CONTENTS
Thursday, October 26, 1995
Bill C-61. Report stage (with amendments) 15839
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 15843
Motions Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 15843
Motions Nos. 10 and 11 15843
Motions Nos. 12, 13 and 14 15843
Motions Nos. 16 and 17 15843
(Motions Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 16,and 17 negatived.) 15850
(Motion No. 10 agreed to.) 15850
Division on Motion No. 11 deferred 15850
Division on Motion No. 15 deferred 15850
Motion Nos. 3, 4, 5, 18 and 19 15850
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15855
Division on Motion No. 3 deferred 15859
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred. 15859
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred. 15860
(Motion No. 18 agreed to.) 15860
Division on Motion No. 19 deferred. 15860
Motions Nos. 20 and 23 15860
(Motion No. 20 agreed to.) 15866
Division on Motion No. 23 deferred 15866
Motions Nos. 21 and 22 15866
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 15869
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 15869
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 15870
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15870
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 15870
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15874
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15874
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 15874
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 15874
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15875
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15875
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 15875
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15875
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 15875
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15876
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 15877
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 15877
Bill C-61. Consideration resumed of report stageand Motions Nos.
21 and 22. 15880
Division on Motion No. 21 deferred 15883
Division on Motion No. 22 deferred. 15884
Bill C-99. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15884
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 15887
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 15887
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 15891
Bill C-99. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15891
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 15891
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 15895
Bill C-315. Motion for second reading 15899
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 15902
15837
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 26, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to present, in
both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development has the honour to present its sixth report, pursuant to
the order of reference made Monday, October 2, 1995.
Your committee reviewed Bill C-94, an act to regulate
interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial
purposes of certain manganese-based substances, and agreed to
report it without amendment. A copy of the minutes on this bill is
being tabled.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 20th
report of the Standing Committee on Finance. In accordance with
its order of reference of Monday, September 25, 1995, your
committee has considered Bill C-103, an act to amend the Excise
Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, and has agreed to report it with
one amendment.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take
tremendous pride in representing my community, and the petition I
am presenting is one of the reasons. It was organized by Mr. Jakeet
Singh, a student at Waterloo collegiate. A year ago a couple of
students at WCI decided that with the referendum approaching the
youth of Canada would reach out to do their part in having our
country remain united.
There are 4,000 signatures on this petition, which reads: ``We,
the citizens of Canada, want to see this country remain united from
coast to coast, with Quebec as an integral part of our nation''.
[Translation]
``We, the citizens of Canada, want to see this country remain
united from coast to coast, with Quebec as an integral part of our
nation''.
[English]
I am very pleased to present this petition to the House. It is in
addition to the many other things done in my community in
expressing its love for a united Canada.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the
following petition which comes from all across Canada and
contains 1,183 signatures, making a total of over 6,200 signatures
to date.
The petitioners request that in memory of Dawn Shaw, a six-year
old girl who was murdered in my riding of Comox-Alberni, this
petition be brought to the attention of Parliament.
The petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to
change the justice system to provide greater protection for children
from sexual assault and to ensure the conviction of offenders.
I fully concur with the petitioners and endorse this petition.
The Speaker: With all respect, we need not endorse nor be
against a petition, but simply present the petition.
15838
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour of submitting a petition signed by senior citizens of my
home province concerning the payment of fees to enter Prince
Edward Island's national parks. These petitioners feel they have
contributed their share to the economy over the years and enter the
parks for sightseeing only and do not use any of the other services
offered by the parks.
Accordingly, the petitioners request Parliament to review the
policy of charging senior citizens entrance fees to Canada's
national parks.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition
circulating all across Canada. It has been signed by a number of
Canadians from Uxbridge, Ontario.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession that has not been recognized for its value to our society.
They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates against families
that make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, I
am tabling a petition signed by 10,000 people in my riding, which
denounces the cuts in the Martin budget, particularly their impact
on our riding's employment centre, whose staff will be reduced
from 50 to 15 and which will become a local employment centre.
All those who signed the petition denounce the impact this will
have on the regional economy. I am pleased to table this petition
today.
(1010 )
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition signed by more than 200
people calling on Parliament to recognize that Canada recognizes
two official languages but that our flag does not reflect this duality.
Being only red and white it does not reflect the blue that has
traditionally represented the French speaking population.
[Translation]
The petitioners are asking Parliament to legislate in order to get
discussions underway on the renewal of our national emblem to
include blue bands within the red borders to symbolize Canada's
distinct francophone society and promote unity and harmony
within the country. This addition would enhance the beauty of our
flag.
[English]
The petition is the initiative of Hank Gigandet, who believes we
should renew our Canadian flag.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege of presenting a
petition on behalf of a number of my constituents from
Stormont-Dundas and over 15,000 Canadians from coast to coast
who signed a unity scroll that originated with Mr. Norm Lalonde of
Cornwall and several volunteers who have contributed many hours
of their time to ask Canadians to sign this unity scroll.
These petitioners draw to the attention of the House their belief
that all Canadians want the same from life in Canada and that
Canadians want the opportunity to prosper, to grow and to preserve
the rich heritage and cultures that built our great nation regardless
of where we live in this vast country.
To begin this process they invite Canadians, particularly those
who reside in Quebec, to stay within the Canadian family and join
all Canadians in taking Canada to a united, stronger and greater
future.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to unite and
continue to build this great country.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of
petitioners in my riding concerning the government's restructuring
of the railroads.
The petition states that rail service is the fastest and most
environmentally responsible means of travel and that the subsidies
to VIA Rail are not disproportionate to the huge subsidies provided
for highway infrastructure.
On behalf of my constituents I present this petition to maintain
passenger rail service in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
>
15839
15839
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-61, an act to
establish a system of administrative monetary penalties for the
enforcement of the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Feeds
Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Meat
Inspection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Plant Protection
Act and the Seeds Act, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee.
The Speaker: There are 23 motions in amendment standing on
the Order Paper for the report stage of Bill C-61.
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
Group No. 1, Motion No. 1.
[Translation]
Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
and 17.
[English]
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 18 and 19.
Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 20 and 23.
(1015)
[Translation]
Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 21 and 22.
[English]
I wish to inform the House that there is an error in the text of
Motion No. 1 in the name of the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminister. The motion should read:
That Bill C-61, in clause 4, be amended by adding after line 23, on page 2, the
following:
``(b) prescribing criteria for determining whether an act or omission shall be
proceeded with as a violation or as an offence''.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.)
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-61, in clause 4, be amended by adding after line 23, on page 2, the
following:
``(b) prescribing criteria for determining whether an act or omission shall be
proceeded with as a violation or as an offence''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are at report stage of Bill C-61, a bill
that allows the Department of Agriculture, under the jurisdiction
of the minister of agriculture, to impose administrative monetary
penalties for a violation to the various acts that were just read in the
House and to seek compliance agreements to ensure the violations
do not continue in the future.
My party and I support the concept of administrative monetary
penalties. We also support the concept of compliance agreements.
The House will see in the amendments we have proposed today that
none of them would disallow the use of administrative monetary
penalties to implement or to penalize violations of acts,
particularly those that would affect regulations dealing with
agriculture, health, safety and the like. Nor do any of the
amendments we propose, including the one we are dealing with
right now, preclude the minister reaching a compliance agreement
with an offender or with a violator of any of the offences in the acts
we are dealing with today.
Our amendments attempt to qualify and quantify the powers of
the minister, the powers of the tribunal to which violators can
appeal, and to clarify certain parts of the acts and the rights and the
responsibilities of both the violator and the minister in enforcing
and administering the monetary penalties and forming compliance
agreements.
Motion No. 1 is incorrectly printed in the Notice Paper. It says
that the minister shall prescribe ``criteria for determining whether
an act or omission shall be proceeded with as a violation or as an
offence''. The amendment requires the minister to have regulations
determining the differences between a violation which the AMPs
address and an offence which the court system addresses. We feel
this clarification would respond to some concerns in the industry
about the matter.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food was
given information by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food that a number of institutions and
associations impacted by the legislation support Bill C-61. The
parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture circulated a
list in the committee of several organizations such as the Canadian
Horticultural Council, the Canadian Meat Council, the Canadian
Animal Health Institute, the Canadian Veterinary Medical
Association, the Canadian Nursery Trades Association, the
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the Canadian Seed Growers
Association, the Council of Forestry Industries of British
Columbia, the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, the National Dairy
Council of Canada and the Holstein Association of Canada.
The parliamentary secretary indicated to the committee that all
these associations and organizations supported Bill C-61. The list
that he circulated in the committee was titled ``Organizations
which support Bill C-61''. He said that he would supply letters of
support for the bill to members of the committee. We sought those
letters of support, and when we received them only one of the
15840
letters was dated after the introduction of Bill C-61. In other words
all the letters the parliamentary secretary suggested indicated
support for Bill C-61 were written in 1992 and 1993, which is
before the current government was elected and before Bill C-61
was in the drafting stage, let alone introduced into the House of
Commons.
(1020)
We took note of what the individuals who wrote those letters said
and found that while they supported the concepts of AMPS and
compliance agreements, they wanted to review the legislation once
drafted and to comment on it.
To my knowledge the minister of agriculture and his officials
have not yet supplied us with any letters, other than one letter from
the Canadian Meat Council, that actually support Bill C-61. I bring
that forward as a concern and as a rationale for some of the
amendments we are proposing.
Motion No. 1 would require the minister to have regulations
determining the differences between a violation which the AMPS
address and an offence which the court system addresses. This
must happen in any case. The amendment ensures that the minister
is required to do it. The criteria must be more open and more well
known in the industry and if the criteria are wrong we will know in
advance, before the regulations are administered, whether or not
they will be done in a fair and reasonable manner.
Departmental officials say that they are doing a great job of it
right now, that they are very fair minded, very reasonable in the
way they administer penalties on violations and deal with offences
under the acts. That may very well be; I am not here to challenge
whether or not they are doing a good job. However over time,
situations change. A few years ago we had a Mulroney government
that was very arrogant. We may have a Liberal government that
becomes more arrogant or we may have some new arrangement in
the Parliament of Canada in the years ahead where ministers and
departments overstep their bounds.
The amendment is not criticizing the current administration. It is
not a criticism of the Department of Agriculture. It is not a
criticism of the minister's officials. It is ensuring that in the future
the criteria will be very public, that no one could be biased in their
determination of whether a violation would follow the AMPS and
compliance route or go the court route, perhaps based on
someone's politics, on which part of the country they live in or on
some other unreasonable criteria unacceptable to Canadians.
The minister must set out a criterion to determine the
differences. This minor amendment would ensure that happens. It
would ensure the AMPS and the compliance agreements would
have a reason for introduction. If the department decided not to go
the AMPS route or the compliance agreement route and decided to
take the matter to the courts, to the justice system, we would know
the criteria on which the decision was made. It is a more open,
transparent way of performing one's responsibilities.
I urge the House to accept the amendment. It certainly is not
partisan by nature; it certainly is not unreasonable. Therefore I ask
for the support of all members.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity in the House today to deal with Bill C-61 and the
various possible motions in amendment that have been put on the
Order Paper with respect to Bill C-61.
In beginning the discussion on Motion No. 1, I start by making
reference to a matter the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster
referred to in his opening remarks, the level of industry support for
the measure as it appears in the form of the legislation.
(1025 )
My parliamentary secretary, in dealing with the issue before the
committee, indicated that there was broad support for the
legislation as it appears before the House of Commons. In
indicating the kind of correspondence presented to verify the
support, my parliamentary secretary was not in any way misleading
or attempting to mislead members of the committee. He stated
quite accurately that letters of support had been received for the
principle and the concept of the legislation from 11 key industry
organizations. The names of the organizations have already been
referred to by the hon. member opposite.
Consultation on the legislation began a long time before the bill
was actually drafted. In October 1992 Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada wrote to all industry associations to inform them of the
intention to move forward with an administrative monetary penalty
system. After that consultation various letters of support were
received broadly from the industry. Also a variety of industry
groups reaffirmed their support for this type of legislation during
the regulatory review process conducted by my department during
the course of 1992.
Once the bill was actually drafted and tabled in the House of
Commons on December 5, 1994, a letter and substantial
documentation were sent to 132 industry associations informing
them that the bill had been tabled. The letter went on to detail the
significant features of the legislation. It specifically provided a
contact point to enable further discussion and information upon
request from the various industry organizations.
In response we received a few inquiries seeking certain specific
clarifications about some detailed points contained in the draft
legislation, but there were no letters and no other forms of
15841
communication indicating any fundamental change on the part of
the industry in terms of support for the legislation.
At the same time a press release was issued to over 1,000 media
and industry contacts. It indicated that the legislation had been
tabled and that the concepts previously discussed in various forms
of consultation had now been transformed into legislative form and
were about to proceed through the House of Commons.
As the bill has been before the House for some considerable
length of time, various industry representatives have been kept
informed of the progress of the legislation. Certainly the indication
is that a broad measure of support in the industry continues for Bill
C-61.
In view of the concerns expressed at committee stage by
members of the opposition wondering if the previous expressions
of support continue to the present time, this week my officials have
contacted a number of the groups and organizations previously
consulted. This week my officials have also spoken with the
Canadian Horticulture Council, the Canadian Egg Marketing
Agency, the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, the National
Dairy Council and the Canadian Meat Council. All the
organizations again reconfirmed their support for the bill.
While I appreciate the question about earlier support and later
support being raised by the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster, the evidence before us indicates fairly
clearly that a broad measure of support was there in the beginning
and continues to the present time.
(1030 )
Specifically Motion No. 1 talks about the possibility of
prescribing in regulations the criteria for determining whether any
contravention should be considered as an administrative violation
or an offence. I have a couple of observations I would like to make.
At the present time, every contravention can be prosecuted
through the court system. What this bill does is it gives to the
minister of agriculture an administrative option where prosecution
is seen to be too harsh or too drastic a measure. In arriving at his or
her decision as to whether to proceed immediately through the
court system by way of prosecution or proceed under the auspices
of administrative monetary penalties, the minister of the day will
be guided by a compliance and enforcement policy. That policy
establishes criteria to advise and instruct the department in making
decisions on the use of the various enforcement options that are
available, the more severe and the less severe.
The compliance and enforcement policy is a public document. It
would not be prescribed by way of regulation, but it would be on
the public record for the public to know about, to understand, to ask
questions about, and potentially even to suggest changes to.
The choice to be made by the minister in any given set of
circumstances is as to whether to prosecute or whether to issue a
monetary penalty. This is akin to a choice that is often before
prosecutors in criminal matters where a decision has to be made
about whether to proceed by way of indictment, which is a more
serious method of proceeding through the court system, or by way
of summary conviction, which is a somewhat less serious method
of proceeding.
Because the choice in any given case is so heavily dependent
upon the individual facts of the situation, there is obviously a
requirement here for some degree of flexibility. I would say to my
hon. friend across the way that I do not believe it is practical or
realistic to have hard and fast rules set down and prescribed by way
of regulations. The necessary flexibility that has to be there in
making these judgment calls is best offered by relying on a policy
statement, a policy document, rather than trying to etch all of that
in the more rigid framework of regulations.
I repeat the point I made earlier: The policy document on
compliance and enforcement matters dealing with how decisions
are to be made on the choice of the various enforcement options
that might be available will be open to the public. One of the
fundamental things we are trying to achieve by means of this
legislation is an open, fair and transparent process.
I would simply conclude by saying that in making these choices,
which are difficult choices and require judgment calls to be made
and some measure of flexibility, depending on a wide variety of
factual situations that may confront the minister of the day, it is
important for these matters to be dealt with in the form of a public
policy document as opposed to trying to etch them in the more rigid
form of regulations. While I understand the general point my hon.
friend is trying to make, I would not be in a position to recommend
support for Motion No. 1.
(1035)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I must take
part in the debate on Bill C-61 today, because this bill cannot be
agreed on as presented by the government, on the basis that it
would save time and money for the taxpayers.
I entirely agree with the principle, and so does my party, but the
government always has to leave the door open to all kinds of
adverse consequences.
This bill could have serious consequences in terms of disregard
for judicial fairness. If the department introduces a system of
monetary penalties, it must be because it believes that this will
significantly reduce the need for enforcement actions, thus
generating substantial savings for taxpayers.
15842
The big problem is that the government did not foresee the risks
that making totally arbitrary decisions on the enforcement of such
penalties entail. We object to reducing penalties imposed on
offenders by concluding compliance agreements. That is unfair.
It would have been enlightening for the government to advise us
of the potential savings resulting from this bill. This legislation
contains a totally unacceptable principle, authorizing the person
designated by the minister to conclude an agreement with the
offender, whose fine would be reduced by $1 for every $2 invested
by the business into improving its process, buying new equipment
or training its employees. As far as I know, penalties are not
negotiable in our justice system. Bargaining fines is not something
we do in Quebec. Anyone who was stopped for speeding knows
what I mean: either you are guilty and you pay the full amount of
the fine or you go to court and let the judge decide.
The existing justice system provides that the person who is
guilty of a fault must bear the consequences of his or her actions.
Instead, with this bill, a wealthy offender, one who can more easily
afford making investments to remedy a particular situation, is
rewarded. In the way of unequal treatment, you can hardly find
worse. This is preferential treatment based on the financial
capability of an individual or business, and that is unfair.
I would also like the government to tell us who will be in charge
of assessing the cost of the efforts made by offending individuals or
businesses to remedy the situation. Training, equipment, all that
can cost more in one region than in another. In a region where it
costs more, offenders will be penalized. Moreover, will they be
informed of all the means made available to them to correct the
situation? And what if an offender, in collusion with suppliers,
presented inflated bills? Frankly, there are tax or other incentives
which could be used to promote investment and training by
companies. For heaven's sake, let us not negotiate penalties.
Another unacceptable provision in this bill is the one which
provides for a 50 per cent reduction of the penalty if the offender
pays it without appealing the decision or asking for a hearing. With
that provision, the government undermines the presumption of
innocence. A number of members of this House are lawyers and
they know that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental
right. Indeed, under our legal system, a person is deemed innocent
until there is evidence to the contrary.
Let us take an unclear situation where there would be grounds
for challenging the decision. The minister would tell the individual
or business that it is in their best interest to keep a low profile,
otherwise, they would of course have to submit to a hearing-
An hon. member: You are not discussing the right motion.
Mr. Landry: What is the problem?
An hon. member: You are discussing Motion No. 2.
The Speaker: Is everything all right? Fine. Let us stop for a few
seconds and then give the floor to the hon. member for one minute.
I have a question.
(1040)
Does the hon. member wish to continue the debate?
Mr. Landry: Mr. Speaker, I want to address Motion No. 2. I
apologize. I spoke too soon. I am sorry.
The Speaker: Thank you. Resuming debate. We are still
discussing Motion No. 1. The debate is on Group No. 1.
[English]
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for a westerner to be able to speak to this motion. I
begin by pointing out that there has been in both recent and
historical terms a need to address the problem this bill and this
motion seemingly are dealing with.
The minister is charged with the duty to look at any circumstance
in which there has been an infraction under the law and take that
circumstance and assess whether or not it is ``a very serious
situation''. Perhaps even out of ignorance a person may become
involved in a set of circumstances that really potentially is serious
if not checked.
The biggest point that needs to be addressed is the bill and the
minister are trying to bring about some compliance to the degree
that this infraction or this problem can be rectified.
Under the present situation, every contravention must be
prosecuted. The reason the bill is being put in place is to have in
place some discretionary powers whereby the bill will in fact still
bring about compliance while recognizing that there are some
circumstances that need not produce criminal records.
To prescribe by regulation, as the motion puts forward, the
criterion for determining whether a contravention should be
considered as a violation or an offence perhaps is on the surface
rather difficult, but once it gets operating sets of criteria will flow
and will become apparent.
I will give a couple of examples. Let us suggest that somebody
has entered material into the food chain that is very harmful. This
would require penalties that perhaps would be approaching the
criminal level and should be dealt with very seriously.
At the standing committee my colleague said perhaps a person
who is hauling animals will be putting too many animals into a
trailer and unknowingly breaking the regulations. Consequently, all
we need to do is deal with that individual on a user friendly basis.
15843
I feel the motion on the criteria situation is one that in time
will flow and the decision of whether or not to prosecute or put
in place the monetary penalties when necessary will bring about
the desired effect of compliance. The minister has the duty to
make known what those criteria are as the events unfold.
(1045 )
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), the recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed to Group No. 2.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-61, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 34, on page
2, with the following:
``reduced;''.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-61, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 7, on page 5, with
the following:
``the Tribunal.''
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-61, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 19, on page
5, with the following:
``penalty, the person named in the notice may pay the amount of the penalty in
the prescribed time and manner.
(1.1) Where a person pays the amount referred to in subsection (1),''.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-61, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 40, on page
5, with the following:
``in the prescribed time and manner, request a review by the Tribunal of the''.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-61 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.)
moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-61, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 17, on page 6, with the
following:
``reasonable security, in a form and in an amount''.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-61, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 31, on page 7, the
following:
``(4.1) Where security has been given under paragraph (1)(a), the notice shall
also state that the security shall not be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of
Canada unless the amount of the security is less than twice the amount of the
penalty set out in the notice of violation.''
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-61 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-61 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-61 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
(1050)
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.)
moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-61, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4, on page 9,
with the following:
``14. (1) No later than six months after the Tribunal receives a request for a review
under this Act, it shall, by order, as''.
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-61, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 16, on page 9,
with the following:
``under this Act, the Tribunal shall, by order, as the case may be, determine
whether or not the person requesting the review committed a violation and,
where the Tribunal decides that the person committed a violation but considers
that the amount of the penalty for the violation, if any, was not established in
accordance with the regulations, the Tribunal shall correct the amount of the
penalty, and the Tribunal shall cause a notice of any or-''.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-61, in Clause 15, be amended by deleting lines 38 to 42, on page 9 and
lines 1 to 7, on page 10.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose Bill C-61, because we feel
it is unacceptable in its present form. Myself and my party fully
agree with the underlying principle, which is to save taxpayers time
15844
and money. However, it seems that the government always opens
the door to all sorts of harmful effects.
This bill could have a major adverse impact on compliance and
fairness. Moreover, if the department is setting up a system of
monetary penalties it is because it feels such a system can greatly
simplify the procedures used to ensure compliance, and therefore
result in major savings to Canadian taxpayers. The problem is that
the government did not anticipate the possibility that some
decisions related to the process may be totally arbitrary. We oppose
the compliance agreements which allow the designated person to
reduce the penalty imposed to an offender. Such a procedure is
unfair.
The government should also have told us about the potential
savings associated with the implementation of this bill. Allowing a
person designated by the department to enter into a compliance
agreement with an offender is totally unacceptable. Under such an
arrangement, the offender's penalty would be reduced by one dollar
for every two dollars that the company would invest to improve its
procedures, buy new material or train its staff. As far as I know, our
justice system does not allow an offender to negotiate his or her
penalty. Bargaining penalties is not part of our way of doing things.
Just ask those who get arrested for speeding: either you are guilty
and pay the full amount of the fine, or you challenge the decision
before the court and the judge makes a ruling.
Under our justice system, an offender must assume the
consequences of his acts. An offender who has the means to invest
money to correct a specific situation would benefit from that
provision. This bill is as unfair as you can get. Such preferential
treatment is based on the spending power of an individual or a
company, and that is unfair.
Moreover, can the government tell us who will evaluate the cost
of efforts made by the individual or company to remedy the
situation? Training, equipment, all these things cost more or less,
depending on where you live. Offenders would be penalized if they
live in a region where these costs are high. What is more, will they
be informed of all of the approaches available to them for
correcting the situation? And what if, with the complicity of
suppliers, our offender produces padded invoices? Frankly, there
are tax or other incentives which could be used if we are seeking to
step up investments or training in a company. But for goodness'
sake , let us not link it with negotiation of a sentence.
Another unacceptable point: the bill calls for a 50 per cent
reduction in the penalty if the person committing the violation pays
the fine without contesting or requesting a review. Here the
government is attacking the very foundations of presumed
innocence. A number of hon. members are lawyers and they know
this is a fundamental right. A person is considered innocent until
proven otherwise in our legal system, is he not?
Let us look at an obscure situation in which there were grounds
to request a review. The minister would tell the individual or
company that it would be in his or its best interests to be seen and
not heard. Of course, he could ask for a review, but with a gun at his
head. He will be told that he has already been found guilty and that,
if he wants to reduce his penalty, he has only to pay up without a
fuss.
(1055)
Where does the right of any individual to representation come
in? Who will help the person presumed to have committed the
violation to defend his point of view?
The individual may obtain a hearing before a tribunal, however,
if he insists. But beware of conflicts of interest. Listen carefully to
how the thing works: the tribunal is appointed by the minister. The
members, whose mandate is renewable, have to assess decisions
made by departmental employees.
And the latter answer to the minister. That is how it goes. It
seems to me that the tribunal members could very easily be
appointed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food after an assessment of whether the handling of certain
cases has or has not caused problems. Another point not made clear
is whether the individual will have to travel to Ottawa for a hearing.
This government just loves to complicate things. Another
department I will not mention, Transport Canada, uses a system of
monetary sanctions. Unlike Agriculture and Agri-Food, however,
Transport Canada has no mechanism allowing it to reduce penalties
if the offending individual decides to pay up without an argument.
There is no reduction either if he decides to invest in improvements
to the facilities which earned him the fine.
It is unnecessary to offer some sort of penalty reduction bonus as
an incentive for violators to pay up, because in many cases,
contesting the penalty costs more than the penalty itself.
The government wants to save money. So do we. The bill before
the House today proposes to amend eight acts. Most of these acts
concern areas that are already administered by the provinces.
Did the government start by consulting the provinces to find out
whether the monetary penalty system is a concept they would
recognize, and did it then consider whether the provinces would not
be in a better position to administer the system? It is high time we
put an end to unnecessary duplication in inspection services.
Too often the federal inspection system's only excuse for being
there at all is the international standards it enforces in order to
meet international trade requirements. Why not let the provinces
15845
enforce these standards themselves? Then we would certainly save
money.
In concluding, we support initiatives that help relieve pressure
on the courts. Consequently, as I said at the beginning of my
speech, we support the principle of Bill C-61. However, we do not
agree with the double standard the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food wishes to introduce by reducing penalties for violators
who plead guilty without asking for a review or who will invest to
correct the situation.
In fact, the agreement process the department wishes to impose
is certainly not essential to the bill, especially since it is a potential
source of arbitrariness and inequity. I would urge the House to vote
in favour of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, in
order to correct a bill that might otherwise have a disastrous impact
on the concept of equity in our legal system.
[English]
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the individuals who looked at the bill and came forward with
amendments looked very hard at the issues they are attempting to
address. I have to say their attempts to remedy or improve the bill
is evident.
However I have to take exception that the actual function they
are bringing forward will be a benefit to agriculture in general. I
would point out that in Motion No. 15 they are asking to legislate
what the maximum time frame should be tied to six months within
which time the review tribunal must complete its review.
(1100 )
Many times when a tribunal is involved in matters it would be
rather imprudent to be fixed to a particular time frame and attempt
to guarantee this time frame in legislation where reason dictates
that flexibility would be required and needed. Therefore, a
six-month time frame would not always be suitable. I think we
would have to say that some flexibility in timing would be
required.
Another purpose of the motion is to remove from the minister
the ability to enter into compliance agreements whereby penalties
could be reduced in recognition of costs incurred by industry by
taking corrective measures. The important thing in these matters is
that compliance is achieved. Whether or not there is a reduced or an
increased penalty is secondary in most cases to bringing about the
change by the perpetrator of the infraction.
By authorizing the department to enter into these agreements the
bill gives the department the tool to negotiate the implementation
by industry of measures that would change the violator's practices
and process. That is the key. At the same time, the violator may pay
a reduced amount of penalty in exchange for compliance. These
funds to effect the necessary improvements leading to a future
compliance may also be used to remedy certain situations.
Compliance agreements result in immediate corrective actions.
Note that we are saying immediate. When that has happened of
course, the ministerial or departmental approval would be
achieved. Immediate corrective action leads to a better product,
improved health and safety, and more effective enforcement.
Compliance agreements are optional and no one is forced to enter
into these agreements. The bill provides an incentive to enter into
compliance agreements by making it possible to reduce the amount
of monetary penalty. As we have said, the most important outcome
is that there has been a change and there has been a remedy and
compliance is achieved.
To remove the possibility of a ministerial review of a notice of
violation is also deemed not suitable by this amendment. I would
like to speak against that point as well. A ministerial review
enables a violator who wishes to challenge a monetary penalty to
have a fast, inexpensive and informal way to do so. Under current
legislation he must do so through the court system. As we know,
that can be slow. We also know it can be very expensive.
Consequently, when we hear concerns from opposite sides that we
do not have enough savings by these changes, we admit that we
perhaps do not have a fixed number, but we know that by taking it
out of the court system we will be putting a number of dollars into
agriculture rather than into the hands of people in the legal system.
The ministerial review is optional in any event. The violator may
choose to proceed directly to the review tribunal. Furthermore,
anyone who elects to have a ministerial review may appeal its
outcome to the review tribunal.
Finally, I would like to comment on whether or not to remove the
possibility for a violator to pay less than the full amount of
monetary penalty where the violator does not request a review. In
other words, we would be putting in place a mechanism whereby
there would be a smaller amount of money taken from the
perpetrator of an infraction without his even asking for it.
The intent behind including in the bill a provision that enables
this to happen is twofold. First, it is to enable a violator who does
not intend to challenge the assessment of a penalty to pay a reduced
amount of penalty if the department is satisfied that the violator
would act in good faith and take the necessary corrective measures.
Again, the compliance component is paramount here. Second, it is
to promote compliance without engaging in long and costly
hearings.
(1105 )
Hearings are of course expensive, as we said earlier. There are
other regimes. It is estimated that the average hearing cost is about
15846
$1,400, and some might be more. If we can save that $1,400, we
will all be ahead of the game.
We are informed these types of reductions are common under
other monetary penalty regimes both in Canada and the U.S. In
these other regimes reductions are informally made on a case by
case basis while taking great care to make a decision appropriately.
Bill C-61 formalizes the procedure and makes the practice
transparent and available to anyone.
I conclude my remarks at this point.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this is rather heavy slugging; I hope you are enjoying
the debate this morning.
We are dealing with quite a large number of amendments in
Group No. 2. I am not going to speak individually on all of the Bloc
amendments, but I will lump them together. It seems the Bloc's
intention in proposing these amendments is to actually do away
with the formulating of compliance agreements altogether. That is
not a position I or my colleagues share. We are not opposed to the
concept. We want to clarify, quantify and qualify some of the act to
make it work better, which is the purpose of our amendments.
If the compliance agreement is properly administered and
properly enforced, if it is balanced and gives a proper and
reasonable amount of protection to both the minister and his
department and to those violators or alleged violators who are
affected by this legislation, it can actually be a useful tool that will
take violators out of the courts and allow the situation to be dealt
with in a less costly and more efficient manner.
Having said that about the Bloc amendments, I suspect the Bloc
would have been wiser to simply oppose the bill and offer no
amendments at all rather than to actually destroy the intent of the
bill.
I would like to speak briefly to the motions we have put forward
in this grouping. I will begin with Motion No. 10, which concerns
clause 10. We would amend it by replacing line 17 on page 6 with
the following: ``reasonable security, in a form and in an amount''.
This motion deals with the granting of security to ensure
compliance of someone who has violated the regulations under one
of the acts dealt with in Bill C-61. We suggested there should be
criteria in the process, and I appreciate the minister saying that he
already has a policy manual in place. I do not know why he and his
government would oppose ensuring that policy manual continues
and is very open to the public by means of the amendment we have
proposed. I cannot understand why the government would not be
supportive of the word reasonable in front of the word security. We
all want to be reasonable people; I am sure the minister wants to be
reasonable, as does his government.
Let us use an example of what this would prevent. It would
prevent the minister and his department from demanding an entire
meat processing plant for security if the cooler was of a value at
least twice as great as the penalty that would be imposed upon the
processor for any violation he had committed. That type of
approach is reasonable and would prevent abuses by the minister
and his department. On the other hand, it would also preclude the
minister from going to the other extreme and just demanding the
meat grinder for security when the violation was serious enough
that he should have more security to ensure the compliance
agreement is complied with.
That is a reasonable amendment. It makes the bill stronger. It
again qualifies the bill and leads me into Motion No. 11, which
deals with the same matter of reasonable security.
Motion No. 11 is that Bill C-61 be amended in clause 10 by
adding after line 11, on page 7, the following:
(4.1) Where security has been given under paragraph (1)(a), the notice shall
also state that the security shall not be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of
Canada unless the amount of security is less than twice the amount of the
penalty set out in the notice of violation.
(1110 )
This qualifies what reasonable security in this case would be. It
prevents the minister and his department from demanding an
unreasonable amount of security in ensuring a compliance
agreement is complied with.
This is common sense. It is reasonable. It protects the
department; it protects the minister; it protects the Canadian
taxpayer. It is an incentive for the offender or the violator to
comply with the agreement, yet it prevents abuse.
I will go on to Motion No. 15, which is also in this grouping. It
states:
That Bill C-61, in clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4, on page
9, with the following:
14.(1) No later than six months after the Tribunal receives a request for a
review under this Act, it shall, by order, as
This seems a bit disjointed when it is read, but a tribunal is
established under the act that can review disputes if they are not
voluntarily complied with by the violator. If the offender is not able
to make an agreement with the minister and his department, he
does have recourse to a tribunal.
As we know, we have seen in the justice system in the United
States and to a degree in Canada that sometimes these cases drag on
and on. They are very costly. They are certainly not fair to the
person who is accused or the person who has been alleged to have
made a violation, and they are certainly not fair to the taxpayers
who bear a large portion of the cost of this process.
15847
Again, this is just a qualifier that ensures that the tribunal cannot
delay making a decision forever and ever. In fact, it stipulates that
in no case can the tribunal delay its action for more than six
months. It requires the review tribunal to complete its review
within six months of receiving the person's request for review.
Can the minister offer a very good reason why that is not
reasonable or that does not protect taxpayers, why it does not
protect the person who is alleged to have made a violation and even
protect the department from ongoing cases where this situation is
not resolved? It is better for all parties involved in this process.
I request that all members in the House look seriously at Motion
No. 15. I suggest they support that as being fair and reasonable,
making it a better act rather than a weaker one.
The purpose of these amendments is not to in any way criticize
the government or do a one-up on the government; it is to make
better legislation that is going to affect us all. It is in that spirit that
we bring these amendments to the House.
I request that members opposite have a fair look at these
amendments and see whether or not they can support them as being
reasonable in this legislation, in this case suggesting reasonable
security and a reasonable amount of time for decisions to be made.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, these are certainly very difficult and challenging
times in the field of agriculture. We see a lot of changes going on
throughout the sector worldwide. We have seen with the
globalization of trade that is occurring and with the tight fiscal
situations governments find themselves in all around the world that
this is imposing certain constraints on the way we carry on
business.
This government and the minister are facing many challenges in
the area of agriculture. Certainly this government and the minister
in particular has achieved a number of very significant successes in
dealing with these challenges of globalization and dealing with the
challenges of a tight fiscal situation.
(1115 )
When we look at the fair and thorough handling of the Crow
payout issue in western Canada, the protection of the supply
management system at the GATT talks and the successful
completion of the GATT talks shortly after the election by the
minister and the very favourable settlement of the durum wheat
disputes of the U.S., in each instance the minister has dealt with
these issues in a fair and thorough fashion, getting good results for
the agricultural producers of Canada.
The minister has proven to be a very forceful and successful
advocate for all the country's farmers, whether in the west, in
Quebec, in Ontario, or in the maritimes. He has always ensured
that when dealing with the issues of farmers, each group of
producers in each region has its issues dealt with on the merits of
the case. This bill is another fine example of dealing with the
pressures and challenges facing the agricultural sector. This can be
looked at as yet another success.
It is very important to point out that we are dealing with a piece
of legislation that allows for compliance agreements. Therefore
when there is a violation of a regulation within various parts of the
agricultural sector, the usual route is to charge the individual. The
individual gets a lawyer; the government gets a lawyer. The
government pays for the expense and time of a tribunal to hear the
case. Down the road a year or two later there is finally a decision in
the dispute. Thereafter, in the event the charged individual or
corporation is found guilty, their practices are changed.
This legislation allows for a speedy and fair resolution of the
violation when it occurs. It allows the producers or the person
charged to come to a very quick resolution of their dispute. The
offending behaviour can be quickly remedied.
In a legal dispute in which charges are laid, a person will not
change his behaviour for fear that change will lead to an admission
of guilt.
When there is the ability for a person to simply change
behaviour and get on with business, this is what we really want to
see. We want to see our food safe, our industry competitive. Both
these issues are dealt with very favourably by this legislation. That
type of settlement is encouraged.
As we do not have the resources we used to, the solution put
forward by the minister is excellent because it allows cutting the
costs of corrective measures. This is very important for all
Canadians. It allows industries to continue to be very competitive,
to spend their resources doing their job of processing and selling
products better rather than spending resources, time and energy
worrying and trying to deal with a charge. In this respect the bill is
excellent and handles a number of these changes in a very positive
manner.
When dealing with the security required to ensure a violator
complies with a compliance agreement, it has always been the
intent of the minister that it be reasonable. If not included explicitly
within the legislation, it is always included implicitly.
(1120 )
If the matter were subject to dispute, I have no doubt the courts
would simply read into the legislation that the security required by
the minister or the department would be reasonable. However, I
suppose one could look at this amendment and say it is exactly
what the intent of the legislation is and therefore would be
reasonable to include it within the legislation.
15848
One of the motions seeks to remove the possibility for the
violator to pay less than the full amount of the monetary penalty
where the violator does not request a review. The intent behind
the bill includes the provision which enables a violator to pay less
than the full amount of the penalty which otherwise would be
taken if the procedure were to go to court.
The intent behind it is twofold. It enables a violator who does not
intend to challenge the assessment of the penalty to pay a reduced
penalty and to get on with life. It encourages the person to take
corrective measures. It also promotes compliance without
engaging in long and costly hearings. That makes sense. There is a
large benefit to the person charged or who has committed a
violation to simply change the behaviour and to get on with
business. That is what the legislation is all about. If the possibility
for the violator to pay less were not there, we would not see many
violators voluntarily changing their behaviour.
The legislation deals with the fiscal realities of the government.
It encourages a change of behaviour on the part of violators within
the agriculture and agri-food sectors. It encourages the
improvement of behaviour. Canada will continue to produce high
quality goods in the agricultural field and will continue to have a
competitive industry. The legislation also assists Canada to
compete in the international market because the resources of the
companies and the government will not be diverted into long legal
disputes.
The legislation accomplishes a number of goals. It is another
example of the minister's dealing effectively with the challenges
we are facing in the agri-food sector today. I congratulate the
minister and all the people who have worked hard to make this
legislation a reality.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the
motions we are discussing in Group No. 2, Motion No. 2 and
Motions Nos. 6 through 17. They are all part of our discussion at
the present time.
Remarks were made earlier by the hon. member for Lotbinière
regarding overlap and duplication in agricultural policies and
programs between the federal government and provincial
jurisdiction. I will address that point for a moment.
That there might be some measure of overlap is probably to be
expected since under our Constitution agriculture is specifically
and explicitly a joint federal-provincial responsibility.
(1125 )
When we look at the duplication that actually exists, it is truly
remarkable that the amount involved in agriculture is tiny. Two
studies were conducted within the last year or so by the
Government of Quebec. One was released in the spring of this year
and the other was released earlier this fall.
One study indicated that at the very worst the amount of overlap
and duplication between the Government of Canada and the
Government of Quebec with respect to agriculture might involve a
cost in the order of 2.5 per cent. According to the other study, it was
more like 1 per cent. According to the studies it is very minor.
On a number of occasions in the House and publicly I have
indicated to the Government of Quebec and every other provincial
government to the extent that overlap and duplication exist in the
field of agriculture, that we should talk about it. We should work it
out of the system so we have it at the absolute minimum, even
though it is already very small to start with.
There really is no substantial argument to be made on the point
of overlap and duplication because there is not much in the first
place. To the extent that it does exist the Government of Canada is
completely prepared to work with every provincial jurisdiction to
identify problem areas that might exist and to work them out of the
system so that overlap and duplication are minimized.
In the remarks of the member for Lotbinière I also heard an
attempt to demean or diminish the importance of the Canadian
federal inspection system in agriculture. That system is vital to
Canadian farmers, exporters and consumers in terms of providing
this country with the safest and highest quality of food in the world.
Studies, some of which we released at the time of the federal
budget last February, indicated Canadians have a very high
confidence level in our food system in terms of its health and its
safety because of the Canadian food inspection system which ranks
among the very best in the world in terms of health and safety
standards. That gives our consumers a very strong and positive
feeling about the quality of products they buy from the Canadian
food system. It also provides our customers abroad with a very high
level of expectation about the standards they can receive when they
buy from Canada.
I have had the opportunity to visit with our customers in foreign
markets, in the Asia-Pacific region, in Latin America, in Europe
and in other places around the world. They have repeatedly told me
that when they buy from Canada they know they buy the very best
and they rely heavily on the high quality, high standard inspection
system.
It is not accurate or appropriate to dismiss that as something
frivolous or unmeaningful. It matters a lot to Canadian farmers, to
Canadian exporters and potential exporters, to Canadian consumers
and to our international customers. That inspection system is
exceedingly important to all Canadians.
I have heard that comment repeated to me over and over by
exporters and potential exporters from Quebec who know the value
of the Canadian inspection system and who want to see it
maintained in the best interests of Quebec agriculture and Canadian
agriculture.
15849
(1130 )
Can we make our inspection system even better? The answer to
that is obviously yes. At the present time we are working very hard
in co-operation with the private sector and in co-operation with all
provincial governments to make that system better. We are working
on areas where we can avoid costs in the system. We are working
on areas where we can reduce costs in the system. We are working
on areas where we can share costs in the system when there is an
appropriate sharing of benefits at the same time. We are looking at
a whole range of ways in which we can introduce new technology
into the system to take advantage of the advances in science and
technology in the field of food inspection systems.
We are also pursuing new approaches that have international
acceptance such as an approach called HACCP, as it is known by its
acronym, the hazard analysis at critical control points system. It is
deemed in many jurisdictions around the world to be the very best
system to move toward for the future. Many Canadian companies
are already beginning to adopt that approach in their inspection
standards.
Finally, there is the issue of more co-ordination and co-operation
among all those in the system who have some responsibility for
inspection.
I have seen examples of inspection situations in the country
where three or four federal government departments are involved
in some aspect of inspection, perhaps two or three departments at
the provincial level and on occasion, some departments at the
municipal level. That is an area where there is some overlap we can
seriously work at removing from the system. We are trying to do
that in two ways.
First, at the federal level we are working very hard on a single
federal approach to inspection so that we do not have overlapping
activities on the part of several federal departments all inspecting
the same thing but simply repeating the process over and over
again. We are making progress at working out those illustrations of
federal overlap so we get the inspection job done but we do not
cause repetitive actions that are in fact counterproductive and
costly.
Second, we are working very hard with the provinces, as is
evidenced by the last several federal-provincial meetings of
agriculture ministers, to develop a Canadian national food
inspection system. It is a system where all jurisdictions and all
levels that have responsibility work in greater co-ordination with
each other so that at the end of the day the very best inspection
work gets done at a very high level with excellent standards and
calibre, but we avoid costs in the system, overlap and duplication.
We then have a system that performs to the very high standards we
want at the very least possible cost.
The story of food inspection is one in which Canadians can have
confidence and of which they can be very proud both for today and
for the future. Having said that, I would add this one final sentence.
It is critically important that we maintain our vigilance with respect
to food inspection so that Canadians cannot only have a past
reputation for being the very best in the world, but can have the
absolute confidence that their reputation will continue forever into
the future.
In the group of motions that are specifically before us, Motions
Nos. 2, 8, 9 and 12 have already been dealt with, I believe, by my
colleague for Brandon-Souris quite effectively. Similarly,
Motions Nos. 6, 8, 13, 14, 16 and 17 have been dealt with by the
member for Brandon-Souris in considerable detail. I do not
propose to repeat what he said.
I want to focus on Motion No. 10, presented by the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster, where he suggests the insertion of the
word reasonable. It is obviously our intention, with respect to the
matters dealt with under Motion No. 10, to be reasonable. I have no
difficulty with the inclusion of that word with respect to Motion
No. 10. I would suggest though, as a consequence that it would not
be necessary to accept Motion No. 11 because the point is already
covered effectively by the amendment we are prepared to accept in
Motion No. 10.
(1135)
All other motions in the package I would recommend against.
However, the government is prepared to accept the amendment
proposed in Motion No. 10.
[Translation]
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 will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost on division.
I therefore declare Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17
lost.
15850
(Motions Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 negatived.)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 10. 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.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 carried.
(Motion No. 10 agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 11. 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 76.1(8) a
recorded division on Motion No. 11 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), a
recorded division on Motion No. 15 stands deferred.
We now move to Group No. 3.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.)
moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-61, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15, on page 3,
with the following:
``committed to obtain a financial benefit, $1,000 for a first violation and $2,000
for any subsequent violation; and
(b) in any other case
(i) $1,000 for a first minor violation, $5,000 for a first serious violation and
$10,000 for a first very serious violation, or
(ii) $2,000 for a subsequent minor violation, $10,000 for a subsequent serious
violation and $15,000 for a subsequent very serious violation.''
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-61, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 25, on page 4, with the
following:
``violation and the designated person serving the notice of violation and''.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-61, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 33, on page 4, with the
following:
``paying, which shall not be less than forty-five days, and the manner of paying the''.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-61, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 13, on page 10, with
the following:
``(f) the amount of any reasonable expenses incurred''.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-61, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 14, on page 11,
with the following:
``18. A person named in a notice of violation has a defence by reason that the
person
(a) exercised due diligence to prevent the violation; or
(b) reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would
exonerate the person.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are making a little progress here. Let us
see if we can make more.
The minister says he has some good news and he has some bad
news. The good news is that he has listened to Reform once.
Perhaps the bad news is that he did not listen to us on the first
amendment which he should have supported as well.
(1140)
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): The bad news is he is
a Liberal.
Mr. Hermanson: We are dealing with motions which my party
submitted in this group, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 18 and 19. I will try
to be quick and discuss the substance of the motions, dealing first
15851
with Motion No. 3. It is to suggest that Bill C-61 in clause 4 be
amended by replacing some lines. We are reducing the
administrative monetary penalty for first time violations.
There is a matrix in place which begins to do this, but the matrix
is not included in the legislation. In our judgment, this reinforces
that matrix component and ensures that the principle is enacted in
the legislation.
The administrative monetary penalties fall into three maximum
ranges. The first one is for a minor violation, having a maximum of
$2,000, a serious violation having a maximum of $5,000 and a very
serious violation having a maximum of $15,000. For a second or
subsequent violations we think this is reasonable. However for a
first violation, often dealing with small business and with
producers, this seems rather severe.
I understand also there can be a warning issued as well for a
violation. The minister and his department have that option. I am
not so concerned about the norm as I am the extraordinary
circumstances that this legislation has to be prepared to deal with.
It is only reasonable and right that the legislation should contain
the principle that on a first violation the amount of the penalty be
reduced by half to protect small business and smaller producers and
smaller processors.
We have another amendment farther along. If I knew that
amendment was going to be passed, this one would not be quite so
important. My suspicions are it may not be and that precludes an
alleged violator being able to use due diligence and having burden
of proof put on the minister. If that fails, it is even more important
that Motion No. 3 pass and the first time violations not be subject
to quite as severe a monetary penalty.
Motion No. 4 is another real common sense amendment to which
I hope the minister is listening and which I hope he will agree to
pass. It suggests that when a person is notified of the violation,
besides having his or her name served on the notice, the person who
is serving the notice has to identify him or herself as well. This is
an agent of the Department of Agriculture, an agent of the minister.
This is common sense and common procedure that someone who
is imposing a fine, an administrative monetary penalty, on someone
who is alleged to have violated regulations under the agriculture act
should have the person who served that notice put his or her name
on that same piece of paper. That is only common sense. It will be
useful, valuable and will also protect the person who is alleged to
have made the violation.
Motion No. 5 amends clause 7. The legislation states that the
minister may make regulations prescribing anything that by this act
is to be prescribed. That is a pretty blank cheque, particularly when
it comes to time frame and some of these specifications.
When a person is served a notice of violation, we do not know
how long he or she has to respond. This act does not indicate
whether that person has 24 hours, 24 days, or 24 months to respond
and to make a decision whether they will ask for an appeal, an
appeal to the tribunal, agree to pay the monetary fine or seek
compliance.
(1145 )
Nothing in the act suggests a time frame for the decision to be
made by the person accused of the violation. The amendment we
are proposing would suggest that the person have at least 45 days to
make a decision on what route they will go.
The minister could argue that it should be 30 days, 25 days or 60
days. I am willing to listen to his arguments. However the fact that
there are no restrictions in the act whatsoever is irresponsible and
could be dangerous if at some future time Agriculture Canada
became very heavy handed and gave people two days to decide
what course of action they wanted to follow. Several courses of
action are permitted in this piece of legislation.
This gets confusing. I thank members for bearing with me. I
want to make sure I have covered all the motions in this grouping.
There are two more motions I want to briefly touch on. In Motion
No. 18 we are inserting the word reasonable into clause 15 on line
13. If the minister and his department seize goods and dispose of
them, the expenses incurred by the department in disposing the
seized goods are charged to the violator.
If the word reasonable is not included in the clause, the minister
could hire Lloyds of London to come in and hold an auction to sell
something of small value that has been seized, say a load of
produce. We do not want to see these extremes employed by the
department. We want to make sure reasonable means are used and
only reasonable expenses are incurred in the sale of seized goods.
Motion No. 19 amends clause 18. It reads:
a person named in a notice of violation has a defence by reason that the person
(a) exercised due diligence to prevent the violation; or
(b) reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would
exonerate the person.
There has been extensive debate in committee over this issue.
Many members, even members on the Liberal side, were concerned
that the act authorizing administrative monetary penalties and
encouraging compliance of those accused of violations does not
allow those alleged to have violated to use due diligence as a
defence. This is a violation of some of the common law protection
in Canada.
It allows for a heavy handed department to preclude people
asked to pay the fines under the act from normal defences, normal
access to the justice system and the normal common law defence of
due diligence and honest belief in the facts as presented to
exonerate people.
15852
We were moving into an area where perhaps the rights of those
charged under the act were being abused. There needed to be some
changes. This was the best way that we could ensure it was an
even handed piece of legislation that did not unduly burden and
persecute those charged with a violation and preclude them from
the defence they required if they were to adequately defend
themselves from a department that may get carried away or go
a little too far.
Again I ask members opposite to seriously consider each of the
amendments. I appreciate that they supported one amendment that
made a lot of sense. There are some here that also make a lot of
sense. If they have not considered them, I ask them to look at the
amendments to see which ones they can support.
I invite all members of the House to support each of the
amendments in Group No. 3.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
for Kindersley-Lloydminster made an important point in his last
statement when he said we support amendments that make sense.
The difficulty with these amendments, I am sorry to say, is that
in terms of the effectiveness of the legislation they do not make
sense. I will speak on most of them.
(1150 )
On Motion No. 3, we have to understand current maximum
penalties are relatively modest. The bill does not make a distinction
between the first and subsequent violations for the purpose of
setting a maximum penalty that could be assessed.
I am surprised to a certain extent that a reduction for a first
offence is being requested, given that very often when dealing with
violations of law or quasi-law the Reform Party wants to go all out
and go for the jugular. In this case you are asking for-
The Deputy Speaker: I ask the member to put his remarks
through the Chair. I know it is a bore but it is required by our
procedure.
Mr. Easter: I will do that. In this case the regulations will
determine a base penalty amount range in circumstances under
which penalties may be increased or reduced. Compliance history
will be one of the factors set out in the regulations whereby
penalties will be reduced for violators with no previous history of
non-compliance and increased for those who commit subsequent
violations.
Under clause 4(3) of Bill C-61 penalty amounts may be
increased or decreased based on the degree of intention or
negligence on the part of the person who committed the violation,
the amount of harm done by the violation and the compliance
history of the person who committed the violation.
In terms of Motion No. 3 the legislation has to remain as is to
give the flexibility needed to enforce compliance.
On Motion No. 4, as I understand it the basic purpose of the
Reform amendment is to have a notice of violation to identify the
designated person serving the notice. I do not see the need for that.
The bill allows that a notice may be served by various means.
Mr. Hermanson: It is a speeding ticket.
Mr. Easter: I try not to get speeding tickets. I might inform the
hon. member that where I come from in Prince Edward Island we
do not need to speed to get from place to place, it is such a
wonderful place to be. I can understand the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster wanting to speed to get to P.E.I. some
time because of its great people and great industries. We would
welcome him any time but we will not pay his speeding tickets.
The bill allows for a notice to be served by various means and
the server of a notice may not necessarily be the designated person.
By definition the designated person is the person who issues the
notice. Service of the notice is a procedural matter best addressed
by maintaining a degree of flexibility. The bill allows the matter of
service of all documents including notices to be addressed by
regulations, for example paragraph 4(1)(g). The regulations will
make provision for service in person or by registered mail, which is
appropriate.
On Motion No. 5, the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster
could correct me if I am wrong but its purpose is basically to
legislate a minimum time of 45 days within which a penalty may be
paid. This is a procedural matter to be determined by regulation.
There is certainly reason for determining some of the procedures
by regulation.
We must be careful not to be overly restrictive in terms of the
bill.
(1155 )
The member mentioned earlier that the department could
become overly heavy handed. I certainly know that if it became
overly heavy handed with the current minister it would be
addressed. I would expect members opposite to be forever watchful
in that regard. Under this legislation I do not expect the department
could become overly heavy handed.
I will deal specifically with Motion No. 5. To include time
frames such as these in legislation is impractical because it is very
difficult to make future changes. Procedural details are generally
contained in regulations or in policy documents.
The regulation process is open and fair. The preparation and
drafting of regulations include consultation with the industry and
the prepublication of regulations in The Canada Gazette, part I.
The process will ensure that a reasonable time frame is put in
regulation for the payment of a monetary penalty. It gives us some
flexibility in reviewing it in the future to redress it through
regulation. It might be easier to take the member's concerns into
15853
consideration in the future, maintaining that flexibility by way of
regulation.
The purpose of Motion No. 18 is to clarify that the expenses
recoverable by Her Majesty with respect to the disposal of forfeited
goods are reasonable. I was surprised by the hon. member's
comments that maybe the minister would hire Lloyds of London to
sell some goods. As he very well knows the government-and
sometimes it is to the point of being of concern to some of us-is
very concerned about how departments spend their limited dollars.
The House could be assured that the government or the ministry
would not spend money in an unreasonable way. I challenge the
member on the comment that we would go that far astray. It has
always been the government's intention to administer the bill in a
reasonable way. One thing about the government is that it does not
need everything in legislation to be reasonable. We are a reasonable
bunch to begin with and that is very well known in the community.
The last motion is Motion No. 19. Its intent is to enable a
violator to rely on the defence of due diligence. We would have to
oppose it. Bill C-61 allows for the issuance of monetary penalties
on the basis of absolute liability. The department only needs to
prove the alleged violator committed an act in violation of the
regulations. The bill does not allow a defence of due diligence by
which a violator can avoid liability by establishing that he or she
was not negligent.
Under Bill C-61 there is no possibility of imprisonment, no
record of conviction for an offence created, and penalties are
modest rather than punitive in nature. Because of these factors
there is no constitutional or other legal impediment to proceeding
on the basis of absolute liability. It is worth mentioning that
although the due diligence defence does not apply, other common
law defences are available to a person to whom a notice of violation
is issued. Those are my comments on the motions.
(1200 )
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this group of motions and to some
extent to the thrust of the bill.
I represent an urban area, not a rural area. One might be curious
as to why a city boy is standing up to talk on an agricultural bill.
My family and I eat the food, I acknowledge that. We depend on
this constituency for survival.
I did take an interest in the bill from when it was first introduced
in the House. Initially it raised some concerns with me. These
concerns were expressed to the ministry and to colleagues. They
were reduced to writing, it was not just talk. In the end I see the
department has adapted the bill and made changes at committee.
We are still making a few minor changes in the House.
What is really significant here is that the House will delegate to a
department an administrative penalty program that involves a huge
constituency, the whole agricultural community. Up until now the
House has not delegated that kind of authority. The ability to
police, to levy penalties and fines has usually been in the field of
criminal law.
We do not delegate that kind of authority out of the House
without making sure it is set out very specifically in our laws. In
this case we have. It was done earlier in relation to airports and the
field of aviation, however, in that area we are dealing with a very
small constituency. Here we are doing it with the agricultural
community and thousands and thousands of Canadians will be
participating in and subject to this new administrative monetary
penalty system.
We must be vigilant in the House, as I know all members are.
The opposition is certainly vigilant, which is its job. My colleagues
on the government side have been vigilant about how this process
is to evolve.
We should look at other areas of Canadian life where there are
rules and penalties. One that comes to mind, which is a little
bizarre, is the National Hockey League in which Canadians play
hockey for a living and voluntarily subject themselves to a system
of rules. On the ice, hockey players can be fined and suspended.
Granted it is a very small constituency but it happens in other areas
of amateur hockey in Canada as well.
In this case we are talking about the entire agricultural
community. As the minister has pointed out, it has bought into the
new system. It is a recognition of evolution and modern
government that the old way of doing things does not work any
more. It is too cumbersome. Just because somebody ends up with a
badly shaped potato should not be a matter subject to a criminal
offence or a quasi-criminal offence.
We have a new system evolving here and I think we will make it
work. The government has adapted and recognized the extreme
difficulty in applying standards of strict and absolute liability.
While in the beginning we perhaps were not as sensitive to the
issues involved, as my colleague from Malpeque pointed out, the
department and the legislation have the issue down very well.
The motions for further changes to the bill by the opposition are
useful for the record even if my colleagues on this side of the
House do not accept them all. I know some have been. However, it
is a further good faith attempt to refine this legislation so that it
will work to the benefit of Canadians.
15854
(1205 )
I am pleased to indicate my support for the bill generally. I am
sorry I cannot support all the opposition motions for amendment.
The minister has the proper system and it will fly well.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise on the bill a second time.
Within my riding there are urban areas and there is also a large
rural area where agricultural producers provide the food which we
all eat and enjoy.
With respect to this motion I will go over a number of the
proposals for change put forward by members opposite. There is a
motion which seeks to vary the maximum allowable penalty
between the first and subsequent violations. While there could be
some merit to these suggestions, in light of the fact that the current
maximum penalties are relatively modest, it would not be in our
interests to start making distinctions between first and subsequent
violations for the purpose of setting a maximum penalty which
could be assessed. That does not mean that where there is a
subsequent violation a larger penalty could not be assessed.
The legislation allows for maximum flexibility when
determining the level of penalty to be assessed when regulations
have been violated. This flexibility takes into consideration the
compliance history in determining the level of the fine. That is, it
does not automatically lead to a greater fine. One must also
consider all of the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation
in determining the penalty.
In clause 4(3)(a) of Bill C-61 the penalty amounts can be
increased or decreased based on the degree of intention or
negligence on the part of the person who committed the violation,
the amount of harm done by the violation and the compliance
history of the person who committed the violation. Therefore we
have a system in which all factors are considered in dealing with
the maximum level of penalty to be set.
Motion No. 4 proposes that the designated person serving the
notice of violation be identified. The bill seeks to achieve
administrative simplicity, an inexpensive yet effective system. This
is one of the quasi-judicial procedures required by the legislation. I
do not believe it would be efficient to have individuals designated
within the legislation. By the definition included within the
legislation, the designated person issues the notice.
(1210)
The service of the notice is simply a procedural matter. What we
want to see is a flexible yet efficient system for ensuring that the
violator of a regulation gets notice. We also want to ensure we are
not overburdened with large expenses or complicated mechanisms
to get the notice to the person.
The amendments to the act will allow for the provision of service
to the person by registered mail. The nature of the offence is a very
important factor when considering how a person should be served
or notified of the offence. These offences are absolute liability
offences. Therefore the procedural requirements to ensure
notification, et cetera, are at a minimum level.
At the other end of the scale we have criminal law, the violation
of which requires a lot more procedural care, a very much higher
standard of proof. Because these offences are of a minor regulatory
nature, the service need not be such that it leads to any type of
inefficiency.
With respect to Motion No. 5, there is the suggestion to legislate
the minimum time of 45 days within which a penalty may be paid.
Dealing with time frames within legislation, at one time in our
system of government it may have been quite reasonable to include
within legislation time frames within which penalties may be paid
or within which certain actions may be taken. However, as our
legislative requirements have grown it has become more
complicated.
Acts have become far more comprehensive. We are dealing with
what goes into an act and what should be within the regulations.
Acts are not easily amended or changed. Therefore if a provision in
an act such as a time frame is found to not function properly we
may be stuck with that time frame for a considerable length of time
if we are looking at amending legislation to get the change.
What is being proposed is that these time frames be contained
within the regulation where it is appropriate. If found to be
unworkable or in need of an amendment they can be changed with
the minimum amount of disruption to the system. In a cheap,
effective manner they can be changed as quickly as is practical.
This is what insertion of time frames within the regulations would
allow.
Motion No. 18 is another motion to insert the word reasonable
within the statute. It is to clarify that expenses recovered by the
crown in respect of the disposal of forfeited goods are reasonable.
While this was not in the legislation, certainly it was always the
intention of the department to be reasonable in the charges and
requirements it makes of people who forfeit goods. This is implied
within the legislation.
The term reasonable would no doubt be implied in the legislation
anyway. Obviously where the goods are forfeited they will not be
able to make exorbitant charges. There are limitations.
The Reform Party has put forward a sensible amendment which
reflects the intent of the legislation and which therefore should be
accepted. It shows the openness of the government and the
minister. It shows a lot of flexibility, and I appreciate that
flexibility on the part of the minister.
15855
(1215)
The issue of allowing the violator to rely on the due diligence
defence has been carefully addressed by a number of my other
colleagues. I will echo those remarks.
Once again, I appreciate the effort that has gone into making this
bill such a success. Congratulations to the minister for yet another
fine piece of work.
Mr. Hermanson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it has been
brought to my attention that there is one more error in the Order
Paper. I would like to bring that to the attention of the House to
make sure it is corrected.
On my Motion No. 11 in the Order Paper and Notice Paper it
states: ``That Bill C-61, in clause 10, be amended by adding after
line 31, on page 7, the following'', and it goes on to state my
amendment. That in fact is an error. The amendment falls after line
11, not line 31. If we look in the bill it raises it on page 7 before
subclause (5) rather than after subclause (5).
I suspect that those members who looked at this carefully and
perhaps felt they could not support the amendment when they saw
where it was supposed to be will change their position and support
my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. The table
officers will check into this matter and the Speaker will get back to
the House on that issue.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am indeed delighted to have the opportunity
to address this House on the subject of Bill C-61, as I represent a
region where agriculture is fundamental, where it is one of the
underlying sectors of the economy.
I would first like to congratulate the minister and all the
members of the House standing committee, who studied the bill
and have proposed amendments.
I think Bill C-61 is further proof that our government has paid
heed, throughout this 35th Parliament, to all that Canadians from
coast to coast have said about the need for the various levels of
government and the different departments to manage time and
money more effectively.
When producers have less bureaucracy to deal with and less of
an investment in time to make the result is a lower product cost; the
financial benefits they reap are passed on to food product
consumers. In the end, less bureaucracy and less time invested for
producers means a lower product cost, which consumers also
enjoy.
However, when we look at Bill C-61, we note that all the
measures to protect Canadian consumers are still there, along with
the added protection afforded by the effective action of
departmental officials.
(1220)
This additional protection for all those who violate the various
agriculture-related bills will make it possible to adjust their
penalties immediately.
And I also think we will save money if we transfer all these
penalties with the possibility of an appeal before a quasi-judicial
tribunal. In this way we are saving both time and the taxpayers'
money the federal government would otherwise spend to bring all
these violators before the courts. The violators themselves may not
have to appear in court, but we all know about legal fees and what it
costs to be represented in court. What is particularly important in
this bill, as in other bills and measures initiated by our government
in the past two years, is that it will make our economy, our
bureaucracy and our judicial system more efficient.
I think that is what I see as the central focus of all bills on
agriculture, because that is what Canadians from coast to coast
have asked us to do, and we acted accordingly. We did this in a
number of departments. I want to commend the Minister of
Agriculture for having the foresight to make changes in these bills
so that we can be more efficient.
According to the text of the bill and the proposed amendments,
the bill will allow the imposition of penalties through an
administrative process, in addition to the criminal sentences
authorized by law. The department's officials will be able to set
penalties of up to $15,000, based on various criteria provided in the
form of tables in the regulations.
It is also worth mentioning that all consultations with the
agricultural sector were held before the bill was prepared. When a
governments acts in good faith, all the people involved in the bill
appreciate the various consultation mechanisms we set up and
support the various options we provide. The bill also provides for a
reduction of the penalty when the offender pays it within the time
limit without challenging it or demanding a hearing to reduce it.
This is another measure that will allow all stakeholders,
including governments, producers and those who market agri-food
products across the country, to become more effective and efficient
and to benefit from large scale savings.
In fact, the industry supports the consulting process and the work
done by the standing committee on this bill because we indeed have
the effective enforcement of Canadian standards, especially with
respect to imported products.
(1225)
Regarding the importation of agri-food products into our country
and the time required to process offenders through the judicial
system, we can take measures on site to discipline these offenders
15856
under the threat of monetary penalties. We can provide even
greater, almost immediate protection for Canadian consumers.
When I look at the various aspects of this bill and of some
amendments put forward by the standing committee, I think that
our government has taken a giant step in assuming its
responsibilities toward our agricultural industry and toward
Canadian consumers. I have no hesitation in supporting this bill
and the amendments proposed by the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The table officers have considered the
matter raised by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister.
He is absolutely correct. It changes nothing. It will be amended in
accordance with his sharp-eyed advice to the Chair. We thank him
for making that correction.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my comments perhaps will be somewhat limited, because
I plan to deal with only one aspect of the legislation. That aspect
deals with Motion No. 19 and the suggestion that the defence of
due diligence should apply to the legislation.
As much as I believe in the system of justice we have and that we
must always put in all defences possible for the enforcement of
laws and the defendant should have defences such as due diligence,
et cetera, available, I am suggesting that the motion should be
defeated and that such a defence should not be allowed and not be
applicable in a bill such as Bill C-61. There are a number of reasons
why I suggest this. It comes from looking at the system we have in
Canada in the food processing industry, which is perhaps one of the
best in the world. If we allowed such a defence of due diligence to
apply, we would be diluting the system we have. We would be
regressing rather than progressing.
Let me give an example of a possible occurrence. I have earned
money in the past by defending individuals using defences like
this. Let me give an example of why the system perhaps should not
have this particular defence.
If an importer brings in a particular product, whether it be
cheese, bread or whatever, and there is something wrong with the
product and it is contrary to the legislation and therefore subject to
penalty under this statute, the person could be brought forward and
could claim due diligence. He could say: ``I contacted the
manufacturer and he absolutely guaranteed that there was nothing
wrong with this product. The foreign processor told me that every
precaution was taken to make sure this food was safe. The foreign
processor told me that spot checks, et cetera, have been done on
this food and it is fine. I have used all due diligence in making sure
the product is safe.''
If the defence is available, the person should not be subject to the
penalties. That certainly does not help the consumer who may be
ingesting this food and getting ill or perhaps even dying from that
food. The importer must go further.
(1230 )
If the importer is subject to the penalties in this act, the importer
must be in a position to say: ``I did spot checks. I tested this food
and I made certain it was safe''. It is not good enough because if
due diligence applied, the importer could always rely on it and
always bring in unsafe food although the processor in the foreign
country indicated it was good enough.
We require this rule so foreign processors cannot bypass the
safety standards of our country. We require it so that if the importer
is in violation of this act, the importer can go back to the foreign
processor and say: ``What you told me was not good enough. You
must take other steps to ensure and guarantee this product is good.
If you do not do that, I will change suppliers because I do not want
to be brought forward again and punished for being in
contravention of the act''. That is why due diligence should not
apply.
Due diligence is applicable in many other areas of our justice
system but should not be in the food processing industry. Again,
this shows why Canada has one of the best food systems in the
world. If we allow such a defence we are going to be regressing
rather than progressing in the future, regressing because errors will
not be corrected and the same problems will arise. If we allow it,
this would be small comfort to an individual who might ingest an
adulterated food that might cause serious injury or possibly even
death.
The system put in place by Bill C-61 is a quick system. It is
effective but it will not be painless. It cannot be painless. There has
to be some pain but it does not have to be overly excessive. The
person who violates the provisions of the bill must be brought to
task for what has been done. However, Bill C-61 does not provide
for imprisonment. It does not give the person a record of conviction
of an offence and the penalties are rather modest but they are
punitive to some extent and therefore serve the purpose required.
The person who is contravening the legislation does not want to be
brought back over and over.
Absolute liability offences are absolutely necessary in the food
industry. They are absolutely necessary to protect people. Everyone
knows this. I am sure the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster
knows how important it is that any grain produced on his farm is
not adulterated, that it has not been treated or accidentally
adulterated with some chemicals, then sold and put into the food
processing chain for someone else to eventually consume. It is as
important there as it is in the processing industry. It is as important
there as it is in the importing business.
15857
How do we deal with it? Do we adopt a system where a person
ends up going through a regulatory system with charges laid and
the process going on and on? People like me in my other world
relish such a system where things would work well for me. Or
do we put in a system that is effective and efficient? I suggest
when it is contraventions in the food industry, it has to be done
quickly. It has to be done effectively because we cannot afford
to have contraventions that continue over a period of time with
adulterated food that keeps entering and maintaining itself in the
food system while the possible contravention is being dealt with
in the court system. It has to be quick. It as to be effective. The
health of our public is too important.
(1235 )
The health of the people to which we export is too important.
Canada's reputation is too important. We cannot afford to tarnish it
by having our food system in any way hampered and looked on by
people in this country and foreign countries, saying: ``We do not
know if we can rely on it. It is generally a good source, but it is not
that good a source''. We cannot afford such a reputation. The
reputation has to be that ours is superior to everyone else, or as
good as the best that there is.
The policy obviously is to maintain a very high standard. We
must maintain it. It helps exports in the future and it certainly helps
in the production and the processing of products.
As indicated by the hon. member for Malpeque, other common
law defences are still available to a person. Due diligence is not the
be all and end all if we do not accept it.
For the reasons I have given, I suggest that due diligence should
not be a defence. Motion No. 19 should fail.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a brief word or two with respect to
the motions that are in Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 18 and
19. The members who have already spoken in detail about these
proposed amendments have very clearly indicated why the
majority of them are either inappropriate or unnecessary. I would
like to congratulate the members who have participated in the
debate on these motions in putting forward the arguments very
clearly.
I would like to indicate that Motion No. 18 is fundamentally
acceptable. As a matter of legal interpretation, it may not be
absolutely necessary, but as the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster indicated earlier with respect to Motion
No. 10, if it is the government's intention to proceed in a
reasonable manner, which obviously it is, then is there any harm
done by including that specific word reasonable?
In the circumstances pertaining to Motion No. 18, it may as a
matter of legal interpretation be a bit redundant. Some may say it
is sort of gilding the lily, but it is clearly the government's intention
to administer the bill in a reasonable fashion. If it improves the
perception of the legislation by accepting Motion No. 18 and
including the word reasonable in this context, the government has
absolutely no problem with that. Motion No. 18 is certainly
acceptable in this group of motions, whereas we would have to vote
against Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 19.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be
able to speak this morning on the agriculture and agri-food
administration of monetary penalties act. It is good legislation in
the circumstances.
Presently, when an inspector under the agri-food act determines
that offences have been committed under the statute, he must
proceed through the criminal justice system and the whole process
gets rolling. An information is laid through the attorney general's
office, appearances begin in court, adjournments are made, the cost
and time of not only the court administration, the cost of defence
counsel, the cost of prosecuting counsel and the time it takes from
beginning to end could be months if not years, depending on what
the situation is.
The alternative method proposed in Bill C-61 is to establish a
system of administrative monetary penalties, so that an inspector
when he determines that an offence has taken place under the
agri-food act, can impose a fine on the offender immediately, rather
than proceeding through the judicial system. I think that is a very
good procedure to be following.
(1240)
The objective is to create a system that allows the officials of
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to issue monetary penalties for
serious or repeated violations of the regulations. The monetary
penalties vary from $15,000 for companies to $2,000 for
individuals. The legislation also establishes an independent
tribunal to hear appeals of the proposed monetary penalties.
Safeguards are still built into the system.
The AMP, if I may refer to that acronym, adds to the
enforcement options available to agri-food prosecutors. The
system still provides the department with appropriate responses
when dealing with the violations of regulations such as in the
marketing of inedible food products or the inhumane transportation
of animals.
The term administrative monetary penalty is used to differentiate
the monetary penalties which are administrative in nature from
fines which are imposed by the court system for convictions of
regulatory offences.
I will speak to some of the motions involved, but I submit that
this is good government. It still provides a framework wherein
Canada's high standards for food safety are maintained. That is
essential. We are also assisting Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
15858
to enforce health and safety standards consistently, not only for
imported foods but for domestic food products as well.
Further, we are regulating in a more efficient and cost effective
way. In this time of restraint, cost effectiveness is a very important
item. Therefore, we are going to require less time and money to
pursue these offences than we would otherwise do through the
provincial court system.
The maintenance of a safe food supply is essential and Bill C-61
allows for the issuance of monetary penalties and is necessary to
encourage industries to adhere. We do not really want them
punished if they do not comply but we do want compliance. It is
necessary that they adhere to these regulations such as in the areas
of pesticides and animal and plant health. On matters touching
food, the food chain and public health standards of conduct, they
must be extremely high and the reasons are obvious.
I would also like to refer to the competitiveness of Bill C-61. I
suggest that it supports the competitiveness of the agricultural
sector by responding to requests for more equitable enforcement of
regulations for imported and domestic products. Our domestic
industry has complained for years that the standards for safety and
quality are more strictly applied to them than to their competitors,
especially offshore competitors and that is not fair.
Our industry supports the system because it allows Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada to respond quickly and effectively when
importers or domestic industries market products that do not
conform to our high standards in the area of food safety or in the
safe use of pesticides. Equal enforcement of these standards for
both imports and domestics enhances the competitiveness of the
agricultural sectors.
Giving Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada the proper tools to
effectively enforce these standards will help it to maintain
Canada's fine reputation for healthy and safe food products. It is
the reputation of our agri-food sector that suffers when exported
products do not meet our health standards. They blame it on us, as a
domestic supplier and that is not fair. Let us bring it all up to the
same standards.
As an alternative to prosecution and with my background, I think
this is a very key item in times of restraint. In the current climate of
restraint, we need simple, efficient, cost effective ways for dealing
with industries that do not comply with the regulations for food
health and safety. Bill C-61 provides a fair but quick and expedient
method for responding to regulatory violations.
The administrative procedure provided by Bill C-61 is an
alternative to prosecuting regulatory offences in the provincial
courts. It is faster and far less costly to both the department and the
offender. We have to also remember the offender has to put up the
cost of legal counsel and is away from the business, et cetera.
Administrative penalties are another step in the
decriminalization of regulatory infractions. Unlike the situation
where regulatory principles are prosecuted by the courts, Bill C-61
creates a decriminalized system. It does not provide for
imprisonment or receiving a record of conviction of an offence. We
do not want to make criminals out of these people, but we do want
them to comply.
(1245)
Administrative monetary penalties are a much fairer way of
enforcement for most regulatory infractions. When it hurts you in
the pocketbook, it hurts. A record may be a stigma in perpetuity,
but when you have to come up with some hard cash out of your
pocket you often think twice, and deservedly so.
Another aspect is negotiated settlement possibilities. This allows
for negotiated solutions to non-compliance. What we really want
them to do is comply. Even the monetary penalties can be reduced
to zero if they would use the money to buy corrective equipment.
Immediate action to correct the situation is much better than money
into the coffers of the judicial system.
I might address some of the motions that have been put forward.
Dealing perhaps with Motion No. 3, to vary the maximum penalty
between first and subsequent violations, the current maximum
penalties are relatively modest when we look at them. The bill does
not make any distinction between first and subsequent violations
for the purposes of setting a maximum penalty that could be
assessed. However, the regulations will determine a base penalty in
the range amount and circumstances under which the penalties may
be increased or reduced.
Compliance history is one of the factors we set out in the
regulations. Penalties will be reduced for violators with no
previous history of non-compliance and increased for those who
commit subsequent offences, as they deservedly should. Under
subclause 4(3) of Bill C-61, penalty amounts may be increased or
decreased based on the degree of intention or negligence on the part
of the person who committed the violation, the amount of harm
done by the violation, and the compliance history of the person
who committed the offence.
Perhaps I could address Motion No. 4. The purpose is to have a
notice of violation identify the designated person serving the
notice. Service is an essential point of any court proceeding, and
sometimes technicalities arise on service that result in the offender
walking from the situation.
I suggest that the bill allows that a notice may be served by
various means. That is progression. The server of the notice may
not necessarily be the designated person. By definition, the desig-
15859
nated person is the person who issues the notice. Service of the
notice is a procedural matter and is best addressed by maintaining a
degree of flexibility. We want to be flexible.
The bill allows that the matter of service of all documents,
including notices, will be addressed by regulations. For example,
the regulation will make provision for service in person or by
registered mail. We have these procedures in other court systems,
in family law, et cetera. That is not unreasonable.
The purpose of Motion No. 5 is to legislate a minimum of 45
days within which a penalty may be paid. Again I suggest that this
is a procedural matter which could be determined by the regulation.
To put time frames such as this in legislation really is impractical.
It makes it very difficult to make changes in the event that the
penalty could not be paid within the time frame.
Procedural details are generally contained in regulations or in
policy documents. That is where they belong. The regulation
making process really is open and fair. The preparation and
drafting of regulations includes consultation with industry and the
prepublication of the regulations in The Canada Gazette to give
everyone sufficient notice. The process will ensure that a
reasonable time frame is put in regulations for the payment of a
monetary penalty. They are not going to escape. We have to be
reasonable. Forty-five days may not be, as the minister of
agriculture has suggested.
Motion No. 18 seems acceptable to us. The object of the motion
is to clarify that expenses recoverable by Her Majesty in respect of
the disposal of forfeited goods are reasonable. We want to be
reasonable and we accept this motion as certainly reasonable in that
situation.
The purpose of Motion No. 19 is to enable a violator to rely on
the defence of due diligence. Bill C-61 allows for the issuance of
monetary penalties based on absolute liability. That situation
happens when the department only needs to prove that the alleged
violator committed an act that was in violation of the regulations.
The bill does not allow for the defence of due diligence by which a
violator can avoid liability for the offence by establishing that he or
she was not negligent.
(1250)
Under Bill C-61 there is no possibility of imprisonment. There is
no record of conviction for an offence. Penalties are modest rather
than punitive in nature. Because of these factors there is no
constitutional or other legal impediment to proceeding on the basis
of absolute liability.
From a policy perspective, the use of absolute liability is
essential to encourage the food industry to exhibit a high standard
of care. This is important for matters involving the food chain and
is consistent with the approach of courts in civil matters. The
concept of absolute liability is important to the effectiveness of the
system as a preventive measure.
We had the situation of some children being allergic to peanut
butter. There was a very important incident where a young lady
reacted to peanut butter and died rather quickly.
I see that you are rising, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
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: Under the standing orders, a recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The Deputy Speaker: 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The Deputy Speaker: 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.
15860
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: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 18. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion No. 18 agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 19. 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 the standing orders, a
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
(1255 )
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.)
moved:
Motion No. 20
That Clause 19 be amended by striking out line 19 on page 11 and substituting the
following:
``violation are reviewed by the Minister or by the Tribunal, the Minister must''.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-61, in Clause 29, be amended by adding after line 37, on page 14, the
following:
``(3) For greater certainty, no lobbyist or party to a contract with the public service
of Canada shall be appointed as a member of the Board or the Tribunal.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, our caucus should have discovered the
word reasonable a long time ago. Perhaps we would have more
good laws passed in the House of Commons. I wish we had used
that in Bill C-68, the gun control bill. We probably would not have
had registration. And maybe we would not have had Bill C-64
introduced at all.
In any event, back to Bill C-61. I appreciate support from the
other side for a couple of my amendments, which were reasonable
and included the word reasonable and were adopted by the House.
We have now moved on to the fourth group of motions. I will
address Motion No. 20, which deals with clause 19. It strikes out
line 16 and substitutes the following: ``violation are reviewed, the
minister or the tribunal''. Currently in this clause it is stated: ``In
every case where the facts of a violation are reviewed, the minister
must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the person named
in the notice of violation''.
This ensures that the facts of a violation should be reviewed both
by the minister and by the tribunal. It is not a matter of either or,
but in fact it is both. This again is a common sense amendment. It
ensures that the burden of proof is on the minister in the case of a
ministerial review. It ensures that there is burden of proof on the
tribunal when a case of a violation is referred to the tribunal. This is
just good common practice. It is sensible. It again puts some
qualifiers and quantifiers into the legislation to make it not only
effective but also balanced and fair.
I cannot see why members on the opposite side would have any
problem whatsoever with this amendment. Therefore I encourage
them to support it.
Moving on to Motion No. 23 which deals with clause 29, this
motion adds after line 37 on page 14 a new subclause (3), which
would say: ``For greater certainty, no lobbyist or party to a contract
with the Public Service of Canada shall be appointed as a member
of the board or the tribunal''.
The clause prior to that says: ``A member of the tribunal shall
not accept or hold any office or employment that is inconsistent
with the member's duties or take part in any matter before the
tribunal in which the member has an interest''. We certainly
support that clause, but it does not go far enough. All it says is that
a member of the tribunal shall not be able to enter into a contract
with the federal government. What it does not preclude though is
the actual appointment to the board of a lobbyist or someone with a
contract with the public service.
We have had a rather negative light cast upon government and
upon politicians for quite some time because of the ethics we
impose upon ourselves. That perhaps might be better stated as a
lack of ethics we impose upon ourselves. Yes, there are conflict of
interest guidelines. As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, there has
been some question as to the effectiveness of the conflict of interest
guidelines currently, even upon us as members of Parliament.
There is concern in the public sector that conflict of interest
guidelines be rigid, clear and enforced.
15861
(1300)
Other legislation precludes members of Parliament or members
of provincial legislatures from serving on a board or body such as
this tribunal. However what is not precluded is the fact that
lobbyists, people who are working for the public service and have a
vested interest in the work of the tribunal, are currently not
excluded from appointment. This dips into the whole area of
patronage appointments that are repulsive to Canadians. It seems
that lobbyists have an inside track and are able to have influence
behind the scenes far beyond their worth.
I suggest the House support Motion No. 23 that goes one step
further than the conflict of interest in clause 29(2) by stipulating
that no government lobbyist or person who has a contract with the
federal government may be appointed to the tribunal. I appreciate
the progress we have made this morning.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will deal
with the two motions in Group No. 4.
On Motion No. 20, again showing how reasonable we are, I
agree with the motion. The amendment possibly brings a little
more clarity to the bill. It clarifies that the minister carries the
burden of proof in both the ministerial review and the review by the
tribunal that the person named in the notice of violation committed
the violation. This is precisely what the current wording of the bill
provides. I have no objection to accepting the proposed
amendment; maybe it clarifies the matter a little further. It shows
how reasonable we are on this side of the House.
The intent of the legislation is to set up the administrative
monetary penalties act. At present an inspector with responsibility
for enforcing the agri-food act determines there has been an
offence under the statute. There has been much mention that he or
she should proceed through the criminal justice system to obtain a
penalty for the offence. The inspector must file a complaint with
the attorney general who will, where appropriate, commence
proceedings against the offender.
Currently whenever a penalty is sought, the entire judicial
system must be brought to bear regardless of the seriousness of the
offence. The expense and delay inherent in the procedure is often
disproportionate to the particular offence. In some cases the fines
imposed are very small and in other cases they create a criminal
record, which is perhaps too severe a penalty.
In terms of seeking an alternative the government established a
system of administrative monetary penalties so that an inspector
who determines there has been a violation of the agri-food act
could impose a fine on the offender immediately rather than
proceed through the judicial system. Basically the government is
creating efficiencies in government, being fair and reasonable to
all and protecting the interests of the public under the act.
I will mention a couple of points and why the minister must
carry the burden of proof. There is a lot at stake and it is important
the minister carry the burden of proof. The administrative
monetary penalty system will be one that allows the FPI to levy
monetary penalties for non-compliance with branch acts and
regulations. As has been mentioned by others in the debate, it is
less costly, would not tie up the court system and creates a great
deal of efficiency.
(1305)
The administrative monetary penalty system will lead to more
equitable enforcement of regulations by allowing the department to
take effective action against importers and domestic companies
marketing products that do not meet Canadian health, safety and
quality standards.
As the system starts to evolve, the industry will recognize the
pressure the new system puts on it. The industry will continue to
comply with the regulations without having to get into any great
enforcement measures. That is important. That is the objective of
the system. The criminal prosecution system will remain an option
and is available should it become necessary.
It is important that monetary penalties can be offset through
compliance agreements. The proposal is to reduce the fine by $1
for every $2 a company spends on new equipment, process changes
or staff training to prevent the recurrence of non-compliance. That
is also an incentive for the industry to comply with the regulations.
In this way the system emphasizes compliance, not punishment for
behaviour, which is certainly a great step in the right direction. The
administrative monetary penalty system fits with the government's
regulatory review agenda to improve regulatory effectiveness and
decriminalize most regulatory offences.
The intent of Motion No. 20 is a good one and can be supported.
However Motion No. 23 is a horse of a different colour and I cannot
support it. The amendment provides that ``no lobbyist or party to a
contract with the Public Service of Canada shall be appointed as a
member of the board or the tribunal''.
The bill requires that members of the tribunal have technical
qualifications related to the areas of agriculture and agri-food and
are not in positions of conflict of interest relative to the matter
before them. In addition, it has been clearly set out that no member
of the tribunal may be employed in the Public Service of Canada.
The intent of Motion No. 23 is taken care of in other ways. If one
were to incorporate the amendment, in essence it would make the
legislation more cumbersome. In effect Motion No. 23 is
unnecessary and I have to oppose it.
15862
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in dealing with this group of amendments I will address
two related and relevant issues.
Our efforts to fine tune the legislation in the House and earlier in
committee have been primarily directed toward ensuring a proper
balance between the rights and liberties of Canadians in the sector
we are dealing with and the administrative exigencies as they
evolve in the agricultural sector. Because we are dealing with food,
in many cases some of the exigencies tend to be relatively urgent
and require a prompt solution as opposed to a slow,
administratively cumbersome solution.
(1310)
As we strive to seek that balance in the House with the
legislation, we must keep in mind that the House realizes it cannot,
as is sometimes said, micro-manage the sector. We simply do not
have the ability to micro-manage in all detail everything that goes
on in a particular field. That is why the House by way of regulation
delegates authority to administrators in government to make
regulations which deal in a more specific way with the exigencies
in the field.
Even then it is tough. Even then it is probably impossible to
micro-manage. Many decisions that have to be made are being
made in a warehouse at a border. Perhaps they are being made in a
barn somewhere by inspectors and people who are growing and
transporting the commodity. We ought to resist the urge in the
House to overly micro-manage the field, and that is why we
delegate.
We are trying to find that balance in the House and that is tricky.
There is a further challenge for Parliament. Every time we delegate
we say that we are giving authority or power to an official of the
government. That official, in concert with the department, will be
making decisions about property of others and what others can or
cannot grow and transport in this field.
The challenge for Parliament is not so much today; it is down the
road. We have a committee that deals ex post facto with the
regulatory authority delegated by the House, the Standing Joint
Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations. The more the House
delegates, the more work there is for the standing joint committee.
Given the large degree of delegation taking place under this statute,
I see a further challenge for the standing joint committee to deal
with the scrutiny of this type of regulatory delegation.
One criteria of the committee is described as the unintended or
unexpected use of power. I agree it is perhaps a little fuzzy.
However, should an official, the department, the minister or the
cabinet at some future date authorize the taking of a step that could
be construed as an unexpected or unintended use of power, the
committee would point it out to the House. The committee also has
the power of disallowance which it has used a half a dozen times in
the last four or five years. It prefers not to do so. It is a procedure
the House would rather not have the committee use but when
necessary it does so.
To the extent we are delegating and trying to fine tune that
delegation, there will remain to a greater or lesser degree a
significant challenge to the committee structure created by the
House in reviewing the appropriateness of the use of the authority
and power we delegate.
(1315 )
It is not to detract from our efforts here to find the right balance
between rights and liberties and administrative efficiency.
I think all members have the same view and I will continue to
participate in this debate in the hope that we achieve the proper
balance so the administrators, the minister, the deputy ministers,
departmental officials and the cabinet will have the right tools and
the right balance so our citizens will get the best services and the
best considerations under this statute.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again address
some of the motions by members from the other side of the House
in relation to the agriculture and agri-food administrative monetary
penalties act.
The purpose of the bill is to allow for expedience and resolution
to breaches of regulations in the agriculture and agri-food industry.
It is designed to make it a lot easier for the department and those
involved in breaches of regulations to resolve their difficulties.
It is designed to ensure we get compliance with the regulations
as soon as is reasonably possible. The bill does not inhibit the
rights of people accused of violating the respective statutes to have
the option to gain the full procedural and substantive protection
that can be gained from the law if they so choose to defend
themselves in traditional fashion of court hearings and due process.
This is still available to those who violate the act.
The purpose of Motion No. 20 according to hon. members
opposite is to clarify that the minister and the Government of
Canada carry the burden of proof in both the ministerial review and
the review by the tribunal that the person named in the notice of
violation committed the violation. This is certainly what the
current wording of the bill provides for.
We have no objection to this amendment. This is another
amendment the minister has accepted from members opposite.
This shows a responsible attitude by the minister of agriculture in
the sense that where there are amendments that enhance the act,
where there are amendments that do not do any harm to what is
sought to be accomplished by the act, regardless of who brings
them forward, if they improve the legislation and make it a bit
clearer, the government is certainly willing to hear them.
15863
The legislation makes clear that the minister carries the burden
of proof in both the ministerial review and the review by the
tribunal that the person named in the notice of violation is the one
who committed the violation. This goes back to one of the
fundamental bases of the Canadian justice system of due process.
The system is based on many administrative procedural protections
granted to people who run afoul of regulatory or sometimes even
criminal law.
(1320)
Our common law system has always sought to protect those
accused of violations, whether regulatory offences, criminal
offences such as under the highway traffic act, provincial offences
or somewhere in between. Our legal system always provides
safeguards to the person accused of the violation commensurate
with the penalty and the seriousness of the breach involved.
Our justice system on a very fundamental basis seeks to ensure
innocent people are not convicted or not held responsible for
violations they did not participate in. That is why even within the
common law I do not think there is even any need to suggest the
minister carry the burden of proof. The state in matters of breaches
of criminal violations, regulatory violations and provincial statute
violations always carries the burden of proof.
It is probably better that a few guilty people are acquitted rather
than innocent people being subjected to the raw power, the sanction
of the state when they were not guilty of what they were charged
with.
In relation to the first motion, we are accepting it. The
fundamental principles of Canadian law that the minister carry the
burden of proof is simply a foregone conclusion and one we accept.
This is not the case in all countries. Sometimes one is presumed
guilty and must prove one's innocence. In Canada, the British
Commonwealth system, the common law system, different
considerations apply.
Motion No. 23 of Group No. 4 seeks to provide that no lobbyist
or party to a contract with the Public Service of Canada shall be
appointed as a member of the board or the tribunal.
The government in appointing individuals to these tribunals
always appoints well qualified people who are known for their
fairness so that people can trust the correctness of the decisions
made by these tribunals. Each of these appointments is very
carefully weighed. The people must be qualified in order to
participate in these issues.
Once again common law clearly requires that people with a
conflict of interest not serve on boards or tribunals such as this. As
has been the track record of the minister to date in other
appointments, as well as other ministers in other departments, the
people sought to be placed in positions like this are qualified
people. They will carry out their duties in a manner that will
respect the government and also the people accused of various
violations of agriculture and agri-food penalties.
(1325 )
No one in a conflict of interest will end up on these tribunals.
They are quasi-judicial bodies and as a result will have to be above
reproach. Common law provides many administrative remedies
that could be taken through the courts should there be any
reasonable apprehension of bias or other grounds on which the
decision of the appointed person could be put in question.
People with these types of connections will simply not be
appointed. If a situation arises in which there could be any type of
conflict whatsoever, administrative law procedures are available
through the courts to ensure people who are being judged in this
fashion are fully protected.
While Motion No. 20 says exactly what the bill says and follows
the philosophy and basic underpinnings of the law in Canada, the
minister will be accepting a recommendation to further clarify and
ensure the law is clear and known.
With respect to the second motion, this will be taken care of in
the same manner the government has done to date. Remedies are
available to anyone who feels aggrieved by a decision, who feels
there may be a problem, to deal through the courts with such an
issue.
I again thank the minister for his efforts in bringing these
changes forward, changes that will certainly improve the-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-61.
This bill adds to the enforcement option available to certain
legislation administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada by
allowing administrative monetary penalties to be imposed. The bill
also authorizes the minister, if requested, to conclude compliance
agreements with persons who commit violations.
Under compliance agreements, administrative monetary
penalties can be reduced or cancelled if persons agree to take the
appropriate steps to ensure future compliance with agri-food acts
and regulations. The administrative monetary penalties are subject
to review by an independent tribunal. Now every contravention can
currently be prosecuted.
The bill gives the minister an administrative option where
prosecution is seen to be too harsh a measure. In arriving at his
decision the minister will be guided by a compliance and
15864
enforcement policy-I underline the word policy because it gives
broader perspectives-that establishes the criteria to guide the
department in making decisions on the use of all enforcement
controls or options.
The policy is a public document. The choice to be made by the
minister of whether to prosecute or issue a monetary penalty is akin
to a prosecutorial choice. It is such as we would find in a criminal
case in which the decision is made as to whether a matter should
proceed by way of indictment or by summary conviction. Because
the choice is heavily dependent upon the facts in each situation,
flexibility is required. This flexibility is best offered by relying on
policy rather than regulations.
(1330)
It has always been the intention to administer this bill in a
reasonable manner. We on this side of the House are happy to
accept this approach to the bill. However, compliance agreements
form an integral part of the proposed scheme. The object of the
scheme is to obtain compliance rather than to penalize the violator.
It is a common sense approach to bring those who are the users into
a compliance mode without using the heavy hand of the law or
penalties.
By authorizing the department to enter into these agreements the
bill gives the department a tool to negotiate the implementation by
industry of measures that would change the violator's practices and
processes. The emphasis here is on change. At the same time, the
violator may pay a reduced penalty in exchange for committing
funds to effect the necessary improvements leading to future
compliance. The bill provides that kind of flexibility.
Compliance agreements result in immediate corrective action
which is the desired result of the bill. Of course, immediate
corrective action leads to a better product, improved health and
safety, and more effective enforcement. Compliance agreements
are optional and no one is forced to enter into them. The bill
provides an incentive to enter into compliance agreements by
making it possible to reduce the amount of monetary penalty.
The nature of the bill is to achieve compliance. For those who do
not comply and who are found out, they are counselled into
compliance. If they do not comply, the second stage is enacted. The
nature of the bill is to encourage people to comply.
Current maximum penalties are relatively modest. The bill does
not make a distinction between first and subsequent violations for
the purpose of setting a maximum penalty that could be assessed.
However, the regulations will determine a base penalty amount and
the range and circumstances under which the penalties may be
increased or reduced. The regulations will determine a base penalty
amount and the range and circumstances. The compliance history
will be one of the factors set out in the regulations whereby
penalties will be reduced for violators with no previous history of
non-compliance. Again, it is the nature of the action. If there is a
perceived resistance to compliance the enforcement of the
regulation is the only tool the government has.
Penalty amounts may be increased or decreased based on the
degree of intention or negligence on the part of the person who
committed the violation, the amount of harm done by the violation,
and the compliance history of the person who committed the
violation. Flowing through this is a series of steps that is known in
law as the law of natural justice. Was this a one-shot affair? Was
there fair warning? Was there counselling? That is the rule of the
land in our country: no one is caught out the first time. In that sense
it shows fairness. If it is not fair, the person who is charged has the
right to appeal.
I had the opportunity to sit through the clause by clause
deliberations in committee. A number of very good concerns were
raised, mainly by the opposition but from the government side as
well. I see that some of them have been incorporated in this bill. It
speaks for the bill having some input from members who are not of
the government party.
(1335)
I see this adhering to the laws of natural justice and due process
is outlined clearly in this bill. I would like to review a few points in
the bill that may give it a bit more light.
Bill C-61 allows for issuance of monetary penalties on the basis
of absolute liability; that is, where the department needs only to
prove that an alleged violator committed an act that is in violation
of the regulations. The bill does not allow a defence of due
diligence by which a violator can avoid liability by establishing
that he or she was not negligent.
Under Bill C-61 there is no possibility of imprisonment, no
record of conviction for an offence is created, and penalties are
modest rather than punitive in nature. Because of these factors,
there is no constitutional or other legal impediment to proceeding
on the basis of absolute liability.
From a policy perspective, the use of absolute liability is
essential to encourage the food industry to exhibit a high standard
of care, which the people of Canada expect. This is important for
matters involving the food chain and consistent with the approach
the courts take in civil cases. The concept of absolute liability is
important to the effectiveness of the system as a preventative
measure.
Let me give an example of the standards necessary in the food
chain. To someone with peanut allergies, even a minute amount of
peanut dust is enough to send them into an anaphylactic shock. To
such a person, the issue is not whether a company exercised due
diligence. When we see the breakout of products, even when we
have HP sauce included, it is far more detailed than any other
country I know of in this world. As a preventative measure, finding
15865
that a product is mislabelled in not indicating the presence of
peanuts in itself warrants finding liability. That is presently in the
law.
The focus of Bill C-61 is on preventative and remedial action
and not in finding of fault. The use of absolute liability is also
provided for in an effective and efficient enforcement system.
The resource base for enforcing regulations is shrinking. Bill
C-61 deliberately designs a simple and efficient system to deal with
those importers or domestic companies that do not follow our
health, safety, and quality regulations. It is worth mentioning that
although the due diligence defence does not apply, other common
law defences are available to a person to whom the notice of
violation is issued.
Bill C-61 is in my judgment a fair bill, presented and debated
openly in committee. It follows the natural laws of justice and
includes due process. On that basis, I give my full support to this
bill.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of brief words
about the group of motions we are now considering, Group No. 4,
which deals with Motions 20 and 23.
With respect to Motion No. 20, the purpose of this motion is to
clarify that the minister of the day essentially carries the burden of
proof under this legislation in both the ministerial review process
and the review by the tribunal that is proposed under this
legislation, the burden of proof that the person named in the notice
of the violation in fact committed the violation.
(1340 )
That is how I understand the meaning and intent of the member
for Kindersley-Lloydminister in putting forward this motion. I
can say without any shadow of a doubt that if I have understood his
meaning correctly, that is precisely what the intention of the
government is in the wording that is presently proposed in this
provision in Bill C-61.
Again in the spirit of co-operation that we demonstrated earlier
today in other clauses of this bill, if it is the view of hon. members
that inserting the wording proposed in Motion No. 20 clarifies this
point, makes it more certain, more definite, I certainly have no
objection to accepting this proposed amendment. It is completely
consistent with the government's intention in the first place.
I suppose legal scholars and draftsmen could have some
interesting discussions about how pretty the language is. Those
superficial arguments notwithstanding, the meaning and intent on
both sides of the House on this point are absolutely consistent. I
have no problem with the amendment the hon. gentleman has put
forward.
With respect to Motion No. 23, I do have a problem with this
amendment. The manner of appointment for members of the
review tribunal by the governor in council that is set out in the
version of Bill C-61 that we have before us at the present time
follows a well established practice. It is a practice that has been
endorsed in this country by the courts of law, assuring the
independence of the tribunal from outside interference.
The bill requires very clearly already, without the amendment
that is proposed in Motion No. 23, that members of the tribunal
have the necessary technical qualification related to the area of
agriculture and agri-food and are not in any position of conflict of
interest relative to any matters that may come before them for
adjudication. In addition, specifically, no member of the tribunal
may be employed in the Public Service of Canada.
Those provisions that are already in Bill C-61 adequately cover
the point that has been raised by my hon. friend in his Motion No.
23. Therefore I think Motion No. 23 is unnecessary. It could,
depending upon legal interpretation, add some uncertainties to a
situation, which I am sure my hon. friend does not intend. I
presume his intention is to make things more certain and not less
certain. With the greatest of respect, we would be better off, in
connection to the subject matter to which Motion No. 23 pertains,
to leave the draft language as it stands now and reject Motion No.
23. The substance of Motion No. 23 is already otherwise covered in
the legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, are you ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 20. 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. That was
easy. The yeas have it.
(1345 )
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried on division.
15866
(Motion No. 20 agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 23. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-61, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing line 5, on page 14, with the
following:
``nor in Council with the approval of the committee of the House of Commons that
normally considers agricultural matters, one of whom shall be ap-''.
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-61 in Clause 29 be amended by adding immediately after line 6, on
page 14, the following:
``(1.1) No person may be appointed to the Tribunal by the Governor in Council
without the prior approval of the committee of the House of Commons that normally
considers matters relating to agriculture.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on
Bill C-61, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary
Penalties Act.
I will explain Motions Nos. 21 and 22, on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois. These motions seek to limit the discretionary power of
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Clause 29 of Bill C-61 provides that the chairperson and
members of the review tribunal are appointed by the governor in
council. Motion No. 21, tabled by us, provides that Bill C-61, in
Clause 29, be amended by replacing line 5, on page 14, with the
following:
``nor in Council with the approval of the committee of the House of Commons
that normally considers agricultural matters, one of whom shall be ap-''.
As for Motion No. 22, it provides that Bill C-61, in Clause 29, be
amended by adding immediately after line 6, on page 14, the
following:
``(1.1) No person may be appointed to the Tribunal by the Governor in Council
without the prior approval of the committee of the House of Commons that normally
considers matters relating to agriculture''.
These proposed changes seek to establish a more transparent
process regarding the appointment of the tribunal's members and
chairperson. We cannot let the minister appoint members alone. I
strongly objected to that a few moments ago. If he so wishes, an
offender could be heard by the review tribunal.
In its present form, the bill provides that members of this
tribunal are appointed by the minister and that their mandate can be
renewed. These members must review decisions made by
department officials who, of course, are accountable to the
minister. Earlier, I alluded to possible conflicts of interest, and I
still think that such a risk exists.
Could people appointed by the minister be pressured into
making decisions which they would not otherwise make? No
matter how small the risk, we simply cannot take that chance. It
would make a lot more sense if members of the tribunal were
appointed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-food, after reviewing whether or not certain issues posed
problems in terms of how they were dealt with.
We simply want to avoid any risk of arbitrary decisions or
patronage appointments. We understand and accept the principle
underlying that bill, but we oppose any compliance agreement or
arbitrary appointment by the minister.
This is why we are asking this House to at least support the
amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. I certainly hope that
we are not the only ones here who seek transparency.
(1350)
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with amendments brought
forward in group No. 5, Motions Nos. 21 and 22, in relation to Bill
C-61, the agriculture and agri-food administrative monetary
penalties act. I appreciate the opportunity to address the matter.
The purpose of Motions Nos. 21 and 22 is to change the process
of appointing members of the review tribunal by having the
governor in council appointments approved by an agriculture
related committee of the House of Commons before the
appointments are effective.
A point that should be made with regard to this matter is similar
to one made in relation to an amendment brought forward by the
Reform Party that the current appointment process and the one in
15867
the present bill and as stated by the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food is a tried and true process, one approved of by the
courts. The courts posses the ability to ensure that all decisions are
according to the administrative law of the land.
It is proposed that an agriculture related committee approve the
people who are put forward to sit on these tribunals to hear disputes
between the regulators and those who may have run afoul of
various agriculture and agri-food regulations pursuant to a number
of acts. What is being proposed is going to make the procedure
more cumbersome. The whole intent of the legislation is to find
efficiencies in the way the government does business, to make the
process cheaper, to ensure that the rules of fundamental
administrative justice can be achieved and that it is balanced with
administrative ease.
In my view, the proposal adds to the cumbersome nature of the
appointment process. The time required to deal with the
appointments will be increased. The committee could refuse to
recommend any of the incumbents to these positions thereby
effectively preventing these positions from being filled.
It is also important to say that this represents a move toward a
more American style hearing process for the approval of various
appointments to positions.
If we look south of the border we see these monstrously
expensive, cumbersome processes to appoint various individuals.
These individuals are subject to such scrutiny, they are basically
put in a position where they are unable to defend themselves from
the most vicious, partisan types of attacks.
This takes away from the dignity of a person sitting on a
quasi-judicial body. It makes it difficult for people of good quality
to want to subject themselves to this type of situation. Even if they
are good people and are willing to submit to this type of
interrogation and partisan attack on their credibility, whether they
make it through the process or not, they will not be what is needed
to maintain the respect of both the government regulators and the
people who have run afoul of various regulations in various
agricultural statutes.
There are a number of reasons why I am opposed to these types
of situations arising. The situation we have now is tried, it is true. It
has been upheld by the courts as a method of approving these
people. It takes away from the partisanship which could really
detract from the dignity of the process, the dignity of the office of
the person participating and assisting the country.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it being two o'clock we will hear
Statements by Members.
15867
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently I
attended a meeting of the mayors from the Toronto region. At this
meeting, 30 mayors and five regional chairmen unanimously
passed a resolution expressing their desire for a united Canada that
includes Quebec.
The resolution reads as follows: ``WHEREAS, the mayors of the
greater Toronto region have recognized and approved, by the very
fact of their meeting, the strength and benefits that unity provides;
WHEREAS the unity of Canada and its people enhances the
strength of and the benefits accruing to each of our regions;
WHEREAS approximately four million residents of this region
have, together with the people of Quebec, built this great country of
ours; THEREFORE it is resolved that the mayors of the greater
Toronto region, on behalf of its residents, express their desire to
support the unity of a Canada that includes Quebec''.
As the Prime Minister said last night, this is not only a battle for
the future of Quebec, it is a question about the future of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the vision of
doom and gloom of the No side has just been refuted in a report
released by a major American brokerage house. Indeed, the New
York firm of Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette argues that, should the
sovereignty option prevail, first, the credit rating of the Quebec
government would not be affected, second, market uncertainty
would be short-lived, and third, the economic situation would
remain stable.
This is similar to the findings of a recent study undertaken by the
advisory director of the fourth major commercial bank in the
United States, who said, and I quote: ``In conclusion, according to
the rating and the views of the capital markets, if the people opt for
sovereignty, the most likely result would be between neutral and
positive''.
The fear tactics used by the No side are no longer credible and do
not scare anyone any more. Quebec now has all the assets to face
the future and take control of its economic levers.
15868
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to share the thoughts in a letter sent to me from Tom Arnbas of the
Kid Brother Campaign.
On behalf of my family and the 300,000 Canadians who signed our Kid
Brother Campaign petition, please accept my deepest thanks. With your support
and the understanding of people such as you, I am sure we will be able to get the
changes we want to this ridiculous Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Thompson, when you speak with the justice minister, please make sure he
knows Canadians believe our government provides very little justice for victims
of serious crime.
If the minister personally experiences the pain my family is going through, I
am sure he'd want the criminals to be punished.
The minister's staff tells people I am putting on a theatrical performance, but
you know nothing could be further from the truth. We are real people, my
brother was really murdered and it seems our justice system doesn't care.
My family wants to know, what we can do to make Mr. Rock understand.
That is the same question every Canadian is asking.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
trucking company in Winnipeg which carries Canadian mail is
planning to reroute a significant amount of its traffic between
Montreal and Winnipeg and Toronto and Winnipeg through the
United States. Test trips are soon to begin with exact locations for
refuelling laid out in detail to take advantage of savings in fuel
costs.
This raises a number of issues. There is the issue of the higher
than necessary cost of gasoline in the country and the government's
refusal to lean on the gas companies to take less of a profit. It also
shows how the free trade mentality has changed our ways,
eliminating borders in our minds as well as on paper.
In a week when we are properly talking about our love for
Canada, what are we to say of the fact that Canadian mail addressed
from one part of Canada to another is being rerouted through the
United States, thus eroding the tax and economic base that funds
things like medicare?
If we want to be a country we should start acting like a country.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
September 27, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton
affirmed through a unanimous resolution its pride in its bilingual
character, going back to pre-Confederation time.
The citizens of the National Capital area are proud of the fact
that their communities on both sides of the river reflect the duality
of this great country of ours. Populated for more than a 170 years
by the two founding peoples, the capital is the symbol of what the
Prime Minister was saying last night, that citizens of different
tongues, cultures and origins can live together in harmony.
Like the Ottawa-Carleton region message to Quebecers, I truly
hope that they vote no on October 30. I urge them, like the Prime
Minister yesterday, not to break our bonds of friendship and
understanding, our bonds of mutual trust.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
night, two very important messages were delivered to the people of
Canada. On the one hand, they heard the Prime Minister of Canada
calmly but seriously describe the country's situation as the
referendum date approaches and what major impact a Yes victory
would have.
On the other hand, they saw the separatist leader of the Bloc
Quebecois revile another Quebecer, one who stands up for a strong
Quebec within a united Canada. The Prime Minister talked about
understanding, openness and positive changes, while all his
opponent talked about was resentment, bitterness and revenge.
On October 30, Quebecers will dismiss this message of
destruction and vote No.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
people of Quebec must understand that a Yes victory in the October
30 referendum will take away forever all the benefits associated
with belonging to the Canadian family.
If Quebec separates, this means that never again will Quebecers
be called Canadians. Never again will they benefit from the
international recognition and respect that go with the Canadian
passport. Never again will they be able to move as freely in Canada
as their brothers and sisters from the other provinces and to trade as
freely as they used to with them.
A victory for the Yes side will have untold but deeply felt
consequences for Quebecers. On October 30, the Canadian dream
must be kept alive by saying No to separation.
15869
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am a Canadian. It is my wish that Quebec remain a part
of Canada. To Quebecers I say this is their home. We are a nation
from sea to sea to sea. The very ideals they search for are to be
found within these borders, not beyond. However the upcoming
referendum to be held on October 30 will decide whether Canada is
10 equal provinces or two nations.
All provinces should have certain rights. Reformers believe the
federal government should withdraw from provincial areas such as
natural resources, manpower training, language and culture,
housing, et cetera. As an equal province Quebec can work within
our country for a new federalism which will address its needs for
change.
Quebecers are not the only ones looking for change. People in
other parts of Canada are looking for change as well. I hope on
October 30 that Quebecers will vote to stay in Canada.
We are a family with many strong differences like all families.
Surely members of a family of goodwill can sit down and be
imaginative. There is a federalism to redefine and a good nation to
save.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the polls indicate that a number of people are set to vote
Yes in the October 30 referendum thinking-can you
imagine-that this will lead to the renewal of Canadian federalism.
Nothing could be further from the truth. A Yes vote in the
referendum will not bring constitutional changes. Instead, it would
bring change and development to an end. It would spell the end of
Canada.
On October 30, those who want to remain Canadians and who
want Quebec to remain a part of a modern and prosperous Canada
will vote No.
Change will come from the No side; this option is the only one
allowing Quebec to remain in Canada. The Yes side has nothing to
offer, except breaking up our country and tearing it apart, and
Quebecers do not want that to happen.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in his
address to the nation, the Prime Minister said that the vote on
Monday will determine the future not only of Quebec but also of
Canada as a whole, adding that the consequences of this decision
cannot be foreseen or measured.
This is a very serious warning. It clearly shows what is really at
stake in the referendum. On Monday, the people of Quebec will not
be voting on some way of renewing federalism or on a vague offer
of partnership. They will have to decide whether or not they want
Quebec to break away from Canada and become a foreign country.
They will have to decide if they are prepared to abandon their
history and heritage.
The people of Quebec must know that by voting Yes on October
30, they will become strangers in their own land.
* * *
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, having
reviewed his position, Laurent Beaudoin now says that Bombardier
will stay in Quebec whatever the results of the referendum on
Monday. After trying to influence Quebecers' decision, Mr.
Beaudoin, faced with the imminence of a Yes vote on October 30,
changed his mind.
Laurent Beaudoin did not behave as a responsible businessman
by using scare tactics to try to influence the decision of his
employees and of all Quebecers. Bombardier will stay in Quebec
because it is doing well there.
The prophets of doom were taught a lesson in maturity by Pierre
Péladeau, who said yesterday: ``I think that we as business leaders
have no right to try to influence our people- Fear will not solve
anything; we will not solve anything by trying to scare people''.
That is why Quebecers will vote Yes with confidence next Monday.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 30, Quebecers will find themselves at a
crossroads, having to make a decision on their future.
If they go right, they will vote against separation. It will be a
vote against the status quo, a vote for the decentralization of federal
powers and the end of the strongly undemocratic system in which
we are living. This vote will put the provinces in control of their
cultural and linguistic destiny.
If they go left, they will choose separation, thus causing a mass
exodus of businesses, skyrocketing unemployment, and economic
disaster.
15870
I urge Quebecers to think about the future of their children and
to join forces with all other Canadians in fulfilling our legitimate
destiny, being the best country in the world to live in. Long live
Canada, a united country.
[English]
The Speaker: With all respect I urge members not to use any
props in the House of Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, one of the separatist leaders took the
Prime Minister of Canada up on his offer to address all Canadians.
But unlike the Prime Minister, who delivered the same speech to
Canadians in both official languages, the Bloc leader had two
different messages for Canadians.
(1410)
In his French language speech, the separatist leader was content
to put the past on trial and to accuse the Canadian government of all
the problems in the world. In his English language speech, he chose
to speak from the other side of his mouth. He portrayed himself as a
good, mollifying neighbour hoping for open co-operation in the
future.
Quebecers have wised up to the separatists' subterfuge designed
to deceive them. On October 30, Quebec will say No to this vision,
which comes in different French and English versions.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister said this yesterday: ``As you found out this week, political
instability exacts a very heavy cost''.
The past few weeks of the referendum campaign, and the past
few days in particular, have clearly demonstrated how dramatically
our economy can be affected by uncertainty and nervousness on the
financial markets, in the business community and among small
investors.
Canada offers stability, social peace and an ideal haven to
anyone who wants to build and develop. By saying No to Quebec's
proposed separation, the people of Quebec will vote for success,
prosperity and security.
Canada is the only side that offers change while at the same time
preserving stability and protecting what has been gained. That is
why the people of Quebec will say no to separation.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick dropped a bombshell yesterday, when
the legislative assembly led by Premier McKenna agreed to
recognize Quebec's distinctive character.
It was Premier McKenna who, at the current Prime Minister's
instigation, led the attack that resulted in the failure of the Meech
Lake accord in the spring of 1990, going back without hesitation on
the promise made by his predecessor. The very man responsible for
the failure of Meech Lake would now have us believe that he
recognizes Quebec's distinctive character. Just what does he take
Quebecers for?
Quebecers will not again be deceived by this man who has lost
any credibility he may have had. It is obvious that those who
wanted to crush the side promoting change are panicking now.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in his address to the nation yesterday, the Prime
Minister of Canada reiterated his commitment to bring about the
changes Quebecers want.
He said, and I quote: ``We must recognize that Quebec's
language, its culture and institutions make it a distinct society. And
no constitutional change that affects the powers of Quebec should
ever be made without the consent of Quebecers''.
This commitment by the Prime Minister of Canada is consistent
with the No side's desire to be open and to effect change. This is a
serious commitment, which opens up the most challenging
prospects for Quebec and Canada the day after a No vote.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am addressing
you today as a Canadian of British origin, who remembers the
commitments made to the French in the Quebec Act, and as a
Liberal, who is proud of the contributions made by Laurier,
St-Laurent, Trudeau and Chrétien.
I am speaking as a Canadian from Upper Canada, who
remembers how Papineau, Brown, Lafontaine and Baldwin made it
possible for two nations to build a common future.
I am speaking as a Canadian who is afraid to see her country
destroyed by a spell cast through fabrication, deceit and personal
attacks.
15871
If only I could just snap my fingers and free Quebecers from
this spell before it is too late. We have shared too much to just
drop everything.
Je me souviens. Indeed, I remember.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two years ago
yesterday over two million Canadians voted overwhelmingly for
change by electing 52 Reformers. We have a vision for a new,
revitalized country based on more effective democratic
accountability, fiscal sanity, a justice system that works, and a
decentralized federation that responds more effectively to regional
and personal needs.
(1415)
Today many Quebecers are considering giving up on Canada. I
urge them not to. I urge them to vote no on Monday, to stay
together as a country and join with Reformers in all provinces to
build a new confederation and a new Canada.
We believe in a strong country, a strong federation of equal
people and equal provinces and less interference in our lives by a
heavy-handed, intrusive federal government. We believe that
power should be closer to the people. We believe profoundly that
we need to build on our strengths, the highest of which is a deep
commitment to understand and care for each other. Things do not
need to stay the same.
_____________________________________________
15871
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
in his speech to the nation, the Prime Minister wanted to reach out
to Quebecers by telling them, and I quote: ``I have also heard, and I
understand, that the disappointments of the past are still very much
alive''.
Could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, on the basis of
what we heard last night, tell us whether the Prime Minister, like
the Minister of Labour yesterday afternoon in this House, hopes
that before they vote in the referendum, Quebecers will forget what
he did in the course of his career and consider only what he has
done in the past two years which, in our opinion, is not any more
reassuring?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our government has accomplished a great deal since it
came to power. Between 1984 and 1993 we were not there,
unfortunately, but in the February 1995 budget we announced a
major shift toward decentralization. Through our program review,
we have to restrict the role of the federal government in the various
areas for which it is responsible.
Furthermore, in addition to offering the provinces a mechanism
for reducing duplication, we signed 64 agreements to that end
within the past 18 months, including a dozen agreements with
Quebec.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can go ahead and repeat his
set speech which is meaningless to Quebecers. That is his privilege.
He decides how to answer the question.
I would like to ask him this: Even assuming that Quebecers
forget the Prime Minister's past, as he asked them to do, and
consider only the last two years of his mandate, do the minister and
his colleagues realize that every time the Prime Minister referred to
the Quebec referendum question, he said it was not in the cards, he
did not want any of it and even that we would get a drubbing?
Does the minister think this is the sort of thing that would make
Quebecers trust him?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the opposition should be very careful when it attacks the
past of a man who has dedicated more than 30 years of his life to
politics and by whom the interests of Quebec and Canada were well
served.
The people in the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois and
their separatist leaders have made a habit of attacking the person of
the Prime Minister instead of sticking to the issues. They obviously
have no more arguments of substance to prove that separation
would be a good thing, so now they attack personalities. There is no
doubt that the federation has evolved in a positive way in recent
years.
The hon. member for Roberval says it is meaningless. Is it
meaningless to acknowledge that the quiet revolution took place in
Quebec within the federation, within Canada?
(1420)
Is it meaningless to acknowledge that Quebec's language rights
were asserted, protected and augmented in recent years within
Quebec and Canada? Is it meaningless to point out that Quebec
industrialists have managed to win back Quebec's economy and
play a far more important role than they did 20, 25 or 30 years ago,
in Quebec and Canada?
15872
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the man
who is responsible for closing the Collège de Saint-Jean without
justification has a tendency to talk about issues for which he is
not responsible. Since he mentioned the Prime Minister's career
and said the Prime Minister served Quebec well, allow me to quote
the Prime Minister who said in April 1992, and I will quote him
verbatim: ``It is pretty obvious what happened. We did not try to
shaft Quebec, but we did outsmart them''.
Considering these comments about Quebec, does the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs think Quebecers should trust the man
whom the minister is defending and who represents the status quo
for tomorrow, if Quebecers were to say no in the referendum?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all I may remind the hon. member for Roberval
that Saint-Jean was one occasion when the ministers of the Parti
Quebecois failed to deal with the problem. When the Péquistes
could not agree, we made arrangements with the Conseil
économique du Haut-Richelieu to keep the Collège de Saint-Jean
open. That is the honest truth.
Second, the hon. member quoted what the Prime Minister of
Canada said a few years ago. Perhaps we should ask the Leader of
the Opposition what he said when he was a Conservative, or what
he said when he was with the Union nationale, because he changed
his position several times. What matters is the truth of what he said,
not his position at the time.
As far as truth is concerned, I would really like to know why,
when Mr. Bouchard, the Leader of the Opposition, spoke to the
people of this country last night, what he said in English was so
different from what he said in French?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, most of the quotes attributed this week to the Prime
Minister have come from his book, an interesting book worth
reading.
In Le Droit on April 8, 1982, the present Prime Minister,
Minister of Justice at that time, was quoted as saying he was not in
the least surprised and was very pleased that the Quebec appeal
court judges had been unanimous in rejecting Quebec's claim of
entitlement to a veto.
My question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs. How could Quebecers today trust a Prime Minister who
says that no constitutional change affecting Quebec's powers will
be made without the consent of the people of Quebec, when that
same man stated in 1982 that he was not in the least surprised and
was very pleased that the Quebec appeal court judges had been
unanimous in rejecting Quebec's claim of entitlement to a veto?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I see that the opposition is unfortunately resorting to
personalities and is attempting to assassinate the character of the
Prime Minister. I feel this is a deplorable tactic. It is a tactic which
lessens the credibility of the opposition when it is trying to
convince people it has the ability to govern a country.
Because we have proven our ability to govern a country, proven
our ability to make it fiscally responsible, something the PQ has so
far refused to do. We have proven our ability to downsize
government as was necessary, something the PQ government has
not done. We have proven our ability to support the interests of
Quebecers within Quebec, while the Official Opposition, Messrs.
Parizeau and Bouchard, have no reality to offer, just promises.
(1425)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is insulting the
Prime Minister by saying that quoting him is character
assassination.
The sovereignists are proposing that in future Quebec will
negotiate with Canada, equal to equal, nation to nation, for the first
time in history.
I am asking the minister to confirm that the federalist option is to
see Quebec negotiate equal to equal, on the same footing as the
other provinces, on the same footing as PEI and Newfoundland?
That is their view of equality.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the Parti Quebecois, in the person of its Minister of
International Affairs, Bernard Landry, attacks the president of the
United States for having stated his position with respect to Canada,
when the members of the opposition are attempting to interpret
everything said in such a way as to indicate their disbelief, for
instance, that they do not believe the Canadian provincial premiers'
offer of assistance with questions relating to the distinct society,
one wonders. One wonders how they can believe they are preparing
to negotiate with other NAFTA partners or other provinces of
Canada when they spend all their time insulting them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last night the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said again that
federalism cannot change, will not change, et cetera. The great
15873
rebuttal to that is to demonstrate more clearly than heretofore that
Canada is going to change for the better through a no vote on
October 30.
One of the major ways in which Canada can change without
constitutional battles is through simple reforms to our federal
institutions. Parliament, the Supreme Court, and the Bank of
Canada can all be made more representative and accountable to
every region and citizen in the country without reopening the
Constitution.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Is
this federal government open to changing these federal
institutions-Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Bank of
Canada-to make them simply more accountable and
representative to every region and citizen in the country?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thought I would get some respite after the questions of
the Bloc Quebecois.
Unfortunately, we are plunging again into constitutional
questions. In these questions, I would like to indicate how much
this government has indicated that it is ready to change. Not only
have we talked about questions such as distinct society and right to
veto; more importantly, we have indicated that we are ready to give
to the provinces a large number of powers. We indicated this in the
last budget.
In the last budget we showed clearly that we are ready to reduce
the actual size of the federal government. We have reduced our own
departments by close to 20 per cent. We said that we would recentre
our responsibilities and let the level of government that is the most
efficient fulfil their responsibilities. That is the greatest opening to
change that one can see.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was not asking about change in the Constitution or in the
distribution of powers. I was simply asking about changes in the
federal institutions.
In many federations the upper chamber of parliament is the place
where the distinctive interests of various parts of the country are
represented and reconciled. Accountable and representative upper
chambers can serve as a shock absorber for potential unity
problems.
Countries like Germany, Australia, Switzerland, and the United
States have upper chambers that actually work. Unfortunately our
Senate is not even democratically accountable let alone able to
represent and reconcile regional and provincial interests.
(1430)
In order to demonstrate its openness to the reform of federal
institutions, is the federal government willing to commit to at least
the democratization of the Canadian Senate, another change which
can be made without constitutional amendments?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the time to approve these changes would have been in
Charlottetown. Unfortunately the leader of the third party did not
approve them. There was a lot of discussion at the time on
questions such as those. The leader of the third party chose to
oppose Charlottetown.
At present the question we face is not the approval of
Charlottetown. At present the question we face is the possible
separation of the province of Quebec from the rest of Canada.
The burden of proof is on the separatists, and the separatists have
not discharged the burden of proof. They have not given us a single
good reason why Quebec should get out of the federation. That is
what we must hammer at until the vote on Monday.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister does not even address the substance of the
questions being put to him.
We are not talking about constitutional changes like the
Charlottetown accord. We are not talking about changes to
relations between the provinces and the federal government. We
are talking about some simple changes in federal institutions which
the federal government can make unilaterally which would send a
signal of things changing to Quebec and other provinces.
I repeat my first question. Is the federal government open to
changing federal institutions, Parliament, the Senate and the Bank
of Canada, to make them more accountable and representative?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reason I am not addressing the specific question about
changing federal institutions is this is merely a diversion from the
present problem we are facing of why it is necessary to prevent the
separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada. In this I hope to have
the support of the Reform Party because that is the important
reform.
To change the supreme court or to change the Senate, although it
is a very important question, has nothing to do with the question we
are facing today, the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada.
15874
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according
to a document we obtained from the Department of Human
Resources, the old age pension system, the guaranteed income
supplement, the spouse's allowance and the senior citizens' tax
credit will be combined into a single new program requiring an
income test.
How does the minister explain the Prime Minister's statement
yesterday in his speech that the best way to protect our social
benefits is to vote No, when this document by his minister indicates
he is preparing to exclude thousands of seniors from old age
pension benefits and to cut the pensions of thousands of others?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been through this
many times before. The Bloc Quebecois and its allies come up with
a range of documents.
However, as I have said before many times in the House, such
recommendations or proposals have not been presented by me or
the Minister of Finance to the cabinet. The cabinet has decided it is
not the policy of the government. It is simply a leak upon a leak
which the Bloc Quebecois and its allies have developed.
(1435 )
I simply advise the hon. member not to pay attention to such
spurious documents.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
document, which is version 6.3, is entitled ``Serving Canada's
Seniors'' assumes, regardless of how pensions are distributed, that
there will be a single program with an income test-in other words,
the absolute end of universality.
How can Quebecers believe in a government that has
deliberately hidden this unprecedented attack-
Some hon. members: Shameful!
The Speaker: My dear colleague, I would ask you to reconsider
the words ``deliberately hidden'' and to withdraw them before
continuing with your question.
Mrs. Lalonde: -a government that has deliberately delayed
this unprecedented attack, which will make senior women
dependent on their spouse's income and could deprive them
entirely of their old age pension?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is time we went through a
reality check with the hon. member for Mercier.
On April 6 in the House the member for Mercier claimed there
would be tens of thousands of people coming on the welfare rolls in
Quebec. In August I received a document from the Government of
Quebec that pointed out the number of people on welfare had been
reduced, not increased.
On June 22 the member for Mercier claimed that as we were
reorganizing the department and decentralizing we would reduce
Canada Employment Centres in Quebec to 28. What we announced
was 78 Canada Employment Centres in Quebec.
Any document sent in by this member has absolutely no
credibility.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I remind
the minister that the Prime Minister has said this week it is part of
his efforts to persuade Quebecers to vote no and that he would be
open to change, including in some cases constitutional change.
My question is the one I asked yesterday which I did not get a
response to. Is it still the policy of the Liberal Party, as it is the
policy of the Reform Party, that any general constitutional change
would have to be submitted to and approved by the people of
Canada in a national referendum?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have read a number of studies indicating that given that
past constitutional changes have been submitted to referenda, the
normal way in the future would be to go through referenda.
However, I do not know that we have talked about that as a
policy. Therefore I do not think as the government we are linked to
that.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
understanding from the answer of the unity minister yesterday is
the people of Quebec would always have a voice in changes
affecting their powers and institutions.
I wonder if the government would be prepared to say to other
regions of the country that it recognizes they would also have a
similar say in constitutional amendments.
15875
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this question deserves very long discussion. I do not think
today is the time for that.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The CSN today made public the content of the unemployment
insurance reform bill. This bill has been kept hidden up to now by
the Minister of Human Resources Development, because it
contains a number of cuts directed at the unemployed.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development expect
to earn the trust of Quebecers when he keeps a bill, which is in fact
ready to be made public, hidden from them until after the
referendum?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon.
member has been but for the past year we have consulted with tens
of thousands of Canadians. We have had numerous hearings in
front of the House of Commons committee. We have had debates in
the House. We have had hundreds of exchanges with provincial
ministers, with interest groups, with people right across the country
talking about new ideas.
That party says it wants change and yet everything we hear from
it is hang on to the status quo, make no changes to get people back
to work.
We want to provide the best employment system for the 21st
century and the only people saying no are Bloc Quebecois
members. They should get around to saying no on Monday rather
than saying no here.
Some hon. members: No, no, no.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, now that
his game is up, will the minister confirm that, among other things,
it will be more difficult to qualify for unemployment insurance,
that thousands of young people will be excluded from the scheme
and that benefits will be reduced to half an individual's salary and
paid for a shorter period? Will he finally acknowledge this?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to the
hon. member, let me make it very clear that the government has
made no decision on the presentations on unemployment
insurance. We are still working on those proposals. I have not
presented any recommendations as yet to cabinet.
As late as this morning I have had meetings with cabinet
colleagues and with provincial ministers to get the thing right
because our major intention is to ensure and guarantee the
protection of low income Canadians and provide job opportunities
for all Canadians, including those in Quebec.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development
if the Prime Minister was serious about his promise of
administrative changes in government and would the provinces be
given the exclusive role of manpower training. The minister
refused to commit to this.
Will the minister agree to the Alberta government's request to
immediately convene a meeting of the forum of labour market
ministers to negotiate the final decentralization of manpower
training?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if memory holds me correct I
am scheduled to leave as soon as question period is over for the
wonderful province of Alberta. I think on my schedule is a meeting
with the minister of advanced education and labour to talk about
these very matters.
We have been having a wonderfully co-operative arrangement
with the Government of Alberta on single window delivery systems
for young people and ending duplication and overlap its programs.
To the credit of the minister, Alberta has been prepared to
discuss such matters, unlike the minister of employment for
Quebec who has refused all entreaties and all invitations from me
to get together and talk about how we can come together and
provide for real and true decentralization.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
discussion time should by now be well and truly over.
The minister has failed for two years to make any solid
commitment in this area. The Liberal rhetoric for change rings
hollow, untrue and empty as these promises go unfulfilled.
Why will the minister not give the power and the money to the
provinces to manage the manpower training as they want to?
15876
(1445 )
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the
hon. member of one very important development.
A few months ago the provincial premiers assembled in St.
John's, Newfoundland to discuss social reform. At that time they
established a special committee of provincial ministers who were
to come together to develop a common position. Once they had
arrived at a common position, they would then sit down with
myself, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health and other
ministers to discuss those issues.
They have not arrived at a decision yet. They have not concluded
their discussions. They have not decided what their position will
be. I said at the time that when the council of ministers on social
security reform was prepared to meet I would be there. They are
not prepared yet, but as soon as they are ready I will be at the table.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In response to an appeal by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Canadian International will be offering discounts of between 60 per
cent and 90 per cent to enable thousands of people from various
cities in Canada to land in Quebec as part of the referendum
campaign.
How can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not only be in
collusion but, moreover, entice a private company to contravene
the Referendum Act, especially when he now knows the decision of
the Chief Electoral Officer on the matter?
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should know that
under the National Transportation Act, air carriers are free to set
their own rates with regard to servicing Canadians going from one
point to another and that is exactly what they have done.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, now we have heard everything in this House.
My question, however, is for the minister responsible for
organizing this great manoeuvre. How can he induce his cabinet
and caucus colleagues into contravening Quebec law, as he is
doing at the moment, in the newspapers?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I would once again ask you, my dear
colleagues, not to use props in the House.
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what various transportation companies are doing is
entirely up to them. The only thing I am doing is taking my wife,
my children and I am going to Montreal. I suspect some other
Canadians who love this country and love Quebec may join me.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there has been a lot of speculation recently on the possibility of the
Quebec government's-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. Today is Thursday, is it not? We have
missed a day.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has the floor.
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of speculation
recently on the possibility of the Quebec government's signing an
agreement with the Public Service Alliance, the largest public
service union. This agreement would guarantee federal public
servants living in Quebec a job in an independent Quebec
following a Yes vote.
Could the President of the Treasury Board, as the employer of
federal public servants, indicate to the members of this House and
to the people watching us the status of these negotiations or the
promises or the pseudo guarantees made to federal public servants?
(1450)
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Parti Quebecois government has promised that all federal
public servants residing in Quebec would have a job in an
independent Quebec. There is no job guarantee, however, because
the Parti Quebecois has not concluded any agreement with the
largest union representing federal public servants. Federal public
servants in Quebec should be wary of empty promises by the
separatists.
15877
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today at
Queen's Park the Harris government introduced an all-party motion
calling for decentralization, an end to the status quo and a shifting
of federal power to the provinces.
It is proof that Canada wants change and, indeed, can change
with a no vote on Monday.
Is the federal government open to this type of substantial change
without constitutional amendments?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has done nothing but promote change
over the last two years.
We have indicated not only our intention to create profound
changes but, as I have said before, we have put together a program
review that is reducing the size of the federal government by 20 per
cent, recentreing the activities of the federal government to those
that can discharge them best. We have applied a federalism
principle in program review that will give to the provinces and the
other levels of government the activities they can discharge more
efficiently.
That is the proof, not only that we talk about change but that we
implement it in this government.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
message is not getting through. The separatists are wrong when
they say Canada cannot change. Reformers want change, Ontario
wants change, B.C. wants change and Nova Scotia wants change.
By voting no on Monday Quebecers will open the door to building
a new Canada, a stronger Canada, a united Canada.
Will the government assure Quebecers that a no vote means
change? Will it assure the Government of Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can only agree with the comments of the member of the
third party. He is underlining what is fundamental, that a no vote on
Monday will mean change, a yes vote will mean rupture and
disaster.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, the Minister of Public Works.
Yesterday, the President of CMHC authorized distribution of a
memorandum encouraging employees to take part in the big no
rally to be held tomorrow in Montreal, by offering them paid leave.
How can the minister approve paying CMHC employees to
travel to Montreal and demonstrate in favour of the no side with the
support of the President of CMHC, Marc Rochon?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. I hope he will want to join with other
Canadians tomorrow in support of the no forces in the province of
Quebec.
This government allows its employees to decide what they want
to do in this referendum. The hon. member is quite right. A
memorandum was circulated. But a second memorandum has been
circulated which states very clearly that if they wish to participate
in the no side of the referendum tomorrow they can do so, but they
will not be paid by the Government of Canada.
(1455)
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I trust that we are
speaking of the same directive, because the one we have obtained
really said ``Those who go to Montreal will have paid leave for
Friday''.
My second question is for the President of Treasury Board. Will
the minister confirm that a number of other federal public servants
were apparently offered leave with pay for going to Montreal for
Friday's demonstration, and does he consider that taking part in
such a demonstration is included in their job descriptions?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we will be operating as a government tomorrow. Offices will be
open right across the country. Our employees will operate in
accordance with the collective agreement.
Whether or not our employees go to the rally in Montreal is
completely a personal decision. If they want to take a day off, they
can do that in accordance with vacation leave. They can take a day
of vacation. However, they will have to work that out with their
managers to ensure that operationally all the government services
15878
will continue to be provided to Canadians tomorrow. That is
something for the managers and the individuals to work out.
However, within the collective agreement they are entitled to take
days off.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Quebec are more likely to vote no if their
expectations that the government will decentralize and create a
smaller federal presence are greater. They will also be likely to vote
no if they can be assured that national institutions, such as the Bank
of Canada, will be made more responsive to the demands and
aspirations of regions.
I ask the Minister of Finance this. Will he consider changes to
the operation and constitution of the Bank of Canada such that, like
in other industrial countries, monetary policy will be made by
people who are responsive to the regions?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure that changes in the structure of the Bank of
Canada would really have an effect on the referendum. However, I
agree with the hon. member that the spirit of change which has
been seen in the federal government very clearly over the last few
years is an important element.
The Prime Minister, in his speech last night, talked about the
acceptance of a distinct society. He talked about the right of veto
and he indicated that the decentralization which was in the last
budget and in the program review is an essential part of what this
government wants to do.
We have to conclude that we have already started to change. That
is a fact. The relationship between the federal government and the
provinces is evolving all the time. We have clearly indicated our
intention to change.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very disappointing on this side of the House to ask
questions about changes in the responsiveness of national
institutions to the demands of the regions and the provinces.
My supplementary question also concerns the Bank of Canada.
Does the minister consider it feasible for a central bank to be
administered by directors who are citizens of two separate
sovereign states, both of which use the same currency?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks
a very interesting question. There are, I believe, some smaller,
mini-states that have co-operative currency boards.
The only two countries that I know of which use another
country's currency are Liberia and Panama. They both use the U.S.
dollar. Anybody who thinks that those two countries have some
influence on the Federal Reserve Board in Washington is living in
the same dream land as the separatists.
* * *
(1500)
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday was the second anniversary of the culmination of the
1993 election campaign. During that campaign-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Collenette: Tell us what happened.
Mr. Goodale: What happened, Bill?
Mr. Blaikie: I knew that was coming. During that campaign the
Liberals made certain promises and commitments to a group of
Canadians who were hurt by the way Route Canada was privatized
by the previous Conservative government. They made promises
that the injustices done to these people would be resolved.
I ask whoever is speaking for the government on this matter
today to say what progress the government feels it has made. When
will those commitments be kept? When will the injustices done to
those employees of Route Canada be finally resolved to their
satisfaction?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interest
in the matter, along with a number of my colleagues on this side of
the House who are very concerned about the question.
The bankruptcy trustee and the RCMP conducted extensive
investigations into the company's conduct. Charges and sentences
have followed. I take this opportunity to ensure members of the
House and former employees of CN Route Canada that the rumours
their pensions and pension benefits are at risk are wrong.
If they need additional information I encourage them to call the
CN pension office. I assure them that their pension benefits have
been protected by the government and that other issues will be
looked at.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environ-
15879
ment. On the issue of implementing policies and regulations aimed
at preventing pollution, are the federal and provincial governments
working together to agree on stricter standards for cars and cleaner
gas?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at their meeting, Canada's environment ministers agreed,
unanimously I might add, that the country should adopt stricter
standards. The federal government is prepared to proceed in this
respect.
When important issues like health and environment are
discussed, the federal and provincial governments have shown a
remarkable degree of co-operation, and we can expect that to
continue.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
point of order arises out of question period and the question asked
by my colleague from Calgary West.
After he asked his question and received an answer from the
government the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans pointed at me,
the member for Beaver River, my seatmate from Calgary
Southwest, and my colleague from Calgary West who had asked
the question and said: ``You're an ass, you're an ass and you're an
ass''.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Grey: He then went on to say right after that: ``You are
snakes''. Third, he said: ``You would love a yes vote. You are
salivating''.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the member (a) to withdraw
and (b) to explain how in the world this will help the cause of
national unity.
The Speaker: Evidently the hon. minister of fisheries was
named. If he wishes to add something to this point I would be
willing to hear him.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are only three things in the world I am sure
about.
One is that we should have a no vote on Monday night; two, we
should all be in Montreal tomorrow; and, three, I should have
called them donkeys.
(1505 )
The Speaker: I did not hear any of these statements. I do not
know if they will appear in Hansard. If indeed the hon. minister
said these words I would appeal to him to simply withdraw them.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if anything I have said has caused any
cause for alarm by my colleague opposite, whose sensitivities are
well known, I withdraw.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
appreciate it if the Leader of the Government would let us know
what he has in mind for the next few days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we will continue this afternoon and tomorrow with consideration of
report stage of Bill C-61 regarding agricultural penalties. We will
then return to second reading of Bill C-99 on small business loans.
If this is completed we plan to return to second reading debate on
Bill C-88.
On Monday we will commence report stage of Bill C-7, followed
by report stage of Bill C-103, followed by Bill C-94. We intend to
schedule the third reading debates on these bills and Bill C-61 at
the earliest time procedurally possible.
As soon as business permits next week we will call the second
reading stages of Bill C-95 and Bill C-96. I expect that Thursday,
November 1, will be an allotted day.
This completes my weekly business statement.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
December 1, 1994 I placed the following question on the Order
Paper:
For each department, agency and crown corporation, how many employees,
including parliamentary agents, governor in council appointees, armed forces
personnel and RCMP personnel receive, or will receive, the following benefits
for one year or more: (a) a living allowance for a second residence and (b) a
transportation allowance (or transportation) from home to place of work where
distance exceeds 40 kilometres, and if any receive the foregoing, (i) what is the
cost per individual recipient, (ii) what is the rank, position or title of each
recipient and (iii) is the tax deducted at the source for these benefits''.
I thought it was a fairly simple question.
Next Tuesday it will be 11 months since I placed that question on
the Order Paper. The question was prompted by the revelation that
the Commissioner of Official Languages was being chauffeur
15880
driven between Montreal and Ottawa each week and had an
apartment supplied to him in Ottawa courtesy of the government,
all because the job was in Ottawa but he preferred to live in
Montreal.
Standing Order 39(5)(a) gives a member the right to ask for a
response in 45 days. This is not a problem of delay but a problem
of avoidance on the part of the government. Questions on the Order
Paper are methods by which we as the opposition to the
government, on behalf of Canadians in general, may hold the
government accountable and obtain the facts concerning benefits
given to its appointees that are not available to the public at large.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into the matter for me pursuant to
Standing Order 39(5)(a) and find out why I do not have a response
from the government to my question.
(1510 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know the hon. member and Job have a lot in common when it
comes to patience. I respect the fact the hon. member has been very
patient in waiting for a reply, but he read his question and therein
lies the problem in getting the answer.
He has asked for every department, agency and crown
corporation how many employees meet certain criteria and he has
asked for specifics on each of the employees. When we add up all
the agencies, crown corporations and departments, including the
armed forces, the RCMP and so on, the Government of Canada has
over half a million employees as far as I am aware.
Every department will have to go through every list of every
employee and every agency will have to do the same, including the
Department of National Defence and the Armed Forces of Canada.
Ms. Catterall: How much is this going to cost?
Mr. Milliken: This will cost a fortune. The hon. member does
not care about that despite their pretence of claiming they are
interested in thrift. He will insist on this answer. We will get him
the answer. It is nearing completion, but I am sure it will be an
extremely voluminous answer.
I hope he has a long holiday coming up from Parliament so he
can sit down and read it when he gets it.
The Speaker: Is the matter settled?
Mr. Williams: Can I respond to that?
The Speaker: No, I do not want to get into a debate today. You
have both made your points.
15880
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-61, an act to
establish a system of administrative monetary penalties for the
enforcement of the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Feeds
Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Meat
Inspection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Plant Protection
Act and the Seeds Act, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee; and of Motions Nos. 21 and 22.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we are resuming debate on report stage of Bill C-61. I
believe we are at the final grouping of the amendments put forward
by my colleague from the Bloc, the hon. member for Lotbinière.
My colleagues and I can support the two amendments because they
are amendments we considered. Had not the Bloc submitted them I
believe we would have introduced them.
Prior to question period I listened to debate on the two
amendments by the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill
River. I confess that I disagree with almost everything the hon.
member said.
He did not seem to want more accountability in our system. He
did not want public servants in quasi-judicial bodies to be
accountable or more accountable to Parliament. He did not want
the role of members of Parliament in committees to be increased. It
seems it would be too burdensome for the hon. member and too
onerous for this astute body to look into the affairs of government,
hold it accountable and diligently watch what it is doing.
The red book, if I recall correctly, promised some parliamentary
reform. We got into that issue to a degree earlier in question period.
Perhaps it is appropriate to raise the subject at this time. The red
book talked about parliamentary reform and about strengthening
the roles of parliamentary committees.
The two amendments the hon. member put forward would cause
the appointment of members to the tribunal to be ratified or
reviewed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food. In my eyes that would seem to comply with the red
book promise of giving the committees more responsibility and
giving the committees a more meaningful role, making them more
than window dressing as they have been notoriously described in
the past.
I expected members on the other side to have applauded the
proposal, but the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River
seemed disconcerted by the suggestion that standing committees
would have more work to do and would play a more responsible
role in the life of Parliament.
The role of parliamentary committees is more of a babysitting
service for Liberal backbenchers. And prior to that it was a
15881
babysitting service for the Conservative backbenchers, something
to keep them busy while those in the cabinet ran the affairs of the
country, something to keep them away from the decision-making
process, something to keep them away from the actual
development of legislation, the meaningful review of bills in the
committee and meaningful clause-by-clause study of bills and an
interest builder in the actual departments of government that were
held responsible to review and investigate and monitor.
(1515)
In our particular committee, the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food, we received wrong information from
the parliamentary secretary, which seems to indicate to me that the
department, the minister, the parliamentary secretary, or whoever
was responsible did not feel the work of the committee was that
important. They did not really do their homework that well.
We went through clause by clause on Bill C-61. It was kind of a
scripted thing where the member for Dauphin-Swan River
jumped in at the appropriate time with the amendments that were
supported by the government and Liberal members sort of turned
off their minds. We could see the lights going out, that they were
going to accept these amendments and no others. In fact that is why
we brought our amendments to report stage rather than in the
committee. Experience has taught us that introducing meaningful
amendments in the committee is a waste of time. The minister is
not there to review the amendments to see if they are acceptable.
The government does not want any possible changes to the
legislation without a lot of scrutiny. It does not trust backbenchers
to have minds that could actually propose some constructive
amendments in clause-by-clause or in the committee stage. This is
just a make-work project for the backbenchers.
What these amendments put forward in Group 5 would in fact
accomplish is the committee would have a meaningful job to do of
reviewing appointments to the tribunal that would be an appeal
body for the administrative monetary penalties should someone
who has violated the regulations of Agriculture Canada so appeal to
that tribunal. That makes a lot of sense. That is moving this House
of Commons and the members of Parliament to more meaningful
work, a more direct contact with the administration of government.
It is more of a hands on role. It is a role with which members can go
back to their constituents and say they have something to do that
counts and is important.
The Liberal government does not seem willing to give the
committees the added responsibility. The promises in the red book
ring pretty hollow if in fact these two amendments are not passed.
The minister and his departmental officials have said that the
spirit of Bill C-61 is good, that they have good intent. I believe
them. I believe they have good intent. I believe they want this new
process of administrative monetary penalties and compliance
agreements to work to reduce the onerous burden on our justice
system. I believe they do want it to work. I believe it is also
paramount that in giving these powers to his department, his
public servants, and to himself as minister, it is also responsible to
put some parameters around that authority and responsibility that
are reasonable and responsible.
In summing up my response not only to these two amendments
but to the entire bill, it all fits together. What we have tried to do is
build those reasonable fences around the bill that allow enough
latitude within for the minister and his department to effectively
administer the powers they receive under Bill C-64.
Why they would not want the committee on agriculture and
agri-food to play a more meaningful role in the ratification of
appointees to the tribunal is beyond my understanding. It just
seems to be the mindset of this government. I think it is wrong. I
think it is unfortunate. It is sad. Perhaps it is even part of the reason
we are experiencing some trouble right now.
I would appeal to the minister and the members to reverse this
trend, to start to make government more open, more transparent, to
make the public service more accessible and accountable to not
only the ministers but to all members of Parliament. Therefore, I
would support these two amendments. I would heartily endorse
these two amendments and ask other members in the House to do
the same.
(1520)
The Speaker: We are discussing Group 5, Motions 21 and 22.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too want
to deal with Motions 21 and 22, but I do want to take issue with a
couple of the comments made by the last speaker, the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster.
Earlier today we were talking about being reasonable in this
House. We did in fact agree with some of the amendments put
forward by the hon. member in the third party. After the comments
he made in his last remarks, one would wonder why we would be
reasonable. He commented that in putting amendments forward on
behalf of the government the Liberal members merely put them
forward and the lights went out. Those amendments had taken
serious consideration of the discussions, what the department had
said and what our members had said, the discussion that Reform
members had brought forward before the committee. Those
amendments were given due consideration and were well thought
out and do indeed improve the bill, as do some of the amendments
put forward by the third party.
He also alluded to, and I want to take issue with it, the remarks of
the parliamentary secretary. I want to say, having sat in on those
meetings, that the parliamentary secretary tried to provide the
comments from the community. In response to the member that
night, when Bill C-61 came out the department issued a release to
quite a number of organizations that had raised concerns. It issued
an overview of that particular bill. Having been a leader in the farm
community myself for a number of years, I know organizations
look at that overview, look at the draft legislation, and respond
15882
accordingly. I believe they did have the opportunity to respond, and
the parliamentary secretary was trying to outline to committee
members the views of the community. I respect him for having
done that.
I do want to say that we on the government side of that
committee have considered these amendments very seriously,
including those from the third party.
As to the motions we are now debating, I want to state that I
oppose those particular amendments. The minister spoke earlier on
another amendment and I think his comments apply to these
particular amendments. The manner of appointments of members
of the review tribunal by the governor in council that is set out in
this bill follows a well established practice, endorsed by courts of
law, of assuring the independence of the tribunal from outside
interference.
This is what is so important in terms of the appointment of
members to committees. I know from previous experience that
there is nothing more difficult than appointing members and trying
to do it in a balanced, fair, and equitable way. If we had members of
the committee trying to push certain members to be appointed to
committees for political or other reasons, we would be into very
great difficulty indeed in terms of trying to find balance on
committees.
In terms of appointments to tribunals and so on, the minister is
always accountable and responsible. Therefore, he takes a great
deal of discretion in terms of making those appointments. I can tell
you that if the minister appointed the wrong individual, the first
ones standing up in this House would be members of the
opposition, complaining about that appointment and trying to hold
the minister accountable and responsible. But how could the
minister be held accountable and responsible for appointments
pushed by committee members and sometimes by the opposition
parties? I think that as a committee we would be in difficulty.
(1525)
I know the intent of the member for Lotbinière is good. The
objective he is putting forward is good. However, it is very
problematic in terms of how it would work in practice. Let me give
an example.
I am from P.E.I. and the hon. member is from Quebec and we
both might be pushing two individuals for our own reasons for our
own provinces. It could create confusion and problems on the
committee. It would take a lot of committee time unnecessarily. I
prefer the present approach: hold the minister accountable and
responsible for those appointments. That is how it should be.
Let me make a couple of other comments in opposition to the
amendments.
The bill does require that members of the tribunal have technical
qualifications related to the area of agriculture and agri-food and
are not in a position of conflict of interest relative to the matters
before them. To ensure that people are not found to be in a conflict
of interest, it means their backgrounds and résumés must be
examined. It is much better to do that in a private forum, rather
than in the public forum the committee entails.
Having the standing committee approve all appointments would
raise a number of concerns. First, the time required to deal with the
committee recommendations might add considerably to the length
of time required to make the appointments.
Second, the committee might refuse to recommend any of the
incumbents to these positions, effectively preventing the positions
from being filled. As I mentioned earlier, the opposition to
incumbents might be based purely on political reasons rather than
sound judgment in terms of the ability of the individual to do the
job.
Third, I think this kind of amendment would be a move toward a
more American style of government. In the past we have seen what
incumbents who are looking for positions go through when they
appear before boards and committees. Sometimes individuals who
could do an effective job are lost because of the process. I think that
is wrong.
Finally, a committee debate on the selection of tribunal members
could be conducted in public and might involve hearing witnesses,
raising privacy concerns, and possibly deterring applicants from
even considering sitting on these tribunals.
I know the amendments are put forward in good will. I know the
intent to be more productive is there, but I believe they would be
problematic. On those grounds, I oppose these amendments.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been considering the
various amendments to Bill C-61 at report stage since 10 a.m.,
which has given us over four hours of very detailed discussion. For
the most part, that discussion has been quite useful.
As the member for Malpeque mentioned, during the course of
the debate and discussion the government has in fact accepted at
least three of the proposals put forward by the opposition
pertaining to various administrative matters in the legislation.
On the final two motions that are now before the House, Motions
21 and 22, I think the arguments advanced by the member for
Malpeque are very convincing and sustainable arguments as to why
these two motions should not be among those that are accepted.
15883
(1530 )
I might elaborate on one of the reasons advanced by the hon.
member for Malpeque, which is the distinction between the
Canadian parliamentary system of government and the American
congressional system of government.
Under the American system there is a certain method for making
appointments. It involves in certain circumstances public hearings
before congressional committees. In Canada traditionally we have
not taken that approach. One of the reasons we have not taken that
approach is the difference between the congressional system in the
U.S., which has a different system of checks and balance on the
whole executive authority of government, and our parliamentary
system, which has a very fundamental rudder to it. You see it from
your chair every day, Mr. Speaker, in question period. That is a
characteristic absolutely unique to our system.
Members of the U.S. cabinet never have to appear in a public
forum like the House of Commons. They appear from time to time
in carefully controlled circumstances before congressional
committees. Members of the American cabinet are not members of
the American Congress and therefore are not present in either the
Senate or the House of Representatives. They are aloof, separate
and apart from the legislative branch of the American government.
The Americans have an array of checks and balances they
believe holds their system together quite appropriately. That is
their system. It is a different system. They do not have the open
forum of Parliament in which every day Parliament sits the
ministers of the crown are in the House to face the accountability of
the opposition in the open question period. It is a unique feature of
our system, one that argues very well for our system as compared
to theirs.
That distinction, among others, is one of the reasons we should
reject the kind of administrative suggestions proposed in these two
motions and stick to the bill as it is presently before the House.
Earlier in the day the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster raised questions about certain
comments made in committee by my parliamentary secretary. I
answered fully those questions with respect to the views expressed
by my parliamentary secretary. The hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster has once again in his most recent
intervention repeated the allegations without indicating that those
allegations have already been completely and fully answered in the
House. They ought not to be repeated without the indication that
they have been answered. I answered them earlier today. He was
not paying attention.
The hon. gentleman also engaged in general criticism. I hope he
did not mean it seriously. It was general criticism about the conduct
of government members with respect to the work done on the bill in
committee.
From my experience as a minister the government members who
worked very hard on the bill took their responsibility very
seriously. Apart from the hours they spent working on the bill in
committee, they spent additional hours doing their homework in
their offices, writing letters, asking questions, getting answers and
understanding the legislation so that when they went to the
committee they were well prepared to deal with the issues in a
thoroughly conscientious and efficient manner.
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster criticized them
for being ``well organized''. I commend our members for being
well organized. I know the depth in which they studied the
legislation because I was the one inundated by their questions as to
how to put the legislation together in the best and most proper
fashion.
Government members have done extraordinarily well in
ensuring the legislation came out in a way which serves the
national interest.
The Speaker: We are dealing with group No. 5, Motion No. 21.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(1535)
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8) a recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
We are now dealing with Motion No. 22. Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
15884
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), a recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill before the House.
Call in the members.
[Translation]
And the division bells having rung:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded
division on the question now before the House stands deferred until
the usual time of adjournment on Monday, at which time the bells
to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
[English]
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think you
would find unanimous consent to further defer the votes until
Tuesday at 5 p.m.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from October 25 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-99
and about how the government is acting on its commitment to
provide leadership in helping small business grow and create jobs.
I will spend some time discussing the consultations that have fed
into this legislation and the initiatives we have taken to help small
business grow and prosper.
Small business has always played a crucial role in the Canadian
economy, be it a local corner store, a remote fishing camp, parts
suppliers to the aerospace industry or a computer software
developer.
Small businesses are a vital job creator and are contributors to
our country's wealth. Today there are about 2 million small
businesses in Canada. They account for almost two-thirds of the
jobs in the private sector and 60 per cent of Canada's economic
output. It has been stated many times that small business creates 82
per cent of all new jobs.
In my riding small business played a pivotal role in the opening
up and the development of the north from small aviation companies
that led the way, to the service industries that followed to support
the growth, to an increasing number of aboriginal owned and
operated companies which provide the services needed and which
drive the engine of economic growth in the communities.
I now illustrate some of the dynamic things small businesses are
doing in the north. People in my riding are becoming increasingly
aware of the potential for growth when we work together to create
the economic and social development so needed. An excellent
example is the Dogrib Nation group of companies. The Dogrib
Treaty 11 Council recognized that the best way to address the needs
and priorities of its communities was to play an active role in
partnership with the businesses that deliver the services needed.
Therefore it created the Dogrib Nation group of companies to
address economic development needs from investments in
hydro-electric power generation to forestry, heavy equipment
supply, aviation in partnership with Canadian helicopters and
commercial catering.
(1540)
The group pursues a number of industrial and human resource
development activities for and on behalf of the four Dogrib Nation
communities. This is a living testament to the empowerment
potential that can be unleashed by small business initiatives.
Another example is the Northern Transportation Company
Limited, originally a crown corporation. NTCL's primary objective
is to provide cost effective, reliable and comprehensive marine
transportation and related services in northern Canada and the
Arctic. Now NTCL is the wholly owned subsidiary of NorTerra
Incorporated, which in turn is owned by two aboriginal
corporations, the Inuvialuit Development Corporation and Nunasi
Corporation. The Inuvialuit people of the Western Arctic and the
Inuit of the Nunavut are the beneficial shareholders of NTCL.
There is recognition for those small businesses that have been
able to achieve equity. Recently NTCL was the recipient of the
federal locators award given to those companies that demonstrate
they can bring in the groups under-represented in the general
population or general labour market areas.
When we bring small business down to the human grassroots
level, we look at small communities like the community in my
riding of Fort Resolution. The people have undertaken to commit
themselves to the small business of running a sawmill, a very
industrious and skills related industry. The community can see the
results of it and have the participation in terms of jobs and watch
exactly how small business grows. They have been able to develop
15885
an economic development arm which has allowed them to provide
some of the supplies they need in order to build their homes and to
provide the region with some of those facilities.
They have taken it upon themselves to get into an industry that
would produce some of the materials needed for building homes
such as moulds to create bathtubs and all the other things needed
for use inside a home.
There are a number of other items they produce. They are
expanding and diversifying which is the key to successful small
businesses to either focus and do something very specialized they
are good at or to capture a market. This seems to be what they are
doing, and doing it very well.
During the recessionary years when large multinational
corporations were laying off workers, small businesses were
responsible for almost all of the net new jobs created. Why are they
so successful? Small businesses embody the dynamism and
flexibility to respond quickly to new challenges. They know they
have to innovate aggressively in order to compete.
Canada is now moving into a new economy, one characterized
by rapid technological change, intense global competition and
innovation. Small business has the right stuff to succeed in this
environment. However, small business cannot do it alone. It needs
the right environment and the right tools to get the job done and
that is our responsibility.
The task of the government is threefold in terms of small
business being successful. The first thing we must do is create the
best economic conditions and institutions that will allow these
innovators in the private sector to get on with it. It always helps to
have a country as politically stable as it is economically stable. It
helps to create the right condition and the right climate for those
small businesses to flourish. It helps to create an environment
where new ideas are spawned and where ideas, technology, and
new production processes move quickly throughout the economy.
It helps Canadians realize that innovation does not just happen; it
thrives best in countries that consciously understand the process
and take steps to create a national system of innovation. This
means we must work with the private sector to identify strategic
opportunities and channel our resources toward fulfilling those
opportunities.
(1545)
In February 1994 we asked the small business community to
help us create the environment and the tools they need to succeed.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, the
private sector small business working committee, the chamber of
commerce, and many other groups contributed to one of the most
comprehensive reviews of small business ever undertaken.
Four primary messages emerged from the review. Small
business told us that with the proper support they have a vast
untapped
potential for creating jobs and wealth. This is no secret. This is
something that is quite well known and has been demonstrated time
and time again. Reducing the deficit is one of the most important
steps toward unleashing this potential, we were told by the various
proponents. Government programs must become more efficient,
effective, and relevant to the needs of small business. Who knows
best? Of course small business does, with their various proponents.
Finally, the vibrant small business sector that Canada needs cannot
be created by the government alone.
We have listened to these messages and we have acted on them.
We have placed the needs and concerns of small business at the
centre of our job creation agenda. Our consultations reaffirm that
high deficits and a rising debt burden spoil even the best prospects
for any country's economic growth. We need stable economic
policies for sustained growth and job creation. The fiscal policies
we are pursuing address this need.
We in Canada recognize the serious debt-to-GDP problem we
face, and we are responding to it with the biggest budget cuts since
demobilization following World War II. The 1995 Canadian budget
will reduce the federal government's borrowing requirements to
1.7 per cent of GDP by the next fiscal year, 1996-97. This is the
lowest of all the G-7 countries.
We also set an inflation target range of 1 per cent to 3 per cent
and we have in fact kept inflation below the midpoint of that range
since 1991. In terms of inflation, Canada is the Switzerland of
North America in the 1990s.
Also in the last budget the Minister of Finance announced a
rollback of unemployment insurance premiums from $3.07 to $3
per $100 of wages to lighten the burden of profit-insensitive taxes.
We are refocusing our remaining programs to reduce duplication
and serve the needs of small business in the best way we can.
The red tape and associated paper work and complex regulatory
hurdles faced by any venture can be discouraging, if not
insurmountable. We have eliminated 250 regulations. We are in the
process of reviewing another 370 in an effort to achieve a more
efficient and effective framework for business.
We continue to work with the private sector financial institutions
to improve their ability to serve small business. They have
responded with new services, including specialized lending units to
serve the needs of knowledge-based firms. We recognize that there
are some areas the private sector will not be able to serve very well.
We have responded by reviewing and then giving a new mandate
to the former Federal Business Development Bank. The new name
Business Development Bank of Canada is intended to highlight the
bank's new approach. The bank will focus on filling our four
marketing gaps. First is the knowledge gap, gaining an
understanding of the information technologies, software, and
related indus-
15886
tries in order to serve businesses where the principal assets are
between the ears of the owners and not conventional hard assets.
Second is the size gap, finding ways of providing smaller loans
to meet small business client needs while still breaking even
financially. People do not go into small business to go broke.
People go into small business in order to flourish, in order to
specialize and develop and diversify if they have to, to capture
those markets that are out there. Essentially, small business means
business; essentially that is what it is.
(1550)
Third is a flexible financing gap, providing loans and other
forms of financing on flexible repayment terms, to take account of
clients' variable cashflows, particularly in the early years.
Fourth is the risk gap, lending up the risk curve to provide clients
with appropriately priced access to capital. This tends to be
generally a big problem where you do not have a lot of built-in
infrastructure, where you have a lot of difficulty for those small
businesses to succeed in areas where they may be very remote and
do not have the kinds of infrastructures that are available in a more
broadly based population.
We recognize that implementing this new mandate as a
complementary lender will require nothing less than a cultural
revolution. The bank is developing a corporate plan that will give
effect to this new mandate. We expect that the new Business
Development Bank of Canada will become recognized in Canada
and around the world as a leader in developing new financial
instruments for small business. The example set by the new bank
will show the major banks that small businesses are worth their
time and effort and will inspire them to greater participation in
small business financing. Access to financing remains an important
issue for entrepreneurs. However, development of a business
climate that encourages growth and job creation is equally
important.
We are determined that the business framework laws shall be
part of Canada's comparative advantage. We are seeking to forge
new partnerships among the innovative players in the economy to
ensure a vibrant small business sector. We recognize that support
for innovation must be sharply focused on the commercialization
of science and technology. We are concentrating our efforts in two
key areas: building partnerships between all players, especially
innovative small businesses, and improving strategic access to
information.
We have launched a Canadian technology network that will help
small business acquire and manage new and complex technology
by putting them in contact with the Canadian research community
and we will provide business with rapid access to information on
domestic technology.
We have established the technology partnerships program to
promote collaboration between Canadian universities and small
and medium-sized businesses to turn university technologies and
ideas into new and improved products and processes and services.
It will bring together universities and businesses in cost-shared
efforts to demonstrate, develop, and market promising
technologies.
Perhaps nowhere is there greater opportunity for innovative
businesses to realize their full potential than through the
information highway. The federal government is moving quickly to
develop an information highway strategy that will build on national
strengths in telecommunications and information and information
technologies to create jobs through innovation and investment,
reinforce Canadian sovereignty and cultural identity, and ensure
universal access at reasonable cost.
We established this commitment to small business in the Liberal
Party's red book because we recognized that they are the engines of
Canadian economic growth. We put this commitment into action by
announcing proposals designed to help small business grow. We
furthered this commitment with the measures contained in the last
budget, and we will continue to maintain this commitment to
ensure the health and prosperity of Canadian small businesses.
We brought forward Bill C-99 to enable the completion of the
process of modernization that moved the SBLA program to full
cost recovery. This renewal will relieve the financial burden of the
program on Canadian taxpayers while enabling the SBLA to
continue to provide its benefits to small business.
I would like to emphasize the importance of what can be
accomplished when we work together in partnership as Canadians.
Earlier I talked about some of the innovative and dynamic things
that are happening in my riding as a result of people working in
partnership and co-operation.
(1555)
The United Nations recognizes Canada as the best country in the
world to live in. We accomplished this by living and working
together. We created the environment, economically, socially,
politically, and the opportunities for all Canadians to empower
themselves and in turn contribute to society. It is through these
actions that we will also fulfil our promise of creating jobs and
prosperity for all Canadians.
The north is no different. As proud Canadians in the north, we
too want to contribute to society, we too want to contribute to the
overall economy and well-being of our country. It is through an
innovation like this that perhaps those opportunities and those
doors of opportunity become more available.
15887
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member
for Western Arctic for participating in this debate, for supporting
the bill and talking about the importance of small business,
especially in the north.
I would like to ask a question that arises from an experience I
had three weeks ago when I was travelling in Austria. I met some
Austrian businessmen who had travelled to the north on tourism
trips to hunt and to enjoy the beauty of the Arctic. They felt there
was tremendous potential and opportunity for tourism in the north,
especially if there were more extensive promotion in Europe. They
also thought there was an opportunity to develop a tourism
infrastructure in the north.
I wonder what the member's experience has been when she talks
with the small business men and women in her community who are
tourism operators, who have incredible potential with the resources
of the north. What has been the experience of those small business
entrepreneurs with the financial institutions in this country? Do
they find the financial institutions are becoming much more
progressive in their thinking and are supporting these small
businesses with loans to build those businesses so they can promote
these opportunities? What has been her personal experience as a
member of Parliament serving the tourism operators in the north?
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the
member for Broadview-Greenwood has brought forward this
question. I am very appreciative of his question. If there was ever
an industry that would be next to the resource industry in the north,
it is the other resource industry, tourism.
We do need the infrastructure. I suppose one of the dreams we
have as politicians and one of the things I often refer to as an
infrastructure requirement would be the completion of the
Mackenzie Valley highway. That would open up a tremendous
potential and complete the loop of having to come down to travel
the Trans-Canada Highway right into the north, go right up the
Mackenzie Valley and travel along 1,800 kilometres of river on a
highway. It would allow the resource industry that is there to have
access to the Mackenzie Range and the Nahanni National Park. It
would open up a tremendous amount for Canada to see. That is
what makes this country so wonderful. That is what makes this
country so beautiful. It makes us appreciate all parts of this
country.
The Reform Party laughs. When we talk about our individual
areas we tend to appreciate and respect each other, not laugh at
each other. The hon. member has been to my riding. It is really
important for members to see that beauty, to see that vast expanse
which says this is part of Canada. This is what we are debating
today. We cannot describe how wonderful and beautiful our
country is. As Canadians we have the opportunity to build on it, to
continue to expand and make it even better than it is by building
that infrastructure.
(1600)
The financial institutions my colleague referred to have provided
this opportunity with the revamping of the Business Development
Bank of Canada. It is going to open the doors of opportunity to
those small businesses and tourism operators to do what was
suggested and make it accessible.
There is an influx of European tourists from Germany, Austria
and Japan. They are going to see the pristine north, to see the flora
and fauna species which are not available in their own countries.
That resource is worth sharing with Canada and the world. The way
to do that is by making these institutions and resources more
accessible by changing the Small Business Loans Act.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to clarify some of the accusations that came this
way. We were not laughing at the minister. What we were laughing
at is the fact that the Liberals have frittered that infrastructure
money away on all kinds of pork barrel operations. Now when a
highway needs to be built, there is no money left.
I would like the minister to comment on why that infrastucture
money was not used for true infrastructure.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
back-handed compliment from the Reform Party. It is unfortunate
it could not just be an up front compliment.
I understand what Reformers are saying. In terms of the
infrastructure, I must say that all projects the infrastructure money
has gone to are priorities set by the people in the north. We gave
them the money and they decided what they wanted to do.
If we are going to talk about building a highway, in 1984 it cost
$1 million a kilometre. Simply put, Canada does not have that kind
of money. There are a lot of kilometres of road to be built and we
do not have that kind of cash.
I am happy the Reformers are lobbying for a road in my riding. I
would welcome them to transfer their infrastructure money to help
us build the MacKenzie Valley highway. That would be great. Let
me say that it is a tremendous investment and even though I would
like the government to make that commitment, it cannot do so at
this time. In light of deficit reduction, we must be realistic in all the
priorities we set. It is a long term goal, a dream of mine and a
dream of northerners. It is something I appreciate the help of the
Reform Party on.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I had the good
fortune to visit my hon. friend's constituency this past summer. I
concur that it is one of the most spectacular parts of the country.
I visited a number of business people in her constituency. One
runs a small hotel or lodge and has been trying to sell it for about
15888
15 years. He would find a potential buyer and they would try to
arrange financing. He found the difficulty was that he lived in an
environment that often was rather vague in the minds of southern
bankers. It is dark for half of the year and has an unusual tourist
season. It was not clear what the season was, whether it was
summer or winter, and consequently, the individual could not get
financing.
My question in a sense is a take-off from my hon. friend for
Broadview-Greenwood. When it comes to financing, particularly
with respect to tourist related enterprises in the north, does the hon.
member agree it is a major area and that financial institutions
simply do not have the financing mechanisms in place to meet the
demands and needs of the emerging northern economy?
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, there is no dispute of the
fact that certain operators and owners of businesses, be they big
game hunters, lodge owners or whatever have had trouble because
the economy has not allowed for people to buy into those
opportunities. There has been some difficulty in accessing those
resources.
(1605)
I must reiterate that changing the Small Business Loans Act will
make these resources more available. Not only that, some of the
Canadian banks are developing partnerships, for instance with
aboriginal communities. There is more cash available now since
we have settled land claims. Potential partners are speculating and
looking at new opportunities. Things are actually getting better, but
there are no magic solutions.
We were very lucky. If I might compliment my colleague, my
riding was made more beautiful by his presence as a tourist. I
welcome more people to the north.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
to have the opportunity to say a few words regarding Bill C-99, an
act to amend the Small Business Loans Act. At second reading
stage the assumption is that we are talking about the principle of
the bill. On that point I want to register a deep disappointment with
this initiative.
We have heard thoughtful presentations from all sides of the
House regarding the value of small business, the importance of
small business and the critical nature which small business has
taken on in the changing economy. If this is any indication of how
the government plans to react to these needs, to this new sense of
dynamism in the country, it is pathetic.
My hon. friend from the territories indicated that this is a major
step forward. This is not a major step forward. Quite frankly, this is
a little technical housekeeping which will build total cost recovery
into the legislation. Actually, it will probably make it a bit tougher
for people to obtain a loan because of the loan guarantee being
decreased to 85 per cent from 90 per cent. That will cause the
banks to be a bit more wary in terms of lending.
Then of course there is the provision that through order in
council the government can make changes to the legislation. I have
seen changes in my short time as a member of Parliament. At one
time there was a 100 per cent guarantee. Then it decreased to 90 per
cent. Now it is being decreased to 85 per cent. It is fair to say that if
this trend continues, we will soon see the guarantee being
decreased to 75 per cent, 50 per cent, or whatever, which would
essentially make it a non-program.
I am concerned about the influence which, behind closed doors,
cabinet will have to change this crucial piece of legislation. I
happen to think it is a good piece of legislation. However, I do have
a deep concern that this is the only initiative which we are
discussing.
Let me put this into context. I am one of many members who
believe that the small business sector is the crucial job creating
sector in the country today and will be even more so in the future.
As a result of both government and private enterprise downsizing,
the role of the small operation, the independent operator and
entrepreneur has become more important than ever.
We are visited regularly in our constituency offices by young
people who have sent out 200 resumés, who have filled out 100 job
applications or who have knocked on 50 doors trying to find
employment. Often these young people are well educated and well
trained. They have marketable technical skills and good research
abilities. They are self-starters and so on. Yet they are having
difficulty finding a job using the traditional process for finding a
job.
The young people of the future who will be employed will be
those who actually create their own enterprise. They will realize
that they will not be working for a firm. They will not be working
for an accounting company. They will not be working in a small
manufacturing firm. It will be up to them to actually start their own
enterprise from scratch. They will be the ultimate entrepreneurs,
able to take a concept, see an opportunity and put that into play.
(1610 )
Today we see two different types of small business operators.
One type is the small business operator who finds himself
attempting to start a small business or is looking for ways of
starting one. He has very little experience in the world of business
and probably never thought he would actually start a business.
Because of the layoffs in the private sector and the downsizing in
the public sector people like him simply find themselves out of
work and the only solution they see is to start an enterprise. One of
the areas where government could help would be to find ways and
means to enable those men and women to obtain the necessary
15889
skills to start a small business and to run it successfully, or to
upgrade their skills or obtain retraining.
I appreciate there are programs in place now. I am thinking in
particular of some of the work done by the Business Development
Bank of Canada and others. This is one area where government can
provide some service to encourage the development of these, let us
say, incubator centres.
The other type of business people are the individuals who have
wanted to be in business all their lives. Simply by their nature,
instinct and character they are business people. They have
developed the necessary skills or perhaps have them innately and
have enrolled in programs or courses to bring themselves up to
speed to be successful business operators.
These two types of operators are now becoming increasingly
more familiar on the economic landscape of the country.
In Kamloops we are in the process of celebrating Small Business
Week. I heard the definition of a small business person the other
day and I thought it was very apt. I realize that when it comes to the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other business
organizations, economic organizations, banks and other financial
institutions, they all have their own definitions of what a small
business operation is.
The one this person came forward with was that a small business
person is one who works 18 hours a day, seven days a week for the
equivalent of about an eight hour daily wage. In today's economic
environment that pretty well sums it up. These people are dedicated
and committed to their enterprise. They are prepared to dedicate
literally their entire lives. It becomes a lifestyle to see a new
business start up or an existing business to continue to expand.
These are the people we need to encourage in all ways.
The question is: How do we encourage them? What can we do?
Personally I have wrestled with this for many years. I sent out a
questionnaire to the small business operators in my constituency a
while back. I asked them to help me with ideas as to how they
thought the government could help them.
Summarizing what they said, they said three things: ``Get out of
our way; get out of our way; get out of our way. We will take care
of ourselves. We do not actually need help. If you could allow us to
more easily spend time on developing a new enterprise, new
technologies, new processes, new marketing programs, that is what
we need to do. We need to spend time on that as opposed to filling
out countless forms''. Mountains and mounds of red tape confront
the typical small business operator. There is a lot of truth in that.
Underlying all of this is the recognition of the hated GST and
what that has done and continues to do particularly to small
businesses. I look across the aisle at my Liberal colleagues and do
look forward to the day when that GST is replaced. I do not mean
that the name be replaced; I mean that the actual tax be eliminated
and we come up with a system that is less cumbersome and more
fair for the small business community.
There are three good features we have seen developed over the
last number of years. On the top of my list in terms of support,
assistance, encouragement and nurturing for small business
operators is community futures. I do not know what other people
have had in terms of experience with community futures but I want
to mention what I have experienced.
In the Kamloops area we set up a community futures called
Thompson Country Community Futures Society. Over the last
number of years hundreds of new businesses have resulted from
that government program, but not the government program per se.
Obviously individuals who had the ideas, the energy and the
dedication to see these businesses through to completion were the
critical ingredient.
(1615)
However the community futures program was able to provide
start up funding in two ways. One program working in co-operation
with Employment Canada enabled people to continue receiving
unemployment insurance while they started up a new enterprise. It
has been very helpful and very successful. Everyone would
acknowledge that the chance of a person starting up a small
business getting into a profit making situation in the first few
weeks or months is very remote.
The program enabled individuals who had lost their jobs and
were eligible for unemployment insurance to continue receiving
unemployment insurance for a number of months while they
started their new enterprises. That made the difference. That gave
them a leg up, a small opportunity to provide for their families at
the same time as they were starting their new enterprises.
Another program attached to community futures was the one
where small businesses with good business plans could apply for
up to $75,000 in funding. The decision is made by successful local
business people who know the region, know the area and perhaps
even know the individual. They have a very sound appreciation for
what businesses are successful, what businesses have a good
chance at being successful and what risky areas should be watched.
They evaluate business plans put forward often with help from the
Thompson Country Community Futures Society and make
decisions.
They are loans, not grants, with modest interest rates attached to
them with often generous payback programs that are rather creative
in terms of paying back the money being borrowed. They are
provided to new firms, particularly the ones that do not qualify
easily in terms of usual categories for bank funding, particularly
people who are trying new market areas, new technologies or
creative new age businesses that do not have a lot of inventory to
15890
use as collateral in the traditional approach to lending of financial
institutions.
The Business Development Bank of Canada is playing a more
positive role now than it has in the past. Over the last number of
years to say that I have been disappointed with the role it has
played would be understating my concern. I looked at the old
FBDB operation and compared it to the Royal Bank of Canada, the
Bank of Montreal or whatever. It seemed that it was the most
conservative lending institution on the landscape and was certainly
of little help to small business when it came to lending. When it
came to case counselling and so on it was another matter. That has
changed somewhat and I appreciate the thrust of the new
legislation is a step in the right direction.
As my friend from Western Arctic indicated, banks and other
financial institutions are changing slightly. They are moving
slightly in the right direction. A lot of credit goes to members of
Parliament, other individuals and organizations that have mounted
pressure. They pointed out that banks were simply not fulfilling
their roles or were not being helpful to this growing and creative
sector.
There have been significant movements in terms of bank policies
with the creation of a small business trouble shooter all banks now
have in place. It is somebody to phone, to complain to or to ask
questions about why a loan was turned down. There is much greater
sensitivity in terms of funding women entrepreneurs, women
business persons and aboriginal borrowers.
It is not that I think banks are not particularly creative
themselves. They are responding to public pressure. They now
realize these are areas they have to move into. Perhaps a little less
altruistic, they are responding to the fact that as First Nations
peoples settle land claims vast amounts of money may be involved.
I suspect some banks are looking forward to getting involved in
that operation as a financial growth possibility and perhaps have
more of an interest in funding aboriginal enterprises. Nevertheless,
in reality there is positive movement in all those areas.
(1620)
I point out what I think is a particular problem area. Again I
acknowledge there have been some improvements in the last little
while. The government's procurement programs have assisted a
number of small enterprises in my own constituency. A variety of
programs assist small businesses to develop new technologies.
Hopefully we are looking forward to the information highway
strategy. It is not only necessary but will be helpful in the
development of small enterprises.
There is a need for more flexible financing, particularly in some
critical areas of growth in the country such as the tourism or
hospitality business. One situation that brings this to mind in my
own constituency is an operation called Mike Wiegle Heli-Skiing
Operations. It has been in operation for many years. It is a very
successful heli-skiing operation that caters almost exclusively to
overseas skiers from Europe who come for a week or two to ski
down the glaciers of the mountains in central British Columbia. It
is superb skiing. To set up a major resort in an isolated area far
from airports or population centres and to obtain financing
arrangements that allow some flexibility is extremely difficult. The
Western diversification fund was helpful in the start up period, but
if we are to assist businesses to expand into new areas and if we are
to be successful, we have to find ways to be more creative, and I
aim these comments particularly at financial institutions.
The legislation is pathetic. I will not say much about it. Enough
has been said. It will go to committee. It is a continuation of the
same. It is certainly helpful. The SBLA has been helpful to many
small business operators across the country including the
Kamloops region, but there is much more we could do.
Let me summarize by indicating a critical initiative we need to
take. When I say ``we'' I do not mean as a Parliament or as a
government; I mean as a country. We all acknowledge that for a
business to be successful or perhaps even for an individual to be
successful there has to be some kind of plan, strategy or blueprint.
There has to be a flexible business plan that acknowledges
changing times and so on.
We need something similar as a country. We could call it the
business plan for Canada. We could identify areas where obvious
growth potential exists and where we would be putting our special
efforts as federal, provincial, regional and local governments,
financial institutions, business organizations, investors and
entrepreneurs.
We can look around the world at countries that have been more
successful than ourselves when it comes to economic development
and job creation. It tends to be countries that have a business plan
in place which everyone acknowledges. Maybe they do not agree
with it but at least it is acknowledged. It sends a signal to banks of
the direction of the country for the next decade. It signals
entrepreneurs and investors of a direction, whether it is in
pharmaceuticals, agri-business, tourism or whatever.
Some kind of national Canadian business plan would be
appropriate. Then we would have to find out where we fit into it.
What role would the federal government play, if any? What role
would the provincial and regional governments play, if any? I
suspect there would be significant roles. With that plan we would
be much more successful.
Granted, this is most successful with smaller countries in which
it is a lot easier to come up with a consensus in terms of direction
and development. We are the second largest country in the world
geographically and it causes problems that we are experiencing
15891
virtually as we speak. It is something we must look at, and it would
be a business strategy for the country for the next decade or two.
I will take leave and look forward to committee work and to
debating the bill at third reading.
* * *
(1625)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before proceeding to
questions and comments following the hon. member for Kamloops,
I have a statement to make concerning private members' hour for
tomorrow, Friday, October 27, 1995.
I have received written notice from the hon. member for Fraser
Valley East that he will be unable to move his motion during
private members' hour tomorrow.
[Translation]
Since it was impossible to arrange for an exchange of positions
in the order of precedence, pursuant to Standing Order 94, I ask the
Clerk to drop this item to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Pursuant to Standing Order 94, the hour for private members'
business for tomorrow shall be suspended, and the House shall
continue with the business before it at that time.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-99,
an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the great things the member
for Kamloops brings to the House is his ability to remind the
Liberal Party from time to time when it tends to move a little too
far to the right. The Reform Party influence is pretty obvious in the
bill, but we have to focus on some of those matters.
The bill will go to committee. Contrary to what the member said,
the bill cannot be amended by regulation. We will make that
amendment in committee. Hopefully all members will continue in
the same spirit we have had in the committee to amend the bill.
The member alluded to an idea in the first part of his speech
about young entrepreneurs needing access to start up capital. It was
a very important insight into a very important issue all of us in the
House must address. Even Reform Party members would agree. I
notice they are agreeing.
I also noticed something in my own community. I ache when I
see some young talent that has just finished engineering school or
university and the old institutions or the larger corporations that
used to be there to provide their first jobs are no longer hiring
young people. Many of them are frustrated, and we have not
addressed the issue head on in terms of providing entrepreneurial
support systems that are required if they are to get going.
I am thinking aloud. When we go into committee I would be
interested in the member's views or thoughts on looking at the
whole list of criteria in the Small Business Loans Act. Should we
look at the notion of including a clause in the bill that deals with
young entrepreneurs? The bill could be a tool used by banks to
make them a little more sensitive. Obviously the bill will help bank
managers take the extra risk they probably would not take on their
own.
What would the member for Kamloops say about possibly
looking into that area as a way of altering the bill to look after
young entrepreneurs?
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that in the early days
SBLA was intended to be a mechanism to provide encouragement
for bankers to lend money to small businesses. In the same spirit,
there is a new concern out there which the hon. member has
described well. It may be an opportunity to encourage the banks to
take advantage of the SBLA to provide necessary funding to these
newly emerging group of entrepreneurs.
(1630)
A mechanism is about to be put in place to track the lending of
financial institutions and to see where the loans are going and to
what extent the banks are responding to the new needs in society. It
is a useful step.
It is time to look at new mechanisms and I will very briefly
mention one. Some states in the United States had a vehicle called
agri-bonds, that were somewhat like Canada Savings Bonds, to
provide agricultural funding. These were set aside for agricultural
use only. Farmers and ranchers were encouraged to invest in
agri-bonds knowing that the money would go back to assist hard
pressed farmers in their state. That is a bit of a generalization but it
summarizes the point.
Troublesome areas, such as tourism related businesses, where it
is difficult to find funding for new tourist related projects, should
be identified. Could we not consider the development of a ``toury''
bond as opposed to an agri-bond? Investors would put their money
into a toury bond, knowing that the money would go to help new
Canadian hospitality related businesses to expand or be created. It
would be a way to direct money to tourism, as opposed to the old
favourite of much of the money, the RRSP, a certain percentage of
which is being invested overseas or in other countries. I would like
to see a little more channelling of some of these funds into
troublesome areas such as tourist or hospitality related industries.
15892
It is another idea on which my friend from
Broadview-Greenwood could respond at some later time. The
Canadian toury bond could be a take-off on the U.S. agri-bond.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to tell the member for Kamloops that I found
his speech very interesting. I share his enthusiasm for small
business and realize the importance of it. I am concerned about one
particular item, community futures. I would like to have his
expertise on this.
Taxpayers' money is being used by community futures. Granted,
some of the businesses that apply do very well and have some
excellent results. However a high rate of those businesses do not
succeed and, at least in the ones I happened to scrutinize, there does
not appear to be any accountability for losses. This is the
taxpayers' money and I am sure taxpayers feel they should know
how it is being spent. The Privacy Act seems to get in the way when
we inquire about accountability.
I wonder what the member for Kamloops feels regarding losses
in the community futures program and does he feel there should be
some accountability?
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Of course there
needs to be more accountability built into the program. I would
identify that as one of the continuing areas of concern with the
community futures program.
In my estimation and my experience the value of the program
depends on the personnel who manage it and the expertise of the
individuals who decide who gets a loan and who does not.
In Kamloops we have had a very high success rate. But there will
be losses, just as there are losses with bank loans and other kinds of
loans. Even if there was a certain loan loss, it might be an
indication of some success. The role of community futures seems
to be to provide funding for those relatively high risk business
ventures that cannot, for whatever reason, obtain funding from
more traditional lending sources and therefore appeal for support
from community futures boards.
If I may use this opportunity to mention a shortcoming of the
existing system, it is that individuals who have submitted business
plans and have what appear to be good business ideas and are
encouraged to continue, but when they are rejected it often seems
to be just luck. They are just rejected. The client walks away after
spending many weeks or months preparing a thoughtful, careful
business plan only to have dreams and hopes shattered. We must
have a better system of appeal or a follow-up educational program
to indicate to those men and women where they may be a little in
error in their planning. This is another shortcoming.
(1635)
Of all federal government programs of which I am personally
aware and have some understanding of their use and value, this
community futures program is far the best.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before I
begin my comments I should note that I was listening closely to the
member for Kamloops. I know of his interest in the banking
industry, of his lengthy experience here in the House and I believe
on the finance committee.
In his remarks he used words such as deeply disappointed and
pathetic and other kinds of language. However, I recall being in
Toronto recently with the Standing Committee on Industry where
we heard from the banks. I believe the testimony was in July or
August. In the promotional material from either the Royal Bank or
the CIBC, in which the hon. member had spent six weeks, it was
using comments of his praising the banks. I was disappointed to see
that.
It gives me pleasure to speak to this bill. The provisions of the
bill are the result of consultations with leading Canadian business
people such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
Equally if not more important to the undertaking was the report of
the Standing Committee on Industry ``Taking Care of Small
Business''. I had the privilege to sit on that committee as a
government member from western Canada.
The legislative measures introduced in Bill C-99 are ultimately
about access to capital for small business. Following the recession
which began around 1990 small businesses in Canada had
undergone unprecedented restructuring for a new and emerging
global economy. These challenges have been more difficult
because of the impediments and constraints to access to much
needed capital.
Bill C-99 through amendments to the Small Business Loans Act
will provide a more predictable relationship between the banks, the
Government of Canada and the business community. I will not
reiterate here the specific provisions of the SBLA but will merely
state its intent and purpose is to enhance that financial environment
and relationship between borrowers or small business and the
Canadian financial institutions.
Stated very simply, the Government of Canada agrees to stand
with small business and where the banks have refused to take the
risk on new or expanding businesses, the government will partner
and stand with small business to ensure small business loans are
available to those who need it the most.
It is instructive to state that legislative changes are, in addition to
reacting to the recommendations of the business community, in
keeping with the government's belief that small business wants this
government, and indeed all governments in Canada, to reduce their
15893
expenditures including those which include direct and indirect
subsidies to small businesses.
In recent years the SBLA program has cost taxpayers almost $20
million to $30 million a year. However, the loan loss coverage for
the year 1994-95 is estimated to run at close to $100 million,
threatening the sustainability of the program itself.
Of equal importance is the fact that 40 per cent of the loans
covered by this insurance program would have been made
regardless. We are told by outside experts analysing the loan
applications made through the banks that 40 per cent of those loans
would have been made anyway. They did not need this expensive
coverage that government was providing.
(1640)
Without the high cost of the subsidy these firms would now be
seeking financing at a much lower cost than under the provisions of
this bill. Furthermore, this will allow those firms that really need
financing to have those 40 per cent move out into the traditional
lending areas and those new small businesses will occupy the space
at the bottom or the top of the lending priorities and we hope
creating new jobs.
During the presentations made to the committee on industry the
witnesses told members that they would be willing to pay higher
premiums, for instance, in the knowledge based industries if they
could get the capital needed. Repeatedly the 60 interveners and
witnesses that we saw and an equal number the presentations that
were submitted to the committee were saying to us that they did not
mind paying 1 or 2 per cent more on a loan because if they have a
knowledge based industry they are prepared to pay that kind of
money to the financial institutions if they are willing to take a risk
on them. The point spread was not the real issue.
It is quite interesting to note that the small business community
continually talks about the importance of the cost of borrowing
money. They were so convinced of their product, so convinced of
their market access, so convinced of their success in those small
businesses, that they did not mind paying another point or two.
They needed an opportunity and somebody to stand with them to
take a risk on those businesses.
I would like to talk for a moment about western Canada and in
particular of my riding of Provencher in Manitoba. Farming and
small business is really the backbone of that constituency.
Increasingly I am told by finance officials in the department of
finance in Manitoba that small business in the agricultural sector is
going to increasingly in the 21st century provide the cash receipts
for the finance department as well.
This reflects the fact that in western Canada the number of
people employed in small businesses is almost 40 per cent. What is
really striking, and a lot of folks perhaps do not realize it, is that in
Ontario it is only 32 per cent. These statistics are quite revealing
and demonstrate clearly to me, as a member from Manitoba, the
importance of small business in western Canada and in the next
five or ten years how important this sector will become in our area.
During the first quarter of 1994 in Manitoba, for example,
companies with up to 50 employees accounted for almost 20,000
jobs, far in excess of those larger companies with 300 employees or
more. In 1994 companies with less than five staff also accounted
for many of the growing small businesses in Manitoba. I am told
4,737 new business name registrations were filed in Manitoba in
1995.
A profile of these is very important. I speak to this issue as a
member from rural Canada, from rural Manitoba. A profile of the
start-up businesses in western Canada demonstrates that a typical
new firm, 87 per cent, have less than five employees and for the
most part, 57 per cent, are located in rural areas and run out of the
homes of the operators. In other words, most of the small business
growth is probably a young or middle aged couple who have started
a small business out of their home, are looking for a loan, probably
less than $25,000 to start. This is what we are told in the data we
have received from the banks. These small businesses are creating
the jobs in rural Manitoba and indeed in my riding of Provencher.
There have been great gains made in terms of the start-up of
companies. In 1990 there were almost 600 registered bankruptcies
in Manitoba. In 1995 there have been 96. That demonstrates quite
clearly what is happening. The economy and the dynamics of
capitalism are restructuring. Larger companies are laying off
people but young entrepreneurs are stepping up to the plate, trying
to get access to capital in order to start a small business.
(1645)
Here we see a profile of the 21st century entrepreneur who is
younger, working out of the home and more likely to be involved in
agriculture related small business.
What is the federal government doing? In addition to the
changes to the SBLA and the Small Business Development Bank of
Canada, what other kinds of measures is the government
employing, particularly in western Canada, to help these people?
Through the auspices of the Department of Western Economic
Diversification the government will provide a fund of $30 million
for debt capital. These resources will be directed toward
biotechnology and agri-biotechnology with loans ranging from
$50,000 to $500,000. There is also an innovative ten-year program
creating a $100 million capital pool to assist Canadian agricultural
value added processing firms through patient debt capital. The
government will partner these agreements.
15894
The banks have complained both publicly and to the standing
committee that in responding to the needs of the business
community the government was bank bashing. I want to make it
clear this was never the intention of the committee. It was merely
to prod the banks, as the hon. member for Kamloops suggested,
to open up their gates for small business to have access to capital.
Congratulations to the banks for doing that. The Royal Bank of
Canada and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce have joined
with the western economic development fund to provide this
patient debt capital and they should be applauded for that.
However, there is a lot of work to do and a long way to go.
What the government is prepared to do through these public and
private instruments is reach to the small business community, to
stand with it and encourage it to take the necessary risks.
There have been a number of recent initiatives in my riding
which are important and give testimony to the growth in the
agricultural and small business sectors. There is a great change
going on not only in the small business sector. As we have heard
many times, the government is cutting back on its expenditures.
That is what the Canadian people have asked it to do. The
government has made changes to the Western Grain Transportation
Act and those subsidies to business pursuant to its obligations
under the WTO.
What has been the outcome of these programs in western
diversification? Recently I had the privilege with the Minister of
Western Economic Diversification to join with 25 farmers from the
Altona region of southern Manitoba, where we produce some of the
best durum wheat in the world, to provide them with a $1 million
loan for a pasta plant.
These are the initiatives young farmers are asking the
government to undertake with them. They intend to build a $5
million plant. They will put in $1.5 million of their own money and
hopefully there will be a financial institution, perhaps in southern
Manitoba, which will step up to the plate and say it believes in the
process as well. It will create jobs in the community of Altona and
St. Jean.
It is vital to not only ship our raw resources out of the country
but to keep them within our borders, to create the value added, to
create the jobs, to keep the wealth and the technology in Canada.
This is increasingly important.
(1650)
Recently there was an announcement by McCain of a $55
million expansion of its potato processing plant. I had the privilege
of joining with some private sector investors and my colleagues in
the province of Manitoba, the provincial government, to make an
announcement for a $55 million canola crushing plant.
Farmers, rather than paying $800 to ship their canola to the west
coast or through Thunder Bay, can now drive their trucks 50 or 100
miles down a two lane highway to deliver that product to that plant.
The jobs and the wealth from the value added of that product will
stay with those farmers.
The pasta plant provides such a dramatic example of that.
Farmers last year were getting about $160 a tonne for durum wheat
used for pasta. Astoundingly, Canadians had imported 77,000
tonnes of pasta, packaged, at a price of almost $1,600 a ton. It is a
great idea that the Government of Canada would stand with those
25 farmers and say: ``Instead of shipping your product to the U.S.
where it is being processed and shipped back to Canada, we will
provide you a loan, not a grant, not a giveaway, a loan''. Through
that loan and working with those people that $1,600 will stay in our
communities. That is a good thing, a positive thing.
We are expecting within a few months, after the announcement
of the changes to the Crow, close to $500 million of investment in
Manitoba alone. The banks have a role to play in this. The
government cannot repeatedly be the instrument and the primary
catalyst for these kinds of undertakings. The banks have a fiduciary
responsibility, having the privilege of banking in this country, to
act and react and join in partnership with small business. This is the
one of the key areas they have forgotten.
I conclude my comments on a recent initiative in my riding of
Provencher, again through the auspices of the minister responsible
for western economic development, with the francophone
communities in Manitoba. The francophone communities have
developed a francophone chamber of commerce with ten different
communities, six of which are in my riding.
We have said we are willing to stand with those communities and
work with them to utilize their capacities of their French language,
their entrepreneurial skills, their low labour costs, their style of
living which is outside of Winnipeg in wonderful communities. If
they choose they can send their children to an English school or to a
French school. There are both there. We have stood with these
mayors and reeves and people in the French communities to
provide funding of up to $1.5 million over five years to work with
them.
We hope and believe that people from across the country and
indeed the world will invest in those French communities and
capitalize on their capabilities in precisely the same way thatMr. McKenna in New Brunswick has been doing over the last two
years.
This is a clear example of a French community in western
Canada, in rural Manitoba, whose origins are from the St. Maurice
valley in Quebec, Lagimodière and the first settlers who came from
the St. Maurice valley and settled in the west, whose descendants
are Louis Riel, the first member of Parliament for Provencher, the
seat I now occupy.
I am here to report to the House that these French people I
service and have the privilege of servicing in the riding of
Provencher in rural western Canada are doing very well indeed.
They have their French language. They have their French culture.
They have their French communities.
15895
(1655)
They are not asking to remove themselves from Canada. They
are not asking to tear themselves apart from the people of
Manitoba. They are telling me to tell the House they are doing very
well and that they are joining with the Government of Canada in
these kinds of initiatives.
They are not abandoned. We are with them. The Government of
Canada is with them and I believe all Canadians are with them.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
enjoying the speeches of the hon. member and the hon. member for
Kamloops.
One certainly has to agree and be thankful and glad for
individuals being successful in the member's riding on these new
enterprises. The help they got is great.
The difficulty was mentioned by the speaker from Kamloops
when he talked about a survey he did in his riding. He talked about
what we can do to help enlighten the ideas of new enterprises and
help them begin and grow; not just for new entrepreneurs but for
older ones who may change careers from time to time.
All of that is very important. It is especially important when one
hears his response when they say get out of the way, get out of the
way.
In the early part of the 1990s in my area of Wild Rose, which is
likewise rural and small towns, many small businesses through the
first two or three years following the GST went into receivership.
In many of the cases they declared the GST was the straw that
broke the camel's back.
They were struggling. They were having a tough time. Along
came the GST and that really brought the final crunch. That was not
the case in all of these. I am sure every member would be able to
find some enterprise that flopped specifically because of the GST.
People say to the governments get out of their way, stay off their
backs, stay out of their pockets and they will make it. Give them
that initial boost they need. I certainly support that idea.
I carry with me in my briefcase the red ink book, the book of
broken promises. It says the Liberal government will replace the
GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues-I worry
where that equivalency will come from-is fair to consumers and
to small business and minimizes disruption to small business, all
very key statements and very important.
I also read of the mandate of 12 months for this to happen. We
are now in the 25th month and nothing has happened with the GST.
It would not be fair of me to ask the hon. member why the deputy
minister has not resigned with the promise of doing so within this
12-month period.
I wonder if the member could enlighten the House in any way as
to what small business has to look forward to beyond being able to
get started. That is the first step. Will we achieve things to help
them continue and get out of the way and not be disruptive?
Will we see the GST replaced? How long will it take? Obviously
it will take longer than this book says.
Mr. Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
He raises some valid points and concerns. It is no small secret that
the Canadian business community is very concerned about the
goods and services tax. It was concerned about it when it was
announced and of course it still is. However, that never did the
government or the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister
say that we did not need the revenue. In its previous form as the
manufacturers' sales tax in 1984 of 9 per cent and then moving up,
I believe, in 1992-93 to about 13 per cent or 14 per cent, prior to
being changed to the GST, the Government of Canada has been
dependent on those revenues and will continue to need them.
(1700)
The difficulty is the structure and the nature of the tax. The
member is quite correct when he states that the imposition of the
GST had an inflationary effect and stalled purchases. For example,
someone may want to build a home in the riding of Wild Rose or
Provencher. That person would order a $100,000 of materials and
then there would be labour involved. When taking that lumber out
of the yard that person would be stopped at the gate and charged
another $7,000. That, of course, is going to kill investment and
purchases. I think people have been painfully aware of that.
The government has made it quite clear, particularly leading up
to the next budget that we will be addressing the matter. The
parliamentary secretary has spoken about the GST only in the last
couple of days and mentioned that we are equally concerned about
it on this side of the House.
I ask the hon. member from Alberta to speak to his provincial
counterparts and ask them to join with the other provinces and with
the Government of Canada to work out some reasonable solutions
to deal with a harmonized tax which will be in the best interests of
all Canadians and, therefore, the Canadian economy.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time to
recognize the member for Provencher for all the work he has done
in our industry committee during the last two years.
15896
When we started the debate on how we could improve access to
capital a lot of people thought we would have one or two meetings,
bring the banks in and they would probably give us a good public
relations speech which would take our eyes off the ball and we
would then lose focus on the issue.
I want to say to the member that his courage, commitment and
support in keeping a rigid focus on making sure that the whole bank
attitude toward small business really changed. It was not just a PR
show and then put it on the back burner. It is something we have
stuck with over the last two years. The member for Provencher has
made a fabulous contribution to the industry committee. I know all
members from the Reform Party and from the Bloc Quebecois
would certainly support the view I express here today.
My question for the member has to do with the great story about
the past operation in his riding, the value added. That was an
exciting story for me to hear. I felt like I wanted to rush out to
Manitoba. It sounds like there is more action there than in a lot of
the regions in the country. I salute the member for that.
I want him to tell me why those entrepreneurs got so excited and
moved from exporters of raw products into taking the risks of
turning themselves into manufacturers, taking a raw product and
going to the finished packaged good? How was that done?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would simply ask the
member for Provencher in his response to please keep it within the
next two minutes if possible.
Mr. Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Basically, the
praise for this particular initiative rests not with the member for
Provencher but with the Prairie Harvest farm group from Altona
which came up with the idea.
(1705 )
I can only tell the member that the role of the Government of
Canada throughout this whole process has been one of facilitator.
These kinds of innovative ideas with respect to secondary
processing of our natural resources, which the World Bank has just
said that Canada is number two in the world, have been there for
quite some time.
I want to point out our trade difficulties with the U.S. and the cap
on durum wheat which was unfairly placed on us by the Americans.
The Government of Canada responded to that unfair trade action by
going through the office of the Prime Minister to the minister of
agriculture and indeed the minister of western economic
development to say: ``Okay, if we cannot ship our durum over the
border, let us be really smart and keep it in our own back yard. We
will process it and sell it to Canadians and Americans''.
The short answer of course to the parliamentary secretary is that
the Prairie Harvest group out of Altona came up with an idea,
approached the Government of Canada for some help and we were
glad to act as a lever on this important project.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to thank the hon.
member for Provencher for his co-operation.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this bill but there are some
things that have concerned me for some time about small business
and this is an opportunity to say a few things.
Bill C-99 gives access to capital for small businesses in Canada.
My concern is basically if it is really looking at small business, the
value of small business to our country and just what small business
needs. That is where my concern stems from, where the banks have
refused to take a risk. I contend that the banks should have taken a
risk in the past. We do have the Federal Business Development
Bank which was in the past supposed to be the bank of last resort.
Often this has not been the case and somebody else has had to come
up with the funds.
If we are talking about other programs for small business, like
community futures, it really does depend, as the member for
Kamloops said, on the expertise of those that run those programs. I
have had some experience with it and I have found that perhaps that
is one of the reasons why some of the losses are a little greater than
they should be.
Of course there is risk involved. There is a risk involved for
anybody going into a small business and we expect some losses.
However, we do not expect the amount of loss to be higher than
normal businesses would have going through the banks.
There have been some successful businesses through the
community futures. Some good ones are still running right now in
my community. However, the difficulty with the community
futures program is that some of the businesses that are successful
could have been funded by the Federal Business Development
Bank which is the bank of last resort. It should have been funded
there, not with the taxpayers' dollars in another program.
What I am trying to say is that community futures has to be
accountable. There is no bottom line. We have a Privacy Act and
we cannot access that information. That is not acceptable to the
Canadian taxpayers. I found the rate of losses higher and, being
unaccountable, therefore unacceptable to me as an MP responsible
for taxpayers' dollars.
I felt that the people going into the community futures program
were protected so that perhaps the incentive to succeed may not be
as great if one knows one does not have to worry if one has a loss.
15897
In small business there is always a challenge and a risk. Those
people who go into a small business are usually entrepreneurs who
have some wonderful talents and expertise. We usually see good
results. Unfortunately, often in community futures we do not see
this because the accountability is not there. Wherever we do not
have accountability we have a future problem of breakdown.
The purpose of the Federal Business Development Bank is that it
is a bank of last resort. It is supposed to be the money lender of last
resort.
The member for Kamloops said it very well. He said that small
businesses just want the government to get out of their way. Being
in small business myself I can say that this is exactly true. We need
a healthy marketplace if we are in business. We need to have fewer
burdens on us.
(1710)
The tax structure is far too heavy today to encourage anyone to
go into small business. The first couple of years are difficult. In the
past if businesses had troubles the Federal Business Development
Bank was not always there to back them up but often put them into
receivership at a time when all they needed was some support to get
through. I would suggest the Federal Business Development Bank
has not always done its job in the past.
Small businesses want less government interference. They need
some incentive. We are talking about younger people coming into
the marketplace. I have often mentioned this in my community and
I have talked to small businesses in my community about this.
There is a program in Europe where small businesses apprentice a
younger person coming out of a college, a technical school or
whatever. If our small businesses apprenticed a young person for a
year, they would be providing a training program built into the
most natural area possible. It would be built into the marketplace,
the economy, into a natural spot in the economy, in a working spot
in the economy.
I honestly feel when speaking to small businesses this is an
avenue we could travel. Considering small business supplies about
80 per cent of jobs, I feel this is an ideal opportunity for our young
people that are unemployed with nowhere to go to get the training
they need if they do not have it.
Why is the small business person going to do this? There would
obviously have to be some incentive. Perhaps a tax break in some
area would help as small business is overtaxed already. They have
the fewest tax breaks. Big business seems to qualify for them where
small business does not. I would really like to see the government
take a look at some serious ideas for helping small business in this
area.
The banks have not always lived up to their responsibilities.
They are there to encourage small business and they are there to do
it in a realistic way.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have enjoyed today's debate because it clearly illustrates the
different philosophies of the different parties. We on this side
believe the role of government is to act as facilitator, to aid small
businesses, to give them the types of tools required not only in the
financial sector but also in the development of human resources.
The hon. member who has just spoken cited some of the areas in
which she would like to see an improvement. She was referring to
the concept of developing an apprenticeship system which might
give some tax breaks to small business and providing the sorts of
incentives that would result in the development of the type of
workforce that may be more in tune with the economic reality of
today's marketplace.
I would like to tell the hon. member that the federal government
has initiated a number of programs in co-operation with the private
sector which speak to the issues raised by the hon. member.
I had the pleasure on August 28 to be in the province of Quebec
with the president of Chrysler Canada, the CARS Council and a
local school board to engage in the type of partnership that will
lead to approximately 1,000 jobs for young people. This is done
through the youth internship program in co-operation with the
National Sectoral Council.
I would like to speak about these initiatives because they address
the human resources planning that a modern, developed nation
should be addressing. In fact, surprisingly, the minister of
education from the Parti Quebecois was present and co-operated
with the federal government in kicking off this initiative.
(1715)
What does this really mean? It means that we on this side of the
House have realized we cannot have a program for every challenge
we face. The answers are really found at the community level, at
the industry level. Our role as a government is to bring about the
meetings of the minds around the table, so that we can institute
programs which deal with the challenges of the ever changing
nature of the workforce.
At that announcement, Chrysler committed itself to provide an
internship program for 200 young people. The sectoral council
initiative committed itself to a cumulative number of 1,000. That
means these young people will go through an internship program
and will have a job waiting for them at the end of their one year or
nine months worth of training.
This federal government initiative has been extremely
successful. Under our red book commitment we originally stated
that 24,000 young people would participate in this program. To
date, 27,000 young people are participating. They are participating
in programs I am certain will bring about positive changes in their
lives.
15898
Equally important is that for the very first time all sectors of our
society, the educational institutions, industry, labour and
management, together are addressing standards for the industry.
They are addressing issues and concerns that have blocked the
progress of a particular industry.
Whom are we linking these industries with? We are linking them
with Canadians who are willing to learn a profession or trade so
that they will have the type of skills required in the ever changing
Canadian economy.
Why are we excited about these prospects? We are excited
because we see our role as a facilitator to be a very important one in
setting the parameters of economic development within our
country. That is one initiative which has worked very well. We
have linked our initiative not just to any industry, but we have
linked our initiative to industries that provide jobs with a future.
For example in the automotive industry, gone are the days when
there were mechanics. Those are jobs of the past. My father was in
the trucking industry for a number of years. He would have the
local mechanic look at his truck and the mechanic would put his ear
near the engine to hear the noises. That is gone. Computer chips are
now a very important part of the engine. The job of a mechanic is
obsolete. What do we do? We have to retrain people to become auto
technicians, to give them the tools to understand how the new
engines work.
I give that example because I think it is a fundamental one. It
clearly illustrates how quickly our country and our economy is
changing. In the same way we cannot fix a 1995 car with a 1965 car
repair manual, we certainly cannot fix the challenges we face in
1995, whether it is labour market strategy or small business
initiatives, with 1965 programs.
(1720)
This is very important to this government. It is for this reason
that we have taken up the challenge to modernize Canada's social
security system. This is the reason we are reviewing all our training
programs. This is the reason we are promoting innovative
programs and effective and strategic partnerships that speak to a
modern economy.
How does this translate to the local reality where I live in my
riding? What does this all mean to the residents of Aurora,
Woodbridge, Maple, Richmond Hill, Oak Ridges, King and
Nobleton? What does it mean to the over 260,000 people I
represent in the House of Commons? How do I as a member bring
about this vision of how we modernize and become more
innovative in real terms? How do I make the translation from this
beautiful Chamber of the House of Commons on to where the
people live, play and work?
Yesterday was our anniversary as elected officials here. I have
spent the past couple of years building the partnerships required to
have real change occur at the community level. Last year I began
planning and setting priorities for my area. I developed the York
North technology strategy. Today I take this opportunity to outline
some of its major principles.
Along with the residents of York North, I have realized quite
clearly that in order to succeed in the new economy we cannot fear
technology. We cannot fear technology infusion in the workplace.
We cannot fear that in certain cases technology may reduce
employment opportunities in old economy industries.
Instead of fear, the response I received from the residents of
York North was one of excitement. Change in a society brings
about two emotional responses: one either gets anxious about
change or one gets excited. The people of York North decided that
there was no great happiness in being anxious about change and
technology and that we should not only absorb the technological
revolution which is occurring globally but we should also find
ways in which we could lead the way in our area.
I called a meeting of local stakeholders in my community,
mayors, business representatives, members of labour unions. I
called local school boards and people from the Career Foundation,
the foundation which brings all these people together. I said that
perhaps we should begin to experiment to find new ways of dealing
with the technological changes that were occurring.
On September 11, 1995 we announced a major local economic
development strategy, the York region strategic alliance. For now,
it is a pilot project. What does it do? It gives the businesses in my
area an opportunity to place their business in a database which can
be accessed worldwide. We are not happy with just being able to
access it within Canada. We understand the potential for export. We
also are fully committed to building worldwide strategic alliances
in order for business in my community to prosper. This is what
some of the partners have said about the initiative.
(1725)
Steve Quinlan, president of Seneca College, said that Seneca
College, York region, the federal government and other partners
have co-funded and developed a strategic alliance partnership to
strengthen opportunities for jobs and growth. This initial research
is a valuable resource, using information systems technology to
rapidly assess regional needs in response to a changing global
economy. This initiative is a pilot model to show how business,
government and education can in fact work together.
Eldred King, chair of the Regional Municipality of York, stated
that the strategic alliance initiative is an important component of
the region's visions and plans for the 21st century. The region must
provide leadership if change is to occur. He said that their plans
strike a balance between economic growth, healthy communities
and sustainable development.
15899
Mayor Lorna Jackson from the city of Vaughan said that she was
very excited that Vaughan was chosen as the test site. Not only is it
one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, it is a bastion for
industry. She stated: ``I have no doubt that we will serve our
country proud''.
The reason I bring these names to the floor of the House of
Commons is to clearly illustrate to Canadians that partnerships at
the local level can work. Government, business and labour can
come together to create the type of environment in which jobs
flourish. This partnership is not just found in the riding of York
North, it is found in every single community in Canada.
I say to hon. members that they should return to their ridings and
engage local stakeholders to take charge of the future of the
community. They should excite people about the new economy.
There are great opportunities.
If there is one thing about the information highway, if there is
one thing about the new economy, it is that they have redefined
time and space. They have made geography less important. Now
we are linked by satellite. The information highway will link us to
the world. This is something we should be getting excited about.
We need to give people the tools. That is why I am happy with
the commitment of the federal government to establish the
Canadian Business Development Bank, which is providing people
with the important capital to start their businesses.
That is why I am happy that on October 2 of this year I was able
to establish the Vaughan Technology Enterprise Centre where 60
young people will be taught entrepreneurial studies. They will be
linked with small business people in the community in a
mentorship program. They will acquire the skills which are so
important in creating jobs.
That is why I am so happy that the federal government has a
program called self-employment assistance which has enabled
34,000 unemployed Canadians to create their own businesses.
Better still, not only have they created businesses, they have
created over 68,000 jobs.
That is the type of transition we want. We want people to get off
the unemployment rolls of the country and onto the payrolls of this
nation. It is happening in every single community.
I have a very clear message that we on this side of the House
understand the important role small business plays. We want to
clearly reach out in as many ways as possible to bring about
positive change, jobs and healthy communities throughout this
land.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would like to inform the
House, particularly the parliamentary secretary, that when we
resume debate on Bill C-99 he will have approximately five
minutes remaining, should he so choose, when the bill comes back
to the House for debate.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
15899
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-315, an act to complement the present laws of Canada that
protect the privacy of individual with respect to personal
information about themselves obtained by certain corporations, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak to the House today on the issue of personal
privacy and specifically on Bill C-315.
Canadians are living in a world that seems to get smaller with
each passing day. The distances that separate us from our families
and friends are becoming easier to traverse. It has become easier to
communicate with our families and with others around the globe.
Sometimes, though, it feels like these same distances are becoming
a little too short and the rest of the world is getting a little too close.
What has led to this dramatic change in our society? The answer
is simple: the industrial and technological revolution that has so
dramatically changed the face of Canada over the past 100 years.
The telephone has brought friends and family from hundreds of
miles away to within earshot of our voice. The car and the
aeroplane have reduced long distance trips from months to a matter
of hours. The computer has put volumes of information at our
fingertips. The Internet has provided a gateway for the free flow of
information to a knowledge hungry world.
Each of these changes has brought convenience to our daily
lives. With each change came a loss of some small piece of our
personal privacy. Historically our laws and traditions have
responded to some aspects of the loss of our personal privacy.
Trespassing laws and exclusion orders, for example, keep those we
do not want to associate with at a distance.
Recent telephone innovations like call display and call blocking
help us see who is trying to contact us and help us prevent
unwanted calls.
Where we as a country fall short, though, is in our response to
the growth of computer technology. This technology has the ability
to retrieve, store and send vast amounts of information. The
information age has brought a booming industry, creating a $300
15900
million per year industry in the buying and selling of personal
information.
Ontario's assistant commissioner for privacy recently exclaimed
that privacy as we know it may not exist in the year 2000. The
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Mr. Bruce Phillips, agreed when
he stated earlier this year that Ottawa should consider protecting
the right to lead a private life and that in the next year or two is
really going to tell the tale. Mr. Phillips clearly believes it is time
for action in protecting personal information.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada is not the only one who
believes the time is now to protect privacy. The information
highway advisory council, created by the Ministry of Industry,
reported last month: ``Manipulation of data may occur without the
consent of the individual from whom it was collected. Moreover,
the information is often used for purposes unrelated to those
purposes for which it was originally collected. Because of the
enormous potential for abuse there is a need for effective privacy
protection. Only Quebec has enacted specific legislation governing
its private sector. The council believes strongly that there should be
national legislation to establish fair information practices on the
information highway''.
(1735)
A recent Gallup poll conducted for Anderson Consulting, a
private financial consulting firm based in Toronto, found similar
concerns about privacy and the information highway:
``Notwithstanding strong interest in the information highway,
Canadians have a high level of concern as to how it may affect their
privacy. Asked to indicate their level of concern for their privacy
because information about them might be collected by companies
involved in the information highway, 83.7 per cent described
themselves as very concerned or somewhat concerned''.
Bill C-315 responds to these calls for privacy protection. I
should put forward a definition of the term personal information.
The definition of personal information used in crafting Bill C-315
refers to data on an individual that are recorded. This could include
name and phone number, business address and phone number, any
identifiable physical characteristic, religion, national or ethnic
origin, age or any information about education or financial history.
This information is recorded in many ways, including
electronically such as on a floppy or hard disk, manually on paper
or microfilm, or virtually as in computer memory or an electronic
network.
Historically there are several sources that reaffirm the right to
personal privacy. There is the right to privacy as guaranteed in both
Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications, and in the 1989
case of the Queen v. Dyment, when it was established that the right
to privacy does exist in Canada, that it existed before the charter of
rights and freedoms and that the charter has not diminished that
right. The CRTC has been vigilant in protecting this right
especially with regard to junk faxes and messages.
There is the right to anonymity as determined by Telecom
decision CRTC 92-7. In other words, all Canadians have the right
to be left alone and the right to remain anonymous as they go about
their daily activities.
In addition, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development, of which Canada is a member, has established a set
of basic principles to help define and support the protection of
personal privacy. These principles share a common theme that the
collection of personal information should be open, accountable and
limited to the purposes intended.
Canadians are often surprised when they learn how information
is being collected and where it ends up. Personal information on
Canadians is being collected in a wide variety of ways. Credit card
applications, contest forms, polls and surveys, warranty cards,
magazine subscriptions and other means are all used in one form or
another to collect personal information.
By combining these individual client lists a detailed profile of an
individual can be made without the knowledge of that individual.
Firms in Canada and around the world are able to have multiple
lists, cross referenced, and create a remarkably accurate portrait of
an individual.
Allow me to quote from a recent consumer report study: ``By
overlapping the data available through thousands of information
systems it is now possible to create a remarkable picture of anyone.
That picture could include your age, income, political party,
marital status, the number of children you have, the magazines you
read, your employment history and your military and school
records. A database might also know what kind of breakfast cereal
you eat, the make of the car you drive and even the brand of diapers
your children wear''.
A recent article in ``Telecommunications Policy'' entitled ``Will
My House Still be My Castle?'' added to this concern: ``In the
future things will be very different. It will essentially be one stop
shopping for the data gatherer in the digital super highway.
Information gathering, analysis, correlation and dissemination can
all be automated, depersonalized and made inexpensive. The time
to establish coherent public policies and safeguards is before such
systems are in place and adverse precedents and vested interests
become established''.
(1740)
Currently Canadians enjoy very little personal privacy
protection. The current Privacy Act, Bill P-21, is limited to
information
15901
held by the federal government and certain federal institutions.
Similar laws exist in eight of our twelve provinces and territories.
In the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory, Prince Edward
Island and Alberta action has not yet been taken to protect personal
information held by these provincial and territorial governments.
When it comes to controlling information held by the private
sector the picture is far less promising. Only Quebec has taken the
bold step of limiting the sale and access of this personal
information.
Through bill 68, the province of Quebec has given its citizens the
power to say no to the sale or exchange of their personal
information. No other provincial government has acted as
decisively as Quebec in this important area. I applaud Quebec for
its initiative here.
Even Quebec's law, though, is far from complete. Many areas of
business such as banking, cable television and numerous
transportation companies are beyond the reach of Quebec's bill 68.
This leaves Quebecers as vulnerable to privacy breaches in the
federal jurisdiction as their counterparts in the rest of Canada.
Private industry, in a bid to avoid further federal and provincial
control, has tried to address these privacy concerns. The Canadian
Direct Marketing Association has created a bureau to deal with
client list complaints and circulates the names of individuals who
do not want their names on any member lists. However, individuals
must repeat the request several times a year to ensure their names
stay off the computer lists. As well, not all direct marketers are
members of the CDMA, making privacy protection a hit or miss
exercise.
Recently the Information Highway Advisory Council called on
the Canadian government to regulate the flow of personal
information. The Canadian Banker's Association has also created a
set of voluntary privacy guidelines. According to a director with
the office of the privacy commissioner, though, these guidelines
are wide enough to drive a logging truck through. The bank
guidelines are so ineffective that the Royal Bank of Canada
admitted in 1993 that it sometimes included client card numbers,
names, ages and addresses to market research firms without the
client's knowledge.
We have to face the facts. Self-policing is not working. I have
seen case after case in which guidelines and bureaus have turned
their heads when the corporations break the rules or, at the very
best, have given them a very light slap on the wrist. Industry has
clearly failed Canadians in this area and it is time for Parliament to
take action.
With this in mind let us turn our attention to Bill C-315. The bill
stems from the concerns of a constituent of mine, expressed to me
when he learned he had ended up on some questionable mailing list
through which he had received advertisements for explicit
pornographic material. After doing some extensive research I
learned the federal government has yet to seriously address the
issue of personal privacy.
Bill C-315 is the first step in addressing this serious oversight.
The bill was designed to work in harmony with provincial privacy
laws such as Quebec's bill 68 and to respect provincial jurisdictions
as outlined in the Constitution. At the same time, it sends a tough
message to companies around the country that the misuse of
personal information is a concern and that the privacy of people has
to be respected.
Bill C-315 would require all companies covered by the Canada
Labour Code to abide by some very strict privacy protection
guidelines.
(1745)
Before selling any list containing an individual's personal
information, the person shall be sent a notice stating, first, that
personal information about the individual as listed in the notice is
held by the company; second, that permission is needed to keep the
person's name on the list; and, third, that the person shall be told
his or her name can be removed at any time at no cost to the
individual.
At the same time any corporation using purchased lists shall
send each individual on the list a notice containing, first, the source
of this information; second, a description of the information held;
and, third, a statement outlining how the individual can have that
personal information removed from the list at any time and at no
cost to themselves.
Companies receiving a removal request must comply within 10
days and confirm with the individual that his or her request has
been acted on. Breaking this law would be classified as a summary
conviction. For a first offence a company or individual breaking
this law would face a fine of up to $5,000. A repeat offence could
double the maximum to $10,000. Charges would have to be laid
within one year of the offence.
I will be the first to admit that these are tough measures. In my
view they only reflect the importance people place on their own
privacy. Polls have shown time and time again that Canadians feel
their privacy is at risk and action must be taken to reverse this
trend.
Interesting enough, the criticism I have received concerning the
fine limits is that the proposed fines are not high enough, that for
large institutions affected by the bill the suggested fines would
merely be a nuisance or a slap on the wrist.
The Canadian public wants to have more control over personal
information. A national privacy survey published in 1993
discovered that 71 per cent totally agreed that privacy rules should
apply to both government and business. Sixty-six per cent believe
that the
15902
government should be working with business to come up with
some guidelines on privacy protection in the private sector.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada estimates that the average
Canadian has his or her name crunched through various computers
across the continent perhaps five to ten times daily. He further
estimates that in the private sector alone $300 million a year
annually changes hands in the buying and selling of client lists.
This industry is growing at an incredible rate as technological
information becomes more widespread. The privacy commissioner
thinks that now is the time to take action in the protection of
personal information and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The
rights to anonymity and privacy are constantly being threatened in
the pursuit of information. It is time to restore a balance and return
to Canadians their right to have some control over their personal
information, privacy and anonymity.
Let us respect this right by supporting Bill C-315 when it is
brought to a vote.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity
to speak on Bill C-315, a private member's bill put forward by the
member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.
I came into the House not as supporter of the bill initially when I
read it. However after listening to the member's speech I became
more and more convinced that he had the basis of a solid piece of
legislation.
I cannot stand here today and make a final decision on what the
government will decide in terms of voting on the legislation, but as
a government we will have to look at the bill to see if there is some
way to get it into committee.
Basically I support the aim of the bill. I want to make it perfectly
clear that the way to achieving that aim should be modified. Some
views have been put forward indicating that the bill is unduly
burdensome on the industry and that it has a narrow focus when
broad based measures are needed to ensure a level playing field for
industry while protecting the privacy of Canadians.
(1750)
Let us deal with the issue of it being unduly burdensome. The
bill, and I am not saying it cannot be amended, would require that
each time a mailing list is sold would necessitate notification and
individual consent. More flexible approaches have been suggested
such as the one using a combination of general principles and
legislation coupled with industry self-regulation.
Another concern that has been put forward is about the focus of
the bill being too narrow at this time. As the bill is written now it
applies only to the sale of lists containing personal information
when in reality the normal business practice is the rental of such
lists. The bill focuses narrowly on lists when a vast amount of
personal data can be blended and put together from the consumer
transactional data currently exchanged between firms or within a
large organization. The definition of personal information provided
in the bill is unduly narrow. It is more restrictive than the definition
of personal information found in the federal Privacy Act.
Also the bill only applies to corporations when mailing list
information is often transferred between individual proprietorships
and partnerships that are not organized into corporate forms. That
can be fixed also.
Bill C-315 applies to the narrow range of corporations engaging
in a federally regulated activity. As used in the bill, federally
regulated corporations would include, most notably, those firms
operating in the interprovincial and international transportation
sectors: broadcasting, telecommunications and the banking
industry. Needless to say, many corporations and sectors are
exchanging personal data that fall outside these delineated
categories.
The effect of the bill is to protect consumers in a narrow range of
circumstances from a narrow range of commercial actors in a
burdensome fashion without any co-ordination or harmonization
with other current or proposed privacy initiatives. If passed in its
current form, the result would not be a level playing field of the
clear and consistent privacy rules applying to all sectors but a
patchwork quilt of uneven privacy obligations from sector to
sector, firm to firm, and jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Other initiatives currently under way might provide a better
approach. At least we can listen to some other initiatives. We are
currently studying the options, as the hon. member knows. Most
notable is the Canadian Standards Association model privacy code
ratified in September by a committee consisting of a broad cross
section of consumer, private sector and government representatives
including Industry Canada's office of consumer affairs, Spectrum
Information Technologies and telecommunications units.
Three years in the making the model code sets out 10 principles
governing how personal information should be collected, retained,
kept up to date, used and disclosed by the private sector. Adoption
of the code by firms using mailing lists would tend to ensure that
consumers are informed of the existence of such lists and are given
the opportunity to consent to their use and to verify their accuracy.
(1755)
The code is voluntary in nature but a number of different parties
have suggested that it could become the basis for flexible
framework legislation, leaving it to industry sectors to determine
how they would meet the CSA, the Canadian standards.
The CSA code provides a clear example of the commitment and
ability of consumer groups, the private sector and governments to
work together to develop privacy protection solutions. As the
member mentioned in his speech, the Information Highway Advi-
15903
sory Council recommended a broad based, flexible privacy
framework legislation drawing on the CSA model code as a basis.
We have also received a recommendation from the Canadian Direct
Marketing Association urging the creation of a flexible national
privacy framework legislation using the CSA model privacy code
as a basis.
The essence of both recommendations is the recognition of the
need for coherent national privacy standards, protecting the
consumer while providing the private sector with a flexible and
level playing field.
The member has done a lot of terrific work on the legislation. We
have heard him put forward many good ideas in his speech. Over
the next while we will have to review the bill to see if there is some
way to make some of the necessary amendments.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-315, entitled the protection of
personal information obtained by certain corporations act,
sponsored by my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin. The bill
seeks to enhance the protection of every citizen's right to privacy.
Each and every citizen has a right to privacy that protects any
confidential information.
Personal information is much more than data, much more than a
simple product. It is the essence of who we are and defines our
uniqueness. It not only describes the facts but the nuances of our
life patterns and our choices. The importance of the right to protect
that individuality is a measure of the importance of the individual
in society.
The right to privacy is well established in our constitutional and
legal history. It is recognized in our common law and has been
recognized to be included in the charter of rights and freedoms. In
Canada we value privacy to such an extent that we established a
Privacy Commissioner of Canada in 1983. There are also
provincial and territorial privacy commissioners including in my
home province of British Columbia.
The importance of privacy for individuals and Canadian families
is shown in that through 1994 and 1995 the federal office of the
privacy commissioner processed over 1,300 investigations and
dealt with over 10,000 inquiries from the public.
I should like to focus upon the relationship between privacy,
family and our current laws. Family is the fundamental building
block in our society. It is the family that provides the social
cohesion necessary for stability and prosperity in society. Many
things are needed to promote and provide stability for families.
Privacy is one of the essential elements needed to ensure
inviolability of the home.
Increasingly, though, the family home is being subjected to
intrusion from a number of sources. The age of contemporary
information technology has meant that personal and confidential
information has entered into the public realm with little or no
safeguards established to protect the use and distribution of the
information. With technology, data collection and assimilation
become easier and less subject to scrutiny. Information from a
multitude of sources can be accumulated, cross-referenced, and
misrepresented with increasing facility and speed. While the public
becomes increasingly conscious of uncontrolled information flow,
they worry that the knowledge may lead to manipulation and
intervention into their lives.
(1800)
There is increasing public unease over the issues surrounding
privacy. Almost 90 per cent of Canadians recently replied that they
are concerned about their privacy. There is a mounting public
pressure to initiate greater control to prevent abuse.
Of course the single largest collector of information on people is
the government itself. We have legislation in place to attempt to
control that information through the Privacy Act. A quick look at
the statistics from the privacy commissioner is meaningful.
According to the 1994-95 privacy commissioner's annual report,
the number of complaints increased over 38 per cent from the
previous year. The number of inquiries has risen from just over
1,000 in 1985 to nearly 10,000 in 1995.
The use of the multiple information database can construct a
complete information profile on an individual or that individual's
family. It can contain everything from their name to their age to
their political affiliation, military service, and even information
about related family members. As my colleague mentioned, it can
contain the stores you shop at, the kinds of food you eat, and
perhaps even your medical history.
The privacy commissioner has estimated that the average
Canadian's name is processed through a computer five to ten times
on a daily basis. I believe it is crucial for us to take the measures
that are necessary to safeguard the privacy of individuals and their
families. I believe Bill C-315 will do much to assist that.
Under the federal Privacy Act only government departments,
ministries of state, and certain federal institutions are covered. This
bill would expand those privacy laws by increasing protection to
include federally regulated institutions. This bill would require that
those companies that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal
Canada Labour Code notify an individual whose personal
information will be sold as part of a list to another corporation or
client. It would also require that the individual concerned give their
permission if they want their name on the list. This notice would
outline the source of the personal information, a description of the
information held, and a statement that the individual can have their
name removed from the list at no cost to them. If an individual
requests that his or her name be removed from the list, then the
company concerned will be required to comply with that request
15904
within ten days and send a confirmation of that removal to the
individual concerned.
This bill expands protection by amending section 2 of the
Canada Labour Code to include banks, radio broadcasting
companies, air transportation companies, any shipping lines that
operate between provinces or between Canada and another country,
any company involved in the railway, canal, telegraph, or other
industries linking provinces, and any work identified under the
Canada Labour Code or deemed for the general advantage of
Canada. All these fall under federal jurisdiction and are federally
regulated.
The dilemma of privacy issues has been all too common in our
news lately. The news stories illustrate the tension that exists
between cost efficiencies and the protection of the integrity of
information for the protection of the individual.
For example, in my province of B.C. the provincial jurisdiction
of privacy limits was recently tested with the introduction of a
database on prescription drug usage. This program was introduced
in the name of cost efficiency in the ever-diminishing health care
system funding and for the health benefit of preventing
incompatible or dangerous prescription overlap. However, there
was a huge public outcry that the privacy of citizens would be
threatened by the potential misuse of this database. The
government did set about to dispel those fears and in fact has come
up with some instructive examples of safeguards for a shared
database.
I want to draw to the attention of the House a statement by the
B.C. privacy commissioner, Dave Flaherty, who said that too many
people have too much access to too much information on the
computer system. That pretty well sums up much of the problem of
all the world as we proceed with this privacy debate.
The banks are probably one of the largest non-governmental
processors of private information and are also one of the strongest
resisters to privacy legislation. They maintain that their voluntary
code should be sufficient. There have been noteworthy attempts in
all sectors to voluntarily protect the privacy of information. In
addition to initiatives by the banks, in 1993 the Canadian Direct
Mail Association adopted a compulsory code of conduct for its
members.
(1805)
I commend those in the private sector for voluntary measures
they have taken. However, it is interesting to note that one of the
largest public outcries to the privacy commission was as a result of
a recent Visa gold card application of the Royal Bank. Typically,
banks require a social insurance number specifically and solely for
the issuance of interest statements under the Income Tax Act.
Unfortunately, the Royal Bank's recent request for consent was far
broader. It reads: ``If I have ever given you my social insurance
number you may treat it as information and use it as an aid to
identify me with credit bureaus and other parties. Even if I am no
longer your client or this agreement terminates, you may keep
information in your records and use it for the purposes noted
above.''
It is such liberties that make the unbiased and arm's length
controls of information necessary. With banking institutions
offering services in diverse fields of deposit taking, trust
processing, securities and insurance subsidiaries, it is necessary
that the interests of the consumers and the marketplace be
protected by comprehensive guidelines.
Potential for abuses must be recognized both in what services are
allowed and in the regulation of the privacy of the information that
is collected. With legislative rules and penalties there will come a
predictable and enforceable protection for citizens.
Like all government initiatives, privacy regulation involves cost.
Quebec introduced privacy legislation in the private sector two
years ago. The Quebec experience would seem to indicate that their
new private sector privacy commissioner has generated minimal
resistance, very mild activity, with only 300 complaints, and
minimal cost. This would seem to indicate that there can be an
ongoing affordable privacy control within the private sector.
Ideally, the federal system should be designed to be self-funding
if possible. The one question I would have of my colleague's
proposal is the possibility of cost recovery for the program. The
penalties imposed on large institutions seem small and may not
serve either as a deterrent or be cost-effective.
The challenge of protection of the right to privacy is great. The
growth of that challenge will be exponential as new technologies
and falling international, provincial, and private borders become
more and more a reality, not only in the marketplace but in our
homes. Government and voluntary attention must be given to this
crucial concern.
Today I urge my colleagues from all parties to support my
colleague on Bill C-315.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I resume debate,
there has been an oversight by the Chair. In the normal practice of
private members' hour on the first round I would see if a member
from each of the official parties was seeking the floor and then
revert to the normal procedure of government, opposition, and so
on. An oversight caused me to fail to recognize a member from the
Bloc Quebecois on the first round. I will now go to the hon.
member for Drummond and then I will look to the government
side, if in fact one should choose to speak. That will bring us
approximately to the conclusion of the first hour of debate.
15905
If there should be any questions, feel free to approach me at
the chair and I will explain it further with the appropriate time
allocations that have been distributed evenly this evening.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today to speak to Bill C-315 standing in the name of the
hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.
The purpose of this bill is to complement the present laws of
Canada that protect the privacy of individuals with respect to
personal information about themselves obtained by certain
corporations. It is part of a debate that has been going on for several
years about the best way to protect personal information obtained
or held by federally regulated private corporations.
In the public sector, the federal Privacy Act already protects
employees and the public against abuse of this information.
However, this legislation does not in any way affect the activities of
private companies that are subject to the Canada Labour Code. The
latter are therefore free to act as they see fit.
(1810)
Although it is certainly not my purpose to point an accusing
finger, we must admit that in some cases, this could lead to abuse
both unpleasant and unfortunate.
In Quebec, as the hon. member pointed out on first reading of
this bill, a number of unique legislative measures were introduced
to improve the protection of personal information. In fact,
Quebec's Civil Code deals with the issue of protecting individual
privacy, which provisions came into force by a decision of the
National Assembly in 1993.
The Commission d'accès à l'information, chaired by the former
director of Le Devoir, is responsible for implementation of the
various provisions included in the Act respecting access to
documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal
information. Finally, since 1994 the same commission has been
responsible for implementing legislation on the protection of
information in the private sector.
This goes to show that the protection of personal information,
both in the private and public sectors, requires considerable
co-ordination between the various acts and regulations and the
activities of those responsible for compliance and enforcement.
Although I did not say so explicitly, it is of course not easy to
protect privacy fully and effectively. In this respect, Bill C-315
may seem to be somewhat lacking.
First, in its present form Bill C-315 regulates only the sale of
lists. These lists of names containing personal and confidential
information could therefore be lent or given away without breaking
the law. Since these are still the same lists with the same
information, it seems to me that the mere fact of passing them on to
various organizations, for purposes for which they were not
intended initially, should be prohibited and punished in the same
way, whether or not any money changed hands.
Another aspect I think is unsatisfactory is the description or
enumeration of what constitutes personal information. As we read
the bill, we see that information as important as mother tongue,
place of birth, sexual orientation and political affiliation is not
included. Does this mean that this kind of information is not
important enough to warrant protection? It would be important, in
my opinion, for all information liable to trafficking, or rather to
commerce, to be protected.
Another point: Bill C-315 deals with the transmission of lists
containing personal information. This implies that any
entrepreneur so desiring may, in total legality, sell information
concerning one individual without risking any sanction. This point,
in my opinion, constitutes a significant glitch in the very principle
the bill is defending.
Before I conclude, looking at the sanctions set out in the bill, it
will be seen that fines for noncompliance range from $5,000 to
$10,000. To large companies, which generally have fairly sizeable
lists, these fines do not mean much, particularly when we know the
price a list containing confidential personal information can
command.
There is no point here in continuing to examine Bill C-315 line
by line. Merely reading its contents, plus a proper knowledge of the
situation it is trying to control, is enough to understand that this
bill, although well intentioned, is far from being equal to the
objective it has set itself. There are many shortcomings in this bill.
A number of amendments could be made to it. It seems to us that
the best way of ensuring a complement to the present laws of
Canada that protect the privacy of Canadians might have been to
follow the same path as the new Quebec Civil Code. However,
since the bill represents at least a small step forward, the Bloc will
support it.
(1815 )
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
applaud the efforts of the hon. member to address a practice that is
of concern to many consumers. He and I are two of them.
It is certainly true that when we speak about the problems of
protecting personal information, probably at the top of the list are
complaints and calls by telemarketing firms that usually call at the
dinner hour and follow those calls up with unwanted flyers and
advertisements.
15906
While I agree with the spirit of the bill, I have discovered that it
has its gaps. It is also cumbersome and overly restrictive,
particularly in light of the more broadly based and flexible options
that are currently on the table. I will get back to that in just a
moment.
As part of a global economy, we can expect that cross-border
consumer transactions will of course only increase, and with them
a related growth in direct-to-home sales of the type that make
regular use of mail lists in order to gain access into Canadian
homes.
Mailing lists, when combined with other transaction related
databases such as credit ratings and financial accounts, can be
assembled into profiles of individuals. These records can cross
national borders, be exchanged, resold, re-used, or integrated with
other databases often without consent or remuneration for purposes
unrelated to those for which the data was originally collected.
In some ways this type of information sharing can be beneficial
to Canadians in the sense of targeting marketing of services and
products to consumers with particular interests in particular items.
However, consumers are frustrated and angry when subjected to
perceived intrusions by commercial interests into their personal
domain.
Personal information privacy is an issue of considerable
importance to Canadians. I have a copy of a survey released earlier
this month, October 5 to be exact, conducted on behalf of two
Canadian consumer groups, indicating that 90 per cent of
consumers are concerned about personal information being shared
between private firms. However, that same survey also suggests
that consumers do not want any additional burdens imposed on
them in order to protect their privacy.
While I think my friend across the way has presented some good
ideas, and my colleague for Broadview-Greenwood has suggested
that a little bit of tweaking in the bill might find some favourable
response, the approach adopted in this particular bill is truly highly
restrictive and even burdensome.
The bill would require that an organization notify each
individual on a mailing list each time the list is sold to another
organization and then ensure that an individual's consent has been
received. In addition, it requires that the organization buying the
list also notify the same individual that their name has been
obtained. Organizations would have up to 10 days to comply with
the requests from individuals to have their names or certain
elements of information removed from the lists. Fines for repeat
offenders-I think I heard it correctly-can reach $10,000 or more.
Not only is this burdensome for the consumers, preventing them
from consenting to occasional mailing list exchanges between
firms in prearranged circumstances, it is also burdensome to
individual firms. More often than not, increased burden to firms
translates of course into increased costs for products and services
ultimately paid for by, guess who, the consumer.
Bill C-315 also has a number of gaps in the following areas.
First, it applies only to the sale of lists containing personal
information, when in reality the normal business practice is the
rental of such lists.
Second, the bill focuses narrowly on the lists, when in fact a vast
amount of personal data can be blended and put together from the
type of consumer transactional data currently exchanged between
firms or within a large organization.
Third, the definition of personal information provided in this bill
is narrow and more restricted than the definition of personal
information found in the federal Privacy Act.
Fourth, the bill only applies to corporations, when in fact
mailing list information is often transferred between individual
proprietorships and partnerships that are not organized into
corporate forms.
(1820 )
Fifth, Bill C-315 applies only to that narrow range of
corporations engaging in a federally regulated activity. As used in
the bill, federally regulated corporations would include those firms
operating in the interprovincial and international transportation
sectors, broadcasting, telecommunications, and banking. Needless
to say, there are many corporations and sectors exchanging
personal data that fall outside of those categories.
The effect of the bill then is to protect consumers in a narrow
range of circumstances from a narrow range of commercial entities
in a restrictive and even burdensome fashion without any
co-ordination or harmonization with other current or proposed
privacy initiatives. If passed, the result would be a patchwork quilt
of uneven privacy obligations.
The hon. member might not be aware of other positive initiatives
that are currently under way. I think some of them have already
been referred to by my colleague, the member for
Broadview-Greenwood. I do not know if the hon. member is
familiar with the Canadian Standards Association model privacy
code. It was ratified last month by a committee consisting of a
broad cross-section of consumer, private sector, and government
representatives, including Industry Canada's office of consumer
affairs and spectrum information technologies and
telecommunications units.
Three years in the making, the model code sets out 10 principles
governing how personal information should be collected, retained,
kept up to date, used, disclosed by the private sector. Adoption of
the code by firms using mailing lists would tend to ensure that
consumers are informed of the existence of such lists and given the
opportunity to consent to their use and verify their accuracy.
The CSA code provides a clear example of the commitment and
ability of consumer groups, the private sector, and governments to
work together to develop privacy protection solutions. The
Minister of Industry is currently considering the recommendations
of the Information Highway Advisory Council, which reported to
him September 27. Among other issues, the Information Highway
15907
Advisory Council addressed the privacy implications of interactive
converging telecommunications and information technologies.
The Information Highway Advisory Council stated, and I quote:
``In order for consumers and users to benefit from electronic
information networks, there is a need for a coherent national
standard as to what constitutes effective privacy protection in an
electronic environment among business, consumer organizations,
and governments. The council believes that such a standard can be
best achieved through legislation.''
As well, the council stated that the federal government must take
leadership through the creation of a level playing field for the
protection of personal information on the information highway by
developing and implementing a flexible legislative framework for
both the public and private sectors. The legislation would require
sectors or organizations to meet the standards of the CSA model
code while allowing the flexibility to determine how they will
refine their own codes.
The minister has also received a recommendation from the
Canadian Direct Marketing Association urging the creation of
flexible national privacy framework legislation using the CSA
model privacy code as a basis. I am reiterating the CSA's model
privacy code as the basis for these different approaches, but that
seems to be the foundation for those approaches. The essence of
both these recommendations is recognition of the need for coherent
national privacy standards, protecting the consumer while
providing the private sector with flexibility and that level playing
field we have been speaking of. The CSA model privacy code
represents a potential basis for development of flexible national
standards.
Let me just say that I am in agreement with the spirit of Bill
C-315 as put forward by our colleague opposite and I can applaud
the efforts of the hon. member in this regard. However, because of
the gaps and some inconsistency for the national perspective and
some of the burdensome regulations that are addressed in the bill, I
cannot support its contents.
I appreciate the opportunity of addressing Bill C-315.
(1825 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): While there are seven
minutes remaining in Private Members' Business, it would be my
intention to allow the next speaker, the member for Elk Island to
conclude his remarks in their entirety, the full 10 minutes.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
honour to stand in defence of the private members' bill offered by
my colleague.
All of us have characteristics and facts about us which are of
interest to many people. I cannot begin talking about all the
information private firms would like to have about us without also
thinking of that vast array of information the government has about
us. We know of some of the abuses of that information, its lack of
accuracy and its inaccessibility to the individual in order to check
its accuracy.
There was a very interesting case about which I will not divulge
all the details. As a member of Parliament, I was approached by an
individual who was caught in a cross web of government databases.
Before he knew what was going on, he was having some very
serious problems with the government. The government thought
there was money owing on a student loan account but there was
not. It took a lot of work to get that straightened out. The
information was wrong. He had a lot of trouble finding out what
information the government had on him. Information was missing.
The government said that because it did not have that information,
what he was alleging was not true. It went on and on.
The same thing is true with data which is gathered by private
firms in order to know more about us. To a degree, I agree with this.
There is a value for organizations like financial institutions to
maintain databases. It protects us. That is if the databases are
properly managed and there is accountability built into the system.
For example, I do not think credit ratings are all wrong. I like the
ability of applying for a loan and receiving speedy service. That is
only possible because businesses can very quickly check whether I
paid my last loan. If they could not do that quickly and reliably then
of course it would take them longer to check it out.
Also, as a consumer I could end up paying for more people who
take loans and then disappear without paying for them. With the
modern database systems it is possible to find out a person's
history and consequently deny that person a loan because of his
unreliability in repaying. As a person who pays interest to financial
institutions I could then be spared the cost of picking up the tab for
both the principal and the interest which was lost.
There is some merit to this but certainly as in many other areas,
whether it is government or corporations, there needs to be
accountability. We ought to look very seriously at the proposed bill
in terms of the accountability and accessibility it would provide to
a person who wants to find out what is known about him.
The government likes to have all kinds of data on us, income tax
information, where we earned our money, how much, how much
we gave to charity and all the details of our personal financial
lives. This data needs to be accurate. Like government,
organizations like to keep census. They like to know everything
about us, our religion, how many children we have. They want to
know whether we own or rent our residence. They want to know
whether other people live with us. On and on it goes. There
definitely needs to be a limitation on business and government on
how much data can be gathered.
15908
(1830)
In order to make this efficient there should be a procedure where
individuals give consent at the time of giving the information or
where they may refuse it. Although the private member's bill says
the firm which proposes to sell a list needs to check with the
individual on the list to gain permission, it would be much better if
each database were flagged. If I indicate at the time I give
information that my name is not to be passed on to another buyer of
the list, it could simply be another field in the database. Then that
information would not be given and it would not incur the cost the
hon. member opposite was complaining about.
Certainly to mail consent forms to thousands of people on a list
would be very costly. This could be done in advance and would
protect individuals from having their data circulated all over.
I was able to find a few examples of people who use databases
incorrectly. Many of us are now involved with the Internet. I
remember when I first signed on with the firm I am using, at the top
I was asked: ``Do you give permission for your name and your
Internet address to be in the database that is searched by other
members?'' I gave permission because I want people to be able to
find me. If they look for my name in the city where I live, my name
and my Internet address will come up.
There have been some serious examples of breaches of this
principle. An example to which I take great offence is from New
Zealand. A chocolate factory there obtained a client's list from a
weight reduction clinic and used that client list to produce some
personalized advertising for their chocolates. That is an unfair
intrusion into a part of the population that might have a weakness
in that regard. That type of thing also needs to be prohibited. Of
course there have been many cases of people who have used
databases for illegal purposes.
It is most important that consent be given either in advance or at
some future time before the data is passed on to another firm or
another business.
I had a very interesting example of my name coming up. I
received a brochure that was mailed to me personally. It had my
name and my correct address. When I opened it I was amazed to
find out it was totally in French. Unfortunately I do not speak
French, I wish I did. I could not understand it but I could figure out
that it had to do with a contest. There was a picture of a new car. I
thought: ``This has to be my lucky day. They have written me a
personal letter to tell me that I have won this car''.
I wrote a letter back and apologized for not knowing the
language. I also told them that clearly from what information I
could gather I had won this new vehicle and I would be very willing
at their convenience to show up at the specified place to collect it. I
thanked them greatly for that.
That is a very dramatic way to emphasize it but I knew that I had
to do something that was really spectacular in order to get their
attention because of other situations where I have received
information and could not get off the mailing list. I tried and I
could not. I wrote a letter and the mail kept coming. It seems these
data lists go from one owner to another and even though the last
purchaser may purge the list of my name, the next week the parent
corporation sends an update of the list and my name appears again.
It is virtually impossible to find out from where the name
originates because these lists are passed from one firm to another to
another.
I commend my colleague for this bill. It certainly points out a
need. I am not sure that in all details it totally answers the question.
I would like to see that little amendment to give a disclaimer or a
refusal to pass on the information at the time of giving information.
In general the principle of the bill is sound and I am glad to support
it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 6.35 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)