CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 21, 1995
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 14311
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14313
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14313
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14313
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14314
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14314
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14314
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14315
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 14316
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 14316
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14316
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14317
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14317
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14317
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14318
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14318
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 14319
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 14319
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14319
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14322
Bill C-338. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted. 14322
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 14322
Bill C-339. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted. 14322
Bill C-340. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 14323
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14323
Bill C-341. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 14323
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14323
Bill C-342. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 14323
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14323
Bill C-343. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 14323
Bill C-344. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 14323
(Motion agreed to.) 14324
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 14327
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 14327
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 14327
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 14327
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 14327
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 14327
Motion for concurrence 14330
(Motion agreed to.) 14330
Motion for concurrence 14330
Division on motion deferred 14330
Bill C-91. Report stage 14330
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 14330
Motions Nos. 16, 17 and 18 14331
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 14332
Division on motion deferred 14333
Division on Motion No. 18 deferred 14333
Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 26 to 33 14333
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 14334
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 14336
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 14343
Bill C-91. Consideration resumed of motion 14352
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 14356
Motions Nos. 10 and 11 14356
Motions Nos. 19 and 20 14357
Motions Nos. 21 and 22 14357
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14359
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 14360
Division on Motion No. 7 deferred 14362
Division on Motion No. 8 deferred 14362
Division on Motion No. 9 deferred 14362
Divisions on Motions Nos. 10, 11, 14, 15 and 19 to 25deferred 14363
Motions Nos. 12 and 13 14363
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14364
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 14364
Motions Nos. 12 and 13 negatived. 14364
Divisions on motions deferred. 14365
Bill C-82. Report stage 14365
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 14365
Motion for concurrence 14365
Motion for third reading 14365
(Amendment negatived) 14377
Division on motion deferred. 14378
Bill C-65. Report stage 14378
Motions Nos. 5 and 6 14378
Motions Nos. 9 and 12 14378
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 14385
Division on Motion No. 13 deferred 14386
Division on Motion No. 2 deferred 14388
Division on Motion No. 8 deferred 14389
Motions Nos. 10 and 11 14389
Division deferred on Motion No. 10 14390
Bill C-54. Motion for third reading 14390
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 14390
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14394
Consideration resumed of motion 14396
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 198; Nays, 37 14396
Bill C-91. Consideration resumed of report stage 14397
Motion No. 1 agreed to on division: Yeas, 145; Nays, 90 14397
Motion No. 7 negatived on division: Yeas, 53; Nays 182 14398
Motion No. 8 negatived on division: Yeas, 37; Nays, 198 14499
Motion No. 9 negatived on division: Yeas, 49; Nays, 186 14400
Motion No. 10 negatived on division: Yeas, 41; Nays, 194 14401
Motion No. 11 negatived on division: Yeas, 37; Nays, 198 14402
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 49; Nays, 186 14402
Motion No. 20 agreed to on division: Yeas, 198; Nays, 37 14403
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 41; Nays, 194 14403
Motion No. 22 negatived on division: Yeas, 90; Nays, 145 14403
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 53; Nays, 182 14404
Motion No. 24 agreed to on division: Yeas, 149; Nays, 86 14404
Motion No. 25 agreed to on division: Yeas, 186; Nays, 49. 14405
Motion No. 16 negatived on division: Yeas, 86; Nays, 149 14406
Motion No. 18 negatived on division: Yeas, 86; Nays, 149 14407
Motion for concurrence and second reading 14407
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 145; Nays, 90 14407
Bill C-82. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 14407
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 145; Nays,90 14407
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 14407
Bill C-65. Consideration resumed of report stage 14407
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 49; Nays 186 14407
Motion No. 13 agreed to on division: Yeas, 198; Nays, 37 14408
Motion No. 2 negatived on division: Yeas, 37; Nays, 198 14408
Motion No. 8 negatived on division: Yeas, 86; Nays, 149 14408
Motion for concurrence 14408
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 149; Nays, 86 14408
Bill C-54. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 14408
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 149; Nays, 86 14408
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 14408
14309
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 21, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canada employment centre for students is
celebrating its annual hire a student week across Canada, June
19 to 23.
The goal of hire a student week is to gain support from
potential employers and to heighten awareness of the services
available through the Canada employment centre for students in
Saskatoon as well as in other parts of the country.
People will notice the hire a student buttons being worn by
students at the events planned to celebrate this week. In
Saskatoon we had button day on Monday, flag raising day was
yesterday, today is a hot dog sale, fitting for students, tomorrow
is job shadowing day and on Friday, most important, is
employment appreciation day.
I extend a big thank you to the hard working young people in
the Canada employment centre for students office in Saskatoon,
in particular Thomasina Burke, for all the hard work they do in
helping students find much needed summer employment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have to
deplore the government's inaction regarding the mining
industry. In spite of several initiatives on the part of
parliamentarians and the natural resources committee, this
government never agreed to provide assistance to this major
industry which employs tens of thousands of Canadians and
Quebecers.
On June 5, I supported the motion put forward by the hon.
member for Timiskaming-French River to implement a mining
incentives program. Instead of taking steps to ensure this
industry's viability, the government chose to let the investment
climate deteriorate.
We must make sure that our mining sector will be able to
develop in the future and continue to create thousands of jobs in
Quebec and Canada instead of abroad.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the
committee on natural resources requested during the
examination of the Department of National Resources Act, the
Minister of Natural Resources tabled this morning the fifth
annual report to Parliament, ``The State of Canada's Forests,
1994''.
Canada's forests continue to be a major engine of economic
growth for Canada, particularly in certain regions of the country
such as my home province of New Brunswick, but they are also
essential to our environment.
The theme of this year's report, ``A Balancing Act'',
describes the challenges of maintaining timber for our industry
while conserving habitat for wildlife.
As the world's largest exporter of forest products, the eyes of
the world continue to watch how well Canada is able to balance
its economic and environmental needs.
[Translation]
I would like to take this opportunity to urge all my hon.
colleagues to read the fifth annual report tabled in Parliament
and to participate in the public debate on the future of the most
precious of our natural resources: our forests.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am deeply
troubled to address the issue of child poverty, a phenomenon
generally attributed to the third world.
Canada is not a third world nation and yet there are nearly 1.3
million Canadian children living in poverty, enough to form the
fifth largest province. Think about it: shocking, incredible,
terrifying, intolerable; yes, all of these.
14310
Five years ago the Government of Canada in the House
resolved to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among our
children by the year 2000. Resolutions and objectives are not
enough. Effective anti-poverty initiatives and immediate action
are warranted, indeed demanded.
None will deny the necessity to eliminate the deficit as
expeditiously as possible but let us strive to bring this deficit to
zero in a compassionate and reasonable way. Let us not forget
the children in poverty during this era of fiscal restraint. Our
country's future depends on solving both problems quickly and
fairly.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I offer an alternative version of the interpretation being put on
the G-7 summit by the Prime Minister.
The G-7 summit did not deal in any significant way with a lot
of the serious problems facing the international economy. The
G-7 summit did not deal with growing polarization between rich
and poor within industrialized countries and between
industrialized countries and the third world. It did not deal with
the international debt problem of third worlds.
Finally and most significantly, because this is what the Prime
Minister likes to talk about, it did not deal with the whole
question of money speculators.
All it did was provide that the IMF might have more money in
the end to bail out economies damaged by speculators. When we
bail out those economies in the current context we bail out the
speculators themselves.
What we have increased here is the global welfare state for
money speculators rather than dealing with the root of the
problem which is curbing speculation-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary North.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on July 7 a western tradition continues and that wild west show,
the Calgary Stampede, kicks off its 10-day extravaganza.
I invite all members and Canadians across the country to
come and experience all the parades, pancake breakfasts and the
rodeos. Try horseback riding, line dancing and all the other fun
that marks this favourite time of year for Calgarians and
thousands of visitors.
If a Canadian vacation is what you need, come to Calgary this
July for the greatest outdoor show on earth. We will be glad to
show you our western hospitality.
Two final notes. Liberals who have been disciplined for
voting against the party line should pay close attention to the
calf roping event. Any MP who is not opting out of the MP
pension plan should avoid the greased pig wrestling contest.
* * *
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, high school graduation time is again upon us. I take this
opportunity along with my colleague from St. Boniface to
commend the laudable actions of many students across Canada
for their participation in the safe grad program.
This year's students from across the country including
Manitoba will again take part in the safe grad program. This
combines student graduation celebrations with realistic
measures to prevent accidents and other problems which could
be associated with drinking and driving.
Safe grad is a student run program with input from parents,
teachers and police. Safe grad is geared toward the needs and
wishes of individual schools and their students.
I am most impressed with the students of our country and their
support of safe grad. Along with the member for St. Boniface, I
commend them on their actions. On behalf of the House and my
colleagues, I wish all students a safe and happy graduation.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to point out that today is the 50th birthday of an
outstanding woman, Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel Peace
Prize winner who is fighting for democracy in her country,
Burma.
After winning the 1990 elections with an 82 per cent majority,
Mrs. Suu Kyi was imprisoned by the Burmese military
authorities and has been under house arrest for nearly six years.
The Canadian government must take positive action in
support of those values set out in its foreign policy statement,
should there be any left, and bring pressure to bear on Burmese
authorities for her release.
The Bloc Quebecois salutes the courage of this woman and
thanks her for fighting for democracy, liberty and human rights
under extremely difficult conditions.
14311
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, Rogers Surrey community channel has served New
Westminster with excellence for many years and now local
producers are reaping the rewards of their hard work.
On May 30 in Halifax, Nova Scotia executive producer
Catherin Ackroyd and co-producers Jim Reis and Archie Miller
were recognized for their documentary ``Lest We Forget:
Canadians in Normandy''.
The Canadian Cable Television Association awarded the hour
long program as the best documentary in Canada in 1994. The
program also won best documentary of the Pacific programmers
region for provincial awards of excellence.
From a Canadian perspective ``Lest We Forget'' shows the
dramatic events of the D-Day landing with interviews of
veterans from the Canadian Scottish regiment and the 1st
Canadian parachute battalion.
In the year of the 50th anniversary of the second world war it
is important for all Canadians to appreciate what our veterans
did on our behalf. I thank Rogers Surrey for its service to my
community and its longstanding commitment to excellence in
community programming.
* * *
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
aboriginal solidarity day and I call on my colleagues in the
Chamber to show their solidarity with Canada's aboriginal
people.
I also bring greetings from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.
Last week I attended its assembly in Winnipeg. I can attest to its
solidarity as it prepares for the dismantling of the Department of
Indian Affairs and for self-government in that province.
Today on this day of solidarity I call on members of the House
to work together with the First Nations to implement
self-government in Manitoba and across Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to salute, personally and on behalf of the
government, the recent appointment of Louise Fréchette as
Deputy Minister of National Defence. Mrs. Fréchette's
appointment to that important position in the Department of
National Defence shows once again the government's true
commitment to promote greater participation of women in all
lines of activity.
[English]
Louise Fréchette began her career with the Department of
External Affairs and has since occupied various posts, including
Ambassador of Canada to Argentina and Uruguay and most
recently as Canada's first female ambassador to the United
Nations.
Prior to her appointment as deputy minister of defence she
was the associate deputy minister of finance and G-7 deputy.
This appointment is a testament to Mrs. Fréchette's hard work
and perseverance. I wish her much success in her new post on
behalf of all my colleagues. Félécitations et merci beaucoup.
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the past few weeks we have learned the hon.
leader of the Reform Party has designs on becoming the leader
of the opposition. Apparently the leader of the third party has
decided he needs a car upgrade. Chevys are great cars and lately
he has found his accommodation not to be to his liking.
Having made these discoveries he felt it was easier to become
leader of the opposition than to get the Reform Party to increase
his expense account. Therefore he has initiated a feeble attempt
to get backbench Liberals to defect to the Reform Party. Such
unrestrained political ambition is so blatant it is embarrassingly
dangerous.
I have a message for him on behalf of my colleagues. There
will not be a stampede, so do not hire the interior decorator for
Stornoway just yet.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
the commission of inquiry into the behaviour of the Canadian
Forces in Somalia is about to begin its public hearings, it is
increasingly obvious that the measures taken to protect potential
witnesses are largely inadequate. Indeed, several members of
the armed forces fear reprisals from their senior officers if they
tell what they know or what they saw in Somalia.
The Minister of National Defence must immediately reassure
these soldiers and encourage them to testify, by publicly
promising that no retaliation measures will be taken against
them.
14312
(1410)
We must shed light not only on the events which occurred in
Somalia, but also on the reprehensible behaviour of several
other members of the armed forces, including at the Petawawa
military base. The government must restore the honour and
integrity of the Canadian Forces, which were greatly tarnished
following these dramatic events.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are happy to say this appears to be one time when the justice
minister and Reform can agree.
The justice minister needed reminding by Reform that DNA
evidence can be a useful tool in determining a suspect's guilt or
innocence and that Canadians wanted action on this issue now.
Following that reminder the justice minister stated he will
immediately introduce legislation allowing court ordered DNA
testing of suspects charged with violent crimes providing he has
the support of the House.
We assure the justice minister not only will our members
support his initiatives, all Canadians will most heartily support
him. As we leave the House for the summer it is encouraging to
see the government can act quickly and decisively when an
important issue affecting the lives and safety of Canadians is
brought to the forefront by Reform.
We trust and hope this spirit of co-operation to enact
important legislation wanted by Canadians will continue when
the House returns in the fall to conduct the nation's business.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I appeal to
the Prime Minister to have his ethics counsellor investigate the
awarding of a contract for legal services for the Saint John Port
Corporation to a lawyer in a law firm in Saint John, New
Brunswick, which is owned by the brother of the executive
assistant to the Minister of Transport and in which a government
member of the House continues to practise.
This is a straight conflict of interest. The awarding of this
contract calls into question the integrity of the government. It is
against the policies of the red book.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Quebec pequiste government did not wait for the
referendum campaign to start squandering public money. The
Parti Quebecois has already spent $11.2 million on its
propaganda campaign. That amount only includes activities
which can be directly related to separatist propaganda.
Imagine what the total amount would be if we were to add the
salaries of ministers, members of the legislative assembly and
PQ government staff, who did nothing but promote their
separatist obsession since the provincial election. It is time for
Quebec separatists to stop wasting money on their pet project.
Quebecers expect the PQ government to work with us to create
jobs and stimulate the economy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Nova
Scotia is still enjoying the prestige and recognition it has
received after successfully hosting the G-7 summit.
It was not only Halifax that hosted the events associated with
the summit, both Lunenburg and Chester in my riding of South
Shore played host to spouses and daughters of the G-7 leaders
last Friday.
They were welcomed by the town crier, William Cluett,
treated to a guided tour of the historic town and enjoyed lunch in
the scenic village of Chester.
The type of hospitality and scenery to which the spouses and
daughters were treated is typical of the entire South Shore.
Whether visiting Shelburne County, Queens County or
Lunenburg County you can be guaranteed a spectacular coastal
view and a warm welcome from the residents of this beautiful
part of Canada.
I urge all members of the House to visit the South Shore of
Nova Scotia this summer and see and experience for themselves
the numerous events this area has to offer.
Once again I go on record in the House thanking the many
individuals who gave their time and talents, as well as the well
wishers who lined the streets of Lunenburg for making the
leaders' spouses and daughters' visit a success.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan--
14313
Similkameen-Merritt because last spring two of my
constituents, Thomas Szajko and Jason Shultz, put their lives on
the line to rescue six people from an intense house fire.
Both these men entered the inferno without regard to their
own lives. They managed to awaken five residents of the house
and rescue them. They re-entered to seek out the last victim who
was crying for assistance. Without their bravery and
determination, the final resident would not have survived.
On Friday, June 23 these two heroes will be awarded the
medal of bravery, presented by the Governor General of Canada
for acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances. Few would dare
to do what they have done. I take this moment to pay tribute to
these two heroes. They show the true spirit of humanity and
compassion for others.
Not only is the town of Oliver proud of these two men but all
of my constituents, indeed the country, should be proud of their
remarkable achievement.
(1415 )
I encourage all members of the House to acknowledge the
fearless actions of these two great Canadians.
_____________________________________________
14313
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tried to
justify Ottawa's new strategy on the Quebec referendum as
follows, and I quote: ``There has not been enough emphasis by
the federalists on demonstrating that the federal system works
well and works for Quebec. I think that is one of the problems''.
The minister's perception of the facts is selective, to say the
least.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can he
seriously claim that the federal system works well and works for
Quebec, when in one particular case, his Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs has refused to compensate Quebec
for what it spent on educating young Crees, a total of $130
million?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs gave
a very good explanation. If I remember correctly, there was an
agreement between the federal government and the provincial
government. The terms of that agreement were met, but there
were some additional, unforeseen expenses that were not
covered by the agreement.
That particular aspect is being discussed now, but the terms of
the agreement as such were met. If there were additional
expenses that were warranted, that can be discussed, but we did
what is essential to good federal-provincial relations, that is, we
complied with the agreement as negotiated and approved by
both parties.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister keep saying that the
federal system works well and works for Quebec, when Ottawa
still refuses to transfer responsibility for manpower training to
Quebec and in fact plans to intervene even more in this area, thus
leading to further costly and inefficient duplication?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development made
offers to all the provinces, including Quebec, in which he
proposed to conclude temporary agreements that would include
a transfer of responsibilities, but Quebec said no. Other
provinces are discussing the problem with the minister, but
Quebec wants all or nothing.
I think we must maintain a federal presence in these areas,
because Quebec, like other provinces where the economic
situation is not as good as in the richer provinces, needs the
federal government to redistribute resources from those who
have jobs to those who do not. And this has no connection with
federal-provincial relations.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that Quebec wants all or
nothing. This is an outright reproach to one of his ministers, the
minister responsible for the referendum in Quebec, who when
she was a minister in the Johnson government, turned down the
federal government's offer on manpower training.
How can the Prime Minister keep saying, like his minister,
that the federal system works well and works for Quebec, when
Ottawa's withdrawal from social program funding puts the
provinces, including Quebec, in the very difficult position of
either having to cut services or raise taxes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, even before the federal budget, the provincial
government in Quebec City cut $500 million from its budget for
health care services, and that was last fall, when the PQ came to
power. Look at what Minister Rochon is doing now. I read the
papers like everybody else.
I think we explained our position very well. As for the
reference of the Leader of the Opposition to the position taken
by the Minister of Labour, as a party leader who changed parties
five times, he is certainly not in a position to tell anyone to be
consistent in politics.
14314
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. The Fédération nationale des
associations de consommateurs du Québec and the Canadian
Council, which represent over 300 organizations, have joined
forces with dairy producers and processors to demand that the
federal government renew the moratorium on bovine
somatotropin, which will end in nine days.
(1420)
Since the ministers of agriculture and health have been
waffling for months on this important issue, I would ask the
Prime Minister whether he intends to follow up on the request of
consumer associations, the dairy industry and even the Standing
Committee on Health to impose a strict moratorium for an
indeterminate period on the use of somatotropin? It is up to him
to set down the rules.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just because the voluntary moratorium agreed upon by
manufacturers and the Department of Agriculture ends on July 1
does not mean that the sale of BST will automatically become
legal.
Health Canada continues to study the issue and will approve
the product only if scientists are convinced that it is safe and
effective.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister does not even recognize the work of the heath
committee, which is unanimous regarding the issue. The
agriculture committee has declared war and is demanding that
Health Canada make its studies public and the minister is taking
no action.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that people have the
right to drink the most natural milk possible, and that by
refusing to extend the moratorium, he is exposing consumers to
the risk of unknowingly drinking milk tainted with hormones,
without knowing the real impact that this will have on the health
of humans and animals?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that the Minister of Health explained the
situation clearly. There was a voluntary moratorium and the
Minister of Health did not give permission for this product to be
used for the Canadian market. And we will not give permission
until we have very clear advice that there is no danger.
At the moment, we are fully aware of the recommendations of
the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and I would like to
remind you that almost weekly, a member of my caucus raises
the issue. We are very much aware of the problem and, contrary
to what some people are implying, the product will not be
authorized for use after July 1 of this year.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as this session comes to an end the great imperative for
the Prime Minister is to re-establish the ethical standards of his
government.
When the government came to power it promised to make
government integrity its number one priority but 20 months later
that red book promise is in tatters with ministers flouting the
federal code of ethics, the ethics counsellor reduced to
impotence, and the Prime Minister defending party loyalty and
discipline over the principles of democracy and ethics.
Will the Prime Minister send a clear signal to Canadians today
that unethical behaviour in government will not be tolerated?
Will he can tainted ministers, starting with the Minister of
Canadian heritage?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after many days of arguing the case we stated that
everything had been done according to the laws of Canada. The
record of the government over the last 20 months has been the
best we have seen in a long time. I am applying myself to making
sure that all ethical and normal rules that should apply to
members of Parliament and to cabinet are followed by all
cabinet ministers. That has been debated.
After 20 months and on the last day before we adjourn they
repeat the same question they have used for the last three weeks.
We must be doing quite well if they have nothing else to talk
about.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government also promised to put an end to the
politics of patronage and backroom deals.
But over the last 20 months what have we witnessed: $26
million diverted in Nova Scotia from highway 104 to a road in
the riding of the minister of public works, campaign workers
lined up in Victoria for patronage plums from the justice
department, and the Liberal family contact rewarded again and
again with government contracts and favourable cabinet
decisions. This is like a rerun of an old movie: Brian Mulroney
Part II.
(1425 )
Will the Prime Minister make a new commitment today to
purge political patronage from his administration by restoring
funding to highway 104 and by disciplining members tainted by
patronage, starting with the minister of public works?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the list of things. I will explain every
element of it to the House of Commons.
14315
The Minister of Transport said many times that the change
in the situation in Nova Scotia was requested by the elected
provincial authorities in Nova Scotia. The member refuses to
recognize that.
He made another so-called attack talking about family
contacts, knowing very well who he is trying to attack, and he
cannot prove anything. I will not go to his level to try to defend
myself; I have a record of 32 years in public service.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Not one contract or not one
favour has been given to anybody close to me and my family. I
do not have to insist. Every member in good faith knows it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government also promised freer voting in the
House of Commons and a meaningful voice for backbenchers.
In the past few weeks, however, we have seen nothing from
the government but a growing disregard for the democratic
process: time allocation and closure, Liberal backbenchers
being punished for voting the wishes of their constituents, and
cabinet ministers who break conflict of interest guidelines being
defended by the Prime Minister himself.
Will the Prime Minister reaffirm his red book promises of
freer voting and greater MP power in the House by lifting the
heavy hand of discipline from those MPs whose only crime was
to respect their constituents' wishes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have done it since I have been prime minister.
In some opinions expressed not long ago, it seems a few years
ago, this institution was considered not very acceptable in
performing well. It was 9 per cent. The last time there was the
same poll it was published not long ago that collectively we have
managed to lift respect for this institution from 9 per cent to
virtually 30 per cent.
There was an international poll which said there was more
respect for the Parliament of Canada in Canada than there was in
England, the United States, France, Italy, Germany and so on.
I am not afraid to reply to the person who fired his own justice
critic. I have some rules in my party which people know about,
but we have more democracy in our party than in any other.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I have been a
member of Parliament for quite some time and it is the first time
in the history of this Parliament when members of Parliament of
the government side presented dozens of amendments to the
House of Commons, as we saw last week, and we let them vote
on them.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes, we did. It is the first
time there was so much freedom in the House of Commons. We
have never seen that before. The vote has passed and I think
members on this side of the House of Commons are going home
happy, feeling they have done a good job.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
A study done by the defence industry research group reveals
that Quebec would be particularly affected by cuts to the
defence industry production program, DIPP. This study
concluded that 60 per cent of DIPP's funding in Quebec would
be cut, that is, $50 million, and so research and development
would drop by $150 million.
(1430)
Will the minister admit that he is on the wrong track in cutting
funds to DIPP, when he knows very well that, for every dollar the
government puts into this program, the industry puts in three,
and jobs in high tech industries like aerospace are directly
related to contributions to the program?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we discussed this issue last week. As I indicated then to
the member, I acknowledge that DIPP is very important, but the
government has decided to reduce grants to Canadian private
enterprise and to review DIPP.
We think that it has long been an important program in
Canada, but this does not mean that this sort of program should
not be reviewed. Perhaps the member has some ideas that could
be adopted.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister should not concern himself with my ideas.
I am more worried about his.
After attacking at the Quebec pharmaceutical industry, the
minister is now going after the aerospace industry by cutting
DIPP. Is this the sort of federalism being offered to Quebec,
where Ottawa continually threatens high tech industry in
Quebec, offering only unemployment and technological delay in
exchange?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the Bloc supports high tech companies like
Monsanto and Eli-Lilly.
I would remind him that Quebec is not the only province with
a high tech sector, particularly in aerospace. There are
companies all over Canada, such as Pratt & Whitney, which is
located not only in Montreal but also in Lethbridge and Halifax,
and is very concerned about international competition for grants
from the government. We are very much aware of this
competition and have some ideas to propose for this sector.
14316
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it just does not fit, really. The Prime Minister just said that the
highway 104 scandal is the responsibility of the province of
Nova Scotia.
I recognize that the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services refuses to answer for the misappropriation of funds-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: As I mentioned during the last question period,
whenever a question is put it is put to the government. The
government may choose to answer in whatever fashion it
wishes.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, now I find
that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester is telling
people that the federal government has found a solution.
Before the session closes I would like to try to get the minister
of public works up on his feet and be blessed with an answer.
Will the Liberal government be returning the $26 million to
highway 104 as suggested by the hon. member for
Cumberland-Colchester?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know that the hon. member for
Cumberland-Colchester is very interested in this matter and I
understand her concerns. We have listened to people who have
made representations with respect to highways in Nova Scotia
on a number of occasions.
Although the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester is a
very hard working member of Parliament, it does not change the
reality that decisions for highway construction, the allocation of
funds and the routing of highways is a provincial matter.
I know it is extremely difficult for the hon. member who has
asked the question to understand that, but I intend to be patient
and to continue to explain to him that whether it is in Manitoba,
British Columbia or Nova Scotia, the decision for the
construction of highways and how the funds are allocated is the
primary responsibility and falls within the constitutional
jurisdiction of the provinces in question.
(1435 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder who is going to get the babysitting fees for the minister
of public works, the minister of transport or me?
The government has refused to give documents to the Citizens
for Fairness Coalition in Wentworth Valley, Nova Scotia, but I
delivered them myself at a rally in the valley.
I would like the Prime Minister to answer this question. Why
does the government have to be threatened with lawsuits by
outraged citizens before it acts to rein in cabinet ministers who
are clearly out of control? What assurances do we have that the
minister of public works, in particular, will be given a wake-up
call by the Prime Minister?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we continue with the programs already in place to
deal with highway construction in a number of provinces, no
doubt citizens in every part of the country are seeking as much
as they can get to build highways. That is the case in Nova
Scotia.
We fully understand the concerns, especially in my case being
a New Brunswicker. We recognize that highways in Atlantic
Canada need a lot of funding.
Rather than railing at the rally in the valley about the 104, I
look forward to the hon. member and his party telling us where
they would get more money and what they would propose for
highway construction in the country. Since this is not federal
jurisdiction, they might want to tell us how they propose to fund
highway construction in Nova Scotia and elsewhere where it is
required.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, after providing financial assistance to Canadian
research journals for years, in January, the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council announced a new policy based on
the number of subscribers rather than on the quality of the
publications. As a result, funding for French-language journals
is being reduced by half.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. Will the minister
confirm that the cuts under the new Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council's policy will be borne almost
exclusively by French-language journals, while
English-language ones will be generally unaffected?
[English]
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while it is true the
Social Science and Humanities Research Council will have less
funds three years from now than at present, those cutbacks were
less proportionately than in many other areas of the government,
less proportionately than the Department of Industry.
14317
The Social Science and Humanities Research Council has
worked very hard in making adjustments and to make them in
the best possible way for the whole research community.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the council's new criteria do not take into account
the relative size of the francophone and anglophone markets in
Canada. To give out grants on the sole basis of the number of
subscribers amounts to a death sentence for francophone
journals.
In that context, does the minister recognize that the real
impact of this new policy of the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council, which gives an outrageous advantage to
anglophone journals, is tantamount to eliminating funding for
French-language research journals?
[English]
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council represents all the researchers in
the social sciences and humanities in Canada, both anglophone
and francophone, and has on its council both anglophone and
francophone members. It treats and funds researchers equally
all across the country.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the American government is poised today to punish Canadian
industries for the Liberal policies of cultural protectionism.
Mickey Kantor will issue his retaliation hit list today.
Because the Liberals are closing our borders and choking off
competition. hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Canadian
business stands to suffer.
Why will the Minister of Canadian Heritage not live up to the
pro-competition rhetoric of the industry minister and avoid this
trade battle with the U.S. which damages Canadians business
and allows CMT into the market?
(1440 )
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our colleague does not seem to realize that
Canada is one of the most open markets to cultural products in
the world, for the benefit of Canadians. However, when a
Canadian producer does a good job, creates employment and
Canadian content he should be supported.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
despite the woolly answer from the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, Mickey Kantor will issue a hit list today, regardless of
whether the CMT deal with NCN goes through during the
current negotiations.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is letting CRTC run amok.
The CRTC was directly responsible for the negative options
billing fiasco. It is responsible for the satellite policy debacle
and now it has forced the government to sacrifice Canadian
industries and jobs in a high stakes poker game within the U.S.
The CRTC's time is-
The Speaker: The question, please.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): The government has
repeatedly stated that it has raised competition but the CRTC
disagrees.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
On January 1, the United States took advantage of the
establishment of the World Trade Organization to impose on
Canada new restrictions on imports of sugar and products
containing sugar, thus jeopardizing over 2,400 jobs. Also, a bill
sponsored by Senator Jesse Helms is currently before the U.S.
Congress and seeks to prohibit access to the American market to
any business having commercial ties with Cuba.
Meanwhile, American sugar is flooding our market to the
point that the revenue department felt the need to initiate an
antidumping investigation. Can the minister tell us what
concrete action he will take to prevent the Helms bill from being
passed?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been vigorous in our protests about
the Helms bill. They have taken a variety of forms. We followed
the traditional one of protesting to the United States state
department. The Prime Minister had occasion to raise the matter
during heads of government meetings. For my part, I have on a
number of occasions pressed the matter with the United States
trade representative.
The result of our protests and those of European countries,
Japan and other major trading partners of the United States has
been to encourage the administration to seek a revision of the
bill in such a way as to meet our trading concerns.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has been aware of the problem for several months. In
spite of his often repeated assurances, nothing has changed and
the situation still represents a threat to our companies.
14318
Will the minister intervene with American officials regarding
the so-called black list presumably made by the U.S. Treasury
and said to include the names of Canadian companies doing
business in Cuba, including sugar refineries?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what the hon. member
refers. In the case of the so-called black list, there have been
press reports of the United States treasury issuing a ``black
list'', if he wishes to call it that, against four subsidiary
companies in Cuba, in which a Canadian company has an equity
position.
The United States treasury has not issued such a list.
Therefore I must take the member's question as hypothetical.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In the 1800s railroads were given the power of expropriation
as they expanded across Canada. Today, as railroads abandon
lines everywhere, I would like to know why the new Canadian
transportation act contains a similar or parallel power of
expropriation?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the hon. member is interested in this matter. If
he takes a close look at the proposed legislation he will find, and
I am sure he agrees, that it is no longer appropriate for railroads
in Canada to have the direct expropriation powers they enjoyed
over many years.
(1445 )
We have suggested in the new legislation that in the event
where negotiations do not lead to a satisfactory settlement,
railroads will no longer have the direct power of expropriation.
They will only be able to move in that direction with the consent
of the government and cabinet.
I agree with the hon. member that it is a situation that should
only be allowed to exist in extraordinary circumstances.
Certainly the new legislation will not allow railroads to become
involved in any direct expropriation on their own.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government's literacy program has funded a booklet
entitled: ``Making Scenes Between the Lines'', scripts written
by street kids for use in our students' classrooms. In it a
principal says: ``F-- you. Empty your pockets'', and the
student responds: ``F-- you, I will. You can take your attitude
and shove it up your f--ing a-''.
Why is the government allowing the literacy program to fund
$200,000 for such a project and what in the world is this
supposed to accomplish in our schools?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not avail myself of the
same reading literature that the hon. member obviously does.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: You should read it. You might learn
something.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Calm yourself.
One reason for supporting literacy programs is to bring
important opportunities to large numbers of Canadians,
particularly those who have not had an opportunity for
education. It brings them into the system to learn the basic
functions of reading and writing. We supply those grants to a
wide variety of organizations, mainly the ABC Canada
organization, a group of corporate sponsors which provides that
kind of funding. They make the decisions based on those peer
groups.
If the hon. member wants to send me a copy of the
publication, I would be glad to look at it and respond. The hon.
member should recognize the ultimate and important value of
helping street kids to learn to read.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is going to every school in the country, not just to street kids and
government money is being spent on it.
My party believes in literacy and keeping kids off our streets,
but handing out scripts like this to every high school in the
country is hardly the way to do it. Learning how to spell
obscenities is not literacy and the real language the government
talks about can be learned by reading washroom walls, not
through government programs.
Can the Prime Minister assure the House and Canadian
parents whose kids are going to be getting this stuff on their
desks in September that it will not happen and this project will
not go ahead?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, like
other members of her party, seems to forget that the decisions on
these matters as to what appears in the classroom are not made
by the federal government but are decisions of the local school
boards. If the school boards do not want to make access of that
kind of literature to their children, it is their choice.
14319
I have already indicated that if the hon. member would be
good enough to send me a copy of the publication, I will take
it up with the secretary of state for literacy to determine what
the sponsorship is and what the use is. We would then get a
response back to the hon. member.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The many cuts imposed by the federal government on the
National Film Board since 1984 have literally disrupted their
services. In Quebec, seven municipal libraries are affiliated
with the NFB and carry NFB films and documentaries. However,
citizens who do not reside in these municipalities must pay up to
$100 per year, for example in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, to avail
themselves of the services of an NFB library.
Is the minister aware that the repercussion of this NFB policy
is that access to the NFB collection has become considerably
more restricted for residents of remote regions?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the NFB is making budgetary adjustments,
there is nothing surprising about that. In addition, we are
reviewing its mandate, and during this process we will study the
NFB's distribution policy. Lastly, the future lies in distribution
via the information highway, and, in this area, the NFB is on the
cutting edge.
(1450)
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the minister not feel that the NFB should be strongly encouraged
to come up with ways of making this collection more accessible,
for example through video rental stores?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our colleague is a little behind the times
technologically. The NFB is in the process of setting up a
robotics centre in Montreal which will provide a direct link
between its collection and the entire country, once the centre is
linked to the information highway. It will serve all parts of the
country, including out of the way areas like the one mentioned
by our colleague.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, medicare
waiting lists are now so long that an American firm is selling
insurance here. This is a disgrace. Health care delayed is health
care denied. Can the health minister explain why medicare
waiting lists are so long?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are many reasons for waiting lists. Sometimes
they are long because emergency cases go ahead of others.
One of the good things about our country and medicare is the
fact that people do not need a large wallet and there is no need to
spend excessive dollars on insurance administration. The
dollars we spend go directly to patient care. We are going to
continue to ensure that happens. That is the best way to treat the
people of Canada: based on need, not based on whether they can
afford to pay.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this plan is
actually called waiting list insurance. If a person has to wait
more than six weeks for surgery, the company will pay to take
them to the U.S. to have it done.
Instead of handing us rationing and rhetoric will the minister
admit that reasonable access is a thing of the past in Canada?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every country has a form of rationing of medical care. I
happen to like the way ours is which is based on the degree of
need. In other countries it may be based on how much money the
person has, where they live or whether they have insurance.
When a person goes to a hospital in Canada they are treated
because they are sick, not because of the kind of insurance they
have.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
On Monday in Quebec, Minister Blackburn announced a
thorough reform of the income security system.
Within the context of flexible federalism and consultation
with the provinces, how does the Minister of Human Resources
Development, who is about to table components of the federal
reform plan, intend to work together with his counterparts in
Quebec?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for Brome-Missisquoi for his question.
I was very interested in the proposals from the Quebec
government, especially since the approach suggested by
Minister Blackburn reflects the approach taken by our own
government as year ago, particularly the proactive measures for
steady employment and plans for decentralizing authority, for
local centres and community centres.
14320
I am prepared to co-operate with Mrs. Blackburn, and I hope
she will co-operate with our government, in the best interests
of all Quebecers.
* * *
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour.
One of the main demands made by womens' groups,
especially those that organized the bread and roses march, is for
governments to raise the minimum wage.
(1455)
Since the federal minimum wage has not been increased since
1986, does the minister intend to correct this situation and
announce an increase this year?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are looking into this right now, and we intend to
make a decision very shortly.
I might add that after checking with federally regulated
employers, we found that most businesses operate on the basis
of the minimum wage in each province. Right now, we can
assume that a very small majority of workers are paid the federal
minimum wage.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
may be a good opportunity to look at federal encroachment on
provincial jurisdictions in all areas connected with manpower.
Since the average provincial minimum wage is around
$5.60-even if only a small majority of people are concerned,
these are always too many, and we should find out how many
people are earning such a low wage-would the minister agree
that a federal minimum wage of $4.00 is clearly inadequate and
should be increased as soon as possible?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said before, the minimum wage varies widely in
this country, depending on the province. It varies from $4.75 to
$7.00 in certain provinces. Most employers adjust to the
minimum wage in the province where they live, and meanwhile,
we are looking into adjusting the federal minimum wage
accordingly.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the defence minister promised the Somalia inquiry
would be free and open. He said that anyone having pertinent
testimony had the responsibility to appear. However earlier this
week Justice Letourneau suggested serving soldiers might need
to be protected and offered that some could testify in camera.
Does the minister accept that military witnesses may need
protection? Will he ensure that soldiers can testify, perhaps even
against the department and their seniors without fear of reprisal?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that Justice Gilles
Letourneau, the chairman of the commission, was quoted in
press reports as stating that some soldiers may fear reprisals or
being prejudiced in their military career. He did insist however
that there is no evidence to that. Perhaps he was taking
precautionary steps. He is considering a promise of
confidentiality of information, a pledge that the inquiry will
investigate any allegation of ongoing reprisals and an offer to
allow vulnerable people, if it is shown that this is the case, to
give testimony in private.
It would be improper for me or the minister to comment on
any other aspects of the commission until the commission has
finished its work.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us look at a specific example.
Justice demands that Mark Boland testify, but he has made
allegations about the conduct of military police and even now is
in their custody. He may have the right to appear, but I question
his freedom to do so as long as his treatment and even
well-being are under the control of the very people against
whom he may testify.
What will the minister do to ensure that a soldier like Mark
Boland can without fear of retribution testify freely before the
commission?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I just suggested and mentioned some of the areas
that were being considered by the chairman of the commission. I
believe it is the commission's responsibility to decide on this
aspect of witnesses and their protection if necessary. I would
like to leave it at that.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
It is clear that current drug enforcement policies need to be
reviewed in this country. The B.C. coroner last week raised the
issue again, as law enforcement officials and many other people
have done recently, suggesting that a radically different
legislative approach needs to be taken for the possession and use
of hard and soft drugs.
In Canada the last comprehensive public review was in 1970
with the Le Dain commission. Has the minister's department
taken any steps to initiate a comprehensive review of Canada's
drug enforcement policy?
14321
(1500 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the Department of
Justice we are always looking for controversial new topics to
undertake. Perhaps the hon. member has given us something to
do for the summer.
I should say that at the moment, as the hon. member may
know, the Standing Committee on Health has Bill C-7 before it,
which was introduced by the government to deal with a variety
of matters in relation to non-medical drugs, their use, and
prosecution and enforcement of laws in relation to their illegal
use.
It may be that after that bill has been dealt with the Minister of
Health may wish to speak more broadly to the question of the
drug enforcement strategy. I am sure she will take into account
the points made by the hon. member in formulating that
suggestion.
* * *
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister and it relates to the situation
in Bosnia.
As the House will be rising for the summer, the Prime
Minister and the government will know Canadians are
extremely concerned about what is happening to our soldiers in
that part of the world. Given the fact that the House is rising, I
would like to ask the government whether it would make a
commitment to voluntarily brief members of the House of
Commons on a regular basis, in particular members of the
Standing Committee on National Defence, so we can be kept
abreast of what is happening in this ongoing situation.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to indicate to
members of the House who are interested in the safety of our
soldiers in Visoko that a liaison officer from the Bosnian
government is now in the camp in Visoko to make appropriate
arrangements to restore freedom of movement to the troops,
including the resupply of our soldiers there.
In regard to the suggestion just made by the hon. member,
indeed we have offered periodically to brief political parties, the
official opposition and the Reform Party. Certainly if the caucus
of the Conservative Party could get together we would be
delighted to brief them.
As the member knows, we are the servant of parliamentary
committees. If the chair of the standing committee wants to have
briefings, I am sure the defence department or my department
will respond quickly and expeditiously.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to draw your attention
to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Victor Quintana, member of
the Mexican Chamber of Deputies.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
member for Témiscamingue, proud to live in the
Abitibi-Témiscamingue region, and on behalf of my colleague
for Abitibi and of members from all regions of Quebec and
elsewhere, I draw your attention to the remarks made by the
Minister of Canadian Heritage in response to a question from
my colleague for Québec.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage showed a flagrant lack of
respect and a disdain for the people of remote regions like mine.
In his response to my colleague for Québec, he referred to new
technologies, using qualifiers. He then used the expression
``reculées'' (out of the way, backward) to describe the regions,
probably in reference to all sorts of things going on in his head
as his department is making decisions regarding major cultural
sectors in the regions-such as the National Film Board or the
Festival du cinéma international.
(1505)
As the member for Témiscamingue, I cannot accept such
remarks. Through you, I ask the Minister of Cultural Heritage to
apologize to all of the people of Abitibi-Témiscamingue and
everyone living in the regions, who are not necessarily the
people who live in large urban centres.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.):Mr. Speaker, at issue is not the respect I have as a
Quebecer for all parts of Quebec, but a knowledge of how to
speak the French language. I refer you to page 1632 of the Petit
Robert, where ``reculé'' is defined as ``lointain, difficile
d'accès, isolé'' (distant, hard to reach, isolated). I see nothing to
offend people in this.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: This is unacceptable.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): I
would like to go back, Mr. Speaker, to the words that the
minister just said. The minister just demonstrated that he has an
extremely poor image of those Quebecers who do not live in
cities when he said that he finds it utterly normal, parliamentary,
respectable and acceptable to say that these people live in
isolated, hard to get to and distant regions. There are no distant
regions in the province of Quebec. In fact, the minister was
talking about people who live in vibrant and constructive
communities which contribute to our society.
14322
I would like to ask this minister, who has a very good
knowledge of the French language, having used it on many
different levels, to, very modestly, very simply, withdraw his
unfortunate comments, and then we can put this whole incident
behind us.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I do not believe that this is a
matter of privilege. This is a debate and, in this House, we have a
lot of time for debates, therefore, I will let this issue rest here.
There is no matter of privilege.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): I rise on a point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member wish to raise another
point of order?
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately, I will not be able to intervene; you have
already settled the matter. However, talking about shrinking a
country's boundaries, just look at the position of the Bloc
Quebecois.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I had hoped that you had
forgotten that today is ``wonderful Wednesday''. Let us move on
to Routine Proceedings.
_____________________________________________
14322
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1510)
[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
48 petitions.
* * *
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the third report of the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage, on the future of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation in the multi-channel universe.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that
the government table a comprehensive response thereto within
150 days.
[Translation]
I also have the privilege to present the fourth report of the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the government's
proposed orders issuing directions to the CRTC respecting
direct-to-home satellite distribution and pay-per-view
programming undertakings.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), I have the honour to
present, in both official languages, the second report of the
Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of
Disabled Persons entitled ``Employment Equity: A
Commitment to Merit''.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to
make a brief comment on the Reform Party's minority report,
which is attached to the employment equity report from the
government.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-338, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend
the Income Tax Act with respect to the political activities of
charities receiving public funds.
I would like to thank the hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth for seconding the bill.
The bill would allow the revenue minister to disqualify from
charitable status corporations, trusts, and organizations that
receive discretionary grants from the public money of Canada if
they engage in public activity that goes beyond the direction of
their charitable object.
I call upon members on all sides of the House to support the
bill. I would remind them that our federal debt is now over $550
billion.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-339, an act to provide for the funding for intervenors in
hearings before certain boards and agencies.
14323
(1515 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a private
member's bill entitled an act to provide for funding for
interveners in hearings before certain boards and agencies,
which responds to concerns from constituents in my riding.
The bill establishes the principle that a proponent of a project
that requires review and approval and that affects the public
interest or the environment should assist with funding for
interveners.
The bill will assist interveners with a record of responsible
representation of a facet of the public interest to put their
arguments respecting the project before the approving authority.
I look forward to the support of my colleagues when the bill
comes forward.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-340, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act
(termination of CBC's television operations).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce
these three private members' bills. The bills are part of our
package to privatize the CBC.
One of the bills amends the Access to Information Act and
would make the CBC more accessible to Canadians. Presently it
is exempt from the Access to Information Act and the bill would
end that exemption.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to continue. The explanations
as you read them are self-explanatory.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-341, an act to amend the Financial
Administration Act (Canada Council, Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, Canadian Film Development Corporation,
National Arts Centre Corporation).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-342, an act to amend the Access to
Information Act and the Privacy Act (Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation and the National Arts Centre Corporation).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1520 )
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-343, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest
without warrant).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce this
private member's bill which I feel will have no difficulty finding
support throughout the House.
The purpose of the bill is to give a peace officer the power to
arrest without warrant a person who is in breach of a probation
order binding the person.
We are thinking particularly of the number of reports that
have come through the police commissions to my office of
stalkers and other individuals who are out on parole, probation
or found in areas where they have been told not to be. The police
have no authority to do anything other than report. We feel they
should have, for the safety of all Canadians, the power to arrest.
We would seek support for the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, an act to amend the
Public harbours and Port Facilities Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change a
time-honoured practice under the Public harbours and Port
Facilities Act by which harbour masters and wharfingers are
appointed at the discretion of the minister, often as a political
favour.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that appointments are
made on the basis of individual qualifications. The decision will
still be up to the minister, but he will have to designate
appointees who have shown they are capable of performing the
duties involved, all of which would be part of the current review
of Canada's marine policy. I think the House would have no
trouble passing this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
14324
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be designated
as the committee of the House of Commons to which any matters shall stand
referred pursuant to the Referendum Act.
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when Government Orders are reached later this day I
think you would find unanimous consent that notice of ways and
means motion No. 28, standing in the name of the Secretary of
State for International Financial Institutions, will be deemed
carried on division when it is put to the House.
Notice of ways and means motion No. 29, standing in the
name of the Minister of National Revenue, will be put to the
House, a division will have been deemed to have been
demanded, and the same will be deferred until 11.30 tonight.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
(1525 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition that
has been circulating across Canada. The particular petition
comes from Leamington, Ontario.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that
managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families that make the choice to provide care in the home for
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my privilege to table in the
House a petition signed by more than 850 residents of the riding
of Charlevoix.
Your petitioners call on the government to make zone 16 in
the central northern region part of zone 25 in Northern Quebec,
in the case of municipalities included in the MRCs of
Charlevoix-est and Charlevoix-ouest, for the purposes of
eligibility for unemployment insurance.
Since most of the jobs available in zone 16 are seasonal, your
petitioners want to be part of zone 25, which better reflects the
kind of jobs they have.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present several petitions today.
The first is from 120 constituents of my riding as well as other
parts of British Columbia. They call upon the government to
reduce its spending and instead implement a taxpayer protection
act to limit federal spending.
I am pleased to present the petition today.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as well there is a petition that once again reflects the
concerns of Canadians about the Young Offenders Act.
The petition has almost 200 signatures from all parts of
British Columbia including my riding. They call upon
Parliament to review the Young Offenders Act in an open and
accountable process which addresses the following principles:
deterrence of the offender, accountability of the offender, and
the rights of the victim.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): As
well, Mr. Speaker, I have one small petition with which I
disagree relating to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
14325
The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination
based on sexual orientation.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as well, I have a petition that calls for stiffer treatment
of criminals and to return rights to law-abiding citizens. It is
from approximately 150 petitioners, 25 from British Columbia
and others from across Canada.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to return rights to the
citizens of Canada from the criminals and request that
Parliament honour these requests.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions asking Parliament to lobby on behalf of Leonard
Peltier.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions urging Parliament to amend the human rights act to
protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
I have two other petitions asking Parliament not to amend the
human rights act in any way that would indicate approval of
same sex relationships.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition calling for stiffer sentences and mandatory treatment
for all child abusers.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
last petition today is on the matter of breast cancer in Canada.
The petitioners call for Parliament to support centres of
excellence for breast cancer research, a national toll free
information and support system for breast cancer research, and
core funding for that research. They call upon Parliament to
spearhead federal and provincial action on breast cancer.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition on behalf of
approximately 300 constituents of my riding of
Edmonton-Strathcona.
The constituents request that the human rights act not be
amended to include the term sexual orientation in order that no
Canadian receives special rights or privileges based solely on
sexual behaviour.
It is my pleasure to submit the petition and to inform my
constituents that I concur.
(1530)
The Speaker: Colleagues, it is not necessary to agree or
disagree with petitions. We ask you not to.
I will get you all in. How many of you have to catch a plane? I
will get you in, I promise.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
present a petition from my riding and parts of the city of
London, Ontario which contains four pages of signatures.
This is a petition calling on Parliament to act quickly to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
It notes acts of discrimination against lesbian, gay and
bisexual Canadians are an every day reality in all regions of
Canada and that this type of discrimination is unacceptable in a
country known for its commitment to human rights, equality and
dignity for all citizens.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions from Lac-la-Biche, Alberta in the
constituency of Beaver River.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, they are saying whereas the
majority of Canadians are law-abiding citizens and respect the
law, whereas the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of
human life, and whereas the majority of Canadians believe
physicians in Canada should be working to save lives, not to end
them, they are praying that Parliament ensures present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously.
They pray that Parliament make no changes in the law which
would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or
active or passive euthanasia.
Also pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition on
behalf of constituents from Bonnyville, again in Beaver River.
Whereas decriminalizing assisted suicide or legalizing
euthanasia could lead to a reduction in patient-physician trust
and respect, the degrading of the value of human life and the
erosion of moral and ethical values, and whereas palliative care
is active and compassionate care which can relieve the pain and
suffering of terminally ill persons and families without the
dangers of suicide, these petitioners pray that Parliament
continue to reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.
They also request present provisions of section 241 of the
Criminal Code of Canada which forbids the counselling,
procuring, aiding or abetting of a person to commit suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament consider expanding
palliative care that would be accessible to all dying persons in
Canada.
14326
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this petition may be one of the most important petitions tabled in
the House of Commons. It was signed by students at Lavallée,
Windsor Park Collegiate and Nelson McIntyre, all schools in my
riding, and concerns national unity.
These petitioners point out that:
[English]
Quebec has been a founding partner of Canada and its richness
and uniqueness in terms of language and culture, its population,
its size and its position have enriched the entire nation.
In spite of differences we have had over time, we have been
able to reach accommodation to the benefit of all parties and
certainly to the benefit of the entire nation. These students
believe separation would jeopardize the quality of life of all
Canadians, particularly young people. They insist we all work
very diligently and responsibly as adults toward national unity;
a stronger country for ourselves but let us not forget them.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
five petitions to present. The first deals with our financial
condition. The petitioners pray and request that Parliament
reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and
implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal funding.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition unfortunately arrives too late because
Parliament rushed through Bill C-68.
I have 250 signatures from my constituents asking more
attention be paid to people who are breaking the laws with
respect to guns as opposed to law-abiding citizens who came
under the gun as a result of that act.
The third petition with 151 signatures draws to the attention
of the House that public safety is the number one priority of the
criminal justice system.
The petitioners want Parliament to support laws that will
severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the
commission of crime and support new Criminal Code firearms
control provisions which recognize and protect law-abiding
citizens to own and use recreational firearms.
(1535 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for the
interest of the House, the last two petitions have had the greatest
number of petitioners coming to my office. The first one
specifically refers the bill of my colleague from Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley, Bill C-240. The petitioners call on
Parliament to enact legislation against serious personal injury
crimes being committed by high risk offenders by permitting
the use of post-sentence detention orders and specifically
passing Bill C-240.
A related petition with 686 signatures calls for keeping
dangerous offenders and paedophiles locked up for life,
eliminating statutory release and posing stiffer sentences for
violent offenders. There is a whole list here.
This issue has prompted the greatest number of signatures in
my constituency. Although I do not have any obligation to
comment on it, I will say that I do concur.
The Speaker: I prefer you did not.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions signed by many
residents across my constituency which deal directly with
national unity in Canada.
They state that whereas the hon. Leader of the Opposition has
travelled to other parts of the world to promote the separation of
Quebec from Canada, and whereas the majority of residents of
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke wish to promote Quebec's
continued participation in the Confederation of Canada,
therefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call on
Parliament to inform the Leader of the Opposition he is not
supporting the majority view of the residents of
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke when he is travelling to
promote the separation of Quebec form Canada.
They want national unity in Canada.
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
signed by my constituents.
The petitioners, most of whom are concerned parents, have
expressed grave concerns of the arrival in Canada of new phone
sex services that originate from foreign countries. These
services are classified as standard overseas calls and their
advertising and access are not regulated, as are domestic
services of the same nature.
Unlike -900 and -976 calls which parents can block, these
-011 numbers cannot be blocked. The petitioners believe
children's access to these services should be curtailed and they
request Parliament to enact a publication ban on foreign sex line
numbers and to regulate foreign sex lines and restrict
publication of the numbers to adult subscriptions to be
accompanied by a warning as to their graphic nature.
14327
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour
to present a petition on behalf of 100 constituents of
Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area.
The petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation providing for a referendum of the people, binding on
Parliament, to accept or reject two official languages, English
and French, for the government and the people of Canada.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition with the
signatures of 7,582 residents of southeastern and central
Ontario. This was presented to me by Tracey Bridgeman of the
Durham region.
It calls on Parliament to recognize that crimes and violence
against persons are serious and abhorrent to society. It also
requests we amend the Criminal Code, the Bail Reform Act of
1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 1,950
residents mainly of the Victoria, British Columbia region,
asking that Canada Post cease to deliver junk mail.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my duty and pleasure to present a number of
petitions which I have grouped into six topics in order to
facilitate their presentation.
The first is signed by 83 responsible firearms owners from
Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan who use firearms for their
livelihood, sport and industry. They call on Parliament to
recognize Canada already has the toughest gun control in North
America with strong regulations regarding usage and storage,
and to further recognize there is no relationship between
responsible gun ownership and the use of firearms in crime.
(1540 )
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the next group of petitions is signed by 47 constituents
of Saskatchewan, not in my riding, who call on Parliament to
preserve Canadian unity, parliamentary tradition and to protect
the rights of all the people of Canada by prevailing on the
Speaker of the House of Commons to recognize the Reform
Party of Canada as the official opposition during the remainder
of the 35th Parliament.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am also pleased to present a petition signed by 195
school teachers from my riding regarding the status of the Young
Offenders Act.
The petitioners call on Parliament to change the legislation to
make young offenders more responsible for their actions, to
make the names of young offenders public and to increase the
severity of consequences for repeat offenders.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the next group is petitions is with respect to the
elimination of the Crow benefit.
The petitioners call on Parliament to eliminate the debt
incurred by CN Rail and get the CN empire, government owned
grain hopper rail cars and the Port of Churchill to western
Canadian farmers operated in conjunction with the Canadian
Wheat Board, thus allowing effective competition within rail
transportation.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the next petition is from 25 residents of Saskatchewan
who are greatly concerned that under section 745 of the
Criminal Code convicted murderers sentenced to life
imprisonment without chance of parole for 25 years are able to
apply for review after 15 years. The petitioners request the
repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last group of petitions which I have the honour and
privilege to present today is signed by 425 concerned
Canadians, primarily from Saskatchewan and British Columbia,
who request that Parliament support the existing laws which
severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in crime,
support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which
recognize the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use
recreational firearms, and support legislation which will repeal
and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved
public safety or have proven to not be cost effective or have
proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or
unenforceable.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for me to recognize
the last three members for petitions today?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to present yet another petition from citizens in my
riding who are opposed to the approval of BST, the drug injected
into cows to increase milk production.
14328
A recent Angus Reid poll suggested 74 per cent of Canadians
are concerned about BST and would pay more for milk from
cows not injected with it.
There is no shortage of milk in the country. If there should
ever become a shortage of milk the solution would be to get
more cows.
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition on behalf of the federal representative for
the riding of Welland-St. Catharines.
The petitioners oppose any amendments to the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms which would tend to indicate societal approval of
same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including
amendments to the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
The petition contains 38 signatures.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
citizens from across British Columbia have given me several
petitions which cover a variety of topics.
In the first petitioners are concerned that the definition of
marriage remain the legal union of a man and a woman.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the second petition the petitioners request that assisted
suicide and euthanasia not be allowed in Canada.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the third petition the petitioners request that protection
enjoyed by born human beings be extended to unborn human
beings.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the fourth petition the petitioners request that firearms
legislation target the criminal misuse of firearms and not
law-abiding citizens.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps readying Parliament for the next federal budget, in the
final petition the petitioners request that Parliament reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on
behalf of my constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt
to present petitions. I have three petitions to present today.
The first petition was initiated in the memory of Mindy Tran,
an eight-year old who was abducted and tragically murdered in
her home town of Kelowna, British Columbia. The 248
signatories request that Parliament impose maximum existing
legislation, deny eligibility for parole, bring in new legislation
and hold a binding national referendum on the issue of capital
punishment as a deterrent to these social predators victimizing
our children.
(1545 )
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition also deals with the criminal
justice system. Outraged citizens are concerned with sexual
assaults on women.
The petitioners call on Parliament to amend section 271 of the
Criminal Code to include a minimum sentence of five years
where a person pleads guilty to or is found guilty of level one
sexual assault.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker the third petition, bearing 71 signatures, is in regard
to the bovine growth hormone that is injected into dairy cows.
The petitioners request the Government of Canada to protect
our health and food supply by disallowing the unnecessary
genetic manipulation of dairy cows through the injection of
bovine growth hormones.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition on
behalf of a number of Canadians from Merritt, Kamloops,
Oliver, Langley and Surrey, British Columbia.
The petitioners point out that Canadians, particularly women
and children, are becoming increasingly fearful of walking on
the streets in their communities. They ask the House of
Commons and the Minister of Justice to take whatever steps are
necessary to amend the Criminal Code and parole system to
ensure that safety and peace return to our neighbourhoods.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition, signed by people primarily from Ontario. It
indicates that deep cuts to Canada's social programs will hurt all
Canadians and have a profoundly negative impact on the four
million adults and children living below the poverty line.
The petitioners point out that 50 per cent of the debt of Canada
is the result of monetary policy, 44 per cent is the result of tax
policy and less than 6 per cent is a result of all government
programs.
14329
Therefore they point out that social programs ought not to
be severely limited, in that they are our right and heritage.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos.
183 and 196.
[Text]
Question No. 183-Mr. Comuzzi:
What portion of the announced $300 million adjustment payment following
cancellation of the WGTA will be directed toward enhancing infrastructure for
the port of Churchill?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food), Lib.): No final decisions have yet been made on
the precise allocation of the $300 million multiyear WGTA
adjustment fund. Discussions with private sector stakeholders,
including farm organizations, and provincial governments are
underway to solicit advice as to priorities. The fund first
becomes available on April 1, 1996.
To date, the advice received by the government has
emphasized the use of this fund to: offset some of the impact of
changes in the Canadian Wheat Board's freight cost pooling
system; provide transitional support for the alfalfa dehydration
industry; and build or upgrade agricultural infrastructure on the
prairies, and especially the road system.
Final allocation decisions will take all relevant interests into
account, recognizing that a $300 million fund cannot address
every expectation. The objective is to assist the prairies
agricultural sector to make the necessary transition to an
economic environment without transportation subsidization.
Question No. 196-Mrs. Hayes:
With respect to the UN New York preparatory conference in March 1995, (a)
what was the total amount spent by all federal departments and agencies as well
as the breakdown of those costs by department and agency, (b) who were the
representatives that comprised the Canadian delegation and what were the
guidelines utilized in the selection of those delegates?
Hon Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): I am informed
by Status of Women Canada (SWC) as follows:
The four week New York preparatory meeting for the World
Conference on Women March 15 to April 7, 1995 was held
concurrently with the regular session of the UN Commission on
the Status of Women.
(a) Cost to the federal government for participation at these
meetings were as follows:
Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of
Women)-$973
Status of Women Canada (three officials)-$19,677
Foreign Affairs (one official)-$5,000
Canadian International Development Agency (one
official)-$8,055
Non-governmental organizations (two
representatives)-$16,215*
*Funded by Status of Women Canada
Total Cost:-$49,920
(b) Representatives on the Canadian Delegation included:
Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women);
Status of Women Canada, Valérie Raymond, executive director,
world conference secretariat; Status of Women Canada, Rhonda
Ferderber, director, external relations and communications;
Status of Women Canada, Sheila Regehr, senior policy analyst;
Foreign Affairs, Adèle Dion, co-ordinator, international
women's equality; Canadian International Development
Agency, Diana Rivington, senior policy adviser, women in
development directorate; NGOs, Madeleine Gilchrist and
Gulzar Samji; and two representatives of the government of
Quebec, costs covered by the government of Quebec.
The appointment of a delegation to represent Canada at world
conferences and/or preparatory meetings leading to those
conferences is the responsibility of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs. In selecting members, the minister ensures that the
expertise is well matched to the issues to be addressed and that
the delegation is representative of the diversity of Canadian
interests at play in the conference.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
An hon. member: Agreed.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the
second time I am asking about Question No. 117, which I placed
on the Order Paper on December 1, 1994.
I understand that the government normally takes 45 days to
answer these questions. It has now been seven months. I thought
it was a fairly simple question, asking about the taxable liability
of civil servants who have travel allowances and chauffeured
limousines to move around the country.
I hope the government will see fit to answer this question
forthwith, after seven months.
14330
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day in
responding to a similar point of order raised by the same hon.
member, the question asked involves a tremendous amount of
detail from all parliamentary agents, crown corporations, every
department and agency of the government, all governor in
council appointees, armed forces personnel and RCMP
personnel. He has asked for a tremendously detailed answer.
Frankly, I am not surprised that it has taken so long to answer.
I am sorry it has taken so long.
I should advise the hon. member and he will be interested to
know that of the 209 questions on the Order Paper to date, 166
have been answered and 43 are outstanding. That will be less the
ones that have been answered this week. I think there have been
four answered already this week.
In fact, 80 per cent of the questions that have been placed on
the Order Paper during this session of Parliament have been
answered. The government has been assiduous in attending to its
duties. I know the hon. member will agree, having heard those
figures.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would be pleased to suggest that all notices of
motions for the production of papers stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
14330
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1550)
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (for the Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) moved that a
ways and means motion to amend the Customs Act and the
Customs Tariff and to make related and consequential
amendments to other acts be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to an order
made earlier today the motion is deemed adopted on division.
(Motion agreed to.)
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (for the Minister of National
Revenue, Lib.) moved that a ways and means motion to amend
the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to an order
made earlier today, a recorded division is deemed demanded and
deemed deferred until 11.30 p.m. this evening.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-91, an act
to continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the
name Business Development Bank of Canada, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There are 33 motions in
amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of
Bill C-91, an act to continue the Federal Business Development
Bank under the name Business Development Bank of Canada.
Motions Nos. 1 to 6 and 26 to 33 will be grouped for debate
but voted on as follows. A vote on Motion No. 1 applies to
Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 26 to 33.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 obviates the necessity of
the question being put on Motions Nos. 2 and 5. On the other
hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 1 necessitates the question
being put on Motion No. 2.
A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motion No. 5
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 7 to 11, 14, 15 and 19 to 25 will be grouped for
the purposes of debate but voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 12 and 13 will be grouped for the purposes of
debate. A vote on Motion No. 12 will apply to Motion No. 13.
[English]
Motions Nos. 16, 17 and 18 will be grouped for debate but
voted on as follows. A vote on Motion No. 16 applies to Motion
No. 17. Motion No. 18 will be voted on separately.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I shall now propose
Motions Nos. 1 to 6 and 26 to 33 to the House.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent on the part of the House to consider that
when you call a group, all the motions in the group would be
deemed put to the House without your having to read them or
have them moved. I think there is a disposition throughout the
House in that regard today.
14331
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I think you might find
unanimous agreement to start with Group No. 4. I understand
that is the wish of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In that case I shall
propose Motions Nos. 16, 17 and 18 to the House.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-91, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42, on page
10, with the following:
``shares with a par value of $100 each, but the paid-in capital of the Bank,''.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-91, in Clause 24, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 18 and 19, on page 11, with the following:
``24. The rights conferred by shares include''; and
(b) by deleting lines 26 to 38, on page 11.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-91, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 42, on page
12 and lines 1 to 23, on page 13, with the following:
``(a) authorizing the issue of shares in one or more series and authorizing the
Board to fix, by resolution, the maximum number of shares in each series and to
determine the designation, rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions
attaching to the shares of each series, subject to any limitation set out in the
by-law;
(b) changing authorized shares without par value, whether issued or not, into
shares with a par value and changing authorized shares with a par value,
whether issued or not, into shares without par value; and
(c) consolidating or subdividing shares.''
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, before I get into the debate I would like to express my
appreciation for the unanimous consent given to the grouping
and that all of these motions are deemed to have been put, to
expeditiously advance the debate and the passage of the bill.
However, I also need to register very clearly and
unequivocally that the establishment of a crown corporation like
the Federal Business Development Bank or by whatever other
name it might be called in the future is not consistent with
Reform Party policy. We would suggest that such a crown
corporation, organization or corporation not exist. Even though
that is our position, we want to make the crown corporation as
efficient and effective as it can be. That is the purpose of the
amendments that our party is presenting to the House this
afternoon.
(1555)
With regard to Motions Nos. 16, 17 and 18, which refer to
clauses 23, 24 and 27 of the act respectively, each of these
amendments and those respective clauses refer to the capital
structure of the proposed FDBD. The capital structure as
covered in clause 23 suggests that it consists of a variety of
instruments. The first of these are common shares with a par
value of $100 each and an unlimited number of preferred shares
without par value, but the paid-in capital of the bank together
with any contributed surplus related to it and any proceeds
referred to in paragraph 30(2)(d).
This paragraph from 30(2)(d) really has to do with hybrid
capital instruments. We will talk about that in just a moment. We
also need to recognize that those things that have been described
as equity have to do with contributed surplus and retained
earnings.
Therefore, a couple of things need to be suggested here. First,
the categorization of common shares versus preferred shares
needs to be distinguished. The common shares and the preferred
shares will be owned by the crown which is the Government of
Canada. However, as I understand it, there is a difference in how
they are treated in terms of the presentation of the budget to the
House of Commons.
The preferred shares, to the best of my knowledge, will not be
in the budget but off budget. In other words, they are considered
as an investment of the government so the people are unaware of
what the disposition or exposure is of the Government of Canada
in the equity of the Federal Business Development Bank.
Motion No. 16 deletes from the capital structure of the bank
the category of preferred shares. This would suggest that it is
better to take them out.
When we get to clause 24, if there is going to be a share capital
part of the capital structure of the bank, to make it more efficient
then it ought to be possible, in fact it is necessary in our opinion,
that there be a variety of classes of shares and that they be
created in such a way that there is a maximum of flexibility
possible.
If some future government would like to do what the current
government is doing, that is privatizing crown corporations like
CNR, then this capital structure would be a very convenient way
to make the thing go smoothly. From that point of view, it is an
improvement to go to a share capital position.
Our suggestion is that there be only one class of shares which
are common shares rather than preferred shares. Motion No. 17
clarifies and makes more efficient the disposition, control and
management of those shares.
I would like to focus briefly on the hybrid capital instruments.
Nowhere does the act define exactly what is meant by a hybrid
capital instrument. This raises a whole series of questions. The
14332
first question has to do with what is the priority claim in the
event of dissolution of the bank or in the event of looking at the
earnings of the bank as to who gets paid and in what order they
get paid. Do they take preference to the preferred shares or do
they take a secondary position or do they maybe even take a
tertiary position? It is not clear.
Therefore the act is deficient in not making that clear. The act
is also deficient in not clarifying exactly who will own these
hybrid financial instruments.
The question really arises of who will be expected to buy
these things. Are they going to be individual citizens? Is it going
to be the Government of Canada?
(1600 )
The way the act is written, it is possible that the government
could own these, that individual citizens could own these, that
corporations could own these. That raises the other good
question: Could some kind of persuasive power be directed
towards the banks and it be requested that they supply this
hybrid capital, in which case it is almost an expectation that it is
just short of exercising a tax on the banks in order to supply the
capital for this crown corporation? I do not think that is a
desirable situation to be in.
The other situation is that if you create a hybrid capital
instrument and nobody knows exactly what we are talking
about, that is like creating something we are supposed to be
supporting and we are not sure what it is we are supporting. One
has to be very critical of that kind of provision in an act of this
kind.
There is one other point that has to be raised here, and that is
the actual manner in which the retained earnings and the
contributed surplus is going to be handled by this bank. On one
hand, the bank is told that it must manage its affairs in such a
way that there is complete cost recovery in terms of the loans
and the financial transactions it engages in. On the other hand,
there is a provision that the capitalization of the bank contain a
parliamentary appropriation.
It depends a lot now on what the mix of these equity positions
is going to be. If the major portion of the capitalization of the
bank is going to be a hybrid capital instrument and if that has
prior claim, then indeed the bank is obligated to pay the holders
of these hybrid instruments before it considers any profit to the
bank or any return on investment. If the major part of that is
there, that becomes a direct charge against the earnings the bank
might make. Most of those earnings will come from the money it
lends to various entrepreneurs.
I would respectfully suggest to the House that we adopt these
three amendments to the act.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, to begin I would like to say
to the industry critic for the Reform Party and the critic from the
Bloc Quebecois that as we in committee designed this bill we
had a very constructive debate, a very solid exchange of views. I
am happy to see that this spirit is continuing today in the House,
because it is important that we put this bill through the House
today, with all the responsibility we have been given to make
sure we do the right thing.
At the same time, members must realize that this Business
Development Bank of Canada is an instrument that we need to
act as a catalyst with the small and medium size business
community and it must be done. This bill must be passed before
this House adjourns.
I now want to deal with the Reform Party member's concerns
about this area of the bill on these motions. I want to humbly
differ with him. Where the member has said that we are not
specific about the options the bank may choose to get into and
therefore the crown's liability might be increased, I differ with
that.
I want to be very specific. Under section 30 of the bill, it is
entitled the debt to equity ratio. Section 30 is very specific. The
aggregate of (a) the borrowings of the bank under subsection
18(1) and section 19 and (b) the contingent liabilities of the bank
in the form of guarantees given by it must not at any time exceed
12 times the equity of the bank.
(1605 )
We go on and we are very specific about the definition of
equity:
For the purpose of subsection (1), the equity of the Bank consists of
(a) the amounts paid for its shares, including any contributed surplus;
(b) the retained earnings of the Bank, which may be positive or negative;
(c) the amounts paid to the Bank as capital by Parliamentary appropriation; and
(d) such proceeds of debt instruments, hybrid capital instruments or any other
arrangements as may be prescribed as equity by the Governor in Council.
What I am suggesting by that very specific control the bank
has is that the amendment the Reform Party is putting forward is
not necessary because any activity in respect to the concern of
the member of the Reform Party could only be undertaken if it
met the bank's eligibility criteria. If the eligibility criteria were
not met, then the bank could not proceed holus-bolus on its own.
I believe that the bill, as it stands, amply covers the Reform
Party's concerns.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on the fourth
group of motions and I am pleased that we have agreed to
14333
accommodate one of our Reform Party colleagues, who had to
return to his riding unexpectedly early.
I should mention from the outset that the amendments before
us are very technical and very specialized. We support them,
because, on the whole, they strike us as not altering the spirit of
the bill to any degree, a bill, I might add, that we condemn with
all the strength we can muster. This is perhaps a bit of a
disappointment for our Reform colleagues.
This very important bill changes the rules of the game and the
way of doing things in addition to changing the name of the
largest federal financial institution. The change is being made
on the sly, without debate or show, make no mistake about it,
even though the bill will completely change the operation and
the mission of the bank in its relations with future clients.
It will have the role of agent of regional development. We
will, however, come back to this point at length during the
course of the day. The mission of the bank is being changed in
that the nature of the role of economic developer through small
business will be altered. We have questions about the way the
bank will work in the future, because, in our opinion, it will have
to become more commercial in nature and assume the
accompanying concerns.
At this point in the debate, I would like to inform you that we
will support the three motions by our colleague from the Reform
Party, and particularly the amendment to prevent the issue of
preferred shares. We consider it important in the context that the
legislation clearly state preferred shares may not be issued.
I end my remarks here and will comment further on the bill
itself in the coming hours.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt Motion No. 16?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
(1610 )
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 17.
The next question is on Motion No. 18. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (for the Minister of
Industry), Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That the title of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for
``Small Business Bank of Canada'':
``Business Development Bank of Canada''.
Motion No. 3
That section 1 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for
``Small Business Bank of Canada'':
``Business Development Bank of Canada''.
Motion No. 4
That section 2 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for
``Small Business Bank of Canada'':
``Business Development Bank of Canada''.
Motion No. 6
That section 3(1) of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for
``Small Business Bank of Canada'':
``Business Development Bank of Canada''.
Motion No. 26
That section 43 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for
``Small Business Bank of Canada'':
``Business Development Bank of Canada''.
Motion No. 27
That section 44 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for
``Small Business Bank of Canada'':
``Business Development Bank of Canada''.
Motion No. 28
14334
That section 45 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for
``Small Business Bank of Canada'':
``Business Development Bank of Canada''.
Motion No. 29
That section 47 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for
``Small Business Bank of Canada'':
``Business Development Bank of Canada''.
Motion No. 30
That section 49 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for
``Small Business Bank of Canada'':
``Business Development Bank of Canada''.
Motion No. 31
That section 51 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for
``Small Business Bank of Canada'':
``Business Development Bank of Canada''.
Motion No. 32
That section 53 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for
``Small Business Bank of Canada'':
``Business Development Bank of Canada''.
Motion No. 33
That the Schedule to Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for
``Small Business Bank of Canada'':
``Business Development Bank of Canada''.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-91, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 27, on page
2, with the following:
``3. (1) The Federal Business Development Bank is continued as a body
corporate.''
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the
opportunity to speak to this motion put to the House by the
government wherein we name the Federal Business
Development Bank the Business Development Bank of Canada.
I think it is only fair to give a little background on this issue,
because it was quite a contentious issue in the industry
committee. It is important for Canadians to realize that the
industry committee over the last year has been seized with one
issue primarily. That one issue has been access to capital for
small business.
Most members of the committee would agree that we did not
let a day go by when we did not explore and examine
opportunities and ways in which we could put the small business
community on the front burner in the House of Commons.
Having worked in this city for many years, I must say that I have
found the industry committee to be a united force on this issue.
There were times when we felt we were not the industry
committee but really the small business committee. I think it
would be fair to suggest that we all wanted to put the small
business stamp on every issue we touched. Lo and behold, when
the reform of the Federal Business Development Bank came
along we decided as a committee to rename it the Small
Business Bank of Canada. We became emotionally attached to
the issue of small business, to the point where we would
probably have wanted to name this institution the Small
Business Institution. But reason prevailed and a number of
people took the committee's recommendation and did a more
thorough analysis of exactly how Canadians felt about that name
in all regions of the country. A number of important facts came
back to us.
(1615 )
By naming the Federal Business Development Bank the Small
Business Bank of Canada we would be creating an expectation
for that institution which in fairness it could not fulfil. We would
have been suggesting that the bank had powers way beyond the
powers this bill is giving it. Most Canadians probably do not
even realize that the Federal Business Development Bank is not
a deposit taking institution. Right off the bat that is an important
thing for Canadians to realize.
Another thing we have discovered is that even though the
bank is committed to the traditional sectors of our economy, we
also want to give it a new type of energy and a new focus on the
innovative economies, the knowledge based industries, et
cetera. The small business categorization seemed to limit that
group. These are new and emerging businesses but it does not
take long before they become large businesses. To restrict the
bank to the small business name would, in the long run, have
created an adverse image and adverse impact on the bank. All
committee members did not in any way, shape or form want to
do anything other than make sure that this re-tooled, renewed
bank with expanded powers got off on the right foot.
I realize that emotionally many of us, including myself, were
attached to the name Small Business Bank of Canada. In light of
the fact that all of this other information has been brought to our
attention, I would ask members to support the government
amendment with respect to the new name, the Business
Development Bank of Canada, which better reflects the mandate
of the bank.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to rise for the second time. Changing the name of
the Federal Business Development Bank is a substantial change
indeed, especially when there has been no real expressed need. It
would appear that the parliamentary secretary's memory of what
happened in committee differs from mine.
14335
I would invite you to read again the report on small and
medium sized business financing, put out last year by the
committee, especially recommendation 19, if my memory
serves me well, which came out of left field since the
committee had not debate whether the FBDB should change its
name. It was our very courteous colleague from
Broadview-Greenwood who, as Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Industry, strong armed the committee into
considering the results of the reflection which had taken place
in the minister's office to the effect that the Federal Business
Development Bank should change its name to the Small
Business Bank of Canada. Strangely enough, there is no
comment regarding this recommendation in the report. I believe
that everybody understood that the parliamentary secretary had
no other choice than to present certain proposals.
(1620)
However, it was not enthusiastically received, since
everybody agreed that the Federal Business Development Bank
had a very good reputation and that changing its name to the
Small Business Bank of Canada would result in extra costs and a
waste of efforts, all the more as it apparently narrowed unduly
the federal bank's mandate.
It would appear that cabinet continued to reflect on the issue.
We are told that, during the past year, they consulted many
Canadians, from coast to coast I suppose, and concluded that the
Canadian public wanted the Federal Business Development
Bank to change name. Whereas, last year, they had a very narrow
view of the issue, now they have a wider view, and want to call
the bank the Business Development Bank of Canada. The
decision has already been made; that is what the bill proposes.
The name was too restrictive before, but now it is too
presumptuous. I think that the development of a country like
Canada does not rest on the name of a bank. This would mean
that the only possible kind of development is a financial one
when, in fact, there is also a social and cultural development in
Canada.
This name change will bring about all the disadvantages we
had anticipated right from the start, that is unnecessary
spending, the costs of changing all business cards, letterheads
and signs and a waste of energy. We also learned from the bank's
representatives, during the proceedings of the committee, that in
these times of economic recession and budget crisis, the bank
has decided to move most of its branches, economic austerity
notwithstanding.
So we ask where is the coherence in this government if it cuts
seven billion dollars in transfers to provinces for social
programs and allows spending of that nature which seems
entirely unnecessary and untimely. We know just how capable of
deep and logical thinking those people across the street, in the
Langevin Building, are.
Unless the federal government sees in this Business
Development Bank of Canada-and this is how we interpret the
objective of the government-some special instrument for
intervening in the post-referendum Canada which is coming,
where the federal government, without any mandate and without
consultation with anyone and especially not with provincial
governments, is establishing-and we have said it many times
and we hope Quebecers will understand what is involved, what
is behind all this manoeuvring, truly the dark side of the
moon-a whole system of instruments which will allow it to
meddle more and more in the daily lives of Canadians and
Quebecers. This is the new flexible federalism which, in fact,
will turn provincial governments into regional governments.
What worries us is when we hear the testimony of well-known
Liberals like Claude Castonguay and Jean-Claude Rivest, now a
senator, and a former special adviser to Premier Bourassa, all
articulate federalists. They declared publicly on the CBC that
Canada is being fundamentally restructured. Quebecers should
reflect on that, on what these people say.
So, when we see how far the federal government is going in
terms of the new mandate of the Business Development Bank of
Canada, which will be asked, among other things, to promote
entrepreneurship and support all programs developing
entrepreneurship in Canada, we notice that these terms are
unclear and undefined in the bill and will allow the government
to intervene as it sees fit in any area that it finds interesting, as it
will be able to do in another context, under Bill C-88 concerning
internal trade that we will also comment on later today. Again,
in clause 9, the federal government is giving itself huge powers,
without any mandate, without consulting the stakeholders, even
if nobody asked for this. It is again doing it on the sly.
(1625)
We are also aware that there was a meeting on this issue in
Calgary; no one had authorized the federal government to act as
it did and the federal government did not inform its partners of
its intention to pass Bill C-88 that we are going to study later on
today or tomorrow.
Instead we propose that clause 1 to maintain the status quo
regarding the name of the Federal Business Development Bank
be dropped, for all kinds of reasons. It is a corporation which has
an excellent reputation and with which Canadians and
Quebecers are familiar. It has proven itself, it has played a
useful role as a bank of last resort and we will come back to this
concept later on.
If only to set an example and because of the costs and
unnecessary efforts involved in changing the name of the
Federal Business Development Bank to Business Development
Bank of Canada, which furthermore we find presumptuous, we
14336
are going to vote against the government's amendments. We are
going to propose instead to cancel clause 1 which aims at
changing the name of the bank.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, there are a number of principles I would like to adhere
to when rising to debate on this first group of motions having to
do with changing the name of the Federal Business
Development Bank. A number of the principles I want to centre
on are fiscal responsibility, democratic decision making, and
some of the provisions in the bill itself.
My hon. colleague from the Bloc has illustrated so clearly and
so well the additional cost that will be incurred because of these
kinds of changes that I do not think are necessary. If on the one
hand it would change the function of the bank by changing the
name, then let us do it but it does not.
In the whole function of the bank the mandate has been
expanded and the capitalization structure has changed. The
capital that is available to be lent out has changed. In fact the
current capital is about $3.2 billion and under the new
provisions of this bill it rises to $18 billion. There are some
points there that this bank now becomes a very major player in
small business lending.
The parliamentary secretary made a big point about the fact
that this is going to be the small business bank and that we all
have an emotional attachment to small business. My attachment
to small business is not on an emotional basis. My attachment to
small business is very pragmatic and very hard headed. It is very
simply that 85 per cent of the new jobs created in Canada are
created by small business. That is the significant part. If we ever
want to really build this economy, we have to pay attention to
small business. We have to grow it and we have to develop it. It
has to become larger and eventually has to graduate from a small
business to a big business.
Those are all very desirable things. The big point here is that
we are entering into a request to change the name of a bank. I
really wonder what the result will be of changing that name.
What bothers me on the democratic part of this thing is that
we entered into an arrangement in this House where we could get
the bill to committee before second reading, a bill that was
supposed to be discussed in the House. What happened? It meant
that all the members in the House were not able to contribute to
the debate on the provisions of the proposed legislation in the
House.
The bill went to the committee and the committee worked on
it. It worked fast. All parliamentary standing committees should
take a lesson from the way the industry committee works. It gets
co-operation. It works well. There is a lot of disagreement and
fighting back and forth but there is no recrimination and that is
very significant. We recognize a good idea. It does not matter
where it comes from and that is wonderful.
(1630 )
When the decisions of that kind from committee are presented
to the minister and he turns right around and says he is sorry
about that committee but he is on his way, it will be the Business
Development Bank of Canada and he does not care what we
think, that calls for real criticism and begs the questions of how
important a committee is. What has happened to the procedure?
If everyone in the House agreed to name the bank the small
business bank of Canada, would the minister have said sorry,
Parliament of Canada, but the name will be the Business
Development bank of Canada not the small business bank? The
minister exercised that kind of authority in committee, which he
would not dare do in the Parliament of Canada. There has been
an abuse of the intent and the spirit of bringing this to committee
before second reading.
I also want to come to grips with the word complementary
which was touted. This new bank is now supposed to be
complementary. We could not get the experts, legal or anything
else, to define complementary clearly. It was ultimately brought
into the bill in a new kind of way. I hope the parliamentary
secretary, the minister and all of the department officials will be
able to administer this act so it is complementary and not in
direct competition with the existing field.
I do not think it is fiscally responsible to incur costs of making
all of those changes from the Federal Business Development
Bank to the Business Development Bank of Canada. It is
unnecessary and will change nothing. If we are to do it that way
let us not change it at all.
Democracy needs to prevail in the House. We ought to
recognize how important it is the wishes of committees have
meaning. I must recognize at the same time, although it is not
part of these motions, that in the committee there were some
significant amendments made and the minister accepted them.
We need to recognize the minister went the other way around,
which I think is an abuse of his privileges.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): You cannot win them
all.
Mr. Schmidt: Madam Speaker, is it interesting how the
parliamentary secretary gets so excited about this issue. That is
to be a fundamental question not only for the parliamentary
secretary but for all members on that side of the House. How
well do they recognize democracy and the wishes of the people
when it comes to voting in the House?
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I would like to say that I totally agree with what my
friend from the Reform Party said about committee
proceedings. In committee there are ideas exchanged, some
serious work done. However, we get the impression that, in spite
of all
14337
the work that is done, when the government wants to impose a
direction or a decision, a committee does not carry much weight.
As regards this grouping of amendments, I would like to
remind members that with this bill, the government aims at
streamlining and modernizing the Federal Business
Development Bank. These are words that are really suited to the
market situation as this century comes to an end. But they do not
fool anyone about the primary intention of the federal
government, which is to interfere even more in regional
development. Knowing as we do that this element of regional
development is extremely important to Quebec, it is obvious
that the government intends increase its presence through this
structure, this bank, to interfere, to play a role in the most
important processes of the economic development of the state of
Quebec. We can feel that very clearly.
The government is introducing totally new legislation, the
Business Development Bank of Canada Act, which is the new
name of the bank, and thereby revokes the Federal Business
Development Bank Act. The Bloc opposes any amendment to
the current act instituting the Federal Business Development
Bank. The bank must continue to provide last resort bank
services to small business. Why? Because this is its basic
mission, which is to support small businesses having difficulty
obtaining financing.
(1635)
But now, the government wants to set itself up as a banker. We
all know very well that Quebec's position is very clear as
regards financial support to business. The Quebec premier said
clearly that Quebec does not want to act as a banker but that it is
ready to implement numerous measures to support small
business.
The federal government has just given itself a means to act as
a banker and to compete directly with banks. This group of
amendments on the new name of the Federal Business
Development Bank is particularly important. The intent of the
government is to turn it into a genuine bank.
If we look closely at the very centralizing bill put forward by
the Liberal Party of Canada, we understand the reason for this
name. It comes from a very clear federal Liberal tradition that
goes back to the Trudeau era. A very centralizing tradition with
tentacles everywhere.
From now on, the central government will not be involved in
regional development, and even less in local development. It is
developing, using a global strategy, all over the map. In other
words, what is good for Canada is good for Quebec, what is good
for Newfoundland is good for Quebec, what is good for Ontario
is good for Quebec, what is not good for Ontario is not good for
Quebec. We know that Ontario has the final say, because the
Minister of Industry is from Ontario.
We oppose this group of government amendments relating to
the naming of the Federal Business Development Bank. I refer
to the motion of my colleague for Trois-Rivières that says that
the Federal Business Development Bank is to be maintained as a
body corporate. We propose that the bank retain its primary
mission, the current one.
The dissenting report of the Bloc Quebecois members sitting
on the Standing Committee on Industry concerning small and
medium size enterprises says, and I quote: ``That the Quebec
government is in a better position to recognize the funding needs
of small and medium size enterprises, to develop programs and
to implement them''.
I will go further into other groups of amendments later on and
list the tools Quebec has in this field of activity. By moving into
this field, the federal government is once again creating a lot of
costly duplication.
As we have said on many occasions, Quebec does not accept
that the central government can apply Canadian industrial
development plans throughout Canada, with national standards
and objectives established by the Department of Industry.
We have to acknowledge something that is very obvious:
``Quebec's control in this field of activity must be recognized by
its Canadian economic partner, that is Quebec must have sole
control over access to small and medium size enterprises and
regional development''.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ):
Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak to Bill
C-91 and emphasize the very positive work done by the critic of
the Bloc Quebecois on this matter, the member for
Trois-Rivières, who, as you know, has extensive experience in
financial assistance to small business.
I think it is worthwhile to repeat what others have already
said, that such a bill worries the Bloc. We do not understand how
the Minister of Industry could waste his time reviewing the
Federal Business Development Bank, since this institution was
and still is an instrument much appreciated by small business.
We are convinced that, if the Minister of Industry is really
hard-pressed for work, he could have reviewed the assistance
programs for the defence industries, with some help from the
secretary of state for science, research and development.
14338
I see that the secretary of state is eager to participate in the
debate, whether directly or indirectly. Essentially, we are
concerned about the fact that this bill is sanctioning a concrete
and immediate interference in an area of provincial
jurisdiction, that is regional development.
(1640)
Madam Speaker, you certainly know that Quebec has been
demanding that regional development be recognized as a
provincial jurisdiction, in accordance with the constitution,
since 1974-in fact probably since 1968, but at least since 1974,
when the Industrial Development Bank was established. That
was the first real interference by the federal government.
I could very easily demonstrate that, certainly as far back as
1974, the federal government has used regional development as
a pretext to meddle in a lot of areas that are not under its
jurisdiction.
As for ERDAs, or Economic and Regional Development
Agreements, why is it that we are debating in June 1995 a bill
put forward by the Minister of Industry, when he did not even
deign to negotiate and sign ERDAs? Why is the government
making this a priority, but did not feel concerned and compelled
to get involved in the renewal of these agreements? One can only
wonder.
In fact, this needs to be said. Our friends opposite are
consistent in their ways; they are using regional development as
an excuse to move into areas over which they have no
jurisdiction under the constitution. That is what this interest in
regional development and ERDAs is all about. Let me back this
up with a few facts and figures.
The second batch of ERDAs, those covering the 1984-94
period-I think the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
Industry should listen, because even if he is from Toronto, he
could learn a thing or two-were on cultural products, fisheries,
transportation and tourism. Can you think of an area that is more
obviously and explicitly a provincial responsibility than
tourism? Regional development was used to step into areas of
jurisdiction not assigned to the federal government.
That is the kind of trick that should make us see clearly that
the federal government will never play fair and square at the
game of federalism and abide by sections 91 and 92 of the
British North America Act. It had been amply demonstrated that
this many armed, one track and rule bending government is
trying to encroach on areas of jurisdiction that are not its own.
It must be said that the Federal Business Development Bank,
in the present state of affairs and because of the way it operates,
is something small and medium size businesses in Quebec
appreciate because it had a well-defined mandate limited to
providing last resort assistance. I think that every member of
this House has had the chance at one time or another to deal with
officials of the Federal Business Development Bank. I know that
often, when as an MP I had occasion to refer people to the
FBDB, it was because traditional institutions such as chartered
banks had refused to help. As stated in its enabling legislation,
the FBDB was a last resort lending institution.
Why review the mandate of the Federal Business
Development Bank? At whose request? Why is this a
government priority when we have so many other fish to fry,
particularly I might add in the area of science and technology,
about which the National Advisory Board on Science and
Technology published a report? I do hope we will get to discuss
it in this House, as it would provide me with an opportunity to
share views with my good friend, the parliamentary secretary.
Over the weekend I read the report, which was tabled recently
and found it quite enlightening.
(1645)
This report of the National Advisory Board on Science and
Technology talks about growth, and wisdom, and it proposes
four courses of action, but it gives no real indication that this
government wants to work to make science and technology a
priority. It would have been much more useful for the
government to work toward that goal than to review the Federal
Business Development Bank Act that no one, in the end, wished
to review.
Once again, we must keep in mind that the Federal Bank,
established in 1974, was appreciated, and still is, by small and
medium size businesses in Quebec and perhaps even in Canada,
because it offered consulting services, financial services which
were mostly self-financed. For no apparent reason, the Federal
Business Development Bank, under a new name, is being asked,
as my colleague for Trois-Rivières pointed out, to become a
rather traditional lending institutional and to compete with
existing institutions. I know that some witnesses raised this as a
concern before the Committee on Industry. We fail to
understand why the government is bent on stiffer competition in
an area that did not need it.
There is cause for concern here, and I think that we will never
give enough attention to the real threats for Quebec which are
included in this bill, especially under clauses 20 and 21. Are you
aware of the Liberals' old tactic? The bill will allow the new
bank to do business with organizations or persons directly, over
the head of the Quebec government. This is the same old
unhealthy, obsolete tactic of divide and conquer, and it fools
nobody.
They want to divide and conquer by making funds available.
The government whip is a well informed man generally, but
obviously, his somewhat Canadian naïvety can sometimes lead
him to support principles that are unhealthy for Quebec. As we
know, under clause 20, the bank will be allowed to do business
directly with organizations or persons, without taking into
account the will of the Quebec government.
14339
I know the government whip would surely not have wanted
the official opposition to support such principles that
obviously-and this cannot be said too often-are very
disrespectful to Canadian federalism.
As I have stated, Madam Speaker-and I will conclude with
that since you indicate that my time is up-if the government is
really serious about regional development, it should transfer tax
points or make direct payments to the Quebec government,
because we have plenty of projects.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to address this House on Bill C-91. This bill seeks to do
many things, including changing the name of the Federal
Business Development Bank, which will become the Business
Development Bank of Canada. As they say, what is in a name?
What does that name change involve? Let me explain a few
things, particularly as regards clause 21, which reads:
The Bank may carry out duties or functions that may be assigned to it by the
Designated Minister in relation to the administration of any program supporting
Canadian entrepreneurship, to the extent that it is able to recover the costs of
carrying out the duties or functions.
The clause says ``to the extent that it is able to recover the costs
of carrying out the duties or functions''. As you know, when a
bank lends money, it takes a risk. Here, the level of risk is not
defined. We have reservations about that.
The minister responsible for implementing the act can ask the
Business Development Bank of Canada to support Canadian
entrepreneurship by carrying out duties or functions currently
assigned to other federal departments or agencies.
(1650)
Bill C-91 seeks to ensure that the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, better known as the FORD-Q, will be
the provider of federal services and programs to small and
medium size businesses.
I have several objections regarding this bill. First, this
legislation is another centralizing measure which will create
unnecessary and costly duplication. Bill C-91 completely
eliminates the role of the provincial government in terms of
helping small and medium size businesses.
As you know, this contradicts the Liberal government's
claims that it wants to abolish duplication and overlap with the
provinces. This centralizing attempt is obvious in clauses 20 and
21, which will allow the Business Development Bank of Canada
to enter into agreements with other federal departments to
deliver assistance to small and medium size businesses directly.
The agreements signed, including with the Federal Office of
Regional Development for Quebec, will allow the federal
government to interfere more in regional development projects.
I did not say ``to get involved'', but to ``interfere'', which is
definitely not the same. ``To get involved'' is to act like a
partner, while ``to interfere'' is to usurp a place when you are not
invited.
Clause 20 of the bill provides that the Business Development
Bank of Canada may enter into agreements directly with any
other body or person. That means that it could have agreements
with regional development councils, which is precisely what the
FORD-Q would like. In Quebec, the Act respecting the
Ministère du Conseil exécutif does not allow agencies under
provincial jurisdiction to enter into agreements with the federal
government without the minister's approval. We can see here
the difference between partnership and interference.
Consider the context of clause 20, which is far from
innocuous because the Quebec legislation could be bypassed.
Given the present budgetary restrictions, if the federal
government wants to fund projects advocated by a regional
development council, the council will strongly pressure the
Quebec government for an exemption. Unfortunately, this is
already a common occurrence. The federal and provincial
governments are on a collision course because of legislation that
does not foster partnership, but interference in a local process.
Once again, we have the federal government blatantly
disregarding the very existence of the Quebec government and
securing the legislative authority to act without prior
consultation with Quebec or, for that matter, any other province.
I am referring to the Quebec situation because I am familiar with
it, but all provinces will suffer from the adverse impact of this
bill.
My second misgiving concerns regional development and
more particularly the federal government's centralist attack that
is in direct contradiction with Quebec's regionalization policy.
I had the honour and the privilege to sit on the National
Capital Commission-and I am talking about Quebec City and
the future of Quebec-and I heard the presentations made by
many stakeholders who believed that regionalization in the
province of Quebec is crucial. However, the federal government
has never recognized that regional development is an area of
exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
During every round of constitutional negotiations, Ottawa has
ignored our demand. Instead, Ottawa promised the government
of Quebec to limit its presence in the regions to what is provided
for under the Canada-Quebec framework agreements. However,
ERDA, the Economic and Regional Development Agreement to
which my distinguished colleague referred earlier, came to an
end, that was in December 1994 I think, and the federal
government has refused to renew it. The Canada-Quebec
agreement has expired.
(1655)
Without joint programs with the government of Quebec, the
mandate of FORD-Q becomes practically obsolete. So, to
maintain its visibility in the regions, the federal government has
found nothing better than to redefine the mandate of FORD-Q.
14340
Nowadays, FORD-Q is known as the delivery arm for all the
small businesses assistance programs set up by the federal
departments and will be able, on the one hand, to provide
assistance services to small and medium size businesses
through a single information window and, on the other hand,
to develop new programs, particularly for exporting SMBs,
through federal departments.
A third concern of mine has to do with the fact that the federal
government prefers to withdraw from social program funding. It
is well known. It takes the taxpayers' money to create useless
overlaps with Quebec agencies which support small and
medium size businesses.
The 1995 federal budget, as we know, cut more than $7 billion
from social programs. The federal government is asking people
to make sacrifices because it has no more money. It even uses
the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund-of all
things-which is financed by employers and employees. And
what does it do with this money? It finances new child care
programs, new programs to fight against poverty, new
manpower training programs, which, it must be said, all infringe
on provincial jurisdictions.
Unfortunately, the federal government is in no hurry when it
comes to responding to Quebec's demands, which are that it
withdraw from the fields of manpower training and regional
development and reduce this costly and useless duplication.
However, Ottawa continues to ignore Quebec's demands, even
though this waste of money affects taxpayers and creates an
administrative mess, because the beneficiaries of these
programs no longer know where to turn. Moreover, it creates
unproductive and unhealthy competition between programs that
are not even based on the same strategies. And that is where the
problem lies. These programs are not based on the same
strategies. Strategies which are useful, necessary and beneficial
to Quebec are not necessarily the ones chosen by the federal
government.
I will conclude by saying that I regret that this bill has been
proposed in this form by the government and that I fervently
hope that, this fall, Quebec will take control of its destiny and
that we will no longer have to engage in these pointless
negotiations cap in hand, with Ottawa, but rather will be able to
negotiate as equals with the goal of a happy and healthy
prosperity for all.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-91, an Act to
continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the
name Business Development Bank of Canada. The purpose of
the bill is to replace the Federal Business Development Bank by
the Business Development Bank of Canada.
The Liberal government has decided to introduce a totally
new piece of legislation, creating a new body, the Business
Development Bank of Canada, instead of amending the existing
legislation governing the Federal Business Development Bank.
We must not delude ourselves. This new legislation is
fundamentally similar to the present legislation although it
makes some major changes.
As for the mandate, it is changed in such a way that the
Federal Business Development Bank will no longer offer only
last resort financing, but will now have the power to offer
financing to complement that available from other financial
institutions.
It will also be easier for the new Business Development Bank
of Canada to enter into agreements with private and public
partners, at both the federal and provincial levels, to form
lending consortiums. The new bank will therefore be able to
establish subsidiaries and to use a greater number of financial
tools to fulfil its mandate. Clause 20 of the bill gives the bank
great flexibility to negotiate agreements with other federal
departments as well as with provincial and local agencies in
order to fulfil its specific mandate.
(1700)
By giving the bank greater leeway, the federal government
will be able to develop an integrated approach to interfering in
every aspect of regional development, in Quebec in particular,
where the Federal Office of Regional Development has become
the delivery arm for all federal programs.
In this context, Bill C-91 constitutes another centralizing
offensive from the federal government, resulting in costly and
needless duplication. It completely negates the role of the
Quebec government in providing assistance to small business.
This is in contradiction with repeated statements by the people
opposite, who said they wanted to eliminate duplication and
overlap with provincial programs. On the contrary, this a perfect
way to perpetuate the problem.
As I said earlier, this is a centralizing offensive based on
clauses 20 and 21 of the bill. These two clauses enable the
Federal Business Development Bank to enter into agreements
with other federal departments or agencies in order to deal
directly with small and medium sized businesses, which will
allow the federal government to interfere even more in regional
development projects.
Clause 20 of the bill also enables the Federal Business
Development Bank to enter directly into agreements with a
person or agency, which means that the bank could enter into
agreements with regional development councils for example. In
Quebec, however, the Executive Council Act prohibits
provincially regulated agencies from entering into agreements
with the federal government without ministerial consent.
14341
One could think that this section is harmless, since it is
governed by a Quebec provincial statute. However, in the
present context of fiscal restraint, if the federal government
offers to fund projects put forward by a RDC, the latter will
press the Quebec government to allow a departure from the law,
which is common practice.
Once again, Ottawa dismisses Quebec's role in the matter and
shamelessly gives itself the power to act without consulting the
provinces. This centralizing offensive in regional development
runs directly counter to Quebec's regionalization policy. The
federal government has always refused to recognize regional
development as an exclusive provincial jurisdiction, dismissing
this claim in every constitutional negotiation, while implicitly
making a commitment to the Quebec government to limit its
action in regions through Canada-Quebec agreements.
However, the Economic and Regional Development
Agreement, or ERDA, expired in December 1994 and the federal
government refused to renew it. This government can never
claim to support regional development by replacing essential
components of a social plan with direct assistance to small and
medium size businesses. By dismissing Quebec's achievements
in terms of assisting exporting small and medium-size
businesses, the federal government is trying to make Quebec
look like the one responsible for the overlapping which it is
creating with this bill.
The FBDB is a successful regional development tool which is
greatly appreciated by small and medium size businesses. By
and large, Quebec's small and medium size businesses get one
third of the loans from the FBDB, but they definitely do not rely
as heavily on the bank's extension services. Since the bank has
no exclusive commercial objective, such as maximizing
profits-it only seeks to recover its costs-, Mr. Rémillard, of
the Canadian Bankers' Association, says that it helped develop
new financial tools which were often used later by commercial
financial institutions. The bank acts as an innovator by
proposing new forms of financing which other financial
institutions can apply when dealing with small and medium size
businesses.
Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will make sure that the bank
remains first and foremost a tool for economic development,
that it does not compete with other such tools used by
Quebecers, including the caisses populaires, the solidarity fund
and the CNTU fund, and that it has the means to support Quebec
businesses.
(1705)
The effect that the bill could have on the bank's role in
economic development is very worrisome. In fact, two
provisions in the bill, when combined, cast doubts on the bank's
ability to maintain its role as a tool of economic development:
the broadening of the bank's mandate and the bank's ability to
obtain private capital financing through hybrid instruments,
contingent on certain conditions.
Firstly, the bank would no longer be just a last resort lender: it
would be able to offer complementary financing which would be
a little different from what existing financial institutions offer.
The danger is that the bank could target its activities more
towards complementary financing than last resort financing.
Since there is less risk involved in complementary financing,
naturally the bank will tend to favour this type of financing.
Bill C-91 is another move in the federal government's
centralizing offensive, as I mentioned earlier, which only causes
costly and useless duplication. Bill C-91 dismisses totally the
provincial government's role regarding assistance to small and
medium size businesses. It goes against the Liberal
government's claims that it wants to abolish overlaps and
duplication with the provinces.
Furthermore, clause 20 of the bill allows the bank, the FBDB,
to enter into agreements directly with individuals and with
organizations. This means that the FBDB could enter into
agreements with regional development councils, for example.
But in Quebec, the Executive Council Act prohibits
organizations which are governed by provincial law from
entering into such agreements. Regarding regional
development, the federal government's push for centralization
runs counter to Quebec's policy on regionalization.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak at the report stage of Bill
C-91.
When the bill was tabled on first reading, I had the impression
it would simply change the name of the bank and increase the
amount of capital available. In other words, it would make a
certain number of adjustments, considering the fact that the
legislation establishing the bank was at least 20 years old. At
first glance it seemed quite logical and understandable that the
minister responsible for the bank should want to update the
legislation.
However, after considering the bill and reflecting on the scope
of certain clauses, I feel I must condemn this legislation and, as
my Bloc Quebecois colleagues have done, point out to the House
that a number of clauses are potentially dangerous.
In fact, the bill would change the mission of the Federal
Business Development Bank and allow the bank to be used for
purposes which may be questionable and even unacceptable to
the provinces and to certain regions in the provinces.
First, a few words about the bank's mission. As you know, the
Federal Business Development Bank continues the tradition of
institutions that were established after the war to help small
14342
businesses raise the capital they needed. In the case of defence
conversion, they were to help Canada build a thriving civilian
industry that would contribute to the country's prosperity.
The institution was well received by Canadians and
Quebecers. It has excellent credentials and has proved its worth.
(1710)
The bank's mission was, more or less, to provide last resort
financing, in other words, to help developers who found it
difficult to get financing from traditional financial institutions.
The Federal Business Development Bank was set up to ensure
that the necessary capital would be available to entrepreneurs so
they could start small businesses.
It is clear that this bill will change the mission of the bank. It
is now described as providing complementary financing not
customarily provided by traditional financial institutions.
Complementary financing is not the same as last resort
financing. Last resort financing is needed when the institution or
the developer goes to the institutions and although the banks
agree the project is worthwhile, they cannot provide the capital,
while complementary financing does not have quite the same
connotation.
It is clear that if the bank is described as providing
complementary financing, it is directly competing with
institutions across Canada that were set up to help entrepreneurs
find capital. An example is the venture capital fund which has
become an institution in Quebec. It seems that in Canada,
Quebec is known for its institutions that specialize in providing
venture capital for entrepreneurs.
I am thinking as well of the solidarity fund of the FTQ, the
industrial development corporation and the Innovatech
companies. In short, the Federal Business Development Bank,
by abandoning its purpose of providing last resort capital, will
now be competing with institutions that make attractive capital
available to promoters.
This change in the bank's purpose is regrettable. In my
opinion, the aim of the bank was to provide last resort funds. It
was good at that. By changing its purpose and allowing it to
subtly change its objectives and the type of capital it will
provide, we may be putting Canadian business seriously at risk.
Perhaps we of the Bloc could have viewed somewhat
positively the purpose of providing complementary funding, but
I think the bill should have provided that the purpose of the bank
was to continue to provide last resort funds.
Two clauses are also cause for concern. Perhaps there are
others, but I think my colleagues will look after pointing them
out to the House. Clauses 20 and 21 raise problems, in my
opinion. Clause 20 provides that ``the Bank may enter into
agreements with -any department or agency of the government
of Canada or a province or any other body-''. The reference
here is perhaps to cities, educational institutions, regional
development councils-any other body in order to carry out its
purpose.
If clause 20 were adopted as it stands, the bank could
intervene directly with bodies that come under provincial
jurisdiction.
I think this is potentially dangerous, given Canada's
economic history and even its political history. One realizes that
over the years one of the major problems with Canadian
federalism has been that, given its spending power, the federal
government has been able to interfere in areas of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction. The most obvious and striking example
is education, an area which, under the constitution, clearly
comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces but an
area where, over the years, the federal government, with its
spending power, has been able, first directly with the
universities, and also directly with some school boards for
certain programs, to step in and often, to a certain extent, divert
these bodies from their goal because they had to meet the federal
government's funding requirements.
(1715)
I am myself an educator by profession. Over the years, I have
often seen federal programs proposed. It was a little difficult for
the local administrators to refuse. They were afraid that if they
did, they were going to be turning down large amounts of money,
maybe $10,000 or $100,000. Administrators therefore did what
the province of Quebec did in the fifties with respect to
university funding.
Local or provincial governments must, in such a situation and
as a last resort, accept the interference of the federal government
because large sums of money are at stake.
In clause 20, the federal government provides itself with the
necessary means to interfere, again, in areas that come under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. It is probably also
ensuring that there is yet more duplication so that federal,
provincial and municipal agencies compete, which is very
harmful. The history of the Canadian federation since day one
shows that this was a serious flaw in the Canadian federal
system, where different levels of government can compete in
major areas.
I would have liked to say a few words more on clause 21,
which mandates the bank to support entrepreneurship. This is an
extremely vague term that could be made to mean just about
anything. Again, this could be another excuse for the FBDB to
interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
14343
Perhaps we would see less cause for concern or suspicion if
the whole regional development policy had not changed so
drastically these past few months. But since it did change, we
suspect that the Federal Business Development Bank could be
the federal government's way of making up for what it is no
longer investing in the area of development and ensuring that
there is more and more duplication in areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to address Bill C-91, which seeks to change the name of
the Federal Business Development Bank, as well as its purpose.
The Federal Business Development Bank is a long-standing
institution which has played an important role in economic
development, as a bank of last resort. That was and should
continue to be its mandate since that bank should not compete
with other financial institutions.
The bank gets a new name which is of strategic importance for
the federal government. It will become the Business
Development Bank of Canada. What does that name mean
exactly? Will it strive to develop business and the economy or
Canada?
It reminds me somewhat of development banks in Africa. I
guess the government now recognizes that it is running a
developing country. We must look like a developing country in
the eyes of the international community. The federal
government just confirmed that the state of its economy is
appalling, that its debt is staggering. It just said so. It will
probably get foreign money through the Business Development
Bank of Canada, just like the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development gets money, even from Canada, the United
States and Japan, to develop eastern countries which have
problems.
(1720)
By using such a name, it should be easier for us to go to Japan,
even China, and to richer countries, since Canada has become a
developing country. In fact, we are among the 65 or 70 poorest
countries of the world if you look at the national and foreign
debts. Canada is on the same level as developing countries. This
new name is a pretty smart idea. It will probably allow Canada to
borrow more money abroad to promote its own development,
before it goes bankrupt, assuming this is not already the case.
In Quebec, we took control of our financial institutions a long
time ago. In Quebec, we already have control over a few
hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to our caisses populaires,
the Fédération des caisses d'économie Desjardins du Québec,
the provincial charters we control ourselves, as well as over our
priorities in terms of our activities, and we want to keep it. We
also want very much to continue to cooperate with our financial
institutions.
We do not want the federal government to interfere through a
financial institution which will have a much broader mandate
and will prevent Quebec from working hand in hand with its own
financial institutions as it has always done.
We had to build our financial institutions ourselves because
the federal government was not very useful in helping us to keep
our money and invest in our industries. Again, I understand very
well why the very centralist Liberal government wants to
control everything. It wants to control our priorities, it wants to
collect our tax revenues and spend the money according to its
own priorities. Not only does it want to impose its priorities in
terms of manpower training, but it also wants to do so in the
trade area.
Let me give the House some examples which have led me to
believe that the federal government is trying to increase its
control. It says that it will be able to sign agreements with other
financial institutions and with other private companies in order
to defend some industries. For instance, we know, and I often
come back to this issue which I find important, that the federal
government never supported Quebec's hydro development
programs. The province of Quebec was the sole investor in
Hydro-Quebec. It invested tens of billions of dollars, while the
federal government never spent a penny on these projects.
Again, the federal government will want to be the one to
decide which industries should be given priority for
development purposes. This means that the federal government
could favour businesses in the uranium, natural gas or oil
industry, for example, over businesses in the electric power
industry. That is what it means. When we say that the federal
government wants to control industrial priorities in Quebec, it
does it through the Federal Business Development Bank by
interfering even more and by making decisions regarding
economic development priorities in that province. It is terrible.
Do not think that we are fooled. We can see very clearly what
is going on. We know the history of Quebec. We have lived
through it. I come from Quebec, I was part of the business
community and I know full well that Quebecers had to work
twice as hard to achieve the equivalent of what Ontario was able
to achieve. Why is that? Because the federal government was
working against us.
(1725)
The federal government has always worked against us. Just
look at what is happening in Ottawa with regard to research and
development, for example. Three or four years ago, I conducted
a study to see who was getting research and development
contracts. Well, in 1990, research and development contracts
awarded to businesses and universities by the federal
government totalled 1 billion-
Some hon. members: It was done previously.
14344
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Yes, it was done previously under
the Liberals and it continued a little under the Conservatives.
It cannot be done overnight; it takes time.
In 1990, the federal government gave $1.2 billion more in
contracts to businesses, universities and research centres for
research and development in Ontario than it did in Quebec.
We are not totally blind in Quebec. I can assure you that this
new financial institution which is coming to Quebec has gotten
Quebecers quite worried. This worries not only the
sovereignists, but also Quebec's other financial institutions.
The reason we are protesting this new kind of bank which will in
a certain way change the order of things in Quebec's financial
system is that we are totally against any change in this system.
To reply, in part, to the hon. member who is muttering over
there, back when I was a Conservative, we simply wanted to
scrap the Federal Business Development Bank. We came very
close to scrapping it precisely because we really do not need this
financial institution, especially now with its new vocation,
which will be to rock the boat when it comes to the agreements
between our financial institutions, our businesses and our
universities. If we could gain control of job training, we could
close the loop and bring lasting prosperity to Quebec, and be rid
of the federal government that is stifling our growth. We are
really looking forward to becoming sovereign.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-91, whose purpose
is to provide a new name for what was referred to as the Federal
Business Development Bank and will now become the Business
Development Bank of Canada.
As usual, and as has been going on for a long time, the federal
government took advantage of this opportunity to change the
mandate of the institution, so that from now on, as other Bloc
members have said so eloquently, it can be used as an
instrument, and it is indeed an instrument, to put the finishing
touches on this contemptible encroaching on provincial
jurisdictions, disguised as regional development.
I would like to elaborate somewhat on the monster the
government is creating with this legislation. In this bill we sense
the minister's involvement in the bank's administration. The
minister appoints the chairperson of the board and the president.
Speaking of instruments, the government seems to be creating
an instrument for dispensing patronage. According to clause 21,
the minister will be able to control the bank's functions by using
his influence with the people he appointed, perhaps by
persuading them to approve loans in cases where they would
have been reluctant to do so. That is a real danger.
In Quebec under the Liberals, they gave $950 million over ten
years to the Société de développement industriel as a political
favour, which often happens just before an election. The Premier
intervenes and says: You are going to approve this loan.
People appointed at the pleasure of the minister or the Prime
Minister do not dare refuse and so grant the loan, which they
would not otherwise have done. Gradually, Quebec was left with
a bill for $950 million because of principles just as laudable as
those our colleagues opposite were talking about: helping
development and helping small and medium size business
become big business.
This new mission does not come about because of popular
demand. We saw no one come before Parliament demanding a
change in the purpose of the Federal Business Development
Bank. The whole idea came from ministers' offices, the Privy
Council, old friends who got talking and decided to change the
vocation of the bank. We are creating an instrument of
patronage.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, it being 5.30
p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
14344
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should begin
consultations with the provinces and territories to establish the parameters for a
national registry of drugs, medical devices (implanted in the body for more than
one year) and various forms of biotechnology.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to move this private
members' motion today calling for a national registry of drugs
and implanted medical devices.
Many Canadians assume that any such drugs or medical
devices that are used are safe and have been well tested. I am
sure that in the majority of cases this is true, but there are some
glaring exceptions which I will discuss later in my speech.
The motion under discussion today is taken directly from a
1992 report by a House of Commons subcommittee on the status
of women entitled: ``Breast Cancer: Unanswered Questions''.
While at the time the motion was meant to address the problems
associated only with breast implants, the subcommittee
recognized that a registry of many other medical devices would
be a great step forward in protecting Canadian consumers.
L'Association coopérative d'économie familiale du centre de
Montréal made a call for a similar type of registry at that time.
I would like to say at the beginning that a national registration
system would have to be voluntary and that privacy laws would
have to be respected. At this point, we would be looking at
something that both physicians and patients would have the
choice to participate in.
14345
Why do we need to consider such a national registry? What
would it do for Canadian consumers? There are two issues. The
first is that a national registry of medical devices would allow
men and women who experience problems to notify a central
data bank and document their complaints. The 1992
subcommittee suggested that Statistics Canada might be used
to house such a registry.
The second value of such a registry is for those who might
have some complaints about a drug or device to simply note who
is on such a registry and do not necessarily have complaints.
That would increase the long term safety of consumers by
putting in place mechanisms to notify patients of potential
problems or complications that arose or knowledge that came
forward after the use of such drugs or devices.
As well, a registry could assist physicians in tracking those
patients who may have experienced problems. It would open the
door to more expansive research studies that could help to
protect consumers.
At the moment, one of the problems is that there is no central
data bank for researchers to collate information on people who
may have had either devices or drugs. This kind of information
is extremely important to consumers. It is an opportunity also
for physicians to pass on new information to patients that may
come to light and to better access long term risks and advantages
of such medical practices. A national registry could certainly
help Canadians to make more informed choices about their
medical treatment and the options available to them.
(1735)
If we look at the Canadian experience with medical devices
and compare that to other consumer practices, it is clear that the
Canadian system for medical devices lacks some basic
resources. Canadian consumers can register complaints about
automobiles, business transactions and the houses they buy.
However, there is still no comprehensive and central system in
place for things like breast implants, heart valves, pacemakers
or other medical devices and drugs people use.
With new technologies and new drug products coming on the
market all of the time, it is increasingly important that
consumers have an opportunity to access information on the
possible complications and risk factors associated with these
new devices and drugs. As it now stands the monitoring of
medical devices in this country is based on the notion of
voluntary compliance by the manufacturer. In other words the
manufacturers will comply voluntarily with both health and
welfare regulations and the parameters of their own health
standards.
Ultimate responsibility for the safety and efficacy of medical
devices rests on the assurances that manufacturers provide to
Health and Welfare Canada. The role of Health and Welfare
Canada is still largely an auditing role to ensure that market tests
and studies have been carried out by the manufacturers.
Many Canadians probably assume and not necessarily
correctly, that there are independent studies done by Health and
Welfare Canada on the whole range of medical technology, but
on the whole its role has been to monitor and to assess. It is the
role of Health and Welfare Canada to ensure the safety of
Canadians. The government obviously has to have
responsibility for giving Canadians confidence in the kinds of
medical devices and medications they take.
Although there are many successes in the Canadian system for
monitoring such medical procedures, there are some instances
and some very serious ones that clearly indicate how the system
has broken down. One issue that is currently in the news is that
of breast implants which has been discussed in the House many
times.
Members will know that just yesterday a settlement against
the American manufacturer of the Meme implant was reached
on behalf of Quebec and Ontario women through a class action
suit. It has been a long time in coming and of course it is still one
more step in the battle of Canadian women for compensation.
What is important in both the Dow Corning decision in the
United States and the Bristol Myers decision is the fact that
settlements have been made. This indicates that the
manufacturer is accepting some responsibility and admits that
these medical devices did cause problems to some of the women
who used them.
My office spoke to a lawyer involved in the case just recently
settled. He pointed out that one problem is that only the women
involved in the class action suit benefited. There is no way of
knowing if other women in Ontario or Quebec might have
benefited who might have been a part of that case if there had
been some way to contact them and make the resources available
to them.
It is estimated, and it is just an estimation, that there are about
150,000 women across Canada who have received a breast
implant since their introduction in the mid-1970s. They made
that choice on the advice of physicians, governments and
manufacturers that the implants were safe. Women were
routinely told not only that they were safe, and I am talking now
specifically about the silicone gel implants, but that they would
also last a lifetime and there would be no problems.
(1740 )
I might also add that there are now options to those silicone
gel implants. The same assurances are being given and with the
same lack of real data on the health risks associated with these
implants.
14346
For many women unfortunately the safety factor has not met
the reassurances given by the manufacturer. For many it has
been a nightmare. If members had been at many of the meetings
I attended, they would have heard about women who had
suffered a number of medical problems from outright rejection
of implants causing massive infections to scarring. In some
cases, women are reporting a variety of physical symptoms
from chronic fatigue to autoimmune diseases. Even more,
women are having difficulty in having their symptoms
recognized as being legitimate symptoms. Many women were
referred for psychiatric and psychological services. Their
complaints were not taken seriously.
It was only when women came together that they began to
realize their experience was not unique. Finding out there were
other women who had similar experiences, they were able to
approach physicians to tell them that there was a common thread
and a problem. However, as in many areas of women's health,
often the symptoms women present are not taken seriously.
Looking at this simply in financial terms, the cost of multiple
operations, the psychiatric and psychological counselling, apart
from the personal devastation to these women who have had
problems with the implants, is phenomenal to the health care
system.
As the research has continued it is clear there are many
symptoms including fatigue, skin lesions and neurological
dysfunction that many women have experienced.
Just last month an Alberta study of 2,500 women with silicone
gel implants reported preliminary findings showing a link
between the implants and the way that a woman's body
processes fat. I believe later this summer a report is expected on
the association of implants and autoimmune diseases.
There clearly is a demonstrable connection between the
implants and the complications reported by women. These court
cases which we have seen successfully settled in favour of the
women underline that there clearly was a problem. Long before
we had to prove a problem this is where we come to the
importance of adequate research being done, adequate data
being kept and the responsibility of the federal government's
health protection branch to ensure that Canadians are adequately
protected in these areas.
In the case of the breast implants, there are still a lot of
outstanding questions. There certainly is some dispute among
physicians and researchers as to exactly what the effects have
been. Of course there are women who have not had any
symptoms. Having said that, I think this is one of the reasons
that a national registry is so important. It could be useful in
helping women to answer some of the questions they have about
this issue.
Despite all the evidence women have had countless
symptoms. Those symptoms while being increasingly
recognized are still by no means accepted by all physicians and
all of those involved in the field. To the personal and family
lives of those women, the trauma they have suffered both
psychologically and physically is very real.
We do not really know how many people have experienced
complications because adequate mechanisms are not in place to
monitor complications or long term effects of these and other
implanted devices. Consequently, there is no way to adequately
and specifically identify the number of implants done and those
that are in use at this time, the possible range of problems or
indeed the level of satisfaction associated with these devices.
A national registry such as is proposed in this motion would
go a long way to helping women assess their risks not only for
silicone gel implants but also for the new versions, such as the
saline implants now on the market.
(1745 )
Today I have used the example of the breast implant to
highlight the importance of a national registry system. Clearly
the system would be a great benefit for consumers in other
instances as well. It would help researchers track patients over a
long period of time in order to provide for a clearer database for
better research. It would give Canadian men and women a
greater opportunity to access information and to be aware of
potential problems.
There has been much written on the issue of health care in
Canada, specifically about the increasing lack of confidence
people have in the ability of the federal government to ensure
the safety of drugs and products routinely used. The breast
implant issue came to the House only as a result of certain
members' raising the issue; they made it an issue. The Minister
of Health at the time finally after much discussion and a lot of
pressure did put in place a moratorium.
All this took place after the federal drug administration in the
United States had made its findings. Most people may agree we
are very reliant on the research of other countries to determine
the level of safety for products used in Canada.
I do not want to suggest for a moment the health protection
branch and its members are in some way at fault for this.
Funding cutbacks to the system have affected the testing of new
devices and drugs on the market with a greater reliance on
secondary research as opposed to primary research by the
department.
There is no doubt in the minds of Canadians they rely on the
federal government, the department of health and welfare, the
health promotion branch and the health protection branch to
ensure certain standards. Most Canadians probably assume any
product in this area which they take or is implanted has gone
through a rigorous set of tests and is safe without question. It
would be naive to assume anything can be safe without question
since it is not a perfect science.
14347
I urge support support for this motion. It is not a panacea to
all the things that need to be done to ensure greater safety for
the Canadian consumer in health related areas but it would be
a positive step toward the protection of consumers, access to
information and providing and assisting the maintenance of a
database which would assist in the research of long term
consequences.
I hope all parliamentarians will seriously consider this issue. I
hope the Minister of Health will seriously consider this issue. It
would be in the interest of all Canadians, men and women, and
would provide Canadians with greater faith in our medical
system.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the motion placed before the
House by the member for Yukon is certainly worth considering.
Any proposal that would contribute to maintaining and
improving the health and safety of Canadians deserves
thoughtful discussion.
There is some ambiguity in the member's motion. Does the
hon. member want a national registry of drugs and devices or a
national registry of patient profiles and adverse reactions to
those drugs and devices or both?
The fundamental question regardless of what the member
means is would setting up a national registry of drugs, medical
devices and various forms of biotechnology protect the health of
Canadians better than the system we have in place? Before we
review that system we should consider the context of the
motion.
In 1992 a resolution by the subcommittee on the status of
women called for such a registry. In its report, ``Breast Cancer:
Unanswered Questions'', the subcommittee said one of the
problems with breast implants in particular and medical devices
in general is adequate mechanisms are not in place to monitor
the complications and long term effects of implanted devices.
The resolution called for a national patient adverse reaction
registry through which patients would be able to register any
problems, complications or ill effects.
(1750)
No one disputes this but the resolution on which the motion is
based was conceived in response to a specific problem, the need
for women to have accurate information regarding the use of
breast implants.
The subcommittee had heard wrenching testimony by women
who said they had been scarred and made ill as a result of breast
implant surgery. In its report the subcommittee concluded a
crucial factor for women facing these decisions was the need for
accurate information regarding the risks and possible
complications associated with the use of implants, hence the
idea of a national registry.
The report says: ``We see the lack of such a registry as a major
inadequacy in our current system. Without such a mechanism
physicians and surgeons can easily lose track of patients who
have breast or other implants. This complicates their ability to
pass the new or emerging information on possible problems with
implants''.
This specific resolution and the motion go well beyond
implants to take in drugs and various forms of biotechnology.
Whatever the merits of a registry for breast implants, Canadian
women and Canadians in general are at present well served when
it comes to the safety and efficacy of medical drugs and devices.
Many Canadians and the hon. member may be unfamiliar with
the co-operative system administered by federal, provincial and
territorial governments which ensures medical drugs available
in Canada are safe, effective and of high quality. I will limit my
remarks to mostly drugs, and my hon. colleague will discuss
devices.
The department's health protection branch through its drugs
directorate not only approves all drugs offered for sale in
Canada before they go on the market but monitors their use after
they are on the market so that any drugs sold in Canada must
meet the requirements of the food and drugs regulations.
Once a drug has met these requirements the department issues
a notice of compliance, an NOC, and assigns a drug
identification number, a DIN, to the drug. The drug directorate
maintains a database that includes information on all the drug
products assigned and the identification number. This database
now contains information on approximately 22,000 drug
products sold in Canada.
In addition, Health Canada makes information on drug
products sold in Canada available to the public in a variety of
ways, including the drug directorate's electronic bulletin board
system which we can access through modem. The building
blocks of a national drug registry are already in place through
the co-operation of all three levels of government.
In addition to registering drugs and giving public
information, the drugs directorate through its bureau of drug
surveillance promotes and supports the safe and rational use of
drugs after they enter the market and are in the public domain.
This bureau ensures drugs are manufactured according to
regulations and internationally recognized good manufacturing
practices and standards, ensuring the safety of market drugs.
An important part of the bureau of drug surveillance is the
adverse drug reaction monitoring program. Canada has had a
system to gather information on adverse drug reactions since
1965. Under this program health professionals report adverse
drug reactions voluntarily. Reporting by pharmaceutical
manufacturers is subject to control by the Food and Drugs Act
and regulations.
14348
To enhance the value of spontaneous reporting in Canada the
adverse drug reaction program has established a series of
regional reporting centres across the country, serving as a front
line for this reporting program.
There are four centres fully operational right now: the B.C.
adverse reporting centre located at the drug and poison
information centre at St. Paul's hospital in Vancouver; the
Saskatchewan adverse drug reporting centre located at the drug
information centre at the University of Saskatchewan's college
of pharmacy; the regional drug information service for the
Atlantic region at Camp Hill hospital in Halifax; the Quebec
regional adverse drug reaction centre located at the Centre
d'information pharmaceutique at Hôpital du Sacré Coeur de
Montréal.
However, in my experience as a physician I believe voluntary
reporting may not be as accurate as it should be. There should be
mandatory reporting by physicians of adverse drug reactions.
What I am really trying to say is this building block will
provide the basis for future evolution of national drug programs.
(1755 )
The initiatives involve the federal, provincial and territorial
governments as well as industry and a number of professional
health organizations, including the Canadian Co-Ordinating
Office for Health Technology Assessment, CCOHTA, the
Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Patented
Medicines Review Board. CCOHTA is an excellent example of
the way the federal, provincial and territorial ministries of
health work together and jointly fund it. CCOHTA collects,
analyses, creates and disseminates information concerning the
effectiveness and cost of technology and its impact on health.
Currently CCOHTA is conducting pharmaceutical
evaluations to provide information on the relative therapeutic
and economic value of medicines and alternatives.
Referring back to the original resolution on which the motion
is based, we can safely say that when it comes to medical drugs
we do have national mechanisms in place to ensure our medical
drugs are safe and effective. Patients and physicians are
educated about the side effects and use, and adverse effects are
reported, albeit voluntarily, which is the weak link in a very
strong national chain.
Would mandatory reporting by physicians of adverse drug
reactions instead of the current voluntary system be the only
step needed to put in place a complete system of drug and
medical device safety? If so, the question to be asked of the hon.
member is whether this motion is redundant.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to speak to motion M-375 brought
forward by the hon. member for the Yukon. This motion
proposes that the government begin consultations with the
provinces and territories to establish the parameters for a
national registry of drugs, medical devices implanted in the
body for more than one year and various forms of
biotechnology.
This motion deals mainly with the serious problem of breast
implants and the deleterious effects they have on the health of
those women who have them.
An estimated 150,000 women, in Canada and Quebec, have
had silicone breast implant surgery between 1969 and 1992.
Approximately 75 per cent of these implants were for purely
aesthetic reasons, and the remaining 25 per cent for
post-surgical reconstruction of the breast. Although the use of
breast implants is strictly voluntary in both cases, medical
considerations compounded with cultural factors turn this
procedure into a complex source of concern for women's health.
Today, many women are confronted daily with the disastrous
results of silicone leaking into their body. These leaks cause
immune deficiencies. The implants contract and the body tries
to reject this foreign substance, creating massive scar tissue.
Some women develop problems like the hardening of their
breasts, chest pain or loss of sensitivity. Others have more
systemic problems like pain in the joints, kidney trouble,
infections, sclerosis, chronic fatigue, etc. All these
complications are part of what we now call the silicone-related
syndrome.
Canadian women are worried. Some scientists still refuse to
admit the dangerous effects of silicone. Officials and
representatives of the federal health department do recognize
that some women with breast implants experience health
problems, but they quickly add that no link has yet been proven
between these health problems and the fact that they have
received these silicone-filled prostheses. However, the
potential health hazard of silicone has been a proven fact for a
long time now. Hundreds of American women have sued and
won their case against the makers of silicone gel breast
implants; American courts have recognized that this product is
dangerous and the victims have received substantial
compensation.
(1800)
In 1992, the House of Commons Sub-committee on the Status
of Women released a report entitled Breast Cancer: Unanswered
Questions. Although this study was originally on breast cancer
and the breast implant that was called Même at the time,
developments on silicone-based implants led the
sub-committee to expand its study and to make several very
significant recommendations concerning breast implants.
14349
One of the greatest problems the sub-committee recognized
was the lack of a satisfactory mechanism for monitoring the
development of complications and the long term effects of these
objects implanted in our body. So, it is now impossible to tell
the number of breast implants that were used, the range of
potential problems or the rate of satisfaction with these
implants.
The lack of a national registry is a major flaw in the current
medical system. Doctors and surgeons may easily lose track of
people with breast or other implants, and this limits their ability
to give their patients new information or updates on problems
that may arise from these implants.
It also makes it impossible to follow up on patients for
prolonged periods to produce the scientific data bases required
for proper methodological research. A national registry would
also make it possible to identify problems and complications
related to implants or inquire about the incidence of
complications related to the use of implants and other medical
procedures.
At present, consumers can lodge complaints about business
transactions, cars they buy or service contracts, but surprisingly
enough, there is no equivalent for products such as breast
implants, cardiac valves, artificial hip joints and what not.
This recommendation to establish a national registry is not
new. It has already been made by several groups. For example,
ACEF, the Montreal Association coopérative d'économie
familiale, published a report on breast implants last year. In it,
ACEF again urged Health Canada to provide women with
adequate information on the subject and to establish a national
registry of women with silicone gel breast implants to facilitate
and ensure efficient medical follow-up.
In a study conducted in 1992, the Sub-committee on the
Status of Women made further recommendations. It felt that
``women have a fundamental right to accurate information
regarding the risks and possible complications associated with
the use of implants''.
The sub-committee recommended that the Canadian Society
of Plastic Surgeons and the Canadian Society for Aesthetic
Surgery prepare in coordination with the appropriate
government officials information sheets that accurately reflect
current knowledge and debate around the possible effects of
breast implants.
The sub-committee also requested that the federal
government, in co-operation with the provinces, identify
alternatives to breast implants and outline the conditions under
which such surgery should be considered.
To develop properly, society cannot do without women or
ignore women's issues and the problems they face.
(1805)
Women's health is one of the factors which have a direct
bearing on the place of women in our society. Here, as
elsewhere, we must take effective action. Women's health has
always been neglected. There is never enough money allocated
for research are always inadequate. There are major problems
with research related to breast cancer, gynaecology and
obstetrics, chronic and degenerative diseases, mental health,
violence, occupational diseases, particular needs of immigrants
and ethnic groups, teenagers, elderly women, etc.
When she first took office, the Minister of Health explained
how she intended to promote women's health. She told us about
the programs which her government was going to implement to
correct the imbalance affecting women in the health care
system. So far, not much has been done. When will a true health
program will be developed for women?
If the Minister really cares about women's health, now is the
time to act and support motion M-375. In doing so, she would
make a concrete step toward that goal.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the motion
is fairly broad and the mover actually took some pains to narrow
the focus of her motion. I am going to do the same. I have respect
for the mover. The member for Yukon has a significant and
specific interest in this subject.
The hon. member did take the time to focus on silicone breast
implants and went on to say that this motion would be a
voluntary motion where physicians and patients would
voluntarily comply, that it would help with notification and the
tracking of those individuals who had medical device problems.
If we look carefully at the issue of silicone breast implants we
could say that a registry of these devices would have been a help
in tracking those women who had them implanted. As it turned
out it was consumer groups that took up the slack, women who
had advocacy groups set up to take that information. Today that
is still the case. Whether a government registry would have been
the most cost efficient and best mechanism for this, I am not
convinced. I leave that as a question I cannot answer.
As the member spoke about silicone breast implants, she
suggested that it was the FDA in the U.S. that was really the
instigator of our regulatory process here in Canada. Because this
is a subject of great personal interest to me, I went back and
researched very carefully the genesis of this problem. I am not
sure I agree with the member on this specific issue. Let me tell
this House what I found on silicone breast implants.
One of the very first individuals in the world who expressed
concern about silicone breast implants was a scientist of our
Canadian HPB. This scientist went to the manufacturer of the
Meme implant and found manufacturing techniques that he said
were completely unacceptable for a device to be implanted in
the human body. He came home to Canada and made that public
14350
over a fair portion of time. I have copies of his original memo
saying that he had grave reservations and he advised the HPB to
discontinue the certificate of compliance for the Meme implant.
What happened to that scientist? He was fired. The HPB,
through pressures that went beyond the scientific data, fired
him. That scientist, a Canadian, was not at all convinced that he
was wrong and he went to the FDA in the United States and
asked if it had any concerns. He was personally instrumental in
getting the FDA to move toward the moratorium that
subsequently was established.
(1810)
If members who were not part of the debate in this House on
the breast implant issue want to go back and look at a fascinating
series of documents, I invite them to do that. It sounds like a spy
story with manufacturers making claims, the health minister
making promises, the regulators involved in the middle and
finally, a big moratorium established. Most people know the
subsequent events of the manufacturers having been accused of
some inappropriate behaviour and lawsuits are now on the table.
I go back to the regulatory process. A scientist in a very good
department said there was a problem and he was fired. What has
happened to him since? Has he been honoured in Canada? Has he
been elevated on a pedestal as a hero of the regulatory process?
Not a chance. Today that scientist is still vilified by his record
from HPB.
I think that someday Dr. Pierre Blais will stand in this
Chamber to be recognized for his contribution to the health of
women in this country. Someday he will be recognized for the
visionary scientist that he was, the man who put his reputation
on the line, who put his avocation on the line, who said that it is
more important to tell the truth than it is to go through a process
of saying that it is okay.
I direct all my comments to: Is our regulatory process in
Canada effective and efficient? Is it the best regulatory process?
Politicians, and I include myself in this group, should only be
certain the regulators are doing their job.
I have watched with great interest BST. What is happening to
BST? It has become a political hot potato. Forces from three
different directions are coming at us on BST.
I simply say that when members of Parliament start to think
they are scientists, that they are regulators, they are stepping
beyond their purview. We, as politicians, should be making sure
the regulatory process is perfect, as best as it can be. When the
scientists make their decision to make certain that new data, new
information is readily available to them, then politicians should
get out of the regulatory process.
I considered this motion carefully. I have not decided fixed in
my own mind that all the things this motion asks for would be
suitable for Canada. I do believe that a registry of medical
devices makes good sense and I will limit my support to that.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this afternoon on Motion
M-375 moved by the hon. member for Yukon.
[English]
More than one million Canadians have some type of
surgically implanted medical device. Some implants such as
heart valves and pacemakers are life sustaining devices. The
recipients will not survive without them. Other implants, such
as intraocular lenses, joint replacements and breast prostheses
improve the quality of life.
In considering the merits of a registry of implant patients, let
me first discuss the question of therapeutic implants.
Recent widely publicized problems with some implants, such
as heart valves, pacemakers and teflon coated jaw implants have
highlighted the need to track implant recipients so that they can
be quickly notified by their physicians in case of serious
problems.
[Translation]
A better option would be to set up a national registry of
medical devices implanted in the body, similar to the one
already in existence in England for high risk cardiac implants.
(1815)
Such a registry would provide all the required information to
track down the patient.
[English]
It would also provide additional data needed to develop risk
management strategies and valuable feedback, including earlier
warnings about device failures to clinicians, manufacturers,
Health Canada, and provincial health ministries.
A national registry could be administered by a board of
directors made up of representatives from the implanting
surgeons, manufacturers, Health Canada, and provincial
ministries of health. The board will be responsible for managing
the collection, storage, analysis, and dissemination of the data.
All information in the registry will be deemed confidential. To
protect the privacy of registered patients rules will have to be
established by the board of directors for the use and release of
information contained in the registry.
14351
[Translation]
There is strong support for the creation of such a registry from
the Canadian Orthopaedic Association and the Ontario cardiac
care network. Medical device manufacturers have also shown a
keen interest, because this registry would allow them to meet
mandatory standards on the replacement of medical devices.
In short, what is being suggested is the creation of a new
program to improve the follow-up on all implants and medical
devices used in the human body.
[English]
Since medical services are delivered and funded by the
provinces and territories, the authority of the different levels of
government to require patients to register or to require surgeons
to register their patients will have to be explored, as will the
authority to collect change of address information from
provincial or federal records. The federal government could
coordinate the involvement of provincial health ministries
across Canada to ensure that the registry will meet the
requirements of all participants.
The major drawback of the establishment of implant
registries has been the lack of money. The start-up costs would
be about $200,000. These will include the costs to develop the
computer database program and data entry forms, negotiating
participation in the registry, setting up a board of directors,
developing a long-range plan and operating procedures, and
establishing longterm funding.
[Translation]
Since about one million Canadians now have implants or
medical devices, the annual costs would be $20 million.
[English]
Maintenance of a registry of implant patients is estimated to
cost about $20 per patient per year. There are approximately one
million Canadians with medical device implants, resulting in a
total annual cost of $20 million.
[Translation]
Cost sharing will have to be considered with the federal
government, the provinces and territories, manufacturers and
patients.
[English]
The medical device industry and the provincial governments
already spend resources on implant monitoring. It may be
possible to redirect these funds to a national implant registry.
Let me now address the special case of a registry for breast
implant patients.
In 1992 the Minister of Health instituted a moratorium on the
use of silicone gel breast implants and commissioned an
independent advisory committee to examine their safety. One of
the key recommendations made by the committee in April 1992
was to create a national registry of breast implants. The proposal
was for a confidential continuing registry of consenting
recipients of breast implants in Canada.
Since most cosmetic surgery is not funded by provincial
health insurance plans and provinces would therefore not have
health records on breast augmentation procedures, the only way
to collect information on such patients will be by voluntary
participation of the patients.
It was recommended that start-up funding be provided by
manufacturers and that the registry be operated by a national not
for profit organization.
[Translation]
The initial cost of this national registry could be anywhere
between $120,000 and $190,000, with an estimate of 5,000 new
patients each year. After that, annual operating costs could be
covered by a $10 registration fee.
[English]
The drawbacks that will be encountered in setting up a breast
implant registry are the difficulty in the collection of patient
information and inaccurate patient information, since many
breast implant recipients do not know the type of implant they
have or the manufacturer. These deficiencies will limit the
usefulness of the registry.
After completing its preliminary assessment of the issue, the
department believed it was not feasible to implement a breast
implant registry for recipients who had surgery more than a few
years ago because of the high cost and inherent difficulties in
collecting complete and accurate information.
In summary, a registry for patients with therapeutic implants
that is funded by provincial health insurance plans will have
advantages for federal and provincial regulatory agencies,
manufacturers and patients, provided that financial, legal, and
organizational problems can be solved.
[Translation]
The benefits of such a national registry would be: a very quick
way to trace the women concerned, when problems are
discovered following the insertion of such implants; the
gathering of useful data on the value of such products for
clinical practitioners, manufacturers, Health Canada, as well as
the health departments of the provinces and territories.
Moreover, it would be possible to analyze the long term
evolution of these implants.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.21 p.m. and
there being no more members rising for debate and the motion
14352
not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has expired and the
order is dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing
Order 96(1).
_____________________________________________
14352
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-91, an act to
continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the
name Business Development Bank of Canada, as reported (with
amendments) from the Committee; and of Motions Nos. 1 to 6
and 26 to 33.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate. The
hon. member for Chambly. You have seven minutes left.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
thank you for giving me the floor again.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. If I understood the Chair correctly, you
said we would resume debate on the second set of motions. That
suits the government quite well, but is it the second set or are we
going back to Group No. 1?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. It is Group
No. 1.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Madam Speaker, I was thanking you for giving me
the floor after interrupting me so abruptly earlier. I do
acknowledge your sense of fairness.
Earlier, before I was interrupted, I was saying that this new
Business Development Bank of Canada will be used for
patronage and propaganda purposes, including the promotion of
federalism by the members opposite. I urge them not to make the
same mistakes as did the former Quebec government with the
Société de développement industriel. Indeed, we recently
learned-with the arrival of a responsible provincial party in
office-that $950 million had been wasted on all kinds of
unnecessary projects, because of the intervention of some
ministers who were urging the corporation to grant loans which
should never have been made. However, because of the authority
exerted then by the responsible minister, or the Quebec Premier,
over that agency, it ran up a bill of $959 million. So, there is a
real danger.
That danger also exists with Bill C-91 now before us. For
example, if you look at clause 6, you will see that the minister
appoints the chairperson and president.
(1825)
I am tempted to say that I support this bill, because it will
make the number of independentists swell. Indeed, this is the
kind of legislation which explains why an independentist such
as myself is here to speak on Quebec's behalf. I have seen too
many measures like this one.
I read literally every bill tabled in this House and I realize that
the government, although it has not publicly said it and will not
do so, is currently trying to destabilize the provinces and really
infringe on fields of provincial jurisdiction. I am not referring
only to Quebec. The other provinces are also affected. However,
the danger is greater for Quebec than for the English speaking
provinces, because the infringing authority if you will is
English-speaking.
Westerners and easterners recognize this government as their
primary government, while Quebecers, because of their
different language as well as other factors such as culture,
consider the Quebec government their primary government. The
fact is that the Quebec government did not only do bad things,
quite the contrary. Just think of the Quebec Deposit and
Investment Fund, created in 1964. We literally got rid of the
Canadian capitalists who were using the pension plans of
Quebec workers, both in the public and the private sectors.
Some people have become immensely rich playing with the
money of others like that, without our governments paying any
attention to the security of the investments made.
So, the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund was established,
as well as the General Investment Corporation of Quebec. The
government has created several instruments that have met their
objectives. We now have before us Bill C-91, with its Federal
Business Development Bank renamed Business Development
Bank of Canada. When we say that there is duplication in
personnel, that is what is happening. One can only wonder what
changing the role of the FBDB to give it complementary status is
meant to achieve.
I can remember, back in my days as a notary, when I was very
involved with business financing, seeing people go to the FBDB
although their investment was no less safe than others. The bank
refused to lend money when it knew the project would not get off
the ground. The exception, I must admit, was slightly out of the
ordinary projects, where the entrepreneur wanted to set up a
business in an area less familiar to traditional bankers but still
had a fair chance of being successful. Then, the FBDB got
involved.
We are now debating a bill to turn it into a complementary
bank. We know the criteria used by banks. For instance, in
business financing, you do not lend more that 75 per cent of the
investment value. Does complementary mean lending the
remaining 25 per cent? Will the bank lend 75 per cent and the
Business Development Bank the rest? I think not. At least, I
hope not, because it would be terrible.
Giving the bank this complementary status will mean that
anyone who wants to market or commercialize a new product
and, as a last resort after being refused everywhere, goes to the
Business Development Bank will get the answer: ``Sorry, friend.
Your application was rejected everywhere else. Even if we
wanted to, we could not help you. We are no longer qualified''. I
can understand giving a complementary role to this institution,
14353
but it is a bit difficult to complement what does not exist in the
first place.
(1830)
I do not want to accuse the people who tabled this bill of
having bad intentions, but I do have to say that this will serve
only to increase political intervention in loans, which would not
have been granted by any other institution anyway. Talk about
political intervention-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Oh, oh.
Mr. Lebel: I know that the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood just yelled something, but I am not
accusing him of having bad intentions, far from it. Sometimes,
politicians, and especially politicians in power, feel the need to
intervene in areas only because of the next election and in order
to get the Canadian economy going, I think.
Ministers are people too, like you and I, and they are not
impervious to lobbying. Chairpersons and presidents are also
human and also have to deal with ministers twisting their arms,
saying: Think about it, in such and such a sector, in such a place,
will you not reconsider your decision? Will you not thoroughly
review the issue, to see whether you can swing it?
If this were to happen, it could very well have unfortunate
outcomes. I would have suggested that the chairman and the
president be appointed by the House of Commons, by the
government and not by the minister himself. Then, you and I
would have to assume responsibility for the appointment. Then,
in the future, if it did not work out, if we did not have a good
president, we could blame everybody, not just a certain minister
or hon. member. This was the issue I wanted to speak about.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, it may be the first time since I have been a
member of this House that we have actually been critical of
name changes. Usually, this is a mere technicality. A name will
be changed to make it a little more modern or more precise, but
in this case, when we see the Federal Business Development
Bank being renamed as the Business Development Bank of
Canada, it is clearly all part of this vast strategy of a federal
government that has decided, in its wisdom, that it is going to
run the show.
I would put this on a par with the agreement on internal trade
in Canada, where again, a bill is being used to let the federal
government penalize the provinces that do not comply with the
agreement by cutting funding in their social programs, and I am
referring to Bill C-76, where in any case it wants to intervene in
sectors that are not its responsibility. In the case of the bank,
which is going to be the Business Development Bank of Canada,
if the House ever passes this bill, personally, I think the name is
rather pretentious.
Canada has quite a few financial institutions that are involved
in development. There are other banking institutions that may be
involved in a positive and occasionally in a negative way in
development and which are very much part of the process. There
cannot be just one business development bank of Canada, unless
there is more than meets the eye here.
I am also somewhat amazed at the direction in which this bill
is going. During the first few months I was in the House, I was a
member of the industry committee. At the time, members from
Ontario were looking for ways to make the banks more sensitive
to the problems of small entrepreneurs. They were interested to
see what Quebec had in the way of institutions that provide
complementary financing. I am thinking for instance of the
Centre d'aide aux entreprises, the Mouvement Desjardins, the
FTQ Fonds de solidarité-the CNTU is about to develop a
similar fund.
It was clear Ontario had had a difficult time during the last
recession and there was this feeling of hostility towards the
banks.
(1835)
Now with this bill, this feeling seems to have disappeared.
Does it mean that the bank lobby was successful? Does the fact
that they contribute very generously to the Liberal Party of
Canada make a difference? I do not know for sure, but there is
something strange going on here.
This decision also seems to be part of a broader strategy I
would like to explain very briefly. When the Liberals came to
power, there was a network referred to as business development
centres. It was decided to amalgamate these with the community
futures committees. Now that these two bodies have been
amalgamated, they are attached directly to the Federal Office of
Regional Development.
Therefore, the whole community development element set up
by the community futures committees will, in my opinion, lead
to the systematic and progressive dropping of the community
development mandate over the next few months, since the
transfer to the FORD takes place on September 30.
There was already one regional office per administrative
region, but the Federal Office of Regional Development will try
through the Business Development Bank of Canada to set up a
network of branch offices to catch bigger service points across
Canada in the web.
What is particularly sad is that two networks are being set up
in parallel, one beside the other. Neither Quebec nor Canada has
the means to pay for a double network. A choice has to be made.
Quebecers will have the opportunity this fall to decide once and
for all who they want to serve them.
14354
Do they want Canadian banks-like the Royal Bank, for
example? Is this the network we want to look after our interests
in the future? Or do we want a network that belongs to us much
more and that is under our complete control? We must not
forget that Quebec has found itself in a very bad situation in
relation to the federal government on a number of occasions
in the past.
What about the time they wanted to limit the number of CN
shares that could be purchased. Each time Quebec capital tried
to get in, it was foiled. This seems to be very much the approach
of the Business Development Bank of Canada.
Another rather paradoxical element in the current bill is that
the government, which claims to be in favour of a free market
environment, is directly infringing on the Mouvement
Desjardins, among others, and the banking institutions. All of a
sudden, the government takes a step backward and decides that
there will be an additional competitor.
Just what is this complementary loan? It is not very clear and
we are not sure of the result which will be achieved. How will it
be integrated into the Canadian banking system? One can
understand the concerns of those who already corner the market.
Before changing the mandate of an agency such as the Federal
Business Development Bank, we must take a close look and see
if we can afford more duplication. I doubt that there is a single
Quebecer or Canadian who thinks so.
If the federal government dismisses the solutions which will
avoid such duplication and wants first and foremost to ensure its
presence in every province and in every sector when there are
already other stakeholders involved, it will only follow the
pattern set a long time ago, particularly during the Trudeau
years. Remember the sign war, when the federal and Quebec
would each claim to have made the largest contribution to a
given project.
(1840)
There was some kind of blackmail going on at that time,
which we all paid for in a way. Today, answers are sought much
more in terms of guidelines and comprehensive solutions. In
that regard, this bill will not solve anything as it only increases
duplication. What is happening here is the same thing that
happened to the Federal Office of Regional Development a
while ago. The FORD's mission was changed by taking away the
resources that allowed it to play an active role in the Quebec
economy, while at the same time increasing the number of
service points, when services were already available from the
Quebec ministries of tourism as well as Industry, Commerce and
Technology.
That is what happened to the FORD. The same thing is now
happening to the Federal Business Development Bank, and I
think this is a bad move on the part of the government. It reflects
the old belief that Ottawa provides, that it has the answer to
whatever problems the people of Quebec, British Columbia, the
maritimes and elsewhere may have, when the fact of the matter
is that tools are already in place in many regions.
Therefore, the federal government should review its bill to
make sure that it will not result in the interference that the
implementation of the Business Development Bank of Canada
Act will bring about.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the debate this
evening. I listened with interest when the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Industry, made his presentation.
I must say from the outset that for many years I have listened
to my hon. colleague from Broadview-Greenwood and I have
learned from much of what he has had to say. I have appreciated
the sincerity he has always brought to the debate. I appreciate
his personal commitment to small business and the funding
plight it faces. I have never heard a more pathetic explanation in
terms of why the government has done something.
First I want to take him off the hook. I cannot imagine that
what he was saying was his own idea. I can only assume that he
has been given marching orders from cabinet. As an advocate of
small business funding he has stood in the House for years
urging the previous government and encouraging the present
government to take action. He has led the way on a number of
initiatives in terms of support for small business. He has been
actively involved in the development of the report called
``Funding for Small Business'' which had a whole set of
recommendations. To make this proposal is not the kind of
initiative he would take.
When I first saw Bill C-91 I was elated. I was encouraged
because after years and years of the Liberals saying we had to
take dramatic action to provide funding for small business here
was the opportunity. I read the bill. I suggest we should make
another name change.
The bill at the moment is entitled ``an act to continue the
Federal Business Development Bank under the name Small
Business Bank of Canada''. Probably a more accurate title
would be an act to continue the Federal Business Development
Bank with an inadequate mandate, with a pointless mandate,
with a wimpy mandate. We could use whatever word we like
because in my judgment we have missed a real opportunity,
looking at Bill C-91.
14355
At the moment we are talking about the name change. Most
members of Parliament were elated when they saw that the
government had listened to the committee and had decided to
call the Federal Business Development Bank the Small
Business Bank of Canada. We could hear cheering from coast
to coast to coast. We could hear small business organizations,
chambers of commerce and boards of trade saying that finally
the federal government had acknowledged the fact that
something needed to be done in the country to provide funding
for small enterprises.
I am talking about the kind of enterprise that requires a
$10,000, $20,000, $50,000, $75,000 or $100,000 loan. All of us
have countless cases on our desks that we have worked on over
the years. We know small enterprisers, small entrepreneurs or
small business people have a difficult time obtaining capital for
their operations, to start a new venture or to expand a venture. If
they need $20,000 they might as well forget about it because
they just cannot go to the traditional lending institutions, the big
banks.
(1845)
We are not here to assist the big banks. Headlines the last few
days read: ``Banks on track to record profits. The earnings for
the first half of 1995 exceed even last year's $4.25 billion
pace''. In other words, the chartered banks are doing just fine.
As a matter of fact they have never done so well. They can take
care of the large enterprises, traditional enterprises and so on.
However, we are not here to facilitate the chartered banks.
They make profits for their shareholders and that is it. We
understand their mandate. We are here as members of
Parliament for something else. We are here to provide
opportunities for that job creating sector of the economy called
the small business sector.
In my judgment, having looked at Bill C-91 for many days,
clause by clause, we have missed an incredible opportunity. Part
of the opportunity we have missed is betrayed by what the
government is now asking us to do. It said it first came up with a
winning idea based on the recommendations of the committee to
call the FBDB the small business bank of Canada. I say, right on,
government. It has done the right thing. However, it now says:
``Hold it, we want to change that. We are going to call it the
development bank of Canada''. What does that mean? What
kind of a signal does that send?
By changing the name of this bank, a tremendous cost will
accrue to change every bank sign across the country, every
letterhead, envelope, and all kinds of other things. It is going to
cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even millions, to
call it the development bank. We do not need another
development bank. We have the large chartered banks. We have
other federal lending institutions that are able to provide that
kind of capital. We need something to assist the small business
sector. The name the small business bank of Canada would
indicate a new initiative or a new direction or a new mandate for
the FBDB. God knows it needs it.
However, according to the legislation this is the purpose of
the bank. It reads: ``The purpose of the bank is to provide
Canadian entrepreneurship by providing financial and
management services-in carrying out its activities. The bank
must give particular consideration to the needs of small and
medium size enterprises''.
I have read wimpy legislation and legislation that meant
absolutely nothing and this legislation says absolutely nothing.
It states that the bank will give some consideration to small and
medium size businesses. Well big, bloody deal. What does that
mean? What kind of a mandate does that give the bank? What
requirements does it give the bank? Absolutely none.
What was going to be called the small business bank of
Canada and not called the business development bank of Canada
will be just like the Royal Bank of Canada or the Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce. It will be lending to the very
secure borrowers, the larger businesses and so on. Those small
entrepreneurs and small business people will still have to be
scraping and searching to find capital for their new enterprises.
This is wrong. This is a missed opportunity.
I wonder if there is any sensitivity to the fact that we have to
encourage the bank to carry out a fair lending practice across
Canada so that one region does not benefit over another.
Acknowledging that 85 per cent of the new jobs in the future are
going to be created by small businesses, will that same business
be created in the eastern, central and western part of Canada?
No, not with this legislation. Every single cent of this new bank
could be put into one province, into one region, into a few cities.
Is that the kind of bank we want? Absolutely not. It is a disgrace
and a disappointment.
I do not hold my hon. friend from Broadview-Greenwood
responsible for this wimpy initiative. I hold the government and
the cabinet responsible. I am pleased to see that representatives
of the cabinet are here because they have not only done a
disservice to the small enterprises of Canada, but they have done
a disservice to the incredibly excellent work done by that
committee which worked hard for months on end to incorporate
diverse points of view and had an excellent set of
recommendations. Then the cabinet and the minister said: ``We
don't care about the work you have done. We don't care about
the research that has been done. We don't care what the
witnesses said. We want to simply put our stamp on this
legislation''. That is wrong.
I do not think this is a good piece of legislation. I do not think
this is a good amendment. When I vote later tonight I am not
going to be voting to do away with the name the small business
bank of Canada and replace it with the business development
bank of Canada. It is wrong and bad. It sends the wrong signal. It
says we do not care about those enterprises that create jobs, that
14356
we want to continue to support the GMs, the Nova Corporations,
the big corporations.
(1850)
I know my friend across the way, the member for
Broadview-Greenwood, was making a valiant attempt to
explain the government's initiative when he said that the small
business title limits and restricts loans, that the government
wants to encourage the leading edge technologies to seek
funding through this federal bank. So they should.
The fact that small business does not exist in the present name
does not preclude small businesses from seeking loans. Calling
it a small business bank does not preclude a medium size
business from seeking loans. We will do the entrepreneurial
sector of Canada a disservice if we pass this amendment.
I call on my colleagues from all sides of the House, from the
Bloc, from the Reform and particularly those members of the
government that have some sensitivity to small business and
some respect for the work of the committee, to give some
respect to the people that come into our offices day after day
seeking capital to assist their small business enterprises. In
other words, listen to the people just once.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Motion No. 1. The motions have been declared read. In Group
No. 1 we are covering Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6, 26 to 33. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), a recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands
deferred and the recorded division also applies to Motions Nos.
3, 4, 6 and 26 to 33.
In Group No. 2 pursuant to an agreement made earlier
Motions Nos. 7 to 11, 14, 15 and 19 to 25 are deemed moved.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-91, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 8, on page 3,
with the following:
``4. (1) The objects of the Bank are to promote and assist in the establishment
and development of business enterprises in Canada by providing, in the manner
and to the extent authorized by this Act, financial assistance, management
counselling, management training, information and advice and such other
services as are ancillary or incidental to any of the foregoing.
(2) The Bank in carrying out its objects shall give particular consideration to
the needs of small business enterprises.''
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-91, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 23, on page 6,
the following:
``(1.1) The total amount of all loans made by the Bank shall not exceed $18
billion.''
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-91, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3, on page
7, with the following:
``are offered to a person only if such services are not otherwise available to that
person on reasonable terms and conditions.''
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-91, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 8,
with the following:
``made or given by another person, other than a Crown corporation, if''.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-91, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 35, on page
8, with the following:
``(a) business planning services; and
(b) management counselling and training, including seminars, conferences
and meetings.''
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-91, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 25 to 27, on page
10.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-91, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 29, on page 10,
with the following:
14357
``any entity by any means, except an entity that is a trust company, insurance
company or dealer in investments or securities;''.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-91, in Clause 28, be amended by adding after line 29, on page 13,
the following:
``(1.1) The yield of hybrid capital instruments issued by the Bank shall not be
fixed according to the profits of the Bank.''
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-91, in Clause 31, be amended
(a) by replacing line 27, on page 14, with the following:
``parent of a director,''; and
(b) by replacing line 29, on page 14, with the following:
``parent of a director, or
(d) the father, the mother, the sister or the brother of the spouse of a director.''
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-91, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 34, on page
14 and lines 1 to 29, on page 15, with the following:
``32. The Bank shall not grant any assistance, whether in the form of a loan,
investment, guarantee, purchase or lease, to an applicant who is an interested
person or, if the applicant is a firm or corporation, to a firm or corporation where
a partner of the firm or a shareholder, director or officer of the corporation is an
interested person.''
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-91, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 38 and 39, on
page 15, with the following:
``35. (1) Five years after this Act comes into force, and every five years
afterward, the''.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-91, in Clause 36, be amended
(a) by replacing line 28, on page 16, with the following:
``Tax Act;''; and
(b) by replacing line 30, on page 16, with the following:
``whom the information relates; or
(e) for the purposes of a committee of either House of Parliament.''
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 24
That clause 37 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following:
``Except with the consent in writing of the Bank, a person must not in any
prospectus or advertisement, or for any other business purpose, use the name of
the Bank, the names ``B.D. Canada'', ``Federal Business Development Bank''
or ``Industrial Development Bank'' or the initials ``B.D.B.C.'' or ``F.B.D.B'', in
English, or the names ``Banque fédérale de développement'', ``Banque
d'expansion industrielle'' or ``B.D. Canada'' or the initials ``B.D.C'' or
``B.F.D'', in French.''
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-91 be amended by adding after line 5, on page 17, the following
new Clause:
``39. The Governor in Council may, by regulation, define ``hybrid capital
instrument''.''
[
Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Group No. 2 includes
Motions Nos. 7 to 11, but Motions Nos. 2 and 5 are not in that
group. They were in Group No. 1 which we just dealt with.
Mr. Laurin: Madam Speaker, Motions Nos. 2 and 5 are not
among the motions which you mentioned earlier. Since these are
motions tabled by a Bloc Quebecois member, we expected to
vote in support of our two proposed amendments.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Motions Nos. 1 to 6 and
26 to 33 are in Group No. 1.
(1855)
A vote will be taken on Motions Nos. 2 and 5 if Motion No. 1
is lost. These motions are included in Group No. 1. You may
refer to the Speaker's ruling, which explains this clearly.
Mr. Laurin: Madam Speaker, from what I gather, this means
that we will not have to vote on the two motions, unless two
others, before them, are lost.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): That is correct. As I was
saying, Motions Nos. 7 to 11, 14, 15 and 19 to 25 are in Group
No. 2.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I am supposed to discuss Group No. 2 on behalf of the official
opposition.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): You are right, dear
colleague. I apologize.
Mr. Rocheleau: We are slowly but surely getting to the heart
of the matter, Madam Speaker. This important bill will
significantly change the operations of a Canadian institution
which has proven successful, both from a financial point of
view, as well as in terms of fulfilling the federal government's
role.
However, I draw your attention to the fact that the government
is not only working in secret, but is also using misleading terms.
The title of the bill itself is confusing and does not adequately
inform the reader as to its scope.
14358
Indeed, Bill C-91, An Act to continue the Federal Business
Development Bank under the name Business Development
Bank of Canada, alludes to the new name, but not to the new
purpose of the bank.
This legislation changes the role of the former Federal
Business Development Bank, which will soon become the
Business Development Bank of Canada. The mandate is
changed because, in the past, the Federal Business Development
Bank was formally recognized as a bank of last resort.
Last year, when the committee looked at the role of the FBDB,
it is the Bloc Quebecois which, along with the other members of
the committee, in an attempt to convey the notion of last resort,
proposed the term ``complementary''. That term was accepted
by the committee. The word ``complementary'' therefore
defined the role of last resort bank under the act.
Today-I do not know how to qualify it, and some words may
be a little too strong-but there is definitely something wrong.
The word `complementary'' completely changes the bank's
mandate and completely obliterates the concept of last resort.
The Federal Business Development Bank is switching leagues
and is more or less going into direct competition with the current
network of chartered banks and the network of Caisses
populaires Desjardins.
Last resort implied that the whole outlook of the Federal
Business Development Bank was geared to concern about
regional development, expressed through ad hoc financial aid
for small and medium size businesses. It assisted small and
medium size businesses which had higher than usual risk factors
because of their capital outlay or the economic sector in which
they operated.
Therefore, the bank's mandate, under the legislation, was to
look at cases which had already been rejected by at least two
conventional financial institutions. That was the last resort
mandate. Consequently, the whole outlook was geared to
regional development.
(1900)
Today, the bank will soon be competing with conventional
institutions and this may perhaps fulfil needs in the rest of
Canada. Although the operation seems quintessentially
political, the changing of names is a perfect example-without
condemning too harshly the people from the Langevin Block
and the minister's office-of the government's desire to fill
existing market needs in the rest of Canada.
But, this will also affect institutions in Quebec which have
already carved out their niches, which have solid reputations
and have been successful in filling the needs of the market. In
particular, I am thinking of the Mouvement Desjardins, which is
very concerned, by the way, by the federal government's
approach, and of the Fonds de solidarité de la FTQ and the
Société de développement industriel du Québec, which, together
with the Caisse de dépôt and the Banque nationale, worked and
contributed to making it possible for businesses in need in the
various regions of Quebec to obtain loans.
Therefore, we had cultivated a last resort mentality, and I am
personally very upset when I hear people at the Federal Business
Development Bank say that it will no longer be a bank for losers.
We have to see things more objectively.
Life in the business world is not always rosy. It is difficult at
times. There are nuances. It is absolutely necessary to have a
lending institution like the Federal Business Development Bank
with a mandate to review the situation of businesses which are
different from others, out of an almost socio-economic concern
to ensure that businesses which otherwise would not be backed
by conventional sources will find backing in the public sector.
I often heard the president of the FBDB refer to the case of
Lassonde, in Quebec, a company that today is thriving and at the
time had access to funds from the federal bank when traditional
institutions could not, I suppose, justify approving a loan
because the risk may have been too high, but the federal bank,
acting in the public interest, did, and the rest is history.
There has been one obvious change. The clause on last resort
financing has been eliminated, and the new Business
Development Bank of Canada will, as a result, be competing
directly with traditional institutions.
There are some subtle changes as well, because the Federal
Business Development Bank has a new way to raise funds. So
far, the bank has been operating only with public funds. From
now on, it will be able to turn to private financing as well. The
private sector will be able to lend money to the new Business
Development Bank of Canada through what are commonly
called hybrid instruments.
The bank's mandate has changed in two ways. Formerly, the
bank only had to break even. Today, when it deals with the
private sector, it will have to be a good investment in terms of
interest yields on investments by the private sector. So it will
have to pay attractive rates which, we must assume, will be
based on the bank's profits. This is no longer about breaking
even. The yield will be based on profits. The bank's focus on
regional development will have to change. The bank will have to
change its culture, its vision and gradually become a strictly
commercial bank. This is a profound change in the bank's
mission.
Finally, I am worried. Let me explain. As our NDP colleague
said earlier, 52 per cent of the loans approved by the Federal
Business Development Bank were for $100,000 or less. Once we
no longer have this philosophy that the bank should promote
genuine regional development by small business but instead
operate on a more commercial basis so that it can offer
14359
attractive yields to private investors, where are these loans
going to come from, those 52 per cent?
(1905)
Who will approve these loans worth $100,000 or less which
represent 52 per cent of the FBDB's portfolio at the present
time? We have every reason to be concerned about the future
impact of these changes.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, on a point of clarification. Do I understand correctly
that the government has only one opportunity to respond to the
opposition's motions?. The member for Trois-Rivières spoke on
basically half of the motions in group 2?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There are no periods for
questions and comments or responses. The government can
partake in the debate or lead off if the hon. members had been on
their feet. On that point, I apologize to the member for Simcoe
Centre.
[Translation]
In the case of the hon. member of Trois-Rivières, there is no
precedent since he was one of the movers.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendments to Bill
C-91 we are addressing this evening. I am pleased to do this
because of my small business background.
As a small businessman for many years I had many sleepless
nights looking for capital. Therefore I am very hopeful that the
changes we are attempting to make to this bill will improve the
access to capital for those new small businesses starting up.
The amount of time spent on the correct name bothers me to
some degree. I do not think the name is all that important. What
is in the bill is important to small businesses which we are trying
to help.
I was interested in some of the comments coming from my
colleagues in the Bloc, particularly the member for Longueuil
when said he had been in business in Quebec and found that
Quebec businessmen had to work twice as hard as the
businessmen in Ontario. I had a little trouble with that because I
challenge anybody to have worked twice as hard as I did in my
business. If one is to be successful in small business today one
must work hard.
In my business, the tire and automotive service business, I had
occasion to come in contact with people in the same business in
Quebec. At no time did I get from them that they were working
or attempting to work twice as hard as I was. Those in business
in Quebec I came in contact with were doing very well because
they were working hard. That was the secret.
I listened to the comments about the FBDB and what is
happening in Quebec. I look at the 1994 annual report from the
FBDB and see that some 23 per cent of its portfolio is in Quebec.
Its head office is there as well. At some point during the debate
earlier I was wondering if the scenario was that people were
being forced at gun point to borrow from the FBDB. It is not
compulsory. If businesses want to go there they go on their own
volition, as it should be.
I will briefly run through the amendments in group 2 and
outline Reform's position on them. The first is Motion No. 7.
Reform is opposing this motion because the term financial
assistance is too broad, too sweeping and too general in terms.
When I read that I thought I would have really appreciated,
when I went to my bank for funding, that I could say I wanted
financial assistance and the bank manager would have been
prepared to take it on that basis. Whenever I asked for financial
assistance, the next question was how much financial
assistance. The decision was then made on that. Therefore we
feel it is too sweeping and we will be opposing Motion No. 7.
Motion No. 8 deals with limiting the bank's ability to go to
$18 billion rather than $23 billion as is in the bill now. We think
there should be a limit there. In our estimation the limit should
be $18 billion. We will be supporting Motion No. 8
(1910)
We are opposing Motion No. 9. The mandate of the bank in
our opinion is still not satisfactorily defined.
On Motion No. 10, a Reform motion by the member for
Edmonton South, we will be supporting it because it eliminates
loans to crown corporations. I do not know whether that was
anticipated or thought of at the time but it might appear to the
public as a form of double dipping. We will be supporting the
amendment to eliminate loans to crown corporations.
Motion No. 11 restricts the role of the bank to complementary
activities not already provided by the private sector. We will be
supporting Motion No. 11.
Moving into the grouping of Motions Nos. 14 and 15, Motion
No. 14 we feel removes some restrictions we feel are necessary
in the bill. We will be opposing the removal of those sections.
Motion No. 15 is also a Reform motion and we will be
supporting it. It ensures the bank is not active in trust, insurance
or security companies.
Motion No. 19 is proposed by the Bloc. We will be opposing
it. Yield of hybrid instruments will reflect the profit and cost of
borrowing.
14360
Motion No. 20, a Bloc motion, does not change the potential
for conflict. It refers only to disclosure. We do not feel it covers
that and we will be opposing it.
Motion No. 21, a Reform motion which we will be supporting,
refers to the conflict of interest that changes the requirement
from disclosing conflict to not doing any business with an
interested person.
Motion No. 22, a Reform motion, will be supported and I see
it was adopted at committee stage. Motion No. 21, a Bloc
motion, we will be opposing because the motion appears to be
unnecessary in our estimation. Motion No. 24 we will be
opposing for the same reasons as were outlined on Motion No. 1;
because it refers to the name change.
Motion No. 25 requires a definition of a hybrid capital
instrument be included in the bill. Reform put forward this
motion and we will be supporting it.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will deal with the motions
and then with some of the comments members of the opposition
parties have put forward.
We will be supporting Motion No. 20 put forward by the
member from Trois-Rivières. We will also be supporting
Motions Nos. 24 and 25. Motion No. 24 is ours and Motion No.
25 is put forward by the Reform Party. All other motions in this
section we will be opposing.
I will deal with some of the concerns the member for
Trois-Rivières put forward and some of the concerns expressed
by our colleague from Simcoe Centre. Before I do, I will deal
with some of the comments made by the hon. member for
Kamloops.
The member said earlier the government has missed a
tremendous opportunity to move this bank forward with a very
specific mandate to help small business.
(1915 )
We will not miss that opportunity. Even though in the
committee we felt strongly about the name that was on the
bill-it was changed today-there is one thing we will make
sure the Business Development Bank of Canada does: we will
make sure that its marketing thrust will be centred around the
small business sector.
Make absolutely no mistake that as sure as I am standing here,
if there is one issue this Prime Minister continues to be
committed to with all the energy and passion he has-and I say
that straight out-it is the small business sector.
Through you, Madam Speaker, to the opposition members and
especially to the member for Kamloops, who, like myself, has
campaigned vigorously in this House in opposition and in
government, we have not let go and we will not let go. And we
will not let the executive of this government forget that we were
given the trust 20 months ago due in large part to the Prime
Minister's commitment and the Minister of Finance's
commitment even before the red book that we were going to be
the government that championed small business and we were
going to be the government that took on the financial
institutions of this country, the chartered banks.
There is not a member on this side of the House who will stand
up and defend the chartered banks of Canada and say that they
are doing a great job for small business. If anyone can find a
member on the government side of the House who will stand up
and say that the banks of Canada are doing a great job for small
business, name them. I certainly could not find one. We talk
about this among ourselves and in our ridings. We are
committed to that sector.
Getting back to this bill, this Business Development Bank
will be committed to small business. I want to read into the
record a note from the newly appointed chairman of the board of
this bank, which I just received. He has been listening to this
debate. I was summoned to the phone by him and I received a
letter. We are going to make him accountable for this letter by
reading it into Hansard. It is from Patrick J. Lavelle, the
chairman of the board of the Business Development Bank of
Canada:
In passing this legislation, the House is giving the bank expanded powers and
greater responsibilities. The implementation of which will test the mettle of the
banks directors and its management.
This House isn't giving the bank a blank check. The mandate calls for the
bank to increase its activities in the new economy of Canada, in
telecommunications, biotechnology and other technologies of the future. We
must not abandon the declining sectors but we must see change and progress in
the new ones.
The determination of the banks portfolio should reflect the country in that all
regions: the Atlantic, Ontario, as well as Quebec and the West see increases in
the availability of capital; after all that is what the bank is supposed to do.
The new bank with its new name should be visible and accountable. And we
are going to bring the banks management before the committee to gauge what
actions they are taking to fulfil their new mandate as quickly as possible.
Make no mistake the expectations for the bank are high and it will take extra
efforts on the part of the management and its directors to achieve the promised
results.
I want to deal specifically with the concerns the Bloc
Quebecois has. They talk-
(1920 )
Mr. Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think
the reference the hon. colleague has made to the communiqué by
the new bank chair is appropriate. I wonder if it would not be
appropriate for my hon. friend to seek unanimous consent to
append that letter to be part of Hansard today.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent?
14361
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: Please refer to Sessional Paper Number
8530-351-37 in today's Journals]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, I
would just like to take some of my personal notes off it before
we append it to Hansard.
I would like to deal with the remarks I put on this note to the
member for Trois-Rivières. We can see what the concerns are of
the Bloc Quebecois. Make no mistake about the fact that the
Bloc Quebecois does not in any way, shape, or form support the
Government of Canada presence in the province of Quebec.
They object to this instrument. As the Bloc Canadien on this side
of the House, we believe this instrument is there to help small
business.
The Bloc Quebecois does not want this instrument in the
province because it is going to show Quebecers, small business
men and women, that the people and the Government of Canada
play a vital role, a central role, an integral role in their
development as a part of Canada.
Make no mistake about it, we intend to use this bank to make
sure that the Government of Canada presence is alive and well in
the province of Quebec.
I cannot speak for the cabinet here, but as a committee and for
those of us who believe in Canada, we would be encouraging the
new Business Development Bank of Canada to have many
locations in the province of Quebec, just as many as we hope to
have in all the other provinces across Canada.
Quite frankly, I would find it very hard to imagine that the
small business men and women in the province of Quebec would
reject that kind of financial support, and not just financial
support but counselling assistance. We must make sure that we
understand that this Federal Business Development Bank of
Canada now has another unique feature attached to it. It supplies
counselling assistance for small enterprise and for
entrepreneurs, both men and women. What better way to show
the new and emerging entrepreneurs in the province of Quebec
that the counselling assistance provided by the Government of
Canada is alive and well?
This Business Development Bank of Canada I believe will
play an integral role in helping to galvanize this spirit of Canada
from coast to coast, including the province of Quebec. I would
encourage members to support the government's amendments
on this section of motions.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, again I
am pleased to have an opportunity to make some remarks
regarding this grouping of amendments to the bill regarding the
new federal bank's name and some changes in the mandate.
(1925 )
I listened with interest to my colleague from
Broadview-Greenwood when he said that the government will
not miss that opportunity-and I suspect he is obviously
implying the bank will not miss this opportunity-to provide an
increased level of service to the small business sector. I am
pleased when he reminded us that the new chair of the bank is
listening in and is obviously getting a sense of the feeling among
members of the House.
The member goes on to say that we can be assured that the new
marketing thrust of this newly revised bank will be taking into
consideration the needs of the small business sector. I will not
even qualify it by saying probably, because I know he speaks the
truth. I know this is what he wants to do. But why could we not
have a little clearer direction actually in the legislation to
guarantee that? We have seen tonight, in my judgment, that what
the hon. member wants and what the executive wants can be two
different things.
So let us acknowledge that, yes, it is good to say these great
things and it is nice to comment on all the things the government
plans to do, but we also remember the government's plan to
abolish the GST. I suspect that probably somebody in there
actually meant that at one time. They also said that they would
abrogate the free trade agreement, and so on. It goes on and on.
There is some hesitation for us in opposition to become
enthusiastic when we hear these commitments, verbal as they
are. Mind you, the government even had the abolishment of the
GST and abrogating free trade in their red book. These were
actually written down, and they obviously have set those aside.
However, let us be positive this evening and assume that the
member is accurate and that the new chair listening in will hear
us and will take this bank in the right direction.
I listened with interest to my hon. colleague talk about the
sensitivity the bank will have to ensure that adequate provision
is given to small business enterprises in all the regions of
Canada. We applaud that.
I just want to point out that my hon. friend refers to the west. I
know he is from Broadview-Greenwood and I know that he
recognizes the realities of western Canada. I want to remind my
friend that the west includes two regions: the cordillera regions
of British Columbia and the Yukon, and of course the prairie
region. So let us be sensitive that we want to balance that B.C.
and Yukon is actually a region that ought to get their fair share
separate from the prairies and so on and so forth. That is just a
little sensitivity from us across the mountain range.
I got a little shaky when my hon. friend was up talking about
the letter from the new chair that said we must provide special
consideration for the newly emerging technologies,
biotechnology and telecommunications and so on. No one would
dispute
14362
that. I question whether or not this is the small business sector
we are talking about here tonight in large part. It may be.
When I think of biotechnology and telecommunications, I
often do not think of the person making the loan for $20,000 or
$30,000. I would call for a little extra sensitivity. Yes, we would
applaud that the bank ought to be leading a lot of the capital and
funding initiatives into these sectors, but also we are talking
about small business that is quite often apart from these two
sectors.
We want to see expanded powers. Again, I will be looking
carefully at the new initiatives. My hon. friend can simply nod at
this, but I think he said that the chair of the bank wanted to come
before the committee with his directors and meet with the
committee to develop some of these ideas further. I think that is
what he said. I applaud that initiative and look forward to that
opportunity.
On behalf of my party we will be supporting with some
enthusiasm Motion No. 7 by my colleague from Trois-Rivières.
We will also be supporting Motion No. 10, by my friend from
Edmonton Southwest. We will also be supporting Motion No.
20, Motion No. 21, Motion No. 22, Motion No. 23, and Motion
No. 25.
I want to make a comment about Motion No. 23, and that is the
addition in the legislation of the line ``for the purposes of a
committee or either House of Parliament'' as the possibility of
reviewing what the bank is doing. I do think that is an
appropriate initiative if in fact that inclination is there.
Again, these are very thoughtful amendments. Some do not
receive our enthusiastic endorsement. I appreciate the reasons
people are bringing them forward, but I do not see the necessity
and some of them I find actually rather regressive. We are being
positive here tonight, so I will keep my statements on the upbeat
and positive note.
(1930 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mr. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It
was my understanding that you called the division and indicated
that the nays carried it and there were not five members
standing.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I saw five members
standing when they said nay. I will deem the motion deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 9.
[Translation]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
14363
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion, the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I think you might find
unanimous consent to consider that the divisions on the rest of
the motions in Group No. 2 have been demanded and deferred.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We now move to Group
No. 3. Motions Nos. 12 and 13 will be grouped together for the
purpose of the debate and the division on Motion No. 12 will
apply to Motion No. 13.
(1935)
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak for the last
time at this stage, following the impassioned speech by the
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, whom I
would like to congratulate on his candour. We no longer hear
from Liberals who are proud to be Canadian and proud to tell
Quebecers what it means to be Canadian at this time and what
Canada will become.
We have seen the passion of the member for
Broadview-Greenwood in defending the Trudeau vision of
post-referendum Canada. I almost feel like congratulating him,
because it helps us understand the scope of the present debate,
the role foreseen for the Federal Business Development Bank,
the Business Development Bank of Canada, in this
post-referendum Canada.
In particular, the Bank will be able to meddle, and this is the
aim of clause 20, in regional development throughout Canada,
and particularly in Quebec. The legislation provides that the
new Bank will be able to do business with so-called
``provincial'' agencies, despite the fact that, in Quebec,
however, there is a law that provides that provincial government
agencies must deal with the Government of Quebec, which then
does business with the federal government and subsequently
authorizes its agencies to act as it sees fit.
Ignoring the presence and the existence of the Government of
Quebec, the bill provides that the federal government will now
deal with provincial agencies. This raises the whole leadership
problem. Who is primarily responsible for regional
development in Quebec? In our opinion, it is the Government of
Quebec. The federal government could perhaps support it, but it
does not have to try to duplicate it, as it is currently doing.
Quebec has established so many agencies. With the SDI, the
regional development councils, the solidarity funds, the deposit
fund for major matters, and so on, Quebec's regional
development organization is well structured.
We refuse to permit waste of public funds and competition
between officials, as we have too often seen in the past, or
between two groups of officials, which compete with each other,
instead of helping each other, and will be encouraged to compete
more. We all know that the new Bank of Canada will back the
Federal Business Development Bank, which has become merely
an empty shell since its mandate changed.
And it is about to start adding its energies to those that the
departments of Industry and of International Trade devote to
exporters, mostly high tech companies. They are going to supply
them, like an agent of federal interventionism, through the
Federal Business Development Bank in total disregard for the
regional development infrastructure already in place in Quebec.
I feel that this describes the mentality prevailing in this
government. They use clause 21 to spread it, which I will read to
you:
21. The Bank may carry out duties or functions that may be assigned to it by
the Designated Minister in relation to the administration of any program
supporting Canadian entrepreneurship, to the extent that it is able to recover the
costs of carrying out the duties or functions.
Therefore, having changed the mandate, they are not only
mobilizing to try to develop entrepreneurship in Canada by any
means they feel are good means, but they also want to develop
programs. We asked this question in committee. What
programs? What does business administration mean?
That is a very vague catch-all term which the federal
government could use to give itself any mandate or to assume
any responsibility without consulting with either the provincial
government in Quebec, for the time that we will remain a
provincial government, or the other provincial governments.
This demonstrates the mentality behind this bill and how
urgent it truly is for Quebecers to realize how serious the
situation is and to realize that, in the Langevin Block, people are
drawing up the Canada of tomorrow which will be centralized
and unified like Pierre Elliott Trudeau always wanted it to be.
(1940)
Except that the process does not allow for debate or consultation
and all of the other provinces are being tricked, along with Quebec,
in an anti-Quebec referendum strategy. They are pulling a fast one
14364
on the other provinces. I personally find it dishonest to make
lofty speeches on the Canada of the future instead of really
debating this bill. Alas, this is a small-time short-sighted
Canada, run as if it were a chip truck.
That is what we are in for. I can feel it, the measures are
already in place. And if Quebec makes the catastrophic decision
to vote no, this is what Canada and Quebec will have to endure.
They will have to live in this Canada or Quebec, which, as it is,
is not recognized as a province that is different from the others;
they will have to yield to the bulldozer that they are setting in
motion in order to build the Canada of the future, and I hope that
this kind of measure will make Quebecers think twice.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to the last grouping of
amendments on Bill C-91, Motions Nos. 12 and 13.
I am very much impressed by the comments of the member for
Broadview-Greenwood about his dedication to small business
and the government's dedication to helping small business. I
hope the sincerity and dedication extend beyond access to
funding.
There are many other important areas that are really big
factors to small businesses. Certainly they are looking for relief
from the tax burden they are under and their customers are
under. It is number one on their list, as well as the government
bureaucracy that is on their backs. These are two areas we have
to address to encourage not only new businesses but small
businesses to expand and grow as we know we need them to do.
The Reform Party will be opposing both Motions Nos. 12 and
13 because they remove some restrictions from the bill that we
feel are important and should remain in there.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this is the last grouping.
The government will not be supporting these Bloc amendments.
I listened carefully to the member for Trois-Rivières. I was
surprised he would suggest that the business development bank
would be perceived as an anti-Quebec initiative.
The member referred to the Langevin Block. He indicated that
the bill was some scheme for the pre-referendum exercise.
Being a former assistant to Prime Minister Pierre Elliott
Trudeau and having worked in the Langevin Block, I say that he
is giving them too much credit. The bill was really the work of
all members of the industry committee.
The member for Trois-Rivières does not believe in
Government of Canada presence in the province of Quebec. That
is fair ball; he is entitled to that opinion. That is the hon.
member's ideology. However, the member knows that all the
other members on the committee are not anti-Quebec. The
member cannot stand in the House and say I am anti-Quebec.
(1945)
I cannot imagine that a Quebecer listening tonight to the critic
for the Reform Party or to the hon. member for Simcoe Centre
would say this debate was anti-Quebec.
This debate is about assisting and supporting small business
men and women who represent the greatest hope for putting
Canadians back to work. That is what this bill is about.
Mr. Ramsay: Will the bill work?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): An hon. member
opposite asked if the bill will work. I do not know the answer to
that question. Are we to stay with the status quo?
This work was the result of members of the Reform Party,
members of the Bloc and our members listening to dozens of
small business men and women. We listened to bankers. This
was not the government's idea. This was not an idea conjured up
in the Langevin Block. This was a bill designed by all parties for
the small business men and women of Canada.
With the deepest respect to my friend whom I have enjoyed
working with from the Bloc Quebecois, please reflect between
now and the vote tonight. I ask him to reconsider his position
and get behind the government bill in the interests of putting the
unemployed people of Quebec back to work. That kind of spirit
will have a ripple effect throughout Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Group No. 3, Motions No. 12.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
An hon. member: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare Motion No. 12
negatived. Therefore I declare Motion No. 13 negatived.
(Motion No. 12 negatived.)
14365
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at report stage of the bill now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the
House stands deferred until 11.30 p.m., at which time the bells
to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
* * *
(1950 )
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-82, an act
to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I have a ruling by the
Speaker on Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint
Act.
[Translation]
There is, on the Order Paper, a motion to amend Bill C-82, an
Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, at the report stage.
[English]
The motion is substantially similar to an amendment
previously moved and defeated in committee. Accordingly,
pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5), it has not been selected and
we will now proceed to the concurrence motion at report stage.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred
in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): When shall the bill be
read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gerrard (for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.) moved that the bill be read the
third time and passed.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-82, a bill which will
enable the Government of Canada to replace the $2 note with a
$2 coin.
The bill was recently studied by the Standing Committee on
Government Operations. I am pleased to say all witnesses
appearing before the committee supported the introduction of a
$2 coin as a cost saving measure. This confirms the results of
earlier surveys conducted by the Royal Canadian Mint whereby
Canadians strongly approved of the new coin given the
substantial savings that accrue to the government.
Clearly Canadians appreciate any step their government takes
to reduce the deficit and save money.
[Translation]
Representatives from the vending machine industry
confirmed their support for the proposed coin, even though they
expressed some concern regarding the date of introduction of
this coin. They fear that they will not have time to adjust the
mechanisms of all their machines by the introduction date.
I can assure hon. members that we are sensitive to these
concerns. In response to these concerns the Royal Canadian
Mint, the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada will
co-operate with the individuals and groups involved, and
especially with the vending machine industry, to ensure a
smooth introduction of the new coin on the market, in order to
minimize sale and business disruptions.
There will be a public awareness campaign to promote
acceptance and use of the $2 coin by the Canadian public.
[English]
The government intends to introduce the new $2 coin in early
1996, as announced by the Minister of Finance in his budget
speech in February 1995. We cannot afford to delay this budget
item because we all stand to gain from the introduction of this
new coin.
By replacing the $2 note with the coin, Canadians will save
approximately $254 million over 20 years from the reduced
production and distribution costs of the $2 coin as compared to
the note.
The average life span of a note is one year while the average
life span of a coin is twenty years. The cost to produce the note is
6 cents per unit compared to the estimated cost to produce the
coin at 16 cents per unit. This combined with the savings the
government will generate by changing the metal composition of
the lower denominations will result in total savings of $500
million over 20 years.
(1955)
Some have suggested that half a billion in savings is small
change. We disagree. In our fight to eliminate the deficit we
believe every dollar saved is a dollar earned. No saving is too
small or insignificant.
14366
As the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
explained to the committee members, we need five pennies to
make a nickel, five nickels to make a quarter, and four quarters
to make a dollar; every penny counts.
The government takes deficit reduction very seriously. Any
member of the House elected on a platform to reduce or
eliminate the deficit must support this initiative. As we all
know, the deficit cannot be eliminated through program cuts
alone. Innovative ways must be found to cut government
expenditures. The introduction of the $2 coin to replace the $2
note is an innovative cost saving measure.
[Translation]
Some people wonder why we did not simply do away with the
$2 bill. They say we would have saved even more money, but we
disagree.
Canadians use $2 notes in a large number of transactions
every day. Because they are so heavily used, these notes tend to
be in poor condition. The coin is a practical and far more durable
alternative to the note. It allows the government to save more
money than it would by simply eliminating the note.
If we eliminated the $2 denomination, we would not reduce
the number of coins in the purses of Canadians, on the contrary.
Studies have shown that the combination of $1, $2, $5 and $10
values is the most effective in reducing the number of coins and
notes required. Without the $2 note, more loonies would be
needed and Canadians would carry even more change in their
pockets. Two loonies weigh 14 grammes, compared to 7.3
grammes for the proposed $2 coin. If we eliminated the $2
denomination, we would have to mint more $1 coins and that
would cost an extra $23 million over a period of 20 years.
[English]
Some others might wonder why the government is proposing
to introduce a $2 coin at a time when more and more people are
using credit and debit cards. A $2 coin might seem a step
backward to a time before paper money instead of a step forward
toward more plastic. Cash cards will not mean the end of cash in
society.
For the foreseeable future cash will be a necessary
requirement. Like credit cards and debit cards, cash cards will
find their own market niche for people who prefer to manage
their cash in this way. However, there will always be a need for
cash. This was also confirmed during the hearings of the
government operations committee.
The presentation by the Canadian Federation of Independent
Grocers revealed that debit cards are not being used as often as
anticipated. The extent to which cash cards may replace coinage
is at this time only a matter of conjecture. However, even if cash
cards replace a significant percentage of transactions most of
these will be of higher value and not coinage.
Coins will continue to play a role in commercial transactions.
Already coins are used to acquire numerous services such a mass
transit, telephone calls, washing machines at the laundromat,
video and pool games, parking meters, even showers at
campgrounds. The vending machine industry is presenting us
with a greater variety of products and choices. These changes
reflect the nature of the vending machine industry and of our
economy in general.
(2000 )
The only constant is change and in the modern world, the
process of change is rapid, wide reaching and never ending.
Businesses must constantly adapt to new technologies and new
practices.
As an aside, I want to point out to my colleagues in the House
that representatives of the vending industry, including the
president of Coca-Cola, clearly stated the costs of converting
vending equipment would not be passed on to consumers.
Some people have suggested that we should compensate the
vending machine industry for the expense of altering their
machines. In an era of fiscal restraint, we simply cannot afford
it. We must use our limited resources very strategically in ways
that result in the greatest possible benefit for the greatest
possible number of Canadians.
[Translation]
As I said earlier, the Royal Canadian Mint, the Department of
Finance and the Bank of Canada will co-operate with the
industry to ensure a smooth transition. Studies conducted by the
Royal Canadian Mint have shown that 79 per cent of Canadians
approved of this initiative when told that it would save the
government millions of dollars.
Moreover, the disappearance of the $2 note does not seem to
worry Canadians too much. Forty-five per cent said they were
not very concerned, while only 19 per cent felt some nostalgia
but no real concern. In concluding, we believe that to be
practical a currency system must adapt to change. We must stay
in the lead and be an example to others.
This bill reflects the will of the Canadian government to
accept change in areas where others avoided it. Change is never
easy. We believe that it is by making choices that we show
leadership. Sometimes, making choices means letting go of
some traditions to turn with confidence towards innovation and
renewal.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today on the subject of Bill C-82. Unlike
Bill C-91 and other bills introduced by the government, which
are opposed in Quebec, this bill is not. It does, however, prove
conclusively that the government has blocked its ears and that it
is ready to do anything when the time comes to have its bills
adopted.
14367
We have heard a speech by the minister's parliamentary
secretary that was full of errors and had little to do with reality.
For example, it is not right to say that the business people most
affected by the issue of a $2 coin were in favour of it. It is not
true. They were not in favour of it. Not a single representation
was made by businessmen in favour of a $2 coin being issued.
A representative of the Coca-Cola company told us they were
indifferent, that is, they were prepared to make the adjustment
and they, like all the other business people, asked that the
government at least delay the issue of the $2 coin for a year
so that the industries most affected could adjust.
This is the least we can do for the business people, industries,
vending machines and companies most affected by the issue.
The government plugged its ears. Companies are not even being
given a year to get ready for the new coin.
(2005)
Why is the government in such a hurry?
An hon. member: It is a matter of money.
Mr. Marchand: Yes, it is definitely a matter of money. It is
incredible how little time the government took to consult
people.
The member for Cochrane-Superior said earlier, or seemed
to imply, that, in fact, people had been consulted and were in
favour. A look, however, at the government's so-called survey
reveals the extent to which it was manipulated. It is not a real
survey. Some people were asked if they were in favour of a $2
coin being issued if it meant a saving of $300 million.
Half the respondents were opposed, really opposed. One
cannot be opposed in principle to the government saving money,
but in its survey, the government did not even discuss more
economical alternatives, like maintaining the status quo or
eliminating the $2 bill. The people were not consulted. In fact,
the public in general does not even know, in principle, that the
government is planning to put out a $2 coin. This measure is
slipped through, as though they wanted to impose it. Well, that is
what they want to do.
Mr. Bélair: It was announced in the budget.
Mr. Marchand: The hon. member for Cochrane-Superior is
telling me it was announced in the budget. Spoken like a true
Liberal. Whatever the minister or the Prime Minister says, we
will vote yea.
Regardless of the fact that the business community is asking
for the decision to be deferred and is against the idea, the Liberal
members are all for it. Furthermore, this is the conclusion
reached about Liberals in an article in the Ottawa Sun written by
Douglas Fisher. When it comes to proposing bills, it is ``Forget
constituents, forget personal belief-'' and, I would add, forget
public opinion, forget all the people who might have something
to say about the bills. ``Being a Liberal MP begins with always
saying yea at the leader's command''.
They blindly follow the leader, unable it seems to express
their own opinions. For all I know, maybe they are not capable of
expressing their own opinions, they lack intelligence. Bill C-82
certainly does not show any signs of intelligence, just the
government's indifference.
It shows that this government is not listening. It could not care
less. The bill smacks of arrogance, of disregard for public
opinion. The government could have consulted the public, it
could have informed people that it was planning a $2 coin and
really tried to find out if they were in agreement or not, but this
was not done. The public has not been prepared for this soon to
be introduced change.
Having done nothing to pave the way and shown little interest
in public opinion, the government is going ahead. As I said, even
the best informed people, those most affected by the
introduction of a $2 coin, who know that it is coming, are
concerned about the speed with which it is being introduced.
Why the haste? Why not give the business community time to
adjust?
The member for Cochrane-Superior tells us that the
government will co-operate with business people in introducing
the coin. This government is making empty promises.
Furthermore, we were already promised consultation on this
matter.
(2010)
When members of the business community presented their
report to the public works committee, they said that the
government had promised them that after the reception given the
loonie, there would be consultation when it came time to discuss
the introduction of a $2 coin. There was no such consultation. If
the government were truly interested in the opinion of business
people or in public opinion, it would take the time to talk to
them, to provide them with adequate information and to ensure
that they understood the importance of issuing this coin. And if
there was opposition, the government could at least have
suggested alternatives, which it has not done.
It is presenting the $2 coin and saying that it will lead to huge
savings. This suggestion is a joke, because any way you look at
it, it would not create any savings. And there are costs involved.
Admittedly, the government will save approximately $250
million, like the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior said
earlier, but it will probably cost the business sector twice that
amount to make the adjustments necessitated by this $2 coin. It
is almost as if they are claiming that the introduction of the $2
coin will have no effect, no impact, that it will not bother anyone
and that co-ops and IGAs will not have to change their cash
trays and that vending machines will not have to be adjusted to
make allowances for the $2 coin. All coin-operated devices will
have to be updated.
14368
Elementary math shows that the introduction of the $2 coin
could cost business up to $400 million within the first year.
Mr. Bélair: Eighty million.
Mr. Marchand: Four hundred million. The hon. member for
Cochrane-Superior said $80 million. That figure is only for
one industry. There are 200,000 vending machines in Canada
and it costs between $300 and $800 to adapt them to accept a
new coin. For this industry alone, the total cost will be between
$60 million and $160 million.
The hon. member just told me that it will cost the vending
machine industry $80 million, but that is not important because
the government will be saving $200 million. But the cost will be
between $60 million and $160 million for the vending machine
industry alone in Canada.
Some hon. members: No. No.
Mr. Marchand: Yes it will. There are 200,000 of them in
Canada. Who is going to foot the bill? The A.F.I. Automatic
Vending Company, perhaps, which objected to the bill when it
appeared before the Standing Committee on Government
Operations?
The hon. member for Cochrane-Superior said earlier that all
businesspeople supported this move. In a letter to the members
of the committee, a representative of the vending machine
industry said: ``The government's cost savings is my expense''.
He is not in agreement. If you read the letter, you notice that the
representative of the industry is opposed to the introduction of a
$2 coin. Once again, he suggests that he will not only incur
expenses, but also that he is aware that the bottom line is that
consumers will end up paying the $60 million to $160 million
that the vending machine industry will have to shell out.
Ultimately, consumers will end up paying.
(2015)
Consumers will have to pay. This is only the beginning.
Imagine, every cash register in every store across the country
will eventually have to be replaced to accommodate a $2 coin.
The hon. member for Cochrane-Superior and our colleague
from Manitoba do not realize that. They do not see that. This is
the down to earth stuff, but they are up there in the clouds, they
hear no evil and see no evil but they listen to their minister
because he said: You are going to vote for this bill, come hell or
high water.
How many cash registers? In Canada, probably half a million.
All stores have cash registers, every cornerstore and every IGA.
They will all have to change eventually. First they will have to
adjust to the changeover but eventually they will have to replace
them.
The representative for this association, and this for the benefit
of the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior, appeared before
our committee to say no, we do not want the $2 coin because it
will cost us a lot of money. I will have to buy another cash
register which costs between $100 and $150. They do not come
cheap.
An hon. member: You do not have to take them.
Mr. Marchand: No, of course not. People in northern Ontario
will put their $2 coins in their piggybank or in another box, I
imagine. That is one way. We have responsible people who are
listening, people who know about these things, who are
professionals and who know that cornerstores and shops will
have to spend $100 and $150 to buy another cash register. This is
another $75 million people will have to spend. And who is going
to pay? The consumer, Mr. Speaker. You and me and the people
watching us on television. They are going to have to pay. This is
only the tip of the iceberg. Eventually, we will also have to
change the parking meters, as the hon. member pointed out
earlier, and all types of vending machines.
There are administration costs and conversion costs. Costs the
government did not take the trouble to calculate, because it
could not care less.
As for the cost of handling coins as opposed to bills, for
example, the representative for Canada's grocers explained that
to us. I think the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior was
there, and if he was, he was not listening, because the hon.
member for Ottawa Centre and the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester were there, and they will be able to
confirm this: introducing the new coin will cost more and it will
be heavier to carry. We will have to pay someone to count the
coins. There are additional costs. In his own store, he figured
that introducing the new $2 coin would cost him between
$10,000 and $15,000 in administration and conversion costs.
And if we multiply this by 500,000 stores, it starts to add up, and
quite a bit. Millions of dollars consumers will have to pay.
When the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior tells me the
government will save $250 million by introducing the $2 coin, I
think he is pretty gullible.
(2020)
Because, in the end, who is going to pay for it? Consumers
will pay two or three times more. It is too bad, because the
saving we are talking about is the one the Royal Canadian Mint
could theoretically make. This is the only saving we are talking
about. There is no mention of all the costs that will be generated
by the issue of this coin. Even here, when we look at the savings
mentioned by the member for Cochrane-Superior of $250
million over 20 years-not $250 million next year-they
amount to $12 million a year over 20 years. We realize that the
issue of the $2 coin will cost industry and the Royal Canadian
Mint dearly, because, for the Mint, it will mean producing these
coins, which cost a lot more to produce than a bank note.
14369
A $2 bill costs six cents to produce. A $2 coin costs 16 cents.
In the first few years, it will cost the government and the Mint
a lot. The government will have to borrow money to produce
the coin. The $250 million will not be saved in the first year.
The savings will be made over the long term. The turning point
will come after five, six or seven years. Over time, the value
of money changes. You know just as well as I do that saving
a million dollars today is not the same as saving a million
dollars twenty years from now, because the million in 20 years
will not be worth the same as this year's million. That is a fact.
So, when the government and the member for
Cochrane-Superior tell me we will be saving $254 million over
20 years, when 20 years have passed we will realize we have not
saved a cent. We will, however, have forced industry, business,
companies, corner stores, the IGA and everyone affected by the
issue of the $2 coin to spend money immediately, next year, after
the coin is issued. They will have to pay right away. Consumers
are going to have to pay up front for this change.
The most absurd thing about this bill is that, as the member
indicated in his presentation, the time is near when the money of
the future, electronic money, will be introduced. He seemed to
want to say that it did not matter. After all, we will continue to
have coins, hard cash.
But if the government had taken the trouble to read up on the
magnitude of the current currency revolution, it would realize
that indeed times are changing. Many changes are already under
way. The government does not really have to impose more costly
changes that will ultimately be for nothing when, in five years
perhaps, coins will be replaced with chip cards. A few days ago,
on June 19, 1995, La Presse was reporting what a smart wallet
the chip card was.
(2025)
It was introduced in Canada on May 12 by the Royal Bank and
a few other institutions under the name MONDEX. Let me read
you part of the article: ``A plastic card containing a microchip,
the MONDEX wallet can be refilled at automatic teller
machines and through certain telephones. The MONDEX
package also includes an electronic safe about the size of an
electronic memo pad. This safe can interface with a bank
account through telephone circuits. It allows the chip card to be
refilled without having to use communications channels. It will
be widely available this summer''.
This is taking place in Canada. The article goes on to describe
how the introduction of electronic money will revolutionize the
way we pay for what we buy. It is already in use in Europe. In
France, money is no longer used to pay for telephone calls; they
have been using cards for over ten years. In my riding, I can even
pay for my newspaper with my card. The technology exists, here
in Canada as well. But, apparently, government members do not
read papers or magazines.
MONDEX. There a lengthy article on the subject in the June
12 issue of Business Week. That is quite recent. It is the feature
article of this issue entitled ``The Future''. They refer to
MONDEX as ``a new kind of electronic money known as E
money'', adding that: ``Digital money is the ultimate and
inevitable medium of exchange for an increasingly wired
world''.
Earlier, I got the impression from the hon. member for
Cochrane-Superior that he could see into the future and predict
that coins will always be used, that there will always be a need
for our $2 coins. It seems that others have a different opinion. It
is possible that we will use less real money, that we will replace
it with ``E money'', electronic money, and that may be
happening very soon.
According to the experts who wrote the article, it could
happen within the next five years. The ``E money'' revolution
could take place that soon. This does not surprise me. In our
rapidly changing world, the idea of using an electronic card to
replace money does not surprise me. In fact, I would not be
surprised if we more or less stopped using money, and if most
people were to start using cards.
Ten or fifteen years ago, who would have thought that the use
of credit cards would become so widespread? If people had been
told then that, five or ten years later, they would use credit cards
to pay in any hotel or store, they would not have believed that.
Sometimes, we have to open our eyes and ears to see and to
understand. The government has obviously not done that in this
case. We are about to enter an era which will see the introduction
of a new form of money. According to experts, electronic money
is definitely the way of the future, and it is also what
businesspeople, merchants, bankers, corner store owners and
grocery owners want.
Even if it may cost them more, they are prepared to invest in
this new system, because it reduces their handling costs and
their losses, it eliminates fraud and NSF cheques, it simplifies
the system, and it is also a step in the right direction.
(2030)
Business people are ready to invest in such a system, but not
one of them supports the issuance of a $2 coin. As the hon.
member for Cochrane-Superior knows, all the witnesses and
all the business people who appeared before the committee were
against this measure.
However, since the government will go ahead with it anyway,
these business people have asked for at least a year to find new
cash registers. It takes some time to change 500,000 cash
registers as well as all the vending machines.
14370
This bill provides for the issuance of a $2 coin by January
1996, which is just a few months away. The bill has not been
passed yet, but the Royal Canadian Mint has already called for
bids to produce the $2 metal coin.
The hon. member for Cochrane-Superior may deny it, but on
May 31, 1995, the Ottawa Citizen ran as a headline
``Government calls standards for two dollar coin''. It is written
in black and white. Another headline read ``Industry seeks help
with coin flip''. All the same, the government has already
received several bids. We called and were told that the bids must
be in by October 31, 1995.
If we need to take another five minutes to try to hammer some
sense into these people, we will do it. We will at least take the
time to explain these things that the government members
unfortunately still do not understand.
Again, the government has called for bids to produce the $2
coin. It wants to start production on October 1, 1995, in a few
months, and start distribution on January 1, 1996. This is fast,
very fast.
All those affected by this measure say that things should not
go so fast, that they do not totally agree with the introduction of
the new $2 coin, that they want a year to adjust. But the
government is not listening and still wants to go ahead with this
initiative.
What is troubling me is that there are no solid arguments
justifying the introduction of a $2 coin. The savings that will
result from the introduction of this new coin are not a sure thing.
We cannot say that savings will be achieved when we know that
adjusting to the new coin will cost our industries money and
that, ultimately, these costs will be passed on to the consumers.
Is this a good time to introduce a $2 coin? The government has
not taken the time to consider the alternatives. Domtar, which
produces our present $2 bill, has proposed to make it more
durable. Right now, the life span of the bill is said to be only a
year. Domtar has offered to produce a bill that could last up to
three years, which would represent considerable savings. The
government has not considered this alternative.
There are also other alternatives that it has not considered,
such as maintaining the status quo or even eliminating the $2
bill. If the government really wanted to save money, eliminating
the $2 bill would be a good way of doing it. It would not cost
anything.
(2035)
The government could really save money. Industries, tuck
shops, municipalities would not have to adapt to a $2 coin. This
is an alternative. I am not saying that it is the solution, but why
rush? Why not wait a certain time, one or two years, and see how
the electronic card is being integrated into people's lives? The
elimination of the $2 denomination could be considered. It
could always be put back in circulation later on if needed, but
why now and why so fast?
The government is incredibly irresponsible because, really,
nothing truly justifies a new $2 coin. If this government were
really serious about saving money, I could suggest to the public
works minister several ways to achieve real savings. He could
have saved $300 million right off the bat this year by eliminating
ACOA. This is $300 million he gives to industries. He could
have supported, for instance, bills to give people in his own
department the right to speak up and disclose abuses, which are
numerous.
The member for Cochrane-Superior is well aware of this.
The government has no control over contracting out. The
government is wasting billions of dollars. But the minister will
not support such bills, and yet they would be real money savers.
This Minister of Public Works has also made the news with some
ill considered projects, and occasionally some almost shady
deals.
He had a wall, the famous Dingwall that cost several hundreds
of thousands of dollars, built on a campus in his riding in Cape
Breton. That was part of a $600,000 envelope squandered. I
could give examples of the considerable sums of money wasted
by the Minister of Public Works.
Examples of questionable spending involving the Minister of
Public Works are legion and involve millions of dollars. The
member for Cochrane-Superior has just said that this is a
minister interested in savings. I have my doubts. This cannot be
the main reason for presenting this bill with such haste, when the
people actually affected by the introduction of a $2 coin want at
least a year to prepare for the transition.
I would not give you $2 for this bill. In conclusion, I would
say that the MP's role is often an empty one. Here we all are
debating, giving speeches and arguing as reasonably as possible,
but we know that the power rests with the people across the way
and power often has a dulling effect. It also corrupts.
(2040)
Absolute power corrupts absolutely; power just corrupts. We
have examples of this. If we had the time and if it was worth the
trouble to list the instances of corruption, we would do it, but I
would rather conclude my comments on Bill C-82 by saying that
the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the government saving
money. But we are in favour of real savings. We have suggested
all kinds of ways for the government to really save money, from
taxing family trusts to taxing banks. We have also made many
suggestions to the Minister of Public Works regarding how he
could reduce wastage of all kinds. We from the Bloc want
savings. On this point, we agree. But, there is no proof that Bill
C-82 will really create savings. On the contrary, it will be costly
to business and consumers. People are not prepared.
14371
There already are some 40 to 50 million $1 coins which are
out of circulation. We could easily encourage the circulation
of loonies which are not being used. We would have preferred
that the government consider at least delaying this bill and
doing its job, which is to consult with the public and to think
of alternatives, such as eliminating the $2 denomination. I am
not saying that this is the best option, but they could at least
consider it, because there are apparently more savings to be had
by dropping this denomination then by issuing a new $2 coin.
They could even decide to keep up the status quo.
There are at least a few alternatives worth examining, which
the government did not take the time to do. Once again, the
government is not doing its job, it did not take the time to
consult the public, it did not listen to the concerns and worries of
the business community, it does not really have any solid
arguments for introducing Bill C-82 and certainly has no solid
arguments for doing it so quickly.
That is why the Bloc opposes Bill C-82.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, sometimes we
hurry through our days without pausing to give thanks to people.
While I listened to that amazing speech just past, it occurred to
me again that because much to my regret I am unilingual English
I would not have understood a word of it if it were not for the
interpreters. I think they did a fine job in translating not only the
words of the hon. member but also the emotion with which he
spoke. I would like to thank and congratulate the interpreters.
We are here today to discuss Bill C-82, which would permit
the government to introduce the $2 coin. When we come to the
question of the $2 coin, of course when we hear of the savings
that will be made it looks at first glance like an excellent idea
and one we should wholeheartedly support. However, in the
Reform Party we are accustomed to asking questions about these
initiatives of the government. We always begin by asking what it
will cost and what the net effect will be to the taxpayer.
(2045)
We were sent here, all 52 of us, primarily on the platform of
fiscal responsibility and the desire to balance the budget. We
need to get into perspective how totally inadequate the
initiatives and priorities of this government are. Here we are in
the closing days of this session and this government is invoking
closure and extended hours in order to put through all of this
really important legislation before we are all sent home to our
constituencies to do our work there.
Among all the things the Liberals have deemed to be a high
priority, we have this $2 coin. Of course anyone hearing the
member from the government speak earlier would have said this
is indeed important; we are going to save $254 million. We
could make it sound like even more by saying a quarter of a
billion dollars. Instead of saying we are going to save that over
20 years, we could say we are going to save a billion dollars in
80 years. That would make it sound much more significant.
The fact of the matter is that this government speaks of this as
such a huge priority, which will keep us here late at night
debating and voting on these issues, as if this is going to save the
country. Frankly, I wish it could. I really do. I would then be so
strongly in favour of this motion that I would just say let us go
for it, let us get it done, let us not wait until tomorrow, let us pass
it and get it under way.
However, we need to ask what the real effect is. We need to be
aware of the fact that in proportion to the total indebtedness of
this government, this is really, although I hesitate to say it, a
drop in the bucket. I suppose we could say it is a drop in the
ocean. Unfortunately, we are taking as a priority this one little
drop and allowing the big one to slip away from us. While we are
worried about the cup of water that spilled off the cupboard, as
the people in southern Alberta would know firsthand from their
experiences, the basement is full of water from the flood. This is
what the relationship is in our debt's picture.
It is very important for all members and all Canadian citizens
to be aware that this saving of some $254 million over 20 years
comes down to about $12.7 million per year. If we also consider
that every day we are increasing our indebtedness by about $110
million, then we become aware that the saving of $254 million
over 20 years is just a little over the amount by which we are
increasing our indebtedness in two days. That is a shame. I hope
this is not unparliamentary, but I think this is a crime.
I am not accusing the government of committing a crime, but
it is derelict in its duties. It is not focusing on the picture of
having to balance the budget and get government spending down
in a real way.
As a matter of fact, as the House will hear in the next few
minutes, this savings the government is getting is really a form
of a hidden tax, as I will show in the next few minutes. The
savings that are derived are so derived by increasing the costs to
taxpayers, and thereby the real saving to the government is
simply a form of taxation on the already overburdened taxpayer.
(2050 )
The question we need to ask and have answered is, as I have
already indicated, why this should be such a high priority. Even
though it is a significant amount of money to any individual, in
balance with total government spending it is not significant
enough. We ought not to be chasing this rabbit when we should
be out hunting bear.
14372
There is a big challenge out there, and we are being detracted
by something glistening on the side of the road. We are being
detracted while our country is going into the ditch.
I would like to ask a few questions and talk a little about the
answers the government has given to some of the questions. It is
important for us to become aware of what is happening here.
The first question: What is the total plan of the government in
terms of currency? We are told that for the present, at least for
the next five years, this is probably the only change it is going to
make, with four coins being changed at the same time. Again we
need to be aware that the change in metal content to the nickel,
the dime, the quarter, and the 50-cent piece has nothing to do
with the bill. It is just being done at the same time.
If we are going to add a $2 coin, it is wise to do it at the same
time so all the coin recognition systems in coin operated
machines will not have to be changed twice. It can be done all at
once. We must commend the government for deciding that if we
are going to make a change, let us do it all at the same time.
However, we should ask whether we should be doing it at all. Is
it really a saving to the taxpayer? My contention is that it is not.
Here is my reasoning.
If one divides the total savings projected by the government,
the $12.7 million per year over 20 years, one does not have to be
a math whiz to compute this. There are approximately 29
million Canadians. Using round numbers, quite clearly we are
going to be saving less than half a dollar for each one of the 29
million Canadians. As a matter of fact, it is very close to 44
cents.
If we can save $12.7 million per year, should we not be doing
that? My answer would be yes, if it were a true saving. However
it is a fairly safe assumption that every Canadian would use a
coin operated machine a minimum of five times a year. If that is
true and if the cost of retooling machines in order to recognize
the new coins is included in the new cost to the vendors, say at a
nominal rate of 10 cents per purchase-a 90-cent chocolate bar
going up to $1, which would be typical and we can probably
expect that-then for every person who uses a machine more
than five times per year, which is a safe assumption, it is going
to end up costing more. They will pay less in taxes but more in
services. Right off the bat the equation is counterbalanced. The
saving disappears when we look at it from the point of view of
the taxpayer.
In addition, there is the scenario that there is going to be an
accrued value here because with the old $2 bill the banks were
permitted to return the surplus currency for a credit. I remember
reading somewhere that the total value of being able to return
the currency to the Bank of Canada, even at 5 per cent interest,
worked out to a benefit of approximately $80 million per year.
(2055 )
There is a saving there to the government because under the
rules of the banks coinage is not eligible to be returned to the
bank when it is in surplus. The banks have to hold it.
Consequently, there is an $80 million cost there that will go to
the banks.
I suppose we should not perhaps worry about that too much,
because the banks would then have an opportunity in some
tangible way to contribute to our government's coffers. It would
be an indirect tax, which would require no bookkeeping or
anything. It is just an expense, for which they could no longer
get reimbursement.
However, the banks, like other businesses, are there to make a
profit and retain their earnings. Undoubtedly they will recover
that cost as one of their additional costs in other ways, which
again will come out of the pocket of the consumer. There is a
saving to the government, which will be taken out of the
consumer's pocket in another form.
Then we heard about the issue of seigniorage. This of course
is very important. The difference between the value of the coin
and the cost of its production is really quite significant. These
new $2 coins are projected to cost around 16 cents each to
produce, but of course their face value is $2. Therefore the
difference, $1.84, is seigniorage. For every coin that is produced
there is $1.84 benefit to the government. Here again the
government's briefing notes to us included the fact that this is a
large benefit to the government and they are expecting around
$400 million of seigniorage.
Let us ask ourselves the question. If we can do that by
producing some 244 million coins and we can give a benefit to
the government of almost half a billion dollars, the temptation
arises to ask why we do not produce about 10 times as many of
these coins. If we did that we could pay off $5 billion worth of
the government's debt. Maybe we should do a hundred times as
many coins and pay it all off. Then we would not have to pay any
interest.
The fact is that the seigniorage is another form of tax. The
government issues a coin to a bank that pays $2 for it to the
government. That is true. That is currency, which is really a
representative value of each citizen's proportional share of the
assets of this country. That is really what it is, because the coin
in itself does not have the value. It is not a gold coin that is worth
$2 in metal. It has a couple of components in it. It is nickel and
things like that. The total value of the coin is 16 cents. So the
coin has no inherent value. Hence, in a way very similar to our
printed currency, it is a promissory note. It is a coin of value
against the assets of the country.
14373
If you increase the number of coins, then really you simply
divide the value of the country among all the citizens. You
would say that is done with the $2 bill right now. That is
absolutely correct. If we take the $2 bills out of circulation and
put the $2 coins into circulation, then there is no difference.
The fact that we claim seigniorage on it is a magical rabbit
trick, which tries to tell people that we now have more value
to the Canadian government when we do not.
I would like to talk a little about the changes that should be
made to this bill.
(2100 )
As was indicated at the time we started to debate the bill
today, we tried to introduce an amendment because we were
concerned, as were all members of the committee. I hasten to
remind members of the committee that we shared a concern
regarding the implementation of the new currency. Even though
it is outside the concern of this bill and outside the study of the
committee, we were concerned about the implementation and
the introduction of all the new coins: the new dime, nickel,
quarter and 50-cent piece. Very few coin machines recognize
the 50-cent piece. Most of them recognize nickels, dimes,
quarters and loonies.
When the new coins are introduced every one of them will
require a coin recognition system for the three new coins. Two
nickels, two dimes and two quarters will have to be recognized
by the machine because they have different weight properties.
Just that change would require an alteration to the mechanism
that recognizes coins for all coin operated machines.
In addition, the machines have to recognize the new
two-dollar coin as well as the old loonie. Whereas the old ones
had to recognize only four coins, the new mechanism will now
have to recognize eight different coins.
It is important to recognize that this change is a very costly
one. There are some devices out there right now which, with a
minimum of adjustment, will be able to accommodate the new
machines. We have heard in committee testimony some
estimates as low as $70 per machine. However there are many
machines with mechanisms that will be obsolete. Individual
owners of the machines will either be forced to replace them
entirely or simply take the machines out of business. In some
instances perhaps the individual will simply stop the business of
coin operated machines.
We have no idea how many machines are out there. We are
talking about food vending machines, pop machines, cigarette
vending machines and lottery machines. By listing the machines
I am not indicating in any way my approval of them but they are
out there. We also have telephones and parking meters.
I know there was some giggling on the other side when the
member from the Bloc was listing these items. That represented
a lack of concern for all businesses, and there are many of them,
that make their livelihood in this way.
I received a letter from a person in an adjoining riding to
mine. I assume he felt he would perhaps get a little better
hearing from me than from his Liberal MP. Perhaps he wrote to
me because I was on the committee and in opposition. It was not
Edmonton Southeast; it was a different riding adjacent to mine
and with a Liberal representative. We can all figure it out if we
know the geography.
The person said that he was in this business. He had a number
of coin operated machines and because of his business he had a
number of change making machines, machines which were
geared up to making change for a two-dollar bill, a five-dollar
bill and a ten-dollar bill. He said those machines would have to
be changed. Either he would have to change his vending
machines to recognize the two-dollar coin or he would have to
change his change making machines to recognize the two-dollar
coin. He also said it would cost a minimum of $750 each to alter
the machines. This was how he made his living.
The total cost of his small family business was $138,000. He
said: ``This is a tremendous cost to me. If you just dump it on me
it is far more than I can afford to take in one year''. Among all
other considerations for going slowly on making these
alterations that is another reason. He would have the opportunity
to amortize the cost over a greater length of time without
incurring huge interest costs.
(2105)
We talked earlier today about lending money to small
business people. I am sure he would have to borrow the money if
this measure were implemented quickly. There is a cost that is
very real and it is a large amount of money to him.
There is another reason for giving a little better time line.
Businesses cannot produce overnight the new coin
identification devices. There must be time for research and
development. We heard in committee testimony that the mint
had not submitted true industrial quality samples of the coins.
That is rightfully so because it has not been approved by
Parliament. They need to get all the coins. They need to have all
the nickels, both the dimes and both the quarters. The loonie
stays the same but they need the new two-dollar coin. They need
samples of the four new coins before they can begin their
research and development into the design of the new
mechanism.
After that they have to build a prototype and go through
sufficient testing to ascertain that those coin recognition devices
are accurate and dependable. The last thing we want to do is to
arrange the affairs of the country in such a way that the
recognition devices of all business people who directly depend
14374
on our coinage system and its acuity, size and weight will not
clearly discriminate between them.
Let me explain that. There are two kinds of errors the
machines can make that are both very detrimental. The first
error is that of not recognizing a legitimate coin. If a customer
goes to a machine wanting to make a purchase and his new
quarter and new two-dollar coins are rejected, he gets upset. We
are told by people in the industry that when people submit a coin
which is rejected several things happen. First, some of the
rejections result in jamming so the person does not get the
product or his coin back. Therefore the mechanism must be very
reliable in recognizing legitimate coins. It must not jam. It must
recognize them and accept them.
Another thing that frustrates the customer is if he submits the
coin and it goes straight through to the coin return pocket. He
wants the machine to accept the coin because he wants to buy the
product, whatever he is after. If he cannot get it because the
machine will not accept the coin, he will probably kick the
machine. The industry people told us that in committee. They
say their coin recognition machines must be highly reliable
because if they fail to recognize legitimate coins their machines
are subject to a lot of vandalism.
(2110)
We would not want to impose that on people who depend upon
the Canadian government's coinage system. That is why they
have to be given ample time to research and develop coin
recognition machines.
As I said there are two types of errors. One is failing to accept
a legitimate coin. The other is failing to reject an illegitimate
coin. That is every bit as important. Coin recognition devices
must also have the ability to recognize a slug from the electrical
department or a washer or something that is not a legitimate
coin. The devices must reject those or the merchant will be
ripped off. The devices must be very reliable.
It is not realistic for us to pass Bill C-82 at the end of June and
give the government the right to introduce these new coins in
early 1996. That is less than a year away. It is just over six
months away. That is not adequate and the industry has told us
so.
I will not make several pejorative statements to the
government. I will rather try to appeal to its common sense and
concern for the business people that we have heard expressed
often. I am challenging the government to put actions to its
words. I appeal to its business sense and to its sense of caring for
Canadian people. That is what we are here for.
A very legitimate concern is that the coin recognition systems
have to be developed. They have to be brought into production.
As I said that requires a research and development phase, a
testing phase of the prototypes and then full production. After
that the devices get shipped out. In some cases they will be
retrofits for existing mechanisms. In other cases they will be
actual replacements. The merchants will have to take the old
device out of the machine and replace it completely with a new
one. Sometimes that will involve changing from some of the old
mechanical devices to the new electronic devices. It may mean
wiring changes. It can mean all sorts of different things. In some
cases it will mean the changing of the solenoids that actually
operate the delivery systems.
We have to give industry time for the research, the
development, the testing, the production and the installation. If
we in the House believe that by snapping our fingers and passing
a law it can be done overnight, it is not realistic. I appeal to
members opposite to do it right.
I remember a colleague at the technical institute where I
worked who used to have a little placard over his desk that read:
``If you don't have time to do it right, when will you find time to
do it again?'' That is the issue here. If we do not do it right we
will produce a lot of frustration and anger. Right now we are
already facing that. Many small business people I talk to keep
crying about the GST. A lot of the vending machine operators
are in that category. They landed up picking up the tab for GST
out of their own pockets. They were opposed to it. They are still
opposed to it. They are saying: ``The government said it would
eliminate it and it is still here. When will that happen?''
There is already a deep anger across the country about the
GST and other unfair taxes. If we add this frustration and
difficulty for the same people again it will further erode the
respect of people for the government and their willingness to
participate in our economy through our voluntary tax system.
Without that, the whole system would fail.
(2115 )
We need to make certain we do this right. If the government is
going to go through with this despite my previous pleading that
it is not economic and should not be done, then at least it should
get the timing right. That is very important.
In my previous speech I asked the minister a number of
questions. The minister was kind enough to give me a written
response. In his covering letter he said: ``Thank you for your
letter''. After the speech I received a phone call in my office. I
was asked to submit my questions in writing and the minister
would provide answers to them. He said: ``I trust these
responses will satisfy your concerns and that you will now be in
a position to support Bill C-82''.
Frankly I am appreciative of the minister and his staff taking
the time to answer my questions. They covered about five or six
pages.
14375
I regret the answers are insufficient. For example, I asked
what was the estimated total impact on the retail sector,
including items such as cashier trays and coin counting
machines. Basically the answer was that one year ago the
industry estimated it would cost $25 million. Since then they
have raised their cost to $80 million and the last line is: ``The
cost of adjustment will vary''. In other words, the government
does not have the answer. That is not good enough. Until we
have those answers it should not jam this bill through.
I asked what the effect would be on the economy. Again, some
answers were given but they were very general. No real work has
been done. Consider the soft drink industry.
Again we urge the government to consider not having a new
$2 dollar coin. If it costs too much to print $2 bills, just
eliminate them. I know there are two sides to the argument of
eliminating the $2 currency. We do this for values less than $1.
If you look at our currencies for less than $1 we go from 1 cent to
5 cents. Why can we not go from a $1 coin to a $5 bill? It is
exactly the same. I am not going to repeat myself but I insist it is
absolutely the same. If you go from 1 cent coin to a 5 cent coin
that is parallel to going from $1 coin to a $5 bill.
I am not going to repeat what I said in my previous speech. If
anybody is interested in this I urge them to read it since I gave a
really good, well thought out, well documented speech when
this bill was debated previously. I raised the same point then that
with the weight of these coins we are talking about the
difference to a person of having to carry an extra one-half
ounce. That is the difference.
Some members opposite may disagree. For a small fee I will
give a math lesson after hours. I would have to ask the
government to seriously consider that as an option. It would not
cost a great deal to implement that change, only the cost of
producing the currency. If we are going to stay with the $2
currency, there is one thing that was not properly considered: the
use of a more durable substrate. That has not been studied.
The current $2 bills wear out very rapidly. That is because the
quality of the paper provided is not adequate for the kind of
circulation these $2 bills get.
We talked to suppliers of the substrate for the printing of the
bills. They said with the new plasticized material they could
produce a $2 note that could last two to four times as long and it
would only cost marginally more to produce. Has that been
studied as an alternative? As far as we know it has not and we
think it should be.
We had many other questions. I would concede that some
were adequately answered. When I asked if dropping the $2
denomination was considered, the government simply answered
that eliminating the $2 coin was considered and rejected. It then
went on to say that Canadians depend on the $2 note for a great
number of their transactions. I believe that to be true because it
is there.
(2120)
However, if the next denomination in paper were $5 we would
still only be required to carry four coins in order to produce the
$4 and the next one would be the $5 and then we would have the
change in between as well.
With all that being said, the message I want to give to the
members opposite is one that is very clear. I appeal to their
common sense to reject this bill but failing that, I would like to
at least have it amended. The work of this Parliament is to pass
good laws. Is that not our prayer at the beginning of each day:
``Help us to pass good laws?''
However, included in that definition is that we must reject bad
laws or we must amend bad portions of laws before we pass them
so they will be good laws.
Therefore I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that''
and substituting the following:
That Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act be not now read a
third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Government
Operations for the purpose of reconsidering clause 1.
That clause is with respect to the issue of the timing of the
bill.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the members opposite that I will
not be long, but it is only fair that having seconded an
amendment that I speak briefly to it. I assure members opposite,
who I know are concerned about the time, that I will be the only
Reformer speaking on the amendment.
All across Canada, Canadians are doing business today. They
were buying and selling. They were working and travelling.
They were caring for kids and patients in hospitals. That is the
real Canada. In here we are debating minting a $2 coin in place
of a $2 bill when this country is going $100 million a day in the
hole. That is a really sad case to consider.
I just want to briefly outline why we suggest that a January
1996 implementation date is not a reasonable and fair
imposition on small business, which is the engine of our
economy.
In the bill the government has failed to address the actual cost
to the industry of the conversion to a $2 coin. My hon. colleague
from Elk Island has given us 101 on the cost of implementing
this bill and certainly a 101 course on vending machines and the
problems involved in converting them to accept $2 coins in the
new regime that is being planned by the Canadian Mint under
the supervision of the minister of public works.
14376
The cost to the industry will be substantial and in all
likelihood these costs will be passed down to the consumer. As
just an example for comparison, when pulp prices increased
there was an increase in the price of newsprint resulting in an
increase in the price of newspapers which was then passed on
to the consumer. The same will happen with the vending
machine industry.
Three organizations have asked the government to reconsider
this proposal and, in particular, the implementation timetable
for Bill C-82. They are the Canadian Soft Drink Association, the
Canadian Automatic Vending Merchandising Association and
the Canadian Bankers Association. The CSDA represents
manufacturers and distributors of soft drinks across Canada.
Members distribute their products through approximately
100,000 vending machines. The CSDA, along with all vending
industries, is requesting that the federal government delay by
one year the introduction of the new coins to provide adequate
time to convert existing coin mechanisms to new ones.
(2125)
Paulette Vinette, president and CEO of the Canadian Soft
Drink Distributors Association estimates that it will cost its
industry $200 per machine to convert existing mechanisms to
accept the new coins and as much as $600 to replace an existing
mechanism. The total cost to the industry would be
approximately $30 million.
The Canadian Automatic Vending Machine Association
estimates that changes to pop, potato chip and candy machines
will cost between $75 and $800. The total cost of conversion to
the industry, according to Canadian Automatic Vending, will be
as much as $80 million. This $80 million cost also includes the
government's plans to replace the metal alloy used in pennies,
nickels, dimes, quarters and 50-cent pieces with cheaper plated
steel coins.
They also bemoan the fact that the proposed date of
implementation will not provide the industry with enough time
to develop and implement the required modifications. That is a
real problem. The industry has yet to receive sample coins from
the Mint so that it can develop coin recognition equipment.
Vending machine operators are asking that the federal
government provide compensation to help defray the cost of
conversion to some 200,000 pop and candy machines. These
operators insist that they are unfairly bearing the burden of cost
cutting by the government.
In 1967, when the government fiddled with the metal content
of the coin, the government agreed to compensate vending
machine operators for half the replacement costs of the coin
mechanisms. That is not the case in this bill, therefore more time
should be offered to the industry.
Cash registers will also have to accommodate the extra coin.
Instead of having five slots for coins, the registers will have to
have six. This will result in additional costs for the cash register
users.
The Canadian Bankers Association also has concerns with the
introduction of the $2 coin, as I pointed out during second
reading. The Canadian Bankers Association has proposed a total
abandoning of the $2 coin as mentioned by my colleague from
Elk Island.
The banks have anywhere from $30 to $50 million in excess
loonies sitting in the vaults and as the government has refused to
take back the surplus coins, the banks are unable to earn interest
on that money. This is likely to be repeated with the $2 coin.
The government is so confident that the Commons will
approve the $2 coin that it has asked manufacturers for quotes to
deliver 25 million blanks by the beginning of October 1, 1995.
The Reform Party proposes that the government reconsider its
decision to delay the introduction of the coin for a year. This will
allow vending operators the time needed to convert the
machines. Ideally we should scrap the coin but if that does not
happen, we should certainly delay its implementation.
Mark my words, there will be big problems if the government
pushes this ahead too quickly. The minister of public works has
not shown good judgment in the past and he is not showing good
judgment now by insisting on ramming this legislation through
before the industry and small business people have time to
adjust to its consequences. I would appeal to the minister to be
more considerate.
In closing, I want to update the House. In my speech at second
reading I recognized that the government was probably going to
ram this bill through. We would prefer that it did not ram it
through but it probably will. We would prefer if it was to ram it
through that it would consider some amendments.
If it is going to go through, those members have said that they
want suggestions for what should be put on the $2 coin. I made a
suggestion at second reading and surprisingly enough it is
getting a lot of support from across the country.
I ask that the minister of public works consider putting a
replica of the Hanson buck, a white tailed deer on the $2 coin. I
did that to deal with some disparity in the images and the
representations on our bills.
I have to be careful not to use props in the House but I am
using real notes. We have a $20 bill which was actually donated
by the hon. member for Simcoe Centre to the Heart Foundation
for me to ride a bicycle to raise money for the Heart Foundation
this coming weekend.
It has on it a replica of the common loon swimming in a pond.
14377
(2130)
We have the $10 dollar bill with a replica of the osprey. It is a
beautiful animal. May I have a donation to my cause by from the
hon. member from Kingston and the Islands? I appreciate that he
donated five dollars for me to ride this bike on the weekend to
raise dollars for the heart foundation.
The $5 dollar bill has on it a belted king fisher, a beautiful
animal as well. Then we are to get rid of the two dollar bill. It has
on it a very nice picture of two robins. I guess we will have to say
goodbye to the robins and have a new coin.
We have the loonie in existence already and it has a loon on its
tail side. The quarter has a caribou. The loon actually is from the
wetlands; the caribou is from the north. Our next coin is the
dime with the Bluenose on it, representing the history of the
Maritimes and the wonderful history surrounding the Bluenose.
The next denomination is the five cent piece with a beaver on
it, representing the development of Canada when the fur trade
occurred and the country was inhabited by trappers and traders
looking for this pelt. The penny has a maple leaf.
It so happens the prairies were overlooked in all these
symbols and so I have recommended to the minister of public
works and to the Canadian mint that they consider a replica of
the Hanson buck on our new $2 dollar coin should they go ahead
with it. I have a lot of support for this idea. I have had support
from people from Halifax to Montreal. Fellow members of
Parliament have supported this.
A newspaper report said I wanted to put a dead deer on the $2
dollar coin. I do not know if that beaver is alive, but I know the
Hanson buck was and was a beautiful animal. It represents a
world champion record for the nicest antlers of any white tail
ever taken. It broke an 80 year old record held by the Americans
and certainly it would be a wonderful replica, a wonderful image
to put on our $2 dollar coin should we pass this bill. It is elegant.
It has been represented in paintings, in photographs. It
represents an animal that has been an environmental success
through proper conservation practices.
If the minister goes ahead with this $2 dollar coin, please
delay its implementation. I ask the minister to consider putting
the Hanson buck on the coin.
I encourage entrepreneurs who might be listening to invest
and start manufacturing men's suspenders because our pants
will weigh a lot more with our pockets full of $2 dollar coins.
Women's apparel manufacturers may need more shoulder
shoulder pads and probably stronger purse straps.
Mr. Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, being a new member I would
from time to time like to get clarifications on using props in the
House. I wanted to make sure I understood for my future
speeches that flaunting the rules, bending and breaking them
every which way is permissible. Is there a rule on that?
The Deputy Speaker: I was watching the member like a hawk
and he did not turn any of his coins or his bills, as far as I could
see from here with my fading eyesight, in the direction of the
camera. It is a question of holding it up to the camera. I watched
him and he was quite careful.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): I know that
the government will go ahead with Bill C-82 and introduce the
$2 coin. We also know that the business community, which will
be most affected by the introduction of this coin, would prefer to
see its circulation postponed for at least a year, so it can adjust.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois will support the amendment
presented by the Reform Party.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(2135 )
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment negatived.)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on the main
motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
14378
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), a
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-65, An
act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies, as
reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, there are 16 motions
in amendment on the Order Paper for the report stage of Bill
C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies.
[English]
Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 will be
grouped for debate and voted on as follows. A vote on Motion
No. 1 applies to Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 16.
Motion No. 13 will be voted on separately.
[Translation]
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately. Motion
No. 8 will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 10
and 11 will be grouped for the purposes of debate. A vote on
Motion No. 10 will apply to Motion No. 11.
[English]
I will now propose Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14,
15 and 16 to the House.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-65, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 1, with
the following:
``recommendation of the Minister, following consultation with the Lieutenant
Governor of each province in Atlantic Canada and with the approval of the
standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters
relating to industry, to hold of-''.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-65, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 16, on page 2, with
the following:
``Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, following consultation with
the government of each province and with the approval of the standing
committee of the House of Commons that normally consides cultural matters.
(2.1) The Board of Directors shall include representatives of the various
regions in Canada.''
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-65, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 31, on page 2, with
the following:
``Council as provided in section 4, following consultation with the
government of each province and with the approval of the standing committee
of the House of Commons that normally considers cultural matters.
3.1 The Council shall include representatives of the various regions of
Canada.''
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be
unanimous consent so that all these motions you are about to
read be deemed to have been put, thereby giving more time for
debate instead of reading motions.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-65, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 28, on page 5,
with the following:
``the recommendation of the Corporation, following consultation with the
government of each province and with the approval of the standing committee
of the House of Commons that normally considers cultural matters, ap-''.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-65, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 6,
with the following:
``ister, following consultation with the government of each province and with
the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally
considers cultural matters.
(1.1) The Board shall include representatives of the various regions in
Canada.''
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-65, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 30, on page 7,
with the following:
``required, to the government of each province and to other ministers on the
emer-''.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-65, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 17, on page 12,
with the following:
14379
``ed in section 19, following consultation with the government of each
province and with the approval of the standing committee of the House of
Commons that normally considers cultural matters.
(1.1) The Board shall include representatives of the various regions of
Canada.''
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-65, in Clause 54, be amended by adding after line 16, on page 14,
the following:
``(3.1) The members, the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson shall be
appointed following consultation with the government of each province and with
the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally
considers matters relating to this Act.''
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-65, in Clause 54, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 25, on page
14, with the following:
``(c) one from a municipality in Ontario, other than the city of Ottawa, wholly or
partly within the National Capital Region;
(d) one from a municipality in Quebec, other than the city of Hull, wholly or
partly within the National Capital Region; and''.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-65, in Clause 54, be amended by adding after line 28, on page 14,
the following:
``(4.1) The members appointed under paragraph (4)(e) shall represent the
various regions of Canada.''
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-65, in Clause 57, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 18, on page
15, with the following:
``appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister,
following consultation with the government of each province and with the
approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally
considers cultural matters.
(1.1) the Board shall include representatives of the various regions of
Canada.''
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-65, in Clause 64, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12, on
page 17, with the following:
``Minister, following consultation with the government of each province and
with the approval of the Governor in Council and the standing committee of the
House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry, to hold
office during pleasure for''.
The Deputy Speaker: We will now debate Group No. 1.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill C-65, an
act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies. As we
are all aware, the government is proposing to get rid of many
boards and commissions and reduce drastically a great number
of them for greater efficiency and as a cost saving measure.
One of the agencies which interests me greatly is the National
Capital Commission. The bill proposes the membership of the
National Capital Commission be composed as follows: two from
the city of Ottawa, one from the city of Hull, one from a local
municipality in Ontario, other than the city of Ottawa, one from
a local municipality in Quebec, other than the city of Hull, and
eight from Canada generally, other than from the cities or
municipalities just referred to. Clauses (c) and (d) give me great
concern, the ones that refer to a local municipality in Ontario
and a local municipality in Quebec. I shall explain.
(2140)
I would like to replace this with my motion:
That Bill C-65 in clause 54 be amended by replacing lines 22 to 25 on page
14 with the following:
(c) one from a municipality in Ontario, other than the city of Ottawa, wholly or
partly within the national capital region
(d) one from a municipality in Quebec, other than the city of Hull, wholly or
partly within the national capital region.
My explanation for this is it has been the practice to have
representation from local municipalities around the capital city
of Ottawa. In Ontario a local municipality could be Sarnia,
Kapuskasing, Smiths Falls, Kingston or a variety of other
places. We have like in the province of Quebec, regional
municipalities such as the Muncipalité régionale
d'Ottawa-Carleton, and we have, du côté de l'outaouais, la
Municipalité régionale de l'Outaouais.
[Translation]
Just like Montreal has the MUC, the Montreal Urban
Community. I may add that these regional municipalities
represent several local municipalities.
So when the definition refers to a local municipality, this is
not the same as a regional municipality. In this particular case,
we must remember there is a difference between a local
municipality and a regional municipality, which could be,
Kapuskasing or Hearst, for instance. We should refer to the
National Capital Region. And to justify this explanation, we
consult the-
[English]
The National Capital Act, chapter N-4, section 2, gives a
description of the national capital region. It gives a description
of all the municipalities surrounding the national capital,
Ottawa. In the description it talks of Gatineau, Aylmer, Hull and
on the Ontario side it talks of Gloucester, Cumberland, Nepean
and a dozen other local municipalities.
14380
The reference here is that in the National Capital Act it is
well defined what is meant by a local municipality. People do
not juggle from one act to the other. When governments change
and commission memberships change or board memberships
change I would not appreciate seeing errors made and instead
of having a representative from a local municipality of the
national capital region, having a local municipality within the
province of Ontario or the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
And now there will be representatives from the Province of
Quebec. The last part mentions eight members from Canada
generally. Ontario, of course, will not be left out. It will also
have a representative among the additional eight.
[English]
The government is proposing the national commission should
be reduced from 20 to 15 members appointed by the governor in
council, which translates into a reduction of five members. It is
something I agree with but, as I was stating, it is extremely
important that the local municipality in the region be respected.
[Translation]
We have the city of Gloucester, for instance, where 52 per cent
of the land belongs to the federal government. This means that
there is a lot of negotiating with the federal government.
Activities within the Greenbelt or at Ottawa Airport, for
instance, are very restricted. Infrastructure projects always
require agreements between the municipalities and the NCC.
(2145)
If you go from Ottawa to Cumberland, you have to go through
Gloucester, and if you want to build sewer mains or water pipes,
you have to negotiate agreements with the NCC. That is why it is
so important for local municipalities within the National Capital
Region to be included. The same applies on the Quebec side. For
instance, we have Gatineau and also Aylmer, which is involved
in the National Capital Region.
My motion reads as follows:
``(c) one from a municipality in Ontario, other than the city of Ottawa, wholly or
partly within the National Capital Region;
Paragraph (d) would read:
(d) one from a municipality in Quebec, other than the city of Hull, wholly or
partly within the National Capital Region;
I appreciate the support I received for this amendment from
the Minister responsible for the Privy Council and
Intergovernmental Affairs and the government. This proves
once again that the government is very flexible when it
introduces legislation, and that it listens to government and
opposition members when they make reasonable suggestions.
Personally, I believe it is entirely reasonable to make sure that
the wording of the bill is clear.
The way the bill was worded originally, my local municipality
in Ontario was confusing and a local municipality in Quebec
was confusing, and by ensuring that the local municipality is
within the National Capital Region, either on the Quebec side or
the Ontario side, we comply with the National Capital Act's
definition of the boundaries of the region. Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank you for giving me this opportunity to explain the reasons
for my amendment.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be
speaking on the motions in Group No. 1, and I may have
something to say on the other groups later. Thank you. I am
pleased to speak once again in the debate on Bill C-65, an act to
reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies.
As I mentioned in my last speech on this bill, Bill C-65
changes and reorganizes 15 federal agencies by reducing the
number of their members. It also dismantles seven other federal
organizations. I say dismantles, because their function becomes
incorporated into a sector department, in certain instances, or is
amalgamated with that of another organization.
There are 16 motions for amendment to this bill; 11 are from
Bloc members, four are from the Reform member for Elk Island
and one is from the Liberal member for Carleton-Gloucester,
who has just spoken to us. I would first like to express my
unequivocal support for Motions Nos. 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, and
16 tabled by the members for Trois-Rivières, Chicoutimi,
Châteauguay, Québec-Est and Joliette, respectively.
In essence, these motions recommend that the main
appointments to the boards of government agencies be made
only after consultation with the government of each province,
not only Quebec, but of all the provinces in Canada, and with the
approval of the standing committee of the House normally
charged with matters concerning the sectoral department
responsible for these agencies. In this case, Heritage Canada,
the Department of National Defence and the Department of
Industry and other departments are involved with certain
agencies.
I invite the members of the House to also support Motions
Nos. 4, 5, and 6, which I proposed and for which notices were
given on May 15.
(2150)
These motions propose, respectively, that the appointments of
the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Canada Council, the
executive director of the Canadian Film Development
Corporation and a maximum of ten members including the
chairperson of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review
Board be made only ``following consultation with the
government of each province and with the approval of the
standing committee of the House of Commons that normally
considers cultural matters-in this instance, the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage.
14381
The idea of cutting political appointments by order in
Council, in reality by the Prime Minister's office, is aimed at
reducing the arbitrary decisions and the waste of public money.
This bill tries to put an end to patronage and too high a number
of what I would call almost honourary appointments.
However, The Globe and Mail has revealed over the past year
that, despite Bill C-65, under the Liberal government, political
appointments are being made with renewed vigour. In several
instances, the elimination of any legal reference to advisory
bodies leads us to question the genuineness of the
Liberals'commitment to administrative transparency.
Will the House of Commons have a say regarding
appointments to advisory bodies which will no longer have a
legal status? Whither transparency? This question is central to
the whole debate; Bill C-65 provides only a timid answer.
Under its present form and without the amendments brought
forward by the Bloc Quebecois, we cannot support this bill. The
motions brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois are aimed at
making clearer and more transparent the appointment process to
the boards of the bodies mentioned in there.
We are in agreement with Motion No. 13 presented by the
member for Carleton-Gloucester to the effect that a member of
the National Capital Commission, other than the chairperson
and vice-chairperson, must come from a municipality in
Ontario, other than the city of Ottawa-and the member
adds-from a municipality wholly or partly within the National
Capital Region.
Also, under the motion presented by the member for
Carleton-Gloucester, a member of the Commission must come
from a municipality in Quebec, other than the city of Hull-and
the member adds-wholly or partly within the National Capital
Region.
What would be more normal than having commission
members come from the area covered by the National Capital
Commission? We believe that this proposal is important and
should be accepted. In a few minutes I will deal with the other
groups.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
begin my debate on Group No. 1 by saying that in general we in
the Reform Party believe the provinces ought to be more
involved in issues that affect them directly.
In general, we agree with the impetus of the motions in this
group put forward by the members of the Bloc. I would like to
qualify that agreement and also ask a question about the
reasonableness of this in terms of the total amount of
bureaucratic and administrative time that would be taken to
administer these things as they are proposing.
They are basically saying that before the governor in council
appointments are made they should be approved by the various
provinces. Although I said that in general we agree the
provinces should be more involved in the workings of our
country, I do not believe it should be done in this way.
They speak of contacting the lieutenant governor in each
province. If we stop to think about it, the lieutenant governor is
an appointed, unelected position, so this is not necessarily going
to get the democratic input from the people. That would
probably be the greatest reason for us to oppose most of the
motions in this group.
(2155)
I would like to speak about several of the motions. The hon.
member from the Liberal Party who spoke earlier talked about
the necessity of having input into the board of the National
Capital Commission. He was quite concerned that there should
be more representation from areas around the region. In other
words, if they are not a part of Ottawa they should be included if
they are adjacent to Ottawa.
There are two parts to the administration of the different
functions. Whether it is the National Capital Commission, one
of the museums, or something else, these people do two things.
They generally oversee the administration of the facilities. And
they are wonderful facilities; I do not want to minimize them in
any way. However, another aspect of this, which is so important
and which is overlooked, is that the taxpayers come from across
the entire country.
I did not have the privilege of visiting the canal during the
winter festival, but I was told by someone who went there that
every garbage can has NCC written on it. In other words, the
National Capital Commission owns the garbage cans. I suppose
that is good. If there are people skating on the canal they have to
have garbage cans, and if it is under the jurisdiction of the
National Capital Commission then they should be identified.
However, the question occurred to me: What possible fiscal
interest could any voter living more than 100 miles away from
Ottawa have in buying garbage cans for the city of Ottawa?
I would be opposed to the idea of concentrating more heavily
the representation on the board in terms of the people who want
to spend the money and try to increase it for those who are more
distant, who would have a greater interest in trying to save the
money.
It is sort of a spend versus save conflict we have, and it needs
to be balanced according to the different regions. There is no
doubt in my mind that the formula should specify very clearly
which regions of the country the members should come from. I
do not think it should necessarily be the lieutenant governor in
the province who should be involved in the consultation. There
should be a better mechanism for that. Perhaps it could be the
choice of elected legislatures putting forward a slate from which
people could be chosen.
14382
While we appreciate the general principle the Bloc members
are after, we would be opposed to most of the amendments on
the basis of their practicality.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to be able to take the floor on Bill C-65, an act
to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies.
My motion deals more specifically with the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, or ACOA, and reads as follows:
That Bill C-65, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 1, with
the following:
``recommendations of the Minister, following consultation with the
Lieutenant Governor of each province in Atlantic Canada and with the
approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons, that normally
considers matters relating to industry, to hold of-''
The goal of this motion is both simple and two fold. We would
like that the government of each of the Atlantic provinces, as
well as all the members normally interested in such matters, that
is the members of the industry committee, be involved in the
appointments.
(2200)
This would make for a better climate in government and fulfil
a need. We know that it is rewarding to be a Liberal, as the Globe
and Mail showed, but our amendment would avoid situations
like the one we are experiencing, where the minister responsible
for ACOA recently nominated political organizers to the board
of a federal agency based in his riding.
This is the kind of thing we want to correct or at the very least
avoid.
[English]
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to respond to some of the comments made on
these amendments.
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. There are two other
members who wish to speak. Would the member wish to wait
until everybody else has spoken on these amendments? Is that
acceptable? Very well.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to take part in the debate on the amendments proposed by the
official opposition to Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and
dissolve certain federal agencies. As you know, this bill amends
the statutes that establish fifteen federal boards, agencies or
commissions, in order to reorganize them or to reduce the
number of their members. The bill also dissolves seven federal
organizations.
Since the bill received first reading on December 14, the
official opposition has been emphasizing the importance of
using this opportunity to improve the democratic process in the
public service. Indeed, we feel it is important to democratize the
appointment process for office holders within the organizations
affected by this legislation. We want less patronage and more
transparency. It is in that spirit that the Bloc is presenting a
series of ten amendments.
I want to concentrate on the amendment which deals with
subclause 25(2) of the bill. That clause amends a provision of
the Emergency Preparedness Act. More specifically, the bill
seeks to increase the ministerial responsibility. To that end, it
more or less replaces Emergency Preparedness Canada by the
minister himself. In other words, the minister will assume full
responsibility with respect to the development and
implementation of civil emergency plans.
It is in regard to the implementation of these plans that we
want to make a suggestion to the government. Subclause 25(2)
of the bill currently reads:
The responsibilities of the Minister with respect to the implementation of
civil emergency plans are
(a) to monitor any potential, imminent or actual civil emergency and to report,
as required, to other ministers on the emergency and any measures necessary
for dealing with it;
We feel that the minister should also have to report to the
government of each province. An emergency situation, whether
potential, imminent or actual, is never something which takes
place in isolation. It may be potential or obvious, but it always
concerns a specific place, community, region or province. This
is why we feel that provincial authorities should be informed of
the measures taken by the federal minister responsible for
emergency preparedness.
This is too good an opportunity to miss. I would like to refer to
a civil emergency that has forever scarred my riding, the
electoral district of Châteauguay. The events of the summer of
1990 were officially classified as a provincial emergency under
the Emergency Preparedness Act as a matter of fact.
All the hon. members will remember that, on July 11, 1990,
armed warriors withstood a tactical operation carried out by the
Sûreté du Québec in the Oka area. Following this, another group
of warriors blocked access to the Mercier bridge linking the
greater Châteauguay area to Montreal Island. As a result of this
coup de force, more than 80,000 commuters were unable to
cross the bridge, with implications that are still underestimated.
Peaceful people were the victims of this action. Businesses were
closed, jobs were lost and incalculable time was lost because of
detours.
14383
(2205)
We know that the handling of this crisis was a disaster. This
lack of initiative was one of the main reasons why the Liberals
were defeated in the last provincial election. That government
was weak. This was a government without backbone or vision
and dependent on this Canadian constitution which no longer
meets modern-day needs.
This government which has seen one of its cabinet members
fly off to Ottawa after losing the last provincial election is now
advocating the constitutional status quo like its leader. This
status quo, however, could well plunge the city of Châteauguay
into another crisis, since this constitution contains no specific
division of responsibilities between the parties involved. After
having demanded, with her former leader, constitutional
changes, how can a former Quebec minister stand for the status
quo? Moreover, no effort has been made to set up real
negotiations between the native peoples and the federal
government on their respective rights and responsibilities.
At least the federal government did not step in on its own
initiative. It only acted at the request of the Quebec government,
fortunately. We can easily assume that if the federal government
had stepped in on its own, it would have messed up things even
more.
Now, to get back to the case in point with Bill C-65.
According to this piece of legislation, the minister would only
have to report to his or her fellow cabinet members. Everybody
will agree with me that, in such circumstances, it would be
unthinkable for the Quebec government not to be officially
informed of the measures taken by the minister.
This is a good example that shows the need for the amendment
to Bill C-65 moved by the Bloc Quebecois. We think it is
important that the federal minister be required to report to his
provincial counterpart when he implements civil emergency
plans and more particularly when he monitors any situation of
potential, imminent or real crisis. Public security requires
positive discussions between all governments and public
authorities.
The federal government should not overlook its
responsibilities when it reorganizes or abolishes any of its
agencies, as it does under Bill C-65. That is also true of the
minister who becomes responsible for Emergency Preparedness
Canada. His duty to co-ordinate with provincial and local
authorities must not be limited to the development and
implementation of civil emergency plans. He must also report to
all public authorities concerned by the actions he will take in
matters of civil defence, including provinces.
It is a question of good co-ordination but also a question of
transparency. The federal government is concentrating powers
in the hands of the ministers. This concentration increases the
risk of abuse, discretionary decisions, partisan treatments and
arbitrary choices. Therefore it is increasingly necessary to
establish transparency mechanisms in order to preserve the
integrity of the government.
The Auditor General of Canada keeps asking for such
accountability mechanisms. They are even more necessary
when power is placed in the hands of fewer people. This is what
is happening now within the federal government, and Bill C-65
is another move in that direction.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is presenting amendments
asking for more transparency. This is what we want when we ask
that the minister responsible for civil preparedness be
accountable to the provinces, when we ask that the lieutenant
governor in council of each province be consulted before some
of the appointments, when we ask that the appropriate standing
committee of the House approve some of the appointments and
when we ask that each provincial government be consulted
before certain appointments.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-65
received a lot of publicity. The minister responsible for the bill
had announced very proudly that it was very important because
it would have the effect of eliminating several government
agencies that had become useless and cutting back others.
(2210)
There is no need to exaggerate the importance of this bill
financially since we are talking about savings of only $4
million. For the people who are listening to us, it takes only
about an hour and a quarter for the Canadian deficit to absorb $4
million.
Through this very important bill on the streamlining of some
agencies and the elimination of others, the government will have
made it possible to pay for an hour and a quarter of the Canadian
deficit. This is not as important as the minister would have had
us believe when he made the announcement.
On the other hand, there is something that could have been
more important than the amount of money. We agree with
trimming the government, and when it comes to savings, even a
paltry $4 million, we must seize the opportunity. This is not the
reason why we are criticizing the government. If we criticize the
government, it is because while saving these $4 million, it could
have taken the opportunity to improve the appointment process
in these governmental agencies.
In its red book, chapter 6, the Liberal Party promised to
restore integrity in our political institutions. One of the
recommendations to increase this integrity is to have a thorough
review of order in council appointments.
14384
During all the years they were sitting in opposition, the
Liberals were always criticizing the political appointments
made by the Conservative government and they were promising
to review the whole appointment system for people sitting on
boards, commissions and agencies.
Unfortunately, in this bill, the government is not proposing
anything radical to change this appointment system which
allows the government to reward its friends. If the Liberal Party
had wanted to keep its promise, it would have added a clause
specifying that all appointments should be approved by a
parliamentary committee.
The government did not have the courage to do that. It
preferred to maintain an unclear partisan appointment system.
Its decision to simply reduce the number of board members is
only a diversion tactic. The appointment process in itself
remains the same.
To prove it, I would like to quote major changes made in this
bill. For example, let us take the Petro-Canada Limited Act.
Section 64 to be amended by the bill reads as follows:
``There shall be a Board of Directors of the Corporation consisting of the
Chairman of the Board, the President of the Corporation and not more than
thirteen other persons''.
This was the old section. The new clause reads as follows:
``There shall be a Board of Directors of the Corporation consisting of the
Chairperson of the Board, the President of the Corporation and one other
person.''
The only fundamental difference between these two versions
is that the number of directors is reduced from 15 to 3. I can see
savings related to the attendance fees paid by these corporations
to directors.
The second subclause deals with the way directors are
appointed to the corporation. Under the old section, the thirteen
other directors of Petro-Canada, for example, were appointed
by the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to
hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years.
The new clause provides that the director still to be appointed,
since the chairperson and the president of the corporation are ex
officio members, the director who is neither the chairperson of
the board nor the president of the corporation shall also be
appointed by the minister, with the approval of the Governor in
Council, to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding
three years. Therefore, nothing has changed.
(2215)
When we look at both texts, we realize that the only thing
changed is the number of board members. Nothing at all has
been changed in the vague and partisan process of appointing
people to these boards. That is why we say that this system must
go. Measures have to be taken to put an end to the patronage
system.
Let me quote, as an example, a very well-documented article
published in the Globe and Mail of February 7, under the
headline: «Liberal loyalty being rewarded with jobs, jobs,
jobs». The article explained the philosophy of the Liberals on
party friends. According to the article, more than 100 persons
close to the Liberals were appointed over the first fifteen months
of the Chrétien government: former candidates; a nephew of the
Prime Minister; a fundraiser for the party; an organizer, and
mostly, more than 15 defeated candidates who have all been
generously rewarded for services rendered to the Liberal Party,
out of the public purse. This is the function of crown
corporations.
The recent appointment of Jacques Saada, Liberal candidate
defeated in La Prairie, is one of the most obvious examples of
patronage. Mr. Saada, who is a friend of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, was hired to implement a communication plan for
CIDA.
Since Mr. Saada is a translator by trade, we have a hard time
figuring out where he acquired the experience and the expertise
required to prepare a communication plan for CIDA. Moreover,
his contract amounts to a tidy $99,150 for one year. What a
coincidence. It is just under the $100,000 limit over which the
government has to call for tenders, in which case Mr. Saada
would likely not have won because of his lack of experience and
expertise in that area. The name is Saada.
Sometimes we have difficulty understanding when friends are
involved. We can easily forget their names, but I am glad to
remind the House of it. That explains the importance they
wanted to give to the bill. These are the savings to be made. But
fundamentally there is nothing changed. Friends of the
government will continue to be appointed to the boards of large
crown corporations et large para-governmental corporations.
They could at least have done things differently.
Many of those large agencies, and this is another feature of
this bill, have an impact on the taxation of provinces and many
of those agencies and boards in the bill definitely have an
impact. Nowhere in the amendments proposed by the
government are provinces consulted nor do they take part in the
decisions which are taken. This is why we have proposed an
amendment, a motion. That is Motion No. 16 that I moved,
seconded by my colleague for La Prairie, which reads: ``That
Bill C-65, in Clause 64, be amended by replacing lines 11 and
12, on page 17, with the following:''
The board members I spoke about earlier should be appointed
by the minister to hold office during pleasure, but not in a
discretionary way; they should be appointed by the minister
following consultation with the government of each province,
since these corporations have an influence on the administration
of the provinces, and with the approval of the governor in
council and, moreover, of the standing committee of the House
of Commons that normally considers matters relating to
industry.
14385
If we want to practice openness to improve the situation, if
we want to fundamentally change what is not working properly,
we must be straightforward and honest and deal with the real
problems.
I hope this amendment will be supported not only by my
colleagues of the opposition, but also by my Liberal friends
across the way.
[English]
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to speak to the bill and to respond to some of the
comments made by the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the
member for Elk Island.
The amendment moved by the member for
Carleton-Gloucester is a constructive amendment which the
government accepts. It is the kind of amendment which
contributes to the nature of the bill in recognizing that regional
interest must be served.
(2220)
We do not think, however, that regional interest should be
served specifically in the bill on a national basis. The member
for Carleton-Gloucester moved that regional interest be
recognized on a local basis in the national capital region. That
seems appropriate, but regional representation is only one
element of the qualifications for boards and agencies.
In a broader sense the amendments offered by the member for
Elk Island and the members of the Bloc Quebecois fall under
two categories. The first is that the provinces must play a larger
role in appointments. Appointments made by the federal
government under federal government legislation should be
subject to provincial approval.
The point raised by the member for Elk Island is a very
sensible one. This is a cumbersome, costly and time consuming
process. Moreover, reciprocity does not exist. The provincial
governments do not offer the capacity for the federal
government to approve provincial government appointments
made by their lieutenant governor in council. Surely some
reciprocity on this basis must exist.
In this respect the bill is to simplify federal government
agencies. It is part of a process begun in the budget of February
1994. What has occurred since that time is that we have
eliminated 150 patronage positions with the bill. This is the first
stage of agency review. The second stage will take place later in
the fall and it will eliminate 350 so-called patronage positions.
When we look at the total numbers, this is the first time I can
recall since the second world war that there has been any
reduction in patronage positions. This is a radical reduction and
it is something to be commended.
The member for Joliette said that the reduction amounts to
only $4 million. I am sure the member for Elk Island will agree
that this is not a meagre amount. It is a significant contribution
and it is a pattern for the process the government is going
through under agency review and in the budget itself.
In terms of the standing committees the Bloc amendments
tend to emphasize the need for standing committees to approve
of the appointments. The standing orders currently allow
committees to review appointments made by the governor in
council to non-judicial bodies.
We are not seeking to revise the parliamentary system in the
bill. Certainly in terms of standing committees there may need
to be in the future some revision in the work they do. However,
in this bill we are working to simplify, we are working to do it
quickly, and we are working to deal with what we have now. In
that respect the amendments offered are not constructive at this
time.
I emphasize that this is a bill to simplify government, to make
it more efficient, and to fulfil the aims we have expressed in the
red book and in the budget.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division stands deferred.
This also applies to Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15 and
16.
The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
14386
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on Motion No. 13 stands deferred.
(2225)
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-65, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14, on page
2, with the following:
``the Corporation consisting of two directors, not including the Chairperson
and the pres-''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again we have the challenge of
persuading the government members since they outnumber us.
In the next few moments I will try to persuade them to our point
of view.
This motion specifically concerns the CBC and its board of
directors. We are all aware that Bill C-65 reduces the number of
directors from 15 to 12. We have the horse headed in the right
direction and somebody will have to slap its rump so that it gets
going.
To go from 15 to 12 directors, we barely started doing it. We
want to be a little more dramatic in our cutting of the CBC board
because we feel the functions it performs could be efficiently
carried out by two members, a chairman and the president.
It is unfortunate we do not have full freedom in the House to
do whatever we want. Maybe that is okay, it helps to limit us
from bizarre decisions. The amendment we would have really
liked to make would be that CBC be privatized or sold to private
interests.
We think it is time CBC make money for the country, that its
shareholders should make a profit and should all pay some taxes
instead of taxpayers funding the broadcasting organization.
In saying this I am certainly not speaking against the CBC. I
am one of many Canadians who enjoys the CBC and certain
parts of its programming. It is not all bad, it is not all useless. It
has a lot of very good public service time. Some of its musical
programs are excellent.
We object to its being such a sinkhole for taxpayers' dollars.
CBC radio operates without commercials and I guess we could
argue that if we listen to other radio stations we pay for them
through the products we buy. We indirectly pay for the
advertising costs those producers incur by advertising on other
radio or television stations.
CBC television, on the other hand, has ample advertising. It
has such a large share of the market potential. It was in there
ahead of the game and taxpayers funded a great deal of hardware
for it. They gave it the inroad into many markets not originally
viable financially.
Why in the present day of modern technology with very
efficient and excellent ways of communicating electronically
with people can this organization not now be turned around and
made into a profit producing organization?
As long as it stays under government control with government
subsidization most likely this will not happen. That is why we
favour privatizing the CBC. We believe good solid
entrepreneurs could turn it into a real money making machine.
A person who started a small television station out west told
me a few years ago that having a television station was like
having a printing press to print money. It was very lucrative 20
years ago. He has had difficult times more recently.
We want to support a substantial reduction in the size of the
board of directors. If we had had the total freedom to do what we
wanted we would have reduced them to zero with the
recommendation to privatize. However, we were told that would
be outside the limits of this bill and would be ruled as an illegal
amendment. So we compromised. We knew we already had them
going in the right direction by reducing the number of members
from 15 to 12, so we should just take 10 more off and we would
be down to two and that would do the trick for now and would
give a very clear message as to the direction in which we would
choose to go.
(2230)
We also want to indicate that the CBC, as other crown
corporations, must get the message very clearly that they have to
become more efficient. They need to operate with lower costs
and wherever possible with as large a generation of income as
possible. That is the message that goes along with this
amendment. It reflects the Reform Party's position that we
ought not to be taking by coercion money from Canadians via
the medium of taxation in order to fund a particular point of
view. We believe that the marketplace would carry that through.
It has been enlightening in the last little while to find that the
CRTC has been giving approval to some types of broadcasting
companies that before this would not have been considered. So
there is that move anyway, and we feel that this would hasten it.
We are the stewards of the money entrusted to us by the
Canadian taxpayer. Consequently, in promoting and
encouraging support for this motion we are simply
strengthening that message. I urge all members opposite, who
by their majority have the power to determine how things will
be, to think very carefully and do the right thing here.
14387
We know that the deficit and the debt need to be cut. The
CBC, with its access to the Canadian taxpayer dollars of over
a billion dollars per year, has to undergo a very rapid
restructuring.
With that, I simply urge the people to support this amendment
and get the show on the road. Let us get that horse moving.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
representatives of the Canadian provinces would greatly
appreciate being consulted about the appointments to all
agencies mentioned in Bill C-65.
I would like to mention here two of those representatives to
whom I wrote recently. Ken Rostad, the Alberta minister for
federal and intergovernmental affairs, had this to say: ``We
appreciated greatly being informed of the suggestions you made
in this debate concerning consultation with provincial
governments''.
Let me quote also Mr. Stephen Kakfwi, the minister of
intergovernmental and aboriginal affairs of the Northwest
Territories: ``We do not oppose this fundamental principle of
consultation. If your motions recognize territorial governments
for the purposes of consultation, the Northwest Territories
government could support those motions''.
These quotations speak for themselves.
Concerning Motion No. 2 moved by the hon. member for Elk
Island, I have to say we do not support it, because it involves
reducing from twelve to four the number of directors on the CBC
board. We all know that this kind of board is often a haven for
political friends, and that real decisions are made by the
chairman and the president and chief executive officer under the
approving eye of the minister. Bringing down to four the number
of board members, as in the case of the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, would risk turning it into even more of select club
where, between friends, they would decide on the allocation and
use of taxpayers' money.
We have to change that practice and ensure better provincial
representation, better representation for Quebec. The number of
members on the CBC board of directors has to be kept to twelve,
with a fair representation for Quebec.
(2235)
I would also like to take this opportunity to make a few
comments on the three other motions put forward by the hon.
member for Elk Island. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of and
supports Motions Nos. 10 and 11 put forward by the Reform
member. The Bloc wants to maintain a National Archives of
Canada Advisory Board, and to ensure that a committee of the
House of Commons composed of two members from the
government party and three members from opposition parties be
authorized, as required by Motions Nos. 10 and 11, to select
seven out of the ten members of this advisory board. That is the
price for openness, and we will thus prevent the government
from politicizing the operation of this National Archives of
Canada Advisory Board.
One could wonder how this kind of advisory council, with
such a technical mandate, could have any political influence.
In April 1986, the federal government ordered the destruction
of a large part of the archives kept by the Canadian Unity
Information Office, which would have helped to determine the
rather obscure role the federal government played in the 1980
referendum campaign and the full amount of funds invested
beyond what the Quebec legislation allowed.
Nevertheless, since the documentation has been destroyed,
we have estimated that the federal government spent about
$17.5 million on the NO campaign during the 1980 referendum.
An advisory board partially composed of members from
opposition parties might have avoided the destruction of these
archives, which was done only for partisan purposes, to hide the
role Ottawa played in 1980 and the excess amount the federal
government invested at that time.
To conclude, I just want to add that we are in favour of
amendment No. 8, put forward by the Reform member, which
provides for Emergency Preparedness Canada to submit an
annual report to the House of Commons.
Three of the four motions moved by the hon. member for Elk
Island seek to give Parliament better control over the
management of government operations and to allow opposition
members to monitor more closely the operations of the National
Archives of Canada. We support Motions Nos. 8, 10 and 11.
If Bill C-65 is passed, Emergency Preparedness Canada will
come under the Minister of Defence. Emergency Preparedness
Canada will no longer be a separate agency for budgetary
purposes. Why then should a service under the Minister of
National Defence have to table a separate annual report in the
House of Commons? We agree that Emergency Preparedness
Canada should be accountable to Parliament and the best way to
ensure that this happens is to have the agency table in the House
of Commons an annual report which would then be directly
examined by Parliamentarians. So, we support this motion put
forward by the hon. member.
[English]
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
comments of the member for Elk Island on the excellence of
CBC programming. I share his views in that respect.
14388
The difficulty with this motion by the member for Elk Island
is that the proposal to reduce the CBC board of directors from
twelve to two plus the president and the chairperson to form
the board would in effect render the CBC's programming
excellence that we just heard complimented operationally
dysfunctional.
Secondly, there is a more technical reason why this
amendment cannot be supported by the government. The
statutory committee structure of the CBC board of directors
would be rendered redundant. Under the Broadcasting Act the
corporation has to have two permanent committees on English
and French programming, plus an audit committee of at least
three directors. With a board of two directors of course these
committees would again be operationally dysfunctional.
Therefore a subsequent amendment to the Broadcasting Act
would be required. Naturally that is a separate exercise from this
bill and one we did not intend in the presentation of this bill.
Finally, the regional representation would be dramatically
affected. With only two directors it would be impossible to
recognize all of Canada's regions and diverse interests and
therefore it would completely undermine regional
representation.
It is therefore impossible for the government to support this
amendment.
(2240 )
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 2. All
those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Debate is on Motion No. 8, Group No. 3.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-65, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3, on page 8,
with the following:
``26. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 6:
``6.1 The Minister may, with the approval of''''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we spoke about the proposed changes to
Bill C-65 to reduce the number of members of the board.
Motion No. 8 is a little different. It has to do with the Minister
of Public Works and his requirement to oversee emergency
preparedness in the country. That is a very important role. In this
instance, we feel there is one small change that would be
required. I would like to persuade members opposite this time
by appealing to the red book.
The red book has become the standard by which we gauge
whether or not legislation is effective and whether it is going in
the right direction. The red book said there would be more
openness, more accountability, and a renewed trust in
government. This amendment is very small, but it is in that
direction. I do not think it is so dramatic an amendment that
members of the Liberal Party could in any way be against it. It
does go in the right direction and it does not go so far that they
should be frightened by it. It simply requires that the minister
report annually on his activities and on the degree of emergency
preparedness that is in place. That is a very important aspect for
the security of the country, for a country that is ready to deal
with emergencies of all kinds, whether they are civil
insurrections or natural disasters.
We are simply asking the minister to open up a little and
report annually. I do not know whether members know what is
involved. For example, the minister has the power to require that
the railroads have a one-year supply of fuel on hand, so that if
for some reason the normal supplies of fuel are destroyed by
some disaster, either natural or through some sort of an act of
war, we would still be able to operate our railroads for a
reasonable length of time. It is good for Canadians to know what
kinds of arrangements the minister has made in this area.
What we are asking is very simple. I plead with members
opposite, in order to fulfil the promises of the red book, to vote
in favour of the amendment. It would provide a little more
openness, a little more accountability, and a little more
transparency. It would go a long way in undoing some of the
criticism that has been levelled at them in terms of their being
secretive and too closed.
I will abbreviate my comments because of the urgency of the
day. I will gladly stop speaking in exchange for the commitment
of Liberal members to support the amendment.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has spoken most eloquently about the need for
transparency
14389
and openness. He has also spoken often in the House of
Commons about the word ``economy''. In the case of this
motion the two purposes are in conflict.
(2245 )
I say this with respect to the hon. member's amendment. This
motion seems to perpetuate the requirement that the minister lay
before Parliament an annual report on the operations of the act.
The rationale for eliminating annual reports is
government-wide. It is an attempt to lower costs and is focused
on reducing associated preparation costs. We intend to provide
new mechanisms such as expanded Part III estimates, and most
important, new department outlet documents will be provided to
parliamentary committees for this review.
In this case the argument for economy is a very cogent one.
There are other means through which transparency and openness
will be provided.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 8. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on Motion No. 8 stands deferred.
We will move to Group No. 4 with debate on Motions Nos. 10
and 11.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-65, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing lines 10 and 11, on
page 13, with the following:
``49. Subsection 9(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
``9. (1) The Minister shall establish a board to be known as the National
Archives of Canada Advisory Board, consisting of the Archivist, the National
Librarian, the Director of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and not more
than seven other members appointed, from among persons who are experienced
in archival matters, by a committee of the House of Commons composed of two
members from the government party and three members from opposition
parties.''''
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am having a busy evening but I am still
smiling. I have to concede it is somewhat frustrating to have
such well thought out amendments, which I sincerely believe are
defensible, decided against by the members opposite. It is a bit
of a rebuff but I will try to live with it and I will recover by
tomorrow. The Liberals now have an opportunity to redeem
themselves by supporting Motions Nos. 10 and 11.
The National Archives have a problem. The amount of
material to be saved keeps growing. It grows and grows. Until
now to dispose of things the administration of the archives had
to consult with the members of the board. These members, who
are GIC appointments, held the archivists responsible for not
destroying records which should be kept.
It is almost like having a Senate, a place of sober second
thought, but a real one. It is a case of: ``Here is a decision to
throw something away. Do you agree?'' Perhaps the judgment of
one person could be flawed. Perhaps that person could miss
something that is important. It would be an advantage to have
more people involved to provide for checks and balances against
discarding material which others would have the insight to
recognize might have value in the future and should be kept.
In this instance the amendment would only require a very
small expenditure. It says that the national archives advisory
board should not be eliminated entirely. This is a change in the
system. Sometimes members of the Reform Party are charged
with only wanting to cut, cut, cut. We want to cut in the right
places. We want to manage the fiscal affairs of the country so
that we do not have cut in areas where cuts are unwarranted. This
is one area where we want to retain the powers.
I want to give an example. We presently have in the country
and in Parliament a very sharp division on what is important.
The members of the Bloc Quebecois are very interested in taking
their province out of the country and the rest of us want to keep
Canada together.
The individual looking at the archives' records may have a
certain historical perspective and even a certain present political
perspective. It could cloud the decision of whether certain
documents should be kept or destroyed. That is why we are
strongly recommending that the decision not be made by an
individual, but that there should be consultation involved. This
small board would have a very real and very important function.
14390
(2250)
Consequently I am recommending that the backbenchers in
this instance exercise their powers of thinking and cogitation to
consider very carefully the argument I have made and
notwithstanding anything they have been led to believe earlier
today, think of the weight of the arguments and vote in favour to
the amendment.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree that
this is a very important matter.
I believe the member for Elk Island raises some important
points about the retention of certain records and the importance
of the decision prior to destruction.
Currently the situation is that all proposals for destruction
under the care of the archivist must be reviewed internally.
There will be an examination of all contractual and legal
obligations, the importance of the records in relation to the
mandate of the National Archives, and that the National
Archives acquisition policy must determine if these specimens
or copies are held in other depositories.
I am inclined to agree with the member for La Prairie that it is
deplorable that some records have been destroyed in the past
which fall within the purview of historical records of
importance. It is important that a board of this kind recognize at
all times the importance of the historicity of records.
I do not think this amendment responds to that need. The
current board of voluntary users effectively scrutinizes
historical records. Moreover, the archivist has undertaken to
establish a voluntary panel of experts on archives matters which
will represent a cross section of interests across Canada,
representing users, institutions and archival communities. This
board will preserve historical records as is necessary.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 10. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8) a
recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded
division will also apply to Motion No. 11.
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Human Resources
Development) moved that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old
Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's
Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act,
be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think
you would find in the interests of expediting the business of the
House that the time between now and 11.30 p.m. could be
divided among the three parties in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin third reading debate on
Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Children's Allowance Act and the
Unemployment Insurance Act.
I am pleased to do so for two reasons. First, as chair of the
House of Commons committee on human resources
development I had the opportunity to review the legislation in
detail when it went through clause by clause consideration. I
want to thank the members of that committee on all sides of the
House for their careful work in examining the provisions of this
sometimes complex and very technical bill.
(2255)
Second, I thank the officials of the human resources
development department, the income security programs
division, for their patience in explaining the complex, technical
aspects of these programs.
Particularly I thank those groups who came on short notice
and made representations to the committee on behalf of seniors
and Canadians with disabilities who are most affected by this
legislation. I especially to thank the Council of Canadians with
disabilities and the one voice, the Canadian Seniors Network,
for their valuable contribution to the work of the committee
studying Bill C-54.
Second, I am pleased to speak to the legislation as a regular
member of Parliament for whom sorting out difficulties with the
various components of the Canada pension system is an
important part of my regular constituency work.
By and large these difficulties are of two types. First of all, it
is financial, questions about the adequacy and the timeliness of
benefits, conditions for entitlement, sudden or unexplained
14391
changes to the level of benefits and other matters of that sort
that bother the seniors or those who are dependent on this stream
of income for their income security.
The second category of difficulties with elements of the
Canadian pension system that members of Parliament are
frequently called on to deal with are administrative in nature:
the mechanisms for applying for benefits, rules pertaining to the
delegation, the splitting or the reassignment of pension benefits
or credits, appeals dealing with errors and overpayments
sometimes which are caused by the bureaucracy, and finally,
matters of security and confidentiality.
It is primarily this latter set of concerns that are addressed by
Bill C-54. The bill improves services to clients. It allows for
improved co-ordination and more efficient program
administration and service delivery. It increases the consistency
between the old age security and Canada pension plan programs.
It also reduces administrative costs. It minimizes duplication
and paper burden to clients and various departments, and it will
also help members of Parliament to better assist their
constituents.
According to estimates by the Department of Human
Resources Development, the proposed amendments to Bill C-54
would benefit about 1.4 million senior citizens with no net cost
to the taxpayer. Expected savings from the amendments will
total approximately $10 million annually, largely as a result of
more efficient program administration.
I would like to go through in the time that is available some of
the aspects of this legislation for the House this evening. For
nearly 1.4 million seniors, many of whom are women, at present
they must reapply annually to receive the guaranteed income
supplement and spouse's allowance benefits. At that time they
must make a statement of income even though the income of
many does not change significantly from year to year, being
limited to old age security and perhaps Canada pension plan
benefits.
Payments for the new fiscal year cannot be made until the
application is received and approved. As a result, each April up
to 100,000 low and middle income pensioners may suffer
hardship when benefits are delayed due to late application or a
need to verify the information on the application.
This legislation allows the Minister of Human Resources
Development to waive the requirement for annual renewal
applications for GIS and SPA benefits for any month or months
in the following year. The proposed sections of the bill would
require the minister in situations where he or she had waived the
requirement for an application to give written notice to the
pensioner when a subsequent application was required.
(2300 )
The minister would have to meet certain time limits in this
regard. These changes would avoid an interruption in benefits
for those pensioners and would improve service and
administration. There might also be implications for benefit
overpayments and underpayments.
Generally what this legislation does is eliminate the need for
inconvenient and costly reapplication when that is not necessary
because for the most part the information is already in the
possession of the department.
The second category has to do with reconsiderations and
appeals. Clause 16 of the legislation allows a person to satisfy,
with a decision or a determination relating to the payment or the
amount of the benefit, to make a request to the minister within
certain time limits for reconsideration of the decision, after
which the minister could confirm or vary it.
A person dissatisfied with the minister's decision could
appeal it to the Canada pension plan, old age security review
tribunal established under the Canada pension plan. Where the
basis of the appeal was an incorrect ministerial decision about
the income of the applicant, the beneficiary or spouse of either
of these, the appeal can be referred to the Tax Court of Canada.
This legislation thereby facilitates portions of the appeal
process.
Another category is retroactive payments. Clients often apply
for OAS-CPP retirement benefits at the same time. If
application is made after age 65 retroactive old age security
benefit payments are made but the Canada pension plan
provides for an actuarial increase in the value of the benefit. The
result is that benefits that begin to be paid after age 65 are
treated differently by the two programs.
With clause 3 of the bill, the section on the Old Age Security
Act, section 2(a), periods of retroactive payments to the two
programs would be harmonized. The period would be set at a
maximum of one year, a reduction from the present maximum of
five years in the case of old age security benefits. In the case of
retroactive payments a streamlining takes place as a result of the
bill.
In this area the council on disabilities made an important
contribution to the legislation which I acknowledge. In this case
the council led the standing committee to adopt an amendment
to the bill which provides for retroactive, early retirement
benefits for some recipients of CPP disability benefits. The
provision is intended to mitigate to some extent the loss of
income for a person no longer eligible for a disability benefit
and to assist that person to reduce the amount of overpayment
which must be returned to the program. This provision was
always intended to be optional for the client.
14392
The government never intended to reduce the options
available to clients but the council pointed out the wording of
this provision in Bill C-54 would be construed as requiring the
client to take the early retirement pension.
To address the concern raised by the council, the government
moved an amendment accepted in the standing committee. The
government listened to the concerns expressed by the council
and these concerns are now reflected in the revised wording of
this provision of Bill C-54.
There were numerous other areas in which amendments were
made to the bill in response to the input by these groups
representing Canadians with disabilities and seniors affected by
this legislation.
The bill, which streamlines in many ways the administration
of this legislation, is vital to seniors and to those people
dependent on these programs because of the complexity this
legislation by necessity has to be designed to accommodate in so
many different circumstances. Seniors, many of whom live in
isolated communities, cannot afford to have their payments
disrupted by administrative processes very often far beyond
their understanding.
(2305)
By working to simplify the legislation and streamline the
process for applying, for reconsidering, for splitting, for
delegating benefits that apply to seniors and to persons with
disabilities through the Canadian pension system, we are
helping Canadians facilitate access to this very important aspect
of the Canadian safety net.
That is the nature of the changes in Bill C-54. They reflect the
government's concern for making this vital component of the
Canadian social security system accessible to those who depend
on it for their livelihood, for their basic fundamental income
security and in that respect enabling seniors in Canada to have a
greater assurance and confidence that as they move into their old
age they will be able to count on secure and regular support from
the Canadian government.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: According to our agreement, the hon.
member for Argenteuil-Papineau now has the floor for 12
minutes.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, obviously, I had prepared a 40 minute speech, but given
the requests of our whips, I agreed to cut down my time on the
floor.
I would like to speak to the House regarding Bill C-54 and I
will focus on the act to amend the Old Age Security Act and the
Canada Pension Plan. The official opposition proposed several
amendments to this bill in order to protect seniors from
injustice.
First, in Motion No. 1 we proposed the following
amendments. In summary, this amendment by the Bloc
Quebecois aimed to keep the appeals processes for the Canada
pension plan and the old age security program separate.
What was the answer we received on May 8 to this first
amendment we proposed regarding Bill C-54? The Minister of
Human Resources Development went on a violent, undignified
and even indecent rampage, calling our amendments bizarre,
incomprehensible and absurd. According to the minister, I have
a twisted mind and I take a perverted pleasure in complicating
the lives of seniors.
The minister wound up with the comment that our
amendments were the strangest, most bizarre and most
incomprehensible amendments that he has seen in a long time in
the House. He also mentioned that if I had truly understood Bill
C-54, I would not have proposed such absurd amendments.
Unfortunately for the Minister of Human Resources
Development, he confused Motion No. 2 with subclause 2 of
Motion No. 1.
Bill C-54 integrates the appeals process for the Canada
pension plan with that of the old age security program. On May
8, when this amendment was introduced in this House, I reported
what the attorney general had said: ``The two-tiered appeal
process for Old Age Security permits the satisfactory settlement
of the few cases there are. The process is simple, fast and
informal, and cases are heard in the regions where the appellants
live''.
Furthermore, the auditor general openly criticized the
three-tiered appeals process of the Canada pension plan. So,
why propose to integrate the two appeals processes and to use
the process under the Canada pension plan, which the auditor
general deems to be deficient? Clearly, they are not simplifying
the appeals process. In what way will this improve client
services?
Lastly, the Pension Appeals Board was authorized to appoint
temporary members. At the present time, someone who is not
satisfied with a decision made under the Canada Assistance Plan
has the right to appeal at three different levels.
First level appeals are to the Minister of Human Resources
Development. Second level appeals are heard by review
tribunals established under the Act. Finally, third level appeals
are heard by the Pension Appeals Board. Why change an appeal
process which, according to the Auditor General, works well to
replace it with a more complicated one?
(2310)
The Bloc Quebecois disagrees with this streamlining of
appeals under the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension
Plan because it is not an improvement.
14393
Let us not forget the importance of this amendment since
statistics reveal that in 1993-94, there were 23,046 first level
appeals, an increase of 0.5 per cent compared to the previous
year. Of that number, 83 per cent concern disability benefits.
A total of 27,077 appeals were processed during those years.
On Motions Nos. 4, 13 and 15 I supported my colleague for
Mercier since the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the provisions
of Bill C-54 intended to change access to certain information
since the government can increase the number of departments,
agencies or even individuals that will have access to information
for the purpose of implementing the acts modified by this bill.
Agencies having access to information according to the
previous act were: the Departments of Revenue, Finance,
Supply and Services, Employment and Immigration
Commission, Statistics Canada and provincial authorities.
These agencies can have access to the information as long as it
deals solely with the entitlement of beneficiaries or the amount
of benefits, or if their disclosure is essential to the legislation's
application.
When I supported these amendments, I said that we have to be
extremely careful when giving personal information on senior
citizens since it could be used for other purposes. We have to
protect our senior citizens against potential abuse. The
government did not prove that disclosing this privileged
information was essential and necessary.
I said also that governments are becoming more and more
intrusive. This government has the gall to claim that it is a good
thing to include Canada Post on the ground that, through the use
of new techniques, it could help accelerate the processing of
pension cheques.
We noticed time and time again that the government cannot
deal with its own administrative problems, and we recently had
the best possible example of that when some seniors had trouble
getting their income supplement cheques. We cannot condone
government intrusion in the private lives of senior citizens and
citizens in general.
This major change, even if used in accordance with the
present provisions of the Privacy Act, is an intrusion that the
Bloc Quebecois cannot accept. Moreover, we proposed in
Motions Nos. 5 and 6, amendments which did not seek to
remove Clause 23 entirely, but to amend it. For example, they
would have kept the one year delay before collecting
overpayments and forced the minister to remit the debt in the
cases mentioned. For example, in section 37 the one-year
statute of limitation is maintained.
The government is incapable of dealing with these matters
within a reasonable time frame. The abolition of this clause,
which accordingly does away with the limitation or claim on the
overpayment, is an obvious example of the government's loss of
control.
I repeat here the remarks of the auditor general in his report to
the effect that pension fund overpayments amount to between
$120 million and $220 million a year. He said: ``Past efforts to
prevent and detect overpayments have been minimal and largely
ineffective''. I am quoting the auditor general's report for 1993,
at page 486.
The auditor general also indicated that over 90 per cent of
appeals concerned applications for disability benefits under the
Canada Pension Plan.
(2315)
Does the provision that would permit the minister to stay
benefits during the appeal process together with the increase in
the number of unjustified appeals by the department not in fact
cover up a shameful way to reduce overpayments?
Clearly, at some point or other, many old people will be faced
with administrative errors by the government. They may have
received money they were not entitled to, without necessarily
realizing it. How can seniors repay a significant amount all of a
sudden and budget accordingly?
That is why the Bloc Quebecois proposed, in order to remedy
this situation, that the one year limitation on overpayments that
are not the result of fraudulent acts be imprescriptible so as to
force the government to improve management of the program
and to not unduly penalize seniors, who could have to pay back
significant amounts a number of years after an error was made.
Bill C-54 provides that, in these cases, the minister may
``remit''. We have proposed there be no discretionary power in
the above cases, to protect the interests of seniors. I have also
proposed in Motion No. 12 the following amendment, which is
of prime importance: ``That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting
Clause 38'', which reads as follows:
``Where a decision is made by a Review Tribunal or the Pension Appeals
Board in respect of a benefit, the Minister may stay payment of the benefit until
the latest of [three dates]''.
The amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, the official
opposition, is intended to not allow the government to stay
payments during appeals, because these appeals are the result of
the government's inability to manage these programs. I assume
the Minister of Human Resources Development also finds this
amendment bizarre. How do we tell seniors that they may enjoy
their rights, but are not entitled to receive the money they need
to live on during the proceedings?
I made a presentation on seniors' incomes when I introduced
my motion on May 8. Clearly they are not rich. I conclude here
with the question, why must we insist on reducing the deficit on
the backs of the most disadvantaged, on the backs of seniors? I
repeat my question to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
14394
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to rise in the House tonight to speak to Bill
C-54, an act to amend several social programs, including the
Canada pension plan.
Tonight I would like to speak in some detail about the Canada
pension plan, the amendments proposed to it in the bill, and
more generally about the policy direction of the Liberal
government and the minister on CPP.
The bill is nothing more than administrative housekeeping. It
is designed to improve minor flaws in the current system, but it
ignores, as the government has ignored, the very severe
problems our social programs face.
The Canada pension plan is a nightmare. The unfunded
liabilities of the plan rival our national debt. Those liabilities
were estimated to be $491 billion in 1993. That is $491 billion
that must either be taxed from future generations, our children
and our grandchildren, or it may mean that seniors will have to
forgo some of their benefits. Neither scenario is pleasant.
The Superintendent of Financial Institutions reported in
February that CPP will be out of funds in just 20 years.
Realistically, we have very little time to act to correct the
situation. We have been here a year and a half, yet the Liberal
government has offered us only a bill written by the bureaucracy
for the bureaucracy.
In the past year CPP ran its first deficit, seemingly a small
amount in comparison to the many billions of dollars of benefits
paid out. The government dipped into the contingency fund for
$650 million.
(2320 )
Suddenly the bureaucracy woke up. Even though the
contingency fund is over $40 billion, the not so astute central
planners had invested all the funds in 20-year loans to the
provinces with low interest. As anyone can see, this means that
only approximately $2 billion is actually liquid in any given
year. Therefore, last year panic set in as human resources
development bureaucrats suddenly realized that one-third of the
available cash in the contingency fund was going to be used up
meeting benefit obligations.
The story does not end here, however. Benefit payouts are
projected to increase faster than premiums can be collected. In
the next few years we may face a crisis as deficits climb past the
point of sustainability. Change must come quickly if we are to
preserve the integrity of the social programs for those who
depend on them.
Many Canadians are confused about the reasons the Canada
pension plan is not financially sustainable. It is really quite
simple. Unlike private pension plans or other savings plans, the
premiums paid are not invested and then returned to the
individual with interest upon retirement. Rather, the premiums
paid are used to fund current beneficiaries, with a small portion
going to the contingency fund. This would not be a totally
unreasonable situation if the demographics of the population
never changed. Canada has an aging population. An increasingly
higher percentage of the population depends on CPP for their
retirement. Correspondingly, a lower percentage of Canadians
are left in the workforce to fund the retirees. This situation will
only worsen as the baby boom generation reaches retirement
age.
If members think this plan sounds irresponsible, I agree with
them. I imagine that most members on that side of the House
have no problem with this. After all, the Liberals have done
exactly the same thing with their budget. They overspend today,
taking on debt that future generations will have to pay back.
They force future generations to pay for this generation. Some
might even call this financial abuse of children.
The Canada pension plan is no different. Today's working
mothers and fathers are directly subsidizing today's retirees,
and our children and grandchildren will be forced to subsidize
us. Based on the current projections there will be no CPP for my
children and grandchildren. It will only exist for this
self-serving generation. Serious reforms are necessary and are
needed immediately to fix this problem. However, we have a
lack of leadership from this government.
There are some good improvements proposed in Bill C-54 for
the Canada pension plan. There is some streamlining of the
appeals process, a possible reduction in overpayments to
recipients. There is simplification in the delegation of authority,
simplification of the division, reinstatement and assignment of
benefits. These are good and worthy benefits to be approved by
this House. It will help Canadians and reduce a few costs, but it
fails to deal with the most important aspect of pension reform. It
fails to deal with the imminent bankruptcy of the system.
What good are administrative reforms like those in Bill C-54
if the whole system goes bankrupt? It does not make any
difference how quickly a pensioner receives his cheque if the
amount is zero dollars and zero cents. The government of the
day would probably wish its system were not quite so efficient if
it is going to be sending out cheques like that. This bill
represents a baby step when a giant leap was needed.
The priority of this government should be to put CPP on a firm
financial footing. A proposal the government seems to keep
floating is that premiums should continually increase to fund
deficits in the plan. This is plainly unacceptable to a large
majority of Canadians. It is no different from increasing taxes,
and Canadians have said they are taxed to the limit.
Another suggestion is to cut benefits. There may be some
savings to be found in the myriad of benefits paid out, as I will
point out in a minute, but these savings will not fundamentally
alter the main problem, which is that the plan is actuarily
unsound.
14395
We plainly cannot cut benefits to those retirees who currently
depend on them, and it would be cruel to cut them significantly
for those who are about to retire. The only persons we can cut
future benefits for are those who have enough time left before
retirement to make alternate arrangements.
(2325)
I would like to tell of two different constituents of mine who
have come to me with stories of problems they have experienced
with CPP. The first constituent complained to me about waste in
the survivors benefits category, commonly known as widows
and orphans benefits. My constituent was concerned that after
marrying a widowed woman and adopting her two children the
survivors benefits continued to flow. He had to pursue his case
through the department all the way up to the minister to get the
benefits cut off.
Why is this unacceptable situation continuing to the present
day? Clearly if one is no longer a widow or an orphan they
should no longer collect a widow's or orphan's benefit. Savings
to be found in this area may be in the millions of dollars.
Another constituent complained to me about the overly high
benefit payout she is receiving from CPP for her retirement.
This constituent had paid in a grand total of $143 in premiums
over her lifetime, yet is receiving monthly benefit cheques of
$25. Although $25 a month or $300 a year does not seem to be an
amount that will bankrupt the plan, think what overpaying many
other Canadians hundreds or thousands of dollars a year does to
our balances. It is unsustainable and cannot be justified. We
must make the plan actuarially sound and financially stable for
those who have to depend on it.
The Reform Party has promised to be a constructive
alternative in Parliament, and on this issue, like most others, we
have laid out our plan. We believe that our approach must be
financially sustainable, fair, promote individual responsibility,
and must help relieve government of its massive fiscal
problems.
We believe that the registered personal savings plans coupled
with registered retirement savings plans are a large part of the
solution for Canada's working generation. We laid out our plan
in our taxpayers' budget prior to the release of the federal
budget. We detailed how Canadians would be encouraged to
plan for their own retirement without government interference
or financial bungling. We showed how individuals could make
choices that best suit their needs and we showed how it could be
done without incurring additional liabilities for the government.
Reformers demonstrated leadership in the area of pensions
and the Liberals have yet to move on the issue. Yet it is the
Liberals who have the power to effect the changes necessary to
save these programs. If the Liberals refuse to act then I believe
the Canadian people will choose leaders who will bring the
needed reform, and I believe they will choose Reformers to do
that job.
In closing, I want to read the comments of another member
from another debate on a similar bill from the last Parliament,
which only tinkered with the Canada Pension Plan and failed to
effect any meaningful change. I quote:
``I simply want to use this opportunity to draw the attention of
members and hopefully of the government or a future
government to the fact that the reform of the pension plan
system has to go beyond just tinkering, fixing some immediate
problems. We may have to come to grips with a lower level of
pension benefits that will be available as each generation of
Canadians reaches retirement age. I would suggest that the
problem is that we should be projecting the profile of what our
Canadian population will look like 10, 15, 20 years down the
road and designing our CPP to meet that problem so that future
legislators will not have to scramble to face a much broader
problem or large scale insecurity because we at the present time
did not exercise our responsibility of stewardship to make sure
that there would be enough of a benefit base to satisfy those
needs. Similarly, I also find it of concern that the number of real
problems that have been identified in the implementation and
administration of the Canada Pension Plan are not being fully
addressed in this bill.''
The comments were made by none other than the author of
this present tinkering bill, the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The leadership and changes the Canadian voters are so
desperately looking for will have to wait until the next federal
election, when Reform will form the government.
(2330)
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
14396
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(2345 )
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the table informs me we would
now normally be voting on third reading of Bill C-54. However,
given that most members are under the impression we will be
voting first on ways and means Motion No. 29, I think you would
find unanimous consent that we commence with voting on ways
and means Motion No. 29 and then follow on the order and
terminate with third reading stage of Bill C-54.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 319)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-198
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-37
14397
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
St-Laurent
Tobin
(2355 )
During the taking of the vote:
Mr. Malhi: Mr. Speaker, I vote with the government.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-91, an act to
continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the
name Business Development Bank of Canada, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The first question is on Motion No. 1.
A vote on Motion No. 1 will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6
and 26 to 33.
[Translation]
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 will obviate the
necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos. 2 and 5.
However, a negative vote on Motion No. 1 will necessitate the
question being put on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find that there is
consent that the members who voted on the previous motion, as
well as the hon. member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton, be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House.
The Liberal members will vote in favour of the motion.
Mr. Duceppe: The Bloc members vote against this motion,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform members vote no except
for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
[English]
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote no on the
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 320)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-145
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
14398
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-90
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
St-Laurent
Tobin
(2400 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 carried. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 26 to 33 inclusive
carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent for members who voted on
the previous motion to be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote no,
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the NDP votes yes on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 321)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Riis
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-53
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
14399
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-182
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
St-Laurent
Tobin
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 8.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find that members who voted on the previous motion
should be recorded as voting on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: The Bloc Quebecois votes no on this motion,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote yes,
except for those who may wish to vote otherwise.
[English]
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the NDP votes no on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 322)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-37
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
14400
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-198
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
St-Laurent
Tobin
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 9.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would again find
unanimous consent for members who voted on the previous
motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before
the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote no,
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote nay on this
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 323)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-49
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
14401
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-186
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
St-Laurent
Tobin
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 10.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent for members who voted on
the previous motion to be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: The Bloc Quebecois is also against this
motion, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote yea,
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the NDP members vote yes on this
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 324)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-41
14402
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-194
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
St-Laurent
Tobin
(2405)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 11.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent for the vote taken on report
stage Motion No. 8 to be applied to the motion now before the
House, as well as applied to report stage Motion No. 15.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 322.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 lost. I also
declare Motion No. 15 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 14.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent for the vote taken on report
stage Motion No. 9 to be applied to the motion now before the
House.
I think there would also be unanimous consent to apply the
same vote to Motion No. 19 and, in reverse, to Motion No. 25.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motions Nos.
14 and 19.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 323.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 14 and 19 lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 20.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to pay particular
attention as this is different from what was anticipated. I think
you would find consent for the result of the vote on ways and
means Motion No. 29 to be applied to the motion now before the
House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
14403
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 319.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 20 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 21.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent to apply the result of the vote
on report stage Motion No. 10 to the motion now before the
House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 324.]
(2410)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 21 lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 22.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent to apply the result of the vote
on report stage Motion No. 1 in reverse to the motion now before
the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 325)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-90
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
14404
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-145
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
St-Laurent
Tobin
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 22 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 23.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent to apply the result of the vote
on report stage Motion No. 7 to the motion now before the
House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 321.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 23 lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 24.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent for members who voted on
the previous motion to be recorded as voting on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
Perhaps I could indicate that I believe you would find consent
to apply that result in reverse to report stage Motions Nos. 16
and 18.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will all
vote no, even those who would have liked to support the motion.
Some hon. members: Ah, ah.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote no
on Motion No. 24, except for those members who wish to vote
otherwise. On Motions Nos. 16 and 18 they will vote in reverse
as the government whip stated.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the NDP votes yes and agrees to the
application of the other two votes as suggested by the whip of
the government party.
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was agreed to on
the following division):
(Division No. 326)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
14405
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-149
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-86
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
St-Laurent
Tobin
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 24 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 25.
(The House divided on the Motion No. 25, which was agreed
to on the following division:)
(Division No. 327)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
14406
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-186
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-49
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
St-Laurent
Tobin
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 25 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 16.
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 328)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-86
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
14407
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-149
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bélanger
Canuel
Debien
Regan
St-Laurent
Tobin
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the Motion No. 16 lost.
Accordingly Motion No. 17 is also lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 18.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 328.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 18 lost.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that
the bill be concurred in and read the second time.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent for the result of the vote on
report stage Motion No. 1 to be applied to the motion for
concurrence.
(2415)
[Translation]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 320.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, be read the
third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a)
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division
at the third reading stage of Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal
Canadian Mint Act.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you find unanimous consent to apply the result taken on report
stage Motion No. 1 of Bill C-91 to the motion now before the
House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 320.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-65, an act to
reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies, as reported
(with amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a)
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions on Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain
federal agencies.
[Translation]
The first question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on Motion No.
1 will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15 and
16.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent to apply the result of report stage
Motion No. 9 of Bill C-91 to the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 323.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15 and 16 lost.
14408
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 13.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent to apply the result of report
stage Motion No. 20 of Bill C-91 to the motion now before the
House.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 319.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 carried.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent to apply the result of the
division on report stage Motion No. 8 of Bill C-91 to the motion
now before the House.
(2420)
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 322.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 8.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent to apply the results of report stage Motion
No. 24 of Bill C-91 in reverse to report stage Motion No. 8 now
before the House as well as to report stage Motion No. 10. If you
were to reverse that again you would find unanimous consent to
apply the result of concurrence at report stage of Bill C-65.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 328.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 8 and 10 lost.
Accordingly I declare Motion No. 11 lost.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 326.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada
pension plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the
Unemployment Insurance Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a),
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division
on third reading of Bill C-54.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent to apply the result of report stage Motion
No. 24 of Bill C-91 to the motion now before the House.
I thank my colleague whips of the other parties, including the
New Democratic Party, for their kind assistance tonight.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 326.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 12.25 a.m., the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 12.25 a.m.)