CONTENTS
Friday, June 16, 1995
Bill C-85. Consideration resumed of report stageand of Motions Nos. 1 to 7 14001
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 14001
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14004
(Motion agreed to.) 14007
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 14008
Division on Motion No. 2 deferred 14008
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred. 14009
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred 14009
Division on Motion No. 6 deferred 14009
Division on Motion No. 7 deferred 14009
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 14009
Division on Motion No. 10 deferred 14010
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 14010
Motions Nos. 11 to 35 and 39 14010
Division on Motions Nos. 11 to 35, 39 and 40 deferred 14011
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14011
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 14014
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14014
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 14015
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 14015
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 14015
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14017
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14018
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14021
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14021
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 14022
Bill C-99. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 14024
Bill C-334. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 14024
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 14025
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14031
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 14033
Bill S-7. Consideration resumed of report stageand Motions. Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6. 14035
Division on Motion No. 2 deferred 14041
Consideration resumed of motion 14042
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 14042
Division on motion deferred 14053
Motion moved and agreed to 14053
14001
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, June 16, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of Bill C-85,
an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances
Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision;
and of Motions Nos. 1 to 7.
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, the last time the House
considered Bill C-85, the hon. member for Longueuil had four
minutes left. Since he is not in the House today, the hon. member
for Yellowhead has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before I comment directly on Bill C-85 I remind the House it has
been almost two years since the government took over office and
Canada's deficit. The problem still remains unresolved.
During the last 24 hours the deficit has increased by $100
million and in the last hour the deficit has increased by $4
million. Since I began speaking the deficit has increased by
about $40,000. When I an through with my remarks on the MP
pension bill the deficit will have incredibly increased by about
$700,000. Our country's debt stands at over $550 billion and the
government has added about $100 billion to the debt over the
last couple of years.
(1005)
Into this kind of deficit disaster, this spending brinkmanship,
the government introduced the outrageous, incredibly rich gold
plated MP pension bill which government members are
reluctant to debate in the House and which they certainly will
not debate outside the House or across the country.
Government members should hang their heads in shame.
Every member who votes for this bill, this elitist double
standard bill, should be embarrassed. When MPs who support
the bill go back to their ridings, how can they look their
constituents straight in the eye and tell them they deserve a
pension at least twice as rich as those of their constituents? For
the 74 Liberal members of Parliament presently here, the trough
heavies, how can they look their constituents in the eye and tell
them they deserve a pension at least four times are rich as those
of their constituents?
Politicians in Ottawa have created two sets of rules, one for
the ruling elite and one for regular folks. A case in point recently
of a double standard is the mileage allowance increase for MPs,
about 12 per cent higher than is allowed in the private sector.
Politicians set themselves apart, above regular folks.
I am talking about a double standard, which is really an
euphemism for hypocrisy. The ultimate hypocrisy takes shape in
the MP pension plan. It was an issue during the 1993 election
campaign and it will grow to a major issue in the next election.
My constituents in the Yellowhead know what the federal
government is doing about the gold plated pension plan and they
do not like it one bit.
Sadly, the Liberal government lacks the intestinal fortitude to
do the right thing and bring MP pension into line with pension
plans available in the private sector. It is a double standard.
Whether the Liberals want to accept it or not, we are all regular
folks, just like the people who voted for us. Dignity and respect
are in order for Canadians, not double standards or double talk.
There are many things hypocritical about Bill C-85, the
pension bill. It allows benefits to accrue at double the rate
legally allowed in the private sector under the Income Tax Act.
Senior Liberal MPs, 74 of them with more than six years of
service, will retain their gold plated pension and start collecting
immediately on retirement regardless of age.
Seventy-four Liberal MPs even under the provisions of the
bill will still receive a pension four times richer than most other
Canadians'. Freshman MPs who opt into this new plan will still
be part of a pension plan twice as generous as that available for
most Canadians, and they can start collecting pensions at age 55.
This group of MPs will also be able to collect 75 per cent of their
salary after serving 19 years in office. Most Canadians have to
14002
work 35 years to collect a pension worth 70 per cent of their final
income.
It is this kind of better than thou attitude Canadians are tired
of. Average folks are being asked to tighten their belts, to pay
more in the form of all kinds of taxes. MPs have created an
insulated world for themselves which shields them from the
financial burden regular Canadians are asked to carry.
Perhaps one of the most hypocritical elements of the MP
pension plan is it allows former parliamentarians who are
wealthy to continue to collect an MP pension. Seniors citizens
can only dream of such a system for them. These folks have to
abide by the rules set by law. Any senior 65 years of age or over
who has an income exceeding $53,215 must pay 15 per cent of
the excess net income up to the full amount of old age security
collected. In other words, seniors who cross a certain income
threshold have their old age security benefits clawed back and
most people would say it is fair and reasonable.
Those members who have six or more years experience can
begin to collect their MP pension immediately on leaving office
regardless of age. Freshmen MPs can begin collecting their MP
pensions at age 55. To top it all off, former parliamentarians who
are well off are not subject to any pension clawback. For some
unknown reason they are put on a pedestal and are somehow
deserving of every cent because they served their country.
(1010)
What about the seniors who have their OAS pensions clawed
back? Many of them are veterans. Most seniors helped build this
country. Surely they can claim they have contributed to their
country and are deserving of every cent as well. Again it is a
double standard, one the public should not and will not tolerate.
To deal with this unfairness I will be introducing a private
member's bill this fall which is the basis for an Amendment No.
39 to Bill C-85. Both require all former parliamentarians
whether senators or MPs to have their pensions clawed back
exactly the same way many seniors have their OAS benefits
clawed back. This clawback would take effect immediately once
the parliamentarian begins to collect his pension regardless of
age. It would apply when a former member attains employment
which pays him in excess of $53,215, the exact same threshold
level which applies to seniors eligible to collect OAS.
I will be the first to admit such a clawback will not save the
country billions of dollars. It will save the taxpayers money in
the long run. That is something every member in the House
should be interested in. It will help to alleviate the widespread
cynicism federal politicians encounter. It will help to restore
perhaps a little confidence. This is most important. It will send a
signal to the long suffering taxpayers that cuts must start with
those who legislate.
Why should former Tory Prime Minister Brian Mulroney,
who is independently wealthy, pocket $33,500 of taxpayers'
dollars every year? That is his MP pension benefit and not one
dime of it is clawed back. To add insult to Canadian taxpayers,
Mulroney stands to collect an additional $50,000 per year in
priministerial pension when he turns 65 in the year 2003. This is
the man who brought the country to its knees. As the MP pension
plan is laid out now none of that can be clawed back and after a
member turns 60 it is all indexed.
Then there is millionaire Liberal Pierre Trudeau. With
inflation protection he collects well over $100,000 per year
from Canadian taxpayers. Here as well not one thin dime is
clawed back.
We cannot forget some of our colleagues presently in the
House. They will be the heavy troughers when they leave this
place. The Deputy Prime Minister staunchly defends the
obscene MP pension plan. It is no wonder, she would stand to
collect about $34,000 per year if she retired today. That is
almost $3 million by the time she reaches age 75. If on her
retirement she gains meaningful employment or contracts from
the ex-heritage minister certainly she should be susceptible to
an MP pension clawback.
Then there is the leader of the Tory party. It appears we cannot
get the rich blue blood out of the Tories. He has been extremely
quiet about the ludicrous MP pension plan. I suspect it is
because he stands to collect about $45,000 per year on
retirement, with a total of $4.5 million, mostly taxpayers'
money, until he reaches age 75. It is no wonder the Tory leader is
silent about the MP pension plan.
Surely everyone would agree that on retirement the leader of
the Tory party, the independents really, should be subject to an
MP pension clawback if he earns over $53,000 per year in the
private sector.
It is unfair to ask seniors in a certain wage category to give a
portion of their pensions if former parliamentarians who fall
under the same wage category do not have to give back a portion
of their incredibly rich pensions.
(1015 )
I sincerely hope all members of this House will give careful
consideration to amendment No. 39 under Bill C-85, which
calls for an MP pension clawback to well off former
parliamentarians. There cannot be two sets of government
imposed rules, one for seniors collecting pensions and one for
MPs collecting pensions. It is undemocratic, unfair, and just not
right.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to have the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-85,
commonly known as the MP pension plan.
I first have to express my extreme disappointment with this
government for using time allocation on a bill such as this. The
obvious question we have to ask is why the government did it.
14003
Why did it impose limits on debate on a bill such as this? What
is the hurry? We have two years, under normal conditions,
before an election is called. Why does the government have to
ram this through before the end of this Parliament?
I submit that the Liberals want to get to the bank before the
end of the day to cash in and make their big deposit to take
advantage of what they just awarded themselves.
What did they award themselves? They awarded themselves
an obscene pension plan. In the red book the Liberals outlined
that they were going to be reforming this MP pension plan to
bring it into line with what the average is in Canada. That simply
has not happened here.
I also want to examine the role of the official opposition of
Canada in this particular bill. Why would a party whose main
goal is to leave this country by separating from Canada want an
MP pension plan? They must have some idea that maybe this is
going to fail and they are going to be here for a lot longer than
they originally expected. As a matter of principle, should this
party not say that they are going to use this opportunity to opt
out? They want to opt out of Canada but they want to stay within
the MP pension plan. Talk about double standards.
We have double standards from the Liberals on the MP
pension plan, but I would say there is a complicity here with the
Bloc. They also co-operated in the vote on time allocation on
this bill. I am really disappointed with Her Majesty's official
opposition, or loyal opposition I should say, which is what the
word actually is.
Mr. Strahl: Using the term loosely.
Mr. Penson: Yes. My colleague just reminded me that I am
using that term loosely.
I want to outline my concerns of what I think the public has to
say on this issue, especially the public in my riding. The main
issue in the last election campaign in my riding was MP
pensions. It was not MPs' salaries. There were a number of other
issues, but one of the main issues and one that was brought
forward at every public meeting I attended was the MP pension
plan. People asked: ``Why would the MPs award themselves a
pension plan four or five times more generous than the average
pension plan in Canada? Is this not a double standard?'' I had to
agree that it was a double standard in my view.
The question came up several times: ``Why do they have the
power to award themselves their own pension? Should it not be
put out to an independent commission and the power be left with
the Canadian public?'' I had to agree with that as well.
The public understands very clearly that there is a double
standard here, a public standard they are not prepared to accept.
I do not think this can be sold to the Canadian public. Even this
revised plan is twice as generous as any public sector plan. How
can that be sold to the Canadian public at a time when we are
facing cutbacks? We are trying to inspire people in Canada to do
with less to make our country competitive again to get it back on
the rails and here we are in this very House of Commons, where
we need to show leadership, going in the opposite direction. It is
a very bad tactical move on behalf of this government. It cannot
be sold to the Canadian public.
I want to take a moment to examine some of the clauses in Bill
C-85. We still have a plan that is put forward here. They have
changed the eligibility. MPs do not have to serve two terms or
six years. Now it is going to be that MPs will be eligible to start
collecting at age 55.
(1020 )
Pension plans through Canada pension and old age security
start at 65. There is quite a bit of talk they may have to be rolled
back to maybe 66 or 67, as they cannot be sustained. Here we
have another double standard. At 55 years of age an MP can start
collecting a pension. It is going in the opposite direction from
where the public is going. As I said before, it is still twice as
generous as any other plan out there.
Why is the opt out provision only available to current
members? That seems like a little sleight of hand, a little smoke
and mirrors. Yes, it is just for us, and I am happy to take it,
because I simply could not live with my conscience and I could
not sell it in my constituency. I would suggest that there are a lot
of members on the other side who are going to find out in two
years that they cannot sell it in their constituency either. I am
happy to opt out.
Our party surprised the President of the Treasury Board when
he made his big announcement and tried to put us in a very
difficult position by either taking this overly generous plan or
using the opt out provision where we get nothing. At least the
members on my side of the House and my party said that if that is
what the government is offering, we simply will not take it. We
are opting out of this plan. We look after ourselves. We do not
want anything, rather than put up with something that is
obscene.
If there is going to be an opt out provision, and I think that is a
good way to go, why is it not extended from here on in to future
members? The door is being closed very quickly. It is a window
of opportunity for us, but it is certainly not a window of
opportunity for any future members. There again it is out of the
old bag of dirty tricks.
What is the real issue here? The real issue is salary. I have
heard it from numerous members on the other side of the House
or from the Liberal benches. When we started talking about this
MP pension plan, they said that is part of their pay, that they are
not getting paid very well and that is how they compensate. It is
a very poor method. If we want to talk salary in this House, let us
be upfront and open with the Canadian public and talk salary. I
have enough faith in the Canadian people that they will do what
14004
is right in terms of salary. I heard that during the last election
campaign.
What we have is a group over on the other side that are not
prepared to be open and forthright with Canadians, so they bring
around through the back door what they are not prepared to do
through the front door. They bring in an MP pension plan that
supplements their salary. We have seen other provisions where
they have special privileges, and those privileges are not going
to be accepted by the Canadian public.
If it is really an issue of salary, let us get to that debate at some
point and set an independent commission that can travel across
the country and ask Canadians to tell us what an MP should be
paid. I am prepared to live with the recommendations they
make. Some people suggest they would say we should just pay
the MP a dollar a year. That is nonsense. I have faith in the
common sense of the common people. They have enough sense
to elect members to this House and they expect those members
to operate on the same premise they have to operate on. If they
have to tighten their belts, they expect members of Parliament to
tighten their belts.
We are getting a lot of chatter from the other side. I think it is
one of the career politicians we have generated in this House.
That is the danger we have when we have these kinds of MP
pension plans: we get career politicians, exactly the opposite of
what the Canadian public wants.
I have found in travelling in my riding and other parts of the
country that the way most Canadian people would like to see
their MP come forward to the role of MP in this House is to
succeed at something else they have tried first. Whether it is a
farmer, as I am, a businessman, whatever, they should have
some type of successful career first and bring those experiences
to this House. Unfortunately, with that carrot dangling, we have
had a lot of the other type who have tried to make this a career
which is a dangerous thing in itself.
Mr. Strahl: Just because you memorize the Standing Orders,
it is not necessarily a job.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
submit it is a dangerous thing to try to be a career politician.
That particular type of member will do whatever is necessary to
stay here and vote exactly the right way so that at some point
down the road they will become a parliamentary secretary
perhaps, and maybe even a cabinet minister. I think the
government is really misdirected in that approach.
(1025 )
I think the Canadian public wants to see a fair pension plan. I
know it does not rate up there with the pension plans of
university professors, but we did make a choice to come here;
we did make a choice to run. I made a conscious choice that I
was going to try to do something about reforming this MP
pension plan.
In the face of what we see today in this poor legislation, I have
decided to contribute by opting out. I invite the members on the
other side to do the same thing, until a reasonable pension plan
can come into force in this House with a one for one contribution
that is on a level with business and the public sector. Then I think
we will have acceptance from the Canadian public, and that is
the only time it should happen.
Who will be the judges in the end? I submit it is not going to
be the people in the House today. We can debate this for a long
time. The ultimate judges are going to be the Canadian people in
the next election. This is going to be an issue which is why I say
this government is misdirected. I hope it will reconsider, but
obviously it will not. It is trying to ram it through with time
allocation. We will have to wait for the will of the Canadian
people on the MP pension plan. I think we are going to see it
expressed very loudly in 1997 or before.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak in the dying moments of the
debate on Bill C-85.
I would consider this MP pension plan a political barometer.
In the bill we have before us this government has an opportunity
to establish its credibility, its sincerity. The message conveyed
by the changes to be made to this pension plan is actually more
important than the money involved. The message to the
Canadian voters is: ``Are you listening? Do you understand the
problem? And will you lead by example in doing something
about this gold plated pension plan?'' Bill C-85 misses those
marks by a country mile. It does not even come close.
First we will talk about listening, listening to the Canadian
voters, listening to the people who are paying our salaries. It was
mentioned earlier that no single issue had a higher profile when I
was campaigning. It continues to enjoy a high profile at my town
hall meetings and as I speak around the province of Ontario. It is
a flash point with the voters in Ontario and certainly right across
Canada.
This gold plated pension plan sends a message to the
Canadian voters that we in this place do not understand what is
going on in the real world. If the government has missed the
message regarding Bill C-85, then what did it hear? Was there
anything its members heard when they were campaigning and
supposedly listening to the Canadian people?
I suggest that Bill C-85 reinforces the fact that the
government was tuned out; it was not listening but only paying
lip service to the voters and giving them the changes they have
been looking for. We have the problems of ever-increasing taxes
and
14005
lower levels of service. That is the situation the Canadian people
want to have addressed. We have high levels of unemployed and
underemployed people. I know many of us hear about the young
people who find jobs they are overqualified for but they are
taking whatever they can get because of the desperate situation
they are in.
Our people are concerned about unsafe streets and unsafe
communities and they are worried about the deficit and the debt
and our children's and grandchildren's future. They want a
government that will do something to bring that overspending
under control. This revision of the gold plated pension plan
would indeed be leading by example in showing they understand
the problem and they are prepared to deal with it.
The other message is the voters wanted to have a voice in
Ottawa. I think with 205 new members in the House we had a
great opportunity to respond to some fresh thinking, a new
vision.
(1030)
Let us examine the old ways. They have not been working, and
that is obvious when we look at the level of debt. It is obvious
when we look at the state of our country as far as being united.
I read the report of the Citizen's Forum on Canada's Future,
better known as the Spicer commission. The commission went
across Canada. It performed open soul surgery on 26 million
Canadians to find out what the mood of the Canadian people
was. The commission spoke to 400,000 Canadians, plus about
another 300,000 elementary and secondary school children.
Those are impressive numbers.
Chapter 9 of the Spicer commission report deals with
responsible leadership in participatory democracy. That was one
of the strongest messages the commission received when
travelling across Canada. The message was Canadians have lost
faith in the political process and in their political leaders. The
report was issued in June 1991 and that mood was there in 1993
when we knocked on the doors seeking election to this place. At
door after door the response I received was that I was another
politician telling the people what they want to hear at the door,
and then I would go to Ottawa and do exactly what I was told.
We had a terrible example of that very thing on Wednesday in
this place. Government members were being told not to vote.
They were in the House but were not to register, not express
opinion. It was unbelievable. That is democracy. That is elected
officials doing their job, representing the people who sent them
here to Ottawa. Whether they were to vote yea or nay, to be
denied that opportunity was unbelievable. I was shocked as I am
sure Canadians from coast to coast were shocked at what took
place. I see the government is laughing at that comment. That is
the arrogance it displays for the voters. It could care less.
Pension reform was a critical message the government missed
in getting to the Canadian people that it understands and wants
to give the Canadian people a voice in Ottawa. We hear that the
pension plan is all part of compensation, part of our pay
package. It is the old trick of mixing apples with oranges;
salaries and pension, gun control, law-abiding and criminals.
We seem to have difficulty with the government in getting
focused on what the real problem is.
All Canadians want and all we should expect is a fair salary
and a fair pension. This idea of trying to justify a gold plated
pension plan because we have a lead salary does not wash. We
have to deal with one issue at a time, making sure everything we
are paid is above board and visible to all Canadians. If it is fair
there will not be any problem with that. The Canadian people
will accept it. That is not what is happening in this bill.
The Ontario election was another strong message. MPP
pensions were a big part of the common sense revolution
platform. The common sense revolution identified that voters
were fed up with pension plans far more generous than what is
available in the private sector. The Tories responded to that and
are eliminating their gold plated pension plan and introducing
RRSPs, similar to what is available to Canadians from coast to
coast.
It is a flash point with the voters. Ontario responded to it.
Prince Edward Island has responded to it. Alberta has responded
to it and Manitoba has responded it. I cannot believe this
message still has not been understood in Ottawa.
Unbelievably this week few members in the House on the
government side stood up and represented the people who sent
them here, their constituents, the people who voted them into
office.
(1035 )
I was so dismayed when I read the Prime Minister praised
those members who hewed the party line and scorned those
members who stood up and represented the people who sent
them to this place; an unbelievable display for the democratic
process to scorn those members who stood up and did what they
were voted into office to do. Whether you agree with what they
did or not, they had every right to do that. Instead of that they
were criticized, threatened, taken off committees. They will not
have their papers signed next time: ``Buck your voters but do not
buck me or you are gone''.
We already know what happened. Three members were
booted off their committees for doing what they were voted into
office to do. We know what the message is. It was loud and clear
right from the beginning and all Canadians were appalled at
what happened here.
14006
We should not have been surprised because we are dealing
with a government and a Prime Minister who appointed 14
candidates. Do members know why those 14 candidates were
appointed? I quote the Prime Minister when he was in my riding:
``You cannot always trust the Canadian voter to appoint the best
candidate''. That says it all. That mistrust is still here and it was
displayed this week.
A cabinet minister had a dollars for contracts dinner. It flies in
the face of restoring integrity, honesty and open government and
nothing is done to that minister. People who represent their
ridings are scorned. A minister is accepting dollars for
contracts, and that is all right. It is unbelievable the double
standard that exists here. Canadians are watching what is
happening here and they are appalled. There is a price to be paid
and it is coming.
I wonder who the government is listening to. It is obviously
not listening to the voters, to the polls. The polls are all showing
this gold plated pension plan has to be changed. I do not think I
have read anywhere in the media where there is any support for
this plan.
Let me quote from these polls because I think they are very
indicative. A poll done by Environics showed 86 per cent of
Canadians, 86 per cent of Liberals, say the plan is too generous;
93 per cent of Canadians and 93 per cent of Liberals say
fundamental MP pension reform must happen before social
programs are touched; 88 per cent of Canadians and 85 per cent
of Liberals say make the plan equal to the private plans; 93 per
cent of Canadians and 91 per cent of Liberals say the MP plan
should have the same limit on growth as the private sector plans;
91 per cent of Canadians and 89 per cent of Liberals say
collection should start at 65.
Very clearly Liberals who were part of this poll were almost
the same as Canadians from coast to coast. The government is
not listening. I cannot recall an editorial supporting Bill C-85.
The beauty was the Toronto Star and we all know where the
Toronto Star is. It is quoted quite often. An editorial of February
13 with the headline ``Pension puffery'' stated ``Our politicians
get some of the best pensions in the world. They only have to
work six years to qualify and the generous payments adjusted
for inflation can last a lifetime. That is why Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien's impassioned defence of underpaid MPs in the House
of Commons last week offends-in both substance and timing''.
We know where the Toronto Star is relative to the
government. Even its paper is not supporting it. If it is not
listening to the voters, not listening to the polls and not paying
attention to the Toronto Star, to whom is it listening? Who is
driving this agenda? I cannot believe this. There is something
missing here.
The Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired. The hon.
government whip on a point of order.
(1040 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent that the vote to occur on private members'
hour in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer on Monday,
for second reading of Bill C-309, if a recorded division is
requested on that item, be deferred until 11.30 p.m., at which
time we will be taking other votes in the House and we would do
that vote at the same time.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate
because we need to straighten the record on some remarks made.
We said in our red book, ``Creating Opportunity'', the Liberal
plan for Canada, that the pension regime of members of
Parliament has been the focus of considerable controversy. We
said we wanted to ensure reform took place. We also said we
would use an independent review and that a Liberal government
would reform the pension plan of members of Parliament to end
double dipping, MPs should not be able to leave office and
receive a pension from the federal government if they accept a
new full time paying job from the federal government, and we
would review the question of the minimum age at which MP
pensions will begin to be paid.
The commitment of the government and the Liberal caucus to
reform pensions has been unwavering. We have brought this to
the House. These were promises we made and these are promises
we have kept. As promised, the Liberal plan will do what we said
it was to do, eliminate the practice of double dipping, introduce
a new minimum age requirement for receipt of the pension, 55,
reduce the government's contribution to the pension plan by
one-third, saving taxpayers $3.3 million in the first year.
Those reforms are significant. Reforms members across the
way should keep in mind. Pension benefits earned by all MPs
will be reduced by 20 per cent. All MPs earning pension benefits
will be affected by the accrual rate of benefit reduction.
Several statements made in the House are erroneous and the
discussion has gone beyond the pension plan to a whole series of
issues which do not have specific significance to this debate.
The Prime Minister stated over and over after the review that
we knew in comparison to other occupations, MPs are not paid
for the job they do, the work they commit to and the assignments
they take on. The Prime Minister also pointed to the comparison
between what we do as members of Parliament and other people
who are public office holders.
14007
In looking at the topic of integrity the Liberal Party has
nothing to worry about and we should not be taking lessons from
the Reform Party. It is often hypocrisy to listen to the mouthings
on the way procedures are laid out in Bill C-85 and what we are
attempting to do in this pension reform. It is also important for
the opposition to note the changes we have made and to stand
with the government in support of these changes.
(1045)
The bill went further than the red book commitment to reduce
government spending on MPs' pensions. It has gone to 33 per
cent. I do not hear any talk across the way about that reduction
and that saving to the Canadian public. I do not hear discussion
across the way about the lowering of the age. I do not hear any
discussion across the way about significant measures that are
savings to the Canadian public.
I do not hear discussion across the way about the fact that we
have done away with double dipping. I do not hear any
discussion across the way that speaks to some very positive
elements. I do not hear discussion across the way that would
take us back to the earlier pension plan of the 1950s, the 1960s,
the 1970s or the changes that the government is making in order
to meet our present fiscal needs and to ensure that our pensions
are in line with other public pensions and other private plans.
It is one thing to stand in the House and constantly berate the
government and make grand statements of political and
ideological positions. It is important for members to know what
they are doing, what the government is attempting to do for the
taxpayer to ensure we save tax dollars.
Mr. Milliken: We are keeping our promise.
Ms. Augustine: We are definitely keeping our promise
because we said we would do this.
What are the existing provisions and what are the provisions
we are proposing? It is important for the party across to see
where we are presently and where we hope to be with the bill. We
are calling for their support because we feel that lowering the
minimum age, taking out double dipping, ensuring the accrual
rate, will make the pension plan a far better one than it is
presently.
We also spoke to the option of coverage. The members across
the way have that option available to them and at the same time
they are asking for a review of the remuneration on a yearly
basis. They are talking about a time period in which they can opt
out and they are not really taking the opportunity to use the
60-day period.
Members of the House of Commons will now pay 9 per cent of
their salaries per year toward their pension plan, rather than the
current rate of 11 per cent. This reduction reflects the reduction
in the pension accrual rate.
This is a good bill, a good way in which to proceed, to ensure
we meet the needs of the public, to ensure we save taxpayer
dollars, to ensure we reform the plan as we said in the red book.
We call on all members to support the motions and to ensure the
bill gets through the House.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I am sorry to rise again, but
apparently there has been a change on the Order Paper. The bill
to which I referred when I sought unanimous consent earlier is in
fact a different one. The principle is identical.
However, I now ask for unanimous consent:
That any recorded division requested on Bill C-295, if such a recorded
division is sought, be held on Monday at 11.30 p.m.; rather than the normal time
which would be approximately noon.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I stand to speak to Bill C-85, the great pension debate;
with a little trepidation. I confess some varied emotions.
(1050 )
I do not think anyone in the House would say this debate
necessarily brings out the best in people on both sides of the
table. We are talking about something which is visceral and
deeply personal. As members know, we are talking about how
much money eventually winds up in our pockets. When people's
pockets are threatened directly, it tends to bring out very
visceral feelings. We have seen evidence of that over recent
days.
As colleagues know, as a member of the Reform Party and
caucus, I have decided to opt out of the pension plan. Before
anybody puts angel wings on me, it is important for people to
know that it is not that big a deal for me because if I did not opt
out, I could not get elected dog catcher in my constituency. This
is a fairly important issue in the ridings.
If I may, I would like to quote from an article in the Edmonton
Journal written by Barbara Yaffe, June 3 of this year. She puts it
very succinctly and very well:
Because beyond the cosy bounds of Parliament Hill there's quite a bit of
pension passion. The consensus is that Bill C-85 stinks. If the bill passes,
taxpayers, who might not mind a system of matching contributions, will pay
$3.88 for every $1 an MP contributes. (Formerly taxpayers paid $5.75.)
She goes on to say that the most cynical feature of the pension
plan, and this is the feature of this bill which I personally find
most offensive, is its mean spirited nature. I can understand the
Liberal government's motivation in making this mean spirited
because it wants to break the Reform ranks and have its
14008
members not opt out of the pension. Then at the next election
they would be able to go door to door and say, ``Wait a minute.
We are not so bad. Look at those sanctimonious Reformers.
Some of them stayed in the plan as well.''
The fly in the ointment is that all Reformers have opted out or
have indicated they will opt out of the pension. It is going to
make it very difficult for our Liberal colleagues to be knocking
on doors in the next election and explaining why they voted
themselves a pension that was disproportionate to those held by
anyone else and at the same time were so mean spirited in trying
to get us to reverse our position.
That is politics. I can understand that. Most Canadians are fair
minded. Most Canadians would be very happy if members of
Parliament had matching contributions. It would be so simple to
say, just like in the private sector, that members of Parliament
will pay this much of the pension and the government, the
employer, will pay this much, put it into RRSPs and forget about
it.
This pension plan really strikes the note of dissonance
between elected politicians and the people. One of the reasons I
became involved in politics was to try to restore the bonds of
trust between the elected and the electors. I thought that the 35th
Parliament with 200 rookies would be a prime mover in this.
The best way to do that is to provide leadership by example.
Leadership starts at the top. We cannot have two sets of rules,
one set for everybody else and one set for us. It is not just the
pension thing. It is in the way we treat our salaries in general.
Canadians do not mind that we be paid reasonably or even that
we be paid well. What Canadians do not understand is why we
should have tax free allowances, why we should have that bonus.
Before I came to the House I ran my own business. I supplied
receipts for everything I did. As members of Parliament why do
we not provide receipts for everything that we do? Why is it that
when government employees take a plane anywhere they get $25
taxis on both ends of the trip without having to provide receipts?
This pension issue really is a flashpoint for Canadians who, as
reported by Statistics Canada, have not had an increase in real
income for 10 years. Most Canadians feel like they are on a
treadmill. No matter how hard they walk and no matter how fast
they run, they do not get anywhere.
The reason they do not get anywhere is because of the
incredible burden of taxation required by the federal, provincial
and municipal governments which have spent so much more
than they have earned over recent years. Over 30 per cent of
every dollar that comes in goes to pay the debt on money already
spent.
It is like buying groceries on a credit card, consuming them
and then having to pay the bill. Canadians in general feel like
they are on a treadmill and those who were elected in a role of
leadership do not lead by example. That breaks the bond of trust
between the elected and the electors.
This is a sacred fiduciary duty which we have been given by
the people who sent us here. I would ask my colleagues opposite
to please reconsider.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, it being 10.55 a.m.,
pursuant to order adopted June 8, 1995, it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to
dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
[English]
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76, a
recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76, a
recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred. The
recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 3.
14009
The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on Motion No. 4 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on Motion No. 5 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76, a
recorded division on Motion No. 6 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the
division on Motion No. 7 stands deferred.
(1100)
[English]
I understand there is a motion on behalf of the hon. member
for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. I understand the member wishes
to ask unanimous consent to move his motion. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent. I will
not therefore proceed with the matter.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I understood that
there was also going to be a motion from the Minister of Justice
to move this. He has repeatedly stated to the House that he
supports amending the Canadian Human Rights Act and
extending same sex benefits. I understood we were also going to
have a motion from the Minister of Justice to seek unanimous
consent to move these motions.
The Deputy Speaker: There is clearly not unanimous consent
to the question proposed by the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Accordingly, I will go to Motion
No. 10 which is also in Group No. 2.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-85, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 41, on page
4, with the following:
``an allowance equal to one half of the basic retirement allowance, but if more than
one person is entitled to an allowance under this paragraph, the total amount of the
allowances shall not exceed one half of the basic retirement allowance''.
14010
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
division on the motion stands deferred. The deferral also applies
to Motion No. 38.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you might find there is
unanimous consent in the House that the remaining motions in
Groups Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are deemed put, divisions demanded and
the votes deferred.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-85, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 9, with
the following:
``(A) 0 for the years or portions of''.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-85, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 39, on page 9, with
the following:
``(B) 0 for the years or portions of''.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-85, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 4, on page 10, with
the following:
``(A) 0 for the years or portions of''.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-85, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 11, on page 10,
with following:
``(B) 0 for the years or portions of''.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-85, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 21, on page 10,
with the following:
``(A) 0.02 for the years or portions of''.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-85, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 31, on page 10,
with the following:
``(B) 0.02 for the years or portions of''.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-85, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 42, on page 10, with
the following:
``ty years of age, 0,''.
Motion No. 18
That bill C-85, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 45, on page 10, with
the following:
``age, 0, and''.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-85, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 48, on page 10, with
the following:
``thereafter, 0.02 for the years or portions''.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-85, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 18, on page 11,
with the following:
``years of age, 0;''.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-85, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 11,
with following:
``son has reached sixty years of age, 0;''.
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-85, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 24, on page 11,
with the following:
``ter, 0.02 for the years or portions of years''.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-85, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 41, on page 11,
with the following:
``(A) 0 for the years or portions of''.
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-85, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 12,
with the following:
``(B) 0 for the years or portions of''.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-85, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 13, on page 12,
with the following:
``(A) 0 for the years or portions of''.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-85, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 12,
with the following:
``(B) 0 for the years or portions of''.
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-85, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 30, on page 12,
with the following:
``(A) 0 for the years or portions of''.
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-85, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 40, on page 12,
with the following:
``(B) 0 for the years or portions of''.
Motion No. 29
14011
That Bill C-85, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 13, with the
following:
``(i) 0 for the years of pensionable ser-''.
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-85, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 13, on page 13, with
the following:
``(ii) 0 for the years of pensionable''.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-85, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 12, on page 14, with
the following:
``ty years of age, 0,''.
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-85, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 14, with
the following:
``age, 0, and''.
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-85, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 18, on page 14,
with the following:
``thereafter, 0 for the years or portions''.
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-85, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 26, on page 14,
with the following:
``therein, be 0.''
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-85, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 39, on page 14,
with following:
``sixty years of age, and''.
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-85, in Clause 20, be amended by adding after line 38, on page 19,
the following:
````beneficiary'' means the spouse or child of a deceased former member;``outside
income deduction'' means the same amount or percentage that, pursuant to the
Income Tax Act would be deducted in a year from a payment to the former member
or beneficiary under the Old Age Security Act, in respect of other personal or
household income received, if the former member or beneficiary was entitled to
receive such a payment during the year in question.
(2) From the amount payable to a former member or beneficiary in each year
under this Act shall be deducted an outside income deduction calculated in
accordance with this section.
(3) The Governor in Council may make regulations (a) defining the other
personal and household income to be taken into account for the purposes of this
section, which is to be equivalent to that taken into account in calculating a
deduction under the Old Age Security Act; (b) requiring a former member to
report an estimate of other income for every year before the commencement of
the year and to report the actual amount of other income after the end of the
year; (c) providing for the amount to be deducted under this section to be
deducted in instalments from periodic payments to a former member or a
beneficiary under this Act.
59.2 (1) In this section,''.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-85, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5, on page
21, with the following:
``coming into force of this section, holds or commences to hold a federal
position or is a party to a federal service contract or enters''.
The Deputy Speaker: Normally at this time the House would
proceed to the taking of the divisions at report stage of the bill
now before the House, however pursuant to Standing Order
45(6), the divisions on the motions stand deferred until Monday,
June 19, 1995 at 11.30 p.m.
The Speaker: It being a little after 11 a.m., question period
will be extended to a little after 12 p.m. Pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by
members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
14011
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, I would like to congratulate the University of Ottawa for a
remarkable fund-raising campaign. Through its Vision
campaign, the university raised $38.6 million, which was much
more than the university's objective.
This campaign will allow the University of Ottawa to remain a
leader in the area of teaching and research.
In more concrete terms, it has enabled the university to begin
construction of the first phase of a new building for the Arts
Faculty, D'Iorio Hall, which will be devoted to research in the
pure sciences and the neurosciences research institute.
The campaign also raised close to $9 million that will be used
to endow chairs, as well as for centres of excellence and
institutes, and over $1.5 million for scholarships and student
financial aid. In addition, this campaign was an excellent
opportunity for the University of Ottawa to forge new
partnerships with industry and the business world.
Once again, congratulations to all who contributed to the
success of this campaign and long life to the University of
Ottawa.
* * *
(1105)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the G-7 summit in Halifax gives us another
example of Canadian federalism. Although French is, in fact,
totally absent from the summit site, the Leader of the Govern-
14012
ment in the House said yesterday that Canada projected ``the
image of a bilingual country''.
This image came into sharp focus during a press conference
by a Japanese official. Faced with the reporters' stupefaction
when he started his presentation in French, he continued in
English, explaining that he thought Canada was a bilingual
country. The people of Quebec have had enough of this veneer of
bilingualism, which does not respect the Canadian reality and
does not even keep up appearances any more.
The person who said that the summit was not held in Quebec
City because the separatist mayor of that city had not put a
Canadian flag over city hall did not even notice that the mayor of
Halifax had not done so either.
Again, the Prime Minister is clearly showing his
inconsistency and contempt for the French fact in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has a bill before
the House which would ban the octane enhancer MMT from
Canadian gasoline. She says that since the United States EPA
has banned it, Canada should follow suit.
This week the United States District Court of Appeals issued a
mandate ordering the EPA to grant a waiver to permit the use of
MMT in unleaded gasoline in the United States. The court found
that MMT does not cause or contribute to the failure of any
emission control device or system.
The industry minister has added that the key to banning MMT
in Canada is to create a uniformity of standards between the U.S.
and Canada. Now with the U.S. on the verge of reintroducing
MMT, Canada again will be on the opposite side.
The government is too stubborn to initiate third party tests
which would show one way or another whether MMT is
hazardous to our automobiles, our health and our environment.
It works now to make things cleaner. The Minister of the
Environment has shown that she is swayed by political lobbies
rather than scientific evidence.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to
the Stratford Central Secondary School environmental club.
Environment Canada and the Stratford Central Secondary
School club have been working together as partners on an
environmental education project. Through the environmental
partners fund the federal government has invested $5,400 in this
project.
This partnership has resulted in the development of a
Carolinian forest ecosystem, an area of rich biodiversity that
represents Stratford's natural heritage. The forest will serve as
an example of community action, a piece of natural heritage,
and an educational tool for students.
During the developmental stages of the project various
stakeholders and community members worked together to plan
and plant the ecosystem. These partners include the Stratford
Parks Department, Lawson Killer Insurance Ltd., Canada Trust,
Stratford Rotary Club, the city of Stratford, the Stratford civic
beautification and environmental awareness committee and
most important, the students of Stratford Central Secondary
School. All of them were partners with Environment Canada in
this outstanding project.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to give special recognition to the many
volunteers in Etobicoke-Lakeshore who donate their time and
energy for the benefit of our community.
In particular, I would like to commend the efforts of Tamara
Cooper, Jo Matson and R. J. Welsh, recipients of the 1995
volunteer of the year award. These individuals are among over
13 million Canadians who care for children, visit the sick,
organize special events, serve on local boards or committees, or
bring attention to important issues affecting Canadians.
The value and importance of voluntarism cannot be
underestimated. It factors into our gross domestic product
contributing 191 hours per volunteer per year of non-paid work,
the equivalent of an estimated $12 billion wage bill or 617,000
full time positions. While the country gains tremendously from
the charity of volunteers, voluntarism also enables individuals
to acquire and sharpen skills in today's highly competitive job
market.
At this time I would like to welcome to Ottawa individuals
from the Lakeshore Immigrant Aid Centre who play an
important part in our community's volunteer sector.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to recognize the outstanding interns from the University
of Michigan-Dearborn political internship program.
Since the beginning of May eight interns have been expanding
their knowledge of Canada by working in the offices of members
14013
of Parliament. These fantastic university students have had the
opportunity to learn more about Canada's unique political
structure and distinct cultural identity, while fostering
cross-border relationships.
(1110 )
By encouraging participation in programs such as these we
are cultivating a relationship between the future leaders of both
Canada and the United States. As the global economy expands
we need to increase mutual understanding between our nations.
Programs such as these facilitate that development.
On behalf of the eight members of Parliament who benefited
from the services of these outstanding interns, I would like to
thank them for their hard work and dedication and wish them the
best of luck in their futures.
Thank you Leo Addimando. It has been a pleasure working
with you.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon
around 1.20 p.m., a large number of Quebecers will be riveted to
their televisions and radios to find out the olympic committee's
decision regarding the location of the 2002 winter games.
Bloc members are convinced that the Quebec City region
offers the best sites, unsurpassed cultural events, and a
population full of warmth and joie de vivre.
We wish to commend and thank all members of the Québec
2002 organization, who worked relentlessly to promote this
most challenging collective project for the people of Quebec.
Good luck, Quebec City.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker.
There are strange things done when the midnight sun
Has set in the month of June,
By politicians old who set as their goal
To make us sing their tune.
There's little time left, so let's be deft
And invoke tight party rule,
For we know what's best and ignore the rest
And oh, can we be cruel.
If a pesky MP says, ``This bill's not for me'',
That's a sticky situation,
Like a ton of bricks, we'll stop those tricks,
And revoke the nomination.
But the citizens of this land we love
Have had it up to here,
With the ancient way this game is played,
Oldtime politicians should fear.
For when a member of this House
Votes against the party,
They solemnly stand for a new type of land
That the voters say is hearty.
There soon won't be space
In this marvellous place,
All the members to try
Who have stood with pride
And been muscled aside
But have said to the old ways, goodbye!
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and congratulate Winnipeg's
Dial-A-Life Housing Corporation on the official opening today
of its second housing project for people of native ancestry.
These individuals are five times more likely to develop
serious kidney problems than other Canadians. Due to a lack of
health care services on reserves they have to travel to urban
health centres for dialysis treatment. The Dial-A-Life project
will meet their needs during treatment in Winnipeg.
I salute the Dial-A-Life Housing Corporation under the
leadership of Mrs. Winnie Giesbrecht for its hard work,
voluntarism and dedication to seeing that its projects are
initiated, developed and managed by persons of native ancestry.
Their dedication is a source of pride for the Winnipeg North
community and beyond.
I am proud to be part of a government committed through the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to building projects
such as this one.
Please join me in conveying best wishes to all residents of
Dial-A-Life Housing Corporation on this proud occasion.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the auditor general stated that Canada's serious nuclear
waste disposal problem would require $9 billion to remedy. On
top of this the government is now under pressure to provide $570
million in the form of a subsidy to the international
thermonuclear experimental project, otherwise called ITER, a
nuclear fusion megaproject.
I urge the government to turn down this subsidy request in
keeping with the promise made in the last budget not to finance
megaprojects. So far the nuclear industry has been subsidized by
Ottawa to the tune of over $5 billion. Canadians can no longer
afford to subsidize megaprojects.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the dictionary of synonyms of Quebec separatists
is full of words and expressions which have one thing in
common: they all refer to the same reality.
There is the sovereignty association, with no hyphen, of the
Bloc leader, the European type of union suggested by the ADQ
14014
leader, and now the independence of Quebec, the new idea
proposed by the PQ leader, who did not want to be left out.
(1115)
Indeed, this is the expression used earlier this week by the
pequiste Premier to describe the propaganda operation
conducted by his Deputy Premier in Europe.
I ask the Bloc and ADQ leaders to tell us whether they are
prepared to sign a new agreement with the PQ, in which the
expression used this time will be the independence of Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebecers are not taken in by federalists' criticism of the
extraordinary historical agreement reached this week by the
Action démocratique du Québec, the Quebec government and
the Bloc Quebecois.
The sincere offer made by sovereignists to form an economic
and political partnership is a concrete and solid proposal,
particularly when compared to the about-face by the Minister of
Labour and member for Outremont, who has had such changes
of heart in the past.
By calling this offer an unacceptable proposal, the new
passionaria of the status quo, as she is rightly called today by
Lise Bissonnette, is displaying intellectual dishonesty. Not only
does the minister reject the offer contained in the Allaire report,
which she supported, she also thinks Quebecers are stupid.
Sadly, federalism has nothing to offer Quebecers but
resignation and resistance to change.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to salute my colleague, the member for Capilano-Howe
Sound, who will receive a prestigious prize in international
economics on Monday, June 19.
The member, a former economics professor at Simon Fraser
University for over 17 years, is one of Canada's best known
economists and one of the few Canadians listed in Who's Who in
Economics in the World. He will be recognized for his
outstanding contribution to international economics.
The prize, the Bernard Harms Medal, is given biannually by
the Institute for World Economics of the University of Kiel,
Germany. The institute, a leading economics research centre, is
Germany's official depository for all international economics
publications.
To my knowledge, the member for Capilano-Howe Sound is
the first Canadian to win this medal and one of the very few
Canadian parliamentarians to win such a prestigious award
while in office. On behalf of my colleagues I want to
congratulate the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound for
his achievements.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I think it is appropriate to say
that we are all very proud in this House of the hon. member for
Capilano-Howe Sound and we congratulate him.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
being National Public Service Week, I would like to
congratulate the Department of Canadian Heritage, which
recently received an employment equity award for its
contribution to the promotion of women in public institutions.
The employment equity awards board was impressed with the
significant contribution made in 1994 by the National Advisory
Committee on Women's Issues and their positive
accomplishments, including the annual women's conference
held in June 1994.
[Translation]
Moreover, they recognized that women's noticeable presence
in the management category, as well as the support showed to
the national advisory committee by senior management,
confirm that the Department of Canadian Heritage recognizes
the contribution of women in the public service.
Mrs. Marie Trudeau was delegated by the deputy minister to
accept the plaque from Mr. Eggleton, on behalf of the
department. Congratulations to the Department of Canadian
Heritage.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during his visit yesterday to the Outaouais region, the Quebec
minister responsible for restructuring tried to downplay the fact
that 3,500 jobs in the region could be lost if Quebec becomes
independent.
At a time when the PQ government is closing hospitals and
reviewing the education budget so as to provide for the
establishment of a university in Lévis, how can the minister
claim that an independent Quebec will create 3,500 jobs in the
parapublic sector just to help the region?
Outaouais residents do not believe these promises made by
separatists, nor do Radio-Québec union members, who recently
14015
had to ask the Bloc Quebecois leader to put pressure on the PQ
government so that it would fulfil its commitments.
_____________________________________________
14015
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1120)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian government says it is concerned about the situation of
the peacekeepers held hostage in Bosnia and about the
confrontations between the Serbs and the Muslims. Canada's
position remains unclear on the situation in the former
Yugoslavia, particularly with regard to participation in the rapid
reaction force.
Would the Minister of National Defence bring us up to date on
the situation of the 12 Canadians held hostage in Bosnia and the
800 peacekeepers confined to their camp without any possibility
of leaving, it appears, as fighting intensifies on the outskirts of
Visoko?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should
point out that 699 soldiers remain on the base at Visoko. They
are in good shape. Their safety is not at risk, but Muslim forces
do block access to the camp.
In addition, 115 members of our team are at Kiseljak with
British and other forces. There is no problem, and movement is
not restricted. Unfortunately, we also have 11 soldiers at Ilijas.
We are very concerned about their safety, because of the
concentration of Muslim forces. This is the reason I strongly
registered our objection with the Bosnian Serb authorities in a
meeting this week with the chargé d'affaires of the Yugoslav
government.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the
UN Security Council ratifying the establishment of a rapid
reaction force of 12,500 this morning, could the Minister of
National Defence now tell us once and for all whether Canada
intends to participate in this force?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister raised this matter in Halifax and the final
decision is up to him. We need assurances on the command and
control of this force and on all the other factors related to
deployment. The decision to take part or not should be made
today or over the weekend, therefore soon.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think
we would agree that all Canadians are eager to find out what sort
of commitment the government will end up making in this
difficult matter.
By continuing to fight in Bosnia, the Bosnian Serbs and the
Muslims have clearly rejected the formal warning of the G-7
last night. What new initiative does Canada plan to propose to
its G-7 partners and to the Russian President, who are meeting
in Halifax today, in order to resolve the continuing impasse in
Bosnia?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
night the Prime Minister said on behalf of the G-7 leaders that
the only way out of this very difficult situation is to reopen
negotiations for the parties to come to some kind of an
agreement.
The international community has protested very strongly the
actions that have gone on with the hostage taking and also with
the build-up of the forces of the Bosnian federation. This matter
is of grave concern and will be the subject of discussion
throughout the day.
With respect to what we can do at the moment, given the fact
that our people are there not as belligerents but as peacekeepers,
we are concerned that they take all precautions at the base in
Visoko to minimize any damage should any artillery or any
other type of shelling occur. It is to that end that extra
fortifications have been erected and precautions have been taken
by the commander, Colonel Redburn.
(1125)
I am pretty confident that the people in Visoko, although we
do not accept the situation at all, will be fine and are not in any
immediate danger. I continue to be preoccupied with the safety
of the 11 people detained in Ilijas because of the growing
conflict in and around that town and the fact that the Bosnian
federation has said they want to liberate Sarajevo and that town
is between the concentration of forces and Sarajevo.
I also want to add that we remain concerned about Captain
Rechner but we have had information over the last few days that
he is okay and is near the Bosnian Serb capital of Pale.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It has come to
light that the Leclerc Institute, a federal penitentiary, is
controlled by organized crime. It seems that, one of the inmates
actually had a jogging track installed in the prison in addition to
throwing a seafood party for the prison population.
Given the apparent involvement of the penitentiary's
management in the incidents which are currently under
investigation,
14016
will the Solicitor General tell us whether he is investigating the
matter and whether he will commit to making the investigation's
finding public?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a special commission of inquiry was established at the
end of April to investigate all of these allegations. We expect it
to complete its investigation shortly, and I will do everything
possible to bring the conclusions of the inquiry to the attention
of the hon. member.
These allegations are very serious, and we are treating them as
such. That is why the commissioner established a special
commission of inquiry several weeks ago, at the end of April of
this year.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this is a very serious issue, yet we still do not know who
is leading the inquiry. Will the Solicitor General tell us whether
the people under investigation who work at the Leclerc Institute
have been suspended from their jobs for the duration of the
inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have this information with me, but I will get in
touch with my hon. colleague later to give him the name of the
members of this commission of inquiry. At the moment, there
are only allegations, but we are taking them very seriously.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one
year ago today the Prime Minister rose in this House and gave a
stern speech about earning public trust and restoring political
integrity. He said that both were vital to democracy and were
more than just nice words.
Twelve months later this Prime Minister's speech rings
hollow. We have seen a heritage minister defended, even
applauded, for dishing out departmental contracts as a reward
for political donations. We have seen $26 million diverted to a
tourist highway in the public works minister's own riding. We
have seen the revenue minister's campaign workers lining up for
patronage appointments in B.C.
Canadians expected as much from Brian Mulroney. They
demanded more from this government.
Why has the government turned its back on the Prime
Minister's words of only one year ago, abused the public's trust,
and abandoned political integrity?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in spite of the unfounded innuendo of my hon. friend,
the facts of the matter are that this government treats matters of
ethics and integrity very seriously and gives them a high degree
of priority.
We have great confidence in the way we are responding to
what the Prime Minister said a year ago. Those words remain as
valid today as they were a year ago.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
me refer again to the Prime Minister's speech.
He promised to give a meaningful voice to elected
representatives in the House and end the politics of cronyism
and secret back door deals. I am sure that is cold comfort to the
one dozen Liberal dissidents soon to be punished, cold comfort
to the police officers in B.C. who have to deal with incompetent
Liberal appointments, and cold comfort to the people of
Wentworth Valley who have to travel along the deadly highway
104.
What has happened to this government's promise of giving a
meaningful voice to MPs, ending the politics of cronyism, and
ending secret backroom deals? They made the promise and
broke it. Why?
(1130 )
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have kept that promise, as we have kept generally
the promises on which we campaigned.
Just to take the example of the role of MPs, we changed the
rules of the House to enable measures to be sent to committees
before second reading to enable members to play a bigger role in
committees in the development of legislation.
We changed the rules of the House so that committees could
develop legislation. That was done for the first time in the
history of the Parliament of Canada.
We are also treating Private Members' Business, measures
presented by members individually, on a free vote basis in every
case, something never before done in the history of Parliament.
Instead of being blinded by her own innuendoes and
prejudices, the hon. member should look at the facts and
recognize the achievements of the government.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, they
say they have generally kept them, but specifically
backbenchers are being nailed one by one the minute they open
their mouths.
The Prime Minister said that he sets the moral tone for the
government, and he certainly has. He has ignored the federal
code of ethics, sidelined the ethics counsellor and has broken
red book promises, all in the name of party loyalty and political
expediency.
I guess we should not be surprised. In 1983 the current Prime
Minister defended Alastair Gillespie, a former energy minister
who had received financial favours from the Trudeau
government. Twelve years later the Prime Minister dusted off
Hansard,
14017
spiced up the rhetoric and gave the same speeches in defence of
the heritage minister about ethical behaviour.
Will the government revive its promise to restore integrity in
government and demand the resignation of the minister of
heritage?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that promise remains valid. It is being carried out.
There is one interesting thing about the hon. member's
questions. They show that she on behalf of her party and her
party are totally satisfied with the way we are handling the
economy. They show that she and her party are totally satisfied
with the way we are handling the reform of social programs.
They show that they are totally satisfied with the way we are
handling our relations with other countries.
Because of the way she chose the priority of questions in the
House on behalf of her party, she is doing nothing more than
giving a general endorsement of the work of the government and
we appreciate that endorsement.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
It seems Immigration Canada has retained the services of
Philippe Rayntjens as an expert witness during the proceedings
to revoke the status of Léon Mugesera as a Canadian resident.
The House will recall that Mr. Mugesera was a friend and
adviser of the former president who was responsible for the
genocide in Rwanda.
Could the Acting Prime Minister explain why Canada
retained the services of Mr. Rayntjens who, like Mr. Mugesera,
was an adviser to the president at the time of the genocide in
Rwanda?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration and the government have made a commitment
to remove all criminal elements from our society.
Unfortunately, since the case is now under investigation, we
cannot comment further. The case is now under investigation,
and we hope to settle this matter very shortly.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can
the government expect the public to trust the process, when it is
clear that the services of a person close to Mr. Mugesera have
been retained to clarify his role in the Rwandan genocide?
I would also like to have assurances that the investigation will
be public, and that its findings will be made available as soon as
possible.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member
that the investigation will start next week, when the person
concerned will have a chance to answer all these questions. An
independent judge will rule on this case.
* * *
(1135)
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
Prime Minister's speech a year ago he announced that the ethics
counsellor would be empowered to investigate conflicts of
interest.
The heritage minister has broken these conflict of interest
guidelines no less than four times: first when he intervened for a
constituent on a CRTC licence; second when he overturned the
DTH policy for friends in Power Corp; third when he lunched
with the Bronfmans in L.A.; and again when he held a dollars for
contracts dinner in Montreal.
In not one of these instances was the ethics counsellor allowed
to conduct a proper investigation-
The Speaker: Maybe it is because it is Friday but it seems to
me that the preambles are getting a little long. If members could
just shorten the preambles and the questions a little, it would
help us in question period.
The question, please, from the member for Simcoe Centre.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, why will the
Prime Minister not live up to his rhetoric of a year ago, live up to
his red book promise and appoint an independent ethics
counsellor responsible to Parliament?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I do not accept the accuracy of the innuendos and
allegations in the premise of the hon. member's question.
Second, the Prime Minister has said that in a parliamentary
system he has to take the ultimate responsibility for his cabinet
and he cannot evade that responsibility. While he has carried out
his promise to appoint an ethics counsellor, he still has to carry
out the responsibility which is that of a Prime Minister in a
parliamentary system.
If my hon. friends agree with our parliamentary system, they
would agree with the Prime Minister.
14018
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not only
do I agree with it but we have respect for it.
A year ago today the Prime Minister stated in this House:
Canadians have a right to know who is trying to influence their elected and
public officials.
Canadians have a right to know who was influencing the
heritage minister. Every person who attended the fundraising
dinner received a contract or an appointment from his heritage
department.
Why will the government not release a complete list of who
was invited and who contributed to the heritage minister's
dinner? Does the Canadian public not have a right to know?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I point out again as I pointed out yesterday that the
dinner was not organized by the Government of Canada. The
Government of Canada did not send out the invitations.
The material my hon. friend is seeking is not under the control
of the Government of Canada. At the same time information has
been provided and certainly I will be happy to see what further
information is provided.
My hon. friend in his question says he has respect for the
parliamentary system. The hon. member's question showed just
the opposite. He lacks that fundamental respect. He ought to
start showing some if he is serious about what he says.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last April, the Bloc Quebecois denounced the flagrant
inequity to Quebec in the awarding of professional and special
contracts by the Department of Justice. Let me remind you that
the value of contracts awarded to Ontario entrepreneurs is 15
times higher than that of contracts awarded to Quebec
entrepreneurs. In his written response to Bloc members, the
Minister of Justice confirmed our allegations.
Given that only 5 per cent of the value of Department of
Justice research contracts is awarded to Quebec entrepreneurs
and that only 1 per cent of contracts are in French, does the
minister acknowledge that this situation is totally unacceptable
and should be rectified as soon as possible?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have furnished a
written response to the hon. member's party answering
questions put in the House during the past several months about
the statistical breakdown of the awarding of contracts across the
country.
The evidence shows that those contracts are distributed to
various provinces and the number is disclosed by the letters that
I have delivered. The numbers suggested by the hon. member
are more or less correct.
As I have also said, there are many factors that determine to
whom a contract is awarded. Sometimes these things are for
specialized purposes or research to be done by individuals with
particular knowledge.
In any event, I have also made it clear in my letter that the
awarding of contracts based on language is strictly in
accordance with the principles of fairness. I will look again at
the whole process to ensure that those principles are being
complied with absolutely.
(1140)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I admit that there is a difference in the interpretation of
figures. We say 5 per cent, while the minister says 6 per cent. As
for the 1 per cent of contracts awarded to Quebec entrepreneurs,
let us admit that it could hardly be any less.
Given that most Department of Justice contracts are awarded
directly without tender by department officials and taking into
account, I imagine, the minister's obvious authority over the
awarding of contracts, can the minister make a commitment to
issue and make public clear directives designed to ensure that a
fair share of research work is done in French, as must or rather
should the case&
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we already have full
written guidelines. We have established policies.
[Translation]
We clearly stated in the letters I gave the hon. member that
government departments already had guidelines concerning the
awarding of contracts to the private sector. I would be very
happy to provide a copy of these guidelines to the hon. member
if he so wishes, as they already exist.
We in the justice department comply with these guidelines.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was on this
Friday a year ago that the Prime Minister said: ``I rise today to
talk about trust''. With all the moral fortitude that he could
muster, he announced that things would be different. His
government was going to be ethical.
14019
How does this reconcile with the minister of public works
engaging in the most blatant form of pork barrelling by diverting
money from highway 104 to his own riding? Why does the Prime
Minister not live up to his words of a year ago and reinstate the
funding to highway 104 where it belongs?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport today I think this
question demonstrates perhaps as well as any just exactly how
ethically challenged the Reform Party is.
The reality is that the issue raised by the hon. member is one
in which a decision was made by the responsible level of
government in an entirely transparent and open way. To try to
suggest that this is an ethical question implies that somebody
improperly benefited in a personal or pecuniary way from the
awarding of a contract. That is not the case at all.
There was a political issue. It was debated openly in the
province of Nova Scotia. The decision was made close to the
people affected by it and the political consequences will be
faced. That is not an ethical question; that is a political one.
By trying to move political questions into the realm of ethics
we can see why the hon. member has a basic misunderstanding
of what the process of government is all about. Ethics deal with
the propriety, the transparency and the openness of a decision
making process. What in fact the member complains about is the
decision that was taken at the provincial level close to the
people.
Some hon. members: Order.
Mr. Manley: We have listened to preambles almost three
minutes long. Therefore it is appropriate to have a long
response.
The issue being debated in this question is one which lies at
the provincial level. To try to turn it into an ethical question in
the House shows the lack of understanding on the part of the
member.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly
would not want to have political questions impinging on the
question of ethics, would we?
The Prime Minister said that his government would serve all
Canadians and not just the privileged few. Tonight, the mayor of
Amherst, Cumberland-Colchester councillors, business people
and ordinary citizens are pulling together to send a common
message: Give the money back.
Let us be very clear. Is the government telling these people
that they are wrong and that there is nothing wrong with what the
minister of public works has done?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the problem the member has is that he has to deal with
the framework of law.
There is the strategic highway improvement program
agreement between the province of Nova Scotia and the
Government of Canada. The determination of issues related to
the allocation of resources under that agreement is very clearly
provided for.
(1145 )
Mr. Abbott: So what do you say to the mayor?
Mr. Manley: The mayor needs to address the proper level of
government, the province of Nova Scotia, where the decision
was made in a way that was very transparent and open. If there is
disagreement in the province of Nova Scotia with the people
responsible at that level then that is the proper place for the
debate to occur.
They are not only ethically challenged, but they seem to have
difficulty listening as well. I do not understand why the Reform
Party has such difficulty focusing on the division of powers
between the federal and provincial governments in this matter.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
For several months now, milk consumer representatives have
been telling the government that the moratorium on the use of
somatotropin must be extended. Only the government and
Monsanto seem interested in seeing that hormone back on the
Canadian market. Two days ago, the health committee
unanimously asked that the moratorium be extended for another
two years.
Will the minister follow up on the unanimous request made by
the three parties represented on the health committee and extend
the moratorium for two years?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say once again that the somatotropin hormone
has not been approved for sale or consumption in Canada.
Consequently, we have to wait. There is a process, at the
Department of Health, to approve drugs such as somatotropin.
That process is under way, and no decision has yet been made.
A favourable decision will only be made if health department
experts are convinced that the hormone can be safely used in
Canada. It is important to keep that in mind.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
moratorium ends in 17 days and the processes set up by the
health minister are as flawed as her will to protect the health of
Canadians.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
14020
Mr. Daviault: Will the Minister of Health recognize that she
can either make specific recommendations to the government to
extend the moratorium, or propose measures to prohibit the use
of somatotropin in Canada, since that hormone is not currently
prohibited?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, BST is not approved for sale in Canada. That is a fact. It
will only be approved if it is safe and efficacious and if it does
what it purports to do.
When we speak of moratoriums, the voluntary moratorium
was arrived at by the industry and Agriculture Canada in order to
allow the committee to study the issue further. On health
grounds, the product has not been approved. At this time we do
not know if it will be approved. We must allow the work of
Health Canada to go on.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question concerns the social security overhaul.
Structural unemployment must be addressed by structural
change. Can the minister explain how we will ensure that social
programs lead to real jobs?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Victoria
Haliburton for a very important question as our government
deals with the transition from cyclical unemployment to
structural unemployment.
One program that is very successful in our department is the
self-employment assistance program, which has generated
34,000 jobs. The program helps people on social assistance and
unemployment insurance to start up their own business. The
multiplier effect of the program is 1.1 full time jobs; in other
words, 68,000 jobs have been created. The budget for this
program has also been increased by 62.1 per cent.
(1150 )
During this time when the Canadian economy is going
through changes, it is very important that our government
devote itself to programs that help people help themselves and
create sustainable employment.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the policy of the Canadian government toward the
mission in Bosnia has been wavering and inconsistent since the
beginning.
The Minister of National Defence rashly disbanded the
airborne regiment but now needs its capabilities. It wants to be
neutral in Bosnia but approved air strikes and may join a rapid
reaction force.
In its heart, this government wants out of Bosnia but cannot
make the tough decision. Will the minister agree that Canada has
done its part in Bosnia and that it is time to leave, rather than
sending more troops into an impossible situation?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, and all of us
on this side agree, that the continued presence in the former
Yugoslavia of the United Nations forces is perhaps the only way
we can avert a very difficult situation and more lives being lost.
The Canadian government undertook to continue its
engagement until next October. We fully intend to discharge that
unless circumstances prevent us from doing otherwise.
I realize that at the moment it is very awkward, it is very
difficult, and the situation is unacceptable, but we still believe
this mandate can get back on track with the willingness of the
parties to start talking to each other and start working toward a
lasting settlement.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, while the Prime Minister and the G-7 leaders plead
with the Bosnian Serbs and Muslims to play nice, the European
peace envoy says: ``At the moment there isn't a political
process. At the moment we're heading towards war.''
Will the Minister of National Defence categorically assure
this House that the government will decline to participate in any
rapid reaction force and announce its intention to withdraw
Canadian troops as soon as possible?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
had this question asked a number of times in the last couple of
weeks and the answer has been the same. We are considering the
question of the rapid reaction force and Canada's participation
in it. We certainly believe that force should have been set up.
Canada supported it at the NATO meeting a few weeks ago.
The Prime Minister will be reflecting on whether or not it is in
not only the best interests of Canada but the best interests of the
UN if we participate in that force, as to whether or not even a
small contribution would make a difference. Also, we are
concerned about further implicating ourselves in that particular
crisis with larger numbers of people. We have 2,100 people in
the conflict.
All of these things are being reflected upon. As for the peace
process at the moment, it may be true that no formal
negotiations are going on between the parties, but as was said
last night on behalf of the G-7 leaders, and I think everyone in
this House would share that sentiment, the parties must get back
to the negotiating table. They must bargain, because that is the
only way to resolve this very difficult problem.
14021
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Yesterday, the Minister of Industry stated here in the House
that he intended to review DIPP next year. For the first time, the
minister appeared open to the opposition's arguments that the
ability of Canadian and Quebec companies in the defence and
aerospace industry to develop technology must not be eroded.
Will the minister admit that we urgently need to re-establish
DIPP budgets, in order to keep our aerospace industry as
competitive as it currently is with foreign companies, which are
heavily subsidized by their governments for the research and
marketing of their products?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that the hon. member is very aware of my
reluctance to subsidize private enterprise. I believe that the best
economic strategy is to avoid subsidies. This is not only
advisable here in Canada, but also for all of the world's
governments.
I accept what he said, and I agree with him that indeed there
are other countries which subsidize the aerospace industry. This
is one of the issues that we have to take into consideration when
reviewing DIPP. He will also understand that the government is
obliged to take its fiscal framework into consideration. I am
ready to work with him and the aerospace industry and other
sectors which are developing new technologies to try to find a
new way of making them competitive with other countries of the
world.
(1155)
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my next question contains a solution for the minister,
so I would ask him to give me his full attention.
Since the Quebec Minister of Industry is planning to put a
program similar to the federal government's DIPP in place, will
the minister commit to entering into an agreement with the
Government of Quebec to put in place an overall conversion
plan for the defence industry?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, firstly, I believe that the hon. member is also well
aware that the federal government and the Government of
Quebec already have an agreement on industrial projects and
that we really work well together. Take Bell Helicopter for
example. We found a way to stimulate the development of
technology in high tech companies in the province of Quebec.
I would also note that today, despite the enthusiasm of my
Quebec counterpart, Moody's has stated that it is aware of the
problems the Government of Quebec is having with its budget. I
think that it might be a good idea for Quebec to find a way to
regain the international markets' confidence. To do this, they
would have to do two things: one, concentrate on their budget
problems, and two, finally reverse the loss of confidence caused
by the separatist policy proposed by this party and the
Government of Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
advise the Liberal House leader that we are concerned about the
Liberal budget. This morning we got the disturbing news that
inflation has risen for the fifth consecutive month some 15-fold
to 2.9 per cent. That is a concern.
The only sure way to fight rising inflation is to raise the
interest rates. However, unless interest rates are lowered, and
fast, Canada will likely go into a recession.
My question is for the minister of financial institutions. What
is the government's priority at this time, to contain inflation and
thereby risk a recession, or to stimulate the economy and
thereby risk runaway inflation?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, fortunately there
are more than two choices.
I think the hon. member should analyse the inflation numbers
a little better. The 2.9 per cent is well within our target range of
inflation. If he looks at the recent history of the Bank of Canada
he will find that interest rates have fallen recently and that those
numbers are well below budget projections.
I would also like to remind the hon. member that if we are
going to have continuing inflation in the country it has to be
pressured by wages. The wage increases in the country have
been very subdued, very low, which indicates that future
inflation will not be out of hand but rather will be very low as
well.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister well knows that inflation is now hitting the top of the
government's target. It is not within the range, it is hitting the
top. It is time for the government to be concerned.
I would like to ask the minister for financial institutions this
question. The Government of Ontario has decided to lower its
14022
revenue projections by some $2 billion because of the slowdown
in economic growth. What is the government doing within the
federal Liberal budget at this time to adjust to the slowdown in
economic growth?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased
to answer the hon. member's question.
Our budget projections were based on very prudent economic
assumptions. They were also based on the holding of some
reserves. Our budget projections are well within reason.
(1200 )
With interest rates being substantially lower than our budget
projections it seems much more likely we will come in with a
better budget deficit rather than a higher one.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
the Environment.
Last week was environment week and we asked Canadians as
individuals and in business to focus on the environment and to
assist with its clean up. Canadians expect us to lead by example.
What is our minister doing to clean up the operations of our
own government?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is moving in four key areas in response
to red book commitments.
It is creating the post of commissioner of the environment and
sustainable development through Bill C-83, which is going
through the House now, which will enable the commissioner to
monitor sustainable development strategies on behalf of all the
ministries.
The government has proclaimed the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act, making all department projects subject to
assessment. The ministers of finance and the environment
created a task force on economic instruments whose
recommendations will be looked at with regard to the 1996
budget.
All the various departments of government are now trying to
green their operations. Through the building initiatives of
Natural Resources Canada we are now retrofitting buildings for
energy savings, giving huge savings in addition to benefiting the
environment. In the inland centre in Burlington we are to save
$590,000 a year in addition to protecting the environment.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. The Voisey
Bay deposit in Labrador, which promises to be one of the richest
in Canada and more important for Newfoundland than the
Hibernia Project, is located on lands claimed by the Innu. The
federal government and the Government of Newfoundland
suspended negotiations on land claims during the very month
the deposit was discovered.
Can the minister give the Innu guarantees that the federal
government will do everything in its power to settle the land
claims before the start of mining operations in Voisey Bay?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, about three weeks ago I met
with Premier Wells in St. John's. This was the main topic of
discussion. The premier wants to have the negotiations ongoing.
What is being done there is important not only for the
Government of Newfoundland but for Newfoundlanders as a
whole, including aboriginal people.
This is ongoing; it will be done. It is tremendous for both
aboriginal and non-aboriginal people of Newfoundland and
Labrador that they have found such resources at Voisey Bay.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, press reports in B.C. are saying the predictable thing:
British Columbians should expect a long, hot summer of
blockades, quoting Shuswap band leader Ken Dennis.
Mr. Dennis says blockades will continue because they
work-surprise, surprise. Now we have professional
consultants, advisers and participants for roving native
blockades.
Can the minister assure British Columbians he will commit to
consistently involving himself in these disputes rather than
passing the buck to the province?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a rare thing has happened in
the House which all members now see. Where do we get the
blockades? In B.C. where there are so many Reform members.
The hon. member today talked about trust and speaking for all
Canadians, not just a privileged few. It is about time Reform
takes some of its own advice.
14023
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Senator Jessie Helms and others in the United States continue
to attack Canadians for carrying on perfectly legitimate
business activities in Cuba. They threaten actions that violate
basic principles of international law, undermine trading rules
they have argued for and act as if they have the right to dictate
conduct to all countries in the western hemisphere.
(1205)
What is the government doing to tell the American
government it does not decide where Canadians go, what we do
and that our perfectly legitimate business activities are our
concern and not its?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the
statement of my colleague.
The government is already on record as communicating with
the American administration our opposition to the Helms bill.
We will continue through the proper channels both through the
World Trade Organization and through NAFTA to deal with this
issue. It is our hope that whatever resolution will come out of it
will be in the best interests of Canadian businesses.
The American administration is already on record as having
some concerns with reference to the Helms legislation. That is
very encouraging. It is our hope this bill will go down the tubes.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of members the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Anthony Nelson, Economic
Secretary to Her Majesty's Treasury from the United Kingdom.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, implicit in the response of the minister of Indian
affairs to the question of the hon. member for North
Island-Powell River was the suggestion Reform Party
members in B.C. were responsible for the ongoing blockades in
that province. I ask him to withdraw that comment.
The Speaker: With regard to what was said in question
period, hon. members have been given a great deal of latitude
both in the formulation of questions and in answers.
I hope all hon. members would consider when asking
questions and giving answers to use rather more judicious
language. In so doing, the hon. member's point is for debate. No
hon. member was mentioned and it is not a point of order.
This concludes question period.
_____________________________________________
14023
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
17 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), copies in both official
languages of consultants' reports of the environmental
assessment of the net income stabilization account and the crop
insurance program.
These assessments were conducted to fulfil our
responsibilities under the federal-provincial NISA and crop
insurance agreements and as required under section 5(2) of the
Farm Income Protection Act.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages
the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 27, 1995
your committee has considered Bill C-72, an act to amend the
Criminal Code with respect to self-induced intoxication. After a
series of meetings and witnesses your committee has agreed to
report the bill with amendments.
This is Parliament and the government's response to the
Daviault judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.
14024
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present in the House the fourteenth report of the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This report deals with
the management of federal buildings. Their value has been
estimated at between $40 billion and $60 billion, in 1985
dollars.
(1210)
In its report the committee has included a series of
recommendations for the Treasury Board Secretariat. The
Auditor General concluded in his 1994 report that not enough
attention was being given to managing federal property in
accordance with Treasury Board guidelines.
Consequently, the public accounts committee has
recommended in its conclusion that the Treasury Board
Secretariat apply the policy directives set forth in its property
management manual and ensure that they are complied with and
their objectives are met.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee asks the
government to table a comprehensive response to this report.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small
Businesses Loans Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-334, an act to amend the Canada pension plan
(cancellation of benefits).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill I am introducing
today and which I wish to table is to fill what I consider a gap in
the Canada pension plan.
The bill will allow people who became disabled after they
started drawing a retirement pension to cancel that benefit at any
time before the age 65 so they can apply for a disability pension.
As the Canada pension plan reads now, a person receiving a
retirement pension, which can be received as early as age 60, can
cancel the plan only within six months of plan start up. My bill
seeks to amend that.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present a petition requesting discrimination against
same sex relationships be removed by amendments to the human
rights act.
I endorse this petition. I have four petitions to that effect
which I would like to table in the House.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition
on behalf of the constituents of Shawville, Quebec, dealing with
a social issue, requesting that Parliament oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion
of the phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour today to present eight separate petitions, still
protesting against Bill C-41. These are in addition to the 19 I
have already submitted to the House on the same issue.
Today there are another 553 of my constituents concerned
about Bill C-41 and the undefined phrase sexual orientation
which they feel will set a precedent in federal legislation. They
are quite concerned about that.
They are also concerned that Bill C-41 will establish a dual
standard of justice by punishing identical crimes with different
sentences.
I am happy to concur with the petition.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the workers at the Newfoundland dockyard, I am
pleased to present a petition signed by over 30,000
Newfoundlanders.
The undersigned residents of Newfoundland draw to the
attention of the House that the dockyard has provided
significant employment in St. John's and surrounding area for
the past 112 years. It has employed 850 people with an income
and payroll of over $26 million.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to cease all
efforts to sell or close the Newfoundland dockyard and provide
the necessary capital to retool the dockyard with new equipment
so the jobs of these many Newfoundlanders that are desperately
needed will be ensured.
(1215 )
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a
petition on behalf of the Religious Faith Community supporters
and members, who call upon Parliament to put an end to
14025
discriminatory treatment in Canada of gay and lesbian citizens
in their familial relationships by amending federal legislation
that currently allows unequal treatment.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many Canadians
expressing a deep interest in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Our petitioners request that Parliament, at the earliest
possible time, initiate a wide ranging public inquiry, replacing
many being convened piecemeal, into the Canadian Armed
Forces, including the reserves, which will investigate, report,
and make recommendations on all matters affecting its
operations, tasking, resources, effectiveness, morale, and
welfare.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to rise in
the House today to present a petition with over 2,800 signatures
from my constituents in Hamilton-Wentworth calling on
Parliament not to support the closure of Mount Hope, the
Hamilton weather office, since it would adversely affect the
safety of both aviation and marine operations as well as the
agricultural community, local businesses, and recreational
interests.
This is a very fine facility at the Hamilton airport and I fully
endorse this petition.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that
has been circulating across Canada.
This particular petition comes from the Bolton, Ontario, area.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool
children is an honourable profession, which has not been
recognized for its value to our society. They also state that the
Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the
choice to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
14025
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-70, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income
Tax Application Rules and related acts, be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we are in third reading of
Bill C-70. As I outlined when I spoke previously, the intention
of my speech is to encourage the House to accept the final
reading of this in the House of Commons as quickly as possible
and to outline in a very factual way what the act intends to to do.
It is related to the budget of 1994. This is one of two bills that
deal with the amendments to the Income Tax Act.
In addition to what I outlined previously in the House, new
rules are provided for debt securities that are not required to be
marked to market. These rules deal with the measurement of
income while the securities are held and the treatment of gains
and losses on disposition.
Bill C-70 also amends the rules for the taxation of resident
shareholders of foreign affiliates. This action is being taken as a
result of the government's ongoing monitoring of developments
in this area. The changes expand the categories of income of
foreign affiliates that must be reported as income of their
Canadian affiliates. Another modification prevents the use of an
affiliate's foreign active business losses to reduce Canadian
shareholders' income. This change also protects the Canadian
tax base. The amendments are generally effective for taxation
years commencing after 1994.
There are also a number of measures that were announced
after the 1994 budget. These include six new tax measures that I
would like to outline briefly.
D (1220)
First, this bill addresses the issue of eligible prepaid funeral
and cemetery arrangements. Under this legislation individuals
making such arrangements will not have to declare interest on
their deposits up to a $15,000 maximum contribution as
income, provided the deposit is not withdrawn for other
purposes. The provider of eligible funeral and cemetery
arrangements is, however, required to include in income the
total amount received from an eligible arrangement.
14026
Turning to the next measure, the bill proposes that real estate
trusts with publicly traded units be allowed to qualify as mutual
fund trusts. This measure responds to representations from the
real estate sector, which is interested in expanding the available
methods of financing real estate. We believe the proposed
change will facilitate the restructuring and refinancing of this
sector.
The third of these post-budget measures is a measure that will
help mutual funds to reduce overhead costs and improve
services to investors. These amendments will allow mutual fund
corporations to convert to mutual fund trusts on a tax free basis
and also allow tax free mergers of mutual fund trusts.
This bill also proposes new rules to speed the resolution of
objections and appeals, particularly by large corporations.
Large corporations will now have to specify the issues under
dispute, the amount of relief sought, and the facts and reasons
for objecting. The rules also limit the ability of large
corporations to raise new issues in a notice of objection where
the objection relates to reconsideration of an assessment.
However, new issues raised by Revenue Canada on such
reconsiderations may still give rise to a notice of objection.
In addition, the legislation will ensure that the new
requirements relating to the notices of objection will not apply
to assessments that have been appealed to courts before this
legislation receives royal assent.
The final measure I want to highlight deals with the tax
treatment of dividend compensation payments and other
amounts connected with securities lending.
The Income Tax Act currently provides that the lender of
securities not be treated as having disposed of the securities
under these arrangements. As well, payments to the lender as
compensation for dividends are treated as dividends in the
lender's hands. While these dividend compensation payments
are generally not tax deductible, a special rule established in
1989 allows security dealers to deduct two-thirds of such
payments. This legislation extends the use of the two-thirds
rule, thus ensuring that our securities industry remains
competitive. However, the deduction of these payments will be
somewhat limited.
I can assure hon. members that the government will continue
monitoring these measures to make certain they can operate
effectively.
Other changes clarify the effect of certain dividend rental
arrangements and the meaning of securities dealers registered or
licensed to trade in securities for the purpose of the Income Tax
Act.
In closing, Bill C-70 amends the Income Tax Act effectively
and equitably. It seeks to better target tax assistance delivered to
certain business sectors while at the same time broadening the
tax base and thus protecting government revenues. The
legislation contained in this bill also clarifies a number of
important issues related to the act.
Given all this, I have no hesitation in encouraging all of my
hon. colleagues to support this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to speak on Bill C-70. I am pleased because, first,
I thought the government was going to talk about tax reform in
Canada with this bill, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the
Income Tax Application Rules and related Acts.
Like many Canadians, I think Canada's tax system should be
changed significantly, if not completely overhauled. So, I
thought, perhaps very naively, that the Liberal government was
going to do its homework. Why was I so hopeful? First, in part,
because I had read the red book. The red book promised tax
equity and that those who had taxes to pay in Canada would pay
them.
(1225)
From what I can see, the book has faded. We hardly ever hear
mention of it. At the start, last year, I remember seeing this book
resplendent in all its redness on the desks of the members
opposite. Now, from what I can see, the red is more likely on the
faces of the members. Some members are looking embarrassed
at the outcome of the Liberal's election promises.
Let us look at what we were supposed to have in Canada. We
were to have jobs; we were to have tax equity. There are no jobs;
the jobs we lost were not even replaced. As far as tax equity is
concerned, we may have it next year, or maybe in two, ten or
twenty years, from what I can see.
It is true that there is a very strong lobby on behalf of those
who do not want reforms in Canada, those who are benefiting
from the existing tax situation. I remember a debate on this a few
weeks ago. One Liberal member naively said that change was
slow. He himself had proposed a reform, but he knew that
change was slow because of the strong lobby of the well heeled,
who benefit from the weaknesses of our tax system.
I am delighted to see that a Liberal member who has been in
the House much longer than I can confirm what we in the Bloc
already knew. However, Canadian taxpayers really want tax
reform.
If we look at the papers and talk with our constituents, we
realize that people are not happy with the present tax system.
Looking at the size of the bill before us, which contains perhaps
200 pages, I naively thought that the measures proposed by the
Minister of Finance would be quite substantial, at least as
14027
substantial as the size of the document itself, but I realized-and
will try to demonstrate to you-that what the minister came up
with falls far short of real tax reform.
It is not only taxpayers but also experts who are demanding
changes. Canada's tax system-which over the years has been
modified by legal precedents and amendments, by new
regulations, and by various interpretations of the legislation in
effect-has led to the emergence in this country of various tax
experts and consultants, who help large corporations and
wealthy individuals get around the Canadian tax maze to avoid
paying their fair share.
The experts themselves tell us-I read a few newspaper
articles-that Canada's current tax system is very confusing. A
mother cat would lose her kittens in such a maze. There are
various interpretations. There are people who manage to get
around the system without paying their fair share, simply
because the tax structure has become so complex that no one can
find their way around it, except for experts who take advantage
of this situation by directing work to their firms, which charge
substantial fees and often engage in lobbying activities.
The hope I had has been dashed. This hope, which was
reflected in the red book, shared by the public and confirmed by
the experts, has been thwarted once again.
For the information of the people listening to us, or the
colleagues who were perhaps not paying attention and who may
not have noticed, the bill before us, Bill C-70, implements
measures proposed by the Minister of Finance in his 1994
budget. On this day of June 1995, we are here in this House to
discuss tax measures that were proposed by the minister in
February 1994. It is obvious that, if we wait for the minister to
speed up tax reform, we will wait for a long time.
(1230)
If we take a look at the clauses now, we could say that the
minister has made an effort and that at least there will be a few
amendments to the Income Tax Act that will bring us closer to a
comprehensive reform. All those who listened to the
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance speak before
me will have realized that this was not the case.
What, essentially, do we find in this document? We find a few
rather trivial reforms which are just a drop in the bucket, when
what the Minister of Finance should really be doing is delivering
on the Liberal government's promise of a fairer tax system for
Canada.
So, when we look at these measures, those which, in my
opinion, have the greatest impact are the provisions exempting
from tax the interest earned on prepaid funeral arrangements.
Some Canadians have been more prudent than the governments
of recent years. Figuring that one day they will die, they are
prepaying their funeral expenses. These amounts generate
interest, with the result that the Minister of Finance has devoted
a great deal of attention in this close to 200 page bill to this
issue. It is one of the five or six measures in the bill. Funeral
expenses are tax exempt.
There are other proposals for exemptions, such as tax-free
arrangements for mutual fund corporations. These are also very
interesting, but we are still talking about people who will not be
paying taxes. This is perhaps as it should be, but it does not
augur well for tax credits, and I will come back to this a bit later.
The bill deals with exemptions for those who invest in mutual
funds, as well as foreign affiliates.
When I saw these words, I said to myself: ``At last, the
Minister of Finance is going to tackle tax havens''. I saw the
word ``foreign'' and I said, ``Now we have it, the Minister of
Finance is proposing a measure on tax havens''. I will come
back to this shortly. But no, it was merely a question of what
shareholders are required to report. These are trivialities.
The bill also talks about debt forgiveness and objections on
appeal. Large corporations who object to their assessments will
have to be more specific. Is it really important for the
Government of Canada to deal with this issue in the bill now
before this House and provide for special measures ensuring that
large corporations file their claims promptly concerning the
taxes they owe? Certainly, I have no doubt about that.
These large corporations include Seagram, Power
Corporation and all those we keep hearing about during question
period or bumping into at private dinners hosted by the heritage
minister. The fact remains that, in view of the situation and the
need to reform our tax system, it is rather pointless to put
forward amendments such as these. It figures that the
government would present them on a Friday, in the absence of
the Minister of Finance, because we would see him turn redder
than usual, with embarrassment no doubt, because he is calling
on the Parliament of Canada to consider such pointless
measures, when the Canadian tax system needs to be revamped.
Tax reform is required in Canada and we will try and take a
closer look at that. I would like to start by clarifying a point. I
read in La Presse today the famous annual announcement issued
by the Fraser Institute. It said that we will be starting to work for
ourselves next Sunday.
(1235)
As you know, the Fraser Institute is a group of right wing,
ultra-conservative economists funded by unknown sources. In
fact, I think that we know and perhaps we should say that it is
backed by large corporations, which stand to profit from
measures like the ones before us today and certainly claim a tax
exemption for their contributions to the Fraser Institute.
The Fraser Institute calls itself an institute. It may look like an
extreme right or conservative lobby, but it calls itself an
institute. They are telling us that every one of us, in this House
and throughout Canada, has been working for the government so
far this year, but that we will now start earning money for
ourselves.
14028
They are telling us that we are overtaxed, that the government
is rifling through our pockets. You see what I mean. They seem
to want to have us believe that no one pays for the services
available in Canada, be it health, education, national defence,
infrastructure, highways or what not, and they benefit no one in
Canada. These people come and try to peddle the idea that the
money paid in taxes by Canadians is actually money being
stolen from them.
Before going any further, I would like to denounce such
pronouncements. Taxation is a very serious subject that is tied to
the very nature of democracy. We live in a democracy where the
government provides services, and these services must be paid
for by all taxpayers who, through their members of Parliament,
vote on a budget that will allow the Minister of National
Revenue to raise, in the form of taxes, the money required to pay
for these services.
I think no one in Canada, except the people at the Fraser
Institute and their ilk, would criticize this system. We receive
services, and the government has to pay for the services it
provides. People are prepared to pay taxes. When they go to the
hospital or send their children to school or university, they
realize there are certain costs involved, and they are willing to
pay their share.
They are willing to pay their share, but they want their tax
assessment to be fair and equitable. The first question is whether
in Canada as a whole, we are being overtaxed. Should we repeat
the Fraser Institute's mantra and say it does not make sense, we
are overtaxed, the government should withdraw from everything
and should pay no taxes at all? In the end, this would mean there
would be no more government.
When there is no more government, we no longer have a
democracy but a feudal system. The Fraser Institute and people
of their ilk want to take us back to the middle ages when
someone would conquer a territory and be given the title of
duke, count or prince. He would then raise taxes, not to provide
services but more often to provide a rich dowry for his daughter
who was supposed to marry his neighbour, who had also
managed to impose his rule on part of the population. In the end,
this is the law of the jungle, and that is not what we have in
Canada.
Are we overtaxed? I will not answer that question, but I will
make a few comparisons. If we look at the figures and compare
them with other OECD countries, in other words, the 25 richest
countries in the world, in 1992, our tax rate was about 36 per
cent of GDP. That sounds like a lot, but is it really when we
compare it with the tax rate in other countries? It is easy to say
we are paying too much, but we have to find out whether we are
paying too much, compared with what other countries are
paying. There are no absolutes in economics. Everything is
relative.
(1240)
I do not want to insult anyone here who is an economist by
profession, but in economics, we often realize that everything is
relative, even the results. We often see economists contradicting
their colleagues, and in the end, we realize that some economists
are more accurate in their predictions than others. There are
certain basic principles that economists ignore at their peril.
In the Scandinavian countries, the tax rate is not 35, 36 or 37
per cent as in Canada, but 45 per cent. That is quite a bit. In
Germany and Italy, between 40 and 44 per cent of GDP goes to
taxes. Compared with other countries, Canada is about average.
This is not the disaster described by extreme right wing parties
that think government should get out of everything and stop
providing services in the areas of health care and education and
let the law of the jungle prevail.
These people use a certain ideology based on certain
principles to mislead the public so that people start to challenge
the government's right to raise fair taxes.
I say that we are about average among industrialized countries
and that taxation is not the main problem. We have to see where
the problem is. I think the real problem is that the tax burden is
poorly distributed in Canada. Some people do not pay enough
taxes and some people pay too much.
This is why I was asking earlier and expecting tax reform. I
hope my children will perhaps see tax reform in Canada. When
Quebec becomes independent, we will have an eye on the world.
We will be reading papers like the Toronto Star and the Globe
and Mail, and I hope to read that Canada has finally started its
tax reform.
How is the tax base distributed in Canada? With a brief look at
history, we will discover that taxation is a matter of choice. It is
a political choice. Someone somewhere decides a tax will be
levied in one area and not in another. A choice is made.
I have consulted a number of books on individual and
corporate taxes. In passing, I noted that, among the countries in
the G-7, Canada has one of the lowest tax rates. The members of
the G-7 are meeting in Halifax. It is a beautiful city that I had
occasion to visit a few years ago. I reached the same conclusion
as the Quebec journalists: it is an English city.
In 1950, personal and corporate taxes in Canada were
comparable. The rate was 28 per cent for individuals and 27 per
cent for corporations. These were the federal tax revenues. Now,
individuals are taxed at the rate of 48 per cent, corporations at 7
per cent.
As you can see, personal income tax has increased, while
corporate taxes have decreased, and I am not counting here the
effect of the GST and the QST. We can see that we have moved
from a situation in the 1950s where there was a certain balance
between personal and corporate taxes to today's imbalance.
14029
Our first reaction is to say: ``Tax the corporations''. We will
talk about this in a few minutes, but, before we look at what is
going on with corporations, let us look at the situation of
individuals. There are things worth considering.
(1245)
I am not necessarily making any proposals; I am trying to
channel our thoughts to avenues which could be of use to the
Minister of Finance or the finance committee or the next Liberal
Party committee in line to issue a red book or a red and green
book, because I have no idea how to define the colour of the
Reform members. However, I do feel that, at some point in the
future, the colour red and the colour of the Reform Party will be
mixed together. What will be the new colour?
Mr. Loubier: Drab.
Mr. Caron: According to one colleague, it will be drab. I have
the feeling that the next book will be the Liberal Party's drab
book.
There are, I must say, some avenues which are worth
exploring. Individuals. They are always telling us that we have
to be careful with personal income taxes because, if we tax the
rich, they will have less money, less money to invest. We have to
be very careful. But I think that we still have to look into these
possibilities. A dollar is a dollar. But, we have noticed that a
dollar earned through employment is taxed more heavily than a
dollar earned through capital gains. In Canada, people with
money and who invest it, pay less tax on the money they earn on
their investments than people who are salaried and on fixed
incomes. Go figure. Is a dollar worth a dollar or are some dollars
worth less than others under the current tax system?
Canadians have the impression that the tax scale is
progressive, that everyone pays taxes. That if you earn $50,000,
you pay a certain amount and if you earn $100,000, you pay
twice that. This is not how it works. In 1992, based on figures I
have seen, 2,000 Canadian taxpayers who had earned over
$100,000 did not pay any income tax. How can these people not
have paid tax? It could not be that they hid income from the tax
people. I am sure that all citizens in that tax bracket are honest
citizens who would promptly pay any amount owed to Revenue
Canada. The fact remains that they did not pay any tax. This was
made possible by all the tax credits, the many credits they could
take advantage of. There were people investing in real estate,
and others investing in movies or research. Anyone who had
money started investing, with the result that a number of them
ended up not paying any tax.
We could say good for them, if they were clever enough not to
pay tax and were not doing anything illegal, all the better for
them. I guess we could say that. However, there is a downside to
that. I had noticed it in my region and I have friends who have
looked into this whole thing. They are middle class people,
earning between $40,000 and $50,000 a year, and they were
wondering why the system was benefiting the rich and not them.
Lawyers and accountants set up all kinds of limited partnerships
from which people could borrow in order to invest, get a tax
deduction on part of this investment and then repay their loans.
In the end, they managed to divert money from taxation like the
rich.
The downside of this is that, in many cases, the investors
found that the properties selected by the limited partnership
were not worth as much as they had been told. So, they lost
money. They lost money in order to save on income tax. In fact,
they took money owed the government to pay for services, and
the only ones who benefited from all this seem to be those who
set up some limited partnerships or made certain arrangements
allowing some people to divert money from the taxman.
Finally, here in this House, the opposition questioned the
Minister of Finance about people who had invested in research
and development for that purpose. In Canada, the motto in tax
matters is ``save on taxes''. These people, who usually came
from the middle class, borrowed money to receive tax credits.
(1250)
With these tax credits, it is always the same system. People
take money from the government and manage to get tax credits,
but the ultimate winner is the initiator of the financial scheme,
the company that put forward phoney research projects. The
bottom line is that these people end up with nothing.
The Department of Finance straightened some of this out. It
realized that some of these companies were not seriously into
research, and the credit was denied. You may say, ``People knew
that the government could go back three years for all these
things'', but the fact remains that these people got hooked
because there is a belief among Canadian people that those with
money can save on taxes.
I think that this is a prime example of a tainted system in
which people who cannot afford to invest in sectors eligible for
tax credits are urged to do so through all kinds of scams and end
up being taken for a ride. I think that the Minister of Finance
should look at tax shelters and tax credits for an explanation of
why so many people in Canada do not pay taxes.
If this is legitimate and normal, the minister should tell us so
and, if not, he should take the measures needed to correct the
situation. I have some figures here. From 1984 to 1992, taxes
paid in Canada by middle income households increased 6.7 per
cent, compared to only 3 per cent for households with incomes
14030
of $150,000 and over. Again, it is the middle class which is
really paying the tax increases, while those with a higher
income are taxed less. Some might say: But listen, 6 per cent of
$50,000 is $3,000, while 3 per cent of $150,000 is $4,500;
consequently, the rich are paying more. However, this is not the
way things work.
With this system, the rich get richer, while middle class
people see their taxes go up every year. This is not normal, and I
think that the Minister of Finance, or a Liberal caucus
committee, should take a close look at these issues.
And now, on to another topic. Recently, during the French
presidential campaign, I read something about taxes on personal
wealth. Candidates in France and elsewhere, and this may
become the case here some day, have to make a statement of
their financial position. In France, there is a tax on personal
wealth.
It seems that such a tax existed in Canada in 1972, but it is no
longer the case. We are apparently the only OECD country
which does not tax personal wealth. Consequently, very wealthy
families and individuals continue to get richer; yet, the
Canadian government is not even considering taxing such
wealth.
There are other things too. I will not go back to the issue of
family trusts. We talked about it during the election campaign,
and we raised it many times here, during question period. The
Minister of Finance finally did something about it in this year's
budget, not last year's budget, which is currently in effect.
So, this year's budget includes a provision on family trusts in
which the minister made some changes to the rules. However,
these changes will only come into effect in three or four years,
thus giving time to the tax experts to find another way to exempt
rich families, not to mention the possibility that a successor to
the current finance minister could provide another tax shelter so
that these rich people would avoid having to pay taxes.
Consequently, you see rich taxpayers who do not seem to be
paying taxes when they should. There are people with large
personal fortunes who never pay taxes on that wealth.
(1255)
Some people can set up family trusts for the benefit of their
descendants, maybe not for ten generations but just the same,
this raises questions.
So something can be done in Canada about personal income
tax. I disagree with what the former president of the United
States, Mr. Reagan, used to say, that if they stopped taxing the
rich, the rich would invest. Mr. Reagan tried it, but the rich did
not invest. The rich went on accumulating their wealth, because
that is what they do. They do not necessarily invest. And when
they do, they usually invest with borrowed money, with other
people's money.
As far as corporations are concerned, I think it is obvious that
the corporate tax system in Canada must be changed, because
corporations receive extremely preferential treatment. They
will tell us-and I heard it said this morning by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance-that you
have to be careful, that corporations must remain competitive.
So their taxes should not be too high. Their tax burden should
not be too heavy.
Mr. Speaker, do you know which G-7 country has the highest
tax rate? Japan, apparently. Would anyone in this House claim
Japan is not competitive? Competitiveness is not just a matter of
taxation, it is something else. And people who use being
competitive as an excuse not to pay taxes are definitely
misleading the public.
We saw a very obvious example of this recently in Quebec,
where the Quebec government wanted, in fact it still wants, to
introduce a 1 per cent payroll tax for businesses with a certain
number of employees, to oblige them to provide vocational
training. Ghislain Dufour, the Quebec equivalent of the Fraser
Institute, perhaps not the equivalent because Mr. Dufour does
not qualify as an institute, and I do not think he is eligible for a
tax credit, Mr. Dufour said: ``Quebec corporations will be less
competitive. It will be harder to compete. It does not make
sense''. A corporation with a payroll of let us say $500,000
would pay 1 per cent, which works out to $5,000. So the
corporation is supposed to go bankrupt because it has to pay an
additional $5,000 for vocational training for its employees?
In Canada, corporate taxes are too low. In 1987, 90,000
corporations did not pay income tax in Canada. Not bad. In
1991, it was 77,000. Incredible. Granted, some corporations
may not be doing that well and so they do not pay income tax,
but I would say that one-third of corporate profits in Canada are
made by corporations that did not pay taxes. So these are not
companies with two or three employees that are leading a
hand-to-mouth existence, these are companies that made a
profit and thanks to certain measures in the Income Tax Act,
manage to avoid paying income tax. So this raises a lot of
questions.
It raises a lot of questions for people who have no access to tax
shelters and who pay income tax on their weekly pay cheques.
How disgusting. There is also the whole issue of deferred taxes.
Businesses, billion dollar multinationals established in Canada,
are able to put off paying taxes from one year to the next through
tax deferral. There will always be a point where their profits are
lower, therefore, they will be able to pay less tax, etc. These are
all things that make us wonder, and that give us the right to
question the Minister of Finance regarding the legitimacy of this
system.
14031
The Bloc has also talked about tax havens. The Bloc finance
critic has raised this issue with the Minister of Finance many
times. He has asked him questions as Minister of Finance and
perhaps as a first-hand tax haven expert. It is well known that
Canada's Minister of Finance stopped managing his own affairs
when he came to office, got in to politics.
(1300)
The Minister of Finance used to be notorious for letting his
financial affairs be conducted under a different flag than the
maple leaf. Some companies open up in reputable countries,
often very old countries, like Cyprus, Malta, Barbados, or even
in countries quite far south, close to Australia, like Papua New
Guinea, Panama. There are even Canadian companies which
have set up shop in these areas. They have offshore subsidiaries
in places like Cyprus, Malta, etc.
There are certainly people in these areas who can afford to buy
the goods produced by the Canadian factories with subsidiaries
there. However, I cannot believe, for instance, that all the
20,000 or 30,000 companies registered in Panama are there for
the climate, for the location half way between the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans, and because this is good for business.
We have only to think back to the scandal following the death
of Mr. Irving, so well known in New Brunswick, who moved
most of his businesses and who specified in his will that his
children in Canada would be cut off if they did not set up in tax
havens.
When you are the Minister of Finance and you see Canadian
companies setting up ghost subsidiaries abroad and you know all
about tax havens and you do nothing, I think you are shirking in
your duty.
This proves that it is time for a good clean-up, a thorough
tidying-up of the Canadian tax system. I think we have to review
the agreements we have with 16 countries on tax rates and other
tax matters. The official opposition has often called for such a
review. The minister's reply is that the matter is under
consideration and, given Canada's competitiveness and the
current situation, we are in the best of all tax worlds. I do not
think this is the case.
The Bloc will obviously vote against this bill, not because the
measures are so awful in themselves, they are Canadian
measures for the Canadian tax system, that is to say they cloud
the situation a little more, and the system will be muddier and
muddier.
Finally, I think the Income Tax Act is a little like the country. I
do not want to get into a demagogic diatribe on how Canada's
situation compares with the Income Tax Act. What is the Income
Tax Act. It is a heap of tax measures with more measures piled
on every year. No one has gone through it; no has organized it.
People have called for change, and the answer has always
been no. So now we have a jungle of an Income Tax Act where
the strongest manage to inch their way through and impose their
rule and where, often, the people who earn their living and do
their best are unfairly taxed. I think the government has to
propose a tax reform. Canadian taxpayers deserve it.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, certainly
the Reform Party will not be supporting Bill C-70 at third
reading for a number of reasons.
With regard to the comments of the member for Jonquière and
the presentation we heard for the last 40 minutes, I can
understand completely why the economy in Quebec is in
trouble. I can understand completely why the credit rating of
Quebec was downgraded last week.
(1305 )
We hear the left wing, socialist diatribe about more spending
by government and about punishing those who have achieved in
society to the point where they have accumulated some kind of
wealth to reinvest, have created jobs and have paid a major
portion of the taxes that often goes to support people who want
to work on the public purse in universities or at other public
jobs. Who creates the revenue to pay for those jobs and to
improve quality of life? Who creates it? Who takes the risk?
When people take the risk, does the government have a
responsibility to punish them more, to raise taxes, or to take it
away from them? Are they bad people in society?
The Canadian economy was built on people using their
initiative, having freedom, having the right to take risks and to
lose their funds and lose respect in a community within the
market system.
Those members want more legislation. They want to take
money away from someone else. They want to depress the
economy. The obvious result is what we see in Quebec. We also
see the results in Canada.
We have had 20 years of governments thinking it could
improve the economy of Canada by spending more, by
increasing the level of expenditure. What has happened? It has
increased the level of debt. Every year we are in a deficit
position. Today it is out of control. We have inflation that is out
of control, an issue that I raised in question period today. I have
not received an answer to that question. We have a dilemma with
the Bank of Canada. It is going to be very difficult.
The Reform Party has an answer which I will talk about today.
It is time somebody said something. It is unfair that members of
the Bloc Quebecois hide behind their separatist cloak. The
people of Canada do not know they have a second characteristic.
They think they are most likely free enterprisers. Not only do
they bring to the House separation and the breakup of Canada,
14032
but they bring socialist diatribe into the House that has ruined
the country in the last 20 years. We do not need any more of that.
I am very disappointed in the words that were spoken. We
have a free society. The House is a place for everybody to
present their views. I will always support that. When I do not
agree with something I have the right to stand and say so.
Bill C-70 brings in changes to the 1994 budget, which was a
disastrous budget for the government. It came here ill prepared
and presented it to Canadians. We are living with the ill effects
of its poor planning, its partisan politics when in opposition, and
its lack of action in the 1994 budget. Unfortunately Canadians
will feel the ill effects.
The legislation is a perfect example of why we need to
simplify the Income Tax Act and have a flat tax as my hon.
colleague from Calgary Centre is calling for. We in the Reform
Party support him.
I guarantee that even accountants will find it difficult to
understand the contents of Bill C-70. Fortunately my colleague
from St. Albert is an accountant. The other day he addressed the
specifics in second reading of the bill. I want to spend my time
talking about the budget from which the bill flows. It was the
first Liberal budget that unfortunately announced the
government's plan to add $100 billion more to the federal debt
over a period of three years.
More important, I want to talk about the outcome of the 1994
budget and its implications for us today. The Prime Minister and
the government keep insisting things are fine, the economy is
growing and there is nothing to worry about. If this is the case
why did Moody's downgrade our credit rating this year?
Moody's decided that Canada was a greater risk than when the
government took office. After 18 months it has not convinced
any investors in the country that it is serious about putting its
fiscal house in order. It has presented two budgets in which it
had the opportunity to announce a medium and a long term
strategy to bring about deficit elimination and debt reduction.
The government has failed to do that and has caused all kinds of
serious implications for the economy.
(1310)
It has had almost two years to come up with a plan to balance
the budget by a specific date, but it has refused to do so after
many questions by the Reform Party. The only commitment we
have is that the Liberal government will bring the deficit to 3 per
cent of GDP. That is an easy one, but it may change. With
inflation changing and with interest rates doubling, it could
make it very difficult.
What has the government's fiscal plan as announced in its
first budget achieved to date? Members of government will say
that it has resulted in economic growth and job creation.
However the growth has occurred in spite of the government's
plan, not because of it, and for the past six months there has
been no growth at all. Employment levels have not moved in
months and the economy actually shrank in both March and
April.
The government's soft fiscal policy has had three important
impacts on the economy. First, it has led to a rapid depreciation
of the value of our currency. Second, it has forced the Bank of
Canada to keep interest rates dangerously high. Third, it has
allowed inflation, which was all but dead when the Liberals
arrived in office, to pull itself up off the canvas. Once again it
has become a major concern to investors and Canadians.
Let us look at what happened to the currency. When the
Liberals came to office the dollar was traded at 76 cents U.S. By
January of this year it had fallen to 70 cents. It has only managed
to struggle back to the 72 or 73 cent range due to the support
provided to it by Bank of Canada Governor Gordon Thiessen. It
was not the action of the government. It was the Governor of the
Bank of Canada who took action to make it happen.
However this is not the whole story. While declining only
modestly versus the American dollar, our currency has done
much worse versus other major world currencies. Since the
release of the government's first budget our dollar is worth 23
per cent less in terms of the mark and 25 per cent less in terms of
the yen.
Why is that bad for Canadians? There are two very key
reasons. The first is that imports become more expensive. To
show just how big a difference it makes, our fall versus the yen
means that a Sony camcorder which cost $3,900 last year will
cost $4,800 or an extra $900 in one year. The second is that it
leads to inflation. As we saw in the camcorder example the
prices of imported goods are jumping rapidly, which places
upward pressure on the consumer price index. We learned today
that inflation in Canada is now running at 2.9 per cent.
Let us talk about high interest rates. The impact of the budget
on interest rates has been no better. When the Liberal
government released its first budget in February 1994 short term
interest rates were under 4 per cent. It is only in the last six
weeks that they have fallen below 8 per cent. In other words
interest rates have doubled in the space of one year. That is a
record. I would say to the hon. House leader of the Liberal Party
who spoke today that should be a concern with regard to the
budget.
This is having a significant impact on our economy,
particularly those sectors which are highly sensitive to interest
rates. For example, first quarter housing starts fell 18 per cent
reaching their lowest level since 1982, while housing resales fell
by over 40 per cent. Automobile sales are also off significantly,
down 10 per cent from last year's pace. Not only are these high
rates hurting the private sector, the federal government has been
the biggest loser having to pay an additional $1.8 billion in
interest for every 1 per cent of interest increase.
14033
The consequences were brought home in the government's
second budget, which showed that debt servicing costs or
interest payments will rise by $8 billion in the next year to a total
of $50 billion.
(1315 )
That $8 billion as an increase almost completely wipes out the
effect of all of the spending cuts that came from the
government's program review and carried out by the hon.
minister who is here with us. That was a good idea but the
government has not controlled the interest rates and we are in
trouble.
The finance department's Fiscal Monitor that came out this
week notes that the public debt charges for March were up 27 per
cent and were $4 billion higher than the year before. This is a 27
per cent increase, which is very significant.
I would like to talk about inflation. That is the newest problem
facing the economy here today. It results directly from the soft
fiscal policy announced in the government's first budget. That is
where the problem is. It is a resurrection of these inflationary
pressures.
In the last year, inflation rose from .2 per cent to the present
level of 2.9 per cent and it is clearly threatening to escape the 3
per cent target band set by the Bank of Canada. This means that
the Bank of Canada Governor Gordon Thiessen is facing a very
difficult decision. If he chooses to support the value of the dollar
and contain inflation within its 1 to 3 per cent target band, he
will be forced to raise interest rates. As I mentioned earlier, any
further increases will hit both the government and the economy
very hard.
On the other hand if his concerns for the economy prompt the
governor to lower interest rates, then the dollar will continue to
fall and the inflation genie will escape from the bottle. This in
turn will lead to higher, longer term interest rates as
expectations of future inflation are priced into the bond market
in a vicious cycle in which there can be no winner.
I would like to remind members of what happened the last
time we entered the vicious cycle. It was in the late 1980s and
early 1990s when the Liberals were in opposition. All through
this period, the Liberals used the former Bank of Canada
Governor John Crow as their whipping boy due to his tough
stand on inflation.
As we know, they released him after they came into
government. They demanded that he lower interest rates to
prevent the economy from slipping into a recession seems fairly
straightforward in terms of economic policy. What happened is
that it eventually did.
Whether they realize it or not, the Liberals criticized the
wrong man. It was not the tight money policy of John Crow that
caused this recession, it was the chronic deficit spending of the
former Conservative government.
The point the Liberals missed in opposition and are missing
again now that they are in power is the government has two
instruments with which to influence the interest rates, inflation
and the dollar.
First, monetary policy as carried out by the Bank of Canada
plays a very important role but it is not the only player. The
government must also shoulder some of the burden through its
choice of fiscal policy. That is the primary instrument which
must be used to deal with the problems in the country.
What happened in Canada under the Conservatives is that a
fiscally irresponsible government ignored its own
responsibilities, effectively forcing the Bank of Canada to carry
the ball single handedly.
I am warning the government today to not make the same
mistake as the Tories. We cannot afford to let that happen. I hope
the Finance Minister and his colleagues will have enough sense
to provide the new governor with support in order to keep the lid
on inflation and to bring down interest rates.
If the government does not reverse course and adopt a
stronger fiscal policy, then we in the Reform Party will not be
pointing our finger at the Bank of Canada. We will place the
blame squarely at the feet of the government, which has not
honoured its fiscal responsibility. My responsibility and my
colleague's responsibility is to do just that. For the sake of this
country, I hope this does not become the legacy of the
government's first budget, the last piece of which is Bill C-70, a
bill that we will not support.
There is still time to change the course. The government's
second budget began to do this but the job is left to be done. It is
incumbent on the government to bring about a budget for
1996-97 which puts in place a plan of deficit elimination and a
plan toward reducing the debt of the country. If the government
does that possibly we will have a stable economy, an economy in
which jobs are created, in which Canadians will be able to risk,
to invest and to live with their families in a very proper way.
(1320)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-70. The purpose of
the bill is to amend the Income Tax Act because of certain
budgetary measures which were taken.
Members of the Reform Party vehemently opposed that
budget. We opposed the budget because we felt it did not go far
enough. It did not address the situations in the country which
threaten every Canadian from coast to coast. Canadian jobs are
14034
threatened, their homes are threatened and their social programs
are threatened.
The reason the budget threatened each and every Canadian
was due to the economic and fiscal irresponsibility of the
government in not addressing the debt and the deficit which
increased every year. Furthermore, the budget sought to
compromise those in our society who are most vulnerable, those
who cannot take care of themselves and those who are most
dependent on government largesse.
We in the Reform Party proposed the zero in three plan. We
gave the first half of that plan to the government. We said to the
government: ``Here is a how to plan''. It was not something
esoteric, it was a how to plan to bring the economic situation
under control. We told the government how much to cut and
where to cut. Did the government heed that? No.
We gave the second part of the plan to the government and
said: ``Here is the product of hard work. Here is the product of
something which is followed by a great many Canadians. It is a
plan which is fiscally responsible and sound. It is a plan which
will address the debt and deficit problem''. Did the government
listen to us? No.
As a result we have the problems of today. Figures came out
this week that showed the real income of Canadians has dropped
significantly over the last two years. The Canadian dollar has
dropped and inflation is rising. As well, the investors of the
world have downgraded our bonds. Moody's has downgraded
our bonds for the first time ever. If this is not a harbinger of
things to come, I do not know what is.
It is unfortunate that the wool has been pulled over
Canadians' eyes by a budget which is an illusion. The
government told us that it is the first government to cut. That is
true. This is the first government to actually make cuts. Let us
analyse those cuts.
A third of the cuts which were made truly were cuts and the
government deserves credit for that. However, two-thirds of the
cuts were made to provincial transfer payments. Whose
shoulders did they fall on? The provinces. The provinces also
tax the same taxpayers and at the end of the day it is the
taxpayers who have to pay.
Whether it is the federal government, the provincial
government, or the municipal government people who work
hard have a huge amount of their money taken away from them
to go to the governments which are in difficult financial
situations. Governments have not recognised the situation they
are in and continue to spend taxpayers' dollars in an
irresponsible fashion.
I plead on behalf of all Canadians that the government take
heed and work with us on the problem to develop a sound,
fiscally responsible solution which is going to help all
Canadians from coast to coast. That is what everybody in the
House wants to have. We need a strong, aggressive, forward
thinking economy that is going to help all Canadians while
preserving the core of our social programs to ensure that all
those in Canada who need it will be taken care of.
(1325)
An hon. member: They owe it to the young people.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Yes, that is right,
they owe it to the young people. This government and previous
governments have mortgaged the future of Canadians to pay for
what we have today. That is the height of irresponsibility. The
young people of today and those who are not yet born are the
ones who are going to bear the brunt of this most tragic situation.
The current tax situation is an unwieldy, ineffective system
that is bogged down in bureaucratic largesse. All of us here pay
taxes. All of us see the tax plans. All of us see the forms that
have to be filled out. How can we see these every year and not
ask: If we are having a problem with it, is not the rest of Canada?
Why does the government not simplify the tax system to
ensure that it is fair and equitable across the whole spectrum of
individuals earning money? We must ensure that everybody
pays their fair share without going through loopholes and
favouritism within the system.
To that end, my colleague from Calgary who is our finance
critic has just mentioned the flat tax system that we in the
Reform Party have been speaking about since we were elected. It
was one of the pillars of our economic and fiscal plan.
Essentially the flat tax system would simplify the tax to
ensure that all Canadians pay their fair share. That is extremely
important. As we speak to businesses and individuals alike they
shake their heads and ask: ``How can we deal with this tax
system, a system that is so unwieldy, so unforgiving and so
complicated?'' There are many simpler ways of doing it.
The GST is another aspect of the tax system that was supposed
to be revisited. The Deputy Prime Minister stated that if the GST
was not gone a year after she was elected, she would be gone.
Unfortunately she is still here. I think she should live up to her
promises.
That is another aspect of the tax system which needs to be
revisited. I ask and implore members on the government side to
please listen to business leaders in their communities, not
leaders of the business community leaders who come to us. Go
out and walk among the business community/leaders and ask
them what it is that absolutely frustrates and prevents them from
maximizing their potential as a business person. They will say,
nine times out of ten, it is the GST.
The second thing they will mention nine times out of ten is the
unbelievable red tape they have to go through to operate within
this country. It eludes me why, in a country as rich and as
potentially powerful as ours, we have to hamstring the business
community with bureaucratic entanglements.
14035
I implore the government to look at ways of simplifying the
taxation system, the bureaucratic red tape and internal trade
barriers which hamper Canada.
The trade barriers in our country hamstring and prevent
businesses from being the best that they can become. We
aggressively pursue, and rightly so, international free trade
agreements like the WTO and previous to that the GATT. It is
done to help our business communities. That is done on the
international scene. However it eludes me why on our domestic
scene we turn around and say: ``No, you cannot do business here.
We are going to put tariffs there. We are going to oblige you to
follow these rules and engage in the same type of bureaucratic
entanglements and anti-free trade rules that we do not follow in
our export and international endeavours''. It is hurting our
businesses and people wonder why we are not doing better. In
part it is because of these internal trade barriers which are
hamstringing the ability of businesses to do that.
When it was elected the government said it was going to
aggressively pursue the elimination of these interprovincial
trade barriers. It has only nibbled around the edges and Bill
C-88 will prove it to the Canadian public.
In closing, there are good parts to Bill C-70 and many bad
parts. We must simplify the tax system. Let us look at the flat tax
system we want to apply. Let us ensure that we simplify
expenditures. Let us attack the deficit and bring it down to zero.
Listen to the zero in three plan of the Reform Party and move
forward to a strong economy for all Canadians.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Would there be
unanimous consent for the Chair to put the question now and
then proceed to private members' hour?
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Then we will put the matter to a vote. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
division on the motion stands deferred until Monday, 11.30
p.m., at the time of adjournment.
[English]
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
14035
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of Bill S-7, an
act to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for motor vehicles,
as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in support of Bill S-7, an
act to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for internal
combustion engines. With the passage of this forward looking
legislation, the federal government will assume a leadership
role in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by requiring
by the year 2004 the conversion of 75 per cent of its fleet
vehicles to cleaner burning fuel.
The federal fleet consists of 39,000 vehicles that release
150,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and over 4,000 tonnes of other
pollutants into the environment each year. These pollutants
collect in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming. As a
result of Bill S-7 we will reduce CO2 emissions by 20,000
tonnes annually and will take positive steps to address the
greenhouse effect. We will lead by example.
It is anticipated that the conversion of government vehicles
will encourage automobile companies to market vehicles that
burn renewable fuels and will also increase the number of
service stations providing alternative fuels. Not that many years
ago gas stations offering ethanol were few and far between. Now
they are everywhere. This too will happen with other cleaner
burning fuels.
We have all contributed to the environmental problems we
now face and it is time to be part of the solution. Bill S-7 will
allow us as parliamentarians to take positive action to ensure
that our children and our children's children enjoy cleaner air
and a healthier environment. We owe this to them.
By requiring government vehicles to be converted to cleaner
burning fuels, Canada will be making a significant step toward
fulfilling our international commitments to reduce greenhouse
14036
gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Liberal
government is committed to ensuring that these obligations are
met for the good of Canada and for the good of the world.
(1335)
In addition to greening our country, this legislation will result
in long term savings to Canadian taxpayers. During the five
years it will take to convert 75 per cent of our government fleet
vehicles, we will save $7 million. Once conversion is complete
we will save $7 million every year. This represents direct
savings to government and direct savings to taxpayers.
Bill S-7 is fuel neutral. It promotes the use of ethanol,
methanol, propane gas, natural gas, hydrogen or electricity. The
choice of fuels to an extent will be regionally determined based
on economic factors and availability.
The expansion of the use of ethanol is of particular
importance to me given the benefit it is for the environment and
as a growing market for prairie grain. Not only is prairie grain
feeding the world, it is getting the world where it wants to go and
in a more environmentally friendly way than traditional fossil
fuel.
Ethanol provides an excellent opportunity for economic
growth and diversification. It greatly expands the market for
agricultural products thereby increasing farmers' incomes. It
also provides opportunities for value added development and
jobs in rural Canada.
The people in my Dauphin-Swan River riding are excited
about the prospects of ethanol production. Groups from the
towns of Russell and Swan River have approached me about
possibilities of establishing ethanol plants in their communities.
They are excited about contributing to the greening of our
environment and the economic spinoffs for their communities.
The construction of ethanol plants in rural communities will not
only boost our self-sufficiency in ethanol supply but will also
diversify our communities, provide needed jobs and greatly
contribute to the long term viability of rural Canada.
To help our rural communities build innovative economies,
the minister of agriculture and the environment minister
announced the biomass ethanol program which will encourage
investment in the ethanol industry, thereby expanding domestic
demands for corn, wheat and barley produced on the prairies.
The biomass ethanol program shows this government's
commitment to encourage the production and use of renewable
fuels where it is environmentally sound and economically
viable.
I am pleased with the support that companies like Centra Gas
in Winnipeg and Ford Canada have given to this initiative.
Propane and natural gas suppliers have indicated that they are
prepared to convert suitable vehicles in the government fleet at
their own expense. These are the types of partnerships we need
to encourage to work toward environmental sustainability.
I am very pleased to offer my wholehearted support to this
forward looking initiative. It is not often that an idea comes
about that is good for the environment, good for agriculture and
good for the taxpayers. In short, this is a win-win proposal.
I commend Senator Colin Kenny for his foresight and his
commitment to the environment. I urge all members of this
House to support this important legislation.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address
my amendments to Bill S-7. There are four in number but all
deal with one subject which is mainly to remove crown
corporations from the effects of this bill.
It is a well known and well developed tradition in this country
that crown corporations at the basic managerial level should be
able to operate at arm's length from the political sector. This
type of interference is totally unwarranted. The companies are
inefficient enough as it is. If the managers are going to have to
be constantly looking over their shoulders to see what the
politicians want them to do, they are going to be even more
inefficient.
There is a basic thrust to this bill which is expressed very well
in a briefing note I received from I know not where. It says that
legislation is preferable to government guidelines. That is
fundamental Liberal policy in just about every sphere of
activity. This will be about the fifth time in this House I have
drawn attention to what I consider to be the very basic
philosophy of the Liberal Party of Canada, that everything that
is not prohibited shall be compulsory.
(1340)
My colleagues are going to address the environmental
concerns. I will leave that to them, except I would like to state
that as somewhat of an engineer and scientist, I find there is a lot
of voodoo science involved in some of the lobby documents I
have received backing this bill.
This is not a black and white situation. Certainly propane and
natural gas do have some environmental advantages over
gasoline and diesel, but they also have disadvantages. On
balance perhaps they are better. Over all, ethanol is undoubtedly
deleterious to the environment if we consider all of the aspects.
I see an hon. member grinning over there. He wants to have an
ethanol plant in his riding. If we study the scientific literature,
from a basic, scientific point of view the evidence on ethanol
does not add up.
I have noticed there has been an incredible amount of
corporate lobbying on this bill. As a matter of fact the corporate
lobbying on behalf of this bill has been more intense than
anything which has taken place on the Hill since the halcyon
days of Dome Petroleum. It is incredible. I have a huge stack of
papers.
14037
If this is such a good idea, if the producers of the conversion
systems and the people who want to sell propane and natural gas
have such good products and they are so sure of their position
here, why should government have to interfere in the
marketplace to mandate markets for them? This is not the
business of government; this is the business of business.
If they cannot break into this market, albeit a small market, I
do not know why they are fighting so hard to get it. It is a small
market. Let them prove themselves, flex their muscles, talk to
the people who do the purchasing, put on some demonstration
projects and win the market fair and square in the marketplace
instead of getting the politicians to do their marketing for them
and shove it down the throats of the bureaucrats. This is not the
way government should be run. This is not the way the civil
service should be operated.
I most emphatically oppose the bill. However, if we must have
it, as it has very clearly become a government bill now, then let
us at least have my amendments which will permit the people
who operate our crown corporations to continue the unfettered
management of these companies on our behalf.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
having listened to the argument just made by the member for
Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, I have to deal with
the point he makes in relation to crown corporations. He says he
does not want to interfere with the operations of crown
corporations in implementing this measure.
I have to remind the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia that crown corporations are created by acts
of Parliament. They express the will of the elected
representatives and of the elected government.
(1345)
Budgets of the crown corporations are scrutinized every year
by committees of Parliament. They undergo therefore very close
examination on the part of the political arm. Therefore there is
nothing wrong in also asking crown corporations to adopt a
measure that is economically and environmentally sound.
I begin to wonder whether the Reform Party is interested in
economy and environmentally sound measures. I know for sure
the member for Comox-Alberni is a very good
environmentalist. I know also his colleague, the member for
New Westminster-Burnaby, is a very fine environmentalist
and has proven that on a number of occasions.
Now the moment of truth has come for the Reform Party to
show its true colours and to demonstrate where it really stands.
As has been underlined on several occasions in this debate, the
measure proposed in Bill S-7 to switch the use of fuels from
fossil to alternative fuels just emerging in the marketplace
would save the government $7 million in consumption and in
maintenance terms.
That is not a minor feature considering the interest expressed
by the Reform Party on reducing government expenditures.
Here is a golden opportunity for the hon. member to demonstrate
to his constituents and to the House that he means what he says. I
hope he is not using crown corporations as an excuse for not
supporting the bill because that would be a very sad matter.
The member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia
also made a plea for the marketplace to take care of this matter.
We all know new technologies, new usages and new fuels when
they appear on the market need some help. That is the intent of
the bill before us.
Why is the bill before us? This is an important consideration.
It relates to economic savings and we have gone over that a
moment ago. We have a responsibility in relation to the trend in
climate change. I am glad to learn the member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia is a scientist. He must
know the scientific community warned about the serious trends
in climate change and climate warming. These are caused
mostly because of our dependence on fossil fuels.
It would seem only logical, in the public interest and desirable
that the government seek fuels less damaging in terms of climate
change.
In the case of the fuels proposed in this bill we have an
alternative approach that will cut in half the so-called
greenhouse gases, helping the momentum in climate change
which has attracted the attention of a number of international
bodies and of a number of leading scientists in Canada .
Therefore it seems to me the Reform Party is at crossroads. I
am sure it will want to demonstrate to Parliament and to the
public that it means what it says, that it is really concerned as it
claims at times with economic measures and environmental
objectives.
The bill is well known because of interventions made by
previous speakers. It demonstrates the time has come for us as a
society, as consumers, to move away wherever possible and as
rapidly as we can from our dependence on fossil fuels.
(1350 )
We are internationally committed to the stabilization of
carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000, taking the year 1990
as a base. At the rate we are at now we will reach the year 2000
with a minus 13 deficit; in other words, we are badly behind
schedule.
In addition to that, in ``Creating Opportunity'' in 1993 we
made a pledge to Canadian electors that we would reduce carbon
dioxide emissions by the year 2005 by 20 per cent. This measure
is helping to move us in that direction and it seems every
member of Parliament has a great opportunity to demonstrate
we are taking to heart the public interest and that we want to take
every opportunity to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
14038
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill.
I cannot agree with the overall need for the bill in the first
place. However, the amendment would certainly enhance it. I
will direct my remarks specifically to the bill and whether we
need it.
I believe the bill is an excellent example of how we as
parliamentarians can get caught up in believing that enacting
new or revised legislation is the answer to problems we may
encounter. Making the bill law is an example of how we have
allowed too much government into our daily lives.
The bill's objective is to accelerate the use of alternate fuels
for motor vehicles, and specifically targets the government
motor vehicle fleet of approximately 30,000 vehicles. The bill
then devotes its text to the mechanics of the process deemed
necessary to achieve a 75 per cent success rate by the year 2004.
I shall address my remarks to the main objective, as the
semantics of the process are irrelevant at this point if one
disagrees with the main objective and the overall concept.
The bill is asking us to make a law based on a verb, to
accelerate or not to accelerate. The concept of converting
gasoline motor vehicles to alternate fuels is already in place.
Activity in the government department toward achieving this
end is already underway. Therefore to accelerate this activity is
not a legislative concern but a management concern in the
government departments and corporations, et cetera, this bill
includes.
We do not need more laws in our lives. We need to improve the
existing ones in their appropriate jurisdictions to resolve
problems; if it is a management problem, put the problem there.
In this case senior management should have a plan for
converting to alternate fuels and the plan should include the
number of vehicles by certain dates, be it 2004 or otherwise.
Our colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, has also
indicated the legislation should empower management or
bureaucrats to make changes rather than telling them what to do.
That was in the Hill Times on April 20. In other words, delegate
the authority to carry out the action to management and then
expect it to get on with it to achieve the policy as stated by the
standards.
The basic principle of delegation when used effectively
reduces the number of rules and regulations, laws, et cetera,
required and creates the necessary direction at the level of the
department or corporation as a policy and procedure versus
national law to actually implement the act. By effectively using
the principle of delegation we succeed in reducing the amount of
law and government in our daily lives.
I am not suggesting this proposal is not an effective action
toward reducing the greenhouse effect in our environment. I
agree with the comments made by the Minister of the
Environment, a member of the Bloc Quebecois and my
colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia for
publicly supporting the concept of converting gasoline motors
to alternate fuels.
I agree legislating this type of action, the converting of
gasoline motors, et cetera, is in our jurisdiction as legislators, as
it provides direction for the people of Canada in this regard.
How it is done or the process to achieve this is a managerial
concept.
(1355)
A law of this nature tells all Canadians Canada is working
toward this conversion. It provides a sense of direction. The
marketplace would be aware of this overall objective and we can
pass this as legislation. How fast it goes should be a
management situation.
It is not our role to legislate the process to be used by
individuals or groups and in this case government departments
or corporations. Individuals and groups should be managing
their own resources, finances and otherwise and developing a
plan conducive to their own situation to achieve this goal.
Bill S-7 is in the realm of management, as I stated earlier, not
law. Why is it deemed necessary to be concerned about the speed
at which this is occurring? Obviously there are barriers present
and the nature of today's marketplace may well be one, as
resources for alternate fuels are few and far between.
By legislating that 30,000 plus government vehicles be
converted within an eight or nine year period will create much
more demand on the marketplace and force the issue on it for
change in existing trends. We are not only legislating
management techniques for government organizations, we are
also becoming involved in the marketplace in that we are
suggesting it change its management practices within the next
eight or nine years to accommodate the demands this bill will
put on it.
Another concern is the cost factor involved and the effects of
the time limitations we will have on the budgeting process of an
organization, not only the actual conversion costs but the
operating costs. The rationale now is alternate fuels are cheaper.
If we use the supply and demand principle once we get into the
process of conversion at some point the cost of that fuel will also
go up.
Bill S-7 will have an effect on several principles or concepts
considered important in society. The environment is one. Some
of those concepts are government interference in the
management process, that is, lack of delegation, government
interference in the marketplace which relates directly to the
principle of too much government in our daily lives and
government entering into the field of free enterprise.
14039
I agree this accelerating process for conversion would
definitely contribute toward improving our environment.
However, I do not see the need for a national law to achieve this
objective. The appropriate position in senior management
should send a memo to the appropriate position in purchasing to
recommend a conversion program within the budgetary
parameters and considerations, et cetera, of the existing
vehicles and get on with this conversion through a management
process versus a national law.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every
now and again, and not often enough, a nation has an
opportunity to provide leadership to not only its people but to
people in other countries.
Every now and again its elected political people in the
democratic process have a golden opportunity to participate in
that leadership. Every now and again those elected people who
want to participate in that leadership have to drag along other
elected people who want to keep the country in the dark ages.
We are on the threshold of beginning the energy transition
from a hydrocarbon energy economy to a carbohydrate energy
economy. Petroleum resources are finite. Their reserves are
declining.
(1400 )
As exploration reaches farther out into more difficult areas,
the product becomes more and more expensive. At the same
time, the consumption of these products is increasing,
particularly when we witness the explosion of industrial growth
in nations that were considered third world less than a
generation ago. I refer specifically to China and India with a
combined population of approximately two billion souls.
Therefore, it is essential that we as an industrialized nation
begin to look seriously at bringing alternative energy forms on
line. Hence the creation of Bill S-7 to the credit of Sen. Colin
Kenny who had the vision and has exploited the vision. I am
proud to stand here today hoping to bring this bill to fruition so
that we can begin the transition of 75 per cent of the national
fleet to alternate fuels by the year 2004.
That transition will not be limited to just those fuels that are
named in Bill S-7. Since that bill was written, two more fuels
have emerged with great potential, not only for the economy of
western Canada, but also to enlarge the options available to
individuals.
The question was raised why is legislation preferable to
guidelines. The guidelines have been in place since 1976 and
nothing has happened. The neanderthals remain in place and
nothing moves. Obviously it is necessary to legislate.
There is one more reason for legislating. Bringing something
new on stream is a chicken and egg situation. If one does not
have enough demand for the fuel then the distributors of the fuel
cannot afford to set up to supply the fuel. The manufacturers of
the vehicles really cannot afford to retool to supply vehicles that
will burn alternative fuels. This is the chicken and the egg.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop a critical mass of
alternative fuel burning vehicles so the distribution system will
follow.
Because the country is beginning to move in that direction,
two of our major automobile manufacturers, General Motors
and the Ford Motor Company, are now in a position to supply
vehicles to the market which will burn up to 85 per cent ethanol
or any combination from straight gasoline on up at no additional
cost. We have an obligation to get the stream started and get
things rolling.
My hon. friend in the Reform Party talked about the
undesirability of having crown corporations included in the
conversion process. One crown corporation, Canada Post, has a
major competitor that advertised it used alternate cleaner
burning fuels. If I were the manager of the Canada Post
Corporation I would be clamouring to convert my fleet of
delivery trucks, vans and whatever to alternate fuels and
advertise it in order to get the public relations value. Crown
corporations need to be included.
I remember a comment being made when we were in
committee by someone regarding the conversion of some
vehicles of the RCMP and how undesirable that would be
because they needed pursuit vehicles. I had to remind that
gentleman the Indy 500 which had run two weeks earlier was not
run on gasoline but on methanol. The idea that some conversions
produce a little less is just not plausible.
I also had the opportunity to tour the Pratt and Whitney plant
in my riding last Monday. It has already completed all the work
on burning ethanol in jet engines for the Brazilian government.
The technology is already in place and all ready to go.
(1405)
I know my friend in the Reform Party does not like the word
ethanol. Somehow it does not have a nice ring to it. He comes
from western Canada and I would think he would be an
enthusiastic supporter of ethanol as one of the options which is
available to us.
Mr. Morrison: We cannot afford it.
Mr. Reed: My friend says that we cannot afford it. I always
said that if we had a surplus of it we could drink it.
The fact is that all of these fuels, while they may be a little
more expensive at the present time, will find a niche market as
times goes by. As production increases in efficiency, the cost per
unit will decline. When the transition occurs, when the demand
for petroleum resources puts the prices through the roof, Canada
14040
will be in the driver's seat and will be able to lead the world in
the supply of alternate fuels. It is a natural that will happen and
we have this glorious opportunity to help it along.
We are on the cusp of the future. No longer can Canada be
looked at as a country we can put a fence around. We have to
think of our resources as being marketable to the world. We have
to think of where the demand is going to go as the population
accelerates, as it will in the next 25 or 30 years, and we will have
to be ready for that. This is one bill which will get us ready for it
and put us in a position of leadership.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill S-7, an act to
accelerate the use of alternative fuels for motor vehicles.
Bill S-7 proposes that by the year 2004, following a
scheduled phase in period of over seven years, 75 per cent of the
39,000 federal government fleet of vehicles will be fueled by
alternative transportation fuels.
I agree with the environmental intent of the bill and I agree
that we need to take action against priority air quality concerns.
Our party supports the efforts to reduce pollution, but these must
balance economic with environmental considerations. I believe
that there are other more economical and effective solutions
available than those proposed in Bill S-7.
As my colleague before me has said, there has been an
unprecedented effort to ram this private member's bill through
the House. I have to ask: Why is that so?
If the government supports the legislation, then why is it not
putting it through itself? Why does it take a Liberal senator to
initiate the bill? When approached by the sponsor of the bill no
minister in the government was prepared to sponsor the
legislation. Again, I have to ask why.
There appears to be a controversy between the Minister of the
Environment who appears to support the concept of the bill, and
the Minister of Natural Resources who does not come out in
support at all. The Minister of Natural Resources has expressed
concerns about the government not incurring unnecessary and
unreasonable short term costs which push up the deficit and that
government still needs to understand the economic as well as the
environmental implications of fuel conversion.
Obviously the bill does not have the full support of the Liberal
caucus. That is why it is coming in through the back door. I have
to ask myself: Why is it not receiving the support of the
government? There have to be a lot of reasons and they need to
be answered before we support the bill.
The Reform Party strongly supports the principle of market
forces. I do not support the principle used in the bill of pushing
the market as Bill S-7 would have us do. We are talking about a
considerable number of vehicles, 30,000 in fact. The precedent
of government interference in market decisions is unwarranted
and unwanted and the bill is a direct attempt to manipulate the
marketplace by mandating government vehicle conversion to
natural gas.
Government purchasing agents are hired to make the right and
the best decisions possible for government purchases.
Environmental and economic considerations are supposed to be
taken into account when decisions such as fleet purchases are
made. If the legislation is as good as the Senator claims and if
the environmental and economic benefits are so obvious and
certain, then why must it be legislated? Are these managers not
paid to make the decisions themselves? Why is it necessary to go
over the mangers' heads and mandate these purchases and
conversions? Something is not right here.
(1410)
Alternative fuel vehicles can be purchased openly on the
market today. There is no need for the heavy hand of government
to attempt to manipulate the market in any particular direction.
Canadian energy policy is best served through the open and
fair operation of market forces to manage energy development,
production and consumption in an efficient manner which
should be subject to standards established to protect against
risks to human health and the environment.
Mandating the use of alternative transportation fuels and
vehicles is inappropriate as it restricts the consumer from
routine economic choices which are fundamental to a successful
market economy.
The Reform Party is fundamentally opposed to subsidization
within the marketplace and alternative fuels require major
subsidies in order to be competitive in the transportation sector.
All alternative fuels are exempt from the 10 cents a litre
federal excise tax. Provincial road taxes are also reduced or even
not applied to alternative fuels in most provinces. Alternative
fuels could not survive in the marketplace today without these
government subsidies.
I am also concerned about the bill because I do not believe
that mandating fuel choices will achieve its proposed economic
and environmental objectives. Mandated or subsidized use of
alternative transportation fuels comes at a high cost to Canada's
economy and is contrary to the government's stated goal of
reduced government expenditure and deficit reduction.
Government and taxpayers are penalized twice in the bill, first
through subsidies and second, in forgone tax revenues.
If the principles of Bill S-7 were applied to Canadians at large
with mandated use of alternative transportation fuels with
current subsidies, it would be at a high cost to Canada's
economic base because of loss of government revenue. If the bill
were applied to 10 per cent of Canadian vehicles it would cost
taxpayers over $730 million in lost revenues.
14041
If the policy does not make sense in the private sector, then
why should it be applied to the government? I am sure there are
other policy options available to the government that will help it
achieve the environmental intent of the bill in a manner that can
demonstrate that the government is using best practices to
achieve its policy goals.
An examination of the bill shows that there will be
significantly higher costs and marginal benefits achieved by
mandating alternative fuels. For example, the relative time
required to get a payback on a vehicle converted to alternative
fuels needs to be looked at much more closely. Bill S-7 defines
alternative fuels as fuel that is less damaging to the environment
than conventional fuels, including ethanol, methanol, propane,
natural gas, hydrogen or electricity.
When we are speaking of alternative fuels we are referring to
several different formulations and vastly different
environmental effects. Some alternative fuels such as
compressed natural gas and propane offer advantages in air
quality over conventional fuels. However, the advantages of
compressed natural gas are minimized when used as a
transportation fuel. Compressed natural gas is less convenient
than gasoline because of its limited range and the fact that it has
to be stored in heavy, bulky storage tanks. Compressed natural
gas vehicles are also more expensive to own and operate than
gasoline vehicles.
Liquefied petroleum gas is also a cleaner burning fuel but it
does not contribute to reduced emissions in any significant way
because it has a limited overall supply and like compressed
natural gas it requires bulky storage tanks.
When we think of alternative fuels, many confuse it with
environmentally friendly forms but this is not always the case.
Some alternative fuels are actually more environmentally
damaging than conventional or reformulated fuels.
For example, the production of ethanol which uses corn or
other grains is more environmentally damaging in its production
than gasoline. Electric vehicle technology may be
non-polluting itself, but the environmental effects of the energy
source for production of electricity, whether it is nuclear, hydro
or fossil fuel, has to also be brought into the equation.
(1415 )
Environmental impacts associated with after market vehicle
conversions which currently dominate alternative
transportation fuel applications have not been favourable in
comparison with ordinary gasoline. The environmental
attributes of alternative fuels must be assessed on a lifestyle
basis of both the vehicle and the fuels.
Significant emissions can occur in the extraction, processing
manufacturing and distribution of alternative fuels. This bill
attempts to force the hand of the market to make alternative
fuels more competitive in the transportation sector rather than
allowing purchasers to drive the market through need and
demand.
I am concerned by some of the claims associated with the bill
that it will save taxpayers money. These claims are false. On the
one hand the bill claims to save upwards of $43 million in fuel
over five years and $15 million the year after. This sounds pretty
good. If it were true I would wonder why the government had not
implemented this many years ago.
The bill is being rammed through using the guise that it will
be good for the environment when really it is the gas companies
that stand to make billions of dollars.
I cannot support the bill because of the attempt to manipulate
the market and the fuzzy economics that do not add up to the
program that will benefit Canadian taxpayers.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the
recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded
division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6.
Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking
of deferred divisions for the report stage of the bill now before
the House. However, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the
divisions stand deferred until Monday, June 19 at 11.30 p.m.
Shall we call it 2.30 p.m. and call for orders of the day?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
14042
14042
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from May 2 consideration of the motion:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be
appointed to develop a Code of Conduct to guide Senators and Members of the
House of Commons in reconciling their official responsibilities with their
personal interests, including their dealings with lobbyists;
That seven Members of the Senate and fourteen Members of the House of
Commons be the Members of the Committee, and the Members of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be appointed to act on behalf of the
House as Members of the said Committee;
That changes in the membership, on the part of the House of Commons of the
Committee be effective immediately after a notification signed by the member
acting as the chief Whip of any recognized party has been filed with the clerk of
the Committee;
That the Committee be directed to consult broadly and to review the
approaches taken with respect to these issues in Canada and in other
jurisdictions with comparable systems of government;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of
the House;
That the Committee have the power to report from time to time to send for
persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be
ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have the power to retain the services of expert,
professional, technical and clerical staff;
That a quorum of the Committee be 11 Members whenever a vote, resolution
or other decision is taken, so long, as both Houses are represented and that the
Joint Chairpersons be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and
authorize the printing thereof, whenever six Members are present, so long as
both Houses are represented;
That the Committee be empowered to appoint, from among its Members,
such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such
sub-committees, all or any of its power except the power to report to the Senate
and House of Commons;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio
broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;
That the Committee make its final report no later than October 31, 1995;
That, notwithstanding usual practices, if the Senate is not sitting when the
final report of the Committee is completed, the report may be deposited with the
Clerk of the Senate and it shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented to
that House; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this
House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deem advisable,
Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure, as official opposition critic for parliamentary
reform, to speak on Motion No. 24 regarding the appointment of
a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of
Commons to develop a code of conduct for parliamentarians. I
will address three points.
I will start with the issue of committee membership, as it
seems very important to me. Second, I will give the whole
historical background to this effort on the part of governments to
try to introduce a code of conduct for parliamentarians, an effort
going back over almost 20 years. Finally, I will touch on the
present context in terms of ethics, which obviously leads us to
believe that all this is nothing but window dressing.
In fact, the motion put forward by the government House
leader regarding a Canadian parliamentarian code of conduct is
nothing new in the history of parliamentary government and
even democracy in the western world.
(1420)
The fact that this government wants to appoint a special joint
committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to develop
a code of conduct is another manifestation of the Liberal
tradition of giving the appearance of having a clear conscience
publicly, while continuing to scheme behind the scene.
Before getting into what this Liberal code of conduct is really
about, I would like to call the attention of the House to a specific
point. The fact that eight senators and 14 members of Parliament
would be appointed to this committee is sheer nonsense to me.
How can the government have the nerve, the gall to table in
this House of elected representatives of the people, a motion to
appoint a joint committee, which would include senators, to
develop a code of conduct for parliamentarians of this Canadian
democratic institution?
The Liberal government's attitude is revolting. To appoint a
committee on parliamentary ethics which would include
non-elected senators violates the most elementary principle of
western democracy. The public knows that the Senate is an
archaic and useless institution whose sole purpose is to reward
friends of the regime, whether Liberal or Conservative, so that
they will do some partisan work for the government or for the
interests which they represent.
I will simply say that senators can continue to work and
practise their profession or calling. As you know, a senator
recently joined a prestigious law firm.
We deplore the fact that the Bloc amendments, which oppose
the presence of senators on the committee, are bluntly rejected
by the government. Again, senators are not elected
representatives. The government's attitude shows once again
that its motion is just a joke and that the Liberal Party of Canada
is antidemocratic and does not care about the public.
14043
The Bloc has always been opposed to the existence of the
Senate, a position which is supported by a large number of
Canadians. Given the extremely hard economic context, a debt
exceeding $550 billion, as well as the current unemployment
and poverty problems in Quebec and in Canada, the amount of
$42.6 million allocated to that committee could be used to
stimulate the economy and create jobs.
The Fathers of Canadian Confederation defended the
appointment of senators on the ground that members of the
Upper House had to be independent. Indeed, considering that
they do not have to be elected by the public, that they are
appointed until the age of 75, which is no small job security
given how precarious jobs are these days, and given that
unemployment is so high in Quebec and in Canada, one would
think that senators deal more or less at arm's length with the
government. On the contrary, the members of the upper
Chamber have always been more interested in playing party
politics than in fulfilling their more proper role as impartial
legislators.
It bears repeating that senators are appointed on a strictly
partisan basis and that the party in power is itself trying to take
over control of the Senate by appointing a greater number of
senators. A large number, close to 50 per cent, of the senators
recruited by the Prime Minister have political experience, and
most of the rest have performed valuable services for the party
in power. Everyone knows that it is a snug retirement haven for
politicians and others who have always supported the interests
of the Liberals and Conservatives in the House of Commons and
who were always there to serve Canadian big business.
And the Liberal Party of Canada talks about parliamentary
ethics; it is a disgrace to democracy and the Parliament of
Canada.
Having said that, I would like to look at another aspect of the
question of a parliamentary code of conduct, and that is conflict
of interest. There is no obligation to divulge the pecuniary
interests of a member of the House of Commons. However,
section 21 of the Standing Orders of this democratic institution
provides that no member is entitled to vote upon any question in
which he or she has a pecuniary interest, and the vote of any
member so interested will be disallowed.
(1425)
If I am reminding this House of this basic rule of conduct
governing the conduct of Canadian parliamentarians, it is
because the events of the past few years, in particular those
involving the conduct of this government, have raised serious
doubts about the Liberal government's political will to establish
a code of conduct which would really bring total transparency to
the management of public affairs.
This is a very important issue. The waffling done over the past
30 years by the two parties in power regarding the
implementation of a law really governing the conduct of elected
representatives would indicate that there is no real political will
to change things. For example, in 1973, the federal government
published a green paper, ``Members of Parliament and Conflict
of Interest'', in which it proposed to group and extend the scope
of the rules which existed at the time. This green paper was
studied by a committee of the House of Commons and by a
committee of the Senate and both made many recommendations.
Two years later, on June 10, 1975, the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections tabled its
report on the green paper. In general, it approved the provisions
and recommended a few amendments. Two years later, on June
26, 1978, Bill C-62, the Independence of Parliament Act, was
tabled in the House of Commons complete with new regulations
for the House of Commons and the Senate. It died on the Order
Paper when Parliament was dissolved on October 10, 1978.
However, there was a new beginning. On October 16, 1978, a
slightly changed Independence of Parliament Act was
reintroduced as Bill C-6. The accompanying Rules of the House
and of the Senate were tabled in the House on October 30, 1978.
The bill was referred to committee on March 8, 1979, but there
was no ensuing action and the bill died on the Order Paper when
Parliament was dissolved on March 26, 1979.
At the end of the Liberals' term of office, on July 7, 1983, a
federal study group was set up to examine the principles and
rules governing conflict of interest and their evolution and to
decide whether the issue should be dealt with differently.
The report did not appear until May 1984. These people are
unbelievable Mr. Speaker; they are constantly carrying out the
same studies over and over! That report was entitled: ``Ethical
Conduct in the Public Sector'', and was known as the
Starr-Sharp report.
Another government, other political practices. On November
25, 1985, the Conservative government asked the Standing
Committee on Management and Members' Services to consider
the appropriateness of setting up a register of members'
interests. As part of its work, the committee was to decide
whether it was appropriate to disclose the remuneration
members received for sitting on the board of directors of a
public or private firm or for performing other duties or
occupying other positions in various organizations. After
consulting the members of all parties, the Liberals, the Tories
and the NDP-the committee concluded that there was no need
to set up such a register and that existing legislation on
members' conflicts of interest was sufficient.
14044
And the saga continues. In February 1988, Bill C-114,
Members of the Senate and the House of Commons Conflict of
Interest Act, was given first reading.
In September 1988, the legislative committee on Bill C-114
met three times, but was unable to finish considering the bill
before Parliament was dissolved, on October 1, 1988.
In November 1989, the scenario was repeated with the first
reading of Bill C-46, Members of the Senate and House of
Commons Conflict of Interest Act. This bill was essentially the
same as Bill C-114, with a few minor changes. This bill died on
the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued on May 12,
1991.
November 1991 marked the first reading of Bill C-43,
Members of the Senate and the House of Commons Conflict of
Interest Act. This bill was almost identical to the bills I have
already mentioned: Bill C-114 and Bill C-46. And then, the
same old story, the bill was immediately referred to a Special
Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
(1430)
In March 1993, first reading of Bill C-116, the Conflict of
Interests of Public Office Holders Act, which included
amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act. Finally, in June
1993, a report from the Special Joint Committee of the House of
Commons and the Senate recommended that Bill C-116 be set
aside. You can hardly take this process seriously! The same day,
a similar report was tabled in the Senate. Bills C-43 and C-116
died on the Order Paper, upon dissolution of the 34th Parliament
on September 8, 1993.
The process is a political masquerade and shows the
controversy that exists around a code of ethics for Canadian
parliamentarians. All this is necessary to make the Liberals feel
good about themselves and as a sop to democracy in the
Canadian federal system.
Now what? We start over. Throughout the 1993 electoral
campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada was saying that ethics
should figure strongly in its mandate. It also said that in 1973. In
the January 1994 speech from the throne, the government said it
attached the greatest importance to integrity and wanted the
people's trust. What a dream.
However, as regards conflicts of interest, the most important
element in a code of conduct and ethics, the ethics counsellor,
appointed by the Liberal government, still reports to the Privy
Council, has no independent investigative powers and continues
to report to the Prime Minister.
The Liberal Party's red book provided that, and I quote: ``The
integrity of the government is put into question when there is a
perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists exercising
undue influence away from public view''. Recent events have
shown that the entire Liberal strategy on a parliamentary code of
ethics, confirmed by the government motion before us, is simply
window dressing.
Thus, the Broadcasting Act, which comes under the Minister
of Canadian Heritage, carries no weight in the face of the
powerful lobby of Power DirecTv, headed by André Desmarais,
son-in-law of the Prime Minister. The Liberal government has
even reached the point of defending ideas dear to the hearts of
Brian Mulroney's Conservatives and is becoming the advocate
of North America wide competition. In reading the releases
from the Minister of Canadian Heritage one can only bow to the
strength of the Power lobby and kiss federal democracy
goodbye, because money is king.
We should be concerned by the pettiness of our institutions
and some of our political representatives. Not only does the
government mock its own legislation and renounce the CRTC,
which is responsible for implementing it, but it takes measures
retroactively, preventing Expressvu from starting up its service
in September. All this in the name of competition. Meanwhile,
the ethics counsellor of red book fame is sleeping in the Prime
Minister's waiting room. After only 17 months in power, this
government already has a long track record attesting to its lack
of openness.
In addition to the previous examples and the government's
mediocre record for introducing legislation establishing a code
of ethics for parliamentarians, you will recall that, on
September 26, 1994, Canadian Press reported that, according to
documents obtained under the Access to Information Act,
lobbyists arranged more meetings in the months prior to the
tabling of Bill C-43, which was passed on May 8, while others
vowed to go to court should the law force them to disclose their
public and political relations.
In this case as in many others, the lack of transparency
prevented the public from learning the extent and nature of
lobbyists' representations with regard to Bill C-43. Ironically
enough, lobbyists managed to influence the law aimed at
limiting their influence. That takes some doing.
Worse yet, according to Mitchell Sharp himself, the Prime
Minister's senior consultant on ethics matters, even if Bill C-43
had already become law at the time talks were held on
privatizing Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport, the public
would have been none the wiser.
(1435)
The majority report on Bill C-43 tabled by the Liberals
reflects a faint willingness to oversee lobbying activities and
ensure that the management of government is as open as
possible. The government's attitude in that regard shows that,
once again, the Liberals are using double talk on the issue of
ethics. They are only trying to make themselves feel good and to
score points with the electorate.
14045
While the Government House Leader is tabling a motion
calling for the establishment of a special committee responsible
for developing a code of conduct for parliamentarians, behind
the scene, this very government is flouting the most basic rules
of democracy by favouring friends of the Liberal party and
governing on behalf of the financial establishment and big
business in Canada. How could we not want to leave this place of
political scheming?
The Bloc Quebecois, as the official opposition, feels that, to
restore the integrity of our democratic institutions, we must first
do away with the futile commitments of the past 20 years, which
mislead voters. We must also ensure that the management of
government is as open as possible, in order to eliminate grey
areas and assure the people that public policy decisions are
consistent with their general interests and not those of the
lobbyist friends of this Liberal federal government.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the rules
governing the conduct of members of Parliament are as outdated
as they are widespread.
The Parliament of Canada Act, the conflict of interest code,
Beauchesne's, the standing orders and House procedures all
contain guidelines for the appropriate conduct of MPs. For years
governments have talked about consolidating all these different
rules into one code of conduct while at the same time bringing
them up to speed with the realities of governing in the nineties,
realities that could not have been imagined at the time when
these rules were written.
Since 1973 consecutive governments have championed the
issue of a code of conduct, yet not one significant piece of
legislation has ever been passed. From Trudeau to Mulroney
task forces were set up, special committees were struck, and
reports and bills were written, all in the name of establishing
ethics guidelines for MPs.
While in opposition members of the Liberal government were
highly critical of the Tories for their legislative inaction. The
following question by the Liberal whip in 1993 is clearly a case
in point:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the
government's so-called commitment to ethics in government. In February 1988
the Tory government introduced a conflict of interest bill and has allowed it to
die twice on the Order Paper. Given that nearly five years has past since then, is
the government, in its dying days in office, ready to commit itself again to
conflict of interest legislation?
The Liberal whip was criticizing the Mulroney government
for its failure to pass legislation regarding its 1985 throne
speech promise to create a parliamentary ethics package.
Today, 10 years after this Mulroney promise, members of the
House are again addressing the issue of parliamentary ethics,
this time in the name of a Liberal motion; not a bill, not a
discussion paper, not a white paper, but a motion that calls on
members of the House of Commons to appoint a special joint
committee of the Senate and the House to study and develop a
code of conduct for politicians. The committee composed of
seven members of the Senate and fourteen members of the
House of Commons will travel across Canada and once again
hear how the government should hold its representatives
accountable.
The 22-year history of the development of ethics guidelines
for members of Parliament is as long as it is uneventful. In 1973
the President of the Treasury Board, Allan MacEachen, a
Liberal, tabled a green paper entitled ``Members of Parliament
and Conflict of Interest''. Among the issues addressed in the
69-page report were problems associated with conflicts of
interest, corrupt practices and government contracts. Potential
solutions and sanctions for these problems were also proposed.
The document was studied in the committee of the House of
Commons as well as in a Senate committee but was never
debated in the House.
(1440 )
In 1978 legislation relating to the green paper, Bill C-6, was
tabled but was left to die on the Order Paper. Five years later, in
1983, Prime Minister Trudeau set up a task force to study
conflicts of interest for MPs as well as public sector ethics. A
comprehensive report was produced but like so many reports
commissioned by the House nothing became of it.
In 1987 the Ontario Supreme Court found that former cabinet
minister Sinclair Stevens had breached the Canadian conflict of
interest rules on 14 different occasions prior to his resignation in
1986. As a direct result the Mulroney government introduced
conflict of interest Bill C-46 for MPs, which unfortunately once
again died on the Order Paper at the end of the parliamentary
session. A similar conflict of interest Bill C-112 was introduced
in the next session. It too died on the Order Paper. Again the
Tories introduced legislation, this time Bill C-43 which was
along the same lines as its predecessor. It too died on the Order
Paper.
The pattern which has developed is incredible. A code of
conduct is studied, legislation is drafted, introduced in the
House, and after months of sitting idle it is finally dropped.
Study, introduce, drop; study, introduce, drop.
None of the bills was ever really debated. They went from
first reading to the Order Paper and that was it. It was as though
the Tories kept the bills around to point at in case one of their
MPs got caught with their hands in the public cookie jar.
As a result of their failed attempts, and I use the word
attempts loosely, the Mulroney government created a special
14046
joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to
study the issue of conflict of interest. Does it sound familiar? It
should. That is exactly what the Liberal government now wants
to do.
A lengthy study of ethical issues confronting politicians was
conducted by the committee. Witnesses were heard, testimony
was given, and a 60-page report was submitted to the House and
Senate. The report made 14 principal recommendations for a
code of conduct and among them listed compliance obligations
for politicians, post employment restrictions, criteria for
negotiating government contracts, the need to create an
independent jurisconsult or ethics counsellor, disclosure
obligations for politicians, conduct for inquiries and possible
sanctions, and Criminal Code provisions in relation to bribery,
influence peddling and breach of trust.
These are just some of the 60 pages of recommendations made
by the special joint committee to Mulroney's government in
1992. At the time the Liberal whip was a member of the
committee. His official title was government operations critic
but in commenting on the special joint committee report he
wrote:
The challenge for Canadian legislators-is to ensure that such reports as this
are not allowed merely to gather dust on a bookshelf.
Needless to say, like all previous ethics initiatives and despite
what the Liberal whip said the report gathered more than just
dust as it was completely buried. At the time the Liberal whip
was obviously frustrated by that fact and on February 17, 1993
he moved a lengthy supply day motion which read:
That this House condemns the government for its continued failure to
establish and to adhere to a clear and high standard of public sector ethics, for its
incessant inability to function within the framework of existing legislation,
guidelines and standards, and for its reluctance to bring forward strict new
codes and legislation with regard to conflicts and other public ethic matters.
That motion applies today to the government.
Mr. Speaker, you have sat in the chair and you have heard our
questions over the last month or two. The government was
self-righteous when it was on this side of the House. Now look
at what is happening. Look at the Minister for Canadian
Heritage: dollars for contracts dinner and personal intervention
on radio licence renewal. Look at the minister of public works
and the highway 104 diversion of funds. Look at the Minister of
National Revenue in cahoots with the Minister of Justice who
helped fire a law firm with years of drug prosecution experience
in favour of an inexperienced firm that contributed heavily to
his campaign. Those matters are all well documented and were
brought out during the last three weeks in question period.
What about the ethics counsellor, the Maytag repairman? He
reports directly to the Prime Minister rather than to Parliament
as promised in the red book.
(1445 )
If a code of conduct said that you make an election promise in
writing, signed by everybody and everybody campaigns to get
here to do that, what would happen if they broke their promises?
I just wonder how they would handle that in this joint
committee. This ethics counsellor is never asked to look into
anything, from the Perez affair to the Liberal family compact.
The appearance of conflict of interest is overwhelming, and
there are definitely sufficient grounds for actions on what I have
pointed out. If the Liberals do not apply the rules that we have
now, then why in heaven's name create more rules under the
guise of a special joint committee? They will not follow them
anyway. It is a sham on the Canadian public.
In his usual verbosity, the Liberal whip criticized the
Mulroney government for its failure to establish an ethics code
during its mandate. During debate he chastised members of the
government because ``six years of waiting for conflict of
interest rules is long enough, and that shows a complete lack of
interest in the ethics on the part of the Tory government''. He has
been in the government now for two years and we do not even
have anything on the floor except a motion to form a joint
committee once again, doing the same old thing as the previous
governments.
On that day, the Liberals did more than just criticize the
government. They offered some ideas and solutions that they
felt could be implemented right away. This government, when it
was in opposition, had some good ideas, some concrete
suggestions. One of these ideas was the establishment of
non-partisan nomination and confirmation procedures for order
in council appointments such as the officers of the House,
deputy ministers, heads of crown corporations, citizenship court
judges. Have they done this? No.
A second idea was the establishment of a central registry of
awarded government contracts under which the details of any
government contract awarded should be open to public scrutiny.
Have they done this? No.
A third idea was the elimination of registration fees for tier
one and tier two lobbyists and that they should be required to
disclose in a public register major expenses and fees with
description of the lobbying activity and most importantly what
political body they are lobbying for. Have they done this? No.
Could they do it? Yes. They could do this, but no, let us set up
another expensive, exciting, expletive joint committee.
These are just a few of the recommendations the Liberal
members made for an improved code of conduct for MPs. It is
quite clear that these were not off the cuff ideas but well thought
out initiatives made by a party that had witnessed eight years of
Tory corruption. I hope we do not have to sit here for eight years
of Liberal corruption.
14047
With this special joint committee, the Liberals are now saying
that everything that was said in the past, all the ideas and
initiatives that were to be followed through on, if only they had
the chance, are all history. Kaput. They say one thing on this side
of the House and once they get over there they do the other.
Why is it that we cannot just sit down in this House and write
out a code of conduct that is acceptable to all parties? Why must
we spend thousands of dollars for another series of committee
meetings and setting up the overhead to send senators and MPs
all over to listen to witnesses, only to find out what we already
know? We already have it done.
We have two previous Liberal ethics initiatives-they are
now government-four Tory bills, countless discussion papers,
and a 60-page report on the conduct for MPs. Why do we not just
dust some of these off, and look in the book, find out what they
said and pass something?
Again I quote the Liberal whip from 1993, when he attacked
the Tory government for its failure to pass an ethics bill: ``Does
the member actually think that it is reasonable after five and a
half years of delay to have had nothing happen yet? It has been
six months since the unanimous report of the committee, and
nothing has happened yet.''
If this joint committee ever does file a report, how many years
will the government let it sit on the shelf collecting dust? Does
the Liberal whip think it is reasonable for the Government of
Canada to examine the issue of political ethics for 23 years with
no results and then ask the taxpayers to fork out for yet another
group to study the issue?
Heck, he can write the bill himself for all the work he has
done. But do you know what, Mr. Speaker? The Prime Minister
is no longer listening to him. Give us a break. Ring the bell and
ask everyone to bring a pen and a paper and we can have this
thing written in a day.
If the Liberals want to talk about reasonable, then I suggest
they acknowledge the fact that this House has more than enough
information to establish a code of conduct without any road
show.
(1450 )
Unfortunately, it is apparent from today's debate that the
Liberal government, like the Tories, does not have the intestinal
fortitude to enact major reforms to the code of conduct for MPs.
Like the Tories, it is in their best interests to bury the issue in
committee, and I will tell the House why. When political parties
are in opposition in Canada one of their primary objectives is to
try to limit the power and authority of the government, hold the
government accountable, point out incompetence and always
question the integrity of the government. That is when you are
on this side of the House.
On the other hand, the government always tries to perpetuate
its own power by denying and/or ignoring opposition scrutiny,
as is the case in this Parliament. Any increase in scrutiny of
governmental affairs means a decrease in its authority in that
particular area: health, revenue and taxation, public works.
What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander, as
the Liberal whip likes to say. And what is good for the Liberals
in opposition is no longer in their best interests in power. It is
sort of a power paradox.
All members have to do is look at the facts. They speak for
themselves. In opposition the Liberals harped on the Tories for
their failure to establish an effective code of conduct for MPs.
They made some constructive suggestions in debate, in reports,
in articles and endorsed the last report of the special joint
committee. Did they invoke it? Did they bring a bill forward?
No. They wanted to ignore it and do the work all over again.
As the Liberal member for Edmonton Southeast stated, ``I
would like to see the recommendations of the special joint
committee enacted''. The fact is, the recommendations were
never enacted and the Tories were booted out of office. All of a
sudden the Liberals, the party of integrity, became the
government. And what has happened? They have lowered the
definition of integrity.
What happened to the ethics report they endorsed? What
about all the proposals they made to increase the scrutiny on
members of the House? What about all the criticism they gave
the Tories for not acting immediately? Why are they not doing
what they said they would do in opposition? At least when Prime
Minister Mulroney was on that side and a minister got into
trouble or gave the appearance of a conflict of interest, the
minister stepped aside. Now we have that case and the minister
is not stepping aside, nor has the Prime Minister asked him to
step aside.
Like all previous governments, the Liberals realize they
cannot possibly give away the kind of power that was suggested
in opposition. Instead they give out small tokens and establish
needless committees like the one we are debating today, which
will not accomplish a darn thing.
The Liberals have done nothing to increase scrutiny over
order in council appointments, an issue they were adamant about
in opposition. As a matter of fact, they used an order in council
to create another possible conflict of interest over the direct to
home satellite TV business.
To quote the Liberal whip in 1993, my favourite witness on
the topic, ``The only thing we have had is an order in council
review process that gives no power to a committee, not even the
power to make a recommendation to the House of Commons''.
What has changed since then? The problem still exists. Why do
they not just fix it? They have been in office for two years, and
what have they done? Nothing.
14048
The same can be said about Liberal inaction to introduce
legislation that would open up the government contract process.
In fact, on Wednesday, May 31, we heard that the president and
vice-president of the riding association of the Minister of
National Revenue were awarded contracts. Now the Liberals are
going to bury all this in a special joint committee, which I
guarantee will not report back anything new to the House in the
area of political ethics or code of conduct initiatives. The Prime
Minister will point out how great this committee is when it is
nothing more than a dog and pony show and a waste of time,
effort, and money.
This government is no better than the Tories when it comes to
legislating a code of conduct for politicians. The creation of this
committee is a déjà vu of how Mulroney kept ethics on the back
burner.
The Liberal whip has been sitting there devouring each and
every word I am saying here today. He wrote down his ideas in a
1991 discussion paper entitled ``Public Sector Ethics and
Morals''. In this paper many questions are raised on the issues of
government advertising, government contracts, order in council
appointments, lobbyists and whistleblowing.
The Liberal whip then went on to write an article in 1992
entitled ``Members' Interests-New Conflict of Interest Rules
for Canadian Parliamentarians''. How much more study does
the Liberal whip have to do on this issue? How much more? This
is getting ridiculous.
(1455 )
We have here the people, the skills and the information to
write out a code of conduct right now. The member opposite has
the ability to make a tremendous contribution to this. He has
studied it to death. He has read it to death. Why in heaven's
name would the Liberal whip then want to have a joint
committee to do all this work all over again when he has spent
years on it already? Does he want to spend another year on
another joint committee to come up with the same conclusions,
the same recommendations he has already made? I challenge the
federal government to just do it.
This motion is going to pass. Since the government wants to
do another review, this time the Reform Party will be there to
hold it accountable to actually bring a bill to the House and pass
a code of conduct. Reformers object to this joint committee
because of the senators, but we will work toward giving
Canadians what they should have-politicians with integrity
and a new code of conduct bill.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to digest Motion No. 24 and my
thoughts range from somewhat confused about the purpose of
this motion to anger.
Let me talk about the confusion first, because I am a little
confused about what the Liberals believe. What does this
Liberal government believe? What kind of rocket science do
they really think is needed to do things that are good, right, and
honest? Those are fundamental characteristics of integrity. Yet
this government, despite the numerous studies, commissions,
inquiries, investigative bodies that have tried to determine what
is the right thing to do when one becomes an MP or a
government, is missing some basic points: good, right and
honest. That is not rocket science. That is what we are taught by
our parents when we are kids, when they are trying to groom us
into becoming responsible adults: do things that are good, right,
and honest.
It is unbelievable that after over a hundred years of this
Parliament being in operation we have a government that wants
to find out how to restore and keep the trust of the Canadian
voters. Let me save the government a whole lot of time. I want to
give it five very simple suggestions. It will save the committee
time. It will save a lot of MPs and senators time. Here they are,
and they are free. I will repeat these after and I will send each of
the Liberal members a memo on this. The first one is do not lie.
The second one is do not cheat. The third one is do not steal. The
fourth one is do not reward your friends with taxpayers' money.
The fifth one is if any member of Parliament does this, that
member them out.
Therein you have a code of conduct in the first four points and
the last one is a deterrent. That is not rocket science. I did not
need a committee to come up with those points. This
government does not need a committee to come up with ideas on
how to be a good, honest member of Parliament. This
government does not need a committee to know how the
Canadian voters regard politicians at a slightly lower level than
used car salesmen or lawyers-with all due respect, some used
car salesmen and some lawyers.
(1500 )
In the last 15 years the level of respect for politicians and the
level of trust that was felt by the Canadian voter have severely
deteriorated. In this 35th Parliament we not only have a job to
run the country to make sure the economy, the social programs
and everything else are going to run smoothly, we also have a
profound obligation to begin to restore the trust of the electorate
which is missing.
I have heard it said time and time again that the only reason
our current Prime Minister looks so good is that he followed the
Mulroney Tories who were so bad. In my opinion our current
Prime Minister has a lot of latitude but because of the way this
government is running things and because of some of the things
which have happened since this 35th Parliament convened,
people are starting to wonder if this government is just another
wolf in sheep's clothing. Some hon. members have already
14049
talked about them but it is worth going over some of the very
disparaging things which have happened.
There is the Minister of Canadian Heritage's now infamous
$2,000 a plate dinner and the subsequent perception of his
rewarding his friends with government contracts paid for with
taxpayers' money of course. We have talked about the monopoly
status awarded to Expressvu and the ties between Power Corp.
and the Prime Minister. The list goes on and on.
Most recently there has been the appointment of a legal firm
in Vancouver. Lawyers were engaged by the government to
prosecute drug cases but they had no previous experience in
dealing with the prosecution of drug cases, a very serious crime.
In prosecuting a drug case in particular, a lot of factors are
involved, including the gathering of evidence by the police and
putting it together by the crown which is most important in order
to win the case. The evidence is clear that the lawyers from the
legal firms recently appointed by the Minister of Justice had no
experience in this area. However they did qualify for the
appointment because one happened to be the president of a
Liberal riding and the other was a fundraiser for the Liberals.
The Canadian public was fresh from a Tory regime in which it
completely lost trust in the leader of our country and they
elected the Liberal government whose red book was trumpeted
at every occasion. It promised to restore integrity, trust and
honesty to government.
When Canadians think about those promises, about the way
the red book was flashed around for everyone to see and then
they see those things happening, they ask: ``Who can we
believe?'' They get pretty discouraged. Even some people who
did not vote for me come into my riding office and say they
thought the Prime Minister was going to change things. They
thought the Liberal government was going to bring back some
form of honesty to government. They are very disappointed.
Now a joint committee of MPs and senators is going to be
formed to try to rediscover life in so far as honesty and integrity
goes.
(1505 )
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak as long as my hon. friend
who just spoke. I do not have the sense of humour he has about
this. It is a very serious subject.
At the end of the day and most recently when walking home at
11 or 11.30 at night we might ask ourselves: ``What on earth am I
doing here?'' We hear about some new revelation of conflict of
interest the government has and we remember why we are here. I
am here because I was so disgusted with the way politics were
run in this country that I wanted to come here to do something
about it. I am going to try, but at the end of the day if nothing
changes in this House at least I can say that I tried.
I want to go back just for a moment and review those points I
made at the beginning. This government does not need a
committee to understand the things that are good, right and
honest. We do not need a committee because those things are
fundamental in how we develop character. Any member of
Parliament who does not possess those characteristics does not
belong in this place.
Free of charge for the Liberal government, let me go through
it again. Do not lie. Do not cheat. Do not steal. Do not reward
friends with taxpayers' money. Those are the four very
condensed codes. The deterrent is that if any of those are broken,
they should be thrown out of this place. That is free for the
Liberal government and free for every member of this House.
We do not need a joint committee of senators and members of
Parliament to try to discover some nirvana being dreamed up by
the government, some field of operation that is so clouded no
one can understand it. Do not lie. Do not cheat. Do not steal. Do
not reward friends with taxpayers' money. That is all that is
needed and honesty and integrity will return to this House once
that is accomplished.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the points I was going to make on this motion have
been admirably expressed by my colleagues before me.
We are talking about Motion No. 24 which is part of the
process in carrying out Bill C-43. This motion deals with the
creation of another committee to study the parameters for a code
of ethics for MPs. When we consider the historical activity this
topic has been subjected to over the years, we cannot really
commend it surfacing again even though the need is very
predominant. However, we cannot say it is a step in the right
direction or give congratulations that we are actually addressing
this. It has been around too long. The matter has been put
forward so many times with no action resulting from the process
in the past. The reputation of this topic is such that one wonders
if we mean business or if it is a filler that is just going to be
brought in again, discussed for a bit and then allowed to die.
Considering that we come from all walks of life, ethics is a
moral topic that we are dealing with. We all have different value
systems. The existing rules from the various sources we receive
direction from are very general so that they are subject to all
kinds of interpretations depending upon one's value system. The
consequences over the years of all those sorts of variables have
resulted in the general public not trusting or believing in the
integrity of members of Parliament and senators and it is time
that we address this.
14050
(1510)
I really question whether we need to set up another joint
committee. Certainly all the guidelines and actions that have
happened in the past which have set precedents should be
correlated. We should study the present code of ethics or
conflict of interest situations to see what we have and try to
tighten them up so that we have less interpretations of what the
actual situation is. Then we can see if we need to take this further
or at least get back to the public for input.
This has gone through a number of studies. Possibly all that is
needed is to gather together what we have and with the members
of the House and the other place get on with setting a code of
ethics versus travelling the country spending many dollars to get
input from people who have been here in the past.
We have had an example which should be considered. If this
motion is passed and the committee is put together we could use
the 35th Parliament as an example from the point of view that we
have 204 rookies. We are all learning. When it comes to what is
ethical and what is not ethical the first thing we discovered was
that we were never off duty. Everything we do is viewed by the
public. One is always an MP. When does our personal life begin
or even come into being here? One always seems to be an MP.
When talking to learned people who have followed this
through the years, it absolutely boggles the mind the kind of
things that can get you into trouble. They can seem very
innocent. These sorts of things should be defined. It would be
very nice if we could go somewhere, look at the ethics and come
up with an interpretation that would at least provide a standard
or average for what MPs and senators believe. Right now it is all
over the ballpark.
We work hard. We spend a lot of time working. We are very
concerned about the country. Yet we get ourselves into positions
of trouble and there are no guidelines to help us. We should be
providing some sort of rules with tighter interpretations. If it
means another committee, then that is the way to go. I certainly
do not want to see it die. The reputation of this topic is poor. Let
us try to do something about it.
We do not have to go out and be subjected to bringing more
people in. We have the data here. Let us put it together and come
up with something.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am almost honoured to be one of the last speakers of
the week. It is interesting to address Motion No. 24 which arises
out of the provision contained in Bill C-43, the Lobbyist
Registration Act.
This motion is for the creation of a joint House and Senate
committee to establish a code of conduct for MPs, senators and
lobbyists and I have to say that an ethics code is a worthwhile
effort which must be pursued.
Let us look at the pursuit of that. I have a very interesting pile,
not a prop, of parliamentary documents on my desk which show
that there has been interest in this subject for years and years and
where is it getting us? I have here ``New Conflict of Interest
Rules for Canadian Parliamentarians'', by the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Good show.
(1515)
I have here Bill C-116, which was first read in the House of
Commons in March 1993.
I have here Bill C-43, conflict of interest guidelines for
parliamentarians, dated June 1992, the Hon. Senator Stanbury
and Don Blenkarn joint chairmen.
Here is another one from the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell entitled ``Public Sector Ethics
and Morals: A Discussion Paper'' dated October 1991.
Then there is Bill C-43, dated November 1991, an act to
provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal
interests and duties of members of the Senate and the House of
Commons, to establish a conflict of interest commission and to
make consequential amendments to other acts.
These show real interest on the part of the House over the
years to say let us do something about the ethics around here.
There was Bill C-46 in 1989, Bill C-114 in 1988, and
``Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector'' by the Hon. Michael
Starr and Hon. Mitchell Sharp, a book written in May 1984.
Then there was Bill C-6 in 1978. How far back do we need to
go to show that there has been real bona fide interest by both
Houses on the subject matter of ethics?
There is the little green book by the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen,
which was written in July 1973.
There it is. Years of evidence saying that something must be
done. Here we are in 1995 and again we are hearing declarations
of great intent. We really must get at it now. This is the time to
get at it.
I will compliment the government for the initiative which
says: ``Let us do something about ethics''. However, my note of
caution concerns the recent actions of the government. The
words are fine. What are its actions? I do not think the actions of
the government meet the lofty rhetoric.
Since the government came into power, which is now
approaching two years, we have had many examples of what I
would call less than ethical behaviour. We had the Minister of
Canadian Heritage interfering with the CRTC in the matter of a
radio licence application for a constituent. We had the same
minister lunching with movie moguls in Hollywood at the same
time the Seagram takeover of MCA was being negotiated. Now
we have that same minister engaged in a dinner for dollars affair,
which has clearly placed him in an apparent conflict of interest.
14051
If these ethical breaches were confined to just this one
minister one could conclude that he was simply misguided,
ill-informed or just plain incompetent. However, the Minister
of Canadian Heritage is not alone in this fall from the ethics
bandwagon.
We are all aware that currently the auditor general is
investigating a situation involving the diverting of $26 million
in highway funds. In this instance the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services has benefited politically, not
financially I am sure, by seeing the money go from a busy and
deadly stretch of the Trans-Canada highway to a seldom used
tourist trail in his Nova Scotia riding.
We have also seen the justice minister awarding contracts for
crown prosecutors to highly placed Liberals, some of whom
have connections to the revenue minister. While it is commonly
accepted that the awarding of such legal contracts is based on
partisan politics or downright patronage. The government
promised it would do business differently. It promised to break
with politics as usual in favour of a more open and honest
process. Has that promise been kept?
(1520)
These are a few examples of some of the less than ethical
behaviour of government ministers. I could go on at length but
time is limited and it might be of more use at this time to review
exactly what the government had to say on the issue of ethics
during the election campaign and look at the promises it made.
The now infamous red book, dead book, states: ``The most
important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the
citizens to whom it is accountable. If government is to play a
positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our
political institutions must be restored''. These are wonderful
words.
Similarly, the red book promised to appoint an independent
ethics counsellor who will report directly to Parliament. Has the
government met this promise or its overall commitment to
restore honesty and integrity? On the issue of the promise of an
independent ethics counsellor reporting to Parliament, the
answer is very clearly no. The counsellor is not truly
independent, as he is beholden to the Prime Minister and he is
certainly not free to report directly to Parliament.
On the general issue of restoring honesty and integrity, I also
submit the government has failed. A quick look at the
newspapers these days will provide evidence of this fact. The
Ottawa Sun on June 13 in an editorial entitled ``arrogance''
slams the Prime Minister over his handling of the latest debacle
involving the heritage minister: ``For a party that campaigned
on the premise of restoring ethics and integrity-the Grits sure
have a funny way of going about it''.
Ottawa Citizen columnist Greg Weston summarized the
government's code of conduct on June 11 in the following
manner: ``Thou shalt do nothing that lands thee in jail. Other
than that, boys and girls, have fun at the trough''.
Columnist Sean Durkin has also questioned the integrity of
the government: ``Day by day, the Liberal government is acting
and sounding more like the Mulroney government of old''.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of the red book pledge to restore
honesty in government.
From today's Ottawa Sun, Robert Fife, page 12, talking about
the ethics councillor:
Wilson has been silenced and the role of the ethics counsellor has turned into a
farce. The sole reason that Chretien has stubbornly refused to fire Dupuy is to
show that he is different from Mulroney. He wants to be able to boast that he hasn't
had to fire a single minister to scandal unlike the dastardly Tories.
Instead, what he is doing by defending Dupuy is demonstrating that he is every
bit as bad as Mulroney when it comes to ethics.
In fact, he is worse.
At least Mulroney would do the right thing and remove ministers who did
wrong from the cabinet table, albeit only after concerted pressure from the
opposition benches.
Clearly these examples show the government has neither the
will nor the intestinal fortitude to truly divert from its politics as
usual policy. This is one of my big concerns about this motion. It
may look good on paper but it is obvious the government is not
serious about the issue of ethics.
Maybe I should be fair and clarify the statement. It is obvious
the Prime Minister is not serious about the issue of ethics. I add
this clarification because the member for York South-Weston
has publicly urged the Prime Minister to ban the type of
fundraisers that have landed the heritage minister in hot water.
(1525)
The hon. member says this would be an important move to
restore integrity to politics. He is quoted in the Ottawa Sun, June
12, as making the following comments about such practices:
``They are buying access. There are always IOUs attached. You
have to be pretty naive and deaf, dumb and blind to think
otherwise''.
The Prime Minister's top personal adviser is quoted in the
same paper: ``Cabinet ministers must separate business from
fundraisers. Some cabinet ministers are not following conflict
of interest rules''.
I stated at the start of my address that I believe this motion has
some merit. As I have illustrated, allowing the government to
control this process is like allowing the fox to guard the
henhouse. Surely it is not in the best interests of restoring public
faith in the integrity of politicians to appoint politicians and
lobbyists to draft a serious code of conduct. To me such a
process would be an immediate conflict of interest.
14052
I also question the value of involving unelected, politically
appointed patronage hacks in the process. Appointed senators
have little if any legitimacy in the democratic process and
therefore should not participate in what we are trying to do here.
The public must have full access to and involvement in this
process. This is the only way to restore integrity and ethics in
government.
To accept this motion is to accept the Prime Minister's ethical
code of hear no evil, see no evil. Surely no one in the House can
find that acceptable.
The overall intent of the motion is good. I support the intent
but I have lots of reservations with the process. We must find a
way to include the public. We must severely limit or eliminate
the role of politicians and lobbyists in the process and we must
insist that the ethics counsellor be free to report directly to
Parliament.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been listening to the debate unfold this
afternoon and have seen five or six inches of various reports the
House has done on ethics over the last few years.
I have been very blessed in my life to have more than one
mother. One of my mothers is my Jewish mother. She comes up
with little pearls of wisdom we refer to as chicken soup for the
mind.
Once when we were talking about ethics specifically in
business she said ethics is simply doing the right thing even
when you know no one is looking.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has
been really interesting this afternoon as we have listened to this
debate in talking about the whole issue of ethics, particularly the
number of reports.
There has been report after report starting as far back as the
report of Senator MacEachen dated July 1973. There is all of
this information. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, why
are we having another committee? Why are we doing this?
(1530 )
Why do we not simply assimilate all of the information, put it
together if we need to and come forward with a plan in the next
couple of weeks, instead of months or years?
Surely with all of the work put into this process thus far we do
not need to have more input. Particularly instructive to me is the
amount of involvement reported that the government whip has
had in this process. The member has had input and input. Is he
really so short of things to do as the government whip that he
needs to have a make work project to have more input into this
process?
This is a joint committee. I will refer with respect to the other
place. I will not play games. We are talking about the other place
being a place where people are appointed fundamentally on the
whole basis of patronage. What has it done for the existing
Prime Minister? What has it done for the party currently in
power?
We have a very interesting situation at this moment as we all
know. Because the Conservatives had power for a period of nine
years, the Liberal government is having some difficulty getting
certain pieces of legislation through the House, not the least of
which is Bill C-69, and certainly when we get to the gun control
bill, Bill C-41 and hopefully Bill C-85, they will be slowed
down over there so Canadians can really see what the
government is up to.
Nonetheless, the point is the people in the other place have
been appointed on the basis of patronage and we are having a
joint committee with them to figure out what is wrong with the
whole parliamentary system based on patronage. It seems to me
things are slightly out of order.
We came to the House with 52 members of Parliament in
October 1993 whose electors at that time thought they were the
best people to represent them. I think of the member for
Ottawa-Vanier who used to sit across from me. What does the
government do? It has a place it needs to fill. Why did it put him
there? Why did David Berger suddenly resign his seat to work
for the Prime Minister? It was to get the labour minister here.
There is the whole issue of manipulation of the political
system by the existing party. It talks about transparency. It is
very transparent. The government has absolutely no concern for
the dollars of the ordinary Canadian taxpayer when it will force
a byelection in order to fill the place of patronage to accomplish
certain political objectives.
Furthermore, there is no direct accountability by the people in
the other place to the people of Canada. Let us assume every
member in the other place is honourable. Let us create that as a
basic assumption. The point is still not one person in that place
has direct accountability to the people of Canada. We have
accountability to the people of Canada by coming here on the
basis of an election. Why in the world will the government not
get serious, including this whole debate? Why will it not get
serious and start to do something about making the other place
accountable on the basis of getting the people over there
elected?
There is no question that could be done. Reform Senator Stan
Waters was the first and only elected member of the other place.
It can be done. The existing premier of Alberta and the
Government of Alberta brought forward legislation that created
a situation in which there could be an election for the Senate.
Again, the Liberals could have done exactly the same thing
when they got their own bag person to be appointed to the other
place on the basis of patronage. Just as easily as not, they could
have gone through a legitimate election process and started to
14053
legitimize the other place rather than just having people there on
the basis of sheer patronage.
I am in support of this motion on the basis of the fact that we
will perhaps get some movement forward on the issue of ethics
within the government, although there is some question about
the existing government on that basis, nonetheless we can
always hope. The point I am driving at is that when we ask
people who are in a place of patronage to be involved in a
process of talking about ethics and patronage, it just does not
make any sense. If a commission has to be formed, I would see it
as being the responsibility of those of us who are elected to this
Chamber who have the confidence of our constituents.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the
recorded division stands deferred until Monday, June 19, 1995
at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment which is 11.30 p.m.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That between June 24, 1995 and September 30, 1995, the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the necessary staff be
authorized to travel to Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Halifax and Montreal to
hold consultations on settlement renewal.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: I wonder if there might be unanimous
consent to call it five o'clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being five o'clock, the House stands
adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 3.38 p.m.)