretariat, Mr. Lecherson and Mr. Knox, hours
after the tabling of the bill.
Mr. Lecherson is a senior strategy advisor. When asked about
the scope of the bill and its compliance with the intent of the
agreement and the scope of the bill, he said: ``As a matter of fact,
the bill goes further than the agreement itself``. Mr. Knox, who
is the executive director of the secretariat, said: ``In theory, the
government could take retaliatory measures deemed appropriate
in any sector, but that is very unlikely. They would be basically
economic measures''.
Now, we are dealing here strictly with economic issues. These
remarks suggest that the federal government would even target
social programs in order to make an unruly province, Quebec for
example, toe the line. That door has been opened, and that is why
it seems legitimate to impute motives. Given the lack of
openness of this government, we are justified in imputing
motives.
There was an official reaction, and I want to quote paragraphs
3 and 4 of a letter Daniel Paillé, the Quebec Minister of Industry,
Commerce, Science and Technology, sent to his Canadian
counterpart, on May 10, 1995: ``The government of Quebec
thinks it is unacceptable, pursuant to a Canada-wide agreement
where the federal government enters into a partnership with the
other parties to an agreement and where the scope of action
given to the various partners is well defined by chapter 17 of the
agreement, that the federal government found it important to
give itself such extended powers as those mentioned in clause 9
of the implementing bill. Therefore, the government of Quebec
is opposed to this provision, which gives the federal government
very extended powers that go beyond what is needed to
implement the retaliatory measures provided for in chapter 17 of
the agreement''.
I think that is quite clear. We have to imagine what all this
would mean in the normal course of events. Although a number
of examples were given earlier, we could give some more in
order to really show all the significance of the issue being
underhandedly addressed here. For example, any province at
fault could be denied federal subsidies. If Quebec, for instance,
were to be found at fault in some hypothetical situation, Hydro
Quebec could be prevented from selling its electricity to another
province.
Natural gas shipments to a province at fault could be banned.
This is a very serious issue. In terms of work force mobility, it
could mean that workers from one province could be prevented
from working in another province recognized as the party at
fault in a dispute between these two provinces. These are powers
the federal government is assuming, because nowhere in the
agreement is it mentioned that Ottawa has to introduce such a
bill.
This may not have been the government's intention, but if this
bill is adopted in its present form, the federal government will
be able to take such measures under clause 9, and that is what
makes the situation so serious. Finally, we have reservations
regarding the origin of clause 9. I was shocked when it was first
drawn to my attention.
(1720)
In fact, clause 9 is essentially identical to section 21 of
NAFTA except for certain references to the fact that the latter is
an international agreement. What the government did in clause 9
is to replace the word ``country'' that is found in section 21 by
the word ``province''. As far as I am concerned, there is no
better example of a lazy or careless government.
It seems too easy to copy almost word for word such an
important document because the problems are different and the
relationships that exist between sovereign countries are not
similar to the ones that can exist between a central government
and its provincial counterparts. I find it rather astounding that
the government would take the liberty of just changing the word
``country'' for the word ``province'' while taking the
opportunity to give itself enormous powers.
Perhaps there are visionaries in the Langevin Block-which
is not impossible-who saw that there will soon be a need for an
international treaty between the Government of Canada and the
Government of Quebec and who thought that it would be better
to save some time, money and energy and recognize
immediately, in a rather subtle way, that Quebec would be party
to an international agreement because the day is coming when
Quebecers will have to deal officially at the international level
with Canada as well as with the United States and other
countries. This goes with the Bloc Quebecois's recent
suggestion that there must be an economic association, that the
closest ties must be maintained and that we must be good
neighbours.
In closing, I think that clause 9 must be amended so as to
reflect the spirit of the agreement and to limit the federal
12924
government's intervention as an injured party, otherwise Bill
C-88 is likely to create problems instead of solving them.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-88, the
implementing legislation for the supposed internal trade
agreement within Canada.
Of all of the bills that have come through the House in the past
months this one is perhaps of more importance than many
others. As my hon. colleague who spoke mentioned, it seems to
have slipped through with very little interest on the part of the
House and Canadians at large.
In my comments today I would like to spend a few minutes
talking about what the trade barriers cost us as individuals. Also
I am going to spend a good deal of time talking about the
relationship between Quebec and the rest of the country. This is
really what it boils down to. When our friends from Quebec talk
about a relationship with the rest of the country, post separation,
they are really talking about how they would keep all the
benefits that we have together in this northern part of North
America without shooting each other in the foot.
This has to be of paramount importance to the people of
Quebec. They would not be very happy if they found themselves
in an independent country, bankrupt and no one to trade with.
Nor would the rest of Canadians find themselves in a very happy
situation. I want to spend a few moments if I may to record
exactly how important this trade is between Canada
interprovincially, Canada nationally.
(1725 )
I am indebted for much of what I am going to say to the Fraser
Institute and in particular-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. McClelland: Liberals opposite go into a state of shock
when I mention the Fraser Institute. Also, by good fortune, the
Canadian and Quebec Chambers of Commerce have just sent
information to all members in the House. I will be quoting from
both of those sources during the course of my comments.
A few of the Liberals opposite might recall that when the free
trade agreement was implemented they were violently opposed
to it. Am I remembering this correctly? Was that just a
suspicion?
Mr. Milliken: Yes, yes.
Mr. McClelland: Yes, it is correct. I hear members opposite
saying: ``Yes, I can remember we were against the free trade
agreement. We were violently against the free trade
agreement''. One of the reasons members opposite were against
the free trade agreement at that time was that they were afraid
we were going to get beat up by the Americans because we had
fairly inefficient industries across the country.
For the longest time particularly the west suffered and were
righteously aggrieved by the fact that the resource producing
areas of the country, the west, the north and the east were
subsidizing central Canada. We were exporting raw materials to
central Canada and buying manufactured goods from central
Canada at a sometimes severe tariff.
It cost us a lot of money to be Canadians. A lot of people,
particularly in Ontario and Quebec, saw the free trade
agreement as a vehicle whereby these barriers were reduced and
came down. Canada found itself in a situation where it had to
compete.
The free trade agreement was not so terrifying for other
regions of the country. I can recall during the great free trade
debate-I am sure members in the House can recall-we had
high interest rates. Remember that? We had a high dollar.
Remember that? We were going to go into a free trade agreement
with one of the toughest trading nations in the world and we
wonder why we got the stuffing kicked out of us. We had to be
brain dead to have these interprovincial trade barriers all across
the country, a high dollar, high interest rates and getting into a
free trade agreement with the United States.
It was kind of like the Monty Python movie where the knight
gets his arm cut off, his other arm cut off, puts his sword in his
mouth, gets his legs cut off and says: ``Come on, fight like a
man''. That was Canada after the free trade agreement. We were
sitting there with a sword in our mouth saying: ``Fight fair. Fight
fair''. We have a free trade agreement with the United States, but
do we have a free trade agreement within Canada? No, we do
not.
When the federal government sat down at a table to negotiate
a free trade agreement, as we did with Mexico and the United
States, we had three players around the table and all of the
minions that made the deal work. Can members imagine what it
must have been like when we had the federal government and 10
provinces sitting around the table trying to negotiate a free trade
agreement?
The provinces varied. British Columbia had demands about
an inch thick saying: ``This is what we want. This is what we
want to protect''. The province of Alberta's demands were on
one sheet of paper which said: ``There should not be any barriers
to trade. There should not be any barriers to the movement and
the transportation of capital, of ideas and of people.
Ontario which had the most to lose in a free trade agreement in
Canada because it controls the bulk of the trade was one of the
most accommodating provinces at the debate. It was prepared in
the national interest to have its internal trade barriers come
down for the common good.
12925
The reason that I am speaking against this legislation is not
that it is not a step in the right direction.
(1730 )
The federal government in its role as the leader has the
fiduciary responsibility when it comes to dealing with the
economic affairs of the nation to take charge and say we need
competitive industries in Canada. How can we possibly compete
internationally if we are not first competitive at home?
How can we as a nation deal competitively with other nations
if we do not first take down all of the barriers in Canada so we
have free movement of trade, people, capital and ideas to
become as efficient as we can before we start trading elsewhere?
That is why it is so important to have all of these internal trade
barriers done away with.
I will use as an example some of the daily problems that come
up when we have trade barriers or distorting subsidies within the
country. We know Quebec has been working very hard at
developing export and increasing the export potential of
industries based in Quebec. It has been fairly successful. I do not
know the exact the numbers but Quebec has had a substantial
increase in recent years of exports by Quebec based industries.
Let us say the Quebec government gives company A a subsidy
in order to export outside the country but company A is
manufacturing a product which is also manufactured in Ontario
or British Columbia or Nova Scotia and they do not have
subsidy. What happens when they both start to compete for same
domestic customer? The company that has the $200,000
government tax funded subsidy wins and the company that does
not have a subsidy loses because its costs are higher. That does
absolutely nothing to enhance the competitiveness of our
industries. All it does is reward industries that are perhaps
failing, that are perhaps not as competitive as others at the
expense of those businesses that can stand on their own.
That is one of the reasons governments should not be picking
winners and losers in the marketplace, creating subsidies so one
company in one province has a competitive advantage over
another company in another province. All it does is move a job
from A to B.
A while ago in the automobile industry a company in
Brampton received a huge grant from the federal government to
build a plant in Quebec. The people in Quebec would want it.
The company would end up manufacturing the same number of
cars. It would close the plant in Ontario, open a plant in Quebec,
lay off 200 people in Ontario, hire 50 people in Quebec. It would
cost the country 150 jobs in one province plus the infrastructure
investment to build the plant in the second province.
If we as legislators, as a Parliament, are prepared to throw this
money around, can we blame industry for saying it wants a piece
of it? If we ourselves in business and we are competing against
another business with the advantage of a government grant or
subsidy, in order to stay in business we have to get our hands in
the trough as well.
That is why we need to break down the barriers to capital. We
need to break down the mobility barriers and we absolutely have
to stop taking tax money into the government and picking
winners and losers in the marketplace.
When we talk about interprovincial trade, historically if we
look at what has gone on in Canada, where did the Bank of Nova
Scotia start? Rhetorically I ask, did it have its head office in
Toronto or Montreal? It was in Halifax. What happened in the
trading arrangements or what happened in Canada that all of a
sudden somehow the Bank of Nova Scotia's head office moves
to Toronto? We have distorted interprovincial trade so that it has
protected industries across the country.
(1735)
The traditional trade at the time the Bank of Nova Scotia was
incorporated was not east-west but north-south, just as the
trading blocks all across the country traditionally have been. We
artificially make them east and west. However, is it focuses all
the financial resource and the competitive resource where most
of the people are.
The same thing may happen in Canada today. We will
continue to have this migration of wealth into the resource.
When I say the resource rich I am talking about the vote rich
parts of Canada, in downtown Toronto and Montreal, at the
expense of the rest of the country unless we have this free
mobility and free trade within all provinces.
I will put a few facts on record concerning trade between
Quebec and the rest of the country. This is of particular
importance because our friends from the Bloc, representing a
good number of people in Quebec, are trying to put forth the
premise that Quebec would be better off not attached to the rest
of the country and the rest of the country would be better off not
attached to Quebec.
We would survive. Those of us who live in the west would
survive better than others but it would hurt all of us. Most of all,
it would hurt the people who live in Quebec. We should not be so
naive as to suggest for a moment that a separate Quebec would
enjoy all or any of the privileges it enjoys today. It is certainly a
long stretch to imagine the rest of the country would tell Quebec
to go its way and we will continue to pretend nothing has
happened and it is business as usual.
The premier of Quebec and other leaders in Quebec can say
whatever they want to but it is important for the people in
Quebec to know those leaders do not set the stage or make the
12926
rules for the rest of the country. The rest of the country will
bring an entirely and completely different perspective to that
table.
I will quote from a pamphlet prepared by the Canadian
Chamber of Commerce, la Chambre de commerce du Québec,
``Interprovincial Trade: Engine of Economic Growth'',
prepared in May: ``This report also points to the fact that these
strong, commercial and personal relationships bind us together
and reinforce our strength as a trading nation. Strategic and
dynamic partnerships are often formed among Canadian
companies and entrepreneurs to win in international markets in
the new global environment.
``Our message is clear and simple. Together we prosper.
Together we are the vehicle for job creation for the next
generation in this country, and our interprovincial trading
relationships are the engine of that growth. Together we must
continue to build on these existing relationships which only
enhance our competitive position, internationally improve our
ability to create jobs and confirm our status as the best country
in the world''.
What is this trade to Quebec? The pamphlet further says that
while all provinces are dependent on interprovincial trade,
Quebec is much more economically dependent on trade with the
other provinces than the other provinces are with Quebec.
Quebec exported more to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in
1989 than to any country in Europe, including France. It sold as
much to Ontario as it did to the United States. The rest of the
provinces exported more to Quebec than to the European union
and Japan combined.
(1740)
Four hundred and seventy thousand jobs in Quebec were
directly and indirectly attributable to interprovincial exports in
1989. It is not only the Montreal based enterprises that export
goods and services to markets in other provinces. Manufacturers
in other regions such as Estrie, Mauricie, Bois-Francs and
Abitibi-Témiscamingue are also highly dependent on sales to
other parts of Canada.
Quebec was the only province other than Ontario that
registered a surplus in interprovincial trade, helping to offset
partially its trade imbalance, trade deficit with the rest of the
world.
Ontario is Quebec's most important trading partner within
Canada. Quebec ran a deficit in its trade with Ontario. Quebec's
surplus in trade with other provinces came from the more distant
provinces, suggesting the importance for Quebec of access to
those regions.
This is perhaps the most important part of Bill C-88 and what
we are talking about today. It really speaks to the whole nature
of our union, what it is all about. We do not all have to speak the
same language. It is not even necessary for us to be able to
understand each other's first language. It is important for all of
us to understand that when we reach into our pocket and pull out
a $5 bill or $1 bill or perhaps even a $2 coin and exchange it, we
are speaking the same language. Trade has no language. The
nature of our country is that if there is commercial discourse in
commercial trade and if we keep the lines and avenues and rivers
of trade open between all parts of Canada, particularly between
Quebec and the rest of the country, everything else is bound to
follow.
As a nation we are talking about maintaining trade links with
other parts of the world. If we trade with other countries we
learn about other countries. We must ensure trade between
provinces so that we will learn from each other. It is difficult to
have a bad relationship with someone with whom we have a
good trading relationship. If we have a commercial relationship
which benefits both parties, we will be far more reticent to do or
say anything that would imperil that relationship.
I am happy to have had an opportunity to put a few thoughts on
record in this debate. I am sorry the government did not use the
opportunity to be far more forceful in ensuring the many barriers
that still exist are torn down.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I just
listened to the Reform member's speech, about which I would
simply like to raise a few small points.
He said that if Quebec were to declare its sovereignty, the rest
of Canada would most certainly refuse to trade with it and to
maintain current business relationships. I can only wonder if
they are merely sabre rattling or if there is something more
behind this. Can the frustration of western Canada still be so
near to the boiling point? I do not know.
(1745)
But when I imagine an independent or sovereign Quebec, I
can only wonder whether you will refuse to sell us the beef we
are accustomed to buying from you. After sovereignty, would
you refuse to sell us beer made by Ontario breweries? Would you
force us to buy our cars from the United States or France? Even
the cold war with eastern block countries did not prevent
members of the Reform Party, westerners, from selling
thousands of tonnes of grain to Russia yearly, despite conflicts
in ideology, to say the least.
I would like to ask them on what basis they would decide to
cease selling to us-because Quebec attained sovereignty, took
full possession of its means and its tools? I think that they would
only be shooting themselves in the foot and scoring in their own
nets. At any rate, that is my opinion and I would ask him to
answer me. Is this anything more than sabre rattling?
12927
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, if I left the impression that the
rest of the country would not trade with Quebec, I certainly did
not mean to do that. The point I wanted to make was how
important trade is among all the provinces of Canada, including
Quebec, and how vitally important trade is to the province of
Quebec, probably more so than other provinces in the country,
because Quebec has a resource very much built on trade and
export.
What I did say was that the people of Quebec should not be
misled into thinking that it would be automatic that things would
go on as before. If the people of Quebec think for one minute
that they would be able to exist behind trade barriers that would
not be the case.
I would certainly hope, and I agree with my hon. colleague,
that we would not do anything to shoot each other in the foot.
That would not do any good. It would be a hard nosed
commercial relationship. It would mean that instead of having
our market, our critical mass would be 25 per cent lower. We
would not have the same economies of scale. It would be far
more difficult for Quebec in an international world market to be
a world scale producer, because Quebec could not depend upon
having the Canadian domestic market to enable it to be an
international producer. It would hurt everybody, and it would
hurt Quebec perhaps more than the rest of the country.
I would not suggest for a moment that we would do anything
to shoot ourselves or Quebec in the foot.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would also like to respond to comments by the member for
Edmonton Southwest and I will have an opportunity to do so
during the debate on Bill C-88. However, I must first provide a
few details on the bill.
Often, when we are discussing bills in the House, people tune
us in on television or come in to the House not knowing what the
discussion is about. This is why I would first like to provide a
few details about Bill C-88 itself. This government bill is aimed
at promoting freer trade between Canada's provinces. It puts a
number of administrative measures into effect to permit freer
trade as of July 1, 1995, that is, in barely a month or two.
(1750)
A whole series of measures are involved, as are a number of
laws governing, for example, transportation, public liability,
communications and other matters. Therefore, first and
foremost, this bill, puts into place the measures that will lead to
freer trade in Canada.
When we speak of liberalizing trade, we mean that, in
principle, people, capital and goods should move as freely as
possible and that uniform standards and rules will be established
so that one province cannot prevent the free movement of goods,
capital and people.
The most striking example is, of course, the limits on the
movement and production of beer in Canada. Each province was
required, so to speak, to produce a certain volume of beer, which
could not be exported from one province to another. Quebec
could not export its production to Ontario and vice versa.
Marketing will now be freer, and not only for alcoholic
beverages, but also for such sectors as farm products, food,
communications, transportation, energy and, of course,
manpower.
This bill from all appearances improves the trading system in
Canada. I should point out that, as regards the liberalization of
trade in Canada, Quebec has always been in favour of freer
trade. It strongly supported free trade with the United States. We
believe in unrestricted competition. In Quebec, we believe in the
ability to compete on the open market.
However, this bill contains a few flaws, important flaws, such
as the fact that a panel can be set up if disputes arise. Problems
may occur. Disputes may have to be settled. In such cases, this
bill provides for the creation of a panel to review disputes.
Should one province accuse another of not playing by the rules,
the mandate of such a panel would be to review the situation and
recommend retaliatory measures on behalf of the injured party,
the one that would have been somehow wronged.
This panel would have no power to enforce. It would only
have the authority to review the problem and recommend
retaliatory measures where required. And here we come to the
troubling part, since, in the end, retaliatory measures will rest in
the hands of the federal government.
Not only will the members of this panel and of the committee
that will oversee the enforcement of this piece of legislation be
appointed by order in council without being ratified by the
House of Commons-which is a flaw one must point out-but
once again, through this bill, the federal government is seizing
additional powers, the authority to enforce the panel's
decisions, and even to intervene when it, the federal
government, is not involved.
(1755)
Indeed, the wording of clause 19-or more precisely article
1710, but mainly clause 19-leaves room for interpretation, in
such a way that if there is a dispute between two provinces, and
the federal government is not directly involved, it can intervene.
It can exercise its power of judgment so that one province is
favourably judged, even favoured over another.
In fact, the federal government is taking on a lot of power, too
much power, in our view, the power to intervene in disputes
between provinces, if need be. These are powers it has assumed,
without being asked to. The federal government is assuming the
power to intervene in disputes between provinces. We think that
this is in fact an abuse of power. Why would the federal
12928
government interfere in interprovincial disputes in which it is
not involved?
This is not the first time this government has tabled a bill in an
attempt to give itself additional powers. As you probably know,
it tried to give itself additional powers through Bill C-52, for
example, which would allow the government to compete with
engineering and architectural firms in Canada, and Bill C-91,
which would change the mandate of the Federal Business
Development Bank. Again, the federal government gives itself
new powers that would allow it to centralize operations and
intervene in the country's development, thereby putting some
provinces at a disadvantage compared to others.
In the case of Bill C-52, for example, it is obvious that the
powers the federal government tried to give itself could be used
against Quebec in particular, since we know that engineering
and architectural firms are concentrated in Quebec. In the case
of Bill C-91 regarding the Federal Business Development Bank,
we can ask ourselves if the government is once again giving
itself additional powers and trying to compete with very
successful Quebec institutions such as the credit unions and the
FTQ and CNTU solidarity funds, which are very effective in
developing small and medium size businesses.
We also know that small and medium size businesses have
experienced significant growth in Quebec over the years. That
was one of the reasons why Quebec supported free trade with the
U.S. Industry and trade in Quebec are locally based. Quebecers
have worked to set up their own businesses and establish
themselves in Quebec. It is something that should be pointed out
to those who do not know Quebec.
(1800)
The difference is visible for instance between Quebec and
Ontario. As we know, Ontario benefited from American
investments and most major business concerns established in
Ontario were American companies' subsidiaries. In fact, that is
one of the reasons why so many jobs were lost in Ontario after
the free trade agreement with the U.S. was signed. American
companies established in Ontario simply packed up and moved
back to the U.S. They can trade with Ontario from the other side
of the border. But many jobs were lost because of this in Ontario,
where there are more people on UI and welfare today than just
about anywhere else in Canada.
While we, in Quebec, were hit quite strongly, and we can say
that the federal government did not do much to help us, we
nonetheless are blessed with a strong small and medium size
business sector which is still developing in many areas. In Bill
C-88, as in Bill C-91 and Bill C-52, the federal government is
abusing its authority. It gives itself powers that it did not have
before, which could have the effect of putting Quebec at a
disadvantage in rulings on trade between Quebec and the other
provinces.
Finally, this is the main reason prompting us to propose to the
government an amendment providing that the federal
government be required to rule only when it is directly involved,
instead of any time it feels like stepping in to tip the scales in
favour of one province at the expense of another.
As I said at the very beginning on my remarks, Quebec has
always been for free movement and the freest trade possible,
because this is in our interest in Quebec, since our economy is
solidly grounded. Much remains to be done, but we are
nonetheless building on solid ground, relying on small and
medium size business firmly rooted in Quebec. Much remains to
be done to strengthen it.
Were it not for this abuse of authority on the part of the federal
government, interprovincial trade liberalization would be great
for the rest of Canada as well as for Quebec. Again, Quebec is in
favour of this kind of liberalization. For example, Quebec
imports from Ontario alone goods and services totalling
$25.852 billion per year, while its exports to this province total
$22 billion. That is almost $30 billion in trade just between
Ontario and Quebec.
In fact, trading between Quebec and all Canadian provinces is
quite substantial. In Alberta, Quebec sells $2.8 billion in goods
and services and buys $3.25 billion in petroleum, natural gas
and the like. In the central region, we buy wheat. I think that
these trade relations will be maintained after sovereignty is
achieved. We are working at making Quebec realize that it will
be to its advantage, in the medium and long term, to opt for
sovereignty, take charge and be in control of its economy and its
future.
(1805)
Once Quebec has achieved sovereignty, existing trade
between the provinces will most likely be maintained. There is
no reason to believe that it will be reduced. It would be
disadvantageous to the other provinces, including Ontario and
even Alberta, to refuse to sell their products to Quebec, and vice
versa. It would not make economic sense. In fact, economic
sense dictates that current trade be maintained.
We live in a world where trade liberalization is increasingly
more prevalent. For example, GATT was set up precisely to
liberalize trade between all the countries of this world. Some
agreements and regulations were implemented under GATT, and
they will also be maintained once Quebec becomes a sovereign
nation.
The same is true as regards free trade agreements with the
United States. There is no reason to believe that these
agreements will not be maintained and that trade will not
continue. It is only those who seek to instill some unfounded
doubt or fear who say: ``We will cut or block trade between
Quebec and the
12929
other provinces''. This is nonsense. It goes against economic
sense. It goes against the common sense which governs existing
treaties, including GATT and the free trade agreement.
Bill C-88 does includes many provisions which make it
appealing to the Bloc. As I said earlier, Quebec has always been
in favour of liberalizing trade between provinces and countries,
and it always will be, because this is its forte. We can compete
with others. We supported free trade because Quebec has the
economic, cultural and social confidence required to face its
North American competition.
It is for these reasons that Quebec will be in an even better
position once it achieves sovereignty, and that is also true for the
other provinces. Indeed, English Canada will also benefit. I
think it will get along better with Quebec, and it might even
manage to reduce the power of the federal government, which is
not necessarily concerned with the interests of the individuals or
provinces. It is concerned with its own interest. And the federal
interest here in this Parliament is not the same as that of the
provinces.
This is why we oppose Bill C-88 which is another example of
abuse on the part of the federal government, which seeks to gain
additional powers, to centralize, and possibly interfere in
interprovincial trade so as to favour the interests of one province
at the expense of another. This is one of the reasons why we will
oppose Bill C-88.
(1810)
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to reply to the various points raised by my colleague
across the way.
[English]
I believe he substantially misrepresents the clause about
which he obviously has some qualms. I believe it is clause 9 of
the bill.
It is interesting to note that while the current minister of
restructuring of the Quebec government was president of the
Quebec Manufacturers' Association he totally supported the
elimination of interprovincial trade barriers. Yet when the
agreement was signed at the time when Mr. Parizeau was
premier he dismissed the agreement as laughable because the
dispute resolution mechanism did not have new devices for
sanctions or retaliation.
We now hear the Bloc Québécois member saying that the
provisions for sanctions are far too strong and are a grab for
power by the federal government and would act as a
disadvantage to the provinces.
Let me begin by saying that this bill is the result of a long
process that in my view demonstrates admirably-
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member may have
misunderstood. This is questions and comments. Is the member
asking a question or making a comment or is she making her
speech?
Ms. Catterall: Debate.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments
regarding what was just said?
[English]
Is there anybody who wishes to ask a question or make a
comment to the speaker who just finished? The hon. member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, on a question or comment.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I
thought this was resuming debate.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I said in French, questions
or comments. Does the hon. member wish to make a question or
a comment?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): No.
The Deputy Speaker: The deputy whip for the government
has the floor on debate.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was in the process of
saying that the procedure by which this bill comes before us and
by which the internal trade agreement that gave rise to it was
reached was a demonstration of how federalism can work for all
partners. It was a totally co-operative process, involving the
provinces, the territories, the federal government, and the
private sector, which had the unanimous agreement of all
parties.
On behalf of the Minister of Industry, I appreciate this
opportunity speak on Bill C-88. This is one more step in a
process that has been under way in Canada for the better part of a
decade to create a new internal trade regime. Our objective is to
reduce barriers to interprovincial trade and remove restrictions
on the movement of people and capital within the domestic
marketplace.
Passage by Parliament of Bill C-88 will be a necessary step to
implement the agreement on internal trade that was signed last
year by every province, the territories, and the federal
government.
At the invitation of the Prime Minister, first ministers met in
Ottawa last July to formally accept and sign the agreement that
the committee of ministers of internal trade had finalized at the
end of June. With this accord we were committed to have the
appropriate legislative and regulatory changes in place so that
the agreement could be legally implemented. In this sense,
putting this legislation before the House is meeting an
obligation to provincial and territorial governments that we
incurred when we signed the agreement in June 1994.
12930
This was an important step in the quest to create an integrated
domestic market in Canada. This seems to have been a pattern
in the development of our nation. As we go back through history
to the voyageur and the Hudson's Bay Company, we see that
trade is what has opened up the vast expanse of this northern
half of the North American continent. As we thought to link
ourselves together with the national railway and later with the
national highway and national airline, trade has been one of the
driving forces both for the development of the links among us
as a people and for the development of the prosperity the
country has enjoyed.
(1815)
However, in the 128 years since Confederation, we have also
seen a hodge-podge of protectionist measures and trade
conventions develop which have inhibited interprovincial trade
and restricted the flow of goods, capital and talent between and
among provinces. These measures range from outright
restrictions to bidding on government contracts to a patchwork
of regulations and incompatible standards.
The government has felt strong and repeated pressure from
the private sector to deal with the problems associated with
internal barriers to trade and conflicting regulations on cross
border flows of people and of capital.
We have received representations from the Canadian
Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce, the Business Council on National Issues, the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian
Bankers Association and the Canadian Construction
Association. The list is long and the problems are deeply felt and
broadly experienced.
Such barriers put Canadian businesses at a competitive
disadvantage by restricting the size of their available
marketplace by shrinking the domestic market for Canadian
businesses in a time of increasing global competition and more
open markets in other parts of the world. This can have the
negative result of putting Canadian businesses at a disadvantage
to international competitors even in our own market.
In addition, there is an economic cost related to marketplace
inefficiency. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has
estimated that barriers to trade cost Canadians about $7 billion
annually in direct job and income loss. However, let us consider
the other side of the story which is equally telling.
A Canadian Chamber of Commerce report released on May 17
highlighted the importance of international trade and
investment as powerful generators of economic growth and job
creation throughout Canada. The study indicates that Canadian
interprovincial trade was worth $147 billion; almost 21 per cent
of GDP in 1993. It estimates that 1.9 million jobs are directly or
indirectly dependent on internal trade within Canada. The report
shows that the provinces and territories constitute one of the
most economically interdependent regions of the world and that
interestingly, Quebec is the province most dependent on internal
trade, the province that benefits most from internal trade and has
the most to gain from improvements in internal trade.
The study attributes 470,000 Quebec jobs, 20 per cent of the
province's GDP directly and indirectly to internal trade and
values the province's trade with the rest of Canada at $64
billion. With a trade surplus of $1.1 billion with the rest of
Canada, Quebec exported more to Ontario than it did to the
United States, more to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick than to
any European country.
The report confirms that businesses across Canada have been
able to take advantage of the political and economic links
created by the federal structure to forge a large national market
that has worked to the benefit of all Canadians.
In years past when external trade barriers protected
economies like ours from international competition, the
economic cost of internal trade barriers were tolerated and
maybe tolerable. When Canadian industry was sheltered from
international competition by tariff barriers of 10 per cent or even
20 per cent, the economic cost of internal barriers were not so
obvious. However, a marketplace sheltered from international
competition is no longer the reality. Barriers and tariffs are
down. The market is global and the competition is fierce. We
will not, we cannot be successful in an open global market if we
operate in a closed market at home. We need to adapt to the
realities of trade in today's global economy.
(1820)
Bill C-88 and the agreements it implements is an important
aspect of the process. It is part of the more fundamental process
of economic renewal that the government is following toward its
strategic objectives for economic growth and job creation.
Last December the Minister of Industry introduced in the
House the government's plan for building a more innovative
economy. We outlined our intentions for improving the
economic climate of Canada in four ways: to build a positive
entrepreneurial climate and to help small businesses grow; to
expand markets for jobs and growth through trade; to create an
efficient and modern infrastructure; and to make technology
work for Canada.
These are areas in which the government can have the greatest
impact on job creation. While Bill C-88 will support all of these
objectives, it has special relevance for the objective of
expanding trade. To grow and prosper business needs an
efficient and open marketplace, an environment which
encourages innovation and expansion free of unnecessary
barriers.
With the agreement on internal trade and now with this bill we
have the elements to establish a new internal trade regime, one
which will allow us to make the most of our interprovincial
12931
domestic market by encouraging innovation and expansion and
by removing unnecessary barriers.
The Canadian economy is in a period of transition.
Fundamental changes are taking place because of the
globalization of trade and the rapid pace of technological
change. The competitive advantage in today's world depends
less on location and natural resources and more on innovation,
the ability to respond to changing market conditions and to
achieve economies of scale.
As we continue the transition from a resource based economy
to one where innovation, knowledge and flexibility are the
underpinnings of competitive advantage, we need to ensure that
the domestic trading environment will accommodate and
expedite the necessary changes. Bill C-88 will provide a
supportive environment for the economic transition process that
we are now experiencing.
The legislation before the House is the result of a long process
of negotiation and consultation which has involved many
Canadians; Canadians with many different perspectives:
ministers of the federal government, ministers of all the
provincial and territorial governments, officials of all of these
governments and representatives of the private sector.
It is interesting to note that political parties of all stripes have
co-operated in the negotiations leading to this agreement. They
have different perspectives and different priorities, but a shared
belief that a more open trading environment will be good for
Canada and good for Canadians.
A striking feature of the process leading to the bill has been
the high degree of co-operation and good will that has been
demonstrated on all sides. Those Canadians who have been
involved in the process understand the compelling need to open
up our internal markets and to ensure that the Canadian
marketplace works to the advantage of all Canadians.
Over the last two years the negotiations and background work
were under the guiding hand of Mr. Arthur Morrow, a well
known Canadian businessperson, who acted as chair of the
committee of chief negotiators and worked tirelessly to keep the
process moving toward its objective and in producing the
agreement that ministers signed last year. The work leading up
to the bill was exhaustive and thorough, and it will be ongoing. It
is our duty to keep the process moving.
The process began in June 1988 when federal and provincial
agriculture ministers compiled a list of barriers to internal trade
in agriculture and food products. While the focus of this group
was relatively narrow, the process had begun. Governments
were now dealing with the problems of internal trade barriers in
an organized way. Federal-provincial discussions continued and
the focus widened. Ministers began to consider the need for a
dispute resolution mechanism as part of more comprehensive
trading arrangements between provinces and territories.
(1825)
In December 1989 a memorandum of understanding on
internal trade in agricultural products was signed by seven of the
provinces. The process was beginning to move. Negotiators
continued to meet. Agreement was reached and memoranda of
understanding were signed on a number of individual issues
such as transportation and government procurement, a major
economic factor in our economy.
By December 1992 the committee of ministers of internal
trade at the time recommended the process be accelerated and
that all parties commit to the goal of reaching a broad and
comprehensive internal trade agreement by June 1994.
Agreement was reached on three specific principles: that
governments treat people, goods, services and capital equally
regardless of where they originate in Canada; that governments
reconcile standards and regulations to provide for the free
movement of people, goods, services and capital within Canada
and that governments ensure their administrative policies
operate to provide for that free movement of people, goods,
services and capital within Canada.
An intensive series of meetings was held during the period of
January to June last year. These culminated in ministers
agreeing to the text of the internal trade agreement at the end of
June. Finally, in July 1994 the Prime Minister and all other first
ministers affirmed their acceptance of the agreement with a
formal signing on July 18.
Last year's agreement on internal trade was a major step in a
long process. It has demonstrated that all governments can work
together to achieve a common objective that will benefit all
Canadians.
The agreement on internal trade sets out general rules that
prohibit any new barriers to trade and eliminate old ones in 10
specific sectors or issue areas. Unfortunately there is no time
left to read them all. However, it is fair to say that while this bill
does not solve all the interprovincial trade problems that have
built up since Confederation it has moved us a considerable way
along that track. It is an ongoing process. For instance, in the
energy sector a separate set of negotiations is under way toward
a similar deadline this year.
With this legislation we are ensuring the framework is in
place and we are confirming our belief that the fundamental
principles of free trade will work within Canada. Trade
agreements deepen and broaden with use and experience and
this one will too. Bill C-88 will provide the foundation of
moving toward a domestic trading environment that will allow
for the free flow finally of goods, services, people and capital
within Canada.
12932
The Prime Minister and other ministers, including first
ministers, have been actively involved in broadening the
marketplace for Canadian goods and services in export markets
and the Team Canada approach has been highly successful in
doing that. We must bring the same spirit to improving the
domestic market for our businesses and workers. Bill C-88 is
an important step in that direction, which is why we brought
it to Parliament and support it.
(1830 )
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose
of discussing an important matter requiring urgent
consideration, namely the current situation in
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
_____________________________________________