CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 5, 1994
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 6553
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 6554
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 6554
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6554
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6555
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6557
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6557
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6557
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6558
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6559
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6560
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6560
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6560
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6560
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6561
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6561
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6561
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6561
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 6564
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6565
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 6566
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 6566
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6566
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6567
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 6567
Bill C-52. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and of amendment 6568
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6582
Bill C-256. Motion for second reading 6586
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6589
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 6593
6553
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 5, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, 10
years ago today Canadians watched with pride and awe as Dr.
Marc Garneau blasted into space and into history, becoming the
first Canadian to orbit the earth.
[Translation]
This was quite a step forward for Canada. Until then,
Canadians had had to content themselves with the role of
spectators where space exploration was concerned.
But everything changed when Marc Garneau, a Quebecer and
a true Canadian went up in the space shuttle Challenger.
[English]
Just recently, following the successful flights of Dr. Roberta
Bondar and Dr. Steve MacLean in 1992, another Canadian, Dr.
Chris Hadfield, has been selected to participate in a mission
which will see the American shuttle using the Canadian robotic
arm dock with the Russian space station. This is an example of
true collaboration among the nations of the earth and beyond.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
new President of South Africa visited Washington, where he was
not only greeted with all the honours due to him as a head of
state but also as a champion of racial equality. President
Mandela is living proof that justice, law and democracy can and
must triumph over tyranny and oppression.
The Bloc Quebecois is delighted at the progress made by the
citizens of South Africa since the first free elections and the end
of apartheid. But the struggle is not over and we must now work
with them to build a new South Africa.
Canada must make available its assistance and its support for
economic development and for President Mandela's fight
against the poverty and destitution afflicting the people of his
country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw the attention of the House to the health care
crisis we are currently experiencing in northern and rural
Canada.
The government is proud to talk about the sanctity of our
universal health care system. However, when one of the towns in
my riding advertised to replace a retiring surgeon for over a year
it met with no success.
By and large Canadian doctors seem unwilling to settle and
work in the north. Consequently northern communities have had
to increasingly rely on foreign physicians who must weigh the
opportunity of working in Canada against an uncertain future
caused by short term work visas.
Our patient to doctor ratio is around 1,700 to 1, compared to
about 160 to 1 in Vancouver.
Northern natural resources contribute billions to government
coffers, yet our hospitals are being shut down or their services
drastically cut back, resulting in northerners travelling hundreds
of miles to receive adequate health care.
Is this an example of the accessibility promised by the Canada
Health Act?
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
children are this nation's most valuable resource and it is our
responsibility to eliminate the poverty that creates barriers for
1.25 million Canadian children. Lack of food is affecting their
growth, health and ability to learn and has led to an increasing
number of young people resorting to crime and suicide to escape
poor living conditions.
6554
In London-Middlesex the three levels of government, the
school boards, businesses and community organizations have
come together to form the kids count program, an innovative
project aimed at breaking the cycle of poverty that hinders a
child's development. I commend this community-wide
co-operation that seeks to give every child the opportunity to do
his or her best.
The government is committed to the elimination of child
poverty through job creation and the reformation of our social
security system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate and thank Mr. and Mrs.
Bérubé, presidents of the Verdun optimist club, as well as all of
the club's past presidents, for the excellent work they have done.
The Verdun optimist club provides assistance to many young
people in need of help in the riding of Verdun-Saint Paul.
I would also like to congratulate Mr. Pierre Lamarre on his
recent appointment as president. I wish him much success in his
new functions and look forward to working with him to help our
young people.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais
(Madawaska-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I
commended minister Dingwall warmly for imposing a
moratorium on post office closures in our small communities.
It is not enough to keep post offices open. Our small
communities must also be provided with modern written
communication transmission services; our rural post offices
must have faxes and electronic mail.
Again the status quo is not good enough for our small
communities. Time has come to modernize their
communications network.
* * *
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, these past few
days, the media have been outlining social program reform
proposals the Minister of Human Resource Development had
not yet tabled. Before parliamentarians even had a chance to
review these proposals officially, the public was informed of the
highlights of the minister's reform.
In fact, everyone but parliamentarians was informed.
So, why all the secrecy today, seeing that the minister's
reform is making the front page of all newspapers?
I do not know if this is a new way of launching trial balloons
that the minister is experimenting with, but one thing is sure: he
will certainly not win any award for discretion and respect for
Parliament.
* * *
(1405 )
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday the Prime Minister answered a question from my
colleague from Calgary West regarding the reimbursement of
$34.5 million to the Government of Quebec for its 1992
provincial referendum.
In his answer the Prime Minister stated he was committed to
pay the Quebec government $34.5 million because of a promise
made by the previous Tory government.
It is interesting that the present Liberal government
arbitrarily chooses the contracts, whether verbal or written, it
will respect. It chose to permit the sale of Ginn Publishing to
Paramount on the basis of a verbal agreement but cancelled the
Pearson International Airport contract and the EH-101 deal
which were both written legal agreements.
The carryover process for contracts negotiated by the Tory
government remains very unclear. The government has an
obligation to Canadians to explain what criteria are taken into
consideration when respecting or abrogating a contract. This
action will haunt it. The Canadian taxpayer has a right to know
on what basis the government makes its decisions.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians recognize that television has a powerful
impact on their lives. Despite efforts to raise awareness and
decrease levels of violence on television some studies have
indicated an actual increase of incidents of violence over the
past few years.
Television plays a central role in our society. It can deeply
influence those who watch it, especially our children. Our young
people watch television in order to understand the world around
them. Parents must be mindful of the responsibility and be
aware of what is being watched. Advertisers should be
encouraged to be selective and we as members of Parliament
should encourage non-violent programming through funding
and education.
6555
By working together we can all ensure that television, which
is a guest in our home, can be a positive influence on our young
people.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle): Mr.
Speaker, last week, the hon. member for Richelieu presented a
motion to change the party fundraising process at the federal
level. In fact, this was nothing but window dressing to conceal
the Bloc's own fundraising habits and lack of transparency.
While all federal political parties comply with the Canada
Elections Act and make their list of donors public, the Official
Opposition hides behind a special provision of the act to avoid
disclosing information that the public is entitled to.
This guilty silence on contributions received by the Bloc
Quebecois and its list of donors lets an uncomfortable element
of doubt hang over its funding sources.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak on behalf of all Liberal members from
Quebec and point out that Lise Bacon is now a senator.
Mrs. Bacon is one of the most respected and credible
politicians in Quebec. She was elected in 1973 to the Quebec
National Assembly, where she did a brilliant and effective job in
the most senior positions.
For a long time, the former Deputy Premier of Quebec has
recognized the benefits for Quebec of belonging to the Canadian
federation and she never hesitated to promote federalism.
Mrs. Bacon's presence in the Canadian Senate will mean one
more voice for all those who do not identify with the Bloc
Quebecois's separatist stance.
[English]
Welcome, Lise, and thank you for joining us in promoting a
united and prosperous Canada that is the envy of all the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, members
of the Bloc Quebecois reacted with amazement to the Supreme
Court decision, based on the Charter of Rights, which admits
extreme drunkenness as a legitimate defence for sexual assault.
From now on, someone accused of sexual assault who can
prove that he was so drunk as to be almost insane or acting on
impulse will be able to evade his responsibilities.
Nevertheless, common sense tells us that someone who
commits a crime as serious as sexual assault after he has
voluntarily consumed too much alcohol or drugs cannot use his
state of mind as an excuse or to seek lenient treatment from the
court.
(1410)
On behalf of the thousands of women who have been raped,
will the federal government amend the Criminal Code? That is
the question which the Minister of Justice must answer as soon
as possible!
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, next week the
Reform Party will be holding its democratic assembly here in
Ottawa. In sharp contrast with this place, voting will be fast and
easy. The expected 1,500 delegates will vote electronically and
the results will be known in about 30 seconds.
Although I cannot invite all members of the House to come to
observe, I extend the invitation to you, Mr. Speaker. Please
come and see how a modern, efficient organization operates.
Come and see for yourself that in policy and in process we are
ready to form the government and to bring a new measure of
efficiency, competency and accountability to the governance of
this great country.
With the national debt now at $533,082,058,000 and the
dollars and cents growing more rapidly than I can speak, Reform
has become the only hope for the country.
* * *
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, the
government made a commitment to add sexual orientation as a
prohibited ground of discrimination to the Canadian human
rights code. It has already introduced Bill C-41 which would
address the issue of sentencing in crimes where hate is a
motivating factor.
We have done these things because they are right and decent
things to do. Amending the code is a matter of fundamental
justice and equality. The goal of the Canadian Human Rights Act
is not to confer special rights on anyone but rather to ensure
equal rights for everyone. These measures are consistent with
our commitment to attack hatred and discrimination and
promote tolerance in our society.
In this House where our currency is words, we must never
forget their power. They can be used to empower and embrace or
6556
to attack and incite. Words have an impact. Free speech is not
free of consequences. I will never use the holocaust as a
metaphor but there are lessons to be learned. As Eli Wiesel said
of that time: ``It began with words''.
When we add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human
Rights Act and when we pass Bill C-41 we will be using words
to embrace and all Canadians can feel proud of that.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, this week is
National Family Week. In fact, it is the 10th anniversary of this
very special week. Thousands of Canadian families and over
25,000 organizations and agencies are celebrating it across the
country. Special events are being organized under the theme of
the International Year of the Family.
As part of National Family Week, the federal secretariat of the
International Year of the Family will spearhead a national
awareness campaign to encourage federal government
employees to spend time with their families and if possible to
donate time to community organizations of their choice.
I am sure all my colleagues join me in celebrating the
importance of family life for people across Canada and around
the world.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, Yukoners
were treated to the sight of what Liberal consultation really
means when the Minister of Justice visited Whitehorse, Yukon,
and refused to have public meetings but only closed
door-sessions with certain selected individuals.
In fact, when independent and NDP members of the
legislature in the Yukon asked to be privy to these meetings,
they were told they were not allowed by the president of the
Liberal Party. The Minister of Justice said that the meetings in
Yukon were unique because Yukon does not have a Liberal
member of Parliament.
Consultation on gun control or any other area that affects all
Canadian citizens should be done with every member of this
House, not just Liberal members, not just run by the Liberal
Party. Shame on the Minister of Justice for not having enough
gumption to-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I am
receiving letters from concerned constituents about section 43
of the Criminal Code, the section that allows parents to
administer reasonable corporal punishment to their children.
The Minister of Justice indicated that he is considering the
matter.
Two studies his department has paid for advocate abolition of
this basic parental right. One of these studies says: ``It is almost
impossible to isolate corporal punishment as a causative factor''
of increased aggression, yet this study still advocated the repeal
of section 43. Why, I wonder, when there is no proof that
reasonable correction is harmful?
Interest groups with a leftist social agenda have the ear of the
government. Together they would replace the authority of the
parent with the authority of the government. Parents have a right
to be concerned about this disturbing trend.
(1415)
The government should be looking at ways to enhance the
authority and responsibility of the family, not trying to bring it
under submission to the state.
Loving parents know better than bureaucrats or judges how
they should raise their own children.
* * *
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur): Mr.
Speaker, tourism plays a very important role in the Canadian
economy. Every year tourists from all over the world visit our
country and discover its diversity and beauty.
More than half a million Canadians representing 5 per cent of
our workforce are involved in the tourism sector. Tourism also
represents about 4 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product.
[Translation]
I support the work done by our government and the
Department of Industry to maximize the benefits derived from
the tourism industry in Canada. In New Brunswick, for example,
the tourism industry had a great summer, thus helping to
improve and revive our provincial economy.
[English]
A healthy tourism industry will certainly help revitalize our
economy.
6557
6557
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, at a time when the
Toronto Star announces that social
programs may be cut by up to $7.5 billion and when the poor are
justifiably worried, the government makes a point of reassuring
the rich who have family trusts and do business in countries seen
as tax havens. The chairman of the finance committee said
yesterday that he did not see anything unfair in maintaining
these tax shelters.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Are we to
understand that the chairman of the finance committee acted
yesterday as the minister's scout and that the minister, despite
what he said back when he was in opposition, has decided to
overlook the continuation of the privileges granted to these
trusts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the government's
attitude toward family trusts is very clear. That is why we asked
the finance committee to hold public hearings on this issue. We
eagerly await the committee members' findings.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the government's complacent attitude goes against
what they promised to do when they sat on the opposition side.
The finance committee did not prove anything. It simply showed
that the Minister of Finance does not want to review the issue,
does not want to know how much money is kept in these family
trusts or what our tax losses amount to. Obviously, lobbying
efforts by the rich have paid off, Mr. Speaker.
Is the minister suggesting that the possibility of using these
family trusts, this powerful, outrageous tax planning
instrument, to defer paying capital gains taxes for 40, 50, 60 or
even more years is not an undue privilege?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, what raised the issue at
the outset are certain amendments to the existing legislation that
were made by the previous government, the Tory government.
If pressure has been exerted by lobbyists for the rich, it is very
clear that this was done while the Leader of the Opposition was a
member of Brian Mulroney's Cabinet. If there was such
lobbying, if figures are available, it is his government and the
person who took his place following his resignation that really
changed the law.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I think I will have to send my c.v. to the Minister of
Finance so he will know that I left the government in 1990,
while the privileges granted to the rich by the Liberal
government in 1971 were extended in 1992.
Mr. Loubier: The Minister of Finance does not know how to
count.
Mr. Bouchard: The Minister of Finance cannot keep track of
dates, so it is not surprising that he cannot keep track of deficits.
Does the Minister of Finance not admit that he is flouting the
most basic principles of fairness by maintaining this tax
privilege for the rich, when he is thinking of increasing the tax
burden on the middle class by taxing RRSPs while getting ready
to reduce the level of social protection for the poor?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there were a record
number of deficits while the Leader of the Opposition was a
member or friend of the Conservative Party.
(1420)
It is very clear that we, in our last budget, eliminated
loopholes such as the $100,000 capital gains exemption. We
understand full well that there may have been some inequities in
Canada's tax system. That is why we are launching the most
open prebudget consultation process ever seen and I hope that
the opposition leader's colleagues will, for the first time, offer
constructive suggestions.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Human Resources Development. His colleague,
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, decided on a ten-week
lobster fishing season to protect that resource. Consequently,
fishermen have no choice but to comply with the limit imposed
by the federal government. However, following changes made to
the UI program, lobster fishermen are no longer eligible to
benefits and they cannot fish other types of resources, because
of the conservation measures imposed by Ottawa.
Indeed, while the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans limits
lobster season to 10 weeks, his colleague, the Minister of
Human Resources Development, imposes a minimum of 12
weeks of work for lobster fishermen to be eligible to UI benefits.
Does the minister admit that his unemployment insurance
reform forces lobster fishermen to rely on social assistance?
6558
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to
assist the hon. member in giving him information that he clearly
does not possess.
Last Monday I announced a major employment enhancement
program that will affect the Atlantic region, Quebec and other
provinces. In Quebec alone we will be adding an additional $28
million which will be used for people who are facing difficulty
getting employment, those who are having trouble getting full
weeks, offering a number of options and choices in training and
new employment.
It demonstrates once again for the hon. member and his
colleagues that this is a government that is very sensitive to the
concerns of all working people, particularly those in the
resource industries. That is why we made the announcement we
did.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister
of Human Resources Development did not understand the
question. Does the minister admit that he acted without taking
into account the constraints imposed by his colleague, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and will he recognize that the
plight of lobster fishermen reflects the spirit of his reform,
which is to eliminate the unemployed instead of eliminating
unemployment?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I am afraid that we on this side are trying to understand
the proposition of the member opposite.
Is the member saying that if a section of the fishery lasts 24
weeks, the qualifying period for unemployment insurance ought
to be 24 weeks; if another section lasts 12 weeks, the qualifying
period ought to be 12 weeks; however, if another section lasts
only two or three weeks, the qualifying period should be two or
three weeks; in the case of 40,000 people displaced because of
resource loss, the qualifying period ought to be zero weeks?
If that is the position of the Bloc Quebecois, it should come
forward and say it cleanly and clearly. Let me tell those
members, it is foolish.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
last year a government official advised Tasha Peirson to stay a
sexual assault charge against José Mendoza in exchange for his
deportation.
It was the government's policies that then allowed Mendoza
back into the country and reapply for refugee status. It is the
government that is paying for the process that Mr. Mendoza is
using to stay in Canada. Yesterday it was a government official
who admitted that the immigration department was responsible
for his escape.
I ask the Prime Minister, since it is the federal government
that has been responsible for the mishandling of this case from
start to finish, what responsibility will the government now
assume for the safety and shattered lives of Mr. Mendoza's
victims?
(1425 )
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration who is out of the country on
official business, I would like to tell the leader of the Reform
Party that the minister gave a detailed answer to the question
yesterday.
Let me repeat for the benefit of the Reform Party and the
House that the Federal Court made a decision in this case and the
minister concurred with that decision. As the hon. member
knows, the minister did everything possible under the law to
protect the public in this case. Furthermore-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is not
interested in trying to find out the truth and the answer.
We cannot discredit the whole immigration system for one
case like the Reform Party is doing. There is a Canada-wide
arrest warrant for the individual in question. Once he is
apprehended, we will be proceeding in due course.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would appeal to you for short
questions and short answers.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
this is not just one case. It is typical of many cases and the issue
deserves an answer from the Prime Minister.
The federal government has spent over a quarter of a million
dollars supporting the so-called right of Mr. Mendoza to drag
out his stay in Canada. Now the privacy commissioner has
launched a taxpayer funded inquiry to determine whether Mr.
Mendoza's right to privacy has been infringed upon by
immigration officials, the media and the member for Fraser
Valley West.
I ask the Prime Minister, compared with the hundreds of
thousands of dollars being spent on Mr. Mendoza's behalf, how
much is being spent to repair the lives of Mr. Mendoza's
victims.
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the answer the
minister gave yesterday and the answer I just gave. There is a
6559
Canada-wide arrest warrant for the individual in question. Once
he is apprehended we will proceed under the due process of the
law.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the answer to my question was not on the paper, and so it was not
necessary to read the paper. My last question is still to the Prime
Minister.
The immigration minister and the Prime Minister cannot dog
responsibility for Mendoza and similar cases. They cannot
continually shift the blame for these cases to the police, the
courts or the refugee board.
As the head of the government, when is the Prime Minister
going to hold the minister of immigration directly and
personally responsible for the multiple failures of his
department?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have laws in this land and we have a Charter of Rights and
Freedoms that protects the citizens of Canada and the people
who are legally in Canada. We respect the law.
This man is not legally in Canada at this moment. He will be
found. We have asked the police to find him. We have issued a
warrant for his arrest across the country. When he is arrested due
process of law will follow.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General. Last night, while watching
the
Fifth Estate, Canadians were stunned to discover that the
committee monitoring CSIS was aware of the activities of
informant Grant Bristow long before what was recently
revealed. Back in 1992, the department of the Solicitor General
already knew about the illegal activities.
Will the Solicitor General explain why Mr. Jacques Courtois,
chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, said
in his last public statement that he did not know that Mr. Bristow
was working for CSIS?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
we are dealing with allegations about matters that took place
years before this government took office and before I became
minister, but I will try to be helpful to my hon. friend.
I did not see the program. I am informed there is a reference in
it to a matter reported on in the public report of the Security
Intelligence Review Committee in its 1991-92 report. That was
tabled in Parliament. It is a matter of public record and it speaks
for itself.
(1430)
Furthermore, Mr. Courtois is the head of a committee
operating at arm's length from the department and the
government. I think he is in a better position to explain his
answers.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, what is
going on at CSIS? How can Canadians have confidence in CSIS
when the president of the Security Intelligence Review
Committee refuses systematically to answer legitimate
questions from members of Parliament?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the chairman of the committee is bound by the law passed by
Parliament. He is in no position to ignore it unless and until
Parliament amends the law.
The Security Intelligence Review Committee informs me that
it is looking into all the allegations contained in the CBC report
of yesterday evening. I do not think it is fair or reasonable to
pass judgment on the work of SIRC in this matter until we have
the report. At that time we will be in a better position to pass
judgment on its work.
So far I think we should let the committee finish its work. It
wants to make a report this month. I look forward to receiving it
so that, if any corrective action is necessary in the light of
factual findings showing definite problems, I will be able to take
that action.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of immigration said in his speech to police chiefs that
the buck stops here. He has promised to get tough on those who
abuse Canada's immigration and refugee systems.
I ask the Prime Minister: When will he hold his minister of
immigration to that self-imposed standard of accountability?
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the great majority of the House and
I believe that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has
done a very good job.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gagliano: The minister consulted with Canadians and
right now before the House is a bill that would definitely help
the minister to take action, but the member and the Reform Party
are not supporting the bill. Maybe they should support the bill
and move fast.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the minister of immigration was asked about the
release of José Mendoza. The minister responded: ``I think once
he will be found he will pay the price''.
6560
There is a young woman in Abbotsford who is in fear of her
life. Police are now watching over a member of Parliament.
I ask the Prime Minister: What will it take? Will it take the
death of an MP like occurred in Australia or the death of another
innocent Canadian? What is he going to do to clean up the
immigration department?
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the minister repeated yesterday and
I am repeating twice today that the Prime Minister said we have
a law in Canada and we have to respect the law.
There is an arrest warrant for the individual in question. As
soon as he is arrested we will follow the due course of the law.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, it is increasingly obvious, as more information
becomes available on the activities of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service, that only a public inquiry would be able to
shed light on an agency that is clearly beyond the control of this
House.
My question is directed to the Solicitor General of Canada.
Could the Solicitor General tell us whether he was aware of Mr.
Bristow's activities and his involvement in the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
have already pointed out that the allegations, and so far they are
simply allegations, refer to matters that took place years before I
became minister and years before this government took office.
That is why I am very pleased that the arm's length independent
Security Intelligence Review Committee, using the wide powers
it has under the law, is looking into the matter.
I do not think it is fair or reasonable to pass judgment on the
quality of that work before it is available. Once it is available, as
I have said, I am ready to take any corrective action that is found
necessary in the light of definite findings of problems that need
to be dealt with.
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, my question was quite clear, but I will repeat it to give
the minister a chance to reply in kind.
Did he know that Mr. Bristow was involved in unlawful
activities within the Canadian Security Intelligence Service?
Yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
I think it is well known that the law prevents anybody from
talking about whether somebody is connected with or working
with CSIS.
It has not been confirmed that Mr. Bristow is in fact linked
with CSIS. I think this is a matter we should leave to the Security
Intelligence Review Committee, especially since it deals with
matters well before this government took office and I became
minister.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, due to the
higher than expected interest rates the budget projections of the
government are off by as much as $10 billion. To make up this
shortfall the government has only two choices: cut spending or
raise taxes.
Last weekend the Deputy Prime Minister said that social
programs spending cuts would not go to reduce the deficit. I ask
the Minister of Finance: Should Canadians take this as a sign
that the government is preparing to break its deficit reduction
pledge, or is the government planning to raise taxes as much as
$10 billion?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the second
part of the first question is no, and the answer to the first part of
the first question is, as we have said, we are going to hit our
targets.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, one of the
areas the government seems particularly determined to tax is the
retirement savings of individual Canadians. This will force
Canadians to rely on the government's dangerously underfunded
Canada pension plan and old age security program.
Has the Minister of Finance even considered the impact of
reduced RRSP contributions on the government CPP and OAS
programs when the baby boom generation of this nation retires?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I have answered this
question in the House on numerous occasions. I have said I am
not going to vitiate the consultation process by commenting on
individual suggestions because we want to hear Canadians.
It must be the fifth or sixth time from that side of the House
and the eighth or ninth time from that side of the House that they
ask the same question. I really hope between now and the
consultation process that both parties learn to sing another note.
6561
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Finance and the Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec.
In reply to a question I put to the minister yesterday to find out
why Quebec did not have an economic diversification assistance
program to compensate for jobs lost as result of the closure of
the military base of the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean, the
Minister responsible for the Federal office of Regional
Development-Quebec said there was a program.
Could the minister give us some details about this program
and its budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as you know, the college
plays a crucial role in the community of Saint-Jean, and through
the Minister of Defence and the Minister responsible for Public
Service Renewal, we will provide $5 million annually, money
that is vital to development. The minister also announced that an
advisory committee consisting of local authorities has been
established, which is crucial, if we really want to diversify the
region's economy.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's answer surprises me.
Would the minister agree that the amount he mentioned for
Saint-Jean was $5 million for building maintenance and
organizing French courses, which has no connection with an
economic diversification assistance program like the one the
government set up at Cornwallis and elsewhere in Canada? I
repeat, why is it yes to Canada and no to Quebec?
(1440)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon.
member seems to dismiss the importance of the college for the
region, but I can assure you, it is very important.
Second, an advisory committee has been set up and is now
working on regional diversification, which will provide a firm
basis for the region's economy, and that is why it is yes to
Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Since the turn of the century entrance fees have been charged
in Canada's national parks. Many park users are willing to
continue to pay their fair share, provided they know that their
money is being well spent.
After two months of consultations with national parks
stakeholders, can the minister tell us what he plans to do to
modify the economics of national parks and when these changes
may begin?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for his ongoing
interest in parks.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dupuy: Obviously there are others who are not interested
in parks. They should be. There are parks in their region.
I am expecting to receive recommendations regarding user
fees in national parks and historic sites by the end of October.
However the discussions and consultations will continue
regarding town sites. Final decisions are expected around next
April.
In both cases the views of members of Parliament will be
listened to when we come to make decisions.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General did not see the report on
television last night. I hope he takes a look at a replay of it. It
stated that Grant Bristow had apparently committed illegal
activities and that his CSIS handler had obstructed the police
investigation.
Will the minister confirm whether illegal activities were
committed and advise the House of the actions that were taken
by CSIS and the previous Solicitor General in response to this
report?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot make any such confirmation. These allegations are being
looked into by the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
Like the hon. member I await with interest and desire for a quick
report of that committee.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, this report was given by SIRC to the former
Solicitor General in 1992. The report should be available to the
present Solicitor General.
6562
The minister has frequently commented on his willingness to
pursue disciplinary action. Will he assure the House that once
the SIRC report is released he will be taking legal or disciplinary
action against any wrongdoing that was committed?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Yes, Mr.
Speaker.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. People in the
Magdalen Islands and in the surrounding mainland are very
concerned about the Irving Whale. This barge is leaking tens of
litres of oil every day, thereby harming the flora and fauna of the
St. Lawrence.
Would the minister assure us today that she will have the
wreck's leaks sealed in order to stop this continuous pollution of
our water, thereby reassuring the people affected by it?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate
the hon. member for her question. She should know that the
people from the Magdalen Islands and their elected member
contacted me at the very beginning of my new mandate to ask me
to do what had not been done by the Leader of the Opposition
when he was environment minister.
The Irving Whale was already there. The Leader of the
Opposition was the minister responsible for three years, but he
never had the wreck refloated. I will do it in less than a thousand
days.
(1445)
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, instead of
attacking the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. minister should
look after her responsibilities.
Am I to understand that the Minister of the Environment,
aware of these leaks, will allow thousands of litres more of the
oil still trapped in the barge to flow into the gulf until the
summer of 1995? Is this what she wants to do?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of the
Environment received petitions from the people of the
Magdalen Islands. He did not even bother to respond. Within
three months of assuming the position of Minister of the
Environment I got the process in motion to lift the Irving Whale.
At the request of the hon. member who was the previous
critic, we had public hearings. Those public hearings he
requested have been completed. We have endorsed the proposal
for lifting the Irving Whale. The tenders have been let and the
project will begin as soon as it is humanly possible. I think that
is action as compared to what my predecessor did.
* * *
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food and his
Saskatchewan counterpart agreed this past July to a new farm
safety net program that would be developed to replace the GRIP.
The premier of Saskatchewan has written twice to the Prime
Minister and has also telephoned him about this. When will the
minister from Saskatchewan who is supposed to represent the
interests of his province at the cabinet table announce the
changes to this new program?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I recognize the importance of this
issue to the province of Saskatchewan. It is also an important
issue generally because of course the principle of equity with
respect to action taken in Saskatchewan must fit with the overall
programming of safety nets across the country.
I would hasten to point out to the hon. gentleman, who I think
already knows, that I did not cause the problem with the GRIP in
Saskatchewan. This government did not cause the problem with
the GRIP in Saskatchewan. That dubious responsibility rests
with previous federal and provincial governments. We are trying
to solve the problem with respect to Saskatchewan and we
intend to do it as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, regardless of who caused the problem or whose
problem it addressed, the details of this program were promised
by the end of July. It is now October.
Why will the minister not stand up for farmers in his home
province? Will the minister give this House today a real date for
the release of this program?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will know that in
the past with respect to safety net programs in agriculture part of
the problem has been a failure in the preparation and thought
process that has gone into these programs to make sure that we
get them right in the first place.
In this program that we are responsible for, we are making
sure that we do it right in the first instance so it does not have to
be fixed time and time again after the fact.
6563
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I thought the minister's idea of a permanent United Nations
army for rapid deployment to trouble spots around the world had
a great deal of merit. Other member nations at the UN
apparently did not agree with Canada's proposal.
Does the minister have any plans to modify or amend his
proposal to try again to get it accepted or have we heard the last
of this good idea from Canada?
(1450 )
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that we do not intend to capitulate at
this moment. Obviously this is an idea that would give the
United Nations a very effective instrument which could be used
to enhance substantially its efficiencies.
There are a number of countries that are supporting this idea.
Some superpowers have some hesitation in supporting it
because it is quite clear their influence would be diminished
through this initiative. Nevertheless we will carry on the study
and invite as many members of the United Nations as possible to
participate in the study and come forward with a resolution that
will enhance immensely the efficiency of the United Nations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. On May 13, 1993, the
Government of Canada and the province of Quebec signed a
memorandum of understanding regarding the implementation of
the Community Action Program for Children. Under the terms
of the MOU, grants were supposed to be paid no later than the
end of August or the beginning of September. Unfortunately, for
the most part, this has not been the case.
My question is this: Could the minister, who belongs to a
government which seems to be suddenly very concerned about
child poverty, explain why she waited until yesterday, Tuesday,
October 4, to approve grant applications presented by
community agencies working among these client groups?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am happy to see that the Bloc member is concerned about the
welfare of Canadian children. However, I wonder where her
party, which has a good research service, gets its information.
Yesterday, I was in Quebec and every day, across Canada, I sign
projects of this kind. As a matter of fact, we approved quite a
few recently, including one in the member's riding.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, as she is
very much aware, the delays caused by the minister are
unwarranted and unacceptable.
Could the minister explain why her office refuses to give the
Official Opposition the list of projects which were submitted
and of those which were approved? What is she trying to hide?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it is
wonderful to see the separatists so interested in federal
programs. I applaud them. Of course I will give them all the
information they wish to have. All they have to do is contact me
and I will give them the information they request.
The Speaker: My colleagues, perhaps when we address each
other we could address each other as parties. It might facilitate
things.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Transport made light of my statement
that without a public inquiry we will not know if the Pearson
deal really was good or not. Obviously he believes it to be a bad
deal.
Will the minister advise this House what proof of wrongdoing
by the Pearson group led him to this position? What proof does
he have?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that the critic for
the Reform Party and the Reform Party, the so-called defender
of the public purse, would stand here today and support paying
the developers $445 million for the Pearson deal.
Before the election this Prime Minister gave notice that we
were going to review the bill and if it was not in the public
interest, we would cancel the bill. Everyone involved in that
deal decided to sign it. We and all Canadians believe that the
deal was bad. We cancelled it. The Reform Party is wrong.
(1455 )
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
the minister offers no proof because there is no proof to offer.
Yet he continues to refuse to hold a public inquiry to determine
what, if any proof exists. Will the minister admit to this House
6564
that his position is nothing more than a cover-up of a Liberal
election strategy gone bad?
The Speaker: My colleagues, the use of the word cover-up
sometimes is a little bit strong. I would hope that other terms
might be considered when posing questions or answering
questions.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I even find it more incredible that the
Reform Party would be supporting the position of a previous
government of Brian Mulroney with respect to the Pearson deal.
The Reform Party seems to forget that there have been public
hearings on the bill. The public has been heard, the facts have
come out and we have reports that indicated the deal was not in
the public interest.
We believe we are on the right side of this. The people of
Canada believe that we need to cancel the deal. We have and we
intend to get on with building Pearson the way it should be, in
the public interest.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, in
response to questions put to her in this House as to whether
Canada had passed legislation on double hulling, the Minister of
the Environment asserted in a sarcastic tone of voice that such
legislation existed and had in fact been passed in 1993, did she
not? How can the minister reconcile this statement made in this
House on four separate occasions and the one made in
Vancouver yesterday, when she said that there was no act on
double-hulled ships and that, if such an act did exist, it would
have the effect of shutting down the port of Vancouver?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that would
have been the last question on double hulls. As I pointed out to
the member, I not only sent him a copy of the bill but the bill in
question which was passed in 1993 deemed that all newly
constructed oil tankers must have a double hull. That was the
law of the land adopted in 1993 and I sent the member a copy.
What was suggested in Vancouver and to which I objected was
that unilaterally Canada should prevent any ship coming from
any other country that was built before 1993 that did not have a
double hull for oil tankers.
What I suggested very clearly in the port of Vancouver is that
when we move on double hulling, and my colleague the Minister
of Transport is very interested in this issue and understands that
we need to have an international agreement, we have to make
sure that the port of Vancouver has the same chance to compete
as the port of Seattle. That is why I made the point.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, last
week I asked the justice minister to review the Patrick Kelly
case and in particular to release the Ontario police file to Mr.
Kelly's lawyer, but more fundamentally to order an independent
review into the Kelly case.
Will the justice minister commit to this House that he is going
to order an independent inquiry and if so, when and what form of
inquiry?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is a little late. There has already been
a press release issued. The Minister of Justice has appointed a
special counsel to look into the Kelly case, both what has
transpired and what will transpire. The investigation will
continue through the department.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and concerns
the Canadian government's initiatives over the last year for
modernizing the law of the sea and for fisheries conservation.
Will the minister assure the House of continuing Canadian
support for the establishment of the new international tribunal
on the law of the sea authorized under the 1982 United Nations
Law of the Sea Convention?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I
know he is well versed in the subject and has long experience in
this regard. I want to assure him that the Government of Canada
is very much committed to a convention on the law of the sea.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General.
It is now clear that the CSIS spy, Grant Bristow, was not only
the key player in the creation of the Heritage Front, training its
members in the art of intimidation, but he also acted for CSIS
spying on legitimate organizations such as the Canadian Jewish
Congress and even the Reform Party.
When the Canadian public is demanding to know how all of
this could happen, CSIS is hiding Bristow in a safe house at a
secret location at taxpayers' expense.
6565
I want to ask the Solicitor General if he supports CSIS in these
types of activities. If not, will he use his power to ensure that
Bristow appears before the Security Intelligence Review
Committee to blow the whistle on these outrageous activities of
CSIS?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
have already said publicly that I have indicated to the director of
CSIS I expect the agency to act squarely within the law as passed
by Parliament.
Furthermore, the Security Intelligence Review Committee
has very extensive powers and I am sure it knows how to use
them.
* * *
[Translation]
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of His Excellency Mr. Faustin
Twagiramungu, Prime Minister of the Republic of Rwanda.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also wish to draw your attention to the
presence in our gallery of His Excellency Mr. Somsavat
Lengsavad, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Lao People's
Democratic Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): On a point
of order, Mr. Speaker.
Since the House reconvened on September 19, you have, on a
number of occasions, admonished certain members about their
choice of words. Today for example, you asked a member not to
use the term cover-up, but did not find fault with the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans for using the word bullshit.
Does the fact that you did not comment mean that the word is
accepted in parliamentary language, Mr. Speaker?
[English]
The Speaker: I am not sure where this is going to lead us.
I did not hear the remarks in question but I will be happy to
review the blues and see in what context they were used, if
indeed they were used.
Mr. Tobin: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. That word has never,
ever, crossed my mind, let alone escaped my lips.
(1505)
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking you to make
assumptions as to what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is
thinking. We are only concerned with what he said and, in that
respect, I think that whatever the context in which this particular
word is used, it can-
[English]
The Speaker: At best we are getting into uncharted waters
and with that I will take my leave.
_____________________________________________
6565
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I take some pleasure and interest
in tabling a document in both official languages entitled
``Improving Social Security in Canada'' recommended to the
interest and debate of members of the House.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That, on Thursday, October 6, 1994, the House shall continue to sit from 6.30
p.m. to 9 p.m. for the sole purpose of continuing its consideration of the motion
of the Minister of Human Resources Development with regard to the social
security review, (government business No. 15);
That, during the aforementioned period of time, the Chair shall not receive
any dilatory motion or quorum call;
That, during the aforementioned period of time, if no member rises to speak,
the Speaker shall declare the debate adjourned; and
That proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall be taken up on that day
at 9 p.m.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would like to
seek unanimous consent to go back to tabling of documents to
table a document that I was going to table earlier.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have
the unanimous consent of the House to return to tabling of
documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
6566
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the
1992-93 annual review of the Western Arctic Inuvialuit Claim
Implementation.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to present today. The first one has four pages with 105
signatures.
The petitioners are concerned that Parliament not repeal or
amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and uphold
the Supreme Court of Canada decision of December 30, 1993 to
disallow assisted suicide, euthanasia.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition has two pages with 57 signatures. The petitioners
request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
(1510)
I present these and I concur with my petitioners.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege to present two petitions today, the first from
135 constituents who pray that the government will not give
societal approval, including the extension of societal privileges
to same sex relationships if any amendment to the Canadian
Human Rights Act were to include the undefined phrase sexual
orientation as a grounds for discrimination.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition signed by 57 constituents states that the
majority of Canadians believe that physicians should be
working to save lives, not to end them.
Therefore these petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that
the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously.
It is my pleasure to submit these petitions and to inform my
constituents that I concur with both.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, today my
colleagues and I are presenting 3,000 signatures to the House.
These petitioners are asking that grandparents', and
grandchildren's rights in this country be respected. Too many
times children are being denied access to their grandparents and
these petitioners request an amendment to the Divorce Act.
Amendments could state that in no case may a father or a
mother without serious cause place obstacles between the child
and the grandparents.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, I too
would like to present a petition on behalf of my constituents and
beyond who pray that Parliament effect appropriate
amendments to relevant Canadian law which would guarantee
access by grandparents to their grandchildren unless otherwise
ordered by a court judgment.
The relationship between grandparents and grandchildren is
healthy for the psychological health and well-being of both
parties.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present
today on behalf of my constituents.
The first petition requests that current laws regarding assisted
suicide be enforced and that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition asks Parliament to extend protection to the
unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have three petitions to present today on
behalf of Maureen Morrison and other signatories.
The first petition signed by 52 people prays that Parliament
ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of
Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and
that Parliament make no changes to the law which would
6567
sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or
passive euthanasia.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, the two
other petitions which I would like to present to the House today
contain 111 signatures. Both petitions pray that Parliament act
immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, I too have the
honour to present to this House a petition requesting that the
Parliament of Canada amend the Divorce Act so that it is more in
line with the Quebec legislation, that is to say Section 611 of the
Quebec Civil Code, which effectively grants thousands of
grandparents the privilege and right to have access to their
grandchildren as well as the right to make and get an answer to
inquiries regarding their health, well-being and education. I
have the honour of presenting and tabling this petition on behalf
of my constituents.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour and the pleasure of presenting a
petition signed by many taxpayers of my riding of
Carleton-Gloucester and other ridings across Canada. These
petitioners are asking Parliament to look into the issue of the
Divorce Act and that amendments be made to this act so that
obstacles can no longer be placed between grandchildren and
grandparents where there should be none.
(1515)
After all, it is only natural that grandparents have access to
their grandchildren and vice versa, except in very rare cases.
[English]
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by 200 people from across eastern Ontario with
concerns about the way our law is applied very often to child
abusers. They mention here that babies and young children lack
the ability to defend themselves. Therefore, they are calling
upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to ensure that
stiffer sentences and mandatory treatment are handed out to all
child abusers.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents that recognizes
there is a unique relationship between grandchildren and
grandparents and that no parent should have the right or the
privilege of providing an obstacle and preventing that
relationship.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament amend the
Divorce Act to include a provision similar to article 611 of the
Quebec Civil Code which states that in no case may a father or
mother without serious cause place obstacles between the child
and the grandparents.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I submit a petition to Parliament from
Canadians who wish to amend the Criminal Code to protect
unborn children.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I present a petition urging the government not
to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights
Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which
would indicate approval of same sex relationships.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I present a petition from citizens who oppose
physician assisted suicide. They petition that Parliament ensure
the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that
Parliament make no changes to the law which would sanction or
allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton): Mr. Speaker, it is
my privilege to bring forward a petition organized by a
nationwide network of Canadian grandparents and to add my
voice to those of my colleagues.
These grandparents seek amendments to the Divorce Act to
ensure their own access to their own grandchildren. As a
grandmother I agree with these petitioners and support their
cause.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I too am pleased to
present a petition on behalf of residents of Canada requesting
changes to the Divorce Act which would extend the rights of
children and grandparents.
It is my pleasure to present this petition.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a number of petitions
containing 8,500 signatures, primarily from the residents of my
riding of Sarnia-Lambton, calling upon the government to
6568
place a moratorium on any changes or cuts in VIA Rail service
between the cities of Sarnia and Toronto.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that the notice of motions for the production of papers be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the notice of motions be allowed
to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6568
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1520)
[Translation]
The House resumed from October 4, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of
Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal
certain acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, as I was
saying yesterday in my presentation, the minister has already
invited all members, be they from the other side of the House or
from this side, to get on the open bidding service.
[English]
The minister has also introduced in this bill clauses in the
contracts effectively eliminating the practice of contingency
fees and securing government contracts. This will go a long way
in curbing the influence of lobbyists in this area. He has also
introduced sound guidelines with respect to purchase of
advertising and public opinion research which brings the
procurement of these services in line with general purchasing
practices.
These and other initiatives taken by the department have
already had a very positive effect on the partnership between the
government and the business community. They have gone a long
way toward reassuring the general public that the government is
conducting its business in a fair, open and efficient manner.
Public Works and Government Service Canada is committed
to seeking out more opportunities to co-operate with the private
sector and to establish strategic partnerships wherever possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in the past year, the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services has achieved convincing results in
support of government goals and priorities by increasing
operational efficiency, eliminating duplication, establishing
partnerships and restoring trust in our government. This shows
among other things that integrating the most important common
services into a single organization makes sense.
Bill C-52 will give the department the legal foundation it
needs to pursue government objectives in order to better serve
all Canadians.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I do
not want to let the member mislead this House. It is completely
false to say that improvements were made in the Department of
Public Works to make it more transparent and to reduce the
influence of lobbyists.
Furthermore, for members of the Bloc, for example, it has
become nearly impossible to obtain information on how Public
Works awards contracts. As members of Parliament, we would
like to have access to this information and we are prevented
from having it. We get the feeling that there is not only lobbying
and patronage but that there may also be a lot of inefficiency and
waste.
So when the member says that the Department of Public
Works is open and efficient, that is far from true.
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the purpose of this
bill is to bring together four organizations in order to reduce
costs for the government and to provide taxpayers with better
service at lower cost, so this bill is worth presenting.
I hear that there is no openness, but the open bidding service
exists and all members of this House have been invited to use it.
This computer system provides access to the information at any
hour of the day or night. It does not cost much and even your
constituents and business men and women can subscribe to it. It
gives you information on the kinds of contracts available, their
value, who bid in the past, how many contracts have been
awarded in the past few years and also the value of the contracts
that were awarded. If that is not open, I do not know what it is.
6569
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as far as openness is concerned,
again, of course this computer system provides information on
contracts, on some but not all contracts. Many contracts are
submitted by other departments or by public tender; maybe in
some cases, maybe not in others, we do not know. Many
contracts are not on that information system. Of course, an
electronic listing of government contracts is not a bad thing. Of
course not. But how do you go from there and say that merging
four organizations in one department, Public Works and
Government Services, will improve the efficiency of awarding
contracts or even the openness of the process, when we have to
know if there is really waste or inefficiency?
(1525)
I even hear from some people who worked in the department
that the regulations and their application are so confusing that
they are afraid to disclose what goes on inside the Department of
Public Works. There are all kinds of regulations in the
government, but actually implementing them is another matter
and that is where waste and inefficiency and patronage come
into the Department of Public Works. And we know it. We said
many, many times before that if there is one department where
patronage and waste are a problem, it is the Department of
Public Works and Government Services.
[English]
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Speaker, first of all, in the registration of
contingency fees, since May of this year Public Works and
Government Services Canada has put in place that every single
person who bids for contracts in the public service sector, of
which there are almost 175,000 to the tune of $10 billion, must
state clearly that they have not hired lobbyists to influence any
contract.
[Translation]
Sometimes I am also shocked because since the Bloc
Quebecois came on the scene, it has been criticizing us
federalists on this side of the House and saying that we waste
money and that there is so much duplication throughout the
federal system. This bill is intended to eliminate duplication and
make the service more productive, that is make it provide
service to the Canadian public. We will save money with this
system.
[English]
I find it appalling at times that they criticize. When we do take
the initiative in this government to group together three or four
levels of service under one roof to provide that service so vitally
needed, not only for the business community but for our
taxpayers who ultimately pay the final bill, the hon. member on
that side of the House has the audacity to criticize us for doing it.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on the bill to establish the
Department of Public Works and Government Services. As you
know, this is an incorporating act which, by tradition, is not
considered to be very controversial legislation. Not so with this
bill. The Bloc Quebecois does not have to follow any such
tradition: We are here to question everything, even what appears
to be a mere formality.
In fact, the seemingly neutral character of this legislation
conceals very important considerations. This tool to restructure
the Department of Public Works and Government Services
should have been used to develop procedures ensuring true
transparency regarding the management of public money. Such
transparency is conditional on extending the role of MPs. Let us
not forget that this department is among the top solicitors of
goods and services.
In the 1994-95 budget, expenditures for this department were
expected to reach $2.3 billion, under the program for real
property services, supplies and Crown corporations. In
1992-93, through the Quebec procurement directorate alone, a
total of 17,400 contracts representing an estimated value of
$269.9 million were awarded. Cheques totalling over $34
million were also sent out in the form of benefits, payments and
tax refunds.
(1530)
Stocked items representing $3 billion were sold, as well as $4
million worth of surplus assets, through the Crown Assets
Distribution Centre. But are there any monitoring measures
involving elected representatives?
In other words, this bill should be based on the fundamentals
of government transparency, follow-up and monitoring, in the
riding, by the member concerned. Unfortunately, this is not the
case. Early last summer, I asked the Minister of Public Works to
provide me with information on his department's activities in
my riding of Châteauguay. Like my colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois, I thought this was a very reasonable request, since
one of the major roles of a member of Parliament is to ensure
proper management of the taxpayers' money spent on federal
government operations.
After a long wait, I was really surprised to get from the
minister a rather terse and disappointing answer. He told us, and
I quote: ``Unfortunately, the information you are requesting
cannot be found in a single document only- In short, your
request would represent an excessive workload for our
department-'' This goes to show what the government thinks
of follow-ups by members on expenditures made in their
ridings. How can a member of Parliament carry out his or her
duties and functions when he is unable to get follow-up reports
or information on the operations of this department in his or her
riding?
This lack of transparency is what people concerned by the
integrity of the public system have been decrying for some time
now. This lack of transparency can be noticed even in our ridings
as it affects civil servants and contractors. Let me give you two
examples from my riding of Châteauguay. Early this year, the
director of the Canada Employment Centre in Châteauguay
called me to ask if I had any objection to the Centre being
moved. The offices were getting crowded it seems. Of course, I
said I saw no drawbacks, but I would have liked to know the
6570
criteria that were used and be informed before the decision was
made.
Some time later, the manager of the building told me that he
could have provided more space to the Centre, making the move
unnecessary. How much did this move cost? How could I check
and interfere in this matter without the proper documentation?
At a time when it is no longer possible to waste taxpayers'
money, why is the member constantly fighting to obtain
information?
I have another example. I have learned recently that the
Canada Employment Centre in Châteauguay had asked a
non-profit organization, namely the Société de développement
économique de Roussillon or SODER, to manage the
independent workers assistance program. It did not take long for
some people to come to my office complaining about decisions
made under the program. When I asked the director of SODER
for information regarding the budget, the number of
applications turned down, the reason they were turned down, the
name of the applicants, etc., he told me that all this information
was confidential.
According to him, he was the one who made the decisions. Is
it possible that an employee working under contract for a federal
government agency can decide what an elected member of
Parliament has the right to know? I talked to the director of the
Employment Centre. He was supposed to know whether this
situation was normal. I have been waiting for his answer for
several weeks. I am now convinced that I should go to the
minister and ask him again to be more open and to have more
respect for the role of the member of Parliament.
Similar examples speak for themselves. It is not surprising, in
these circumstances, that about 87 per cent of Canadians no
longer believe in politicians. What do we do? What can we do?
The bill before us today gives us a golden opportunity to change
direction. With this merger which, according to the government,
will lead to savings, it would be possible to put in place control
mechanisms accessible to members of Parliament in order to
make the system more transparent.
(1535)
The minister was worried about the cost of transparency. He
even used this as an excuse to turn down my request. I suggest
that transparency, and to me there are no ifs and buts, is a real
way to save money. Today, how can we be sure that budget limits
are observed? This is not about challenging the way public
servants implement policies and regulations. It is about
exercising our vigilance as elected representatives.
The government should use this bill to set up the appropriate
mechanism for exercising that vigilance. The Auditor General
of Canada has already pointed out the department's
shortcomings in this respect. In 1991, leased office space
represented over 40 per cent of the total and required annual
rental expenditures of $379 million. The Government of Canada
procured goods and services for a total of $8 billion annually
and participated in the administration of major projects valued
at $23 billion.
According to the Auditor General, the department awarded $3
billion worth of non-competitive contracts annually-three
billion dollars that were not subject to the rules for competitive
bidding. Furthermore, there was no corporate system to record
and report on supplier and product performance. What action
was taken on the comments and recommendations made by the
Auditor General?
Whether the project is in its initial stages, during the bidding
process, or in its final stages, when the books are closed, access
to information is not available as a matter of course. Much
depends on the good will of public servants, whose workload
was not planned to accommodate this much needed
transparency. However, whether we are talking about agencies
or individuals, when funds are allocated from the public purse,
public funds and the public interest are involved, so we must be
able to account for the ways such funds are spent.
This lack of transparency casts some doubts on the integrity
of the entire system for awarding contracts. Transparency is
essential to prevent any possibility of patronage, conflict of
interest or undue privilege. Look at the Pearson Airport case.
Look at the bill to control lobbyists, a bill was watered down as a
result of very effective representations made by those same
lobbyists. Look at the proposal concerning grassroots funding of
political parties which was dismissed out of hand by the
Liberals.
The management and control of government contracts must
be a priority for us, for the sake of both fiscal responsibility and
openness. Recently, a Canadian Press dispatch indicated that in
1993, that Coopers & Lybrand, a very prestigious firm,
contributed to the then leading federal parties: $107,000 to the
Liberal Party of Canada, and $150,000 to the Progressive
Conservative Party. During the 1992-93 fiscal year, that same
firm was awarded government contracts for a total value of
$3,771,917. If you are good with arithmetics, you can figure out
that Coopers & Lybrand's total contribution of $257,000 is
approximately 6.8 per cent of all the contracts awarded. A pretty
good return!
I have another similar example. Again according to the
Canadian Press, Ernst & Young also participated in the funding
of the two major federal political parties in 1993. It gave
$64,000 to the Progressive Conservative Party and $44,000 to
the Liberal Party of Canada. During the 1992-93 fiscal year, that
firm was awarded government contracts worth $272,132. The
ratio is much higher in this case since the total of $108,000
6571
contributed is 39.6 per cent of the contracts awarded. I leave it
up to you to draw your own conclusions.
(1540)
These two examples stress the need for openness in the
government contracting business. As things stand right now, all
government contracts over $25,000 for goods purchased or over
$60,000 for capital projects are handled through the Open
Bidding Service, the OBS, which is an electronic service
available only through subscription. If contracts are less than
$25,000 or $60,000, invitations to bid are sent to the chosen few
who are listed on the suppliers file.
Of course, there are transfer payments published in the Public
Accounts, but that is not readily available and is out-of-date
when you want answers on what is happening right now, today. I
must admit that the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services is right when he says that these tools are meant to
ensure the efficient management of the tendering process, they
were not designed to give members of Parliament or the general
public access to information on that process.
This is precisely for that reason that the parliamentary wing of
the Bloc Quebecois is asking for a monitoring mechanism which
would scrutinize the contracts and implement what we are
asking for in our amendment: openness. A contracting-out code
must be included in the bill. In particular we demand that all
members of Parliament, irrespective of their political
affiliation, be consulted or at the very least informed, when
government contracts are awarded through this process in their
ridings. Finally, the Department of Public Works and
Government Services must establish a system whereby periodic
summaries would be made widely available.
I would like to mention another particularly damning fact
about the way the federal government manages public spending,
and consequently the questionable administrative practises used
in the Department of Public Works and Government Services.
One of these practices, unfortunately not publicized enough,
is to accept advance payments by government agencies to allow
them to keep their annual budget allocation. In order to do so,
they pay in advance for services to be provided in subsequent
years and, as a result, they can maintain the integrity of their
resource envelope for the fiscal year.
Last month, the President of the Treasury Board wrote a letter
to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
indicating that questionable practices, namely advance
payments, were going on in his department. In so doing, the
President of the Treasury Board was forcing the Minister of
Public Works and Government Services to look into this practice
involving among others the Canada Communication Group.
In a press release dated September 19, he said the following:
``In mid-August, officials from Public Works and Government
Services Canada (PWGSC) contacted Treasury Board officials
with information indicating that an internal audit showed that
the Canada Communication Group (CCG) might have accepted
irregular advance payments. They asked for advice and
direction on this issue. Treasury Board officials responded by
explaining that this practice was indeed contrary to government
policies, and gave direction on the actions required to rectify the
situation''.
By emphasizing the seriousness of the situation, the President
of the Treasury Board drew attention to a problem inherent to
the administrative practices of this government. In a letter to the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services
accompanying the press release, he even made the following
comments: ``This situation is, of course, very serious. Of
particular concern to me is the question of apparent disregard
for existing principles of financial management and control
within government and Treasury Board policy. Therefore, I am
asking you to look into this matter personnally; have an
independent review of the matter undertaken by your internal
audit organization and report back to me within a month on your
findings''.
(1545)
In summary, we have here a convincing and damning example
of shameful waste of public finances. It is really regrettable that
the ongoing inquiry was limited to the internal level. I doubt that
this inquiry is being done correctly; it is obvious that the
procedure used to examine this serious problem of fraud is
deficient because it is limited to the internal level. How many
such cases never get discussed in public?
A conclusion must be drawn immediately about this major
incident. The administrative practices of the government, as
they appear in the present case, are in no way transparent. This is
why the Bloc Quebecois asks in its amendment that all the
expenses of the Department of Public Works and Governmental
Services be made known to the public. I find deplorable and
charged with consequences the fact that the government has not
considered amending Bill C-52 in this way. The same thing
could be said of the transparency, so often promised by the
Liberal Party of Canada during the last election campaign, but
which has gone unheeded since the Liberals took office.
The control of public finances necessitates such mechanisms.
Without them, members of Parliament cannot have free access
to government contracts that are in effect in their own ridings.
Without transparency mechanisms, how can we make officials
accountable for their spending?
The amendment of the Bloc Quebecois is therefore the
expression of that new philosophy which should inhabit us all:
to find a new way of administering public affairs in order to put
6572
aside the old traditional practices that are responsible for our
$508 billion deficit.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc has repeatedly talked about ``transparency''
and ``openness''. I find very interesting that, since last Friday,
not one Bloc member has accepted two proposals from the
minister which would allow them to obtain the information they
want. Not one member of the Bloc. Perhaps the Bloc could tell
me why? This would cost them only $37 a year.
On the same subject of transparency, committees such as the
Standing Committee on Government Operations on which sit
two members of their party can ask for any information they
want. This is another mechanism which helps ensure
transparency.
As for the advance payments, what happened? The minister
himself called for an investigation. The minister himself
accepted the recommendations. The minister himself has
already begun to make adjustments. The minister himself, with
the President of the Treasury Board, is conducting an
investigation in order to make further corrections. We have
listened, we have heard and we know that there is a problem. We
have taken steps to correct it.
I find interesting that, when my colleague talks about
transparency, he seems to want to use as an example the
donations we have received from some companies. They know
who our financial supporters are. That is why they put the
question. We do not know who theirs are.
Therefore, when talking about transparency, it would be
interesting to know their reaction to that.
In closing, I would like to make a last comment. When they
talk about the data they want, riding by riding, they refuse to
understand that we are in the process of amalgamating a number
of departments where there were different systems. They are not
yet all integrated, but progress is being made.
I would like to hear what my good friend thinks about the
questions I just raised and about the points I just made. Does he
not think that he and his colleagues are going a bit overboard?
This department is transparent, this minister has listened and
has taken steps to make necessary adjustments.
(1550)
Mr. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his
questions. I agree that his government is trying to be
transparent, but we cannot see any results. It is the results that
we would like to see much more quickly.
The hon. member said that there were ways we could use to
get the information, but this is not exactly what I want. In fact,
what I would like to know is exactly what is happening in my
riding, and how to go about finding that information.
The computer system is often mentioned as a possibility. This
is a good way to get information while the process is going on,
but once it is finished, we cannot confirm anything with this
system. It does not work anymore.
On the second question, I would say that yes, the minister is
changing these things, but the point of our amendment is to
avoid the need to provide for a mechanism that would force us to
pay millions when it is not necessary, each time the minister
notices-or fails to notice-that something is going wrong. We
simply want to ask him to establish a framework that would
allow the minister to do his job without having to check to see if
there are any problems.
As for the contributions we get, that makes me laugh. Since
we raise money two or three dollars or even 25 cents at a time,
you can be sure that we would much prefer to get $140,000 or
$150,000 all at once. I would like that a lot. It would make me
very happy to present you with a list. But unfortunately, such is
not the case. For our part, we raise 25 cents or one dollar at a
time; and I can tell that, at this rate, the list on your desk would
be rather long.
I think that this sums up what the member was saying. I would
simply like to point out that on July 5, I wrote the following
letter to the Minister of Public Works trying to get some
information concerning my riding: ``am writing you with a view
to obtaining information on the activities of your department in
my riding. I would like to have the list of service, procurement
and rental contracts issued since October 25. I would also like to
have the list of federal properties located in my riding''. I did
not ask for much. It was not complicated. This was the
minister's answer: ``I thank you for your letter dated July 5,
1994 requesting information on the activities of my department
in your riding from October 25, 1993, to this date.
Unfortunately, the information you are seeking cannot be found
in one single document. In order to be able to answer your
questions, we would have to conduct extensive research in many
areas of my department and in the numerous data bases which
we have inherited following the amalgamation of the four
different agencies which now make up the new Department of
Public Works and Government Services.
Moreover, the costs involved in collecting data and preparing
reports for MPs could run as high as $168,000. For the most part,
this data is not computerized. In short, it would unduly increase
the workload of our department. I am sorry to inform you that
the department simply does not have the human and financial
resources to collect the data you are seeking''.
In other words, what the minister is telling me in his letter is
that it is not possible for the time being. This is precisely why we
would have liked to see the bill amended, so that we could be
able to get the information we need, whenever we need it.
6573
(1555)
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
simply wished to congratulate the member for Châteauguay. His
speech was excellent and his reply to the member for St.
Boniface most effective. He quite rightly pointed out that in
refusing members of the Bloc access to information about
contracts awarded in our own ridings, the Department of Public
Works merely confirms its complete lack of interest in
transparency. It is as though the department wished to conceal
information.
So I wanted to congratulate the member for Châteauguay on
his speech.
Mr. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member
and tell him not to take it too much to heart. When, in a speech, a
member points out a flagrant lack of control, however tactfully,
it is never well received. I, too, wish to congratulate you on your
speech.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Resuming debate. The
hon. member for Outremont has the floor.
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont): Mr. Speaker, in the light
of the hon. member's remarks, I must say that I note a pattern in
the Bloc Quebecois policy, which is essentially a double
standard policy. Take the list of people who make donations to
political parties for example. What is good enough for us -I
want to emphasize this point, but I did not intervene when the
issue was raised earlier- may not be for them, as we could read
in the papers this morning.
Coming back to the bill before the House today, I should point
out that during the election campaign we promised to rekindle
the spirit of co-operation between the federal government and
the Canadian provinces.
As a matter of fact, we made a commitment in the red book,
and I quote: ``work closely with provincial governments to
reduce duplication and improve service delivery''.
This motto from the red book was quoted repeatedly by the
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada. We went
even further-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. members
not to refer by name to a member currently sitting in the House
of Commons. Ministers and the Prime Minister must always be
referred to by their title. I would request the co-operation of all
the hon. members in this matter. I give the floor back to the hon.
member for Outremont.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister of
Canada then. We went even further in the famous red book, and I
quote: ``This means identifying which level of government can
best deliver what services''.
No matter what the opposition claims, I can say that since
October 25, that is exactly what we have been doing, as a truly
responsible government. Day in and day out, we are wrongly
accused by the opposition parties of wanting to centralize
powers in Ottawa. They keep wrongly accusing us, day after
day, of not taking appropriate steps to cut costs. Day after day,
they wrongly accuse us of encroaching upon provincial
jurisdictions. Today however, they have a golden opportunity to
tell us we are on the right track. Today, they have the opportunity
to show that their constituents are well represented by
supporting Bill C-52.
Canadian taxpayers-as well as ourselves for that
matter-have had enough of confused and slow services. They
do not have the patience any more to tolerate overlapping and
duplication. In fact, they demand that their government serve
them better, faster and more efficiently.
That is why, since the House reconvened, we have been
looking at restructuring the public administration with a view to
reducing costs and improving services.
(1600)
The government is confident that it can meet these goals by
working essentially on four fronts: first, streamline the delivery
of many services and programs; second, tackle overlap and
duplication; third, define each sector's responsibilities; finally,
transfer some activities to other levels of government, when
necessary.
Changing systems, work procedures and people's mentality is
no easy task. You need energy, patience and a great deal of
willpower. But, with good will, it can be done. The fact that, at
their very first meeting last December, the ministers agreed that
their priority would be to improve the Canadian federation's
efficiency is a case in point. We have achieved very interesting
results so far and the signing last June of bilateral agreements
including an action plan to eliminate overlap is the best proof of
that. This plan contains a detailed list of elements and objectives
as well as a schedule in some cases.
This intergovernmental agreement is a very important step
toward a more rational and effective approach to public
administration in this country. It is also a very significant step
forward which, at the end of the day, will benefit all Canadians.
It will also benefit all Quebecers, which is why the members
opposite should, in my opinion, clearly support the
government's initiative.
What will be the precise impact of the bill before the House?
What are its objectives? The answers are simple and obvious.
The bill before us today meets the following goals: first, make
policies and programs more effective, affordable and accessible
to our clients; then, determine with the provincial governments
who is in the best position to deliver a specific program or
service; and finally, make adjustments to respect priorities and
account for changing circumstances specific to each province.
6574
These goals are precise, realistic and totally focused on
improving service to clients. There is no doubt that, with the
provinces' co-operation, we can make rapid progress in this
area. There is no doubt either that reviewing all our programs
and services in order to reduce duplication and overlap is very
important for all Canadians. In general, Bill C-52 will simplify
administrative procedures so that we can conclude agreements
with all provincial governments.
Further to the agreements reached in July, the Department of
Public Works and Government Services will soon begin
negotiations with the provinces to determine just how
government services will be shared. Among the priorities
already identified are data processing, supply and real estate.
The outlook for this co-operative shared approach is great. We
are convinced that it is important to harmonize computer and
information systems. We believe that we can save large amounts
by sharing premises and services with other levels of
government.
Also consider related services like security, storage and
reception, which, when combined, can save us millions of
dollars a year and give everyone better service as well. All
governments at all levels have budget problems. All
governments must find solutions to the growing deficit. Of
course, in the past, each one wanted to have its own structure, its
own window and its own service outlets.
(1605)
We cannot afford all this infrastructure any more. Even before
the recently announced agreements, provincial and municipal
governments as well as public agencies asked us to help them
get goods and services at a lower price. Indeed, the public sector
increasingly realizes that we must be careful with our taxpayers'
money.
In fact, we are receiving more and more financial assistance
applications from organizations, because the system is working
fine in many areas. At present, we have co-operation
agreements concerning the purchase of police cars with some
municipalities, for example, and similar agreements for the
purchase of pharmaceutical products and shared standing offers
for goods and services.
This is why this bill before the House allows the department to
purchase equipment and services on behalf of other federal
government agencies.
Given the high level of international competitiveness, we
continually urge Canadian businesses to improve their
efficiency and become more competitive on both the national
and international markets. These principles must also apply to
the government and all the machinery of government. More
importantly, it is crucial to put to good use each and every dollar
the Canadian taxpayers entrust to us and make some wise
investments.
This is why I am particularly proud, as the member for
Outremont, to support Bill C-52.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I was rather surprised by the comments of the member
for Outremont on the department's transparency. I want to
remind him of the situation of a member elected to represent his
constituents who asks a minister for information on his
department's activities in that riding. This is not an extravagant
request. We are elected to represent our constituents in this
Parliament and we simply want to have an overview of the
situation.
The minister does not tell us he will ensure we get the
necessary, and appropriate, information under the
circumstances, so as to have an idea of the whole situation. He
tells us: I am sorry, but the department simply does not have the
human and financial resources required to gather the requested
information. I find such behaviour to be unacceptable on the part
of a minister. The minister is answering, in this House, to an
elected representative asking for information concerning his
own riding. If we start challenging the right to information of
elected MPs, we will undermine the foundations of our system.
Such an answer is tantamount to saying that we will not sue
someone because it would cost too much, considering the
amount of the fine that will have to be paid. This is totally
unacceptable.
I can easily make a connection with the comments made by
the member for Outremont at the beginning of his speech when
he talked about transparency and the funding of political parties.
We do not have contributions of over $100,000 from the Royal
Bank or RBC Dominion Security. However, we are not prepared
to listen to these contributors more than to our constituents.
Our constituents want to know about federal investments in
their riding. How much is the federal government investing?
What buildings does it occupy? What are the activities of a
given department in our riding? The minister is not answering
because he has to do some research. He was elected a year ago,
but he still has not managed to put the pieces together. He will
not even give us that answer. Rather, he says: No, I cannot
provide that information because it is not available in a
document. Goodness gracious, let him hire some researchers to
do the job!
The minister's position is an attack against the role of a
member, who has the legitimate right to ask a minister for
information on what his department is doing in the member's
riding.
In the past, similar questions were asked concerning other
departments and answers were provided. In the case of Supply
and Services, which involves the whole issue of procurement,
that information is not available. Instead of admonishing us, the
hon. member for Outremont should go to his minister and
request the same information to see if he can get it.
6575
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed at how
members of the Bloc Quebecois seem to miss the point.
(1610)
The purpose of my speech was to explain to the public that
this bill is in the best interests of all Canadians. What we are
seeking to do is to eliminate duplication and to make
government more efficient so that the taxpayers get better value
for each dollar they invest.
It is obvious that members of the Bloc Quebecois are unhappy
about this and that is why they are trying to attack us today on
the issue of transparency when there is actually no such problem
in this department. There is a policy regarding access to
information and it applies to all departments.
Members of the Bloc are missing the boat today. It hurts them
to see a government which advocates a cost-effective
federalism, a co-operative federalism, a progressive
federalism. It hurts them to see a government which is willing to
work in partnership with other levels of government, as we did,
for example, with the infrastructure program, as we did last June
when we signed a domestic trade agreement with an exception
for culture in Quebec. It hurts you because you are not here to
work for all Canadians. You are here for one reason, and one
reason only, that is to try and reach your very partisan goal: the
separation of Quebec.
If, instead of thinking about the separation of Quebec, you
began right now to think about improving how things are done in
Canada and moving towards a viable progressive federalism, I
am sure that taxpayers throughout the province of Quebec would
be a lot prouder of your work.
I am a bit disappointed to see that the only members who truly
represent the interests of Quebecers are the ones on this side of
the House, and I mean the government side.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I am
also very surprised to see the hon. member for Outremont praise
Bill C-52. He might think we are progressing, but it seems to me
we are not moving very fast. If this is a sign of federalism being
profitable, I feel it is being sort of a slowcoach.
It is more than obvious that the public works department is a
total failure in terms of openness. It is very difficult to obtain
information from the minister. We asked over and over again for
information on contracts awarded in our ridings, which is
something quite basic I think.
Given all the waste, the patronage and the enormous deficit of
this country, which everyone knows about, we must take all
possible measures to deal with these problems and with
inefficiency. The minister of public works did not see fit to
include any provision in this bill which would make his
department more efficient. This bill contains minor changes and
nothing that would make a real difference.
The decision to amalgamate four services will not make
federalism more profitable and will not convince Quebecers to
remain in Canada. For heaven's sake, this bill does not even
touch on the main problem. That is why we propose that a
committee be set up to monitor and supervise operations within
the department. We all know that. It is obvious.
When you ask questions to the Minister and hope for answers,
you only get systematic rejection. Is that what the federal
government calls transparency?
Mr. Duhamel: That is not the question.
Mr. Marchand: It most certainly is, because that is the
problem. The problem now with Canada and the federal
government is the $533 billion debt and the $40 billion or so
deficit. We must control expenses and reduce waste. This is the
basic thing to do. This is another example showing that the
minister of public works do not wish to do anything in order to
get his department in order and curb all the waste and patronage.
We would be willing to cooperate, if only we had the proper
information. We could work with this department to identify the
areas where there is patronage and waste. While government
clearly stated it was in favour of transparency, there is none in
this bill.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, because I have
already answered. I want to say, as I did several times, that I
have a great respect for my colleagues on the other side of the
House. I also respect what they represent and why they were
elected. However, I feel compelled, at this point, to point out
once again that the only problem with the Bloc Quebecois at the
present time is that, unfortunately, it is not working in the best
interests of the public as a whole.
(1615)
As my colleague underlined earlier, they have had the
opportunity for the last four or five days to go and sit down with
the department and discuss the bill that is before us, to discuss
some of the problems that they saw in that bill. They refused to
do that. So, it is an unwillingness to co-operate. In fact, there
was no question.
I simply want to say that it is a shame that those people cannot
decide to do their share and work in a co-operative and
constructive way with the federal government.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
comment by the hon. member for St. Boniface, who said that the
hon. member for Gaspé was always very frank and forthright. I
certainly intend to live up to that reputation.
Before I start my speech in this debate on Bill C-52, I would
like to remind hon. members opposite that Quebecers follow the
debates in the House very closely, and there are even children
6576
among our listeners. I imagine that occasionally they must find
what is said here in this House rather hard to take.
Speaking of children, if I may be allowed to digress and take
advantage of modern technology, today is my son's birthday,
and since I have to work here in Ottawa, I would like to take this
opportunity, offered by the cameras and with your permission,
Mr. Speaker, to wish him a very happy fourteenth birthday.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Dhaliwal: I hope he is a federalist.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): The purpose of the bill before the
House today is to amalgamate the former departments-that has
happened before- of Public Works and Supply and Services.
Public Works Canada was in charge of two other branches, while
services were something else, and government services is
something else again.
This is just to say that when we amalgamate entities that are
criticized for their lack of transparency, that does not
automatically make them transparent. To me, this is basically a
housekeeping bill. However, it is not at all what we expected. In
fact, the party in power, the Liberals, missed out on this one. We
are sorry but we cannot support this bill for the reasons I will
mention.
The government has missed an opportunity to make the
process of awarding contracts more transparent. The
government has also missed an opportunity to limit the
influence of lobbyists. And again, to do some thorough
house-cleaning in its contracting out procedures. That is why
the Bloc Quebecois presented the following amendment, moved
by the hon. member for Québec-Est. I would like to repeat it,
since we have a different audience at this time of the day. The
motion reads that: ``this House declines to give second reading
to Bill C-52, an Act to establish the Department of Public Works
and Government Services, and to amend and repeal certain acts,
because the principle of the bill does not provide for a specific
code of ethics to be put in place aimed at making transparent the
contracting process and the acquisition of all goods and services
by the Department of Public Works and Government Services
Canada''.
When I say there is a lack of transparency and when they tell
me that they intend to provide that transparency and make it all
nice and consistent, we should remember the principle that one
cannot be judge and jury. Bill C-52, as it is now, at page 3 in
clause 7, assigns all powers to the minister.
(1620)
Allow me to read it. Clause 7(1) says:
In exercising the powers or performing the duties or functions assigned to the
Minister under this or any other Act of Parliament, the Minister shall a)
investigate and develop services for increasing the efficiency and economy of
the public service of Canada;
How can he, in his own bill, creating this department by
merging various agencies, be both judge and judged?
What we are asking for, should he intend to do something, is
that he does it now, so we can judge what he will be coming up
with. I think it is basic. Even my 14-year old son, who has not
gone through law school yet, could understand that.
We reject this bill for several reasons. Basically, we want
openness. I said it, but I will repeat it again and again. In
Quebec, for example, the legislation on political party financing
and the very strict rules regarding the awarding of contracts
have made us accustomed to a much greater openness than what
we can see in the federal government. Even Liberals recognize
the shortcomings of the system. I would like to quote from the
red book, that I cannot show, page 95, where it says: ``We will
follow the basic principle that government decisions must be
made on the merits of a case rather than according to the
political influence of those making the case. We will take an
approach of openness in decision-making''.
I think they just missed the first opportunity they had to put
this into practice. They missed it. If openness had really been
their intention, they could have included it in this bill. We play
fair, so we will give them another chance, we tell them: ``Scene
one, take two. Take back your bill, add to it something which
will ensure openness and then, we will work with you''. That is
what we call co-operation, at least in the riding of Gaspé.
Unfortunately, this is not what we hear from members
opposite. The government might mean well, but it missed a
golden opportunity. It is conceivable that my friends opposite,
the Liberal members, are pleased with the system as it is. Maybe
the friends of the Liberal Party like it that way. Maybe-
There is another point I would like to make again, even if it
was already mentioned by some of my colleagues. I, too, have
written to the minister-I worked hard last summer-to try to
make him understand that we wanted changes. I tried to
understand what was going on within Public Works Canada. I
too wrote to the minister to try to find out what were the assets of
the federal government in the riding of Gaspé. I also wanted to
know about its activities but, just as my colleague from
Châteauguay who spoke earlier, I received a letter informing me
that it was impossible.
What angered me most was that the letter mentioned the cost
of retrieving this information. It was said to be $168,000.
However, I was told that this is what it would cost to inform
MPs. Am I to understand that informing 295 MPs would cost
$168,000? I want to bring to the attention of the members that
contracting-out in the federal government is a $5.2 billion
industry. And yet, this government refuses to spend $168,000.
What percentage is that? I do not have my calculator, but I am
6577
sure that it represents a minute fraction of what it costs to
manage a $5.2 billion industry.
And while we are asked to make an act of faith, to write a
blank cheque, to give our support, we are denied the very tools
we need to do our job.
(1625)
Is this what you call being transparent? All I can say is that in
the riding of Gaspé, this is definitely not transparent.
I would also like to comment on standards governing the
awarding of these contracts. As far as I can see, there are no
uniform standards. It seems that the only existing rules are
internal to each department, but they are easy to get around and,
most of all, they are far from being clear. Since there are no
uniform rules, no limit on the use of outside resources,
contracting-out is taking place in an unhealthy and vague
environment.
A modern government should do business the modern way. So
far, so good. Contracting-out is one such modern methods. I am
not questioning the use of contracting-out, but the fact remains
that one has to know how to use this tool and that any new idea
can lead to abuse. Hence the need to use contracting-out
cautiously so that it will not become an instrument of
corruption. I think we should give ourselves the means to
oversee contracting-out.
This means that the government must clearly state its policies
in that regard and explain how it plans to implement them. To set
rules is one thing, but to ensure they are implemented and
complied with is another. I see nothing to that effect in here.
This bill clearly missed the point in our view.
There are other inequities. I noted two, the juiciest ones in my
opinion, as you can imagine.
For example, I am informed that only 15 per cent of all federal
contracts were awarded in Quebec. Fifteen per cent, Mr.
Speaker. But there is another figure to which I would like to
draw your attention because for us, in Quebec, the Outaouais is a
region dear to our hearts. It is an integral part of Quebec but,
sadly, according to two thirds of the Quebec electorate, at the
federal level, this region is an orphan. I want to tell the people of
the Outaouais that only one per cent of all federal contracts
awarded in the National Capital Region go to the Quebec side of
the Ottawa Valley. Unfortunately for them, they do not have a
Bloc Quebecois member to stand up for them. Maybe someday!
These two examples speak volumes, but I could go on, There
is a long list, but I can see that time is running out. I will
therefore move on and make a few constructive suggestions
which, I hope, will help the other side improve on their bill. I
have not talked about any clauses because we are asking that the
bill be totally reworked.
I have three constructive proposals: first, a political review
committee on contracting out; second, a contracting-out code;
and third, a consultation process for members, who are, after all,
accountable to the people for the budget and for management
activities. In this regard, it is very important.
You now ask me: What would be the powers and especially the
characteristics of this political committee? It could, for
instance, be made up of people who can get involved. What does
this mean? It could include experts in government
administration processes and members from all political parties.
(1630)
It would have the power to inform and especially to protect
the public interest, since we are all working for the people. It
would also have the power to issue regular public reports to
ensure government openness, without having to wait for
someone to go look somewhere for this report, assuming he can
find the right subject. There is no openness, at the present time.
The report could be indexed by riding. As far as I know, Gaspé
people do not live in Ottawa-Carleton. These things should be
straightened out. As my grandmother used to say, ``The white
socks with the white socks, the black socks with the black
socks''. Things must be straightened out; we should show
respect for the people by putting everything in the right place.
Cases for contracting out should be clear and clearly defined
in the bill, which could be used as a working tool by the review
committee. Members should be consulted because they are the
ones who pass the laws and who must face the people. Since they
represent different political parties, they should also be
consulted on this kind of thing.
In conclusion, we want a little more openness here in Ottawa.
Earlier, some members said that, as sovereignists, we play the
bad guys from time to time. But we hope that Canada, which will
still be our neighbour when Quebec becomes sovereign, as I
firmly believe, will be well run, because in business, what is
better than dealing with someone who runs a clean business.
I would like to say something else about the credibility of
parliamentarians. As MPs, we stand to gain from this exercise of
openness. The red book said that, but it is starting to fade. Very
few of its promises seem to be kept.
I want to quote what the red book says, on page 91, about the
credibility of parliamentarians: ``If government is to play a
positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our
political institutions must be restored. The most important asset
of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to
whom it is accountable.'' Mr. Speaker, let me say that the French
version of the Liberal Party's red book contains a mistake when
it says: ``-tout en étant comptable de ses actions-'' I
understand that they meant the English word ``accountable'',
which in
6578
French should be ``responsable'' or ``imputable'' instead of
``comptable''.
So we have to restore the integrity of our political institutions.
Before October 26, 1993, the people opposite cared and boasted
about their red book. Today, I put it back under their nose and I
ask them to use this bill to carry out their promises. It will not
cost a lot. I am not asking for $1 billion. I am not asking for $5
billion. I am asking for honesty. Where I come from, honesty is
not expensive and, what is more, it is rewarded. Those who are
not honest will have to pay for it one day.
To continue, some of our fellow members just mentioned the
names of some members who are still here. I would just like to
say that perhaps we had five minutes of political fantasy just
now, when the member for Outremont mentioned the name of a
member in the House. Perhaps he was referring to a time after
this mandate. If the member for Outremont is back then, perhaps
he can say the name of the person he just mentioned but whom
you do not want us to name now.
(1635)
With that-my voice is giving up, but not my interest-I hope
that we will have a chance to talk about this bill here again, but
that it will contain what it should then.
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
first of all I should ask the hon. member to carry our best wishes
to his son on his birthday. I understand he is 14 years old. I have
a 13-year old son at home so I know exactly what that is all
about. It is about aspirations. It is about his future. It is about
where he is going to be when he finishes his educational process.
My son looks ahead with great anticipation and has all the
confidence in the world that he can do whatever he sets his mind
to do. So far whatever he has set as his goal, he has been able to
achieve it.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that he has great admiration for
this country of ours, this Canada of ours. He knows and loves the
great province of Quebec, as he does his home province of New
Brunswick, as well as every other portion of the country,
whether it be east, west, north or south. He considers it all very
important and significant.
I have heard the hon. member and his colleagues in the Bloc
mention time after time after time, let us do something about
duplication of effort. Let us take some action to eliminate some
of the duplication. The very bill we are talking about today is to
do exactly that. The creation of Public Works and Government
Services Canada brings together those four entities formerly
known as the Government Telecommunications Agency, Public
Works Canada, Supply and Services Canada, and the Translation
Bureau.
It is not just a coincidence that they are brought together.
Once this full integration is completed and all four entities are
brought together under the one Department of Public Works and
Government Services, we can look at savings of approximately
$180 million a year.
My question to the member across the way concerns the fact
that in my riding of Carleton-Charlotte $180 million a year is a
lot of money to my constituents. Any savings in that area which
can be made in the department we are talking about today, or any
other department, is certainly worth while.
While the hon. member talked about a number of other steps
in relation and subsequent to this point, does he not feel that the
opportunity to save $180 million a year on a regular basis is
something that would be supported by the taxpayers of the
province of Quebec as well as the taxpayers in every other
province?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question and his kind wishes regarding my son.
I think that the presence of Bloc Quebecois members,
sovereignists and Quebecers is very healthy for the parties
opposite. We are the ones who raised the very costly issue of
overlap.
(1640)
We, the sovereignists, have pointed to that problem for so
long that members opposite are now beginning to think that we
may be right. They are saying: Let us see what it means for us
here in our own little world, in our federal departments. I used
the word ``little'' not to refer to the department itself, which is a
large one managing large amounts of money, but to say that it is
a small step, considering our objective. To eliminate overlap is a
monetary measure, but it also involves respect for a nation, a
community and a province.
Canada did not listen when Quebec said: Let us manage the
way we want what falls within our jurisdiction. We are now in
the third period-as the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean and
the premier of Quebec say in reference to sovereignty. They
used to say ``the Bloc in Ottawa and the Parti Quebecois in
Quebec City''. Indeed, we are now in the third period and I am
moving along the boards.
We figured out the problem a long time ago, but this
government is only beginning to get a grasp of it. But this is not
enough. On the top of the savings which it can make in Canada
and in Ottawa, how about a little more transparency? When we
first
6579
told them to be careful and to eliminate overlap, they said that
no such thing existed.
Today, I am giving the government a second piece of advice. I
say: Add transparency and it will begin to make more sense. We
will continue to give you good ideas and ask you to accept the
decision of Quebecers gracefully when they say they are ready
to be on their own. I do hope that you will be able to listen to
them.
As a Quebecer, I will be happy to visit other provinces and,
perhaps, act as a consultant representing Quebec and inform
people from other provinces. I see that an hon. member would
like to ask me a question. I will be pleased to listen to him.
[English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I listened
closely to the hon. member for Gaspé. I have the honour of
serving with him on the fisheries and oceans committee.
I spent most of my life before I became involved in politics
working on contracting and specifically providing services in
government. This is a good step toward consolidating some of
the many government departments, as I am sure members of the
Reform know.
If we consolidate, billions of dollars worth of contracts will
be accessible to every Canadian under the open bidding system.
Right from the computer we will be able to access the number of
contracts that are being bid on right across the country, whether
it is in Halifax, Vancouver or any other part of the country.
Is the hon. member going to tell the small business people in
his riding, the people who are now bidding for contracts, very
good companies from Quebec who bid on contracts in Quebec
City, Vancouver, Edmonton or Halifax, that he wants to take that
opportunity away from them?
What is he going to tell them in his march to become
independent? Now they have access to billions of dollars worth
of contracts, as this open bidding system consolidates to include
other government organizations such as crown corporations.
Even contracts and opportunities that exist in other parts of the
world like the U.S. or Asia-Pacific are put on its bulletin board.
(1645 )
It creates tremendous opportunities for business people in
Quebec, for new people, perhaps his own son who would like to
get into business providing services for government, whether it
is in construction, whether it is consulting or any other type of
service.
What is he going to tell them? That he wants to take that
opportunity away from them, the billions of dollars of
government contracts they get to bid on competitively on which
if they are the low bid and can be shown to qualify they will be
awarded the contract? That instead of looking at an expanding
market and giving them more opportunities even beyond the
borders, limiting them to a smaller market, limiting them to
fewer opportunities? What response would the hon. member
give to all those small business people in Quebec and those
people who do work for government and are involved in
government contracting?
They understand the tremendous opportunity which exists and
the changes that will come about in the new infrastructure in
terms of the information technology and the instantaneous
access to that information. As we build that infrastructure these
departments can be very important to consolidate the services
that people have access to and the contracts and the business
opportunities that exist.
I would like to ask the member what his response to them
would be.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I must admit that it will
be very difficult to be brief, but I will try to respect the wishes of
the Chair.
Two questions were raised by the Parliamentary Secretary for
Fisheries and Oceans. First, what about the future of my son and
the future of Quebec? The answer is that my son will be
delighted to work as an international consultant, if Quebec is a
sovereign, different nation.
Second, before we talk about the future, about what will
happen in the months and years to come, what about what is
happening today? They tell us: If you agree to stay, you will
have access to a huge market worth $5.2 billion in contracts.
I said earlier that Quebec only gets 15 per cent. How much
more will we have in the future? The rules of transparency do
not seem to apply. What explanation does the parliamentary
secretary have for the Outaouais region, which gets only 1 per
cent, while 99 per cent goes across the river? This does not bode
well for the future.
Perhaps if members opposite and the minister agreed with our
suggestions to include transparency in the bill, and if they also
agreed that the procedure should be more standardized, then we
would have some basis for discussion. Meanwhile, Quebec pays
more than $28 billion in taxes, and that is a fact. When those $28
billion stay in Quebec instead of going to Ottawa, it will be
easier on the gas to go to Quebec City and find out how we can
get contracts. In Quebec, the process is open and transparent. It
is administered by a public commission. With the $28 billion in
taxes we will keep down there and a well-oiled machine to
manage the money, it will be marvellous.
[English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, when our government took office a year ago we made a
number of very specific commitments to the Canadian people.
6580
Among them was a commitment to deal with questions of the
efficiency of government-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. My profound apologies
to the member for Windsor-St. Clair. I neglected to read
something I have to read before five o'clock.
(1650)
[Translation]
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Frontenac-Party Fundraising.
[English]
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, among the commitments we made
when we came to power was a commitment to deal with the
question of the efficiency of government operations, some of
which over the past few years and particularly with the last
government had become sluggish, fat and really not very
efficient at all.
Our government was and remains determined to reassure
Canadians that tax dollars are being spent in a manner which is
efficient and cost effective and designed to produce the best
results for our citizens. More specifically, our government
pledged to work for a country whose governments are efficient,
innovative and co-operative; a government which will meet the
challenge of doing more with less in the new reality; a
government which would provide improved service delivery in
all areas where we were involved. At the same time we want to
reduce the cost of government operations as a way of
contributing to deficit reduction.
When we think about it this is a very liberal approach to a very
difficult problem. Innovation is clearly necessary in order to
uphold liberal principles in tough economic times. Those
principles will be upheld because those Liberal campaign
promises will be kept.
This government has worked vigorously and successfully
over the past year to make good on these commitments. It has
done so in a number of ways such as eliminating duplication in
government services and building stronger intergovernmental
co-operation.
One of the most fruitful areas for improving government
efficiency lies in broadening the use of up to date technologies
to communicate information and to deliver our services. This
government has made continued progress in developing and
implementing a number of these money and time saving
applications of information technology.
One of the key players in furthering this process, one of the
key players in developing new ideas and new applications is the
recently formed Department of Public Works and Government
Services.
As the government's main common service agency, Public
Works and Government Services Canada currently supplies
about 70 per cent of federal telecommunication services. An
important element of the new department, the government
telecommunications and informatics service is a major centre of
expertise for these services and a key supplier to the entire
federal government.
This department will operate in partnership with the private
sector to manage infrastructure services for other government
departments. These services can be enhanced and expanded with
a view to establishing an integrated government-wide
infrastructure. Clearly, Public Works and Government Services
Canada has the key leadership role to play in re-engineering and
streamlining the government's communications and service
delivery system.
I would like to briefly outline a few of the specific
applications of advanced technology that have been introduced
by Public Works and Government Services Canada and that are
already saving the taxpayers of Canada millions of dollars every
year.
One of these is the direct deposit method of payment. In his
role as Receiver General for Canada, the hon. Minister of Public
Works and Government Services must issue approximately 193
million payments every year. In the past these were issued by
cheque. These would cover salary payments to government
employees and a variety of payments to recipients of
government programs such as old age assistance.
Needless to say, this has been traditionally an expensive,
although necessary process. In a move to reduce costs and
improve these services the department has introduced direct
deposit through which funds are deposited directly and
electronically to the recipient's bank account.
Direct deposit has proved to be very popular and today more
than 30 per cent of payments made by the Receiver General use
this method. About three quarters of federal public servants and
more than half of our pension recipients are now on direct
deposit.
(1655 )
The system saves money for the Canadian taxpayer and is
convenient for the recipients of these payments as well. The
department estimates that over the past three fiscal years it has
achieved savings of $45 million through reduced postage,
production and financial costs. Cost savings are only a part of
this story. Cost savings in and of themselves while important do
not provide the whole picture here.
Direct deposit also eliminates the problem of lost, stolen,
destroyed or forged payments. It further eliminates problems
attendant to any disruption of postal service for instance. It is
convenient, reliable, safe and is environmentally friendly.
Direct deposit is an excellent example of an application of elec-
6581
tronic technology that both reduces costs and improves service
to the public.
Another example of communications technology introduced
by Public Works and Government Services and which has
growing application in the federal service is the use of electronic
or E-mail. It now links more than 120,000 public servants
across the country.
E-mail provides a system for exchanging information that is
fast and efficient and that significantly reduces the paper burden
within the government. It facilitates quicker decision making
and faster service and it saves money, an estimated $55 million
per year in time saving and improved efficiency.
Public Works and Government Services has also introduced
during the past year a national video conferencing service. This
service is now offered to all government departments and
agencies at seven Public Works and Government Services sites
across the country. Based on the enthusiastic demand for this
new service, the department plans to expand to as many as 20
sites in the near future.
A major client of this new service will be Radian, the public
service learning and communications network. This network's
mandate is to save the public service time and money by
encouraging long distance learning and video conferencing
throughout the federal government which would then save on
the costs associated with travel.
Although still in its early stages of development, this new
service shows great potential for improving communications
between various government departments across Canada at
greatly reduced cost. It responds to the government's goal of
cutting costs through the creative application of new
technologies.
Members present may recall that in the autumn of last year
and the spring of this year, the human resources development
committee spent a great deal of time communicating with
people across the country in an effort to establish a baseline of
concern over the new social service review.
Part of that discussion and consultation employed this
innovative new use of technology. I am pleased to say that the
first witnesses to testify came from Windsor, Ontario. Instead of
spending in excess of $8,000 to bring those witnesses to Ottawa,
we were able through the use of this technology to spend
substantially less and not to disturb them or have them travel.
The human resources committee will commence travelling on
November 14 to all parts of the country in an effort to speak to
people in their own locale and to see the situation across the
country. While we are there we will continue to use video
conferencing reaching even further into the country in order to
give everyone an opportunity to be heard on this very important
subject.
Through this technology the public works department has
allowed us to communicate directly with Canadians and
Canadians to communicate back directly with us in a very real
form of direct democracy.
This department has also been active in expanding the
application of new technologies in its business dealings with
thousands of Canadian companies and individuals. As the prime
procurement agency of the government, Public Works and
Government Services purchases an average of $10 billion of
goods and services each year on behalf of as many as 150 federal
departments and agencies.
The department has instituted a number of automated systems
to make this process more efficient and less costly to the
government and to its suppliers. One of these is the recently
established open bidding system or OBS.
(1700 )
This system provides an electronic bulletin board as well as a
tri-weekly publication called ``Government Business
Opportunities'' which is designed to give Canadian businesses
fast and equal access to information about government
contracting opportunities.
The adoption of OBS represents a major step toward fulfilling
the government commitment to provide a contracting system
that is fair, open and transparent. However by reducing the paper
burden involved it also saves taxpayers an estimated $3.5
million annually.
This is one further example of how the application of
electronic technology cannot only improve services but cut
costs as well. Another application of technology in the business
field is the department's electronic procurement and settlement
system known as EPS. EPS links client departments within
government to the suppliers and to a central control system
allowing them to do business electronically, including ordering
without requisitions, supplier payment without invoices and
electronic journal vouchers without paper forms.
When this system is fully in place within the very near future,
it will result in massive savings to the government and the
taxpayer, estimated in the range of $176 million. It will create
even greater savings for private sector suppliers, most of which
will be passed along in the form of lower prices for government
purchases.
These examples of the steps being taken to improve efficiency
and service through new technologies indicate clearly that our
government is living up to its commitment in this area. They
also indicate the key role that the Department of Public Works
and Government Services is playing in the process.
Initiatives such as the one I just described mean even more
efficiency in government operations, better services to the
6582
public, better access to the government by the public and less
cost to the taxpayer.
Here are even more good reasons why we should pass Bill
C-52 so as to give the department a clear, legislative mandate to
continue its work in this area.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it
always astonishes me when I listen to speeches like the one my
colleague has just given about how to save money in
government.
We spend so much time in speech in this country talking about
a $3.5 million saving from reducing the paper burden. I am sure
it could be a lot more than that, and a possible $176 million
saving in other efficiencies.
I guess the Liberal government does not get the idea here. We
overspend the revenue we take in by $40 billion a year. That is
40,000 million dollars. We have a half a trillion dollar debt load.
Our interest payments are well over $40 billion a year.
What really gets me is that the Liberals come up with this
much money to actually handle a problem that is this big. I guess
my question really is this. Will the $3.5 million saving-I hate
to talk about such a small amount here-or $176 million ever be
reflected as a reduction in any budget in the government? Past
experience shows that none of these budgets has ever been
reduced in 20 years.
Where are the efficiencies? Do not come into the House and
talk about saving money. You have done nothing but blow
money since the day you got here. Would you mind answering
the question?
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member
for Windsor-St. Clair, would members please, when saying
``you'', refer to the Chair and not to the member opposite.
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I only have eyes for you, sir, I can
tell you that. I am happy to speak to my hon. friend through you
and to remind my hon. friend that $3.5 million plus $3.5 million
plus $3.5 million adds up.
It is one saving on top of another on top of another. We could
do what the Reform Party suggested in its campaign and just
knock billions off the top indiscriminately, thereby destroying
the economy and putting people out on the street. We could do
what the governor of Michigan did, for instance, and lob money
off the top.
(1705)
I would like to invite my hon. friend to come to Windsor
sometime and we will take him over to Detroit. He can watch
people who have suffered under the kind of regime that the
Reform Party suggests. He can watch people living in the streets
when it is cold and when the weather is inclement. He can watch
those things. Or he can watch us save $3.5 million here and $4.5
million there. He can watch us reorganize the government and he
can watch us deliver.
This is not the last nine years. This is the beginning of a very
long period of time for the Liberal government and a very long
period of time of Liberal efficiency. This is the beginning of a
new life for Canada.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member talks about the beginning. Let me remind the member
that it is almost a year since the election. The beginning was a
year go. If the Liberals had been serious about real cuts they
could have cut the budget by, let us say, $10 billion.
The Reform Party laid out a $15 billion program to cut the
deficit. If it had been implemented, the interest costs on the debt
alone, assuming an interest rate of 7 to 10 per cent, could have
been $1 billion ahead in the bank just by reducing interests costs
by really aggressively attacking the deficit.
We are talking about $3.5 million here, $100 million there.
Just by getting the job done the hon. member could save $1
billion.
The Minister of Human Resources Development tabled a
discussion paper. He has been working for a whole year and all
he can produce is a discussion paper.
When can we expect that we will move beyond these
minuscule paper saving propositions that make a minuscule cut?
When can we expect the real stuff that is going to prevent the
economy from collapsing under the weight of debt and interest
that we have to pay?
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, it is true it has been almost a year.
October 25 will be our first anniversary. During that period we
have had an opportunity to assess and to see the precise situation
in which the government has found itself.
The full integration of this department will result in savings
of $180 million and 4,000 full time equivalent jobs between the
1993-94 fiscal year and 1997-98 representing a reduction of
about 25 per cent of the current complement.
The emphasis is on reducing overhead through streamlining
and eliminating duplication. These targets will not affect the
delivery of services but will result in savings of $1 billion over
the next few years. This is not chicken feed. It is a lot of money. I
am very sorry if we did not do it as quickly as the other side of
the House would like.
Everything is simple over there. Somehow you give people
guns and they will not shoot each other any more. We will have
law and order. Knock 20 per cent off the budget and people
starve in the streets and I guess we do not have as many people to
feed. That is a very simple view.
Over here where the responsible people live, we can say that
we have studied it, we have looked at it and it has only just
begun.
6583
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to speak to Bill C-52, an act
to establish the Department of Public Works and Government
Services and to amend and repeal certain acts. My colleagues
and I in the Bloc Quebecois think that the Liberal government
has missed yet another golden opportunity to honour its
pontifical promise to make our political institutions transparent.
After the Pearson affair-I think you would do well to
listen-and Bill C-43 on registration of lobbyists, now the
Liberal government confirms its lack of transparency with Bill
C-52.
I have a problem with the bill not because I am against the
principle of integrating two departments, but because the bill
does not go far enough. Although I have been sitting in this
House less than a year, I have enough parliamentary experience
to see that such a bill should really go further. Allow me to
explain.
(1710)
It is important that our legislation in this area be stringent.
About two weeks ago, I received from the Minister of Public
Works a reply to a letter I had written, asking him for
information on his department's activities in
Berthier-Montcalm. Having been elected in this riding, I
wanted to know what was going on there, who was being
awarded contracts, whether there was waste, news on buildings
and so on.
This request for information from a member of Parliament
was entirely legitimate. I will simply read you a short paragraph
from the minister's reply. He wrote: ``Unfortunately, the
information you are looking for is not contained in any one
document''. To provide you with an answer would require
intensive research in the many and varied branches of my
department as well as in multiple data banks, the number of
which has increased considerably since four separate entities
have been merged to form the new Department of Publics Works
and Government Services Canada. Moreover, the costs
associated with information retrieval and the preparation of
reports for members of Parliament could exceed $168,000, and a
large part of the work is not computerized. All in all, this task
would put an excessive load on the operation of our
department''.
I wonder, and would it not be ironic if it were the case, if the
minister based his calculations on his own hourly rate and add
on computer time to get this $168,000 figure. The acme of this
department's inconsistency was reached on April 18, when my
hon. colleague the member for Laval East received her response
to a letter she had sent to the same department asking for a list of
names, addresses and phone numbers of businesses located in
her riding. In response to that letter, the minister made no
reference to the fact that her inquiry would cost $168,000 or
some other amount to the taxpayers. He did not say that
answering her inquiry would prove impossible because of the
number of documents that would need to be analyzed before an
answer could be provided to the hon. member.
Nothing of the sort. The minister wrote back stating that the
information she had requested was attached. I asked myself
whether his department had double standards. Information
considered as not overly compromising and of no consequence
is released, while the rest is not. I sure hope this is not the case.
At any rate, the hon. members opposite who sit on the industry
sub-committee on Bill C-43, the lobbyists registration bill, tell
me that members of Parliament make the best lobbyists when it
comes to obtaining this kind of information.
I note however that this statement does not apply to ministers.
I wonder if Government Policy Consultants would not charge
less than $168,000 to provide me with an answer to my question.
Moreover, I think that an in-depth analysis of certain aspects of
the answer received from the department on September 21 is
essential. The minister responsible for Supply and Services
Canada says that the information I am requesting does not
appear in a document per se. Where can the information be
found then?
I will give you a few hints. These answers may be in the data
bank of some lobby groups very familiar with Parliament Hill.
These lobbyists make thousands of dollars a day-up to $10,000
a day in some cases-to advise companies hoping for
government contracts. As my colleague from Québec-Est
proposed a few days ago, if Public Works and Government
Services Canada were to issue monthly reports guaranteeing the
federal government's openness in awarding contracts, we could
probably, in the long term, save a lot of money and eliminate
patronage in that department.
If lobby groups make so much money giving advice and
explaining how the system and its institutions work, it is
because the system is very complex and not open enough. The
members opposite and the minister himself will tell me that
merging the Department of Public Works with Supply and
Services will simplify things, but I say that Bill C-52 does not
provide for any mechanism that would open up that department.
Furthermore, this bill will not encourage public servants to
denounce cases of shameless waste at the future Department of
Public Works and Government Services.
(1715)
It is not normal that, in 1994, people and the members who
represent them are not informed of that department's
contracting-out activities in their own ridings. Openness in that
depart-
6584
ment appears to be a fine source of patronage. In any case, that is
what my grandmother would say in such a situation.
In the red book, the word ``openness'' appears almost as often
as the word ``employment''; it is surprising that it is nowhere to
be found in Bill C-52, and it is not in Bill C-43 either.
Legislators must look at the goal of openness as a whole. The
government's right hand must know what the left hand is doing.
Yet, in the red book, they talk about the citizens' confidence in
the system, the undue influence of lobbyists; they talk about
openness, the sacrosanct integrity, involvement, etc. The red
book should not be quoted just for wishful thinking. We need an
appropriate legislative policy. Now is the time to take action
while we have a bill before us.
Why make laws amounting to half-measures? Bills C-52 and
C-43 as they now stand are cases in point and deal with two
closely related subjects. There should be a legislative link
between the two. Government contracts, procurement and
buildings automatically remind us of lobbyists. The Bloc is
probably the only party in this House to see that link. But it is
there!
The Pearson affair, which this House is very familiar with,
shows what happens when you mix government contracts with
lobbyists' pressure. Will we prevent similar situations with Bill
C-52 before us today or Bill C-43? No, Mr. Speaker, not the way
these two bills are now written.
Laws are supposed to mean something and not be just
rhetoric, so a law should be passed to change things and not just
to put up a smoke screen to hide shameless patronage, like what
has been going on in those departments for decades.
Something else that would contribute to the much-desired
openness, which is just wishful thinking on the part of the
government, could be a reality or well on the way to becoming
reality if the financing of political parties was reformed as
suggested by the Bloc Quebecois member for Richelieu. But no,
we saw the government's true face. It refused the hand that we
extended to it on this issue.
Although we could say more about the pretense of openness
desired by the government, I will return to Bill C-52 and
probably we will have a chance later to talk about this famous
openness that the government would like to have. However, it
never acts openly when it has the chance.
What we refuse to do is to give second reading to Bill C-52
because the principle of the bill does not provide for a precise
code of ethics to make the contracting process transparent and to
show how the Department of Public Works and Government
Services acquires all the goods and services.
For this purpose, we propose five things that would provide a
basis for obtaining this desired transparency. The Bloc's five
proposals are as follows: one, create a public supervisory
commission; two, a code for contracting out; three, consult all
federal MPs; four, make public servants accountable; and five,
control advance payments by the government.
Sometimes I hear ministers say that the opposition never
makes any proposals. Well, here I am making proposals.
Besides, we often make proposals but you do not listen to them. I
am giving you some very clear proposals and I will explain
them.
Let us take a closer look at these proposals. The first one is to
create a public supervisory commission. Among other things,
this commission would submit monthly reports on all
government contracts that go through the department. With such
a system, the frustrating delays currently experienced with
requests submitted to the minister under the Access to
Information Act would be avoided. These periodic reports
would help streamline government operations. This would be a
simple, accessible and understandable process.
Finally, this public supervisory commission would have the
power to question any vague or obscure contract violating the
applicable rules of procedure. This judicial power could also be
used in cases of influence-peddling or patronage.
(1720)
Also, the proposed code for contracting out takes into account
the fact that this activity represented a $5.2 billion market for
the year 1992-93 alone. Such an important economic sector
must be subjected to some government guidelines.
This issue is too important for civil servants, trade
contracting firms, as well as Canadians and Quebecers to be
taken lightly. In that regard, the Bloc would have liked the bill to
set rules, or at least a legal framework compelling the federal
government to adhere to specific standards regarding
contracting out activities. If the government is prepared to do it
for the lobbying industry, which is not a $5.2 billion market, it
can also do it for the contracting out sector.
Canadians, unions and management could only win if there
were specific rules in that sector. And do not try to tell me that
contracting out is a cyclical thing. When such a practice has
been in use for ten years, it is there to stay.
I would like it if someone could tell me why parliamentary
committees use private printing companies to publish their
reports when that service is provided here in the House of
Commons.
Then there is the consultation of federal MPs. I believe we are
here to represent our constituents. We could be asked to do
more, and that would be a good thing. As a third element for
transparency, the Bloc Quebecois suggests that all federal
members of Parliament should be consulted. This proposal is
based on the Liberal commitment to enhance the role of
members of Parliament. Hence, it is important to give more
responsibilities to members of Parliament and to inform them of
the contracts placed by the new department in their ridings. Such
consultation outside the House of Commons will provide
6585
members of Parliament the opportunity to monitor and confirm
the impact of the bills on which they voted.
Consequently, members of Parliament will not be consulted
only in the House of Commons or in parliamentary committees.
I was democratically elected to represent the people of my
riding of Berthier-Montcalm and I must have all the necessary
tools to fulfil my mandate. Information on public spending is
one of these tools. How can members of Parliament play their
roles adequately if they are not even aware of all government
expenditures in their own ridings? Cleanliness starts at home, as
we say, but when you do not know what to clean, it is hard to
look clean to the public.
I reject the argument used by the minister who claimed that it
would cost too much, because I think if members of Parliament
were to closely monitor what is going on in their ridings, they
could surely find some waste to eliminate. We could quickly
come up with the money required to provide this information to
members.
Fourth, accountability for public servants. This would be
important. Public servants must be responsible and feel
accountable to Parliament. We must clearly give more
responsibilities to civil servants. No one is in a better position to
expose all the awful waste occurring in federal departments. We
have to find ways to encourage public servants to denounce such
extravagant spending by the government. The right to expose
public waste must be addressed by this House and very soon at
that.
Since most contracts will be executed by the Department of
Public Works and Government Services, it seems to me that Bill
C-52 should have covered this issue.
Federal public servants must realize that, as taxpayers, they
also pay for unnecessary spending they are aware of.
Here is a good example to justify the cleaning up, which, as I
said earlier, should start at home.
I invite the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services to visit the back entrance to the Confederation Building
to see for himself what is an immoral spending.
Public Works rebuilt the access ramp for handicapped people.
Although I completely agree with the principle, I am outraged
with the end result. Instead of a simple efficient and functional
slope, the contractors have created a huge labyrinth not
accessible by wheelchair. Moreover, I am told this
non-functional labyrinth cost $170,000.
That shows how some expenses are fit for a transcendental
world.
(1725)
Finally, I would like to say a few words about advance
payments by the government. The purpose of this practice by
senior officials is to make maximum use of the resources
available to a function within a department in order to ensure
that the same level of resources will be allocated to that
function in the next budget year. Government officials do this
because they are afraid of having their annual budget cut if they
do not use all the resources available to them in the current year.
The whole issue of advance payments concerns all
departments. Moreover, it becomes clear that the Department of
Public Works must take the bull by the horns and exert strict
control over government expenditures.
While Public Works and Supply and Services have
historically been considered the ideal departments for
patronage, the new department must now do everything it can to
become the department of transparency, and it has to have all the
necessary tools to be able to do that.
Again, the Liberal government is watering down this
objective and, in this particular case, it is drowning it. Instead of
being a watchdog as it should, the Department of Public Works
and Government Services is playing an unhealthy game that
prevents it from being as transparent as we would like it to be.
Another example that I find appalling concerns some
electricians from Public Works Canada. I was outraged when
this information was made known to me. It would appear that
some electricians keep the copper from the electric wires that
they dispose of, melt it and then sell it to pay for the big party
they throw at the end of the year. I think this kind of practice is
unacceptable in 1994.
Another quick example, Mr. Speaker, because I see that time
is running out-
Mr. Duhamel: I want to ask a question.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I will be glad to answer your questions, if I
have the time.
The other point I would like to mention concerns something I
noticed when I moved into my new office in Ottawa. My 286 and
386 computers were replaced by more efficient and modern
systems. In my riding, I have a number of community
organizations, women's groups, youth organizations and other
groups. They had asked me how to go about buying those old
computers from the Canadian government. It is quite difficult,
as I found out. It seems that those computers are auctioned off,
but that they end up being bought by employees in some
departments or their relatives and friends. As a result, taxpayers
and community agencies across Canada who would need those
computers and
6586
could pay a good price, much to the benefit of the government,
never even get a chance.
The reasoned amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois truly
reflects the need for that greater openness all taxpayers in
Quebec and the rest of Canada would like to see in that
department, which has always been considered the mainstay of
patronage under Liberal, Conservative, and other governments
alike.
The time has come to put an end to such practices. We should
pass appropriate legislation so that openness, and not patronage,
prevails in that department. Since past deeds speak to the future,
it is sure to remain the patronage department, if this bill is
passed. This has to stop. I ask my colleagues on the government
side to urge the minister to pay attention to the Official
Opposition's point of view.
I will now take my seat so that my colleague from
Saint-Boniface can put the question he so badly wants to ask.
_____________________________________________
6586
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
(1730)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South) moved that Bill C-256,
an act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of income to
spouse), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of
Commons to present for debate at second reading my private
member's bill, C-256.
Every member of Parliament looks forward to an opportunity
to bring before the House matters of importance not only to
themselves but to all Canadians. Bill C-256 is a proposal which
is foremost about the family and which also has implications for
jobs, child care, tax equity and the cost of health, social services
and criminal justice.
The United Nations General Assembly has proclaimed 1994
as the International Year of the Family. However, in my view
this is not as much a celebration as it is a warning.
In the last 30 years changes in our social and economic
environment have been dramatic. Family and social values have
clearly eroded. We no longer feel safe in our communities.
Demand for social services has expanded beyond our means and
family breakdown has become the norm. Everyone knows a lone
parent, but did you know that 60 per cent of them are living in
poverty?
In 1961, 65 per cent of families with children under six years
old had one stay at home parent. In 1991, 30 years later, this type
of family structure accounted for only 12 per cent of families. In
addition, today more than 70 per cent of preschool children are
now in non-parental care arrangements on a regular basis while
parents work.
Much of this movement has been caused by economic
circumstances. Growth in incomes has been stagnating in real
terms since the mid 1970s and younger families have been hit
the hardest. Their incomes are in dramatic decline and the
incidence of poverty is increasing. For example, among families
with a head under age 25 the incidence of poverty nearly
doubled from 21 per cent to 37 per cent between 1981 and 1991.
I am therefore extremely pleased that today the Minister for
Human Resources Development reaffirmed our commitment to
the elimination of child poverty. He has clearly stated that this is
our top priority in the restructuring of our social programs.
It should be noted however that as personal home parenting
becomes increasingly uneconomic, it is being portrayed as
decreasingly desirable. Instead of recognizing that there may be
problems with our priorities, we somehow rationalize that the
choice is best for the children.
In addition, there are a number of other contributing factors to
the family and social ills we are experiencing today. We appear
to have designed most of our services to kick in after problems
become apparent. By then the need to respond is urgent but the
remedial efforts are often unsuccessful.
According to the May 1994 report of the Ontario premier's
council on health, well-being and social justice, critical
development outcomes are rooted in early experiences and
influences. These outcomes include good physical health, the
ability to learn, the ability to cope with stress, being able to
relate well with others and to have a positive self-esteem.
Where, how and with whom children spend their time in the
early years has a major impact on their healthy development. A
secure attachment to a nurturing adult is essential and who is
better than one of the parents to provide that care.
Dr. Fraser Mustard, chair of the Canadian Institute for
Advanced Research, has long advocated focusing some of our
limited resources to children in the first three years of life. Their
extensive research shows dramatic links between future
problems and poor child care during infancy.
Dr. Mustard cites a 19 year study of early childhood
enrichment in the United States. As a result, the group of
children had a higher proportion who graduated from high
school and went on to college. There was a 50 per cent lower
incidence of mental health problems, 40 per cent fewer on
welfare, and there were 50 per cent fewer teenage pregnancies.
6587
(1735)
Dr. Penelope Leach, renowned author on child care,
masterfully stated the case when she said: ``The real issue is not
motherhood or career, but something closer to parenthood and
paid work''. Today, children are more a part of paid work than of
home life. As such, they are currently of secondary importance
in our society. Those priorities will have to shift.
The critical importance of quality child care is particularly
dramatized by the facts related to young unmarried mothers.
Each year over 20,000 unmarried women aged 12 to 19 give
birth with the majority choosing to raise the children
themselves. As a result, most do not finish their education and
are likely to become dependent on subsidized housing and
welfare. Their offspring are at a higher risk of being premature
or low birth weight, more likely to experience difficulty in
school, and more likely to become single parents themselves.
These facts raise serious questions. What has become of the
traditional family? Are we fully aware of the potential
consequences to our children's future development by having
both parents work? Is it really up to governments to take the
responsibility for the future development of our children? Has
society decided that managing the family home and caring for
preschool children is no longer important?
Who would dare say that a stay at home parent does not work?
A parent working in the home has chosen a very honourable
profession which contributes more to the quality of our society
than most jobs. Yet it is a profession which is not specifically
compensated in recognition of the value of the work done. That
is the reason why I have tabled this bill. It is an attempt to
provide a modest financial benefit to families who choose to
have one parent work in the home and care for preschool
children.
As a consequence of the bill, jobs in the external work force
would be freed up for those who urgently need them. In addition,
child care spaces would be freed up to partially address the
critical shortage we are now experiencing.
Take the example of two working parents with two children in
day care with the lower income earning spouse earning $25,000.
After income tax, child care expenses and the cost of
employment, the net take home pay is less than $100 per week.
Parents in this situation often question why they are
sacrificing so much for so little. Their lives are driven by a child
care schedule. They rush in the morning to get their child ready,
they rush to deliver the children to day care, they rush to work to
put in a full day and they cannot delay leaving work because the
children must be picked up and taken home to be fed dinner. By
the time they settle in the home, it is time to get the children
ready for bed. Parents may want to spend family time with
children but often it is the case that the children are too tired or
not in the mood to play when the parents have the time.
What do parents do when their children are sick? That much
stress cannot be helping the family unit. The amount of time that
parents and children spend together has dropped by 40 per cent
in a single generation. As a rationalization we dreamed up the
notion of quality time. However, that implies that to spend a
small amount of time with a child is satisfactory if it is quality
time whereas if you are around the child all of the time only
some of that time is quality time. That kind of thinking is simply
flawed.
Economic considerations are important, but in certain
circumstances parents are struggling to decide whether the
modest take home pay of the lower income earning spouse is
worth all the family sacrifices they are making. Although the
vast majority of parents do work, a 1991 Decima poll found that
70 per cent of women would choose to provide direct parental
care if they could. This bill would provide a financial bridge to
assist those parents, and I stress, who would like the option to
make that choice.
(1740)
It should also be noted that our present income tax system in
fact discriminates against one income families. The child care
expense deduction permits two income families to claim up to
$5,000 of child care costs per child under the age of seven
regardless of how much income they have. No such deduction is
available to one income families due to the false assumption that
they have no child care costs.
Child care costs exist not because both spouses work but
rather because children exist. The child care expense deduction
has an inverse relationship to need. That means that the higher
the family income, the higher the savings to the two income
family.
Consider also the case where two neighbours each have
children. One neighbour can be paid to take care of the children
of the other neighbour and vice versa. Each family then gets to
claim the child care expense deduction because they care for
each other's children. Ironically, however, you do not get any
deduction when you care for your own children. This favoured
tax treatment may produce financial savings for those who care
for the children of others but it does nothing for those who care
for their own children.
The child care expense deduction should be means tested and
extended to all families to address the profound inequities in our
Income Tax Act. This initiative would provide equitable
benefits to all families based on financial need. Accordingly, I
will
6588
shortly be tabling in the House a motion to effect this change and
I hope it will have the support of all hon. members.
Bill C-256 specifically seeks to amend the Income Tax Act to
permit one spouse to split up to $25,000 of their income with the
spouse working in the home and caring for at least one
dependent child who has not commenced full time attendance at
school.
As a result of the graduated tax brackets presently in our
income tax laws, this would result in a lower tax burden on
family income. Depending on the level of incomes and
deductions the benefit could be as much as $3,500 per year or
about $65 per week.
In the example I cited if instead of forgoing $100 per week of
net take home pay it were reduced to only $35 per week the
option to have one parent work in the home would be much more
attractive to the family. The income split with the spouse
working in the home would be treated as self-employed income
and as such would not be eligible for unemployment insurance.
The income would however qualify for the purchase of RRSPs.
Under the Canada Pension Plan Act this income would not
qualify for CPP benefits. I have however tabled in the House Bill
C-269 which would change the CPP act to make such earnings
pensionable. That change will require approval of two-thirds of
the provinces representing 50 per cent of the population, plus
Quebec which operates its own Quebec pension plan.
If we truly believe that working in the home and caring for
preschool children is an important job, should we also not
acknowledge the fairness of providing pension benefits?
The benefits of this bill do not stop there however. This is not
just a bill which would give a tax break to some Canadians. If a
lower income earner withdraws from the external workforce to
work in the home, a job would be freed up or created depending
on how we looked at it. With 10.7 per cent of our workforce
unemployed the importance of job creation cannot be
overstated.
Furthermore the person filling the vacated job will likely have
been on UI which can be up to $429 a week, or on welfare which
can be up to $663 per week. Under these circumstances the
government will in fact be saving on the cost of these social
benefits. As well the new taxpayer would not likely have the
same level of child care expenses, which means that more tax
would be paid by the person on the same job than by the person
who formerly held that job.
(1745)
A further consequence of the bill is the freeing up of child care
spaces. In its red book the government has committed to create
50,000 child care spaces per year for three years following the
achievement of 3 per cent growth in GDP. Since that growth will
be reached this year these 150,000 spaces will be created at a
cost of $1.4 billion split between the federal and provincial
governments. That represents $9,600 per space per year.
It is also expected that the users will pay $2,400 per year for
the space. Therefore, in total each of these spaces will cost
$12,000. That is a fair indicator of just how much value should
be attributed to caring for a child in the home.
While it is certainly true that more day care provision would
increase the number of mothers in the external workforce, it is
also true that more financial help with the costs of being a parent
would reduce that number no matter how much affordable day
care was available. In the long term it is crucial for us to realize
that direct parental care will also contribute to savings in the
areas of health, social programs and criminal justice.
Each year it costs literally billions of dollars to respond to the
problems rooted in poor child development. Today we face
serious challenges related to the family which are complex. We
must however remember that there are no simple solutions. We
need a range of initiatives spanning both preventive and
remedial approaches. Bill C-256 represents an important
preventive approach which recognizes the value of work in the
home, creates jobs and provides child care spaces.
Since introduction of the bill over 160 members of Parliament
have indicated their support for having the bill referred to
committee. In addition, thousands of Canadians across the
country have told us through letters and petitions that they want
to see the subject matter of the bill pursued.
In the year of the family I believe the House of Commons
should embrace every possible opportunity to examine
initiatives which may help Canadian families to raise our
children who are of course our future.
Private members' bills require unanimous consent of the
House at second reading in order to proceed to the next stage.
Such consent is very rarely achieved but the value of the process
is the extensive dialogue generated not only in the House but
also among Canadians interested in the subject matter.
This morning I had the opportunity to speak with the Minister
of Human Resources Development about the issue of benefits
for those who give care. I have his assurance that the subject
matter of Bill C-256 can be addressed as part of the review of
the social programs outlined in his discussion paper tabled today
in the House of Commons. This will allow a broader
consideration of the issues and the options to Bill C-256.
One such option to spousal income splitting is the creation of
a caregiver tax credit which would be available to those
Canadians who provide care directly rather than relying on
extensive social services. Caregivers would include those who
care for preschool children in the home or who care for the
disabled, the chronically ill, or seniors requiring continuous
care. These
6589
Canadians have put their family members first, ahead of their
own interests, and they should be recognized.
I am grateful for the opportunity to continue the fight on
behalf of parents and all caregivers who provide care in the
home. The dialogue has just begun. I thank all hon. members for
their interest and their support.
(1750)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to take part in this debate concerning families and particularly
the twin roles played by many mothers as both educator and
provider. I will thus limit my speech to families with children of
school and pre-school age.
The figures on working women are constantly changing. For
example, in 1969, only 30 per cent of both parents had a job,
whereas in 1990, that figure had soared to 71 per cent. Thus we
see that a large majority of mothers in two-parent families are
now on the job market. In my opinion, this is due mainly to the
financial requirements of the family. Canada wide, in 1991, 4.1
per cent of double income families had an income under the low
income level.
If it were not for the spouse's wages, the rate of low income
families would have been close to 15 per cent. The situation was
more serious for two-parent families with children under 13.
Indeed, in 1987, 12.6 per cent of them had an income under the
low income level, whereas if the parent mainly responsible for
child care, usually the mother, had not had a job, that figure
would have been as high as 25 per cent.
So we see how vitally important it is for a large number of
families that mothers work outside the home. However, this
presence on the job market is threatened by some factors,
including poor child care services. A background document
produced by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of
Women in 1994 revealed that, according to data from 1988,
child care problems can have an effect on parents participation
in the workforce and on their productivity.
It also said that those problems could affect the productivity
of mothers or their participation in the workforce three times
more than fathers. So, we see that families need the work of
mothers and that it must be supported by adequate child care
services. A second explanation of the increased participation of
women in the workforce is their desire of fulfilment through a
career. Women now represent the majority of B.A. holders. So,
they naturally feel the need to apply the knowledge that they
received during their studies.
This CACSW document provided the very conclusive results
of a poll conducted on female teenagers from across Canada.
Almost 90 per cent of girls in the 8th, 9th and 10th grades
expected to work full time ten years down the road. Also, more
than half firmly believed that they would work for pay long after
completing their studies. So, women work to address the
financial needs of their families and because they want to and
can contribute to the development of society.
Having done this very brief overview of the participation of
mothers in the workforce, let us examine the bill before us. This
bill provides for the distribution of income among spouses, from
the bread-winner to the spouse staying at home to take care of a
child who does not go to school full time. The real purposes of
this legislation are to create employment and free up daycare
spaces, to give credit to homemakers and to enhance the quality
of life for families.
Before I comment on these, allow me to review briefly the
monetary situation of women living as part of a couple. In 1991,
in 75 per cent of all two-income families, the men were earning
much more than their spouses. Therefore, in most cases, the
recipient of part of the spousal income would be the woman. I
will analyze the bill with this in mind.
We do not agree with some of the intent of this bill when it
comes to lowering the high unemployment level and dealing
with the problems resulting from the shortage of spaces in
daycare centres. Of course, these problems are real and we have
denounced them repeatedly. However, they must not be used as
the basis of an argument against women. Quite the opposite. We
should acknowledge the problems of mothers who stay home
and take the necessary action to make sure they are
economically and socially equal. Women who stay home feel
isolated and lack social support. They are affected by the lack of
contacts with other adults.
(1755)
They are also strangers to the influence networks that are so
vital to job search. We know that 75 per cent of all women who
find jobs have access to a network. That is just as true in politics
as it is in other areas.
We also know that the immediate result of years devoted to
housekeeping and children is a considerable loss of income and
various problems with re-entry into the labour force: the women
need updating of skills and retraining; they have no relevant
experience.
Finally, when children leave, mothers have to face the empty
nest syndrome. It is true for those who are still married, but
much more so for women who also face a divorce or a
separation. Their emotional problems will greatly increase their
ordeal before they can get back on their feet.
This bill seeks to increase the number of women staying at
home. Who would benefit from such a measure? Neither women
nor society in general, which would be deprived of their positive
contributions. On the other hand, when we consider that families
need the mother's salary, we must conclude that the proposal of
the member for Mississauga-South is intended only for families
6590
where the father's salary is the highest of the two. The male
bourgeois dream lives on.
What about the situation of women who are victims of
conjugal violence? We know how determining is the control
exercised over the victims in this kind of relationship. The bill
provides for the spouse who works to share his income. How and
when would this be accomplished? There are reasons to fear that
this situation would tighten even more the financial and
emotional control exerted by an abusive man over the woman
who shares his life. We must be careful not to make matters
worse for women with this legislation.
I tried to briefly explain the reasons why I oppose Bill C-256.
I am sure the author of the bill had good intentions and was
committed to improving the situation of these families.
However, I think the considered changes will not do so. The
evolution of society is closely linked to the improvement of the
condition of women and what women want is greater financial
independence. They want their specificity to be recognized, as
well as their contribution to the life of their community. They
want to be equal, and equality is achieved through
independence, not subjugation, whether financial or otherwise.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Speaker, I want
to speak briefly to the bill and express my views on the
importance of the initiative of my colleague.
Those in the House who know me will know how very
strongly I feel that the work I do in Parliament and on behalf of
my constituents is extremely important. The work all of us do as
members of Parliament is important and valuable to the country.
We should never downgrade that work.
I have had a previous career in my life to which I give even
more importance. That has been raising three children
fortunately with, so far it seems, very good success. I will never
stop saying that has been the most important thing I have done in
my life. I was fortunate enough to be raising my children at a
time when economically we had the choice, or I certainly had the
choice without feeling I was depriving my family by staying
home and raising them.
That is a choice many women do not have these days. As the
member for Québec has said, the majority of women with young
children are now in the workforce. Whether women raise their
children on a full time basis at home or before and after
completing a full day's work, it does not change the significant
economic value of the work they do in raising their children and
keeping their home, which receives absolutely no recognition in
society.
That is the fundamental issue my colleague's bill is
attempting to address. I suspect my colleague has motivations
for the bill that I would not necessarily share, including
encouraging more women to stay home and look after their
children.
(1800 )
What I do want to encourage, however, is choice for women. I
want to ensure that whatever choice they make is valued by
society and its economic worth recognized.
What happens now is that through family law across this
country we have recognized family income and family assets
accumulated during a marriage as joint and divisible assets.
Unfortunately we only recognize that in reality when the
marriage breaks up.
We have all followed the Thibaudeau case very carefully, the
taxability of child support payments. We all know very well that
there are large numbers of parents raising children after a
divorce who do not receive the support payments to which they
are entitled.
The fact is we do virtually nothing while a marriage is intact,
when a couple are raising children together to acknowledge that
the stay at home parent is contributing as fully to the economic
well-being of the family as the parent in the workforce earning
an income.
This is one way of trying to recognize that. I think it is
important that we have this discussion because in the last few
years I have increasingly heard resentment from women who are
fully occupied and working full time raising three or more
children. They resent that they are forgoing income to make that
important contribution to the lives of their children and I believe
to society. Yet because they made that choice, from their
reduced income they are required to contribute to support
children of other parents who choose otherwise.
That kind of resentment between women in society is not
helpful to the equality of women, but it is a fact. It is a fact that
will only be changed when we really address how to recognize
the economic value of the contribution women make as mothers
and homemakers.
This bill before us may not be a perfect solution to that but it is
at least the start of discussions. The result of not recognizing the
economic value of that work is far reaching and lasts a lifetime.
It is a major contributor to the poverty of women that they
interrupt a career, interrupt the opportunity to build a career
either for a short or long period of time and they never recoup.
Even if they go back into their career they never recoup
economically.
As a society we want the next generation to be born, yet we
penalize women who are the only half of our race capable of
producing that next generation.
As I said, some of these are not the arguments of my
colleagues presenting this bill. However, they are certainly
mine. The result is that poverty is a women's issue and this is a
cause of it. That very important work they do in child bearing
and child rearing has no economic value in our society and that
has repercussions throughout the workplace. It means that when
women do go into paid work they tend to be slotted into the kind
of work that most closely resembles mothering, looking after
the needs of somebody else. Therefore, we underpay that kind
6591
of work in the paid workforce that most resembles whatever
comes closest to the mothering and supportive role. Therefore,
we create pink collar ghettos in the workforce as well.
I honestly think that is only going to change when we do start
addressing and valuing economically the work of women in
raising children and creating a home.
(1805 )
I said it lasts throughout a lifetime. One of the things I find
extremely attractive about this bill is that it gives women the
opportunity to provide for their own financial security in
retirement. It gives them the opportunity to contribute to their
own pension plan. One of the major causes of poverty among
women and particularly of elderly women is that they have never
had or have had limited opportunities to contribute to pension
plans.
For a number of reasons the motivation behind this bill is a
positive one. We also have to address in our economic
accounting how we value the work of women. There is a move
afoot to have the census include valuing as employment the
work that women do as volunteers or at home. I support that and
I hope we will do that.
There will be all kinds of economic arguments as to why we
cannot do what this bill proposes. We have to start
fundamentally questioning how we can perpetuate a tax system
that requires depriving some women of economic recognition
for the important work they do. I do not suspect we will resolve
that today or in the next few months but I hope this bill has made
a lot of members of the House start to think about it. I see the
hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance sitting
close by. I hope he is listening because he is in a position to start
having a positive influence in that direction.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill
C-256 presented by the hon. member for Mississauga South.
This bill would allow one spouse to split their earned income
with a spouse who is working in the home and caring for a
dependent child who is not yet enrolled in full time school.
This bill responds to the growing demands of Canadians that
recognition be given to those who care for their children at
home.
I am pleased to speak to this bill as an MP who has chosen to
be recognized as a homemaker in my previous occupation. I
have not felt isolated or deprived in that role. I am pleased to
speak to this bill during national family week and in this, the
International Year of the Family.
The initiatives presented in this bill would meet three
important criteria. It provides parents with the option of keeping
one parent at home during the early formative years of a child's
life with a tax benefit recognizing the contribution as being
significant. Income splitting is an important first step forward
in recognizing the financial needs of families with young
children. It would allow the spouse at home to be eligible for
certain pension benefits such as RRSPs.
The most important objective of this bill is that it would
reintroduce choice in the realm of child care so parents can have
the freedom to make decisions that are in their best interest and
in the best interest of their child.
Currently the system favours those who use day care by the
tax incentives provided to the spouse earning the lower income.
Consequently those who have one spouse stay at home do not
have the equivalent tax deductions for providing the service
themselves. Coincidentally, with the high taxes they pay single
income families with one spouse at home are technically
subsidizing those who have two incomes and use day care along
with the tax deductions.
The Reform Party considers the family to be the fundamental
social and economic building block of Canadian society. We
also believe that parents are the number one choice when it
comes to providing the best possible care for their children. This
view is also supported by the majority of Canadians.
An Angus Reid poll published in Maclean's magazine in June
of this year stated that according to all respondents 68 per cent
agree that the best type of family in which to raise children has
two heterosexual parents with one at work and one at home.
Unfortunately, the majority of Canadians cannot realize this
desired ideal because of the limited choice in the area of taxation
given to those who stay at home.
(1810 )
As a matter of fact, there is an unfair bias within the current
federal tax system against two parent single income families in
Canada. Currently, the lower income earner in a dual income
family can claim under the child care expense deduction a
maximum tax deduction of $5,000 for a child under seven years
of age, while $3,000 per child is permitted as a deductible
expense for children aged seven to fourteen.
Reform supports many Canadian parents' belief that by
allowing a child care taxable benefit to working parents the
federal government in essence is advocating dual income
families in Canada and in so doing creating an unfair financial
situation for stay at home parents.
This government has further aggravated this situation by
advocating a commitment to increase the number of day care
spaces every time the economy grows by 3 per cent or more.
This is a commitment it will have to honour despite the fact that
it will only further increase the inequities toward those who
6592
elect to have one parent stay at home to provide personal care for
their child.
No move has been made by this government to address this
serious inequality which currently exists. Therefore, the bill
introduced by my hon. colleague is a very positive step in the
right direction.
Until such a time as a system of flat tax can be implemented
the Reform Party supports the concept of income splitting
between legally married couples. No other measure of tax relief
would affect the family so greatly under our current system as
the ability to split income and lower the resultant tax burden.
The tax savings would be particularly meaningful when one
spouse is working as a full time care giver to their children.
Regardless of the employment situation of the husband and
wife, the marriage union will be recognized in tax law as an
equal economic partnership. Should the flat rate income tax
proposal presently being considered by the Reform Party be
implemented, income splitting would become largely irrelevant
because individually or collectively a couple would pay the
same tax.
It is also important to counter some of the criticism launched
against reformers by those who claim that supporting such
policies is simply a means of trying to turn back the clock and
keep women at home. Quite the contrary. We are simply
responding to the desires of a large number of Canadian families
that would like to stay at home to care for their children if they
so chose without being unfairly disadvantaged financially by
federal tax laws.
We believe that if implemented correctly, measures such as
income splitting will allow those parents who are forced to work
because of finances the option to stay at home and care for their
children.
In a recent survey conducted by Angus Reid 57 per cent of
respondents thought it would be good news if the government
would provide some type of financial assistance to help one
parent in a two parent family stay home to care for their
children.
Income splitting would have several strong advantages to
those involved and some spinoff benefits for others. First, it
would help alleviate the excess tax burden experienced by those
single income families with one spouse at home to care for their
children. Even with a maximum of $25,000 of split income it
would allow the spouse at home to receive proper benefit in
terms of income and participate in simple pension benefits such
as RRSPs. The tax burden on the family would be lessened,
allowing for more disposable income to be spent on the very real
needs of raising a family today.
Second, it would also have spinoff benefits in the area of
employment and day care space availability. There is a very real
need among single parents for both day care spaces and potential
employment. If the spouse of a two income family leaves their
job to care for their child at home this opens up a job for
someone else and also creates a day care space. A single parent
who wants to get off any sort of social assistance needs both of
these possibilities to do so. These are very real needs for the
single parent and simply creating day care spaces is only half the
solution. Income splitting could provide for all components
necessary in the equation.
The bill does have one apparent weakness in that it limits the
deduction to those with preschool children at home. I would
advocate that the bill be considered for amendment in that the
eligibility criteria be extended to include those spouses who stay
home to manage the affairs of the home with children who are in
school. This is also an important area of parental care.
As critic of family issues I have heard from numerous
Canadians across Canada regarding the issue of recognition of
those who stay at home to provide care for their own children. It
is also an issue in my own riding.
(1815 )
Let me read from two letters I received from two of my
constituents. Mrs. Andrea Jones in Coquitlam wrote to me after
I was first elected, sharing her concerns on the present status of
the Canadian family.
She is a stay at home mother with a toddler to care for. Her
husband is employed but they are finding it very tough to make
ends meet. Andrea asked for equality to be implemented within
the present tax system that does not discriminate against single
income families. I quote from her letter:
I understand the terrible financial mess this country is in, but I strongly feel
that the subsidies enjoyed by two-income families discredits the hard work
homemakers do in support of their children, husbands and community.
Andrea Jones and her husband are not asking for special
treatment, just fair and equal treatment.
Sandra Boleak from Port Coquitlam also wrote to me this past
spring about the need for the government to recognize the
important work of those who stay at home in support of the
family.
Sandra and Len have four children at home under the age of
six. Sandra left her full time, good paying job in 1989 to look
after her family. Since then, it has been difficult financially and
the sacrifice they are making to keep one parent at home is real.
She states in her letter:
When will stay at home parents' jobs be recognized and respected? Why can
my husband not write me off as a caregiver as well as claim the spousal amount?
The dilemma facing parents who have exercised this choice is
that they are disadvantaged taxwise for doing so. They have
6593
chosen the preferred child raising option of Canadians and yet
pay higher taxes on their earnings because of it.
There is a real need to entrench within government policy and
give full recognition to the importance of family in our society.
The issue of child poverty is rooted not in the issue of women's
rights or even of children's rights but in the issue of the strength
of families.
Government policies can actually detract from the importance
of family role. It is refreshing to see a slight reversal of this
trend from the government side. Perhaps this will send a loud
message with a purpose to give the family back its prominence
and priority within our society, and give them back the freedom
to choose.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais
(Madawaska-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this
opportunity to support the hon. member's bill. I may add I am
not so naive as to expect the Canadian tax system and the general
public to support this kind of bill. However, before we have
legislation supported by the majority of the people and the
members in this House, we must first have some time for
discussion.
In fact, this bill gives us an opportunity to look at our tax
policies and consider how the Act could be amended. It may well
be that at Finance or National Revenue, this kind of legislation is
seen as a considerable loss of revenue. I must point out that this
would only be in the short term. If we look at pension funds in
Canada and the Canada Pension Plan, all the supplements paid to
the spouse who was unable to take advantage of a private
pension plan are so many expenditures for the Canadian
government.
I think we should take a much broader view of this bill. We
can take the short term view but we can also take the longer
view, and I am thinking of the economic spin-offs.
As the hon. member mentioned earlier, I also think this bill
raises the whole issue of recognizing the value of work done in
the home, work that has a social value in Canada.
(1820)
At some point we can put a price tag on these social values.
Our tax system should be able to recognize that cost, although
personally, I think that women or men who decide to stay home
do so as a matter of choice or personal emancipation. There are
people who function extremely well in the home, although
unfortunately, I am not one of them. I notice my colleagues are
smiling, but I think we must recognize the value of work done in
the home.
I would even say that in this initial bill, perhaps we should
have considered all children, not only children of pre-school
age who are still at home. In the current context, all levels of
government and Canadian society as a whole urge children to
take some responsibility for caring for their parents and
grandparents.
When care is given to a child, a teenager, an adult or an elderly
person, there is an intrinsic social value that should be
recognized. I think it is the right time to start this debate on the
value of the Canadian family and the individual. I think it is the
right time and also the right week, since this is National Family
Week. My family includes my parents, grandparents, children,
spouse and in-laws. They will be glad to hear that!
I think it is high time, when we are talking about updating all
our social programs in this country as well as a review of our tax
system in the short, medium and long term, I think it is high time
to get this debate going. I may be naive, but I believe that
Canadians across the country will be very pleased to have an
opportunity to discuss this value and to ensure perhaps that we
can create a very just society, one that will be even more just and
progressive than it is now.
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate
in the debate. I would like to thank the hon. member for
Mississauga South for raising these issues through Bill C-256.
While I appreciate the intent of the bill I have some serious
concerns with the proposal. I would like to bring to the attention
of the House and the very many members who are interested in
this three concerns.
First, I believe it would reduce tax revenues at a time when
our fiscal position precludes any erosion of the tax base. Second,
I do not think the proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act
will deliver the anticipated benefits. Third, this bill could have
negative consequences that may not have been anticipated by its
sponsor.
Parents among us will know that raising young children
entails unique expense. I personally fit into one of those families
where one parent works and we have two young children at
home. Expenses can put significant pressure on a family's
income. Fortunately these expenses are recognized by the
Income Tax Act. For example the child tax benefit provides
financial assistance for low and middle income families with
children. A supplement of $213 is provided for each dependent
child under seven.
This measure is directed particularly to those families where
one spouse stays at home to care for preschool children. Tax
relief is also provided to working families through the child care
expense deduction which helps to offset day care costs.
Recognizing that the cost of child care is higher for preschool
children the limits on the deduction are higher for children
below age seven.
6594
(1825)
This bill proposes additional measures to assist families with
preschool children. Under the proposed bill families could
reduce their tax burdens by transferring $25,000 from a working
spouse to a spouse who is managing the family home and is
caring for at least one preschool child.
The bill is intended to provide several benefits for families
with young children. As I understand it the intent of the bill is
that many spouses with low incomes could then afford to quit
their jobs, stay at home and care for their children. This would
reduce the family's child care expenses, free up day care spaces,
and create additional employment. The hon. member suggests
that all this would happen at no material cost to the government.
Let me suggest some revenue losses. The revenue losses
associated with this proposed measure would actually be
substantial for both levels of government. In fact the
Department of Finance estimates that the revenue losses for
federal and provincial government could approach $1 billion
annually.
Here let me remind all members of Canada's fiscal challenge.
On a per capita basis we are one of the most indebted nations in
the industrial world. That national debt built up by governments
spending more than they earned limits our ability to create new
jobs and sustain economic growth. It pushes up interest rates,
hampering investment, and hindering our ability to succeed and
grow in a world that grows more competitive with every passing
day.
In short, any measure before us must be evaluated in terms of
whether it adds to our deficit and the tax burden it imposes on all
Canadians. Unfortunately the proposal would likely do just that.
To implement Bill C-256 without affecting our financial
position, we would either have to increase other taxes or find
corresponding expenditure reductions elsewhere. Ironically,
these revenue losses would occur because the proposed
measures would not solely benefit those families to which they
are directed.
In particular tax benefits would flow to families not currently
saddled with day care costs. Instead thousands of families where
one spouse already stays at home to provide care for young
children would automatically receive the tax savings. In these
cases no additional day care spaces and no additional jobs would
be freed up.
In addition, revenue losses could occur if Bill C-256
increases the tax benefits to working couples without actually
changing their working status. For example, consider what
would happen if proposed tax savings were greater than the
value of the child care expense deduction they currently claim.
Some two-earner families might then forgo claiming the child
care expense deduction to remain eligible for the measure
proposed in Bill C-256.
There are other unintended consequences that passing this bill
could impose. Among them is the fact that eventually families
which benefited from the proposed measure would suffer a
significant drop in disposable income.
The income drop would occur when their children began full
time attendance at school. At that point these families would no
longer be eligible to split the income of the higher earning
spouse. The resulting tax increase would reduce their disposable
income.
Significantly, the income drop would arrive when the family
could least afford it. Again, as parents among us will know the
costs of raising children increases as the children grow older.
Of course one could argue that to cover these increased
expenses the stay at home spouse could merely go out and find a
job. Unfortunately as the 1.5 million-plus unemployed will tell
you it is not all that easy to rejoin the labour force, particularly
for someone re-entering the workforce after a protracted
absence during which skills have either been diminished or
become obsolete.
In conclusion, the issue of support for families and especially
for children is one that the Minister of Human Resource
Development is considering as part of his wide-ranging
proposals for renewal of our social safety net. We should not
undertake this process with legislation that could well miss the
mark.
While the intent of Bill C-256 is admirable, I believe its flaws
severely outweigh its benefits.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, it is almost 6.30. The hon.
member for Mississauga South will close the debate.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. I want to thank all hon. members who took part in the
debate. It is obviously very important that we have this
exchange of ideas.
The one area that I have to comment on is the intervention of
the parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary
unfortunately took an early memo that was prepared by staff and
signed by the minister and sent to me using a billion dollar
figure. Subsequent to that we have had numerous meetings to
discuss the real finances.
If we compare what the real finances are to what the
parliamentary secretary has said we find a substantial
difference.
In fact the billion dollar figure assumes that every stay at
home parent who is presently there would take advantage of this
bill but nobody else would, in which case it is a full drain. It also
does not eliminate all those parents that either make too little
6595
and are in the lower tax brackets or too much to even qualify.
That reduced the figure to about $500 million.
They gave no credit for the creation of child care spaces. I
wonder whether or not the parliamentary secretary would agree
that if the government is prepared to spend $12,000 per space to
create child care spaces, some credit ought to be generated by
those who free up those spaces.
The government used figures when it discussed with me in the
worst possible case. This is the fiscally responsible thing to do. I
hoped there would be some movement, some understanding that
in fact there is real value for work in the home to be recognized.
It is an honourable profession. Some tax reform is going to be
necessary sooner or later. I want to assure the House that I for
one am not going to stop fighting on behalf of all caregivers,
whether they be parents working in the home, the seniors, the
chronically ill or the disabled.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________