CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 4, 1995
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15211
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15211
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15212
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15212
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15213
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15213
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15213
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15215
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 15217
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15217
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15218
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 15218
Motion for concurrence in 88th report 15222
(Motion agreed to.) 15222
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 15222
Bill C-64. Consideration resumed of report stage and ofMotion No.
7 15223
(Motion No. 11A agreed to.) 15230
Motions Nos. 13 and 14 15230
Division on motion deferred 15233
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.47 p.m.) 15233
The House resumed at 5.01 p.m. 15234
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 39;Nays, 159 15234
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 38; Nays, 162 15235
Motion No. 7 negatived on division: Yeas, 78;Nays, 122 15236
Motion negatived. Yeas: 41; Nays: 159 15237
Motion for concurrence 15238
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15238
(Bill concurred in and read the second time.) 15239
Consideration resumed of motion 15239
15207
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 4, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
Winnipeg last week I had the privilege of taking part in the CRTC's
regional consultations on violence in television, violence which, I
believe, has a negative impact on our children.
[English]
Parents need better information and better tools to ensure they
can make wise decisions with respect to the kinds of programs they
want their children to watch.
The industry must continue to self regulate. A standardized
classification system is needed. New technology, for example the
V-chip, could also be extremely helpful to parents. Media literacy
for parents and children is required.
[Translation]
I would urge hon. members to work together to ensure that
television becomes a positive tool for us and especially for our
children.
* * *
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Roy
Romanow, who also took part in the strong-arm tactics against
Quebec when the Constitution was patriated unilaterally in 1982,
has stated that francophones in Saskatchewan may lose the
governance of their schools if the Yes side wins in the referendum
in Quebec.
Condescending and irresponsible, that kind of statement is
typical of a man who would stop at nothing to impose his views.
In the past, Mr. Romanow has shown that to be the case. He has
no respect for francophones or Quebec. The question now is,
whether his attitude reflects the views of Canada today.
If it does, if the survival of francophones outside Quebec
depends solely on the presence of Quebec within Canada, the
Canadian ideal of equality in diversity has ceased to exist. If that is
the case, respect for our most fundamental rights no longer exists.
Too bad for Canadians who still had a dream.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate a Canadian company on a noteworthy
accomplishment.
Syncrude Canada, a mining company and major contributor to
the economy in Canada, has just opened a nature trail north of Fort
McMurray that reflects the mining industry's commitment to
Canada and our environment. In the spirit of co-operation and
responsibility, the Wood Bison Trail was opened by the premier of
Alberta at a ceremony attended by 4,300 spectators.
Most notable is the trail's entrance which is marked by a native
carving of bison that stretches 30 feet in the air. It is called the
Bison Gateway and was sculptured by the native artist Brian Clark.
This monument marks Syncrude's $2 million reclamation project
on a mined out area around Wood Bison Trail. As further evidence
to this commitment a herd of wood bison has been reintroduced to
the area after being extinct for hundreds of years.
I congratulate everyone involved in this project. It is an example
of what can be accomplished when government, industry,
environment and native groups work together to harvest our
resource wealth and leave the area productive for future
generations.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with an Innu
15208
delegation making representations with regard to the relocation of
its community from Davis Inlet to Little Sango Pond.
The delegation informed me that on February 25, 1994 the Innu
people received a statement of political commitment from the
ministers of Indian affairs, health, justice, as well as the Solicitor
General of Canada. Through these ministers the Government of
Canada agreed to support the relocation subject to a number of
conditions. The delegation has informed me that these conditions
have now been met and the community is anxious for a favourable
federal cabinet decision that will begin the process of its relocation.
Today I want to put on the public record that I am completely
supportive of the Innu relocation to Little Sango Pond. They have
satisfied the terms and conditions required and it would seem that
the federal government has a clear obligation to respect its
commitments as set down in February 1994.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the Prime Minister of Ireland, Mr. John Bruton and his
wife, Finola Bruton, visited Canada. Mr. Bruton, whose title in
Irish is Taoiseach, visited several cities, including Ottawa.
As a Canadian member of Parliament of Irish descent, I was
honoured to be invited along with several of my colleagues by our
Prime Minister to meet and dine with Prime Minister Bruton.
In his excellent comments that evening Mr. Bruton praised
Canada as a nation of diverse peoples who have learned to respect
our differences and live together in peace.
As the people of Quebec prepare to vote in the referendum on
October 30, it is the fervent hope of other Canadians that
Quebecers will choose to remain a very important and cherished
partner in a united Canada.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tonight at
the National Press Club, Canadian recording artists the True Grit
Band will be making their debut performance of ``Stand Up For
Canada'', a song celebrating Canadian unity written by Mr. Jim
Chapman, a talk show host at CKSL News Radio in London,
Ontario. This world premier performance will be recorded for
posterity by the nation's music station MuchMusic.
It should be noted that this song was brought to the True Grit
Band's attention by my patriotic colleague and percussionist, the
hon. member for London East.
``Stand Up For Canada'' is a creative expression of the pride
possessed by Canadians from sea to sea to sea. The song is sung by
the members for Madawaska-Victoria, Halton Peel and
Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. Instrumentals are provided by
the members for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Sault Ste. Marie,
Lincoln, Sarnia-Lambton and yours truly from Hamilton West.
I ask all my hon. colleagues in the House to show support for our
great nation and ``Stand Up For Canada''.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 20, St. Catharines' well known sportswriter, Jack
Gatecliff, will be inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.
Better known as the Gate, Jack Gatecliff is best known for his
constant friendly smile and personable nature. He is also a hockey
historian who has dedicated his life to writing about the sport.
In 1950 Jack began writing for the St. Catharines Standard, a
five times a week column called ``Through the Sports Gate''. He
officially retired as sports editor in 1991, more than 10,000
columns later.
His love of sports shone through in every article he wrote and he
still contributes to the Standard on a regular basis. As a hockey
player Jack played with the Junior A team in St. Catharines. As a
writer he spent countless hours covering Canada's two national
sports, lacrosse and hockey. For years Jack Gatecliff kept St.
Catharines' sports fans up to date.
I know my colleagues in the House join me in congratulating
Jack Gatecliff on his induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
current referendum debate, Bombardier President Laurent
Beaudoin should recognize Quebec's contribution to the success of
his company instead of hinting that it might leave the province if
the Yes side wins.
Such comments are insulting, not only to the sovereignists but to
all Quebecers who contributed to the success of Bombardier and
were proud of it.
We should remember that government backing, with the support
of Quebec taxpayers, was a major ingredient of that success.
15209
I would ask Mr. Beaudoin, who heads Bombardier, a symbol
of Quebec entrepreneurship, to put his talents at the service of his
compatriots, whatever the outcome.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, sometimes one outstanding act of courage and
commitment stands out and brings to prominence national issues as
no spoken or written word can. Such is the case of the completion
of a 20-day marathon swim by Fin Donnelly of Coquitlam who on
September 24 completed a mammoth swim down the Fraser River.
He completed the arduous 1,325 kilometre journey in 20 days.
Fin Donnelly's ``Swim For Life'' was a personal campaign to
raise awareness about environmental abuse of the Fraser River and
the need to protect this unique waterway. In his 20-day journey Fin
kept up a gruelling pace in spite of personal and natural obstacles.
In dedicating his swim to the need to preserve our waters against
pollution abuse, Fin has challenged individuals, businesses and
governments that may be part of the problem to become part of the
solution.
I join with my constituents in recognizing this young man's
courage and commitment in preserving one of Canada's great
natural resources, the Fraser River.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the Saint-Jean Baptiste Society said that if Quebec did not
start protecting the French language, francophone Quebecers
would become a minority.
Language is one of the most important aspects of a culture. The
richness of the French language is recognized throughout the
world. For many centuries, French was spoken not only in France,
but in many other countries as well. In fact, French was the
language of diplomacy.
Today, in Canada, there are thousands of French immersion
courses. In my riding, in Vancouver East, Hastings School offers
French immersion courses. When I visited the school, I was
surprised at the level of language knowledge and comprehension
among sixth and seventh grade students.
I believe in a bilingual and united Canada. We must keep it that
way.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Comité
des Québecois et Québécoises pour le non has had to give in and
prepare the budget for year one of an independent Quebec, having
realized that, despite repeated calls for it by the general public and
the business community, the Quebec separatists were still refusing
to put any figure to their plans for separation.
The first year budget as presented yesterday represents a
scientific update of what the leader of the Parti Quebecois had
presented in 1973.
From it we learn that an independent Quebec will inherit a
deficit of $15.6 billion, minimum. Quebec workers will therefore
find themselves having to pay at least $3,000 in additional taxes
annually.
Quebec's separatists refuse to talk about the costs of separation.
We shall do it for them, since the public has a right to know. On
October 30, the answer to the project for separation will be No.
* * *
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the PQ leader found out that not all mayors concerned
with the day to day administration of their municipalities will
commit lightly to any project without finding out first what the
costs and impacts will be.
The mayor of Montmagny, Jean-Claude Croteau, took advantage
of the presence of the PQ Premier in his region to invite him to
indicate in advance what the offer of partnership to be made to
Canada the day after a yes vote would be.
The supporters of separation refuse to make that offer of
partnership public, because they know full well that an economic
and political union between an independent Quebec and Canada is
impossible. The only real option they are pursuing is separation.
The rest is just another example of smoke and mirrors to confuse
the public.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
leaders of the federalist side would have Quebecers believe that
English Canada could manage without a partnership agreement
with a sovereign Quebec.
The economic reality is that Quebec is the second-ranking
partner of English Canada, far ahead of Japan and Germany.
(1410)
The economic reality is that Quebecers purchase $420 million
worth of fish and other food products from the Atlantic provinces
every year. That there are $850 million worth of oil and natural gas
15210
sold to Quebec by Alberta. There is Bay Street, the financial heart
of Toronto, which would lose $2.8 billion in insurance and
financial services business. And there are the $1.3 billion worth of
car and truck purchases from the Ontario automobile industry by
Quebec.
Yet they are trying to make us believe that a partnership is not in
the interests of Quebec and the rest of Canada. Really, now.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
pay tribute to the opposition in the House. People may think I am
talking about the Bloc or the Reformers. No, I am talking about the
Liberals. If it looks like opposition, talks like opposition and smells
like opposition, then it must be opposition.
The Liberals have pretty well abdicated leadership and have
vacated the role of promoting real solutions to Canada's problems.
The Reformers on the other hand are acting like government by
proposing real, workable, common sense solutions.
It was the Reform Party which proposed a clear response to the
Quebec referendum. The Liberals caught up about a week later. We
have urged since the beginning that it is most important to set real
targets on balancing the budget. We hope they will catch up soon.
The Liberals spend more time criticizing Reformers than they
spend promoting their own proposed legislation because they do
not seem to have any. The most significant evidence is that they are
now filibustering their own bills. While the important issues of the
nation go unnoticed, the Liberals are talking endlessly on the few
trivial bills now before the House.
The Liberals may not be ready to govern but the Reformers are.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Leader of the Official Opposition told journalists candidly that he
is not ruling out the idea of one day being the premier of Quebec.
Is there some connection between his statement and the
comments made two days ago by the PQ Premier? He repeated
yesterday, for the second day in a row that he is beginning to feel
the years and that he is opening the door to his successors.
Is this some new trick, a change in direction or simply a message
the Leader of the Opposition is sending to militant Quebec
separatists to get them to prepare for the days after the referendum?
Regardless of what happens with the political career of the leader
of the Bloc Quebecois, we must not lose sight of the fact that his
primary objective is Quebec's separation. Our response to that will
be no.
* * *
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Action démocratique du Québec was
in the Outaouais region yesterday. He tried to convince people that
the partnership between an independent Quebec and Canada would
be guaranteed the day after Quebec's separation.
The separatist leader of the ADQ justified his confidence in such
an agreement by stressing that it was simply good common sense.
Earlier in the day, the separatist leader touched on the future of
federal public servants in an independent Quebec and said that
nobody would be dropped for a period of two years.
The people in the Outaouais have good common sense and know
very well that separatist promises will bring them nothing. This is
why they will vote no on October 30.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, nothing
defines Canadians more than their love for the game of hockey and
its colourful heroes who have brought so much joy to so many.
Long before words like arbitration and agent became part of the
game's vocabulary, names like Bathgate, Howe, Mahovlich,
Beliveau, Kelly and Richard were being claimed by runny nosed
shinny players on rinks across Canada. I know because I was one of
them, as were many of my colleagues in the House.
We may have lost our breakaway speed, but we will always
remember the smooth stickhandling of a Jean Beliveau, the sure
slapshot of Frank Mahovlich, the fierce intensity of Henri ``Pocket
Rocket'' Richard, the clutch goal of Paul Henderson, the sharp
elbows of Gordie Howe, the tenacity of Ted Lindsay, and the feared
hip check of Pierre Pilote.
I am sorry Mr. Meeker, but I only remember how you taught the
game on TV.
15211
These individuals personify character, class and charisma. Most
important, they made it fun for us to be kids. For that I thank these
gentlemen.
_____________________________________________
15211
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, now we know that to get applause from all sides of this
House, you have to play hockey.
In its secret document prepared for Operation Unity, the federal
Department of Industry made a list of Quebec companies,
indicating subsidies they had received or will receive from Ottawa.
And all for the sole purpose of urging business leaders to support
the No side. By strange coincidence, yesterday senior executives of
one of the companies targeted by Industry Canada, Spar Aerospace,
urged employees at the plant in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue to vote
No.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. How can he go on
claiming that Industry Canada's secret document is a routine
economic report, when it actually lists the political views of top
business leaders?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian government has a responsibility to ensure
that jobs are created in Canada and that jobs are kept. That is our
responsibility. And as politicians it is very important for us to know
what we are doing for businesses in Quebec, because the important
thing is to keep those salaries and jobs in Quebec.
I was once Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and that
was quite a few years ago. When Canadair was closing its doors,
which would have had a disastrous impact on Spar Industries, we
managed to save Canadair. When General Dynamics was leaving
Canada, as Minister of Industry I took action, and today, Canadair
is the best company in Quebec. And Canadair buys services from
Spar. We want those jobs to be kept. This is very important.
In fact, the workers themselves admitted as much, because when
I left politics, members of the Canadair employees' union asked me
to work for them, and they told me: ``You are aware of our needs.
When we needed you, you were there. We want you to keep
working for us''. I am concerned about workers' wages, about high
tech jobs for Quebec and ensuring that the markets will still be
there, not only in Canada but throughout the world, for the benefit
of the economy and the people of Quebec, especially in the
Montreal region.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am still looking for the connection the government
seems to see between job creation and examining political views of
business leaders. The document we are tabling today contains an
analysis, an assessment of the likelihood of influencing members
of the Kruger family. That is going a bit too far and has no
connection with jobs.
In the same secret document prepared by Industry Canada, we
read, and I quote:
[English]
``The threat of cutting support for world class industrial facilities
such as Pratt and Whitney, Spar Aerospace, and Canadian Marconi
might bring reaction and support for the federalist cause''.
[Translation]
How can the leader of the government keep denying that
Operation Unity is actually blackmailing companies like Spar by
threatening to cut off federal subsidies for research and
development unless they speak out on behalf of the No side?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is the duty of the government to make sure everybody
understands what this is all about. This is all about a party
dedicated to destroying Canada. You do not break up a country that
easily anywhere in the world.
(1420)
Our preoccupation is very simple. We want to keep the country
together. We can have industries in Quebec, we can have industries
in Ontario and the rest of Canada that can compete in the world. It
is our duty to tell that to Quebecers, because if they vote yes and
there is a separatist government there can be no guarantee they will
be able to have the same types of operations in Quebec.
The leaders of the unions can talk, but the owners of a company
do not know what they talk about.
[Translation]
What does Mr. Beaudoin want? He wants to maintain the number
of jobs Quebecers have with Bombardier in Quebec. That is his
concern. He is doing this first of all for the sake of the workers,
their salaries and the shareholders, and it is his responsibility to do
so.
If we can help people tell workers in Quebec that they are taking
a risk by voting Yes, it is our duty to tell them that, in their own
interests and those of their families, they should vote to stay in the
best country in the world: Canada.
[English]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the first duty of any government, federal or otherwise, is
to respect democracy, to let people enjoy their freedom of opinion.
15212
Democracy calls for the respect of the freedom of those people,
whether business people or anybody in Canada, to be free to
express their opinions and not be forced to be federalists because
of blackmail. It is not very noble to be federalists because we are
blackmailed.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister admit that what the
vice-president of Spar Aerospace told his employees yesterday is a
direct result of this conscription exercise in which Ottawa is
pushing business people to support the No side?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everyone has a right to express his opinions, including
heads of companies. And they have an obligation to tell their
employees-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes, they have an obligation to
say so.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Not by using blackmail.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, since when is the
truth blackmail? Since when is telling people that their economic
and political future is at risk blackmail?
We are telling the truth. We are not looking for trick questions
with ``virages and mirages''. We want to tell Quebecers the truth.
We have proved in Canada that we can live together, even if we do
not all speak the same language or have the same colour skin. I am
delighted to see the best example of what we can do in Canada in
our gallery today: hockey players who worked as a team.
[English]
They have proven they can become the best in the world, French
and English, but all of them proud Canadians.
(1425)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
distressing to note that the Prime Minister is prepared to use every
means to ensure his truth wins, including standing behind
documents that advocate blackmailing business.
The Prime Minister persists in claiming this is perfectly normal.
Imagine, it is perfectly normal for Industry Canada to keep the
political opinions of the heads of Quebec business on file. The
Prime Minister thinks it is perfectly normal for a government
document to describe ways to armtwist Quebec businesses into
voting the way the Prime Minister wants them to.
When the Industry Canada document identifies the political
affiliation of a number of heads of Quebec businesses, when it lists
the subsidies granted them, when funding cuts to Spar, Pratt &
Whitney or Canadian Marconi are threatened, how can this still be
claimed to be a simple matter of economics and not a political
matter for the special unit of the Prime Minister's office?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, quite frankly, the people in the Bloc Quebecois are really
desperate. Two days ago we were being accused of giving Quebec
nothing for research and development.
Do you recall, hon. members, Mr. Speaker?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We were not doing enough.
Now we are doing too much, because we told the people of Quebec
that these industries developed thanks to the presence of the federal
government. The federal government has been giving subsidies to
these businesses for 25 years. They are not being given because of
an upcoming referendum. Twenty-five years ago we developed
these programs of assistance to industry, which have resulted, in
certain sectors, in Quebec workers being able today to sell their
products worldwide.
This is why the heads of business who succeeded, with the help
of the federal government, in developing these businesses want to
keep them for the benefit of people working there.
Mr. Beaudouin probably has a pretty solid bank account, but if a
disaster strikes, it will not be he who suffers, it will be the the
families of people working in his plants. These are the people we
want to protect, rather than leap into the void in the adventure that
these folks here are proposing for Quebec. Quebecers know they
are living in Canada, the best country in the world, and on October
30, they will vote for Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
Prime Minister would like to talk research and development, he
should take note and acknowledge before the cameras and before
this House that the document prepared by his officials confirms the
figures quoted by the official opposition last week to the effect that
only 17 per cent of all research and development is done in Quebec,
when the figure should be much higher than that. It should be at
least 30 per cent.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is not desperation when we call for
candour and a clear statement from the Prime Minister, an
admission he should be making.
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh.
The Speaker: The question please.
Mr. Gauthier: In a democratic society such as ours, how can the
Prime Minister find it normal and try to tell the House that a group
of officials in the federal government's special operations unit,
connected with his office, is systematically violating the charter of
rights and freedoms by classifying the heads of Quebec businesses
according to their political affiliation?
15213
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our request was not very complicated. We simply asked
officials to tell us the truth about federal involvement in Quebec
businesses.
(1430)
It is very important for them to know, because we want people to
know the truth. We did not do as the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti
Quebecois did and say: ``We will come up with a winning
question''. Not a real question, a winning question. They did not
want to tell Quebecers they are separatists. The leader of the Bloc
Quebecois, the Leader of the Opposition, told the Americans,
because they do not understand what the word ``souverainiste''
means, and besides, it is not in the French dictionary-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): It is in the new Quebec
dictionary which has not been approved by the Académie
Française.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): For the first year, because we
silenced them a few times recently.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois said to the Americans: ``I am a
separatist''. But he did not have the courage to go to Lac-Saint-Jean
or Trois-Rivières or Rouyn-Noranda or Montreal and say: ``I am a
separatist''. Everyone knows I am a Canadian and that I will still be
one on October 31.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Both the Canadian people and our armed forces deserve better
than the culture of cover-up which has taken hold of the
Department of National Defence. It seems that every day we
discover new evidence of deception within the DND hierarchy.
Access to information documents are forged. Police investigations
are obstructed. Evidence is destroyed.
We have warned the Minister of National Defence repeatedly,
yet he has adopted a hear no evil, see no evil attitude and
continually expresses confidence in his senior officials. Canadians
have lost confidence.
When will the Prime Minister recognize the chronic systematic
failure of the leadership in the Department of National Defence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think Canada is very well served by a very good Minister
of National Defence.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is just like the defence minister.
He is hiding behind camouflage. The failure is in leadership and it
begins at the top.
The most basic principle of parliamentary democracy requires
the minister to take responsibility for the decisions of his officials.
Why should we be surprised when officers in the Canadian
forces chain of command begin passing the buck? This is an
example set by the minister.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Who is calling the shots
in the Department of National Defence? When will he appoint a
minister who will take responsibility for the defence department?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in response to the hon. member, the critic for the third
party, he is suggesting there have been cover-ups.
Let me just tell him, his party and the House that it was this
government that commissioned the inquiry into the Somalia events
and the deployment of the Canadian forces. It was this government
that made all the documents, every single document related to that
inquiry, open to the public. It was this government that made
available and encouraged members of the Canadian forces to
appear in front of the commission and to do everything they could
to bring light to the commission.
This government has not just been open; it has been terribly
open.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, terrible is the correct response for sure.
I remind the parliamentary secretary that external inquiries are
not the question. It is the question of the internal inquiries where
cover-ups, corruption and mismanagement are the daily practice at
DND.
The Prime Minister knows the Canadian Armed Forces has
served the country with honour. He knows that his minister has lost
the respect of Canadians and has entirely lost control of his
department.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to demand the resignation
of the Minister of National Defence who consistently demonstrates
poor judgment and flees not only from his responsibilities but from
questions in the House.
(1435)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary very eloquently
explained the situation.
15214
When we formed the government there was this problem which
was created before we came into government that was causing a
lot of problems. We decided to get to the bottom of it.
There were some very difficult decisions to be made. For
example, when we had to decide to dismantle the airborne regiment
it was not easy to do. I think it was the right decision. Now all the
files are available to everybody and an inquiry has been named that
will look at every document.
It is public. The press is there. How can we be more open than
that? All the documents are there.
The incident in Somalia occurred before we formed the
government but there was a desire by the public to get to the bottom
of it and the commission will get to the bottom of it. It will make
recommendations. If there is some need for changes in the way
decisions are made in defence, we will change them. But so far so
good.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes, yes. There is an inquiry
and the minister has made available everything required by the
commissioners. It is a public inquiry and we will wait for the
results. After that if there is a need for changes we will make them,
but first we will let the inquiry do its job.
The Speaker: I would ask colleagues to keep the questions and
the answers short.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the secret Industry Canada document it is stated that
Oerlikon will likely adopt a federalist position in private, but that
its public position will be determined by its head office instead. We
also know that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has
recently been in touch with that company.
Can the minister assure us that neither he nor any member of his
staff has used the fallout benefits from the armoured vehicle
construction contracts to pressure Oerlikon to position itself on the
No side, as recommended in the secret Industry Canada document?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the only communication between myself and Oerlikon has
been one letter in which I forwarded to them, with General Motors'
permission, a letter from GM stating that there would be
discussions between the two companies to see whether it would be
possible for Oerlikon to take part in the General Motors contracts.
That is all there was to it, and the allegations of the opposition
are once again based on dreaming, obviously in technicolour, and
without any basis in fact.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, no, the dreams were in black and white, a printed black
and white document from the Department of Industry, a secret
document. He might read it from time to time. It would be helpful
to us if he took time off from his dreaming to read something once
in a while. How can the minister explain that Ottawa continues to
put off clarifying its intentions concerning the regional benefits of
the contract to purchase armoured vehicles, while as long ago as
March Oerlikon was being clearly identified in a secret Industry
Canada document as a possible subcontractor for the tank turrets?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again the opposition is mixing all kinds of issues
together. Oerlikon and General Motors will be discussing their
plans to perhaps enable Oerlikon to obtain subcontracts from
General Motors.
But to give you a an idea of what is really in the Department of
Industry document referred to, I will read you some excerpts. For
example, in the aeronautics sector, what the ``secret'' Department
of Industry document says is as follows: The generally stable
climate and the availability of funding programs are what have
been responsible for the industry's continued growth. The threat of
separation might offer the companies an opportunity for out of
province consolidation and restructuring.
(1440)
That is what the document has to say about companies in the
aeronautical sector. I might mention other sectors, but the
conclusion is that this document states very clearly that separation
will cost Quebecers dearly in all of the province's industrial
sectors.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
destruction of the two videotapes by Colonel Kenward is clear
evidence of a violation or an obstruction of justice.
Colonel Kenward's promotion is an exoneration of wrongdoing
determined by the most senior members of our military and viewed
by many as a cover-up. Clearly an external inquiry into the
operation of the entire military apparatus beyond the mandate of
the present hearings is justified to reassure Canadians that the
integrity of our military is beyond question and functioning within
the confines of law.
15215
Will the Prime Minister authorize such a broad and all
encompassing inquiry?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to the issue of promotion of the officer in
question, I have to tell the hon. member and the House there is a
system in place that has existed for 43 years.
That system essentially is that the chief of the defence staff is
responsible for promoting officers and non-commissioned ranks up
to the rank of colonel. The minister is responsible for all general
officers' promotions.
The system is in place to prevent political interference. It works
and it worked on this occasion. If the hon. member is suggesting
that we politicize the system of promotion then I suggest he is
suggesting the wrong thing. The Canadian forces would not agree.
The House would not approve it and the Canadian public would be
appalled.
He would be the first one to scream if this were the case and I
would be there to join him.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is
another incident of preferential treatment under the law for certain
Canadians. The destruction of evidence by Colonel Kenward is
clearly a violation of the law. His exoneration by military brass
rather than through due process places our rule of law in disrepute.
Could the Prime Minister explain to the House why this senior
military officer was promoted rather than held accountable for his
actions? Why do we not all stand equal before the law?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the hon. member in asking questions to make sure he
has his facts correct.
I remind the House of something that came out yesterday. Had
he watched the press conference by the chief of the defence staff,
he may have discovered that he was not entirely correct in his
question.
The senior judge in the Canadian forces, the judge advocate
general, on the recommendation of the chief of the defence staff
and the commander of land forces, did a special inquiry and
concluded that the officer in question did nothing illegal.
With respect to being open, I have to tell the hon. member who
talked about destroyed tapes that these were copies. The original
tape is now answering to our question and a previous question
about transparency.
In addition to all the things the Prime Minister and I mentioned,
the particular tape is also available to the commission of inquiry.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The secret document intended for Operation Unity reveals that
top executives at CAE Electronics, a subsidiary of the parent
company in Toronto, strongly support federalism in private. It also
indicates that they will publicly follow in the footsteps of their
Bombardier and Marconi counterparts.
Can the minister, who is obviously well aware of the referendum
position of potential government contractors, tell us what contract
he has set aside for CAE Electronics should its executives come out
publicly in favour of the No side?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the opposition is repeating-in the hope of making it
come true-the allegation that there is a link between the analysis
of various industrial sectors in the Industry Canada document and
federal subsidies to these industries.
(1445)
There is clearly no link between the two. What the report
correctly describes is the fact that a great many Quebec industries
are dependent on various federal subsidies and that if Quebec
separates from the rest of Canada, many Quebec businesses will go
bankrupt. That is simple. That is clear. That is transparent.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
does the minister explain the fact that this document clearly
identifies CAE Electronics as the only potential contractor in
Quebec for the maintenance of the four used British submarines,
which the government is about to acquire at a cost of over $1
billion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps we should wait until we buy them before deciding
who will maintain them.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister has accused the Alberta environment
minister of racism.
What he actually said was: ``If there's something like the
expansion of the ski hill in a national park, that's your jurisdiction,
not mine. And if it's something on an Indian reserve, that yours, not
15216
mine-If we're not going to work in the spirit of trust and
co-operation we've got a major problem''.
We have a major problem. When will this minister apologize to
Ty Lund for her misrepresentation of his remarks?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in June Ty Lund gave an
interview to Vicki Barnett of a newspaper in Alberta in which he
said, and this is his quote in June in reference to the meeting that
took place: ``Referring to federal minister Copps, Lund said,
`Come on, lady, if you want to come to Alberta and see what's
happening with Indian reserves and logging, we would have had it
shut down and charged them a long time ago. Where have you
been? In our last meeting with Sheila Copps-she's an interesting
lady-she was giving me the gears for trying to get into a
harmonization. She sput and sputtered about that one and she said
to me, `You don't look after our lands'. Lund is leading the charge
which would see the province have complete responsibility for
Alberta land while Ottawa would oversee national parks and Indian
reserves''.
Those were the comments of Mr. Lund in a newspaper interview
in June.
Mr. Solberg: So what?
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Apologize.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, those
comments are absolutely true. That is the jurisdiction of the federal
government. Why does she not live up to it and make sure it is
abided by?
She accuses the provincial minister of saying this and exactly
this: ``You can have the national parks and the Indians. We want to
look after all the rest''. That simply is not true. He did not say that.
Regardless of what comments may have been taken out of context
in that news article, why will she not-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I read from a transcript, not a
newspaper article.
Ms. Clancy: Table it.
Miss Grey: When will the minister admit that is simply not what
he said and when will she retract these remarks and get these talks
back on track?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the other day the member
claimed that I had misrepresented the views of Mr. Lund. Mr. Lund
has never denied making the remarks at a private meeting with nine
other ministers at which I heard very specifically the comments he
made.
It is a sad day when the member for Beaver River gets up in the
House and repeats the position of the Alberta government that the
Government of Canada has no place in Alberta other than to deal
with Indian reserves and national parks.
Surely the Canadian people support a national government that
will establish national environmental standards and give some
national leadership. Surely she understands that the point I was
making to Ty Lund, when I would not cave in to his blatant threat to
tell me to get out of the province, was specifically because I
believe, and the Government of Canada believes, that the people of
Canada expect Canadian environmental leadership.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The secret document prepared for Operation Unity shows that
the federal government is set to spend $5.6 billion on the potential
acquisition of defence equipment, including armoured vehicles,
submarines and helicopters. According to the document, these
equipment acquisition contracts could have a profound impact on
Quebec businesses. The document identifies eight Quebec
businesses likely to benefit economically and outlines the political
views of their top executives.
How should we describe the federal government's behaviour in
dangling in front of some businesses generous contracts in return
for their support for the No side? Is this not pure blackmail?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, the opposition's allegations are totally unfounded.
Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition made comments to the
press, which were reported by Hugh Winsor and which indicate that
there is absolutely nothing to support his allegations and no
evidence whatsoever that any company has been subjected to
pressure.
In fact, as far as the defence industry is concerned, the report
points out that companies such as Expro and SNC-IT that are very
dependent on federal ammunition contracts could be forced to
close their doors, while the companies that now rely on support and
service contracts could be compelled to move part of their
operations.
I have here a whole list of excerpts from the report pointing to
the main conclusion, namely, that separation would create very
serious economic problems in Quebec and eliminate a great many
jobs. I am willing to show the hon. member for Roberval, who
requested it yesterday, the proof that the vast majority of the
15217
industries identified in the report, the proof that Quebec's
separation would be an element-
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
again, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did not answer the
question at all. I did not talk about defence supplies but about
defence equipment. He did not say anything about that.
Here is my supplementary: As the secret document prepared in
March refers to defence contracts in the next three months, how
does the minister explain that they have not yet confirmed the
benefits from the equipment acquisition contracts? The
government is probably saving this lever to put pressure on some
Quebec businesses.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, we gave very clear answers to those questions.
Quebec receives a proportion of capital defence spending that is
much higher than its percentage of the population.
Again, page after page of the document in question shows that
the separation they want would hurt Quebec employees as well as
investments and the various industries in Quebec. Again, the
document he is quoting from is the best proof that, on October 30,
Quebecers will vote No to separation to preserve the economic
benefits from their association with Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Vietnamese government has now scheduled a retrial of nine
religious, academic and cultural leaders in Vietnam who were
previously condemned to prison. Will the minister convey to the
Vietnamese government that a favourable result of this judicial
review will have a positive influence on relations between Canada
and Vietnam?
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to point out the hon. member's important
contribution to the defence of rights and freedoms. I think that his
question is a suggestion to the government, and we accept it as
such. I hope that Vietnamese authorities will take it into account in
a positive way.
(1455)
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in a
speech in 1991 the Minister for Human Resources Development
worried about the concerns and anxieties of Canadians over future
levels of funding for the Canada pension plan. In the past four years
those concerns have not gone away, they have only gotten worse.
The minister has had two years to address these concerns, but he
has failed to do so.
Will the minister end the speculation and uncertainty for
Canadian seniors, deliver on his promise to reform the Canada
pension plan and announce here and now a specific date for
reforms of the Canada pension plan?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has been
waiting since 1991, she might want to wait a few days longer.
I understand the concern of the hon. member. We all share a very
deep interest in ensuring that Canadians in retirement have
effective and sustainable pension programs. The government is
very committed to it because it authored the major old age pension
and income security programs. That is why in the last budget we
underlined once again our strong commitment to maintain and
strengthen those programs and to enhance them.
To prepare ourselves for that, the Minister of Finance in working
with my department is preparing a paper that will outline for
Canadians the choices and options we will have to face in the
Canada pension plan in order to ensure that we can sustain its
financing over the next years to meet the very large growth in the
number of Canadians that will be retiring. We are working on that
as well as we can. When the paper is right and ready we will
present it, certainly to the hon. member. We will also present it to
every other Canadian.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
tell the minister that the Reform Party is ready to go. Just watch for
October 11 next week when we will be making our announcement.
Two weeks ago the Minister of Human Resources Development
stated the Canada pension plan is not in a state of collapse.
However, the chief actuary in the finance department last week
wrote in a letter: ``The Canada pension plan fund is expected to be
exhausted by the year 2015''.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. When it comes to the
status of the Canada pension plan, who does he believe, the HRD
minister or his chief actuary?
15218
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe
the minister of HRD. I also happen to believe the chief actuary
because their opinions are the same.
The chief actuary did say that if action were not taken on the
Canada pension plan that major financial problems would ensue.
The minister of HRD has made it very clear that the government
intends to take such action. Meetings have already been held with
the officials. There will be meetings with provincial finance
ministers. That is where the changes have to take place.
I look forward to hearing the Reform Party's suggestions. I hope
they are a little bit better than the budget it came out with last year.
However it is something we work on with the provinces. The
minister of HRD and I will be doing that together.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. On
September 22 the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated in
this House that his government was not carrying out any studies on
overlap, just analyses. A fine distinction. The secret Industry
Canada document confirms the existence of factual analyses on
overlap, and I quote: For further details on duplication and overlap,
refer to analyses.
Now that we have confirmation that such analyses on duplication
and overlap do exist, does the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs plan to make them public before the referendum?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I shall repeat my position, because it is true; the unity
group within my Department has carried out no analysis
whatsoever on duplication and overlap, and has carried out no
study whatsoever on duplication and overlap.
We do have a process to reduce and eliminate duplication and
overlap, and this has led to the signature of a number of action
plans by the first ministers. So, that is a process which does exist. I
greatly regret that the present Parti Quebecois government has
refused to help us eliminate duplication. But the truth is: no studies
of that type have been carried out for us.
(1500)
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the chief of the Saugeen First Nation signed a
declaration claiming authority over 300 kilometres of shoreline up
to 11 kilometres out into the water around Bruce Peninsula.
Chief Kahgee claimed sovereign status under international law.
The chief said he will start today to implement fishing season
quotas, issue commercial and sports licences, and analyse
resources. The department of Indian affairs has known about this
for over three years.
Can the minister tell the House his plans to prevent this
subversion of the legitimate authority of the Government of
Canada?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if a claim has been issued it has
not come to my desk. Anyone can issue a claim in Canada. If it is
by writ, it winds up with the Minister of Justice. If it is a claim, the
member knows there is a process, and if it is a legitimate grievance
then it is negotiated.
In 1993 in the Nadjiwon case the Ontario provincial court found
that the Saugeen Ojibway have a right of access to and use of their
traditional fishing ground around the Bruce Peninsula. The
provincial court did not find a right of ownership. If there is an
issue there, I am sure in due course it will be decided by a court.
I think the hon. member is doing a disservice to a court system
and a claim system we have in Canada that provides for due
process and not political brownie points.
The Speaker: This will bring to close the question period.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Royal Highness Price Saud
Al-Faisal Al Saud, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Notwithstanding Standing Order 31 a little earlier,
some 16 months ago I started an initiative to recognize our
distinguished citizens in Canada. To that end, I have invited some
men who have in part given us our identity as a nation. There are
very few of us in the Chamber who have not at one time wished that
we could put on these people's shoes and do what they do. They are
among our most talented Canadians.
An hon. member: Skates.
15219
The Speaker: No, their shoes too.
Because I want to applaud them as you will, I ask you please not
to applaud until I call them by name. I want them to stand and
remain standing. When they are all standing we want to give them
the kind of recognition they deserve for the great service they have
done for our nation.
I call on Mr. Andy Bathgate, Mr. Jean Béliveau, Mr. Paul
Henderson, Mr. Gordie Howe, Mr. Red Kelly, Mr. Ted Lindsay, Mr.
Frank Mahovlich, Mr. Howie Meeker, Mr. Pierre Pilote, Mr. Henri
Richard.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505 )
The Speaker: My colleagues, in your name I have invited our
guests to be in the reading room. I invite you to a small reception
where you may meet them. I know you will want their autographs
and will want to take pictures. That will be in the reading room
after question period.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
arises out of question period. I would like to table, for the House's
information and for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the
Environment, the transcript of the actual meeting and the actual
remarks made in that meeting by the Hon. Ty Lund, Minister of the
Environment for Alberta.
The Speaker: The tabling of any document demands the
unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I just thought that if an actual
document was quoted from in question period I was duty bound to
table it, which was what I was trying to do.
The Speaker: That is not the case.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to a finance committee
meeting I attended yesterday, an excellent committee, as I am
reminded. This committee dealt with Bill S-9, a Senate bill referred
to the committee and on which we heard evidence.
During the evidence in the committee meeting it became clear
that the bill imposes expenditures on the Government of Canada.
The amount of money involved per year, as was pointed out in the
committee and which evidence I could lay before you, Mr. Speaker,
involves perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars. It was part of
budgetary provisions dating back to 1992, budget papers from 1992
and 1993. A provision of the bill also is retroactive to November
10, 1988, which requires an expenditure of public funds.
Mr. Speaker, I refer you to two decisions made in this Chamber
and contained in the books of Speaker Lamoureux, which are truly
the decisions that mark the difference between the powers of the
Commons and the powers of the Senate. I do not have the decisions
of Justice Lamoureux before me, but one of them is on page 174
and the other 175.
The decision on page 174 was made on November 12, 1969
when the Senate approved a bill for the dissolution of the Dominion
Coal Corporation at that time. An MP by the name of Baldwin
stood in the Chamber and objected that this involved an
expenditure of public funds.
The Speaker at the time set aside a period in which he heard
arguments as to whether it was an expenditure of public funds.
After listening to the arguments he said no, this bill must come in
as per Standing Order 62 at that time, which is Standing Order
79(1) today, which is that royal recommendation is required for any
expenditure of public money.
The second decision was made on June 12, 1972, again by
Speaker Lamoureux. It was the same instance where a government
bill came through the Senate. An objection was launched at that
time that although the bill did not involve an immediate
expenditure of public funds, it committed the government to an
expenditure in the future.
(1510)
The ruling at that time was that yes, according to Standing Order
63, presently Standing Order 80(1) under Beauchesne's sixth
edition, if a bill involves an expenditure of money then it cannot be
brought in through the Senate.
My objection is according to Standing order 79(1), which says
quite clearly that it is the crown that demands, the Commons that
grants and the Senate that accedes to that grant, it is the prerogative
of the House of Commons, not the Senate, and it must be done with
royal recommendation by the executive, by the crown. It cannot be
done through the Senate. Standing Order 80(1) states quite clearly
that the Senate's only role is to accede to such a request. It cannot
even amend such a request.
The evidence is quite clear that on the one hand the expenditure
of public money involved is that it reduces by 50 per cent the tax on
any profits made by U.S. multinationals in Canada. That is the
expenditure, approximately $130 million to $135 million per year.
This is supported, incidentally, by the Reform Party and the Bloc
wholeheartedly.
15220
The expenditure involves in the last clause of the bill a
retroactive provision in the case of payments that involve the
payment by the Government of Canada of a tax credit for anybody
who was subjected to the estate tax in the United States. If people
who had property of over $600,000 in the U.S. are subjected to
the estate tax, Canada will provide a tax credit to offset that on
their foreign based income. That is dated back to November 10,
1988, which would impose an immediate expenditure on the
Government of Canada. The rest of it would impose an
expenditure, a loss in tax expenditures for all time to come.
Mr. Speaker, it is not that the bill would be defeated by your
ruling, because all of the political parties in this Chamber support
the bill. I am saying this violates the privileges of the Canadian
House of Commons as seen in precedent and as seen in our
standing orders. This should come back and be presented in the
correct manner.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with great respect to the hon. member's very able argument, I think
he has misconstrued the point in Standing Orders 79 and 80 of the
House of Commons.
Standing order 79(1) reads:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the
appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any
purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from
the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or
bill is proposed.
He is quite correct in stating that is the case.
Bill S-9, an act to amend the Canada-U.S. tax convention, is not
a bill for appropriating any part of the public revenue or for any tax
or impost. What it does is change the effect of the taxation laws of
Canada through the application of various rules under this tax
convention, which may result in the refund of revenues already
received by the Government of Canada. This is not an expenditure
of government funds; this is a refund of money that was collected
from Canadian citizens pursuant to the tax laws of Canada, which
are being amended by this tax convention because similar moneys
were taken from these persons as a result of the application of the
tax laws of the United States.
Everyone in the House is aware that tax conventions exist for the
purpose of avoiding double taxation on the citizens of the two
countries involved in the convention.
The hon. member has misconstrued the repayment of tax
revenues already received as appropriations of public money. That
was not the intention either of the standing order or of the
constitutional practice in this regard. In support of that submission
I refer Your Honour to citation 599 of Beauchesne's sixth edition:
If any motion, whether in the House or in a committee, requires, but fails to
receive, the recommendation of the Crown, it is the duty of the Speaker to
announce that no question can be proposed upon the motion, or declare the bill out
of order, or to say that the problem may be rectified by the proposer obtaining a
Royal Recommendation.
(1515)
I do not disagree with that. Citation 600 states:
The principle that the sanction of the Crown must be given to every grant of
money drawn for the public revenue applies equally to the taxation levied to
provide that revenue.
In other words, a royal recommendation is required on a bill to
impose a tax on the subject-and this bill does not; there is no
dispute on that-and any bill to authorize the expenditure of public
funds.
There is no expenditure authorized. What is authorized here is
different. It is a refund of taxation which has been taken from the
subject that is being changed by virtue of the application of the tax
treaty. The tax treaty was ratified in the other place in the form of
this bill which has been sent to the House for concurrence and the
committee was very properly studying concurrence in the bill.
In my experience, and I have watched this kind of procedure for
some time, tax conventions are almost invariably introduced as
bills in the other place. Many of those tax conventions as a result of
their passage involve repayment of money to Canadian citizens. In
my experience there has not been a royal recommendation attached
to any of those bills. There could not have been, or they would not
have been introduced in the other place first.
They are introduced there because it is permissible to introduce
technical bills of that kind in the Senate, the ones that do not
require royal recommendation. That has been done in this case. In
my experience it has been the invariable practice with respect to tax
convention implementation legislation. I submit there is nothing
irregular in this procedure. The hon. member has simply
misconstrued the notion of refund of taxation as an expenditure of
public funds. I submit they are not the same.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on the
same point of order.
The hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls referred to Standing
Order 80 which would preclude a Senate bill coming to the finance
committee if it dealt with aids and supplies. This is not an aid or
supply.
As the hon. parliamentary secretary has indicated, it has been the
custom of the House for as long as I can recall to have tax treaty
amendments of which there have been probably 70 or 80 in the past
decade and a half originate in the Senate. I commend the Senate for
the excellent job it has done in dealing with these very complicated
and detailed pieces of legislation. It is not an area where those who
15221
have not done a lot of work and a lot of study are really capable of
assessing the implications.
I concur with the hon. parliamentary secretary. This is not an aid
or supply. This has been our tradition. It has worked very well. This
is an excellent piece of legislation, supported by all members of the
House.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party on this point of order.
The New Democratic Party agrees with the hon. member for
Gander-Grand Falls who raised the matter of Bill S-9 being a bill
that will cause a great deal of expenditure from the treasury to
people retroactively, in particular to people who have a great deal
of wealth to start with.
There is an assumption that the New Democratic Party supports
Bill S-9. I make it perfectly clear that the bill is an unfair bill for
taxpayers. The New Democratic Party does not support it. I support
the contention of the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls with
respect to having the bill reviewed by Your Honour to see if it is in
order.
(1520)
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on the same point of order. I have a letter in front of me from
the Minister of Finance in which he refers to the subject matter my
friend from Gander-Grand Falls raised as a cost presumably to
the taxpayers of Canada. He pegs that cost at $125 million for
1995-96 and $145 million for 1996-97.
We are not dealing with petty cash here. We are dealing with a
significant amount of taxpayers' dollars. What ordinary Canadians
want to know is if it is such an important piece of legislation, why
is it coming via the unelected Senate of Canada? Since when does
an unelected group of men and women down the hall from this
elected Chamber introduce legislation that will have the result of
withdrawing from the public purse $125 million this year and $145
million next year?
Surely that moral and legal right ought to be that of the
government of the day. It is the government that should be setting
public policy, not unelected senators.
I lend my support to the member who raised this point. If it is the
government's wish, and I understand the government is supporting
this initiative, why bring in the back door what they do not have the
courage to bring in through the front door?
Let us have an honest debate in the House of Commons. Let us
have them introduce it as a government bill. Let us debate it at
second reading. Let us send it to the committee. Let us have the
courage as elected people to call a spade a spade.
The minister refers to it as a cost in his letter. It must be a cost
because it will cost you and I and every other taxpayer close to
$300 million over the next two years.
The Speaker: As a general rule I do not want to get into a debate
on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary has spoken once. I
appreciate the interventions that have taken place.
This is a very important point of order that has come before the
House. I wonder if members would give me a day or two to do the
research on my own, to have a look at it. Then I will come back to
the House at that time with a decision and we will see where we are
going from there. I would prefer to do that.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I want to answer the allegations
made by the hon. member for York South-Weston. Not that I am
seeking to defend the other place in my comments, but it is very
important that he recognize this is a government bill.
The bill was introduced by the government in the other place. It
is sponsored in the House by the Minister of Finance. It was
debated at second reading in the House, referred to committee and
will be debated at third reading in the House. It is a government
bill. It is going through the same process that every other
government bill goes through in the House.
The Speaker: I thank all hon. members for their interventions. I
will apprise myself of the situation. If members will give me time
to look at it, I will come back to the House with a decision.
_____________________________________________
15221
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1525)
[English]
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to table before the House the 18th report of the
House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.
The report deals with Bill C-9, the bill just mentioned in the
House. It was passed unanimously by the committee yesterday.
I thank members of all parties who were there and who assisted
us so diligently in our work.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs, being the first report of the subcommittee on national
security.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the committee has agreed to
the first report of the subcommittee on national security on the
subject of document and personnel security.
15222
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests a
comprehensive response to the report within 150 days.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing
Committee on Industry.
The report relates to the Canadian Tourism Commission and
follows on discussions the committee held with commission
officials in March of this year.
The Canadian Tourism Commission was created by order in
council in January 1995 and has recently submitted to the industry
committee its charter and 1995-96 business plan.
The committee intends to continue monitoring the commission's
progress over the coming months.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 88th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to the
committee's consideration of the objections filed in accordance
with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The committee
respectfully requests that the deadline be extended to November
30, 1995.
If the House gives its consent I would move that the 88th report
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
petitioners believe that violence and abuse in society need to be
reduced, in fact if possible to be eliminated. They also believe that
they affect young children in a very negative kind of way and do
not see any need for violence and abuse to inform, educate or
entertain.
I had the honour just over a week ago to address the CRTC
hearings on this very topic and again today in the House. I am
pleased to support the petition.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour
for me to present a petition to the House that has been signed by
hundreds of Canadians and continues to be circulated across the
country.
The petitioners understand that more than 100 million
anti-personnel land mines are laid around the world and
indiscriminately kill or maim between 1,000 and 2,000 men,
women and children every month. They understand that land mines
impoverish communities by denying access to land and impede
social and economic post-conflict reconstruction.
Therefore they petition Parliament to legislate the prohibition in
Canada of the use, production, stockpiling, sale, trade and transfer
of all anti-personnel land mines; to work for an international
convention banning these activities; and to ask the Canadian
government to increase its contributions to the United Nations for
assistance in land mine clearance and for programs that would
rehabilitate mine victims.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating across Canada. The petition has been signed
by a number of Canadians from Surrey and Langley, B.C.
(1530 )
The petitioners would like to 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 to 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 that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill, or the aged.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present a petition signed by 405 Canadian
citizens of Vietnamese origin. They pray for the intervention of
Parliament to help in securing the release of religious, cultural and
academic leaders now under detention, arrest or imprisonment in
Vietnam.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present a petition signed by over 150 Canadians from my
riding in Rosedale and from as far away as Vancouver. They call
upon Parliament to create an environment of justice and equality in
Canada by amending the human rights act to prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege to present two petitions today.
The first is from students who draw to the attention of the House
that professional organization and union dues are obligatory and
are therefore deductible under the Income Tax Act whereas the
student association fees they are required to pay are not deductible.
They call upon Parliament to amend the Income Tax Act to allow
15223
students to deduct their fees as other professionals do from their
employment income.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by over 400 people. They remind
Parliament that discrimination which occurs daily against lesbian,
gay and bisexual Canadians is unacceptable in a country known for
its commitment to human rights and equality. They call upon
Parliament to act quickly to amend the human rights act to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to recognize
the equality of same sex relationships.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three
separate petitions to present today.
The first is from 57 petitioners who request that Parliament
institute complete recycling, waste reduction, energy and resource
conservation, clean up and zero pollution programs.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is from 220 signatories from Ontario and Quebec. They
request that Parliament legislate a more effective, productive and
cost efficient method of unemployment relief, a policy of paying
from these funds three million people $1,200 per year to work at
entry level positions in understaffed public and private institutions.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the third
petition has 34 signatories who call upon Parliament to redesign,
restructure, reorganize or replace ineffective government structures
and systems if needed in order to address the poor state of our
national economic, social and environmental health in a timely and
cost efficient manner.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
15223
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 3 consideration of Bill C-64,
an act respecting employment equity, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee; and of Motion No. 7.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the
Liberals, the Bloc and the New Democratic Party yesterday, we
agreed and would seek unanimous agreement to amend clause 25
which will be debated as part of group 5, with an amendment
already given to-
The Deputy Speaker: Will the member please excuse the Chair.
The member probably thought the debate was over yesterday.
Other speakers wish to speak. We will have to deal with his point
when the other speakers are finished on the earlier group of
motions.
(1535)
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, when we left off, you were about to
put the question on the last motion that had been debated, which
happened to be mine. Do you still intend to do that or are we
proceeding with a new group of motions?
The Deputy Speaker: To assist the hon. member, we are still on
group No. 4. I believe he already spoke to this group of motions, if
I remember correctly. Does the hon. member wish to speak again to
this question? If he does, we will need the unanimous consent of
the House.
Mr. Ménard: When the debate was adjourned, you were about
to put the question on Motion No. 7, which happens to be mine. If
there are still members who wish to speak to this motion, I would
be glad to listen to them. I was just wondering when the vote would
be.
The Deputy Speaker: As I said before, there are no members
who wish to speak, so we will have the vote later on.
[English]
Ms. Skoke: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
15224
I understand the hon. member was first on the speaking order
and that I would speak second, if that pleases Your Honour.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair was given a list of three people
wishing to speak. The hon. member for Central Nova was the first
on the list. Does she wish to cede her place to the hon. member for
Rosedale?
Ms. Skoke: Yes.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for Central Nova for ceding her place to enable me to
attend to other business later this afternoon.
Equal access to job opportunities is a principle Canadians
adopted several years ago. Other nations think highly of us because
we do more than pay lip service to equality. We take proactive steps
to make equality a reality in the everyday lives of our citizens.
[Translation]
Bill C-64 will do much to expand opportunities for genuine
equality in the workplace for women, aboriginal peoples, persons
with disabilities and members of visible minorities.
It is our responsibility to ensure that this legislation achieves this
important goal whenever possible.
That is why, like many of my colleagues who spoke earlier, I
have a serious problem with Motion No. 7 introduced by the hon.
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
[English]
The hon. member's motion takes the need for co-operation in
implementing the Employment Equity Act to an extreme that I do
not believe would achieve the desired result. The government's
perspective is to do what is necessary to implement and administer
Bill C-64 in the most productive way possible but responsibility for
implementation administration must remain with employers. They
are the ones who ultimately have to answer to the commission if
they fail to meet their responsibilities.
Let us consider what would happen if we adopted the hon.
member's motion and moved from the bill's current requirements
for collaboration between employers and employees to what might
be called a co-management arrangement. For one thing, it would
reduce the bill's requirement for consultation. The hon. member's
motion if adopted would mean that there is no longer any need to
consult regarding implementation or revision of employment
equity plans.
Bill C-64 as it presently stands allows the commission or a
tribunal to order consultation. I find it surprising that the hon.
member who is seeking to enrich and improve the bill would want
to delete provisions regarding consultations and replace them with
weaker provisions that would not be subject to a direction or order.
I would ask him and the party he represents to reconsider the bill
from that perspective. It seems to me and to the government that
the amendment as proposed actually weakens rather than
strengthens the bill, contrary to the avowed intent of the hon.
member.
(1540 )
Another Canadian characteristic that makes us the envy of others
is our willingness to work together for the collective good of all our
citizens. Voluntary collaboration and co-operation are innate
qualities of being Canadian. I know many of us in the House seek
and strive to enshrine those principles in all the work we do. I have
every confidence that management and labour will collaborate to
ensure the most effective implementation of employment equity
plans. Why should they not? It surely is to the advantage of both.
It is in creating plans and legislation of this kind that one
achieves an appropriate balance between the needs of labour and
the needs of management. In doing so we have created a
labour-management relations atmosphere which is beneficial to
both parties. That is what we seek to achieve in this bill.
As my colleagues before me have said, we have already
deliberated over the Bloc's concerns in committee. The
government feels that having given these concerns due
consideration, we are satisfied with the way the provisions now
stand.
I remind the hon. member that the Employment Equity Act is
designed to help move us closer to true equality in the workplace. It
is not designed to change other aspects of employer-employee
relationships. However, that would be the unfortunate result if we
adopted the hon. member's motion.
The way the bill now stands, collaboration is a requirement. The
ultimate responsibility for making decisions however lies with
employers and that is the way it should be. There is a difference
between the requirement for collaboration and discussion and the
ultimate responsibility for the decision which surely must be taken
by employers who have both the financial and managerial
responsibility for ensuring that those decisions are properly carried
out.
Hon. members know from their own experiences that we put
much more effort into something when the effort is willingly given
and not obtained through coercion. One cannot legislate
co-operation and a positive attitude. We have seen that in the
workplace and we are trying to strive to avoid confrontational
situations in the workplace.
Positive co-operation comes about because the parties involved
bring the right attitude to the task at hand. That is what the current
provisions in the bill will achieve. They will create an atmosphere
within which collaboration, co-operation and discussion will take
place.
15225
They will not seek however to create what the member's
amendment seeks to create which is a sort of co-management
regime that would by its very nature lead to strife between those
on the management side with their responsibilities and those on
the labour side with their responsibilities. It would totally confuse
the two roles which both parties properly play in the workplace
and would substitute, instead of this atmosphere of co-operation
and collaboration, an atmosphere of mistrust between the two
parties between which it is very important to establish good
working relationships.
[Translation]
I wish to thank the hon. member for his contribution to this
debate. Unfortunately, for the reasons I just mentioned, I cannot
support Motion No. 7.
[English]
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my privilege to address this honourable House today with respect
to Motion No. 7 brought forward by the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
The government appreciates the hon. member's input into Bill
C-64. However, we are concerned that his motion would have an
effect that would not be beneficial to the administration of the
Employment Equity Act. The way the motion reads, if it were to be
adopted, it would in essence establish an employer-employee
co-management arrangement under the act.
Members of the Bloc raised this issue in committee and the
government was responsive and flexible in giving it due
consideration. However, if we adopted the motion before us it
might very well have negative ramifications in the way
employment equity is administered. Responsibility must be clear in
this regard.
(1545)
Nevertheless I hasten to add that the intent of the legislation
before us is not to create situations where management is imposing
employment equity on workers without their input. This is not the
intent at all. On the contrary, the current act encourages and
requires productive consultations between employer and employee
representatives. As I said previously, the government appreciates
constructive suggestions. That is why we listened and accepted
recommendations made in committee.
The effect of those recommendations is that Bill C-64 now
requires collaboration between employer and employee
representatives when preparing, implementing and revising
employment equity plans.
However, the key aspect of this arrangement is collaboration, not
co-management. The responsibility for making final decisions
must remain with employers. After all, they are the ones who must
answer to the commission regarding implementation of the act.
Hon. members will agree that the person who is held responsible
for an action must retain the ability to make final decisions.
The government is trying to send a clear message here. For
employment equity to be fair and effective, a co-operative effort in
implementing its principles is required by both management and
labour. The emphasis is very much the same, emphasis the
government takes in its own relationships with other governments,
the private sector, community organizations and so on. I am
referring to the concept of partnership, a productive effort by all
concerned to reach the same goal. That is exactly what came
through in committee regarding the issue: collaboration, yes;
co-management, no.
I remind the hon. member that adoption of his motion is not as
simple as he may think. It would have widespread implications
because the act does not have a provision which allows a tribunal to
issue orders against a bargaining agent. In other words,
collaboration requires just that, the two parties work together to
reach a common goal voluntarily. Enforced collaboration is an
oxymoron and experience shows that it makes for unproductive
relationships.
Management must have final responsibility for its obligations
under Bill C-64. It is management that must answer to the
commission if it fails to meet its obligations under the act. It is
unacceptable to adopt a situation wherein the employer is held
responsible but does not have the ultimate authority to address that
responsibility.
The government does not wish Bill C-64 to alter the framework
of labour relations in a fundamental manner. That is not the
purpose of the legislation before the House. Its purpose is to help
move Canada toward true equality in the workplace. This is a step
of which all Canadians should be very proud. Passage of Bill C-64
will enshrine in law the principle of equality for all Canadians. It
will help to lay down a level playing field for those in the
designated groups, specifically women, aboriginal people, persons
with disabilities and members of visible minorities.
Bill C-64 also fulfils the government's pre-election commitment
to strengthen the existing Employment Equity Act by extending
coverage to virtually the entire public service. I believe hon.
colleagues should also agree that fairness dictates that all
Canadians have due access to employment opportunities.
Therefore we must implement this legislation in a manner that will
encourage co-operation and goodwill on the part of both employers
and employees.
We thank the hon. member for his input. However, the
government is satisfied with the bill's emphasis on collaboration.
We are not prepared to move toward co-management. For that
reason I cannot support the member's Motion No. 7.
15226
(1550 )
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am glad to rise during debate to discuss Motion No. 7.
The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and his
colleagues have made some eloquent points on behalf of this
amendment, both here and previously in committee. That is the
reason the government has already amended the original bill. That
amendment made sense. To accept this amendment does not.
I want to take a few minutes to underline some of the essential
elements in the government's approach to government equity to
show why I will not be able to vote for this motion.
Two years ago at this very moment, almost every one of us was
engaged in one of the most important federal election campaigns of
our time. I was proud to campaign under the banner of a party and a
leader with a clear plan. Our red book was a blueprint for action. It
was no wish list. It was based on years of listening to Canadians
and an active policy development process. It was a comprehensive
approach grounded in a realistic perspective on what government
can do.
As we well know by now, one of the commitments we made was
to strengthen the Employment Equity Act. The old government had
the information. It knew what needed to happen but it chose not to
act. We said that it was time to move on this issue and we have with
Bill C-64.
The red book was more than just a series of individual
commitments. It was based on a sense of how Canada works best.
Part of that was our understanding that business and government
are not adversaries. We need each other. Canada needs a strong
business community. We need an attractive business climate. A
government that operates in an intelligent and strategic way fosters
that kind of community in that kind of climate.
In essence we let business people do their work without
reasonable interference from government and we look for ways to
build productive partnerships. That has been our approach to
employment equity. We know that voluntary efforts at equity
simply have not worked, therefore legislation is needed but not
heavy handed approaches.
Many of my colleagues have spoken of the willingness of the
federally regulated business community to work with us on equity.
I need not repeat the points they have made. One basic reason they
are doing so is that we have adopted a human resource planning
model for this legislation. We have designed this process to
maximize co-operation. We also designed the process to maximize
co-operation in the workplace.
Unions most certainly do have a place in this process. Unions do
care. The labour organizations that made presentations to the
committee stressed their commitment to social justice. We
understand their contribution to workplace attitudes toward equity
programs. We appreciate their concerns about making employment
equity work well, given issues such as seniority rights.
For all those reasons, government members on the committee
decided to amend the bill, to underline the requirement for
consultation with bargaining agents. The government understood
the need to ensure that consultation was real and the bill, as it has
come to us from committee, requires collaborations.
This is an important step. To go further is to make a mistake. To
require employers to share authority with unions in some kind of
co-management regime is to blur accountability. At the end of the
day employers in law and in fact are responsible to the government
for their achievements in employment equity. Unions are not.
The plan we offered to Canadians in 1993 did not envision the
federal government shaking up the framework of federal labour
relations. We believe that businesses understand the approach we
have laid out for employment equity. We also believe they
understand that getting unions on side makes sense in a human
resources planning model. We believe that they will pursue
collaboration in the spirit that is set out in this bill as it is before us
now.
However, the government sees no need to force a process on
employers that may simply not work for any number of local
reasons. We hope they will take on partnerships for employment
equity but we will let them decided based on their own situations. I
have a great deal of faith that the businesses and federal
government employers covered by this legislation will see as we
do. They will capitalize on this opportunity to break down the
barriers that may deny them the best from their workers or those
who could be. I think they will do the right thing and they will do it
in the way that works best.
(1555)
The bill has already moved to underline the need for
collaboration. It retains the emphasis on employer accountability.
That is the right balance. It is the approach I will continue to
support.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: 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 Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
15227
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 on the motion
stands deferred.
[English]
Group No. 5, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest, on a
point of order.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Liberal
members, the Bloc and the New Democratic Party, I would ask for
unanimous consent to amend my motion. The amendment has been
put together in consultation with the government and will improve
my motion.
The table officers are already in possession of the amendment, so
we would ask unanimous consent at this time to replace the motion.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to accept the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) moved, by
unanimous consent:
That Bill C-64, in clause 25, be amended by adding after line 30, on page 18,
the following:
``1.1 Where
(a) an employer has been informed of a non-compliance by a compliance
officer under subsection (1) and the finding of non-compliance is based, in
whole or in part, on the apparent under-representation of the aboriginal
peoples, members of visible minorities or persons with disabilities in the
employer's work force, as reflected in the employer's work force analysis
conducted pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(a), and
(b) the employer believes that the apparent under-representation is attributable
to the decision of employees who may be members of the designated groups
concerned not to identify themselves as such or not to agree to be identified by
the employer under subsection 9(2), the employer may inform the compliance
officer of such.
(1.2) Where the employer satisfies the compliance officer that the finding of
non-compliance is attributable, in whole or in part, to the reason described in
paragraph (1.1)(b) and that the employer has made all reasonable efforts to
implement the employment equity, the compliance officer shall take the reason
into account in exercising any powers under this section.
(1.3) In satisfying the compliance officer under subsection (1.2) that the
finding of non-compliance is attributable, in whole or in part, to the reason
mentioned in paragraph (1.1)(b), the employer must do so by means other than
the identification of individual employees in its work force that the employer
believes are members of designated groups who have not identified themselves
as such, or agreed to be identified by the employer as such, under subsection
9(2).''
He said: Mr. Speaker, those thousands of Canadians watching
this on television have just seen that we really do earn our keep
from time to time.
The amendment speaks to the fact we live in the land of
employment equity or affirmative action. Because this is the first
time today in which we are going to be speaking to Bill C-64, I
should bring to the attention of those hundreds of thousands of
Canadians glued to their television sets wondering what is going on
that this bill is the affirmative action or employment equity bill.
(1600 )
Employment equity is a phrase coined by Judge Abella about 15
years ago to describe affirmative action because there were people
who felt that affirmative action really did not find a lot of
popularity in the land. So we are living with employment equity.
Bill C-64 would expand the notion of affirmative action in the
federal workforce to everyone covered by the Treasury Board and
to any company in the private sector doing business with the
Government of Canada with 100 employees or more.
On the face of it, who would argue with the notion of affirmative
action or employment equity-except that employment or any
advantage or anything in our society based on race or on quotas is
inherently discriminatory.
One of the very first articles in the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms speaks to the notion of all Canadians being equal.
Then the next paragraph says except those Canadians who are in
specific designated groups and these Canadians may be assisted at
the expense of the equality of everyone by special advantages. If
that were not in the charter this amendment would certainly not see
the light of day, because it would be against the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms.
That is the kind of anomaly we have to understand and somehow
work around. Here we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms which says this kind of discrimination should not exist in
our land, and then we say we will allow this kind of discrimination.
The net result is that we have affirmative action laws. We have a
system whereby people are able to gain promotion or gain
employment or advantages of some description based on a quota.
As members know, today we are speaking to the amendments.
We are supposed to be keeping our comments closely related to the
amendment before us. The amendment I am speaking to relates to
the responsibilities of the compliance officer.
We are now living in a country that is under the rule of
employment equity or affirmative action. That means that certain
employers, including the federal government, and certainly all of
the private sector employers who have 100 employees or more,
will wake up one day to a knock on the door. The knock on the door
15228
will be from the compliance officer who is representing the federal
government. The compliance officer will have significant powers
to be able to delve into the affairs of the company to see if the
employer is in compliance with the legislation, and the employer
must prove it.
This is where race questions come in on the forthcoming census.
This is why the questions about race have to be asked. The
compliance officer will say that according to the last census, in a
certain geographic area there are a certain number of green people,
a certain number of yellow people, a certain number of people who
speak this language and that language, and therefore the employer
must employ people in the same proportion as the people in that
community and they will be given quotas.
The employer will say that normally they hire the best people; it
does not matter who they are or what their education is, what their
sex is, they are hired on merit. The compliance officer will say they
will have to take affirmative action into the mix, that they cannot
just hire on merit any more, they have to look at both of the
equations. Then the employer says come in and have a look around
and see what we have.
Let us say that in a room there are 20 people working, and every
one of them is from a visible minority or from some other
designated group. The compliance officer looks at his list and says
it says on the sheet that they do not have anybody who
self-identifies as one of the disadvantaged groups. If you look
around, my God, everybody in the place is in the designated group.
(1605)
The problem is that we Canadians do not get up in the morning
and ask what part of what victim group we are in and look for the
support of the state to get anywhere in my life, seeking advantages
that are not common to everybody.
In the purview of the House of Commons there are 1,700
employees. Recently, people were asked to voluntarily identify
themselves as to what designated group they fall into. Only 50
people said they fell into one of these designated groups. Only 30
per cent of the people responded. That is not the kind of people
Canadians are. We do not respond to that. We do not want a
constitution or laws based on race. We want laws based on the
equality of all individuals.
In any event, we have this legislation and we have pointed out
the error, the problem, or the hole in it. The government looked at it
and very wisely assumed our counsel and said we had a good point.
We do not like the legislation and we will vote against it. If we
can improve it we will try because when we wake up in the
morning it will be in the driveway.
I visited my brother-in-law a few years ago. He was looking at a
new motorcycle and he had the brochure on the kitchen table. His
wife came home, saw the brochure, and went ballistic. He asked
her why she got so mad and she said ``Because the brochure is on
the kitchen table today and tomorrow the motorcycle will be in the
driveway''. That is the same story on this legislation. Today the
brochure is on the table and tomorrow the legislation will be in the
driveway, and there is nothing we can do about it. The government
has its massive majority and it is going to push the legislation
through come hell or high water. We must try to make it better in
any little way we can.
Giving credit where credit is due, the government saw that the
amendment improved the legislation and it made an amendment
that improved the amendment we submitted. We end up with better
legislation, which is how the House works from time to time.
I am speaking in support of the amendment, which will make
this draconian legislation a little less draconian, perhaps a bit
better. There is a ray of sunshine and light that comes into the
House from time to time.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thought I would yield to my hon. colleague from Toronto.
However, I thank her for the privilege.
Speaking very briefly to this amendment, I would like to refute
some of the misinterpretations, though not done with malice, by the
hon. member.
He indicated in his opening remarks that while subsection 15(1)
talks about the equality of all Canadians, in essence he argued that
subsection 15(2) negates this by saying that we are not equal
because of race. That to me is a misinterpretation of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have more faith in the framers,
fathers, and parents of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
I think what section 15 tells us is that we should have equal
benefit and protection of the law, all Canadians on an equal basis,
irrespective of race, disability, origin, or gender. At the same time,
subsection 15(2) deals with disadvantaged people, as visible
minorities may be, people of First Nations origin, women, and
persons with disabilities.
In subsection 15(2) the framers of our charter of rights and
freedoms were trying to prevent possible dilatory tactics on the part
of people who would complain that government can introduce
legislation that will address those very disadvantages. They are not
being given advantages; they are only being restored to equality.
They are disadvantaged, so we must restore them to equality. They
are not being restored to superiority. I think that has to be made
very clear to all Canadians.
15229
(1610)
Therefore subsections 15(1) and (2) demonstrate the ingenuity of
Canadians.
In his opening remarks the hon. member indicated that quota is a
way of giving advantages. For the same reason, it is not. On a very
close reading of the bill itself, quota is prohibited. How clear can
we be? The law as proposed and tabled in the House states that no
one may impose a quota, not even the enforcement officer. We have
to forget about this being quotas.
Certainly the member in trying to sustain his argument about
quotas indicated those people in this disadvantaged group are to be
employed in the proportion they exist in the population in the
community. That is wrong. That is not what the bill states. The bill
states that it is in proportion to the available qualified people. Why
not? Why would one argue against the qualification of others only
because of colour, disability, origin or gender? The bill states that it
is in proportion to the number of qualified people, again sustaining
the principle of equality.
On the point of census on race, as I indicated to the media, we
have nothing to be ashamed of when we are asked that we should
say that we are Canadians. The census is one taken among
Canadians. Therefore it is a given that this is a census of
Canadians. If we are asked about our origins and our heritage, we
should be proud. I am proud to be a Filipino Canadian. The Jews
are proud to be Jewish Canadians. Ukrainians are proud because
they are Canadians as well. We are proud of our heritage. That is
what our nation has taught us. It has given us self-confidence,
self-worth and dignity.
On the motion itself, I agree with the hon. member that this is an
example of co-operation taking place in the House. It is also a clear
example that the government, when it sees a good amendment, tries
to improve on it and makes it even better. We deal in this
amendment, which was reached by consensus by all parties in the
House, with non-fulfilment of the employment equity plan as a
consequence of a poor identification that is based on
self-identification.
I call to the House's attention that with this improved
amendment we have also sustained another principle,
confidentiality. I see the member who originally proposed the
motion is smiling. I think this is what reconciliation is all about.
We should be able to have a new principle without killing another
principle. We should have one principle strengthen the other. Here
we are preserving the principle of confidentiality.
Why does the government agree to this amendment, which was
also refined by the government? It is because we heard witnesses
acknowledge the limitations of the self-identification system.
However, witnesses have also told the committee that we must
retain the privacy and confidentiality of information. Obviously,
we have to reconcile these two views.
We were not shown any other method by which to identify
except by coercion. We agreed at the committee level that coercion
would do more harm than good. Therefore, in the absence of an
alternative tool, in the absence of limitation, the committee
initiated that we should retain the self-identification approach.
However, at the same time, the committee proposed that there be
more openness on the part of employers to hold employer and
employee meetings on a regular basis so that there would be a
feeling of rapport between employees and employers. At the same
time information sessions must be held by the employers to inform
employees of the importance of identifying themselves so we can
truly monitor the progress of employment equity in a given
workplace.
(1615)
As well, the committee recommended that managers in those
businesses be given special training to enable them to be more
persuasive of the need for self-identification.
On the issue of self-identification, in the spirit of this act it is
very critical that the process be held in a climate or atmosphere of
trust and confidentiality. It can only be accomplished if we truly
convince employees that the purpose of self-identification is to
ensure employment equity in the workplace. Nobody would
disagree with that kind of approach.
On that note, I am pleased we have been able to arrive at the
motion proposed by the member for Edmonton Southwest that has
refined by the government. It is a classic example that the
government always listens to good proposals whether they come
from the opposition or from its own members.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 11A. I
understand the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest has a
question about whether the text of the motion is the same in the two
official languages. Does he wish to rise on a point of order?
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
table officers are presently looking into it. There seems to be some
concern that the French text is not the same as the English text. We
need to have that clarified.
The Deputy Speaker: There seems to be a problem with the
Translation of the last part of the motion. Since the original motion
was in English perhaps, if it is acceptable to the member and the
rest of the members in the House, we could take it as the one that
will apply. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
15230
(1620)
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest has heard Motion No. 11A. Is it in accord with his
understanding of the motion that was moved by unanimous
consent?
Mr. McClelland: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 11A agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): moved
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-64, in Clause 28, be amended by adding after line 31, on page 20,
the following:
``(4.1) Where the President of the Panel appoints one or more persons as
members of a Tribunal, the President shall make reasonable efforts to appoint
persons
(a) from designated groups in a proportion that reflects their representation in
the Canadian population as a whole; and
(b) who, in the opinion of the President, are highly knowledgeable about
employment equity or have substantial experience in this area.''
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-64, in Clause 28, be amended by adding after line 31, on page 20,
the following:
``(4.1) Where the President of the Panel appoints one or more persons as
members of a Tribunal, the President shall make reasonable efforts to appoint
persons
(a) from designated groups in a proportion that reflects their representation in
the Canadian population as a whole; or
(b) who, in the opinion of the President, are highly knowledgeable about
employment equity or have substantial experience in this area.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, for your information, my colleague is Mr.
Deshaies, and I thank him for supporting the motion.
I would simply like to say what it is about. One of the
innovations in this bill, which has earned the support of the official
opposition, is that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be
made specifically responsible for enforcing the Employment
Equity Act. No doubt, for those not familiar with employment
equity, it would be useful to point out that it involves making
arrangements to ensure that four categories of people in our
society: women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and
members of visible minorities may finally take their rightful place
in the labour market.
One of the means the bill proposes, is obligation, which applies
to both the private sector and the public sector-making the public
sector subject to the provisions of the bill is another one of its
innovations. This means that, once the bill receives royal assent,
300,000 other Canadians and Quebecers will be covered by
employment equity.
One of the obligations under this bill is that of preparing an
employment equity plan, which is to be submitted the following
June to the director responsible for the program at Human
Resources Development Canada. It will be up to the Minister of
Human Resources Development to combine all the plans submitted
by both the private and public sectors.
The reason I say this is very important is because, when plans are
missing, when an employer fails to submit an employment equity
plan within the required time period and fails to make all
reasonable efforts-the expression used in the bill-to achieve the
employment equity objectives he set for himself, then a course of
redress is possible. That is where the amendment enters in.
(1625)
For the first time since the Employment Equity Act was assented
to, that is since 1986, the human rights commissioner will be able,
on request and as he sees fit during summary proceedings where
there has been an admission of guilt, to establish an employment
equity review tribunal.
This is an extremely important body for enforcing the act
because there is no provision for a right of appeal. The
commissioner will therefore have the responsibility of creating a
committee from whose decisions there may be no appeal, as the
hon. parliamentary secretary who is so fascinated by these
questions is aware. In other words, decisions will be final and
binding.
The Bloc's amendment, which I believe is a well thought out
amendment, will certainly gain government support, since this
government is beginning to feel more and more alone.
The amendment will consist in ensuring that the three
administrative officers called upon to hear the case will come from
designated groups.
We feel that this is important, that there must be a correlation, a
link, between what it is felt that this act represents and those who
will be bringing down a decision in one of these administrative
proceedings.
These are the reasons it is so vital for this bill to be amended and
for the commission members not to be already in the employ of the
Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission
employees do a good job, no denying; they are well informed about
the various statutes concerning human rights, but they have never
brought down decisions relating to employment equity. We on this
side of the House would like to see a specific clause in this bill
devoted to the Human Rights Commission's ability to select from
15231
among the general population people to represent women, the
disabled, visible minorities and of course aboriginal people.
We feel that it will be far more worthwhile for this tribunal not to
require any exceptional procedures and for it to be flexible. The
only thing that will be exceptional will be the rights of appeal, as I
have already stated. The principles of natural justice will have to
apply, but should a tribunal decision be found to have been in error,
there would still be the possibility of applying for an appeal to be
heard in the Federal Court of Appeal.
Basically, we think it would be useful to amend the bill so that
the commissioners who sit on these tribunals are members of the
groups for whom we are trying to ensure representation.
I must say I regret, and I say this with my usual frankness, that
the government was not very receptive to this amendment in
committee. Now you know my philosophy: I always do everything
out in the open. I told the government I would introduce an
amendment, and they have not been very receptive.
I hope that between consideration in committee and the debate
we are having today, the government will have reconsidered,
because this is supported by representatives of the cultural
communities who appeared before the committee and by the
unions.
I may recall that this amendment would not involve additional
expenditures, since in any case, it does not change what the bill
now prescribes, which is the presence of three commissioners
whose remuneration shall be paid by the Canadian Human Rights
Commission.
(1630)
Since the government has maintained the same designation
procedure and did not feel it was necessary to add another category,
the groups are still the same, in other words, women, aboriginal
peoples, persons with disabilities and visible minorities. In
committee we discussed the relevance of adding a fifth or sixth
category but concluded that we did not have enough information on
other groups in society that might experience specific
discrimination in the workplace.
Since the designated groups were maintained and are still
designated on the basis of self-designation, I think it makes sense
to take the same approach when administrative authorities are
asked to hand down rulings, that is, when an employment equity
review tribunal is appointed.
I have the impression, and I say this with the utmost caution, that
this is also an amendment the Reform Party would like to see.
Again, and we cannot repeat this often enough, this will not involve
any additional budgetary expenditures, since the composition of
the employment equity review tribunal remains the same when a
tribunal is established at the request of the human rights
commissioner, since according to the bill, establishment of a
tribunal may be requested by either the employer or the Canadian
Human Rights Commission.
We feel this amendment will considerably improve the bill. I
hope it will receive the support of a majority of the members in this
House.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first
say that I am proud, as a Quebecer and a Canadian, of the major
step forward we are about to take in matters of equality and human
rights with the passing of this bill on employment equity.
I would also like to thank our colleague for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for his strong and sincere commitment
to human rights and to promoting equality and equity for all of
Canada's citizens.
I thank him for his ongoing efforts in this regard, both on the
Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled
People and here in the House of Commons. He continues to express
his commitment with the motions he is putting before the House
today in order to further improve this bill on employment equity.
With the motions we are debating, that is, Motions Nos. 13 and
14, he is proposing that the people appointed to an employment
equity review tribunal themselves represent designated groups or
have knowledge or particular experience in this area.
Given the legislation it applies to, the motion is highly justifiable
in theory. However, it seems fairly clear to us, as some of my
colleagues have already mentioned, with all due respect to my
colleague, that it is literally inapplicable in practice. For the
information of my fellow members, I think it would be useful to
first look at the nature and the function of this tribunal and to put it
in the context of the logic of this bill so we can understand when
and how it intervenes and how it is made up. First, when does it
intervene?
The employment equity review tribunal takes action following
an intervention by a compliance officer with an employer governed
by the act. When should a compliance officer audit an employer?
When there is a need to determine if an employer fulfils his or her
obligations under the act.
Who decides if an audit must be conducted? Again, this decision
is made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, to which the
bill gives the authority to enforce the act and monitor employers'
compliance.
Clause 22 of the bill provides that the commission is responsible
for the enforcement of the obligations imposed on employers by
the sections that concern them.
The human rights commission determines if a given employer is
complying with the employment equity requirements outlined in
the act.
15232
(1635)
To assume this responsibility, the commission may designate a
person to conduct compliance audits of employers on its behalf.
This person is the compliance officer referred to in clause 23. If the
audit reveals that the employer failed to fulfil any of his or her
obligations, the compliance officer tries to reach an agreement with
the employer to implement the corrective measures required.
However, if the compliance officer and the employer cannot
come to an agreement, the commission may order the employer to
correct the situation. During the time limits set out in clause 27, the
employer can challenge the commission's decision by asking the
president of the human rights tribunal panel to conduct a review,
again under clause 27. As for the commission, it has the same
recourse if the employer does not comply with its decision within
the prescribed deadline.
It is at this point that, in either case, the employment equity
review tribunal becomes involved. Under clause 28, the tribunal
consists of one member of the human rights tribunal panel
appointed by the president of that panel. In more complex cases,
the president can appoint a tribunal of three members.
The most basic arithmetic shows that the first part of Motions
Nos. 13 and 14 tabled by the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve are unnecessary since, in most cases,
the tribunal would consist of only one person. Indeed, we cannot
see how a single person could represent designated groups in a
proportion that reflects their representation in the Canadian
population as a whole.
The member supports his argument by saying that the tribunal
will often consist of more than one member if Motion No. 12 is
carried, in addition to those cases where the president will deem
appropriate to appoint three people. But again, the number of
members would still be too small to ensure significant
representation of designated groups.
Even if we implement the idea of a degree of representation for
designated groups, we will unnecessarily complicate the already
complex task of the president of the panel, while also, in some
cases, casting a doubt regarding the impartiality of this judicial
process. In short, that part of the motion would create more
problems than it would solve.
The second part of the motion is definitely more reasonable and
easier to implement. It provides that, in the opinion of the
president, the persons appointed as members of an employment
equity review tribunal are highly knowledgeable about
employment equity, or have substantial experience in this area. The
government has already said it agrees with that idea. The standing
committee which reviewed the bill passed an amendment requiring
that, when appointing tribunals, the president of the panel take into
account the knowledge and experience of people in the area of
employment equity.
I believe that the amendment proposed by the committee is quite
similar to the one tabled by the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Moreover, the same clause,
specifically clause 28(7), provides that the president of the panel
may hire persons having technical or special knowledge to assist or
advise a tribunal. Clearly, the bill already provides sufficient
guarantees that the tribunal will rely on sound knowledge in the
area of employment equity. Consequently, in my opinion, the
amendment proposed by the hon. member is absolutely not
necessary.
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member for
London-Middlesex, it is my duty to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake-Indian Affairs.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
begin my remarks by thanking the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for his proposed amendment. Clearly he
has heard an argument that was made during the hearings of the
committee that he believes has merit. Having said that, I will not
vote in favour of his amendment. I believe the essential goal of the
amendment has already been captured in the change which the
committee made to Bill C-64.
(1640)
The standing committee achieved the appropriate balance in the
legislation. It responded to the essence of the points it heard on the
issue. It did so in a way that is consistent with the spirit of the bill.
There are many practical reasons why going further simply will not
work.
We have often heard that justice must not only be done, it must
be seen to be done. That should apply in the work of the new
employment equity review tribunals. If we want the system to work
as well as it must, then we should want the most competent persons
to hear cases.
That becomes even more important when we understand how
complex the cases that will come before these tribunals can be.
They will often involve equity and human rights considerations.
They will consider real world business practices and human
resource management approaches. They will involve a careful
assessment and balancing of needs and priorities. That demands a
reasonable level of expertise in the members of a tribunal. Yet, as
many witnesses pointed out, some members of the Canadian
human rights tribunal panel have not necessarily had any real
knowledge of employment equity issues in the past. They have not
necessarily come in to cases with any expertise in workplace
issues.
15233
Some employer and labour representatives said this was no
place for on the job training and yet that is what they have seen.
They cited examples in which the individuals hearing cases clearly
knew far less than the people appearing before them. The result
was frustration, added cost and some doubt as to whether a truly
just decision could be rendered. In the same vein, representatives
of designated groups saw a need for tribunal members who were
truly aware of their situation. They were concerned that tribunal
members would not understand the barrier they faced and the need
for action.
When we look at the committee's report we see that witnesses
offered many suggestions on how to improve this state of affairs.
This proposed amendment draws on some of those ideas.
The committee took a different course. I think it was a better
course. It chose to amend Bill C-64 by requiring the president of
the Canadian human rights tribunal panel to give due consideration
to the expertise of individuals he or she might appoint to
employment equity review tribunals. That amendment would give
the president of the panel a clear direction without tying his or her
hands.
In a way, that decision is consistent with the direction of the
entire bill. The emphasis is on reasonable efforts to place qualified
people in this role. It does not set a quota. It does not incorporate
the labour relations based model into the process. It does not
assume that there should be representatives of perspectives that are
in probable opposition to each other. Moreover, it permits a flexible
approach where appropriate. The goal is to appoint tribunal
members who understand the issues and who can rule on them
fairly.
Not only are there sound philosophical reasons for the House to
support the committee's approach and to reject the amendment,
there are sound practical reasons to do so as well. One of the most
important pertains to the size of the tribunals. Tribunals do not
have seven or nine people on them who can be chosen to fill certain
quota needs. A tribunal will have either three or just one person.
If three persons are hearing a case, and that was the preference of
the committee as hon. members may recall, how will the
representation issues be resolved? That problem becomes
unsolvable if a one person tribunal is established. Hon. members
should remember that one person tribunals may often be appointed
in less complex cases. In those instances, representation of
designated groups, expertise and experience simply cannot be
achieved in a fashion that most people will see as fair.
Clearly it is not possible to make a system of proportional
representation work well for three people and it simply cannot
work for one person. It is far better to concentrate on expertise and
experience. In any event, representation is taking care of itself.
When Keith Norton, the president of the Canadian human rights
tribunal panel, appeared before the standing committee he agreed
that the tribunal should have membership from all walks of life. It
would be similar to what we see happening across the judiciary. It
is growing more and more representative of society all the time.
The committee has done its work and has done it very well. I
commend its members for that work. Because of that direction I do
not think we should support this amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The 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.
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:
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the motion is deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Having heard the request from the chief
government whip, the vote will be deferred until five o'clock.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that only slightly
over ten minutes are left, instead of pursuing other government
business perhaps the House would give its consent to suspend for
12 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to suspend
the House for 12 minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.47 p.m.)
15234
The House resumed at 5.01 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred divisions on Bill C-64. The first question will be on
Motion No. 1.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 344)
YEAS
Members
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Bryden
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -39
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacAulay
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Skoke
Solomon
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-159
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Jacob
Loubier
Manley
Minna
Plamondon
Vanclief
(1725)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17 also lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5 of group 3.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent to apply the vote taken on the
previous motion to the motion now before the House.
15235
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting
with the government on this motion.
Ms. Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting
with the government on this and further votes.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention, thanks
to the proddings of my colleague opposite, that I missed the first
vote. I am now here and wish to be counted with the government
subsequently.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 345)
YEAS
Members
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -38
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacAulay
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Skoke
Solomon
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-162
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Jacob
Loubier
Manley
Minna
Plamondon
Vanclief
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 lost.
(1730)
The next question is on group 4, Motion No. 7.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe the House would give its
unanimous consent that all members who voted on the previous
motion, that is Motion No. 5, be recorded as having voted on the
15236
motion now before the House, with the Liberal members recorded
as voting nay.
Mr. Duceppe: The Bloc Quebecois members will vote yea.
A positive vote on Motion No. 13 will obviate the necessity of
the question being put on Motion No. 14.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Reform members will vote in favour of this
motion except for those who wish to vote otherwise. This is the
only time I will say that this evening.
Mr. Silye: I wish to vote otherwise, Mr. Speaker. I vote against
this motion.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present this
afternoon vote yea on this motion.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:
(Division No. 346)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
Cummins
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Solomon
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -78
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-122
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Jacob
Loubier
Manley
Minna
Plamondon
Vanclief
15237
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on group 6, Motion No. 13.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc members will vote yea.
[English]
A negative vote on Motion No. 13 necessitates the question
being put on Motion No. 14.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe the
House would give its unanimous consent that all members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 defeated.
The next division will be on Motion No. 14 of Group No. 6.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, most Reformers will vote no 347.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party who are in the House this evening vote yea on Motion No. 13.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 347)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Caron
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
McLaughlin
Ménard
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-41
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Szabo
Terrana
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-159
15238
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Jacob
Loubier
Manley
Minna
Plamondon
Vanclief
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe the
House would give its unanimous consent that the vote on the
previous motion, that is Motion No. 13, be applied to Motion No.
14 also.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under division No. 347.]
(1735)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be
concurred in and read the second time.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. If you were to seek
it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote
taken on report stage Motion No. 5 in reverse to the motion now
before the House.
For the clarification of my colleague whips, the reason I am
using this vote as opposed to Motion No. 1 is that some members
were absent for the first vote.
(Division No. 348)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacAulay
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Skoke
Solomon
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-162
NAYS
Members
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -38
15239
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Jacob
Loubier
Manley
Minna
Plamondon
Vanclief
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill concurred in and read the second time.)
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
15239
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me to rise in the House tonight to speak on Motion
M-292 which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider
implementing a new program of mining incentives which would encourage
exploration and development in Canada.
[
Translation]
But before going any further, I would to state some very
important facts, for the benefit of our viewers. First of all, Canada
is the third largest mining country in the world, extracting about 60
metals and minerals, including zinc, uranium, potash and gold. The
mining industry provides employment for approximately 335,000
Canadians in 150 communities. Mining companies in Northern
Ontario have created 18,000 direct jobs in the metal industry and
5,000 in the non metallic minerals industry. I am very proud to say
that the Williams mine, in Marathon, in the riding of
Cochrane-Superior, is the largest gold mine in Canada.
There are however many barriers to the survival of the mining
industry. First of all, mining exploration is a temporary land use
that disrupts small areas for a very short time period. Once the
mineral deposit is depleted, cleanup procedures are undertaken and
land can be used for other purposes. Unfortunately, land use issues
are fraught with uncertainty because of the development of new
parks and native land claims, some of which are being negotiated
as we speak.
The industry is facing new difficulties since countries like Chile,
Argentina and Mexico are upgrading their economies and taking
steps to attract mining exploration and, thus, investors.
(1740)
In 1993, Canadian companies with budgets over $1 million
invested nearly $260 million, or half their budgets, in exploration
outside of Canada. This represents an increase over 1992, when
these companies devoted 40 percent of their exploration budgets
abroad.
Why is that? First of all, at the natural resources committee
hearings last year, the Canadian mining industry had a lot to say
about stringent environmental standards-that is the first
problem-and the slow licensing process as well. The second
problem is non-unionized labour in Latin America and Mexico.
Because of this, wages are extremely low; also, the standard of
living is lower in these countries than here. Investors enjoy a much
higher return on their investments over there than in Canada.
Since the licensing and environmental assessment processes are
under federal and provincial jurisdiction, they are characterized by
duplication and delay. We need at least $900 million to $1 billion a
year in exploration capital in Canada to rebuilt our ore reserves
which have dropped dangerously.
We must bear in mind that, from 1990 to 1994, while 44 mines
shut down operations in Canada, only 24 were opened.
[English]
If we want mining exploration to continue and to keep investors
interested, there should be incentives from the government. We
need a new program of mining incentives that will encourage
exploration and development, encourage Canadian companies to
keep investing in their country. That will permit the industry to
help stabilize the economy and create employment.
Last year, as I mentioned a while ago, the committee for natural
resources issued a report after its very long hearings. The report
says:
Canada needs to remove existing structural impediments to the achievement
of a sound mineral investment climate. These have been identified as: the tax
burden on the industry, particularly the one imposed by non-profit taxes; the
inefficiencies of the current environmental regulatory regime; and the
uncertainty surrounding land use policies and security to mineral title.
Another recommendation coming from the report is that the
government has to work with mining communities and the
provincial governments to establish those crucial partnerships to
work together to ensure that we have a viable mining industry in
Canada.
There is a great need for the harmonization of environmental
guidelines. As it is today, the federal government's guidelines
15240
differ from those of many of the provinces. This simply adds
complexity to opening new mines.
The mining companies are not asking for grants but they want a
level playing field and a tax system that is truly competitive with
the rest of the world. There should be security of land tenure and a
certainty of continuity in the rules of the game in terms of issuing
permits and doing environmental assessments.
After extensive hearings the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources have recommended nine key points on mining
incentives. These points were also present in the Whitehorse
mining initiative report.
I would like to emphasize a few of those recommendations.
First, change the adjusted cost base of flowthrough shares from
zero to the actual costs of the shares for five years only, to kickstart
mining exploration again.
Flowthrough shares would provide a less costly means of raising
equity based financing for exploration and development by
facilitating a widespread share issue. Flowthrough shares allow
access to a broad range of investors while minimizing the impact
on corporate management and control.
(1745 )
Second, there should also be harmonization in the federal and
provincial environmental guidelines. Co-operation agreements
should be established among the jurisdictions for the development,
administration and enforcement of environmental standards to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory system
and to reduce unnecessary industry regulatory compliance costs.
A new mining project should be subject to only one timely
environmental assessment by a single lead agency with only one
set of recommendations that meet all the requirements. We should
try to conciliate conserving the environment with the creation of
employment.
Third, we should amend the Income Tax Act to defer taxation of
income generated by mine reclamation trusts until the funds within
these trusts are finally allocated for reclamation purposes.
Reclamation funds should be treated also like RRSPs.
Therefore I support Motion No. 292 by my colleague from
Timiskaming. I insist at the same time that we should provide a
newer direction for our mining industry and ensure that it continues
to make a strong contribution to the Canadian economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to thank or congratulate the
hon. member for Timiskaming-French River for tabling this
motion, and introducing it in the House on June 5 of this year. This
motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider
implementing a new program of mining incentives which would encourage
exploration and development in Canada.
When he talked on his motion, the hon. member mentioned in
this House that in the area of mining, there was a substantial
increase in exploration throughout Canada in 1994. However, this
is not the opinion expressed by the Association des prospecteurs du
Québec in a letter dated March 30, addressed to the Minister of
Finance.
The letter said in particular that the government does not seem to
realize that there is presently in Canada a lack of exploration which
is mortgaging the future of the whole Canadian mining industry.
The letter also said that it was urgent to try to replenish our mineral
reserves. If we neglect to do that it will have an impact on a whole
economic activity which is directly or indirectly connected with the
mining and smelting industry in Canada.
I would like to say that we should make a distinction between
mining exploration itself, where there was substantial growth in
1994 compared to 1993, and activities dependant on mining
exploration, which also grew in 1994. We should mention,
however, that despite this strong growth, we are a long way from
the levels which existed in the early 1980s.
This being said, we can realize the scope of what the hon.
member for Timiskaming-French River was saying and I quote:
``Despite this, major problems and impediments still exist to a
sound and sustainable mining sector in this country.'' It is in this
context that the hon. member was asking the House to press the
government to implement a program of incentives which would
encourage exploration and development in the mining sector in
Canada.
Of course, there is no reason why we should oppose this motion,
even though it seems to be nothing but an expression of intent.
However, assuming that the House of Commons agrees to this
motion at the time of the vote, what will it give us that we do not
have already?
The problem is not that Motion M-292 is inappropriate, but that
it is not sufficient to solve the mining problem in Canada. In its
report on the Canadian mining industry that was tabled before
Parliament in December 1994, the standing committee on natural
resources made a series of recommendations that all committee
members, whatever their party affiliation, agreed on.
Of these recommendations, there are two that I will now outline
for you. First, recommendation No. 3 which says: ``That the federal
government introduce a mineral exploration incentive by
modifying the Income Tax Act to incorporate a change in the
adjusted cost base of flow-through shares from a value of zero to
the actual cost of the shares''.
15241
Then, recommendation No. 4, which everybody agreed on:
``That in order to enhance the effectiveness of exploration work
financed by means of flow-through shares, the feral government
enable the exploration activity funded through such shares to be
carried out over a period of one full year after financing''.
(1750)
The problem with the motion of the member for
Timiskaming-French River is that, as it stands currently, it would
do nothing concrete to stimulate mining exploration. It would be
insufficient in itself to ensure implementation of the
recommendations of the standing committee on natural resources,
that the hon. member moving this motion is a member of.
If I brought to the attention of the House the committee
recommendations that deal with flow-through shares, it is because
my colleague from Abitibi also moved before Parliament a motion,
Motion M-247, that has the same objective as Motion M-292, but
would have a more obvious impact on mining exploration.
I do not intend to deal at length with the motion moved by my
hon. colleague from Abitibi, but rather on the one moved by the
hon. member for Timiskaming-French River. However, since
both motions are very similar, I think it is relevant to speak to both.
I would like to indicate that members of the Bloc Quebecois will
support motion M-292 inasmuch as it does not work at cross
purposes with motion M-427 which we will also all support.
I will not dwell at length on the positive impact tax incentives
could have on the mining industry, since my colleague from Abitibi
covered that very well, but I would like to mention that this kind of
incentive has proved to be useful in Quebec, and more particularly
so with small mining companies, which have a positive impact on
local economies through their exploration operations.
The hon. member for Timiskaming-French River has given lots
of figures, which my colleague opposite repeated a moment ago, to
demonstrate the importance of mining in Canada and describe the
Canadian position in mining exploration throughout the world in
several sectors.
Despite all those figures, the government does not seem to get
the point that the mining industry is one of the strongest
foundations of the Canadian economy and deserves more than lip
service. If motion M-292 carries, it will have a positive impact
because we will at least know which way the government is
heading as regards the development of our mining industry. And if
the motion of the hon. member for Abitibi is agreed to, the mining
industry will be able to know how the government intends to reach
its goal.
In the time remaining, I would like to comment on statements
made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East in reaction to
remarks made by the hon. member for Abitibi on his motion. The
hon. member for Fraser Valley East said among other things, and I
quote:
[English]
``I am surprised and I might almost say astonished that this
particular motion would come from the hon. member for Abitibi''.
Let me paraphrase what he says. He says that he wants the federal
government to pour money into subsidies for industry in Canada
and in Quebec.
My colleague did not seem to understand the difference that
exists between a federalist in Quebec and a sovereignist. A
federalist in Quebec effectively always asks for more power and
money. Sovereignists in Quebec do not want that at all. They want
all the power and no money. We fully understand that being a
minority in a majority means that we will fight forever, day after
day, for bits of power and morsels of rights. We do not want bits of
power and morsels of rights. We want all the power and all the
rights. However, as long as we are in Confederation we will ask for
our fair share of the federal expenses.
I will quote again the hon. member for Fraser Valley East who
said: ``I am surprised because the hon. member for Abitibi is a
member of the Bloc Quebecois which, as we all know, is a political
party with only one purpose and that is to destroy Canada as we
know it by taking Quebec out of Confederation''. That is a very
strange affirmation.
Most Canadians actually believe, concerning Quebec of course,
that we are a bunch of troublemakers, that we receive much more
money from Canada than we put in, and that if the economic
situation in Canada goes bad it is partly due to the political
instability in Quebec. If those three assumptions are right and if
people really believe them, the sovereignty of Quebec should be
seen by most Canadians as a good way to solve a problem once and
for all and save money, providing that we assume our fair share of
the Canadian debt. That is exactly what we intend to do.
We are not a problem; we are the solution to a problem. If the no
vote wins in Quebec we are back to square one. It will be 15 years
of political debate to the next referendum, and I am sure nobody
wants that. We do not want to destroy Canada. We simply think that
Canadians should be able to run their country the way they want,
without having to please Quebec at each moment, and that Quebec
should be allowed to do the same.
(1755)
My friend from Fraser Valley East continued: ``I hope the
member understands that people from my riding are frustrated by
this kind of behaviour''. I am frustrated too. I fully understand
15242
what frustration means, but the only way to put an end to that
frustration is to support the sovereignty of Quebec.
A certain amount of Canadians believe that we are sovereignists
because we hate Canadians. This is absolutely not true. We love
Canadians but love has absolutely nothing to do with politics. I
love my father very much; that is love. However I would never let
my father run my business; that is politics.
Personally I have worked everywhere in Canada: Edmonton,
Toronto, southern Ontario, Regina, Saskatchewan and Saint John,
New Brunswick. I have also worked in the United States: Texas,
Florida, West Point and New York. I fully agree with the Prime
Minister of Canada. If I were an immigrant from anywhere in the
world trying to find a new country in which to live, Canada would
be my first choice. However I am not an immigrant trying to find a
new country in which to live. I already have a country. My country
is Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak on the motion
put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for
Timiskaming-French River, which urges the government to
consider implementing incentives to promote mining exploration
and development in Canada.
Canada extends over some 10 million square kilometres and is
one of the richest countries in the world in terms of natural
resources. Its mining industry was ranked amongst the best in the
world in many areas of mineral production. Mining has always
played a major role in the Canadian economy, which is hardly
surprising, since Canada is one of the biggest producers and
exporters of non-fuel mineral resources.
Statistics for 1992 show that the non-fuel mineral resources
industry accounted for a little over 4 per cent of the Gross
Domestic Product and almost 3 per cent of employment. Also,
these statistics indicate that the total value of the non-fuel mineral
resources production for 1992 reach $14.6 billion, which is 41 per
cent of overall mineral production in Canada. It is important, also,
to remember that Canada produces a little over 60 minerals. Except
for phosphorus, manganese, bauxite and chrome, our country can
meet its own needs in terms of minerals.
Statistics on exploration also speak volumes. Non-fuel mineral
resources exports reached $23 billion, a little over 15 per cent of
total exports for Canada. During the same period, the value of our
non-fuel mineral resources imports was estimated at $13.2 billion,
for a trade surplus of over $9.8 billion. All these statistics reflect
the outstanding progress made by the Canadian mining industry.
Technological innovation also has something to do with the
boom enjoyed by this industry. However, the industry did not
escape from the upheaval caused by the recession during the late
1980s and the early 1990s. Mining was hard hit during this period.
But since 1993, it is recovering nicely. All of us in this House
recognize that several irritants are still preventing Canada's mining
industry from hitting its stride.
(1800)
This is why I wholeheartedly support the motion put forward by
the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River, whom I wish to
congratulate for this excellent initiative, especially since my hon.
colleague showed, in the eloquent speech he made when he
introduced his motion, that he is very much aware of the current
codition of federal finances.
[English]
This motion has nothing to do with tax breaks, grants, or
subsidies. Its only goal is to bring the government to consider
measures that would not cost a lot of money to the Canadian
taxpayer but will go a long way to ensure a brighter future to the
Canadian mining industry and to the mining communities across
Canada.
In its report of December 1994 entitled ``Lifting Canadian
Mining Off the Rocks'', the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Natural Resources proposed nine recommendations.
Some of those recommendations would cost money if
implemented, while others would emphasize collaboration and
partnership that would alleviate some problems for the industry.
Here are some of the recommendations.
Recommendation number three: ``That the federal government
introduce a mineral exploration incentive by modifying the Income
Tax Act to incorporate a change in the adjusted cost base of flow
through shares from a value of zero to the actual cost of the shares,
that this new fiscal measure incorporate a cap on a given
company's take-up of the tax benefit, and that the new incentive
vehicle be in place for a maximum duration of five years''.
Recommendation number four: ``That in order to enhance the
effectiveness of exploration work financed by means of flow
through shares, the federal government enable the exploration
activity funded through such shares to be carried out over a period
of one full year after financing''.
Recommendation number seven: ``That once initial steps have
been taken to improve the investment climate in Canadian mining,
the federal government, its provincial and territorial counterparts,
and the domestic mining industry develop through consultation an
integrated approach to communicate the positive features of the
Canadian mining sector to potential investors''.
In May 1995 the Minister of Natural Resources responded very
favourably to the report of the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources on mining. She stated: ``The Government of Canada
remains committed to fostering a modern environmentally respon-
15243
sible mining industry that contributes significantly to Canada's
economic growth and job creation. We are committed to ensuring
in conjunction with provincial governments and the Canadian
mining industry that there is a positive environment for investment
in mineral exploration in Canada''.
A month earlier, in Miami, Florida, at the Investing in the
Americas Conference, the Minister of Natural Resources stated in
her speech to the conference: ``The Government of Canada
recognizes the importance of the mining industry, its contribution
to economic growth and jobs, and the challenges it faces''.
During the last Canadian federal election the Liberal Party of
Canada was the only political party to release a detailed policy
outlining its commitment to the mining industry. This commitment
has not wavered. We are proud of our mining industry and we
believe its present and future prospects are excellent.
[Translation]
From the statements made by the Minister of Natural Resources,
one can only conclude that the federal government is acting in good
faith in this matter and, particularly, that it is prepared to help the
mining industry, in co-operation with all the other stakeholders.
It even seems fairly clear that our government is already
responding to the request made in today's motion, with the
intention of keeping government initiatives in the mining industry
in line with the present fiscal situation.
This approach was clearly expressed in the response the
government gave to the fifth report of the Standing Committe on
Natural Resources entitled ``Lifting Canadian Mining off the
Rocks'', which was tabled in the House by the hon. Anne
McLellan, Minister of Natural Resources, on May 8, and I quote:
``While mining remains a priority of this government, budgetary
conditions also require that new ways be sought to deliver quality
programs and services at a lower cost. To this end, the federal
approach will be to exercise a role that complements that of the
provinces and provides a national co-ordination capacity, where
required, so that government policies and strategies have the most
favourable impact on mining in Canada''.
(1805)
Heads of the mining industry in Canada are quite aware that the
federal government cannot do it all on its own and offer a miracle
cure for the ills of the mining industry. However, they can count on
the federal government's cooperation and total support.
Already in 1994, in its action plan entitled Building a More
Innovative Economy, the federal government had announced its
intention to implement a number of measures concerning the
regulations governing the climate for investors. Improvements are
being considered in the following areas: decisions regarding land
use; definition of garbage and recycling; regulatory systems north
of the 60th parallel; better evaluation of environmental and
economic factors in the review of the impact of new regulations-
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the member's time has
now expired.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as a former prospector and mining consultant I am
especially pleased at this opportunity to comment on Motion No.
292.
Hon. members should be concerned that after adjusting for
inflation, domestic mining exploration expenditures for 1992,
valued at $385 million, were at the lowest levels since 1967.
Despite increases in the past two years, they remain substantially
below levels of the $800 million yearly it will take to maintain
required reserves.
It is painfully obvious that mineral exploration and therefore the
Canadian mining industry is in serious trouble. The question of
course is what do we do to correct this sorry fact.
I want to ask my hon. colleagues what they think makes
prospectors like myself tramp around in the bush for months on end
looking for solid indications that a chunk of northern Ontario
muskeg and rock or a Windy Craggy on the mountainside in British
Columbia has enough concentration of minerals that it could be
developed into an economically viable mine.
Men like me go prospecting in the Canadian bush because we
love it. Bad weather and tough living conditions do not stop us.
Worried mothers or lonesome housewives do not stop us. Not even
the low prices of the minerals we are seeking can stop us, because
we know the world needs those minerals and it will only be a
matter of time before prices rebound to profitable levels.
Only one thing has stopped me and other prospectors in Canada,
the irrational, short-sighted, muddle-headed, counterproductive,
feeble-minded policies of the federal Government of Canada:
outrageous taxes, conflicting rules, red tape so endless that it
routinely takes three years to get environmental approval for a new
mine in Canada, compared to six months in countries like Chile and
elsewhere else in the world.
Let me spell out some details regarding what I have labelled as
outrageous taxes. I want to be perfectly clear that I believe that
everybody who is making more than they need to live decently
should pay taxes. That includes profitable mining companies.
However, Canadian businesses and industry must face a host of
taxes that are not based on profit.
15244
One glaring example is tax imposed on gasoline, an absolute
necessity for mine exploration. Taxes account for half of our
Canadian costs for gasoline. This government recently increased
that tax by another half a cent per litre. That is a tax that must
be paid regardless of whether a mining company is in full or
profitable production or merely struggling to complete its first
program of diamond drilling.
By contrast, Mexico, our partner in the North American free
trade agreement, is far more realistic about what gas taxes can do to
their economy. In Canadian cents per Canadian litre of gasoline
during 1994, Canada's base price for gasoline was 26 cents,
whereas Mexico's base price was 44.5 cents. Yes, that is right,
Mexican gasoline, excluding tax, was nearly 20 cents a litre more
than our price. The Mexican government taxes gasoline like the
essential commodity it is, rather than following the wrong headed
policy of the Canadian government, which zaps consumers and
businesses by doubling the price by the time it reaches the gas
pump.
(1810)
The final result for 1994 was that our NAFTA partner had
gasoline prices of 48.9 cents a litre versus the Canadian average of
52.2 cents a litre. That is a big difference.
The federal government for the past many years has taxed
gasoline like it was champagne in order to pay for high spending
federal programs that allow the federal government to meddle in
every sector of our economy, including direct grants to businesses
and industry, which still cannot make Canadian costs competitive.
Compared to our new NAFTA partner, that is the kind of thing I
mean when I say that it is the muddle-headed contrary federal
government policies that have stopped mining exploration in
Canada.
Another example of outrageous taxation is the application of the
large corporation tax to mining companies that may have only one
mine they are struggling to bring into production. Still another tax I
believe is wrong taxes the interest on money that mining
companies must place in trust to ensure proper clean-up of the
environment in the form of mine reclamation funds. When a mine
starts up the principal has to raise a fortune in preproduction costs.
Part of that cost is setting aside sufficient funds to ensure that the
environment is returned to a safe and useable condition when the
mine shuts down. Creation of the mine reclamation trust fund is
being legislated by the provinces, but the federal government is
requiring even single mining operations just getting started to treat
the interest from the mine reclamation fund as annual income and
to pay tax on it right from the first year. Instead, I believe mine
reclamation funds should be treated like an RRSP.
Another way in which the present tax system is unfair to mining
development lies in the treatment of shares. I am very much in
favour of flow through shares, especially for non-diversified or
junior mining companies, which may not have revenue against
which they can use the deductions available. It is good to let
deductions available at the front end flow through the investor who
just buys the shares, but I see no justification for requiring that the
adjusted cost base of those same flowthrough shares must be
regarded as zero, whereas the adjusted cost base for other shares is
the actual cost of those shares.
The hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois has looked at the
national mining industry, which despite these awful federal
policies managed to create $16.34 billion of total mineral
production in the year of 1992, $15 billion for 1993, and $16.29
billion for 1994. Even though the hon. member claims he wants to
get out of Canada, he is proposing that the federal government
introduce a new program of mining incentives to encourage
prospectors to return from countries such as Chile, Brazil,
Indonesia, and wherever else Canadian prospectors have found
government policies they can live with.
The last thing a prospector wants is yet another batch of federal
red tape to try to figure out. What is basically wrong with
government starting such an incentive program? For one thing,
governments cannot predict very accurately when the international
price of gold or any other mineral may suddenly climb
substantially.
In 1983 the price of gold was $350 U.S. per troy ounce, and
mining exploration was relatively flat. In 1985 the Tory
government introduced the $100,000 lifetime capital gains
deduction. In 1987 gold was selling for $500 U.S. per troy ounce.
Throw in the additional government incentives like the mining
exploration depletion allowance, and small wonder that in 1987
over $1.2 billion was poured into mining and mineral exploration
here in Canada. It went predominantly to precious metals rather
than the base metals, which are more essential to our economy.
Who can say whether the policies of flow through shares, the
lifetime capital gains deduction, the increased price of gold, or the
MEDA program was responsible for the influx of the exploration
dollars in the mid-1980s?
Government programs are by their very nature crude tools.
Communist countries learned that they cannot entrust management
of their economies to some central brain trust. It is far better to
make as few government rules as is consistent with ensuring
sustainable resource development and generally leave the field of
natural resources to provincial jurisdiction.
(1815 )
Another significant factor preventing people from investing in
Canada today is our many conflicting rules, especially regarding
the environment. The Reform Party believes that environmental
concerns must be part of sustainable resource development right
from the initial planning stages. We see absolutely no valid reason
that federal and provincial regulations should not be harmonized
right across Canada. Instead, the present federal Minister of the
Environment has scuttled harmonization negotiations with the
Council of Canadian Ministers of the Environment because she
15245
wants to be the star performer instead of merely a member of the
chorus.
The 1993 report of the Committee on Competitiveness of the
Resource Industries pointed out:
The applicant has no way of knowing at the onset of the approval process
what the regulations will be, the amount of time that the approval process will
take, what it will ultimately cost, or what the outcome will finally be.
I definitely agree. It is time for government to get its act
together.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise this evening and speak in support of Motion
No. 292 which was put forward by my colleague, the hon. member
for Timiskaming-French River.
The hon. member and I have much in common when it comes to
sport shooting and matters pertaining to our great Canadian
outdoors. We also share similar views when it comes to mining
issues.
I congratulate my government colleague for submitting this
motion to the House. Mining is a very important activity in
northern Ontario. It is crucial to the economy there as well as in
many other areas. Also, the fact that he is representing his
constituents' concerns really matters. It should be the first and
most important duty for us all.
As a member from southwestern Ontario, home of Canada's
largest salt mine, I am pleased to speak in favour of the motion. I
too recognize the importance of mining to the Canadian economy.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider
implementing a new program of mining incentives which would encourage
exploration and development in Canada.
That is certainly consistent with our red book. I refer to the
October 15, 1993 mining policy announced by the hon. member for
Sudbury, who is now the Minister of Health. She stated:
The mining industry is a vital part of the Canadian economy. Not only is it the
lifeblood of over 150 communities, but it accounts for 330,000 jobs. A Liberal
government will offer the leadership needed to ensure a strong future for
Canadian mining.
One of the recommendations made in this policy is a direct
connection to today's motion. Our policy proposed to undertake a
comprehensive review of income tax laws with provincial and
territorial governments, industry and other interested parties to
ensure that the financial assurance mechanisms are complemented
by federal tax policies and to provide policy support to help mining
and mineral service industries expand their competitive advantage
in foreign markets.
This is an important motion, especially in light of today's
condition of the mining industry. It is facing a future of uncertainty.
Public policy initiatives are needed to sustain the industry as a
world class producer of mineral and metal products and to
stimulate investment in mineral exploration and development in
Canada.
I speak of an industry which accounts for 2.7 per cent of total
national employment, one in which depleting reserves and mine
closures outnumber mine openings, one which represents $23.6
billion or 17 per cent of total Canadian exports, and one which
contributed $10.8 billion to the mineral trade balance. It is an
industry in which the total value of mineral production was $14.6
billion, or $35.4 billion if fuel minerals were added. It is an
industry which represents one of the highest industrial wages paid
in Canada: $847 per week in some of Canada's most isolated
communities.
As a result of these challenges, we need an enhanced
commitment from the federal government especially in the area of
exploration stimulation which will attract sufficient levels of
exploration investment to ensure that the economic growth rate and
the level of Canadian mineral reserves will not continue to decline.
Our mining industry is a world leader in technology innovation
and information. We must always strive to keep it that way. As
members know, mineral exploration and for nearly a decade
mineral reserves have been on a decline as the developing world
attracts mineral investment away from Canada. They do this
through aggressive marketing, joint ventures and legislative and
policy changes.
(1820)
The competitiveness of Canadian mining in the 1990s is plagued
by uncertainty. There are disincentives now in the mineral
investment climate that are discouraging proper investment levels
which are needed to maintain a reserve base.
These factors include mineral taxation, exploration incentives,
environmental assessment, land access, aboriginal land claims,
mine reclamation deductions and security of mineral tenure. The
mineral potential in Canada is as inviting as any other country in
the world. However we cannot maintain our position as a world
leader among mineral-producing nations unless steps are taken to
reduce the doubts.
I am sure all members from both sides of the House understand
full well the implications of inadequate incentives for primary
mineral exploration. Without ample exploration the mineral
reserves necessary to replace what is being mined today will not be
found. For many reasons, exploration levels have dropped
dramatically since the mid-1980s. We all realize there is no quick
fix for this problem nor do governments currently have the
financial capacity to intervene in a significant way.
15246
Along with an exploration incentive program as called for in
the votable motion being debated today, there also must be an
overall competitive and supportive investment climate. This will
create the proper framework in which mining can thrive and this
will in turn promote exploration.
We must work hard to find solutions. We must work hard to keep
mining in Canada. While world demand for minerals is increasing,
Canada's share of world mineral supply is declining and mining
investment capital is leaving Canada for other parts of the world.
The mining industry has worked hard to reduce costs, improve
its environmental and safety performance and increase productivity
through technological innovation and upgrading of worker skills.
Yet today the industry faces its toughest challenge of all to keep
mining in Canada.
According to the Mining Association of Canada, in 1992 there
were 28 closures or temporary shutdowns of mines compared with
only eight openings, meaning a net loss of 5,800 jobs. From 1981
to 1991 there was a decline of nearly 40 per cent in investment
levels in the sector. Between 1986 and 1991 Canada failed to attract
a single new mining project with a capital cost of more than $250
million. By contrast, Latin America had five. These facts make
support of my colleague's motion so important. It centres on the
encouragement of exploration. This is crucial.
We know that investing in exploration and development is the
only way to ensure a future for mining in Canada but from 1991 to
1992 more than 150 companies worldwide reduced spending on
Canadian projects by 30 per cent. In 1987 Canadian companies
spent 81 per cent of their exploration budget in Canada. In 1992
that number went down to 61 per cent. In contrast, over $7 billion
has been committed to exploration and development in Chile,
Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina and Bolivia.
It is ironic that Canada is the biggest foreign investor in mineral
exploration in Chile with over 40 Canadian companies involved.
The average government approval for a mining operation takes six
months in Chile as opposed to three years in Canada. When Chile is
admitted to the NAFTA agreement, what chilling effect will this
have on Canadian mines?
Earlier in this Parliament, the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources conducted extensive hearings with all the stakeholders.
The result was nine key recommendations on mining incentives
which my colleague from Timiskaming-French River has
outlined.
Canada has the resources, skilled workforce, infrastructure and
commitment to environment and technology to support a
prosperous mining industry today and in the future. But without a
strong co-operative effort to keep mining here, this may well be
the last generation of miners in Canada. As future mining activities
shift to other countries, the decline of Canadian mining would have
a devastating impact on over one million Canadians living in
mining communities or working in businesses related to the mining
industry.
Through this motion, it shows we urgently need a national
mining strategy with policies and actions that will reverse current
trends. Mining is important to Canada and we must support Motion
No. 292. Canada has always counted on its mining industry to be a
key foundation for export driven growth.
Today mining is a $20 billion industry in Canada. We must keep
it growing and thriving. I am certainly supporting this motion and I
urge all hon. members to do the same.
(1825 )
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to enter the debate on Motion No. 292 in the name of the
hon. member for Timiskaming-French River who from time to
time is my seatmate. I am sure his constituents in mining
communities such as Kirkland Lake, Cobalt and Haileybury are
very proud of his initiatives in the House in support of the mining
sector.
Over time as Canadians became more involved in the service
sector they have forgotten some of their roots that go back in our
history over the last 200 or 300 years. The mining sector was a very
important part of it.
We all consume goods and products that come out of mining. We
are either consumers or work directly in mining or do both.
Invariably during the day we consume some products that actually
started off in the mining sector.
I will refer to some of the statistics: 4.2 per cent of our GDP is
accounted for by the mining sector and 14.6 per cent of Canada's
entire export trade is related to the mining sector. It directly
employs 327,000 people. These are some of the positive statistics
and I will now refer to some negative ones.
From 1991 to 1992, 150 companies in Canada reduced their
worldwide expenditures in our mining sector by 30 per cent. There
were reductions of expenditures from $430 million to $302 million.
In 1987 Canadian companies spent 81 per cent of their exploration
budgets in Canada. By 1992 that had declined to only 61 per cent.
As the previous member mentioned, ironically Canada and
Canadian companies are now the biggest investors in Chile. Over
40 companies are involved.
What is happening to our mining sector? Our own companies are
leaving. Why is that? In one word it is taxation in spite of
interjections by members of the third party. It was surprising when
I heard the hon. member from the third party talk about flow
through shares. I have listened to that party constantly talk a flat tax
or tax changes which would eliminate flow through shares. We can
15247
see that Reform Party members are basically speaking out of both
sides of their mouths at the same time.
Taxation has created confusion. When people are investing in
industry, confusion is one thing that forces capital to leave the
country. Capital likes certainty and taxation and administration in
Canada have created tremendous confusion. With that an outflow
of capital has been created.
Mining is a very significant capital intensive industry. Within the
industry each job represents $100,000 of investment in capital.
Many of the taxes the mining sector faces have nothing to do with
income. Once again in spite of the intervention by the member
from the third party, many of the taxes relate to provincial
jurisdiction and not federal. A more mature attitude would be to
realize that tax administration in the mining sector is outdated,
outmoded and in dire need of change.
Let me explain some of the taxes so members will understand
why the mining sector is having such difficulty. First there is a
significant insidious tax, what I would call a capital tax. Many
industries in Canada are subjected to it. Basically a capital tax is
just that: a tax on the capital invested in a business.
Perhaps that sounds reasonable to some people, but when we
take it to the next step we discover that a capital tax also involves a
tax on employed capital like bank loans. For instance, the more
debt one has, the more taxes one pays With a capital intensive
industry like mining clearly this is a very retrogressive tax. The tax
is administered by provincial jurisdictions.
I have had some discussions with my colleagues in the Bloc. The
problem across the country is that there are all kinds of tax
administrations in each province. It is very difficult for a
multinational corporation to understand the best place to run a
mine based on tax administration in an individual province.
(1830)
Another aspect that has created great consternation and a great
deal of uncertainty in the mining sector has been the whole concept
of a resource allowance. Let me try to explain resource allowance
in a very short period of time.
The provincial governments levy what are called royalty taxes.
Royalty taxes are somewhat closer to a profit type tax because
essentially they are oriented on production. There are royalty taxes
in the oil and gas sector. There are royalty taxes in the mining
sector, basically based on the amount of extraction that takes place.
What the federal government attempts to do is to try to make
some kind of recognition that mining companies are subject to
these royalty taxes. Some people might ask: Why not simply allow
them as a tax deduction? Some people have suggested that as a
way to amend the taxation of mining companies.
The problem we have, and getting back once again to the speaker
from the Reform Party, is that each province calculates royalty
taxes differently. There is a different administration in British
Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is a totally different
one in Ontario and also in Quebec.
What the federal government attempts to do is to develop a
formula which will allow some kind of methodology of calculating
what would be a uniform royalty tax across all mining sectors. The
problem is it has become so unbelievably complicated to calculate
what a resource allowance is.
We have had the spectacle of the Gulf case. That company was
able to argue effectively under the tax laws for a totally different
interpretation of resource allowances than did the federal
government. The federal government's bottom line was a loss of
over $1 billion worth of tax revenue.
This has created further consternation within the tax
administration system and it is continuing to be a problem. Mainly
it is a problem because governments cannot sit down together and
work things out in a reasonable and harmonious fashion.
That is not the end of the problems of the mining sector. There
are all kinds of other non-profit taxes which take place within the
mining sector. The hon. member has mentioned gasoline taxes
because he basically likes to criticize the federal government, but
we also have other forms of taxes, not the least of which is energy
taxes.
The mining sector is a huge consumer of electricity. Most of
these electrical utilities are administered by provincial
administrations. Quite frankly, I believe they have been
mismanaged over the years. At one time Canada had a very
attractive energy rate making it a cheaper place to undertake
mining in North America. That competitive advantage has been
lost over the last 20 years through what I consider to be different
types of practices and basically mismanaging that resource. As a
consequence, our mining sector faces some of the highest energy
rates of any mining operation in North America.
This reminds me of a story. I was once in the jungles of Peru,
long before I started this job. Somebody asked me: ``When I look at
Canada, a big huge country, the third largest country in the world
geologically, a small but well educated population, why is it that
Canada cannot manage its resources effectively and be a world
leader?''
I come back to this debate. We are seeing how people within
governments, no matter what public administration is involved,
whether it is federal or provincial, are basically out to kill the
golden goose.
Another area that is a federal concern is payroll taxes. I do not
have to tell most members that the increases in UI rates and
15248
Canada pension plan rates have had a tremendous impact on the
mining sector because it is capital intensive and also uses a lot of
labour.
(1835 )
I believe the various governments sat down in November 1994
and signed an agreement, the Whitehorse Mining Initiative. I will
read one section of that concerning the area of taxation: ``to
establish a tax regime that is seen to be simple, pragmatic, fair,
including an overall greater reliance on profit-based taxes as
opposed to non-profit-related taxes and charges''. I think this is a
great objective. And I note this agreement has been signed not only
by our Minister of Natural Resources but most of the provincial
natural resources ministers. Of course the problem is we have a lot
of talk going on but we do not have much action.
In conclusion, I am very supportive of the motion by the member
for Timiskaming-French River that has brought this to our
attention. I could go on and on about how tax administration should
perhaps be different in this country. I believe we must move
forward quickly to address the concerns of the mining sector.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired.
[English]
As colleagues know, the order is dropped to the bottom of the
order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
15248
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on September 27, just days after the standoffs concluded
at Gustafsen Lake and Ipperwash, Ontario, I rose in this House to
question the Minister of Indian Affairs about what should happen
next. Obviously, the issues raised in grievance by those occupying
land and the concerns expressed by many who had not been
occupying land had not been addressed and the frustration of
aboriginal people concerning land was still outstanding.
I continue to believe that the federal government's approach to
land claims and self-government, an approach that is slow,
confusing, and filled with uncertainties, is the first area of concern
that needs to be dealt with if the frustrations and anxieties are ever
to be reduced. Indian leaders throughout Canada and through the
Assembly of First Nations have said for many years that the anger
among the people of their communities had to be addressed quickly
or it would boil over.
Earlier, during the second week of September, when I called on
the minister to get involved in the specifics of Ipperwash and
Gustafsen Lake, I said that the only way to deal with the slow and
uncertain nature of how land claim disputes are currently settled
was with the understanding and intervention of the federal Minister
of Indian Affairs. Only he has the authority to make the necessary
changes. Only he has the jurisdiction to address the issues in a way
that will adequately address the problems outlined by so many.
Obviously those closest to the issue are the ones who should be
consulted first, and those who work in the field must be consulted
as well.
It comes as no surprise then to learn that the latest annual report
of the Indian claims commission published this summer calls for
the development and implementation of a new land claims policy
and process. Here is the group caught in the middle between the
bands and the government, receiving the applications, hearing and
judging the evidence, and presenting the recommendations. Here is
a group that does the work saying that it should be replaced; saying
that the workload is increasing dramatically and the ability of the
existing commission to respond is limited; saying that it is wrong
for the government to have a process in place that allows the
federal government to be a judge in claims against itself.
To quote the commission, ``Everything that we have learned as a
commission to date indicates that it is imperative to commence the
process of reform immediately. It is imperative that an independent
claims body be established to perform at least the initial
assessment of the validity of First Nations land claims in Canada.''
Upon reading the commission's report the editors of the
Montreal Gazette newspaper had this to say: ``It is important that
aboriginal communities establish a solid land base. From it,
economic development and self-government can follow. In its red
book of campaign promises the Liberal Party said the current
process is simply not working and promised to set up an
independent claims commission. It should do so sooner rather than
later.''
That was my sentiment when I first asked the minister if it was
his intention to establish a new process in policy.
That was my intention when I said I did not believe it would be
in Canada's best interest to have First Nation's people from all
across the country who may have legitimate land claims occupying
land and leaving the resolution of those disputes to the local police.
Land issues are not police matters. They are matters of critical
concern to all Canadians and only the minister can deal with them.
Therefore I was disappointed when the minister said he had to
consult further. I hope he has now had the time to talk to the chiefs.
15249
I ask again, will the government take the first step to relieve
the anxieties over the land claims process and establish the new,
independent commission called for by the Indian Claims
Commission in its 1994-95 annual report?
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
respond to the question raised by the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake on September 27 regarding the
1994-95 report of the Indian Claims Commission and its first
recommendation which called for the establishment of a new,
independent land claims policy and process.
First, I would like to say that the work the Indian Claims
Commission is currently doing in the area of claims is
commendable. The minister has the highest respect for this effort.
Second, the Liberal Party of Canada's election platform states:
A Liberal government will implement major changes to the current approach.
A Liberal government will be prepared to create, in co-operation with
aboriginal peoples, an independent claims commission to speed up and
facilitate the resolution of all claims. The commission would not preclude direct
negotiations.
Let me assure the House that the government is committed to
building new partnerships with aboriginal peoples based on trust
and mutual respect. The resolution of land claims is an important
part of this initiative.
In fact, the federal government is committed to increasing the
rate of land claim settlements. We are seeking innovative ways to
resolve the impediments that slow this process. There has been,
however, significant progress in resolving claims, including 44
specific claim settlements as well as five comprehensive claim
settlements since the government took office.
The minister has invited substantive commentary from First
Nations and First Nation organizations on concrete proposals for
change and is awaiting further guidance from aboriginal people and
others. The government, in co-operation with First Nations, needs
to think through how the claims policies could be overhauled
within the climate of restraint that affects us all. The recent report
of Justice Hamilton will assist in this regard.
It is important all Canadians understand and respect this process
as it benefits all Canadians.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until
10 a.m. tomorrow.
(The House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.)