CONTENTS
Thursday, December 1, 1994
Bill C-292. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 8525
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 8525
Bill C-46. Report stage 8526
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 8526
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8526
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 8526
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8527
Division on motion deferred 8528
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8528
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8528
Motions Nos. 4 and 5 8528
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8528
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8528
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8531
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8534
Division on motion deferred 8536
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8537
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8538
Division on motion deferred 8539
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8539
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8540
Division on motion deferred 8541
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.59 a.m.) 8541
The House resumed at 1.57 p.m. 8541
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 8542
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8543
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 8544
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8545
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8545
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8545
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8550
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8551
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8553
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8554
Bill C-59. Motion for second reading 8554
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8554
Bill C-240. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 8575
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 8581
8525
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, December 1, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to the report of the
Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy and the
1994 White Paper on Defence.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
five petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the second report
of the Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-292, an act to commemorate the birthplace of
Confederation.
He said: Madam Speaker, as you probably know, this bill has
been a project of mine for the last number of years. The purpose
of the bill is to allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to erect
plaques or set up museums to mark Charlottetown as the
birthplace of Confederation.
In 1864 the Fathers of Confederation met in Charlottetown
and laid the foundation for this great country. A few years ago
the House passed my motion recognizing Charlottetown as the
birthplace of Confederation. The time has come for the federal
government to act on that recognition.
This bill provides the government with the authority to act. I
urge all members in the House to support the commemoration of
this great historical event.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, allow me to submit to you this petition from
the Ukrainian Catholic Women's League of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall all questions
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
8526
8526
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-46, an act
to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal
certain other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We have a ruling on Bill
C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to
amend and repeal certain other acts. There are 10 motions in
amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of
Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to
amend and repeal certain other acts.
(1010)
[Translation]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon separately.
[English]
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will be grouped for debate
but voted on as follows.
A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 7. An
affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 obviates the necessity of the
question being put on Motions Nos. 3, 6 and 8. On the other hand
a negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates the question being
put on Motion No. 3. A vote on Motion No. 3 applies to Motions
Nos. 6 and 8.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 9 and 10 will be debated and voted upon
separately.
I will now call Motion No. 1.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-46, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 13, on page 2, with
the following:
``(h) patents, trade-marks, indus-''.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Madam Speaker,
the debate in which I am taking part today is of the utmost
interest for the entire Canadian artistic community. If the
government were to show some open-mindedness, it could give
a great deal of hope to creators working in the cultural industry.
On November 16, 1993, exactly two weeks after the federal
election, the Coalition of Creators and Copyright Owners
published an open letter in Le Devoir addressed to the Minister
of Canadian Heritage.
It pointed out, and I quote:
Honourable Sir, the books, recordings, films, radio and television broadcasts,
paintings, sculpture, photographs, choreography and works of entertainment
produced by the 30,000 creators, artists and other eligible Quebecers belonging
to the Coalition of Creators and Copyright Owners are everywhere. Both the
creators and the public are happy with this situation. However, in the absence of
adequate legislation, creators' fundamental rights are still not being recognized
and new reproduction and distribution technologies are depriving them of the
revenues that the use of their works should generate.
You undoubtedly realize, Sir, that in order to be able to create new works,
creators must earn their living from what they produce. Only the Copyright Act
can ensure the legal basis for fair remuneration for the work of creators.
The Minister of Heritage had promised to take prompt action.
But one year later, creators are still waiting for legislation that
would recognize their right over their work. Why is this? There
are those who tell us that the answer to this question lies in the
fact that two departments share the responsibility for the
question of copyright. These departments are the Department of
Industry to be established under Bill C-46 and the Department
of Canadian Heritage that will eventually be established under
Bill C-53.
We now come to the heart of the debate. According to Clause 5
of Bill C-46, one of the duties assigned to the Minister of
Industry will be to defend consumers and large corporations.
The rights of artists and workers in general are not even
mentioned in this bill. As a result, this department would have a
hard time recognizing the rights of creators on their works, as
these rights are in direct conflict with those of consumers and
large corporations.
The heritage department has a moral right to look into the
matter. It is, after all, recognized as the primary stakeholder in
cultural matters. About 10 people work on these issues on its
behalf. However, these officials have no powers; they can only
try to influence their colleagues from Industry. That can be a
very frustrating experience.
We now come to the second issue, copyright, which comes
under two departments defending diametrically opposed
interests and is stuck in its turn-of-the-century version.
(1015)
The review of the act, announced with great pomp on many
occasions, is getting nowhere, simply because of differences of
opinion between the departments involved. The Union des
artistes, for one, wrote in its December 23, 1993 letter to the
Prime Minister that dividing responsibilities between the
heritage department and Consumer and Corporate Affairs
Canada, which had jurisdiction over copyright before
reorganization, ``stood in the way of harmonious legislative
reform -This division of responsibilities has led to a dual
vision, which more often than not results in conflicting
objectives''.
8527
What the creative artists ask for is a strengthening of their
first claim on their rights to their work and thus their right to
negotiate the use made of these works. For example, the
coalition of creative artists and copyright holders says that their
rights should be protected as much as those of drug patent
holders. In a press release from the coalition, Jean-Claude
Germain said that the least a healthy society which is proud of
its culture could do would be to protect its creative artists as
well as it protects its drug manufacturers.
Briefly, this is what the creative artists are asking for. They
want recognition of neighbouring rights, that is, the rights of
performers to reproduce and present their works. They want
recognition of consequential rights, namely the visual artist's
right to a percentage of any profit made on his or her work. They
want recognition of equal duration of protection, that is, for all
types of works, copyright would be recognized for at least 50
years after the artist's death. They also want a law that is
technologically neutral, that is, one that will apply regardless of
technological developments.
They want fees to be paid on their private copies, that is,
royalties on media which can be privately copied such as
diskettes, tapes, videocassettes and cassettes. They want rental
rights, that is, a royalty on all works protected by law. Finally,
they want appropriate recourse and adequate penalties for those
who break the law.
For ten years, the cultural communities in Canada and Quebec
have been demanding these straightforward changes to the
Copyright Act. They are unanimous on this, but have been
unsuccessful. It is therefore urgent to act; the survival of
Canadian and Quebec culture is at stake. It is urgent to give our
artists the ability to earn a living from what they produce,
because without culture, a country has no life, no colour and no
future.
The purpose of the amendment moved today by my colleague
from Richmond-Wolfe is to make Canada and Quebec
full-fledged players in this new global economy, which is no
longer based on trade in goods but rather on quality of thinking,
artistic value, imagination and open-mindedness. Our artists
are ready and able to meet the challenge. Denying them the
means to do so is not the way to ensure their survival.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I listened to the member
from Quebec City I must say I share all of her concerns. Coming
from a riding where the cultural community for people who are
employed in cultural industries represents the greatest number
of people employed I am extremely sensitive to this issue. I do
not want you to think, Madam Speaker, that this is a community
that I do not care for or am insensitive to. I depend a lot on the
views and feelings they provide me in the direction I take.
The member for Québec said that the fundamental rights of
the artistic community were being threatened by the positioning
in the Department of Industry.
(1020)
Historically copyright was with the Department of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs which is now part of Industry Canada.
From a historical sense we are being fairly consistent but I think
the member for Quebec mentioned a more important thing, the
strengthening of the role of the creator. I believe that we are
doing that. First of all, we have to realize that this is a joint
relationship between Heritage Canada and Industry Canada.
Copyright does not deal exclusively with cultural aspects. On
the international level, it is a business issue that impacts on
revenues, investment, job creation, innovation, piracy, theft,
non-tariff barrier concerns, many of the things that the member
talked about in her remarks.
As a government we believe that the Department of Industry,
especially with all the new technologies, with the information
highway, the concerns that we have for protection, is best
equipped to meet those concerns and those needs of the artists.
In light of all of that and the balancing of the concerns, we
cannot accept this amendment.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the amendment that is being proposed in effect deletes
the provision of the minister that the Department of Industry
deal with copyright. It is really intended to bring that over to
another department.
The issue that has just been made by the hon. member
opposite is a very accurate statement, that we need to recognize
that the whole area of creator's rights and the business of
intellectual property ought to be identified. It is not strictly a
matter of heritage, history or things of that sort but is rapidly
developing and rapidly changing in our economy in Canada
today. We need to recognize that in the area of patents and
trademarks of those sorts of things are no less the property of
people who use their minds and who use their knowledge to
develop particular ideas as much as other kinds of property.
We are moving today into a knowledge economy which is not
only a business of making things and of moving people. It is a
matter of ideas. It is a matter of innovations. It is a matter of
applying these in the right way.
It seems to me that there may be some interest here. In other
departments, it is with regard to specific content but in terms of
the ownership of certain sorts of things we need to recognize
that this is included here in the old traditional way of talking
about copyright.
We are really talking about much more than the initial intent
of copyright. We are talking about intellectual property. The
matter should not be taken out of this clause at this time.
8528
Therefore I think the Reform Party would suggest that
colleagues not support this amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1025)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(1)(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Group number two.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-46, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 4, with
the following:
``by subsection 4(2), with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of
Quebec where such powers, duties and functions relate to regional development in
Quebec, in a manner that will''.
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-46, in clause 8, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 28, on page 4.
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-46, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 5, on page 5, with
the following:
``Ontario and Quebec, and with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council
of Quebec where such powers, duties and functions relate to regional development
in Quebec,''.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-46, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 5, with
the following:
``ing the same duties and functions, and with the approval of the Lieutenant
Governor in Council of Quebec where such powers, duties and functions relate to
regional development in Quebec, the Minis-''.
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-46 be amended by deleting clause 9.
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-46, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 36, on page 5, with
the following:
``10. With the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Quebec
where the powers, duties and functions assigned by subsection 4(2) relate to
regional development in Quebec, the Governor in Council may make''.
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-46, in clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 37 to 41, on page 5,
with the following:
regulations for carrying out the purposes and provision of section 8.
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I have the pleasure to speak to Bill C-46 on behalf of
the Official Opposition, as its critic on regional development.
There are at least two major elements at stake in this bill to
establish the Department of Industry. The first one concerns
jurisdiction over regional development, while the second one
has to do with whether or not duplication will be perpetuated in
government management.
At report stage of Bill C-46, an Act to establish the
Department of Industry, the Bloc Quebecois proposes that
clauses 8, 9 and 10 be amended by inserting, at line 21 in clause
8, line 21 in clause 9, and line 36 in clause 10, the following:
``With the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of
Quebec when it is a field related to regional development in
Quebec -''
What does that mean? It means that the federal government
does not have jurisdiction over regional development in Quebec
and that the province is the only one with the authority to define
policies and set up structures in that field.
(1030)
The constitutional coup against Quebec represented by the
Constitutional Act dated November 5, 1981, to which Quebec
never subscribed in spite of the fact that it represents one quarter
of the Canadian population, allowed the federal government, by
claiming it had jurisdiction regarding regional disparity, to give
8529
itself unlimited spending power and therefore also give itself
every power concerning regional development.
The 1982 unilateral patriation of the Constitution is federal
interference in Quebec's regional development since, as you all
know, regional economic development is not a jurisdiction
included in the 1867 Constitution.
Bill C-46 is a logical follow-up to the Constitutional deal
which was struck in November 1981. It is part of the plan of the
Liberal Party of Canada to isolate Quebec, to direct the
economic development of Quebecers and to deny their distinct
identity by making Quebec's development contingent on federal
regional development policies.
In Bill C-46, the government has irresponsibly chosen to
ignore Quebec's regional development policies and structures.
Unconcerned about duplication, although the party in power, the
Liberal Party, admits duplication exists because it wants to
eliminate duplication and overlap, in this case they have made it
abundantly clear that they want to preserve this duplication by
refusing to recognize Quebec's sole responsibility for regional
development. They prefer to ignore existing duplication and
overlap just as they prefer to ignore the wasteful spending of
public funds. The Minister of Industry and his Liberal
colleagues want to increase their interventions in Quebec
through this bill.
In section 9(1)(a) and (b) it says that the Minister of Industry,
and I quote:
-with respect to regional economic development in Quebec,
(a)in co-operation with other concerned ministers and boards and agencies of the
Government of Canada, formulate and implement policies, plans and integrated
federal approaches;
(b)co-ordinate the policies and programs of the Government of Canada;
I think we can clearly interpret this as a full scale invasion of
regional development in Quebec and a federal takeover of
development and policies in this area.
However, the government party must realize that for decades,
Quebec has had regional development programs that were far
more effective than federal intervention has ever been in this
area.
The federal Liberal government, with its two-fold obsession
with developing the industrial centres of Quebec's metropolitan
areas while ignoring the rest of the province, and with spreading
the federal, centralist gospel right and left, without any policies
for co-ordinating the interests of those concerned, has often
acted in ways that have proved disastrous for Quebec's
peripheral regions.
Madam Speaker, in this House I had an opportunity to refer to
an impact study of federal regional intervention policies in
Quebec, policies that, because of this intervention focussed on
large urban centres, have had a devastating effect in the regions,
since we now see that peripheral regions throughout Quebec
have lost their young people and experienced a decline in
population.
In its second report, the Conseil des affaires sociales du
Québec pointed out that the situation was disastrous in all
Quebec's peripheral regions. The number of municipalities and
peripheral regions where the population has declined increased
to an alarming extent between 1971 and 1988, when federal
intervention in regional development was at its peak-in other
words, the better part of the period when the Liberals were in
power in Ottawa-so that today, they outnumber communities
experiencing population increases. Young people are the first to
leave their regions for the big urban centres.
(1035)
That is the result of the federal regional development policy.
In the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and other rural areas of
Quebec, solidarity movements have sprung up to restore hope to
local communities and begin work on comprehensive,
integrated development. They include, among others, Coalition
urgence rurale, Ralliement des Gaspésiens et des Madelinots
and Rural Solidarity. The numbers and types of development
partnerships are increasing.
Businesses, unions, local authorities, and the co-operative
movement no longer hesitate to take charge of their own
development. These players have sought, when appearing
before forums such as the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, to
promote the idea that, for instance, control of economic
development levers must rest with Quebec and that
decision-making powers must be decentralized, and to obtain a
consensus in this regard. The major consensus that has emerged
fits in with regional development in Quebec, and there is
growing consensus that the federal government should be told
clearly to withdraw from regional development, an area in
which it does not belong.
As I have already mentioned, regional development is not a
separate area of responsibility in the Canadian Constitution,
thus forcing Quebec to take part in unending and fruitless
negotiations such as those involving the regional economic
development agreements. Bill C-46 confirms the federal
government's determination to take over regional development
in Quebec.
It also points up the stupidity and waste of such an insistence
on interfering, which leads to still more duplication and overlap.
Let me give an example. Under section 9(1)(b), the Minister of
Industry, through the responsible minister in the Federal Office
of Regional Development-Quebec, shall collect, compile,
analyse, coordinate and disseminate information with respect to
regional economic development in Quebec, thus enabling the
federal agency to undertake a series of studies and analyses with
the purpose of defining socio-economic profiles for each region
of Quebec.
8530
Studies released by the FORDQ in November, a few weeks
ago, studies that were a total waste of time and which were
conducted on a region-by-region basis in Quebec, are examples
of a monumental waste of money and energy, because it so
happens that Quebec has produced its own studies and analyses
on each region of the province this past year, in preparation for
regional strategic development plans. I have perused the studies
released by the office and noticed that the Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec had wasted money, using the
same statistics and reaching the same conclusions, region by
region.
Since such studies cost money, this confirms that this
government is ignoring what Quebec does in that area and
spends money needlessly on duplicating studies that have
already been done. To conclude, the federal government must
withdraw from regional development and recognize that Quebec
only has jurisdiction over economic development on its
territory. That is what our amendment, the Official Opposition
amendment, is about.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to enter the debate at this time. If I
understand correctly procedurally we are debating Motions Nos.
2 to 8. Is that correct?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): That is right. We are
debating on the group of motions. Since you are one of the
proposers you can have the floor.
Mr. Schmidt: Madam Speaker, I will address very briefly the
particular motion that was just presented. I will put my
interventions primarily in terms of our reasons for presenting
the motions we wish the bill be amended to meet. I would like to
focus and couch my remarks in terms of three principles.
(1040)
First, there ought to be within legislation checks and balances
to ensure openness, honesty and integrity on the part of
government and on the part of the ministers who bring about the
implementation of government policies.
Second, it is the marketplace that should determine winners
and losers in business, not government.
Third, the government's role is to provide a level playing field
so that competition can be equal, that there be fair
administration and that the refereeing be done in such a way that
the conduct of manufacturing, trade and commerce is in fact fair
and equitable.
The result of these kinds of principles would be to develop
confidence in business and government and of course in oneself.
It would enhance international competitiveness for the nation
and for individual businesses. Another consequence is the
ability to meet the challenge of a new economy which is so
necessary.
The Department of Industry is a major and very important
department in this government. It has a wide ranging impact on
the economy of this country and indeed on the jobs and on the
welfare of many Canadians at all age levels. It is important that
we recognize the significance of this department.
This legislation enshrines and should enshrine in this
department as much scrutiny as possible so that we can
determine precisely what is or is not meant in the particular
clauses. This is why I wish to address these particular motions
whereby we want to bring about certain amendments.
I wish to start with the amendment to clause 8(a). Our
amendment proposes that clause 8(a) be deleted. Now clause
8(a) reads that the minister shall: ``promote economic
development in areas of Ontario and Quebec where low incomes
and slow economic growth are prevalent or where opportunities
for productive employment are inadequate''.
The reason we would like to see that stricken from the clause
is that in principle we object to the idea of regional development
for a minister who has responsibility for all of Canada. There is a
conflict of interest here in principle to begin with. One should
not prefer one region of the country over another. Certainly that
is implicit in this kind of provision.
Regional programs have proven to be preferential and the way
in which certain pork barrelling projects have been created,
many of them questionable and sometimes with disastrous
results. The government being engaged in these types of things
separates regions in one area of the country from another. That
in itself is disunifying. It divides the country rather than brings
it together, which is what we want to do. I personally and the
Reform Party want to bring about equality rather than
divisiveness. In order to accomplish that the provision in the act
found in clause 8(a) needs to be taken away.
With respect to clause 9, our proposal is to delete the clause
completely. That of course is the administrative, or if you like,
the empowerment section which gives the minister the way in
which he or she would implement the provisions found in clause
8(a). By eliminating that clause the minister would not have the
authority to go into regional development specifically in
Ontario and Quebec.
Our amendment with respect to clause 10 is simply an
administrative one. If we eliminate clause 8(a) and we eliminate
clause 9, then of course we have to make the consequential
change in clause 10.
There is a confusion in the provisions of clauses 8(b) and 8(c).
Upon initial reading it would appear that they would apply to
clause 8(a) in terms of Ontario and Quebec. But upon a more
detailed reading and in an in depth situation they could be
8531
interpreted as applying to all of Canada. In that case the
situation is such that the minister may now have full
responsibility for the economic development in areas where
there is low income or where jobs are not plentiful. He can then
intervene in the particular business promotion in any area of
Quebec.
(1045)
Because of its lack of clarity it is suggested that this be
rewritten in such a way that misinterpretation cannot take place.
If clause 8(a) is deleted then the clarification becomes
unnecessary because it is then obvious.
To conclude my remarks on these motions, this section on
regional development does not uphold the three principles
which I mentioned earlier. It does not inspire Canadians to feel
that their government is open, honest and possessed of great
amounts of integrity. It does not provide for a level playing field
in the marketplace and it does not provide for a clearly refereed
game.
It does not allow the marketplace to determine the outcome.
In other words, it gives to the government and to the minister, in
particular, the power to intervene and to determine who wins and
who loses. Because these principles are not observed we must
recognize that we should go ahead with these. I hope that all
colleagues will recognize that certain changes to the act must be
made.
I would like to add a brief word about the Bloc's amendment.
If clauses 8(b) and 8(c) are interpreted to give to the minister the
wide-ranging powers for all of Canada, to accept an amendment
such as was proposed by the Bloc a moment ago would give to
the lieutenant-governor in council in Quebec the right to
approve or disapprove economic development in the rest of
Canada which, as far as I am concerned, warrants only one word
to describe it, and that is ridiculous.
We have to be very careful that we not divide the country. We
have enough stress already and to do something like this adds to
that stress. If there is one thing we want to do it is to build a
strong Canada that is competitive in the world, a Canada that
provides for the innovation of people, that provides for a level
playing field, that allows the creativity of entrepreneurs and
creators at all levels to succeed, and to do so in fair competition
with other individuals across Canada. No one province, no one
individual should have the authority to decide who wins, who
loses, other than on a fair playing field where the referee is
honest, has integrity, is open and where the things that matter
come to the fore.
Therefore, I urge that the Bloc's amendments be defeated and
that the Reform Party's amendments be supported.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by
addressing the remarks that were presented earlier by my
colleague from Richmond-Wolfe.
His remark that the federal government has no jurisdiction in
Quebec represents a difference that I have with him, one that
probably represents the single biggest reason why I decided to
run for public office.
I had the privilege and pleasure of working for the man who I
think was the greatest Prime Minister this country every had,
Pierre Elliot Trudeau. I believe that Pierre Trudeau and his
vision of this country, his feeling about making sure we had a
strong national government that would make sure we had
national programs that would allow us to develop a national
spirit, a national will that would pull us together. He also wanted
a government that was designed to make sure that when regional
disadvantages occurred, the national government had the
capacity and the instruments to help those people in regionally
disadvantaged areas.
(1050)
My colleague from Richmond-Wolfe says that the federal
government has no jurisdiction in Quebec. Let us imagine that
every provincial premier or every provincial political party took
that position. That was the essence of the Meech Lake accord
which is why I opposed it.
For the Bloc Quebecois to expect the government to support
an amendment which essentially states that the federal
government has no jurisdiction in Quebec is just not on. I
believe that a majority of Quebecers would not support it either.
I accept the constructive remarks of the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe about the fact that we have to be more
efficient. We have to reduce some of the overlapping that goes
on between the federal-provincial programs so we can better
provide services for the people of his community, his province,
as we want to do for the people in northern Ontario or Atlantic
Canada or western Canada. I agree with him on that. The
purpose of this bill is to redesign this department so it can
become more efficient and address those concerns.
However, to go to a position where the federal government has
no jurisdiction in Quebec, no jurisdiction when it comes to
looking out for small and medium sized businessmen and
women, no jurisdiction on retraining, no jurisdiction in special
projects is not my position. From time to time we may need to
use extraordinary powers to assist and promote special projects
in Quebec and that is what this bill allows the government to do.
I am in this Chamber because I believe more than ever we
need a strong national government. We do not need a
government that is gutted. We do not need a government that is
decentralized to the point where we no longer have the capacity
to handle a difficult economic environment. Therefore I say
respectfully there is no way we can accept this amendment from
the Bloc Quebecois.
8532
I turn now to my colleagues in the Reform Party, who I should
add are in accordance with our view of making sure that we
have a strong national government. They have recognized that.
This is not in any way, shape or form isolating Quebec. I get
very concerned when the Bloc all of a sudden thinks that we
are trying to isolate them. We are trying to do the exact
opposite. We are trying to make sure that all Quebecers, all
Canadians, interact and exchange with each other on the total
resources of this country, not just part of it.
(1055 )
Reform members have a very difficult time with some of our
regional instruments like the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and the western diversification instrument of
government. In every high risk situation it is normal and
historical, whether in business or in government, that from time
to time mistakes are made and there are failures. It happens in
business-
Mr. Hermanson: Especially when government is involved.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, I am
trying to make my point. I think-
Mr. Hermanson: Who pays? The taxpayer pays.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): I am going to tell you
who pays.
The essence of this country is those communities that are
stronger, that are richer-I come from a city which is strong and
rich but right now it is in economic difficulty. It is the city of
Toronto. I know that my community, my city is having a very
difficult time-believe that we must make sure that
communities that are more disadvantaged are looked after
properly and effectively by the national government.
I believe that ACOA and the western diversification fund are
doing a very good job. For those reasons we will not support the
Reform Party's amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
thank the hon. member who spoke before me for recognizing his
government's clear identification of the need for a strong central
government with an unshakeable desire to impose its will. Such
a federal government, as proposed in the Meech and
Charlottetown accords, was rejected not by a minority but by the
majority of Quebecers, including federalists unhappy with the
status quo.
I rise today in this debate on Bill C-46 so that some key
amendments will be made to Clauses 8, 9 and 10 to make them
acceptable. As I explained at length on October 17 during debate
at second reading, I am against this bill as it stands because it
does not recognize Quebec's jurisdiction over its regional
development.
Granted, regional development is a complex issue.
Identifying the regions to be developed is a major challenge in
itself, all the more so if we try to do it from afar, without
knowing each region's particularities.
This federal tactic of trying to develop regions by centralizing
policy-making is not new and was not always successful. As
early as September 1982, the Senate Committee on National
Finance said this in a report: ``Designating the least developed
regions for special status to ensure that regional disparities are
not forgotten is not an easy task. As DREE discovered, a
political system generates enormous pressures to extend the
boundaries of programs that generate cash flow. As a result,
DREE ended up including more than half the geographic area of
the country in the designated areas, and the purpose became
hopelessly diluted''.
Why these lamentable effects? Quite simply because the
federal government is unable to understand that, with general
policies, it cannot meet the specific needs of each province,
much less the specific needs of each region.
It is utopian to pass a bill at the national level to meet
particular local objectives. Instead, we need legislation that is
appropriate to the development of the province concerned, with
the flexibility to respond to regional requirements.
(1100)
Quebecers see their needs for regional development very
differently depending on which region they live in. I suppose
that is why previous legislation created different development
agencies for western Canada and for the Maritimes. That is why
we believe that Bill C-46 must be related to Quebec's regional
particularities and to Ontario's as well.
The need to develop a region is often related to its
unemployment level. Unemployment is higher or lower in some
regions for various reasons. For example, high unemployment
may be due to lack of education in a region and the solution will
be to train the workers there.
A second possible reason for the lack of jobs is a shortage of
capital to modernize industry. This can be corrected by
investing in industrial or tourism infrastructure.
A third possibility is lack of natural resources, for example,
over-exploitation of forests in the past. This is what happened in
my region and it must be corrected by diversification to stabilize
regional development.
However, the solutions are sometimes hard to find. For
example, take the price of metals on the international market.
For example, if the price of copper drops, this reduces
employment in the affected mining region, but the solution is
not to keep mines open at all cost.
8533
How can we protect or develop a region where companies
have a harder time to survive in the context of international free
trade? For example, in the case of Montreal's textile industry,
the solution could be found by that industry and its workers,
with the help of regional development consultants.
These examples show that, for optimum results, solutions to
regional development issues must be found in the region itself.
This is why we insist that federal bills reflect a will to
co-operate with the provinces.
Quebec developed its development tools and these tools are
close to the stakeholders. Consequently, we feel that the federal
government should also adopt this cost-effective approach, by
increasing development tools instead of reducing them.
Lines 21, 22 and 23 of Clause 8, on page 4 could provide a
good example of efficient co-operation between the federal
government and the provinces. That clause currently reads as
follows: ``The Minister shall exercise the powers and perform
the duties and functions assigned by subsection 4(2) in a manner
that will-'', but it should say: ``With the approval of the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council of Quebec''-we could also
say Ontario, since this bill concerns both provinces-``when it
is a field related to regional development in Quebec, the
Minister shall exercise the powers and perform the duties and
functions assigned by subsection 4(2) in a manner that will-''.
We want to link regional development to the power of Quebec
to decide and the power of regions to select priorities. The
amendment to clause 8 is intended to reflect respect for the
strategic development plans of the regions in Quebec and should
apply to all regions in Canada. We have had enough of this
competing by various levels of government at the expense of the
regions, because we want to eliminate waste and inefficiencies.
In my own region, considering the unemployment rate and the
exodus of our young people, there is a very clear case for making
proper use of any instruments we are given and for avoiding
federal products that are not adapted to the needs of the region.
In the past few months I talked to senior officials at the
Federal Office of Regional Development about the need for
reviewing the agency's 1994-95 priorities for our region.
Their new focus is to promote entrepreneurship that will use
new technologies to create jobs. There is nothing wrong with
that, but this should not be done in total disregard of the choice
made by our region, which wants to focus on infrastructures for
tourism. The Abitibi-Témiscamingue region wants to acquire
the basic infrastructures that will attract tourists to our region
for more than a few hours. People have to travel long distances
to get there, and we could sell our region if points of interest
were sufficient to make a stay of several days worthwhile.
(1105)
Tourists will not drive 600, 700 or 1,000 kilometres just for
the sake of driving. The FORDQ previously subsidized tourism
facilities which, it felt, contributed towards developing the
economy, but now its focus has changed. Other priorities may be
acceptable, but the region's decision to set a priority on the
tourism industry should be supported by the federal government
and the regions should not be saddled with priorities that are not
often acceptable.
People in the community of Radisson near James Bay do not
see how the new focus of FORDQ would fit their situation. The
only development they could sustain is tourism. They have
neither the population base nor the industrial environment for
these new development priorities and new technologies. Let us
be practical and use the tools we have.
The people of Radisson want to use the far north as a tool to
attract adventure tours and other types of tourism. The federal
government should realize that the intent of our motion to
amend clauses 8, 9 and 10 is to maximize effectiveness by
focussing on the needs of the community and thus promote
regional development. The gap between developed and
undeveloped regions is widening, because in the past, these
regions did not have the right development tools.
Quebec has approved a policy to decentralize regional
development. Ottawa should also agree to decentralize and
consider the particular needs of each region. Regional
development councils in Quebec, which include of the mayors
of MRCs and regional intervenors, have already designed their
own development scenarios. They know what their needs are,
and the federal government should consult them so as to
harmonize its projects.
I think this brief presentation has sufficiently clarified the
intent of the amendments to clauses 8, 9 and 10. Failure to
support these amendments will reflect the present government's
reluctance to co-operate with the provinces and spend the scarce
amount of funds available more effectively.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, as I
was listening to the member for Abitibi I imagined that this
member could actually be giving this speech from any region of
the country. He talked about the importance of tourism,
education, enough capital coming to a region, proper and
efficient utilization of our natural resources-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. parliamentary
secretary has already spoken on this group of motions and I
8534
would now like to recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley
West. We can intervene only once on each group of motions.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member's speech probably would have been so
good I would have been happy to let him speak for a little
longer-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): We could get
unanimous consent.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): You will not get my
consent to speak in my spot.
Yesterday we talked about regional development grants in the
House. Yesterday we heard a member of the Liberal Party taking
credit for the great growth in the economy since the Liberals
have been elected.
I reminded the hon. member that this is really the business
cycle, the natural business cycle in this country that is taking
place. This government should in no way take credit for what is a
natural business cycle. Of course the comment-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): We don't take any
blame either for anything.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): We will give them the
blame. They are suggesting that they should not get the blame
but we will give you all sorts of blame in some areas.
This is a natural business cycle, my point being that as we
stand here in the House of Commons taking credit for how well
things are coming along the average taxpayer out there who is
getting hit harder and harder and has less and less money looks
at us on television and these other ways of communicating today
and wonders what in the heck is going on in the House of
Commons. These politicians-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): We wonder where you
got that tie, Randy.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): You see how important this
is, Madam Speaker. The Liberals are at me for my tie. Rome is
burning and they are at me for my tie.
(1110 )
My point is that while we talk about taking credit for business
cycles and so on, Rome is burning to some extent. The average
taxpayer is wondering what these federal politicians are really
doing in Ottawa.
Yesterday I also heard comments in the House from one of our
colleagues in the Liberal Party who was very concerned about
my criticisms of ACOA, the regional development agency in
Atlantic Canada. The comment was Reformers do not like
Atlantic Canadians because we have the audacity to complain
about regional development grants.
The relationship between complaining about grants and not
liking a certain region is ridiculous. Yesterday I heard from one
of the Bloc members: ``You had better be careful what you say
about the east; you are talking about FORD-Quebec''. It is not
about the people and where they live. It is about how much
money we have in this country.
Today we hear about the federal government's central control
over regional development, about the funds that are going its
way. We also hear the PQ, the separatists, talking about how this
is so much of a waste: ``We are doing it in our province anyway
and the federal government is wasting its''.
We hear the Liberals saying they are going to keep it the same
and big daddy is going to hand out all the regional development
grants to everybody.
What people are hearing from the Reformers is the logical
approach. Should we be handing out in excess of $1 billion a
year in regional development grants when we are overspending
by $40 billion a year and we have a $530 billion debt load? We
have to get some priorities in place.
The people watching and listening must think this is all a
nightmare. We are talking about giving moneys out to regions
and the amounts given out are not small dollars. ACOA, the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, is over $375 million a
year, FORD-Quebec is in excess of $437 million a year and
western economic diversification is $452 million a year.
We have to borrow this money to give out. We are saying let us
be a little more realistic here, folks. We have to cut back, if not
over a period of time eliminate this. I have some ideas on where
to eliminate. I will show today some of the ridiculous grants that
have been given out by this government-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I do this with respect. The member
knows of my affection for him. However, I am having a difficult
time linking the relevance of what he is saying to the actual
amendment. I would ask for clarification on that.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, I am
surely not required to give an explanation to somebody from the
Liberal government on how I express-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. The hon.
member should, however, be relevant.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, I just
heard these people here, these separatists, talking about regional
development. That is what I am talking about. I am not going to
stand here and justify to a member, Madam Speaker. I can justify
to you. This is about regional development and that is what I am
8535
going to talk about whether this government likes it or not. I will
continue my speech on regional development if the member
does not mind. I hope this time is added on to my speech.
The concept of regional development is what we are talking
about here. We will try to get a concept through these minds
here. As I understand it and as the Auditor General has so
reported the concept, it is to support and promote the
opportunity for economic development, to foster development
of entrepreneurship, to increase the rate of new business
formation and to improve competitiveness of small and medium
size business.
(1115)
I find the concept of entrepreneurship and government
sponsored dollars incompatible. That is something this
government has to learn as well.
For instance I have been tracking some of the payments made
by this government. There is an individual who has received the
entrepreneur of the year award in one of our great provinces. He
has received something like seven or nine grants from one of the
regional economic development programs. I find that hard to
understand. It is an oxymoron. To be the entrepreneur of the year
and have the government shovel money your way just does not
fit, but I do not think this government understands this.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): You do not understand
that?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): As far as the value to
industry, this is an industry bill. I am still relevant, am I Madam
Speaker? I am just making sure.
I have a great deal of difficulty with the concept of regional
development in industry and shelling out the dollars. We have to
start eliminating these four regional development programs.
This government is handing out $1.4 billion a year and a lot of
that is shelled out not for the concepts I talked about. It is not
necessarily for fostering entrepreneurship. It is not necessarily
to increase the rate of new business formation and improve
competitiveness. In fact, improvement of competitiveness
philosophy really does not work at all in some cases from
regional development grants.
For example, there are some regional development grants
given by this government to motels and inns across this country,
but the trouble is it gives to one and not to another. How do we
get competitiveness by giving a grant on the backs of the
taxpayers to one and not to another? I do not understand that
philosophy at all.
Members of the Liberal Party stand in the House and say:
``Big daddy is going to pass out your money'', and another party
says: ``You should not be doing that. We have our own. You are
wasting the money''. Rather than doing that, maybe for a
moment they should consider phasing them out. If a government
has to borrow from Japan, Germany or the United States to hand
this money out it should really consider its management style.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): I cannot believe you
are saying this.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Well I am saying it and I
mean it.
Mr. Stinson: And the taxpayers mean it too. They are tired of
it.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): You guys are missing
the point.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): What about the young
people coming behind us? What about the debt load we have
taxed to these people? What about the taxes the small business
person is paying? What about the interest that Canada itself
must pay to pay back the debt? It is all borrowed money on the
backs of the taxpayers and the young people so that this
government can shell out $1.3 billion a year to regions.
Do we need grants? Why do we need grants? Why do we need
regional development? Regional development is important. But
to the Liberal Party regional development means shelling out
dollars to those you know. Next week in this House of Commons
I will be disclosing some of those they know who get money.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): What would you do?
You say it is important. But what do you mean by that?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Only when it is absolutely
necessary should the government be in the business of private
industry.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Give us an example.
(1120 )
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, not to
expand a tea room for $99,000. They call that regional
development and it is not. Not to modernize a campground and
facilities. That is up to the owner with his profits. It is up to the
individual to expand in regional development.
Finally, this government really does not have a clue on
regional development. We heard the separatist party here talking
about what is wrong with it and we are saying the government
cannot afford it. And I think I was relevant.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to remind
members that Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 will be grouped
for debate but voted on as follows:
A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 7. An
affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 obviates the necessity of the
question being put on Motions Nos. 3, 6 and 8. On the other
hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates the question
being put on Motion No. 3. A vote on Motion No. 3 applies to
Motions Nos. 6 and 8.
Is the House ready for the question?
8536
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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 Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(1)(8) a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos.
4, 5 and 7.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-46 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
He said: As with respect to our amendments to clauses 8, 9
and 10, we wish to address the amendment to clause 14 with the
same kind of principles we used to evaluate and analyse the
others.
In particular, we want to suggest to the House again that it is
the obligation of government and it is and should be the intent of
legislation to provide checks and balances to ensure openness,
integrity and honesty in the performance of the duties and
responsibilities incumbent upon government.
Second, the marketplace should determine winners and
losers, not the government or intervention by government or its
ministers in that marketplace.
Finally, the role of government is to provide a level playing
field so that competition can be equal, fair and on a level playing
ground so that the refereeing of the game of business is in fact
conducted in a manner that provides success for as many as
possible.
The results of the application of these principles is confidence
for business and government and it certainly enhances the
international competitiveness and the ability to provide for
changes in the new economy that is coming.
I wish now to address the particular amendment to clause 14
which really is to eliminate and delete from the bill the total
clause. There are a number of reasons we would like to propose
that clause 14 be deleted from the bill.
Clause 14 gives to the minister a tremendous range of powers.
May I just quote briefly from the provisions of the bill. The bill
suggests that the minister under this act may:
(a) make loans to any person;
(b) guarantee the repayment of, or provide loan insurance or credit insurance
in respect of, any financial obligation undertaken by any person; and
(c) make grants and contributions to any person.
(1125 )
The broad range of power given to the minister under this
section is such that it makes it possible for that minister to
intervene directly in the marketplace on behalf of or against any
business or individual or group of persons, organizations or
associations.
We believe that that provision is most objectionable and must
not be allowed to stand. It allows the minister or through the
minister under certain conditions that follow in the other
sections the cabinet to pick winners and losers in the economy.
The authority violates a fundamental principle of openness,
honesty and integrity. As we know, and history has shown over
and over again, power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends
to corrupt absolutely.
The provisions of this act are such in this clause that the
minister can without reference to anyone do the kinds of things
we talked about: make loans, give grants and things of this sort.
The government's role is to regulate the marketplace so that it
is level but not to intervene and choose winners and losers by
that intervention. If business is to succeed then it must be
allowed to do so without having competitors gaining unfair
advantage as a result of government intervention of one kind or
another, particularly when it has to do with monetary assistance
in particular areas.
If a business or a business sector is going to fail, it should do
so because it lacked the competence or for some other reason it
did not succeed. The government assistance should not be used
to prop up a business that cannot survive in its own right. If the
only way a business can survive is by government intervention
and by shoring it up then indeed that business is of questionable
integrity and questionable work in the economy.
I would like to refer particularly to what can happen when
government intervention of this kind takes place. I refer here to
the 1993 Auditor General's report with regard to the then
Department of Science, Industry and Technology now known as
the Department of Industry.
8537
There we have a very interesting situation. In 1985, the
cabinet authorized the Minister of Finance to provide an equity
injection into the Federal Business Development Bank to
enable that bank to purchase a $69 million special issue of
preferred shares.
Subsequently, that was increased to $79 million, only $10
million more. The investment of the company was made
pursuant to a directive of the governor in council and executed
by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, then Industry,
Science and Technology and currently Industry. It was done
under this clause and a subsequent clause in section 14.
On October 26, 1986, the government signed a share
subscription agreement with a company for a two stage $260
million plant modernization project.
The information provided to cabinet for its approval on
October 7, 1986, identified a specific Russian technology for the
project. This technology was described as the newest and best
available in the world. The company decided to switch from the
Russian technology to new German technology which it
purchased in September 1986.
Cabinet was not informed of the major change in this project.
What was the result of all of these kinds of changes? The
company's new plant using the German technology attempted
startup in December 1989 and suspended operation in March
1990.
In December 1992, two years later, the company advised the
Department of Industry that it could not complete stage one
before December 31, 1992, for reasons beyond its reasonable
control thereby suspending its obligation under the agreement.
In 1990 the department estimated that the Federal Business
Development Bank was unlikely to recover its investment or
earn any dividends. To date, the bank has received no dividends.
In fact the Federal Business Development Bank wrote that
particular investment down to zero. The agreement, however,
remains in force until the year 2006.
(1130)
The company's audited statement of total capital
expenditures for the project at May 31, 1990 indicated that the
company had incurred costs of $161 million. With $134 million
that came from the federal government and some from the
British Columbia government, the company was out of pocket
$27 million and then only because of cost overruns. Had these
cost overruns not occurred, the company's share in the project at
that point would have been zero.
That is not the way to use taxpayers' money. The emphasis on
it being best left to the private entrepreneur is the principle the
government should observe and not use tax dollars to do these
kinds of things. This clause of the bill should be deleted.
Many of the clauses are unclear. They are intrusionary. They
are elitist. They allow the government and the minister in
particular unlimited opportunities to interfere in the free
market, and the cabinet as well under another section. In my
remarks today I have shown that the legislation needs
clarification. There are things that should be deleted from it.
There are powers that should be circumscribed; the minister and
the cabinet should not have these powers. They unbalance the
very fundamentals of our economy and can strangle our
treasury, as was already indicated in the Auditor General's
report.
We should get to the point where the government does not take
winners and losers but in fact develops a level playing field. The
Department of Industry can be the department to bring about a
strong engine that will drive the economy and bring about a
balanced budget. That is what the department should do.
However the way to do that is not by intervening directly in the
marketplace through particular regional development programs
or by providing loans, grants and subsidies to industries. The
minister has the right to do this for any particular person and is
not obligated to require that certain conditions be met for those
loans.
At this point the legislation, the way it is being proposed,
needs to be amended as we have suggested.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, my Reform Party colleague
from Okanagan made so many assertions in his speech that I do
not know where to begin. I challenge his statement that this
clause works against open government.
That is just not so. In his discourse the member referred to
detail about the Federal Business Development Bank. It was
proof of public accountability for nearly every transaction that
goes on in government and specifically in Department of
Industry. The blue book details-and the people of Canada
should know it-every decision and every taxpayers' dollar
spent by this department.
To suggest that clause 14 allows the Minister of Industry to go
around with a chequebook in his pocket so that if he happens to
run into somebody he likes or he thinks has an interesting idea
he can write a cheque is not what it is all about.
This clause is about our space arm. Spar Aerospace was an
example of the taxpayers of Canada investing approximately
$140 million in 1979, 1980 and 1981. When that arm opened in
outer space and the word Canada was on the side of it, I do not
think there was a Canadian who said anything other than bravo.
Today that space arm technology has brought the country a
tenfold return.
(1135 )
What about the McCains? The Reform Party member said we
should listen to private entrepreneurs. That is an example of a
private entrepreneur in Atlantic Canada who got his $4 million
kickstart from the Government of Canada in a DREE loan. Right
now he is employing close to 20,000 Canadians in every region
of our country, all the way from processors to marketers to
packagers to truck drivers and so on. He is a private entrepreneur
and has paid back in tax dollars and employee tax dollars a
thousand times the investment. What about Bombardier? It is
8538
selling monorails all over the world right now. It is doing all
kinds of stuff.
I will talk about a personal experience I had. I was involved
with a company called Magna International that received
taxpayers' money. It not only paid it all back but this year it paid
the treasury $145 million in tax. It employs 20,000 people and is
flying. The company needed it. It was the story of an
entrepreneur getting a bit of a push for his idea, his technology.
That company makes the best automotive product at the most
competitive price and is recognized as one of the leaders in the
world.
What about Northern Telecom? What about MacMillan
Bloedel in western Canada? What about the oil and gas
industry? These are concrete examples of entrepreneurs, men
and women, who went through due process and received
taxpayers' money.
There is another thing Reform Party members do not
understand. They think if someone has an idea he or she knocks
on the door of Industry Canada and there is a cheque writing
machine there.
I like to think I am an entrepreneur. I find the whole process of
dealing with bureaucrats to be very frustrating. They want paper
and more paper. They want to make sure the promised job
creation objectives are being met with the taxpayers' money.
They come in and do audits. There is scrutiny beyond
imagination.
I would be the first to admit that the Government of Canada
has made mistakes from time to time. If they add the last 20
years of taxpayers' money invested in R and D, in new
technology and in regional development projects versus the
return, Reformers would suddenly come across the Chamber and
join us.
Mr. Stinson: Then why are we so far in debt? Why is the
country so far in debt?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, I
want to take a minute to answer the question about why are we so
far in debt.
We should not be punishing or casting aspersions on
entrepreneurs who have had some financial support from the
Government of Canada and have more than paid back the
investment not only in terms of payback on loans but also in
taxes. It is not relevant but I will deal with the member's
question. Why the debt? They should not hang the debt on the
entrepreneurs of the country. If that is what the Reform Party is
doing now, hanging the debt of the country on the entrepreneurs,
the small and medium sized business-
Mr. Stinson: No, it is your policies.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Would the hon.
parliamentary secretary continue.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, it is
interesting to hear the Reform Party. We have been in the House
one year and now the Reform Party is against entrepreneurship.
(1140)
Mr. Schmidt: We are against your pork barrelling. That is
what we are against.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): I quote directly from
the member's speech: ``Government assistance should not be
used if a company cannot make it on its own''.
There is not a single entrepreneur in the country, whether it
was through the tax act, some form of grant, loan assistance or
whatever, who has not received some sort of recognition and
support from the Government of Canada or the various
provinces.
All they have to do is look at the tax act of Canada to see $40
billion worth of tax grants buried there. Most of them are going
to businesses in the member's riding and now he is against
entrepreneurship. We will not support this amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am a little surprised to hear what the hon. member
from the Reform Party had to say immediately after the speech
the hon. member for Fraser Valley West had given, emphasizing
that the government was to step in only when necessary. He was
in fact leaving the door open to some government involvement,
while in the amendment and the remarks made by the hon.
member for the Reform Party who spoke just before me, the door
is totally closed.
Deleting, in Clause 14, lines 19 to 47, on page 7, and lines 1 to
8, on page 8, is absolutely unthinkable, as far as we are
concerned. Let me explain. Again, this Reform Party proposal
shows that this party is totally out of touch with economic
reality. It cannot conceive the role of the State as that of an
economic leader, a developer. It sees it more as a wait-and-see
role, if not that of a killjoy.
By deleting large portions of Clause 14 which enables the
government, through its Minister of Industry, to influence small
and medium size businesses to facilitate the implementation of
programs or projects under the act, the Reform Party shows,
once again, its commitment to fostering wild liberalism: ``Let us
go. We will see where it leads us''.
The Bloc Quebecois can only condemn such an attitude, an
attitude of permissiveness with respect to the market economy.
You cannot just say: ``Go at it, any which way you want''. I think
that the State has a role to play as an economic leader, and a
8539
promoter of development. I think that is part of the
responsibilities of the State.
Therefore, we think it is essential that the government be able
to have a say concerning loans that may be made, guarantees that
may be given and loan insurance or credit insurance that may be
provided, as stated in paragraph 14(3)(a).
Unlike the Reform Party, we feel it is also essential that the
government be able to make loans and guarantee the repayment
of any financial obligation or provide loan insurance ir credit
insurance and make grants and contributions.
The Premier of Quebec made it clear -he sent clear signals-
when he said that the State must be an active player in the
economy. It must not assume the role of a banker, but its
certainly can guarantee repayment for SMEs, which are
recognized as creating the most new jobs, to promote their
development and help them face this free trade, global market,
high-tech, competitive context. In a nutshell, support the
development of businesses. The primary role of the state is to be
an economic leader and developer.
Quebec, as we know it today, is the product of the emergence
of a state actively involved in the economic development of its
territory since the beginning of the 1960s. Take for example the
great success of Hydro-Québec, the major role played by the
Quebec deposit and investment fund and, more recently, the
success of the Solidarity Fund, which go to show that the
economy of the community has to be made available to small
and medium size businesses, indeed, the ones that generate the
most employment.
Minister Paillé has just implemented a program for SMEs, to
guarantee repayment to a maximum of $50,000 for SMEs,
people who have ideas, who can implement ideas, create jobs
and develop them.
(1145)
That is what we call economic support. Action must be taken
to support the people who are very active in terms of
development and job creation. There are many out there who
have ideas and can set up businesses.
The Bloc Quebecois can only express disagreement with this
presentation and the Reform Party amendment. Because we
recognize that any State has a role to play as a developer and
must support economic development, particularly as regards
SMEs, we are clearly opposed to the amendment brought forth
by the Reform Party.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(1)(8) a recorded division on the proposed motion
stands deferred.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-46, in new Clause 21, be amended by replacing subclause 2 with
the following:
``(2) The Minister shall, at least 60 days before the date on which the Minister fixes
or increases a fee under sections 18, 19 or 20, cause to be published in the Canada
Gazette and in no fewer than two leading newspapers in each province a notice
clearly indicating
(a) the products, services, rights, privileges, regulatory processes, approvals or use
of facilities provided under these sections; and
(b) the fees to be fixed or increased pursuant to these sections.''
He said: Madam Speaker, the Official Opposition has a pretty
straightforward position on clause 21(2). Our amendment is
aimed at putting things right side up instead of upside down.
This clause of Bill C-46 found in the third report of the
industry committee says in part (2) that, after setting fees under
sections 18, 19 or 20, the minister has 30 days to publish these
fees in the Canada Gazette so that Treasury Board can pass
regulations to authorize them.
People are notified 30 days after the fees have been set. This is
totally unacceptable. This is a devious way to increase taxes
without notifying taxpayers or notifying them after the fact.
Something is wrong here.
We also detect an attempt to give disproportionate powers to
senior officials, since this clause enables them to set fees
without the approval of the House of Commons. They will
simply bypass those elected by their fellow citizens to manage
the affairs of state.
This provision of the bill is clearly undemocratic, in our
opinion, since fees can be set without the approval of
lawmakers. The doors are wide open. That is why the Bloc
Quebecois tabled this motion:
8540
(2) The Minister shall, at least 60 days before the date on which the Minister fixes or
increases a fee under sections 18, 19 or 20, cause to be published in the Canada
Gazette-
Not 30 days after but 60 days before, so that we can respond and
look into the matter.
Let us be serious. I am telling the Liberal government to stop
using devious means to increase taxes and make all Canadians
poorer.
The Bloc Quebecois is simply asking the federal government
to stop managing the Quebec economy, either through
fee-setting policies or regional development. That is why we
oppose this amendment.
(1150)
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member raises a very
good point here. The part of his address I want to deal with is the
statement he made that this basically overrides the rights of the
legislators.
Members of our statutory instruments and regulations
committee brought that very point up about three weeks ago,
that the flaw did exist in the bill. The government recognized
this was an override. We believe our amendment deals with this
in a constructive way so legislators are not bypassed. I believe
my colleague critic from the Reform Party shares that view.
I want to say something to the member dealing with this whole
notion of overriding legislators. The Prime Minister, whom I
have had the pleasure of working with since 1980, who has come
up through the ranks as a parliamentary secretary, a young MP,
is very sensitive to making sure the individual roles of
legislators in this House of Commons are meaningful.
The Prime Minister has stated this on several occasions. It is
part of the red book. We do not come to this city day in, weekend
in and weekend out, making sacrifices with our families and
friends to be subservient to unelected officials or bureaucrats.
That is why our committee process has reached in my judgment
a new level of reform.
Our committees are almost independent now. I would not
want to say we are totally independent because the government
obviously has a majority in terms of the members. There is a
push by the Prime Minister to encourage MPs to develop their
ideas, to get control of their own agenda and do what they
believe in.
I believe the amendment we proposed in committee meets the
concerns the member from the Bloc raised in his address. We
would be supporting our own motion and we therefore would not
be supporting his.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I think we would all honour the intention of the
amendment being proposed by the Bloc. I have addressed the
idea of having openness. Making sure there is a certain element
of knowledge that is open and fair to everybody who wishes to
have that information about fees and things of that sort is very
laudable. I certainly commend that.
I do agree with the hon. parliamentary secretary to the
minister that the government saw the error of its original
proposal in the bill as it was originally written, bringing to the
committee a whole series of amendments that I think does meet
the intent of the Bloc member's comments.
There is another principle that needs to be observed. There
has to be a certain freedom to do the things that are right by
government. There has to be an openness. The accountability of
government has to be observed.
The amendments that were proposed and accepted in
committee that are now in the report of the bill that will be voted
on at third reading will meet not only the intent but also the
detail of the member's suggestion.
Therefore I would respectfully suggest that we all support the
amendments that come out of the committee and that we defeat
this amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(1)(8) a recorded division on the proposed motion
stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by
the chief government whip to defer the division until a later
time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6) the division of
the question now before the House stands deferred until Monday
at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, at which time the
8541
bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent to further defer that vote until Tuesday at
5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon.
government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to
defer the vote until Tuesday?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for
the following motion:
That the Order of the House, made November 30, 1994, concerning the report
of the Standing Committee on Finance pursuant to Standing Order 83.1 be
amended by changing the words ``December 7, 1994'' to ``December 8, 1994''.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent to suspend the sitting until 2 p.m. this day.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.59 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 1.57 p.m.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by members
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
8541
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
bring to the attention of the House that the United Nations has
declared Saturday, December 3, 1994, as International Day of
Disabled Persons.
In a draft resolution, the United Nations stated that the
General Assembly was well aware of the need for more vigorous
and broader action. It stated that measures were required at all
levels to fulfil the objectives of the decade and world program of
action concerning disabled persons.
As a member of the United Nations, Canada honours this
international commitment. Our federal strategy is aimed at
equalization of opportunity for disabled persons and
optimization of their positive contribution to Canadian society.
The government also realizes that more has to be done.
Through awareness raising and action oriented measures we aim
for increased comprehension and better access for persons with
disabilities. As a member of the Standing Committee on Human
Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, I too am convinced of
and committed to these initiatives.
A disability or handicap is no deterrent to achievement. In
politics alone, William Mr. Hughes, the former Prime Minister
of Australia was hearing impaired. Former President of the
United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was confined to a
wheelchair. Trevor Morgan, a former member of Parliament,
was blind. Who can forget the epic journeys of Terry Fox and
Rick Hansen. The determination of these individuals and
countless other disabled persons have shown that the barriers
can be overcome.
I encourage all members of this Parliament and Canadians
to-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Robin
Richardson of the Fraser Institute told the media yesterday that
if Quebec decides to separate and refuses to pay its share of the
debt, Canada would be destitute.
It is inconceivable that an institution which claims to be
serious could make such statements. Quebec sovereignists have
always said openly that they would meet their responsibilities
and that when Quebec becomes sovereign, it will assume its fair
share of the federal debt. On the other hand, a sovereign Quebec
will of course receive its fair share of federal assets.
At present, Quebec taxpayers are already bearing their share
of the federal debt in the present system. But the way the
Canadian government is managing its finances is cause for
concern.
This is the second time in less than four months that the Fraser
Institute has engaged in such speculation. In future, we hope that
the institute will be a little more serious, because as Talleyrand
said, anything exaggerated is not worth taking seriously.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today in recognition, along
with my colleagues, of December 3 as International Day of
Disabled Persons.
8542
This day is to remind us of the special concerns and needs
of the disabled. The Reform Party joins with all Canadians to
create a fair, equitable and sustainable system for all. We
believe that Canadians have a personal and collective
responsibility to care and provide for those unable to care and
provide for themselves.
Equality of opportunity for the disabled will come about as
individuals, employers and governments at all levels work
together to remove the barriers to their full participation in our
communities and in our workplaces. To assist the disabled in the
pursuit of their goals is both just and appropriate.
Today as we recognize the valuable contribution of the
disabled, let us reaffirm our support for their desire to be an
active, integral and productive part of our society.
* * *
[
Translation]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
our Prime Minister is attending the Paris summit on AIDS.
[English]
This summit is a French initiative in co-operation with the
WHO. Forty-two countries representing 70 per cent of the world
population will make a joint acclamation of their commitment to
fight HIV-AIDS. The Paris declaration will reflect the
principles and values already adopted by the United Nations for
HIV-AIDS and will add a new component for nations to respond
to urgent needs with practical and lasting measures. This
declaration would be operational by January 1996.
AIDS is a public health issue and political world leaders have
made the fight against this disease a priority. Special attention
will be given to reducing the vulnerability of women to AIDS, to
the important role of associations of persons living with the
virus, and to strengthening national and international
mechanisms for human rights and ethics as they relate to AIDS.
[Translation]
I am proud to say that Canada has built an international
reputation as a leader in these three sectors.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of Nigerians whose voices cannot be heard
from behind prison bars, I would like to draw the attention of the
House to activities engaged in by the de facto government in the
Commonwealth country of Nigeria as they relate to human
rights.
Nigeria's circumstances represent a severe setback to the
process of democratization in Africa. Mr. Abiola's election
victory in June 1993 was quashed by General Babangyida, who
went on to install an interim political body that yielded finally to
military rule. Already the de facto government has breached the
UN human rights declaration by its brutal attacks on newspaper
editors, human rights lawyers and any other type of political or
economic dissent. As well there is a risk of civil war on the basis
of ethnic divisions.
I am requesting, on behalf of concerned Canadians, that the
Minister of Foreign Affairs meet with the High Commissioner
for Nigeria to register Canada's concern for human rights
conditions in that country. As a signatory to the UN human
rights declaration, Canada must continue to be vigilant in
monitoring human rights accordance for men, women and
children throughout the world.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 21 the Queen's Square infrastructure project was
launched in my riding of Brampton. This is a $15 million project
funded under the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program which
will result in many medium and long term jobs.
The project is being undertaken in conjunction with the
project negotiated between the city of Brampton and a private
contractor, John Cutruzzola of the Inzola Group. When
construction is complete the downtown city core will have
undergone a $50 million facelift, leaving residents of Brampton
with a beautiful market style downtown core.
The national infrastructure program is putting Canadians
back to work, and at the same time revitalizing communities. It
is a model of how all three levels of government can co-operate
for the public good. The Queen's Square project in my riding of
Brampton is an example of the benefits of this co-operation
when it extends to the private sector.
On behalf of my constituents, I would like to take this
opportunity to congratulate the minister responsible for
infrastructure for the swift and effective implementation-
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has decided that
December 3 will be International Day for the Disabled. This is
an
8543
opportunity for all members of this House to become aware of
the obstacles which these proud and courageous people have to
face on a daily basis.
As a person who worked for the Office des personnes
handicapées du Québec for several years, I am aware of the
courage and determination of these people who, unfortunately,
must still put up with the prejudices of those who refuse to
recognize their full value. Insufficient resources and access
problems, particularly in the workplace, are constant challenges
for these people.
Let us hope that the International Day for the Disabled will
help their cause and that these people will stop being treated like
second class citizens, even here in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, southern Vancouver Island is the fastest growing
region in Canada. Currently we face a major transportation
problem with the only arterial highway in and out of Victoria
choked most of the time.
However, there is a solution available in the existing
Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway. We must put in place
measures to ensure its viability as an effective and efficient
mover of goods, services and people. It is currently owned by
Canadian Pacific and operated in a grossly inefficient fashion by
VIA Rail.
I encourage the Minister of Transport to convene a meeting of
members of the federal government, the provincial government
and Canadian Pacific to address this pressing issue. This is not
an issue of politics but of public necessity. To allow this railway
to be abandoned will be a gross travesty to the taxpayers as
ultimately money will need to be spent to provide an alternative
form of transportation to southern Vancouver Island.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, politics
should never stand in the way of signed legal agreements. I am
talking about the portion of the Hibernia oil project that was
given to the Saint John shipyard in New Brunswick under a
signed agreement.
The board decided on Saint John Shipbuilding because it is an
ice free port and because the company has the proven expertise
to do the job.
This past Tuesday the Prime Minister stated that he is asking
the board to review and overturn the signed legal agreement
with Saint John Shipbuilding in order to put it out to tender.
Under the agreement the government may be liable for expenses
and damages as a result of the termination of the agreement,
should it occur.
Is this what the government is all about, cancelling signed
legal agreements that could cost the taxpayers millions of
dollars in damages? I ask the Prime Minister to please keep
politics out of a signed agreement for the Saint John shipyard.
The taxpayers have paid enough.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to members of the Canadian
National Triathlon team from my riding of Parry
Sound-Muskoka who returned this week from the world
championship in Wellington, New Zealand.
Don McCormick, Sue Tovee, Darlene Murdy, Barry Webb,
David Vass, John Hiley and Helmut Kruckle qualified for the
world championships, with five of the seven making the trek to
New Zealand. At personal expense and significant sacrifice the
five triathletes travelled to a country that is 18 time zones away
and braved 140 kilometre winds during pre-race training
sessions.
When race day finally came, the five triathletes from Parry
Sound-Muskoka along with other Canadian athletes performed
well for their country in the 1.5 kilometre swim, 40 kilometre
cycle, and 10 kilometre run. These individuals demonstrated the
true nature of sportsmanship.
I support the athletes of Parry Sound-Muskoka and know
that all members of the House support the athletes of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last night I watched a documentary on CBC's
``Prime Time News'' regarding the mass murders in Rwanda.
I must say I am deeply shaken, as all of us should be, to learn
that the genocide of a reported half million people was part of a
well planned and premeditated scheme known as network zero.
It has also been revealed that many in the international
community had been warned of the impending tragedy.
I personally find it absolutely appalling and
incomprehensible that the potential for such atrocities to occur
was known and yet very little was done.
Why did the global community not mobilize in an attempt to
prevent the mass killings? I have to ask also, how did the entire
international community fail the people of Rwanda.
It is absolutely imperative that changes be introduced in the
United Nations to ensure that the mass murders of men, women,
and children never happen again.
8544
(1410 )
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
been observing the Reform Party for some time and things just
did not add up about it.
Last Friday its members presented to the finance committee
their plan to reduce government spending by $10 billion. On the
suggestion of the member for Calgary Centre I undertook to read
this document. The proposal for reductions is broken down into
five parts: first, $70 million; second, zero; the third is $3.5
billion plus $.64 billion; four, $1 billion; and five is $2 billion
plus $1.7 billion, plus an additional $.125 billion. This adds up
to only $9.035 billion, a shortfall of $1 billion.
To ensure I was correct I had a chartered accountant, an
economist, two students at Carleton University and one at
Ottawa University check the figures. The results are the same.
Members of the Reform Party cannot add and they do not add up
to Canada either.
There is only one finance minister but it took their three
finance critics to come up with this result.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today, on this first day of December, people throughout
the world are stopping a few moments to reflect on what can be
done to wipe out the terrible scourge called AIDS. This
epidemic of a disease that scarcely ten years ago was little
known to the public is today a cause for concern throughout the
world and spares none of its victims.
According to the World Health Organization, by the middle of
1994, more than 16 million adults and one million children had
contracted the AIDS virus since the beginning of the pandemic.
Even worse, by the year 2000, the cumulative total of people
infected by the virus will be between 30 and 40 million, while
the total number of cases of full-blown AIDS will be close to 10
million. No responsible government, in the United States or in
France, in Italy or in Africa, can afford to overlook the fact that
the fight against AIDS must include a campaign to promote safe
sex.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon will be the third and final
hour of debate on my private member's bill C-240. This bill will
permit corrections and parole officials to apply to the courts to
keep high risk offenders in custody or under community
supervision beyond the end of their sentences.
The government has stated that it would not support such
legislation because it may be a violation of the charter of rights
of the offender. So much for the promise of making the
protection of society its number one priority.
Canadians are demanding protection. After the murder of 16
year old Pamela Cameron in October, citizens in my riding
started a petition calling for the protection from high risk
offenders.
I made public this morning a petition with over 8,000 names.
In Milton, Ontario, Pamela's older sister obtained over 10,000
signatures on a similar petition that has yet to be introduced.
A recent poll indicated that 76 per cent of Quebecers support
the use of dangerous offender designations against violent
offenders.
I urge all members of the House to listen to their constituents
and provide them with the protection they are demanding.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Meadow Lake Tribal
Council for its success in the forestry business, as reported this
week by their auditors Price Waterhouse.
Federal loans worth $1.5 million, used by the tribal council to
start two businesses, have paid off with a return of $10.7 million
in corporate taxes.
The tribal council, led for many years by Chief Percy
Derocher and today by Chief Richard Gladue, created jobs,
contributed to their community and proved that there is an
important and useful role for the federal government to play in
support of aboriginal businesses.
The success of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council has paid off
in other ways. Their contribution has helped lead to the naming
of the town of Meadow Lake as Canada's forestry capital for
1995. We can all help them celebrate next year by ensuring that
the federal government acknowledges this success with a
continuation, indeed an enhancement, of the aboriginal business
support program.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like draw the attention of the House to two
important events connected with road safety. Today marks the
beginning of Road Safety Week, sponsored by the Canada Safety
Council. This year's theme reminds us of the dangers of driving
while under the influence of alcohol and stresses the fact that the
lives of thousands of Canadians are affected each year by this
8545
problem. Concerning another aspect of road safety, five years
ago, the federal government announced that all new motor
vehicles sold in Canada were to be equipped with daytime
running lights.
(1415)
This morning, the Minister of Transport released a study that
found that daytime running lights had prevented thousands of
collisions, so that our roads are now much safer.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many will recall Marlon Brando as the godfather when
he muttered: ``A favour is a favour''.
Yesterday Liberal members of the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage collectively played the role of godperson to
the hon. member for Calgary Southeast. Hon. members should
know the hon. member for Calgary Southeast refused to propose
or even vote on a motion authorizing funding for witnesses from
western Canada to appear before the committee, the very
witnesses the hon. member had previously insisted must appear.
Lack of funding would have killed the agreement the member
had vehemently insisted upon. Certainly, in the vernacular, all
members have bad hair days but perhaps the hon. member would
like to manger ses mots.
We must restore trust in politicians. Trust only begins when
we live up to the spirit and intent of agreements made in this our
parliamentary home. In her own words I would like to say again:
``Anything less would be absolutely outrageous''.
_____________________________________________
8545
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government persistently refuses to right a wrong done to
Quebec, by transferring immediately the contract for the
construction of a Hibernia drilling sub-unit to the Quebec
shipbuilder MIL Davie, the only loser in this whole business, as
it was the only other bidder on this contract. Yet Hibernia argued
that the time constraints and deadlines required that this
contract be assigned to Saint John Shipbuilding without
competitive bidding.
My question is directed to whichever minister would be so
kind as to answer on behalf of the government. How is it that the
government has the time to call for tenders now, when the
normal practice, as the Quebec Minister of Industry indicated, is
to go to the next bidder on the list if the first one is unable to
perform the work?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Hibernia benefits plan provides that all interested
parties be given a full and fair opportunity to submit a bid for
part of the work under the Hibernia deal.
The independent Canada-Newfoundland Offshore
Petroleum Board reviewed the decision in this regard by the
consortium and found that the Hibernia benefits plan had not
been followed. It is only normal for the government to ask
members of the consortium to review their decision. I think that
makes sense because we are asking if the proper process has
been followed in a way that is fair to all concerned.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
solution seems obvious. A bid has been submitted and the
bidder's name is MIL Davie.
Why does the government not transfer the contract to MIL
Davie, as would seem appropriate? And where does the
government find the time now to launch a new bidding process,
if the work was so urgent, or so we were told, that the contract
had to be let to Saint John Shipbuilding in the first place?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the hon. member is complaining about is with
respect to a decision made by the consortium that gave the
contract to Saint John Shipbuilding without following the
Hibernia benefits plan according to the findings of the
independent Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum
Board.
That is why the government is asking the consortium to
review the decision because of the findings of the board. We are
asking the consortium to make that decision as quickly as
possible. We hope the hon. member will agree with this sensible
step.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is
the government of Canada waiting for to table the full report of
the Canada-Newfoundland Board, so that everyone can take
8546
cognizance of the facts and see that MIL Davie was treated
unfairly and that the Hibernia board of directors has
contravened every contract award rule in the book in this
particular case?
(1420)
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will inquire as to the possibility of tabling the report
of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board.
I think that we should also table in this House the report on the
nearly $500 million in economic benefits that have accrued to
Quebec as a result of some 100 contracts. As a result of these
contracts and conditions, the government just could not leave
the people of Quebec unaware of such crucial facts.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at
a press conference this morning, the minister of defence quickly
tabled his white paper without any warning and without regard
for the Official Opposition.
The minister of defence announced that, with the holiday
season approaching, he intends to spend hundreds of millions of
dollars on used military equipment. The defence minister's
shopping list includes four used British submarines, helicopters
and armoured vehicles.
Now that the cold war is over and that the government must
reduce spending, how can the minister dare contemplate at this
time the acquisition of used military equipment whose
usefulness is highly questionable?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first on the
procedural matter, it is customary for government to table
responses to standing committee reports in the House. That was
done.
I do not think it would have been within the normal practice to
have given advance warning of that. However I did give a copy
immediately to a member of the hon. member's party and the
critic for the Reform Party immediately upon tabling, knowing
that there were at least four hours before question period within
which to reflect upon it.
On the specific point regarding the major capital purchases
that have been called for in the white paper, it is very important
to differentiate between the helicopter purchases required to
replace the Labradors for search and rescue, the Sea Kings for
the combat helicopters on ships and the armoured personnel
carriers for the army from the submarine question.
The submarine question is simply a matter of investigating a
possible arrangement with the United Kingdom that wants to
sell four used conventionally powered submarines which would
assist us in discharging our maritime mandate not just on the
Atlantic coast but on the Pacific coast as well.
There is no commitment on the part of the government to
purchase such submarines. Simply we are looking at the matter
and we would have been remiss if we had not mentioned it in the
white paper.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
can assure the minister that I am quite able to differentiate
between submarine and helicopter purchases!
How can the minister explain to Canadian taxpayers that,
barely a year after cancelling the EH-101 helicopter contract at
an approximate cost of $800 million, he has now decided to buy
new helicopters to replace the Sea Kings which last spring were
declared fit to fly until the year 2002 by the minister himself?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the red
book we never discounted the need for search and rescue
helicopters. We said that combat helicopters for ships would be
studied in the defence review. The hon. member was part of a
committee that recommended we buy new helicopters.
What is important is that the Conservative government
wanted to spend $5.8 billion to develop a state of the art
helicopter that we did not need and could not afford. The
solution that we are proposing is going to save considerably
more money, well over a billion dollars and perhaps $2 billion.
That is not bad economics as far as I am concerned.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Justice said:
During the course of the last several months, I have been in continuous touch
with senior officials and indeed with provincial counterparts, attorneys general
and ministers of justice, exchanging views about the proposals that will be
decided upon and announced this afternoon.
(1425 )
However today in a television interview he revealed that he
had not spoken to some of the provincial justice ministers but
hoped that he would get their support.
Given that the registration of firearms will have a significant
impact upon the financial resources of the provinces and
territories, why did the minister not get the support of provincial
justice ministers before the fact, not after?
8547
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is
confident it has the support of the vast majority of Canadians
in the decisions we announced yesterday with respect to
firearms.
In terms of the provinces and territories, as I made clear
yesterday I have been in direct contact with some of my
provincial counterparts. Throughout the process the Department
of Justice has been in continuous contact with senior officials of
provincial and territorial ministries of justice. Those
communications have been continuous and, I can advise the
House, very productive.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
still seems wise that we would get support from all of them when
all the provinces will be involved.
In one short statement yesterday the Minister of Justice
eliminated the role of Parliament, of the Standing Committee on
Justice and of interested parties on both sides of the issue. He
said: ``Let me make it very clear. The process of consultation
leading to legislation is now over''. This is unacceptable.
What gives the Minister of Justice the power to interfere with
the parliamentary process which includes the Standing
Committee on Justice? Is true democracy proving to be
inconvenient for the justice minister?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I meant yesterday
exactly what I said. The process of consultation leading to the
proposals in the legislation the government will put forward is at
an end. We have reached the government's policy on firearms.
Naturally the bill will be put before the House of Commons in
February when we resume. It will then be referred to committee
in the ordinary course. It will go through the regular
parliamentary procedure in which we hope to have the
involvement of all members of the House.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
seems evident across the country that these proposals are in fact
full of holes and seriously flawed.
We have seen in previous legislation in the House that this
minister has set a precedent for ramrodding, railroading and
running roughshod over the democratic process.
The minister said that yesterday's proposals are final. Will the
minister, upon tabling the legislation, be open to further
consultation? Will he consider changes to these proposals that
attack responsible law-abiding gun owners?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the
support among members of the Canadian public for these
proposals is very high. We are making proposals that have the
support of the vast majority of Canadians.
In terms of the consultation process, I spent almost five
months consulting with over 150 national and regional
organizations of firearms owners and users. I dealt with them at
close quarters on the details of the proposals. Our consultations
leading to the formation of government policy are at an end.
Naturally when I put the bill before the House it will be referred
to committee, witnesses will be heard, and the usual
parliamentary process will be followed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Yesterday, the minister refused to respond favorably to the
invitation from the Mayor of Saint-Jean, saying that he had not
received an invitation from Quebec's Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. Now, the Mayor of Saint-Jean
publicly invited both governments to Saint-Jean to continue
discussions on the future of the military college on the basis of
his proposal. Quebec is ready to delegate representatives.
Can the minister tell us whether he, like the Quebec minister,
intends to respond favorably to the invitation from the Mayor of
Saint-Jean and delegate officials so that discussions can resume
and thus show his good faith?
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, as I already said in this House a few days ago, I met
the Mayor of Saint-Jean to listen to his proposal and to discuss
the future of the college in Saint-Jean.
We both clearly agreed that the college in Saint-Jean must
continue and for this two essential conditions of the July 19
agreement had to be met: the college has to be demilitarized and
a transition period is needed.
(1430)
What has happened is that I sent Ms. Beaudoin a letter several
weeks ago, asking her to do just that, and she has not yet sent me
a reply. As soon as she gives me an answer, we are ready to meet
her.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can
the minister tell us whether or not he is prepared to continue
discussions on the basis of the proposal from the Mayor of
Saint-Jean, which would provide a transition period and also
keep 350 officer cadets at the college next September?
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 already told the House exactly what we had
agreed on. What we need now is a reply from Ms. Beaudoin that
she is ready to accept the July 19 agreement as a basis of
negotiation. Our position was and still is the same and the Bloc
Quebecois is
8548
preventing the development of the royal military college in
Saint-Jean and hindering normal economic activity in the
Saint-Jean region because it opposes implementing the
agreement.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
during the justice minister's press conference when asked
whether the registration of rifles and shotguns would reduce the
criminal use of these firearms, the minister could not say that it
would.
Given that the objective of firearms control is to reduce the
accidental, intentional and criminal use of firearms, can the
minister today state that the registration of shotguns and rifles
will meet these objectives and reduce the criminal use of these
weapons in society?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only reason this
government is proposing a registration system for rifles and
shotguns is our firm belief that it will have exactly that result.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in his
proposals yesterday the minister failed to provide the statistical
information to justify the registration of rifles and shotguns and
to ban other firearms.
The Auditor General found the same lack of substantiating
evidence for Bill C-17, which led him to conclude that C-17
was initiated for reasons of public policy.
I ask the minister, when will he provide statistical
justification for introducing these measures, or is this being
done for reasons of public policy as well?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why
the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police wants universal
registration of firearms. There is a reason why the Canada
Safety Council has been urging the government to introduce
universal registration of firearms, quite apart from common
sense.
As we announced yesterday, there is a direct link between the
registration of firearms, the reduction of crime, the reduction in
the number of lost and stolen firearms in the hands of criminals
and public safety and safety in the home.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Right in the midst of its pre-budget consultation exercise, the
government continues to leave open the possibility of taxing
RRSPs when, according to a Gallup poll, over 86 per cent of
Canadians and Quebecers oppose such a measure.
Considering that the government did not wait until the end of
its pre-budget consultation to announce that it would not reduce
UI contributions below the level mentioned in the budget, will
the Minister of National Revenue now reassure concerned
Canadian taxpayers that he will not tax RRSPs?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is
raised about the recent poll that was conducted for the
Retirement Savings Alliance. That group had the opportunity to
present its paper before the finance committee in the
consultation process. We are listening to all the consultations
and will look forward to that.
I will not, as the Minister of Finance has said in the past,
comment on individual proposals at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister continue to leave open the possibility of taxing
RRSPs and increase the concerns of Canadian taxpayers at a
time when people are taking and renewing RRSPs, and
considering that if RRSPs were to be taxed, 44 per cent of those
who participated in the poll said they would stop contributing?
(1435 )
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not this
government that is raising the questions of taxing RRSPs. It is
the opposition party and the third party that have raised these
questions again and again before this House.
I will repeat that we are not going to comment on the
individual proposals until our budget is presented in February.
* * *
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the gun control proposals submitted by the justice
8549
minister yesterday would ban the .32-calibre handgun like the
one fired by Olympic gold medalist, Linda Thom. This is a
calibre of handgun used in Olympic sport competitions.
Does the Minister of Justice realize that he has effectively
eliminated Canadians from this Olympic sport? They will no
longer be able to own and practice with this gun in preparation
for world class events.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the category of
handguns that this government proposes to ban is not broadly
used in legitimate sporting activities. Instead, these small
handguns we propose to ban are cheaply made, easily concealed
and commonly used in crime. That is why we are banning them.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an international sporting event being eliminated
for Canadian competitors which points to how poorly thought
out this whole proposal really is.
I have not yet mentioned the violation of the rights to privacy,
the confiscation of personal property without compensation;
how poorly thought out this whole proposal really is.
As a start, will the minister make a commitment to remove the
.32-calibre hand gun from this list of banned firearms?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I most certainly will
not. The categories of handguns which were identified for ban
were worked through with the RCMP, with expert advisers. They
were identified precisely for the reasons we gave the House
when we announced these decisions yesterday and they will
remain on the list.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
On December 6, 1989, 14 young women were killed at the
École polytechnique, in Montreal. This tragedy triggered a
major movement for gun control. Yet, five years later, the
government introduces a mere action plan, in spite of the
commitment made by the Minister of Justice and the Prime
Minister to table a bill before Christmas.
How can the minister be satisfied with his action plan, whose
effects will not be measurable until the year 2003, almost 15
years after the tragedy at École polytechnique?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question put by the
hon. member echoes the pale and oblique commentary she gave
yesterday following my speech in the House. It disappointments
me, as much as her speech did yesterday, that instead of dealing
with the substance of the matter, instead of expressing her
position with respect to the substance of the decisions and the
proposals, she seizes upon the form of the matter and comments
caustically upon that.
This government has made its position clear. We shall
introduce legislation in February to implement the decisions in
the paper I tabled yesterday.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
how can the minister claim not to have caved in to the gun lobby,
considering that his eventual legislation will allow more than
4,000 Canadians to keep their AK-47s and more than half a
million others to keep their hand guns for the rest of their lives,
all the while keeping within the law?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in connection with the
AK-47s, those firearms will be prohibited. Future sales will be
prohibited. Those who have them can keep them but not transfer
them.
In connection with the banned handguns the position is, once
again, future sales are prohibited. Those who have them may
keep them but may not use them. They can keep them and store
them safely, surrender them to the police or disable them.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism.
It is ironic when MPs like the Reform member for Calgary
Southeast yesterday misrepresented the cardinal principles of
multiculturalism, a policy long viewed by other countries as a
model for social cohesion and national unity.
(1440 )
Given that nearly half of Canada's people are of neither
English nor French background, can the minister assure us that
the government will continue to promote the cultural, economic
and social benefits inherent in Canada's diversity?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for his question and his incisive observations.
Of course the answer is yes. Diversity and pluralism are the
Canadian reality.
This government is committed to nation building, to ensuring
that we live in an inclusive society and that we will have
multicultural programs which will contain cross-cultural
undertakings, intercultural exchange and will promote social
harmony, social cohesion and peace.
We in this party believe that we should build a society in
which racism, bigotry, intolerance and misunderstanding shall
8550
find no home. That is the goal of this government. That is nation
building and the Liberals support the multicultural program.
* * *
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources or whoever
should choose to answer on behalf of the government.
Could the minister explain why the Canada-Newfoundland
Offshore Petroleum Board made a decision to review the process
of awarding the contract to Saint John Shipyard last week as
opposed to when the decision was initially made some months
ago?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be pleased to get that information from the board.
In the meantime I think we should take satisfaction that this
independent review board is doing the job for which it was set
up.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
supplemental is for the same minister.
Could this minister please explain why the
Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board is reviewing
the contract awarded to Saint John Shipyard when other
contracts have been awarded without going to tender, such as the
contract awarded to the Norwegian Contractors Newfoundland
this past summer and no review took place?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I understand it, this is an independent board, an
arm's length board and it does its job according to its mandate.
I will seek the information the hon. member is asking for but I
do not know why the Reform Party, which wants probity in
actions by government bodies, refuses to pay attention to the
work of an independent, arm's length board reviewing the
expenditure of taxpayers' funds.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Yesterday, the United Nations suffered a major diplomatic
reversal when the Bosnian Serb authorities refused to meet with
UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Peace
negotiations have reached an impasse. The NATO Ministers of
Foreign Affairs met today in Brussels to develop their position
on the Bosnian situation, while major tensions between the
Americans and Europeans continue to grow.
What position has the Canadian government taken today at
the NATO Summit in Brussels in order to break the deadlock
concerning Bosnia?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, we regret that the Bosnian factions refused to meet
with the UN Secretary-General. We are very sorry.
The Prime Minister has stated our position on the Bosnian
conflict and this is the position which was stressed again this
morning and this afternoon by my colleague, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs. Right now, I do not have a report from these
NATO meetings, since I am told they are still under way in
Europe, but when I have an answer I will contact the hon.
member.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
instead of simply criticizing the United States for their attitude,
as the Prime Minister did in an interview he granted to the daily
Le Monde, does the government not think it should take a much
more constructive approach and consult its main partners in
order to come up with solutions that would get the peace
negotiations moving again in Bosnia?
(1445)
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister spoke to the French Senate today which is indeed an
honour. I think he is the second foreigner ever to have addressed
that body.
After the speech the Prime Minister was quite forceful in his
desire for Canada to remain as part of the solution in the former
Yugoslavia to help bring tensions to an easier point and to bring
negotiations to fruition. Certainly he believes that Canada has a
role, and I hope the Prime Minister has a role, to help in any new
negotiating process.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the contact
group on Bosnia was established in April, two of the five
members being countries that had no troops there. Canada is one
of the largest contributors but we are excluded.
Why did the government not do its job in April and demand
our membership in the contact group? Why did this government
wait silently for so long before it finally became involved as
conditions worsened? The Canadian people want to know why.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we made
representations at the establishment of the contact group and for
reasons I cannot explain Canada was not invited to be part of that
group.
8551
Certainly, even though we regret that state of affairs, that
does not mean that we renege on our commitments to be an
active full member of United Nations missions in Bosnia and
Croatia.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the contact
group refuses to admit Canada when the Prime Minister asks
this weekend in Budapest what exactly is the government going
to do? Are we going to continue to be wimps in answering these
sorts of things? Canadian lives are at stake and the people of this
country want to know what the government is going to do.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has been most articulate and most forceful in declaring
Canada's interest in participating in all manner of fora to deal
with the very terrible conflict in the former Yugoslavia.
We will certainly take note of the hon. member's support for
our position that Canada should be much more involved in
trying to get a diplomatic solution.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. Next Tuesday, December
6, is a national day of remembrance and action to end violence
against women.
Most of the violence women experience is in their homes and
at the hands of men they know. What measures is the minister
taking to protect women from violence?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are doing a great
deal but it is not enough.
We must renew our commitment and focus our energies to do
more, but what we have started to date is considerable. I can
refer to the initiatives of yesterday with respect to firearms. I
can remind the House that one woman every six days is shot to
death in this country, that most of the time it occurs in her own
home at the hands of someone she knows, and that person is
using a rifle or a shotgun. The steps we took yesterday I believe
will help in some way to deal with that issue.
I should refer as well to the creation of a national crime
prevention council and the attention it will devote to violence
against women. I can speak about Bill C-42 and the efforts to
change the peace bound provisions to make them more effective
to protect victims of domestic violence, and Bill C-41, the
matters it deals with in terms of breaches of positions of trust,
including relationships between physicians and female patients.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Industry.
The coalition for affordable telephone services has asked the
government to reverse the CRTC's decision to allow telephone
companies to raise rates for local calls by $72 annually over a
three-year period. Furthermore, the association for competitive
telecommunications is concerned that telephone companies
would use the additional revenue from local calls to compete
unfairly on the long-distance market.
(1450)
Does the Minister of Industry intend to look into the
association's allegations and examine the cost structure of
telephone companies that offer local services, to ensure that the
increase in local rates approved by the CRTC does not affect
competition on the long-distance market?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we received the request to which the hon. member
referred just now. I am examining this request, and I think I will
submit a recommendation to cabinet before the end of the year to
determine the outcome of this case.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
To allow enough time to check the cost structure of the
telephone companies, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage
intend to delay the application of the CRTC's decision to allow
an increase in local rates as of January 1?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is perhaps difficult for the opposition sometimes to
understand but responsibility for the telecommunications sector
does fall within my domain.
Therefore it will be a recommendation brought forward by me
to cabinet which will be dealt with in the course of determining
the government's position on the appeal and on the
determination made by the CRTC decision 94-19.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The Reform Party is pleased to see that in general the white
paper reflects much of what was recommended by the special
joint committee on defence in its report. However, the white
paper calls for a reduction in Canadian forces personnel to
8552
60,000, 6,700 below the numbers projected in the February 1994
budget.
The defence review stated that cuts, either financial or
numerical, beyond those projected would necessitate the
surrender of Canadian forces capabilities. What capabilities has
the government identified to be forgone?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do
appreciate the support of the hon. member and his party. He
worked very hard on the joint committee and he should be
commended. I thank him for his consideration.
With respect to the reduction in force personnel from a
projected 66,700 as envisioned in the 1994 budget to an end state
of around 60,000, we believe that much of the capability can be
maintained simply by moving a lot of uniform people out of
administrative positions of downsizing, of rationalizing, of
privatizing certain services, of doing things efficiently to make
better use of the personnel we actually have.
With respect to the specific point about those aspects of
combat capability that we are losing, we are sort of trimming at
the edges. Obviously the big one is that our fighter capability
will be reduced somewhat from about 72 that are in service now
to between 48 and 60. We have some flexibility depending on
the financial requirements that I will be discussing with the
Minister of Finance. It will be largely in that area.
My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has made it
clear that from now on we just do not have the resources to take
part in every peacekeeping mission. It is very expensive and we
have to evaluate each request on its merits and look at what we
can do and what we can afford to do.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all of the reductions the minister mentions in his
response were included and considered before the
recommendations were made.
The defence review recommended that Canada be able to
commit to the United Nations and sustain approximately 4,000
personnel. However, the white paper commits numbers that
could ``conceivably involve in the order of 10,000 military
personnel''.
As we know from Bosnia and other UN commitments, it is
easier to become involved than to disengage. Canada cannot
sustain such numbers. Why are we committing them?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just because
we have the capability to commit a certain number does not
mean to say we actually do it.
What we say in the white paper is that at any one time we
could deploy in missions, not necessarily in peacekeeping but in
natural disasters or other measures, up to 10,000 people at once.
We also commit to increase by 3,000 the number of personnel
actually involved in the army able to take part in the land forces
missions.
(1455)
Certainly the point that I raised earlier in terms of evaluating
each particular mission on its merits answers the hon. member's
question. We have to be very judicious in future in the way we
deploy our forces. We believe that there is a consensus in
Canada that this country really does want to continue to do its
part for the UN and to help bring peace and stability to the world.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport and it concerns the
offer by CP to buy CN east of Winnipeg.
I wonder if the Minister of Transport is aware of arguments to
the effect that if CP were to be permitted by the government to
buy CN east of Winnipeg, given the tax treatment of such a
purchase CP might well get CN from the Canadian taxpayer for
nothing.
I would like to ask the Minister of Transport if he could assure
us that in the event the government does consider this proposal it
would make absolutely sure, even if it has to change the tax
system to do so, CP does not rip off the Canadian taxpayer by
manipulating the tax system in such a way as to get CN for
nothing.
Even better, could he assure us today that the government will
have nothing to do with this offer whatsoever even though it has
been extended?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question of the unsolicited bid by CP for CN assets
east of Winnipeg is under active consideration by both the
management of CN and the Government of Canada.
It is a very serious question. In addition to the matters raised
by my hon. colleague, there is the question that it would have the
result of reducing competition and really changing the way rail
operates east of Winnipeg.
It is a very serious not only business question, as the hon.
member has raised, but policy question. For that reason we are
going to weigh the pros and cons very carefully and the
government will announce its decision in due course.
8553
[Translation]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for
international financial institutions.
Our government has decided that the way to deal with the
problem of the debt and the deficit is to put the economy back on
track by stimulating job creation and economic growth.
Could the minister inform the House about the present state of
the Canadian economy and tell this House whether the strategy
to stimulate employment and growth has been successful?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
confirm to this House and to the hon. member the government's
commitment to its deficit reduction program on two fronts, the
reduction of spending and the growth in the economy.
Since the beginning of the year the economy has forged ahead
at a 5 per cent annual rate. It is the best performance in more
than six years. During the third quarter real exports were up
more than 5.6 per cent, a record level. A tremendous export
performance has led to the highest merchandise trade surplus in
six years.
Corporate profits are up for the eighth consecutive quarter to
levels that will bring more business advancement and more jobs
for Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
The government's net spending on Crown corporations in the
transportation sector will total $528 million this year. Other
major cuts planned for the next few years will almost
exclusively affect VIA Rail, which serves all Canadians.
What explanation does the minister have for the fact that
Marine Atlantic, which will cost $131 million this year and
operates only in the Maritimes, will hardly be affected and that
most of the cuts will be borne by VIA Rail?
Mr. Loubier: Shame!
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that, in the case of VIA
Rail, these cuts are public knowledge and that we are to review
VIA's role. I may add that this year, the government has not
received a single request from VIA to cut services.
As for Marine Atlantic, during a meeting I had with the
president this morning, I advised him that he would have to take
a very close look at all the operations of this Crown corporation,
since we intend to put the activities of Marine Atlantic on a
strictly commercial footing, as we are doing in the case of all
sectors for which I am responsible at Transport Canada.
* * *
(1500)
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
Royal Roads Military College is a superb educational facility
with a long history on Vancouver Island. Sadly it is falling apart.
Much of the faculty and staff have already received their
termination notices and the civilian employees are going to
close it down in order to get an expeditious move on the
decision.
I would like the minister to please tell us exactly what the
stumbling blocks are to an agreement and what steps the
minister is prepared to organize to make sure there is a speedy
resolution to this ongoing problem.
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, we have been concerned with the fate of the Royal
Roads College. We have continued the discussions in the last
weeks and months.
Last Friday I was in communication with the minister of
finance of British Columbia, Ms. Elizabeth Cull, who is in
charge of the negotiations. We then faxed to her a new proposal.
We received a counterproposal this week. We are now in the
midst of negotiations. I would expect that in the course of the
next few weeks the negotiations would be finished.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during
question period when a very serious question was being put to
the Minister of Justice on violence against women and the type
of violence that women are suffering, mainly at the hands of-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I ask the member to give
me a moment. The hon. Speaker, who was in the chair during
question period, will return.
8554
The Speaker: I apologize to the hon. member. Would she
please put her point.
Mrs. Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, during question period a very
serious question was being put to the Minister of Justice with
regard to violence against women and particularly about the
number of women who die violently at the hands of their
partners. This question is something that most members of this
House take very seriously.
A member opposite from the Reform Party shouted out in the
middle of the question ``give them .32s''. That is a very serious
violation-
The Speaker: The hon. member raises a serious point. I did
not hear the statement and therefore I will check the ``blues''
and at that time, if it is necessary, I will return to the House.
The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester on a point of
order.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak to the point of order raised by the hon.
member for Nepean.
I was a witness. I heard the hon. member for
Okanagan-Shuswap say that if women wanted to defend
themselves, they could use a .32 handgun.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know if it is parliamentary language here to say
that that is a lie, but I certainly did not say that-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I gave the floor to the hon. member for
Okanagan-Shuswap.
(1505 )
Before we go any further, I would ask the hon. member to
withdraw the word lie. Then I am going to give the floor to the
hon. member again.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. But what has just
been said in the House is a total mistruth. I never said that. I
would like to have the record rectified on this.
The Speaker: Order. Evidently we have either a
misunderstanding or possibly someone misheard. We have hon.
members on one side raising a point of order and we have an hon.
member from the other side saying that he who was singled out
did not say that.
As your Speaker, I am bound to take the word of hon.
members in this House. In the face of an allegation which was
totally denied by another member, I am forced to take the word
of the hon. member, and I do. I consider this matter closed.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: Order. Is this on the same point of order?
Mr. Silye: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Then it is out of order.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like the Government House Leader to tell us what the order of
business will be for next week.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to respond to the question of the House leader
for the official opposition and provide to him and to other
members of the House the weekly statement of government
business.
This afternoon and tomorrow the House will debate second
reading of Bill C-59, the income tax amendments. On Monday
the House will commence with report stage of the grain bill, Bill
C-51. On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday we will consider
that bill followed by the environment bill, Bill C-56 and the
Department of Public Works and Government Services bill, Bill
C-52. On Wednesday we will begin with third reading of Bill
C-46 and if it is completed, revert to other unfinished business.
Thursday, December 8 will be the last allotted day for the
present supply period and the government will be seeking
approval of supplementary estimates at the end of government
business on that day.
That is my statement.
_____________________________________________
8554
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (for the Minister of Finance)
moved that Bill C-59, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and
the income tax application rules, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to launch second
reading of Bill C-59, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, which
legislates measures contained in last February's budget.
Members will recall that the budget was based on widespread
consultations with groups across Canada and these consulta-
8555
tions revealed certain concerns among Canadians regarding
Canada's personal and corporate tax systems.
As members know, Canadians wanted tax incentives to be
better targeted. They wanted tax loopholes to be closed and
complexity to be reduced. Overall they wanted a more equitable
tax system.
The government shares these concerns and accordingly in the
1994 budget the Minister of Finance proposed measures to make
the tax system more supportive of economic growth and more
reflective of fiscal realities, simpler to comply with and more
respectful of Canadians' ability to pay taxes. Bill C-59 will
amend the Income Tax Act to implement several of the budget's
tax measures. On behalf of the government, I would like to
summarize these amendments.
First, I would like to review these amendments as a reminder
to colleagues in the House and to Canadians. The capital gains
exemption eliminates the $100,000 lifetime capital gains
exemption and provides an election with respect to the gains
accrued before the date of the budget.
(1510)
The second amendment in the bill relates to employee
benefits, extending the taxation of employer provided benefits
to include the first $25,000 of life insurance.
The third is the age tax credit, which provides a reduction in
the amount of the credit based on an individual's income level.
The fourth amendment is the homebuyers plan, which
modifies the provisions of the homebuyers plan, extending it
indefinitely for first time home buyers.
The fifth amendment is the charitable donations tax credit
which lowers the threshold at which the tax credit is calculated
at the highest individual marginal tax rate.
The sixth amendment is the business meals and entertainment
expenses, which reduces the percentage of such expenses that
may be recognized for tax purposes from 80 per cent to 50 per
cent.
The seventh amendment is the tax shelter partnership
interests. This amendment requires that limited and other
passive partners report any negative adjusted cost base in their
partnership interest as a capital gain.
The eighth amendment is the divisive corporate
reorganizations, which curtails the tax avoidance technique that
allowed capital gains on the disposition of corporate assets to be
avoided in certain circumstances.
The ninth amendment is the investment tax credits. This
reduces the rate at which the credit is calculated in respect of
certain regions. It eliminates the regional component of the
credit in respect of scientific research and experimental
development and it discontinues the special investment tax
credit.
The tenth amendment is the expenditure limit for scientific
research and experimental development, which prorates the
expenditure limit for a Canadian controlled private corporation
based on the corporation's business limit for the year.
The eleventh amendment is the small business deduction
which progressively reduces the small business deduction
available to Canadian controlled private corporations having a
taxable capital over $10 million employed in Canada, so the
deduction is eliminated at the $15 million level.
Finally, the twelfth amendment is the mine reclamation fund,
which permits a tax deduction for contributions into these funds
in the year in which the contributions are made.
This represents a major list of amendments to the Income Tax
Act. It will add approximately another 106 pages of rules and
regulations to the act.
I support all of these amendments to Bill C-59, but I have to
say this is yet another reminder that the the Income Tax Act
continues to be complex. In spite of our best efforts I really do
not believe we are heading in the right direction when it comes
to income tax reform.
I hope all members of Parliament will support us as we put
this series of amendments through the House of Commons
because the basic principle behind these amendments is to
increase economic activity.
We have targeted enhanced support for our small business
community, which I know all members of the House support. We
have made sure that the homebuyers plan is given added
rejuvenation. We have been extremely sensitive to senior
citizens at the lower part of the income threshold. These are all
efforts to make sure there is fairness and equity, but I believe
passionately it is not enough.
(1515)
We are not going far enough in our income tax reform. In
order to get our Income Tax Act on track we have to go back to
1948. Last week I asked one of the pages to get me a copy of the
1948 Income Tax Act of Canada from the Library of Parliament.
This document worked very well in those days and is
approximately 100 pages for the whole tax act of Canada. This
was tax paradise.
Over the years the tax act of Canada has been used to run
every sector of the economy, just as these 10 amendments we are
talking about today are affecting certain sectors of the economy.
They are put in to move and stimulate positively those sectors of
the economy.
Over the years there have been so many amendments to the tax
act, so many exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions that
the tax act is now almost 1,500 pages. As this act has evolved the
situation is that even Canada's best tax lawyers and best tax
accountants are saying the act is no longer comprehensible. The
exceptions to a particular amendment which lead to another
8556
exception create so much confusion that an inefficient system is
being created.
Did you know that right now before the courts of Canada there
are 37,200-odd cases challenging the tax act of Canada? Just
think of the cost to the judicial system. Talk about a make work
program. This is a make work program in tax challenges alone
for the lawyers, most of whom are subcontracted to the
Department of Justice. A company which is assessed by the
Department of National Revenue and wants to challenge it hires
its own lawyer, but the Department of National Revenue calls up
the Department of Justice. Justice in turn hires a lawyer to
defend the crown.
Right now the taxpayers of Canada are funding 37,000 cases
before the courts. Just think of what that does to our judicial
system, all because of the lack of clarity and the lack of
efficiency in our tax act.
Bill C-59 is a good bill. The specific amendments in it are
designed to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
I would like to take this opportunity to say to my colleagues in
the House of Commons that perhaps now is the time to look at
comprehensive reform of our tax system. Perhaps now is the
time to take up the challenge. We have taken up some great
challenges in social security reform during the last few months
and we will be doing so over the next two months. We have taken
up incredible reform of our UI system and our retraining system.
Why not take up the challenge of comprehensive tax reform?
(1520)
Quite frankly when I was re-elected last year I hoped that the
notion of comprehensive tax reform would hit the floor of the
House of Commons quickly. I was hopeful for a couple of
reasons.
The government in its red book said it would look at tax
reform. Of course, the finance committee is in the process of
listening to all kinds of ideas which are being brought forward.
As we prepare for the budget this is a perfect time to look at
some alternatives to the tax regime we have right now. That was
the number one reason I was optimistic for a shot at real
comprehensive tax reform.
The second reason I was optimistic was that I thought I would
have some company in this whole notion of tax reform. That is
because lo and behold over 50 members of Parliament were
elected under the Reform Party flag and I can remember that one
of its cornerstones of public policy during the campaign was
comprehensive tax reform.
I can remember campaigning in my riding in downtown
Toronto against the Reform Party candidate, a terrific candidate.
It is awful when someone forgets a person's name. Where is my
friend Nick Lamacchia when I need him? He would always help
me remember someone's name.
Mr. Silye: If you do not get elected, you are a nobody; if you
leave, you are a has been.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Nick, where are you
when I need you?
At any rate when we had public debates and it came to the
issue of tax reform, the Reform Party candidate would stand up
and say: ``When it comes to tax reform we support Mr. Mills'
idea of a single tax system. We call ours the proportional tax but
generally speaking we think he is heading in the right
direction''. Actually the Reform Party member helped me get
elected because some of the things that my constituents perhaps
did not like about me were offset by the fact that the Reform
Party candidate helped me push forward on the single tax.
Here we are one year later and we have not been able to spark
an interest in comprehensive tax reform in this House of
Commons. I want members to know that we are missing a great
opportunity. You might ask: Why does the government not take
it up on its own initiative? It does not work like that around here.
As members know, the essence of a democracy is good solid
debate. There has to be a to and fro. A good opposition has the
ability to move an agenda item from the back burner to the front
burner.
On the issue of tax reform the opposition has done a lousy job
and that is in spite of my giving them a good push every now and
again. At any rate, I want to say to the people of Canada that I
passionately believe the single biggest thing we could do to
spark economic activity in this country is to act on
comprehensive tax reform.
I say that because we as a government are counting on the
small and medium size businesses to recharge and reignite this
economy. I hear constantly as I am sure other members do from
those same small and medium size businesses that the paper
burden relating to the income tax system, the complexity of it,
and the unfairness of it on the corporate and personal side make
it a disincentive to productivity. It is a disincentive to risk
taking. It is a disincentive to taking that extra shot.
(1525)
I believe that. In fact a lot of entrepreneurs who have achieved
success are not only frustrated by the tax act of Canada but many
of our superachiever entrepreneurs are currently being taxed at a
rate of 58 per cent rate when the federal and provincial taxes are
combined. Many of them are starting to do two things. Some of
them are parking their resources, their investments and their
cash offshore. The second thing is some are starting to move
themselves offshore. They are not just moving their cash but
some of them are actually taking their talent and walking into
better tax regimes.
8557
When we have a bill like C-59 with all of its pluses and
advantages in moving and improving the tax act it gives us the
opportunity to look at the big picture over the next eight to ten
years.
If Canada does not have a globally competitive tax system we
are going to see talent and capital fly out of this country at a rate
we cannot imagine. When capital flies out interest rates go up. It
is like any other commodity. A store that has only a few pieces of
chicken or a few potatoes can demand a higher price. Capital is
no different.
When capital is not in the marketplace or if there is restricted
amounts of capital, interest rates go up. That causes a
tremendous strain on our ability to service our deficit and our
debt. It is a tremendous burden. It is tough for our entrepreneurs.
When they go to the bankers and try to rent money from them,
those rates are higher as well.
If Canada had a globally competitive tax regime, if we had
something like the single tax system where-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know that the
member for Broadview-Greenwood, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Industry, is one who can express
himself very well and certainly is not in any need of props or
anything else to substantiate his arguments on any piece of
legislation or debate. I would ask him to keep that in mind.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I thank
you for your generous remarks but after five years of trying to
advance the debate on tax reform in a comprehensive way
sometimes I wonder what you have to do. It is not just props; I
think you even have to go beyond props.
At any rate the point I wanted to make was about Canada
having a single tax system. On both the personal and corporate
sides the rate would be around 20 per cent. On the personal side
there would be very generous deductions to make sure those
people at the lower income spectrum were protected. If we had a
progressive single tax system like that I believe capital would
flow into this country in a way we could not imagine. Canada
would be the home for capital from all over the world.
(1530)
It is not unlike the grocery store: if there is a sudden glut of
potatoes or of chicken the price goes down. It is not different
with capital. If the capital were suddenly parked here in large
amounts it would put downward pressure on interest rates. This
would mean it would be much easier for us to service our deficit
and debt. More important, it would provide capital at an
inexpensive price for those one million small and medium size
entrepreneurs, those men and women who need to be fired up to
get the economy going.
I attended a townhall meeting with my colleague from Nepean
last night at which we had a little session on small business and
tax reform. One person in the crowd said: ``I don't like this kind
of a system. I would like a two-tier system. If you make up to
$60,000 you pay 20 per cent but once you get over $60,000 you
pay 40 per cent''. I told him that I totally disagreed with that. I
believe the harder we work the more we achieve, and the more
we make the more we should have left in our pockets. We should
and we have always rewarded productivity in Canada.
I do not believe for a second in a system where people who
make millions of dollars get off with paying nothing. I believe in
an airtight system and the single tax system is an airtight
system. It does not matter whether one is making $100,000,
$500,000 or a million, it is 20 per cent; it is airtight. It is airtight
on the corporate side as well. If we had a system like that in
Canada we would do much to stimulate economic activity.
There is something else we have to be concerned about. In the
last three weeks our neighbours to the south have been talking
about the issue nearly every day in Washington. There has been a
change in the Congress of the United States. Most of the people
who were elected three weeks ago in the United States are now
starting to talk on almost a daily basis about a single tax system.
That concerns me. If the United States adopts a single tax
system before we do we would have a problem. It may be
difficult to move money to the islands, to move money to
Switzerland or to move a business to another part of South
America or some part of eastern Europe, but it will be very easy
for Canadians to cross the 49th parallel.
I am standing here today in support of every one of the
amendments in Bill C-59. They are targeted amendments. They
are all related to generating economic activity. They are
simplifying the tax system. I do not disagree with any part of the
bill because it is taking us in a positive direction in a
constructive way.
My challenge to all members of the House of Commons is that
it is good but it is tinkering. It is time to go the whole nine yards,
clean up the whole system and start from scratch. If we did that
all Canadians would cheer the House. We would have rebuilt
trust and respect. More important than all those things or
equally as important, we would ignite the entrepreneurial spirit
of the country. Our ability to cope and handle our deficit and our
debt would be much more focused and much easier to address.
(1535)
This will probably be one of the last days in this year that we
have an opportunity to send out a message to all officials in the
Department of Finance, to my colleague, the Minister of
Finance, and to all my other colleagues.
Mr. Stinson: He will not listen to you.
8558
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): No, that is not true.
The Minister of Finance listens to us but he does not listen to
just a few of us. He listens to all of us. In order to move an
issue forward as comprehensive as this one it cannot be done
by one, two, fifty or sixty members. We need one hundred and
fifty members to move the issue forward.
Our team presented the idea of a single tax system to the
finance committee looking for GST alternatives about two
months ago. Opposition members started questioning at the end
of our presentation and the finance critic from the Bloc said:
``We have no criticism of what you are trying to do but we might
not agree with some of your credits''. He basically said: ``When
we become an independent country this is the type of tax system
we will have. Why would we begrudge it to the rest of Canada?''
I felt that was a pretty straight comment from the Bloc.
Obviously none of us in terms of the Reform and Liberals
believe in wanting to destroy the country, but he was certainly
direct about the type of tax system they would have. The Reform
critic for finance was there and supportive, on side. However
there is a missing factor in that equation.
Mr. Silye: Excessive spending.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): No. The problem with
trying to achieve tax reform is not the men and women of the
Chamber. I believe most men and women who sit in the Chamber
hear from constituents about problems and complaints in the tax
act.
The problem is Canadians complain day in and day out about
the unfair, inefficient, complex tax system. I should not say
never, because I have received about 100,000 letters from a
community of about 12 million to 15 million taxpayers. I would
say that 90 per cent of Canadians complain but they do not do
enough. They do not get up to make phone calls or write letters
to their MPs on whether they agree or disagree with the status
quo or whether they have a better idea.
I believe part of the reason we have tax inertia is that
Canadians have not pressed enough of us hard enough. In spite
of all that, I personally and passionately believe that if we were
to take up this challenge and have a single tax system we would
have the most exciting economy on the planet. It would be the
fastest way to deal with deficit and debt. In the next budget I
hope we can get a reference for this system.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before proceeding with my speech, allow me to express my
scepticism regarding the remarks made by the parliamentary
secretary who mentioned the openness of the finance minister
and of his government vis-à-vis the consultation process.
Supposedly, they are listening not only to MPs, but also to all
citizens. This process is a farce; next week we are going to listen
to witnesses, while the report has already been written. What
kind of influence are these people going to have? The
committee must return to Toronto, at the insistence of the
Liberal members in the area, to hear more witnesses who did
not, or will not, have any impact on the consultations. This is
somewhat less than transparent.
(1540)
Let us go back to Bill C-59, which could be described as one
of the pieces of legislation resulting from the Liberal
government's first budget. This bill includes 12 specific
measures, which are only some of the legislative measures
resulting from the last budget. Some are good, others much less
so. Some will need to be clarified when the clauses of the bill are
reviewed by the committee.
Indeed, this bill was, and still is, the first financial test for the
Liberal government. Let us say that, in certain respects, it is
very timid. Since coming to power, the Liberal Party may not
have had that much time to influence the budget process, a
reason which is often given to justify the fact that the budget
does not reflect what the Liberals wanted. This is strange
because they came to power in October. We were all elected
then. They claim they did not have enough time, so they tried to
postpone the pre-budget consultations which are supposed to
end in mid-December. There is something wrong there.
Let us now move on quickly to the measures themselves. We
will come back in more detail on some of them later. The Bloc
Quebecois agrees with certain of them. Being more positive than
negative by nature, I will start with the ones we agree with,
although we will need clarification on some in committee. The
first one, of course, is the cancellation of the capital gains
exemption on the first $100,000. I will come back to this
measure because it has to be put into context to see what
happened with capital gains exemptions.
There is also the Home Buyers' Plan, which allows first-time
home buyers to use their RRSPs for financing, which is made
permanent. This is a good measure. There was much pressure on
the Conservative Party at the time, and on the Liberal Party
when it came to power, to make it permanent. This has now been
done and it is a positive step.
Tax credits for charitable donations. The first $250 used to be
deductible at 17 per cent and any amount in excess, at 29 per
cent. Now, the limit has been brought down to $200. That is to
say that amounts in excess of $200 will be deductible at 29 per
cent. There is now an extra $50 that is becoming deductible at 29
per cent. In itself, this is a positive measure. It is not the reform
of the century, but we, from the Bloc, recognize the contribution
of charitable organizations and other organizations that benefit
from this funding. That is why we support this measure.
8559
There are also a number of technical provisions to close
certain fiscal loopholes. I am thinking about company
reorganization, tax shelters in the form of partnership interests
and the small business deduction in particular. Let us just say
that there are three measures to close technical loopholes. I will
not get into the detail, as this can be done in committee, but
this is not the tax reform of the century. It is certainly not the
reform the parliamentary secretary would like to see and he is
seeking public support to improve on it. Having participated
in the consultation process myself, I can tell the hon.
parliamentary secretary that public support is a subject that was
brought up very regularly by various people.
One of the reasons why we end up with outstanding
accounts-if you add up the GST, accounts in dispute and
outstanding accounts per se, as they appear on the books, it is in
excess of $9 billion-is that somehow individuals do not abide
by the applicable part of the social contract, in terms of how
revenue is to be collected. So, the system will have to be
changed, so that the public can get the right idea. In some cases,
public perceptions are quite accurate, but in others, perhaps if
we could clarify and simplify things, people could change their
minds about certain commonly-held beliefs. But in order to do
that, we must lay our cards on the table and not be afraid of being
truly transparent.
(1545)
Another measure dealing with mine reclamation funds
permits a tax deduction for contributions to these funds in the
year in which the contributions are made. This will benefit these
businesses, particularly those which had trouble taking
advantage of these measures when closing or confirming their
operations.
This bill contains a number of positive measures. I will
review two of them, which can be described as being positive
but requiring closer scrutiny. One is the capital gains exemption.
A few years ago, this exemption was set at $500,000. The first
$500,000 in capital gains was not taxable. To help people
understand capital gains, I will give an example: Someone could
buy, not a principal residence which does not qualify, but a
secondary residence, a cottage, for $20,000. When he sells it
later for $50,000, he makes a $30,000 capital gain which
becomes taxable income. However, the first $500,000 in capital
gains is tax-free. At least, it used to be $500,000.
The first reform reduced this exemption to $100,000. Now
they want to eliminate it, arguing that it only benefits the rich.
This statement, however, requires careful scrutiny. If this
measure benefits the rich, it also benefits the future. Some of
those who used this capital gains exemption are not affected
because they have already exceeded the limit. Many people
benefited.
When we say that our financial situation is difficult and that
the country is in debt because of our social programs, we should
take an occasional look at the cost of tax expenditures. If this
approach is not valid today, why was it in the past? Of course,
we can say at some point that we must provide the tools needed
to stimulate investment, to encourage people to invest in
economic development, with appropriate tax incentives.
Although investments are still needed today, we say: ``No, this
measure benefits the rich. It took us a while, but we have finally
realized it''. In reality, this penalizes young people like myself,
people of my generation. Those who would have benefited in the
future will be denied this advantage. This is a sacrifice we are
willing to make in the fight against the deficit. Although we are
willing to make this sacrifice, I find it very difficult to believe
that it penalizes today's rich people.
We now must work on this in committee and I can say right
now to Liberal Party members: Older people seem to have a
problem with this measure this year. The finance minister's
budget provides an election in respect of gains accrued before
February 22, which authorizes tax-selling throughout the year.
To go back to the example I gave earlier, suppose I now have a
cottage worth $50,000, which I bought for $20,000. I could
resell it to myself for $50,000. If I sell it for $80,000 in 15 years,
the only taxable portion will not be $80,000 minus $20,000, or
$60,000, but $80,000 minus $50,000, or $30,000, which is the
increase in value between February 22, 1994 and the date of the
sale. So this year everyone can sell their tax benefits to take advantage of the exemption for the last time. They must do so before the end of this fiscal year.
Take a senior who collects an old age pension or the income
supplement. He must declare it on his tax return under capital
gains so his net income which is used to calculate the amount of
his pension is artificially increased this year, even though he did
not collect it as income. As a result, he might lose some pension
or income supplement. There is a problem, because some
seniors are being penalized. We would have to know who is
being penalized. We will need the information. How much
money is involved and why was a mechanism not provided so
that people are not discriminated against on the basis of age?
Someone who is 64 is not affected, but someone who is 65 or
older and makes a capital gain may find his pension or income
security affected.
(1550)
This needs to be looked at carefully. I say that some
amendments should certainly be possible. I talked to some
accounting offices and they told me that it happens in many
cases. Sometimes people take a while to react and now, thanks to
the vigilance of some people, we are starting to realize that
things are not quite right and that something is not working as it
should. We must ask the government whether it intends to
penalize seniors or if it is ready to develop some way so that they
can avoid being penalized.
I comment now on another measure, the tax credit for
charitable organizations. Since the government wants to
implement a social program reform which will hit hard, there is
good reason to consider providing additional support, so that
these groups
8560
would somehow have the option of finding their own sources of
income. Many officials representing community groups,
agencies, charitable institutions and philanthropic
organizations told us that this was an avenue to pursue, adding
that an evaluation should be made of how much it costs the
government to either give funding to organizations, or
encourage them more strongly to raise funds. Then the
government's participation, from a fiscal point of view, should
be looked at.
This is an avenue which must be pursued thoroughly, and the
minister should conduct such an analysis before going ahead
with in a social program reform which will adversely affect
these groups.
The few measures proposed to close some loopholes are
symbolic of the will of this government to eliminate all existing
loopholes in the taxation system. We keep raising the issue of
family trusts, which is still being examined by a committee.
More people than ever before feel that there is a lot of money
involved. It is very difficult to get information. In fact, it is
almost impossible. But the government does not seem interested
in getting that information.
The government will consult on just about anything, but it
cannot provide the required information to form an opinion on
this issue. Eliminating family trusts might be much more
profitable for the government than implementing the few
proposed measures. These measures must be taken too, but there
are initiatives which would help restore public confidence.
People say that there is a problem with family trusts. When it
comes to RRSPs, the government says: What we want to do is
take a chunk of your future income now, either by taxing RRSPs
or by lowering the maximum to which you can contribute. It is
essentially telling people that they will have to pay taxes
immediately instead of when they cash in their RRSPs.
However, the government does not follow the same reasoning
when it comes to capital gains in family trusts. Indeed, it may
take up to 80 years before such gains are taxed.
I do not see any logic there. The time has come to target the
general public-and it is true that this is the most profitable
move, because it affects the largest number of people-but the
middle-class is tired of always being the scapegoat, while those
who earn the most are left alone.
I watched the Minister of Finance last week, when he was the
guest on Jean-Luc Mongrain's program. There was a pyramid of
small blocks representing social classes. Mr. Mongrain asked
the minister: Where are you going to cut? The minister was
hesitant in choosing a block, thinking: I cannot really go for the
middle one, because all the other blocks will fall and it would
not look good. He was reluctant to take the block at the top. And
when he realized what he had to do, Mr. Mongrain asked him:
``Why not take the top one?'' He took it without any hesitation
and said: ``I will take them first''. Surprise, surprise! Everybody
saw him hesitate when he went for the block in the middle,
representing the middle class. That was an object lesson people
will remember.
There is another aspect to this and I am referring to butterfly
companies and tax shelters. This was partly addressed in the last
budget. The government should listen a little more to the
Auditor General instead of just paying him to publish his annual
report!
(1555)
The government has invested $50 million in the Auditor
General's activities, so we might as well make sure this money
is made more productive. I am not saying they are not doing a
good job, but the government has to use the information they
provide. There are still many so-called problem countries listed
because of the opportunities they provide for tax evasion as a
result of a lack of reciprocity between their tax systems and
ours. There are still 16 countries on this list, and in some cases
an investigation followed by corrective action would be
necessary.
It gets very complicated when you want to go after the top
blocks. When you want to get at the top of the pyramid, it is not
easy, and the government never seems to have the best tax
experts. They are all in the private sector, and they know how to
use the tax system to make money. So I do not believe that is the
answer.
We have resources here to be able to evaluate all this. People
know that but of course there is a very strong lobby, and
lobbying expenses are tax deductible, would you believe. They
did not talk about that either. They may talk about cutting the
amount you can deduct for charitable donations, things like that,
but never a word about lobbyists. Perish the thought!
I was talking about the measures we support and that there is
room for improvement. I will now talk about the measures we
oppose, because we will vote against this bill since it contains
measures that would not appear and, in fact, are not in order.
Those of my colleagues who will speak on this bill will have a
chance to come back to this issue, however, the government
singled out the age credit and I will devote a small part of my
speech to that.
Although we did not estimate its impact precisely, we have
some questions about the reduced deduction for meals and
entertainment. We are not necessarily dead set against it, but we
would like to evaluate its impact, and we will be able to do that
in committee, since there is some time left before its
implementation.
Then there are the investment tax credits. The notion of
regional development seems to have been dropped. The region is
Canada as a whole. I will come back to this to explain what
happened. Technically speaking, it is rather complex, but things
have happened. There again there is a lack of imagination.
Revenue has to be raised but during election campaigns candi-
8561
dates always say, and the Prime Minister was no exception: ``We
will not raise taxes, at least not in the first two years''.
Yet, we tax employee benefits like employer-provided life
insurance. Previously the first $25,000 of coverage were tax
free, this will no longer be the case. Why is the government
afraid of saying that it is a new way to get more money? Because
it would not be able to claim that it did not raise taxes. However,
taxpayers realize that as the years go by, there is less money left
in their pockets.
They are told: ``No, we did not raise taxes''. They think:
``This does not make sense! The government finds all kinds of
tricks to come and take our money''. Then, people start getting
mistrustful, and they think: ``It is my turn now to get even and
find ways to avoid giving money to the government''.
Therefore they deal under the table, they pay cash and avoid
paying taxes. Merchants, too, get on the bandwagon, for they are
also consumers. Many small merchants, who belong to the
middle class, are just as frustrated as consumers; they
understand their fellow consumers and they do the same thing.
This is how the underground economy was created. The finance
minister does not agree with his colleague, the revenue minister,
on the size of the underground economy, nor do they agree on the
importance of tightening the collection of unpaid taxes.
For his part, the finance minister claims that efforts are
needed, that it does not make sense, whereas the revenue
minister tries to minimize the situation regarding unpaid taxes.
With a sudden change of heart, Mr. Martin realizes that there is a
good deal of money there, but he admits that there are few
solutions for improving the situation.
You know, we have seen it before. Year after year, it is the
same thing. I recall especially the past three years, maybe
because I am the youngest. I believe the next budget is going to
be tough, it is going to hurt. This is what we see in the press
every November or December. In January, the finance minister
will say: ``I will not comment on individual measures, wait for
my budget''. In February, we get a budget which is not all that
tough and the deficit for the year is reasonable. The big deal this
year is that the deficit is not higher.
(1600)
It will probably be around $38 or $39 billion, but some
expenses are not recurring. This year, for instance, the
Unemployment Insurance Fund has a surplus so that the deficit
is two to three billion dollars less than last year. But this is not a
reason to rejoice. We have skipped a turn, there was a
non-budget or rather a budget without any effect. They believe
that economic growth will solve the problem but we will need
much more than that.
I would now like to talk about the regional investment tax
credit. I will try to be as simple as possible about all the
technical aspects. There were three regional investment tax
credits. There was the special investment tax credit; the
investment tax credit in the Atlantic region and the investment
tax credit for scientific research and experimental development,
also in the Atlantic region. To tell you the truth, nothing is
simple in the taxation system; there are numerous credits, and
the fact that the federal government wants to take action of its
own in regional development often results in that kind of
situation.
The first one, the special investment tax credit of 30 per cent
is abolished. It was mainly used for buildings, machines and
equipment.
The second one, the investment tax credit in the Atlantic
region, is reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent.
The other one, the investment tax credit for scientific research
and experimental development, which was 30 per cent in the
Atlantic region and 20 per cent elsewhere, is reduced to 20 per
cent across the board.
We can see that regional investment tax credits are generally
not considered as effective economic means to attract additional
investments. After a while, we can see that they do not have the
results expected.
The real question to be asked is: Why? Why did it not have the
expected results? Because there must be a direct incentive
somewhere. Maybe if there were not always the same problem
with two governments, each in its own way, trying to stimulate
experimental development, especially aimed at small and
medium size enterprises-because it is the thing to do
nowadays, when you are a finance minister, to talk about small
and medium size enterprises. They talk about it but they do not
necessarily act on it. It always sounds good in their speeches.
They talk about measures especially for them.
When you look at the way things are, when you look at these
people, who are born entrepreneurs, who came up with good
ideas and were able to capitalize on it, you come to the same
conclusion as many have, including the Standing Committee on
Industry and other committees. These people have strong points,
these are brave and enterprising people who are helping to build
Canada and Quebec, but they also have some weaknesses, one of
them is their lack of administrative expertise. This could explain
why some projects have failed.
These people are good businessmen and women, with good
ideas, but we provide them with such complicated tools;
depending on where they are located and what they do, with this
type of tax credit, there are three possibilities- They become so
disheartened that they start to think that, with all the time they
are going to lose on these tax breaks, they might as well go back
8562
to their business and get some more work done. It would cost
less and they would be able to save more money than they would
have by using the tax credit.
They are not entirely wrong, since consultant services in this
area, whether we are talking about lawyers, tax specialists, or
others can be costly. This may be why they are not widely used.
With regard to regional development, here is what we say to
the federal government: Instead of squandering your money,
why not transfer these resources to the provinces which are
probably in a better position to understand the specific needs of
their regions. In turn, the provinces can allocate this money
anyway they want to.
For example, transfer the tax points and assess how much
these credits are costing you. Tell yourself: We still want to help
businesses, because we know there are future entrepreneurs out
there and we want to help them work on their weaknesses, like
their lack of interest in research and development, so we will
provide them with the means to do so. Transfer the resources
where they are needed. We are not talking here about
transferring dozens of tax points, these are not major
expenditures, but we will see what will happen.
(1605)
I am convinced, as many others are, that the closer a level of
government is to people, the more it is able to understand the
people's specific characteristics. We should stop managing
everything from this level and we are certainly not doing so with
this measure. What the government is doing once again is
setting its own standards nation-wide, and it will continue. . . I
am sure other tax credits will be created and soon the situation
will be just as complex as what we have now.
This year, the Auditor General was harsh in his judgment,
especially on the issue of money. Even if our country lags
behind in the area of research and development, the little we
spend, we spend inadequately. And this comment applies to all
areas. In almost all fields of activity, people say we are spending
too much and they are convinced there is a better way to spend
whatever amounts we do spend. Better spending practices alone
would improve our performance in the area of economic
development. But it is hard for such changes to get to the top, all
the way to this place. Whether we are talking about the tax
system or the transmission of information, it is always a
problem for changes to reach the highest levels. The message
does not always get there, in spite of numerous consultations.
Another measure is the age tax credit. It certainly is striking.
At one time, the present Minister of Human Resources
Development was a member of the opposition. He was there
during the Tory period. We all remember the Charlie Brown
incident, when the Tories launched an attack on the old age
pension. Just look at what he said in those days. He said this,
about the budget, here in this House, on June 18, 1985: It is a fact
that the government has reduced considerably, and in a
backward way, the purchasing power of seniors. Not only are
they being deprived of income assistance, but their purchasing
power is also being reduced. And as if this was not enough, the
government hits them again by cutting two billions-in dollars
of 1985-in transfers to provinces, between now and 1990.
Clearly, this budget is an attack on several fronts against
seniors'incomes. Now, in their first budget, the Liberals reduce
the age credit. Eight years later, they do exactly was they
opposed back then.
We sometimes have this impression of déjà vu. At one time or
another, we all feel as though we have already lived a particular
experience. Since the beginning of this new Parliament, we
often have this feeling of being back to 1985, under a
Conservative government. The Liberals conduct the same
consultation exercises that they criticized before, and they do so
regarding the same issues. They deal with problems in the same
way as the Conservatives did, something which they would
never have dared mention during the election campaign.
Let me explain this age credit. People aged 65 and over can
ask for a tax credit equivalent to 17 per cent of $3,500. This is a
non refundable credit; in other words, it can only be applied to
the tax payable. If there is excess tax to be paid, the credit cannot
be refunded. That credit translates into a tax reduction of about
$610 per year. From now on, seniors with a net income of over
$25,921 will see this credit diminish progressively with every
dollar over that amount. The credit will totally disappear when
the income reaches $49,100. Is this the level to be found at the
top of the pyramid the Minister of Finance was talking about
during the TV interview he granted to Mr. Mongrain? Was that
the top block, an income of $25,000 or $26,000 for the elderly?
In the meantime, a new level of Old Age Security benefits is
being added. The government clawbacks the old age pension it
pays to people with incomes over $52,000. This level includes
income from about $52,000 to $80,000. Now the government is
proposing a new level for incomes between $25,000 and
$49,000. Is this the basis for a new scale or, where old age
pension is concerned, is the government trying to add new levels
to the existing scale in order to reduce benefits? I think we have
good reasons to be concerned. Very often, this is the way things
happen. Once you have an in, it is easy to do whatever you want.
Here, the government has set this new level and in the future we
will most probably see the government adjust or recover
pensions paid to elderly Canadians with a net income of over
$25,000.
(1610)
Older Canadians are concerned and have trouble
understanding why they are the first to be picked on in this
budget. Over the next three years, the government will recover
$500 million. In 1985, the Minister of Human Resources
Development feared that the then government would clawback
$2 billion over a period of five years. But now he is not
concerned about the $500 million the government will
recuperate over the next three years. The worst part is that what
he was objecting to was partly implemented, therefore older
people already lost money. He
8563
thought that was indecent, but now that the government is asking
for more he is in the Cabinet and he is going to do it.
My colleagues will have a chance to elaborate on the issues
regarding seniors, but I must say that senior citizens are more
and more concerned. This is somewhat ironic, because members
opposite, to fight Quebec sovereignty, go to retirement homes
and talk to seniors, trying to scare them. They tell them that
Quebec separation would endanger their well-being and they
use the vilest substantives they can find. They blackmail them
with their pensions, because the cheques they receive bear the
logo and flag of the federal government.
Yet, this same federal government is the first to pick here and
there in their pockets. Yes, there is something to do collectively
to fight the debt. While there might be some categories of senior
citizens willing to do more, they do not want to be first because
they do not seem themselves as different from other taxpayers.
We should strike at the top of the pyramid, at those who
benefitted from the capital gains exemption in the past. Today
they are still alive, and probably rich. This is no coincidence.
When we draw the pyramid, we realize that the top gets
higher, but that the middle is slumping. We have a pyramid with
an ever bigger base and an ever higher and narrower peak. The
gap between rich and poor is widening.
Of the 20 million taxpayers, 50 per cent have incomes of less
than $20,000 and 60 per cent, below $25,000. At this level, there
is not much hope of getting at the top of the pyramid, and by so
doing perhaps make our society more equitable, high enough to
dare demand that those who finance the major political parties
do their share to solve the debt and deficit problem in general. It
seems difficult to ask for such an effort.
In conclusion, all committee members will look at these
legislative measures in detail and report back at third reading in
this House. This is a relatively timid and cautious budget,
probably because the government ran out of time. People have
high expectations for 1995; they expect us not only to reduce the
deficit but to do it in a fair and equitable manner. Successfully
meeting the debt challenge requires that everyone co-operate by
fighting the temptation to evade taxes. To achieve this goal,
people must know what the government's intentions are and feel
that it is acting fairly and equitably. They are willing to give the
Minister of Finance a chance because he is new at this and
because this will be his first real budget this year.
They may blame him for wasting a year. We lost two years
because of the election; one year because after its leadership
race, the Conservative Party did not dare table a budget. They
decided to give some leeway to the new administration. Then the
newcomers argued that they got there too late. As a result, we
lost two more years in the fight against the deficit, two more
years during which the debt grew by $40 billion. That is a lot of
money. This additional $80 billion is costing us between $5
billion and $6 billion in interest charges alone.
(1615)
That is a lot of money, and I cannot help talking about an
impending threat with respect to the next budget. Rumours to
the effect that RRSPs will be affected continue to circulate. And
there is no truth to the allegation that the Official Opposition is
keeping it alive, contrary to what the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance maintained three or four
weeks ago and, realizing it was not credible, stopped saying so,
but now, someone is playing the parrot, taking an old quote and
circulating the same rumour again.
The Minister of Finance could very easily state, in any of the
speeches he makes in his travels-because I am convinced that
he gets media attention when he travels-that plans to put
government finances in order, for next year, do not include
taxing RRSPs. Because there is a problem. People who try to sell
RRSPs, who are trying to get other people to contribute, are
faced with the normal reaction of individuals telling them:
``Sure, but there is much talk about RRSPs. Apparently, they are
going to be taxed. We are going to have to pay tax on that
money''. It does not sell well. Potential customers are sceptical.
They may go for it, but it will probably be more difficult this
year to sell RRSPs, and that constitutes saving. One of my
colleagues, the hon. member for Rosemont, quoted statistics on
consumer saving in Canada, showing the decline in saving. On
one hand, we could be glad that people are consuming more and
stimulating our economy, but on the other, we must be
concerned because their ability to consume is increasingly
limited.
There is a problem, because our recovery could level off,
especially with what is happening to economic growth in the
United States, which is operating close to capacity, raising fears
of inflation and all that this involves. So we need savings.
Hitting savings would send a very bad signal. Not only is our
future being mortgaged and our debt burden very high but today
they want to take a bite out of our future income as well.
I am very worried. I am trying to think what the situation will
be for a finance minister in 15 or 20 years. He would be able to
count on the income from retired people since they will be
cashing in their RRSPs. Instead of collecting benefits, many will
be taxpayers. If they are not encouraged to invest in their own
retirement-and anyway, all they are doing is deferring income
tax-what will happen in 15 or 20 years? Again, the room to
manoeuvre will be limited.
8564
Let us solve the government's financial problem without
touching RRSPs and within 15 or 20 years, we will have a much
greater pool of revenue. I am concerned, but it also makes me
smile, that in the finance minister's grey paper, it is listed as
a tax expenditure, with a very awkward calculation, but
basically it is deferred income. If someone puts money in an
RRSP, it will be taxed when he takes it out.
It is true that many taxpayers could find their RRSP taxed at a
lower rate than it is today. That is the incentive for the
government and that is a tax expenditure. The tax expenditure is
not the amount which taxpayers can deduct this year: It is only
the difference between what they would now pay in taxes and
what they will pay when they cash in their RRSPs. This might be
a sizable amount, but it is also the actual figure which the
government should quote.
However, the government uses a different approach. It would
rather come up with huge figures and say: ``It costs us $15
billion''. We are not only talking about RRSPs, but also about
registered pension plans. The government says that it badly
needs money and that it must get it somewhere. Then it is quick
to add that it might be a good idea to look at this option, using
the argument that rich people who put a lot of money in their
RRSPs are benefitting more than others.
But that is not necessarily the case. Indeed, when these very
rich people cash in their RRSPs, chances are they will still be in
the same tax bracket. Consequently, in their case, it is strictly a
tax deferral.
(1620)
The government should tell it like it is. When it calculates tax
expenditures, it should do so accurately.
In conclusion, I want to point out that there are measures such
as the use of RRSPs for the purposes of the Home Buyers' Plan.
RRSPs could be a more effective tool for economic
development, based on the argument that, maybe, people should
invest more at the local level. Whether or not this is a good idea
could give rise to a long debate.
So, the government takes such measures but, at the same time,
it is considering going after RRSPs. This is not good, and I hope
that the Minister of Finance will have the courage to say:
Enough is enough, RRSPs will not be touched this year. Just like
he said he would not lower UI contributions.
The Bloc Quebecois opposes the bill as a whole because it
targets seniors. Some measures will have to be clarified in
committee and, in any case, we will discuss it again at third
reading. The real budget will be tabled next year and people will
not be as tolerant as they were this year. That budget will have to
bring results.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to address Bill C-59, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
and the income tax application rules. This bill is nothing more
than a 110-page sequel to the confusing, convoluted Income Tax
Act which has become a 10,000 page script of income tax rules,
regulations and subsections.
I am beginning to think that the Income Tax Act is some sort
of secret government IQ test. Like most sequels, Bill C-59
serves up more of the same, showing no new ideas, no new twists
and, for the most part, it would have been better if the writer had
sat down and spent the time writing something new.
With Bill C-59 the federal government eliminates the
$100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption which will seriously
impede the build-up of capital in Canada. This is at a time when
most wealthy people have already used up their exemption,
whether it was the $500,000 or the $100,000. It is nothing more
than a tax on the middle class who are the very people the
Liberals purport to represent.
What the government should be doing is eliminating $5
billion in direct subsidies to businesses and start privatizing
some of the 380 crown corporations. Like the Conservatives, the
Liberals have continued to pick the pockets of taxpayers.
The biggest job that the Liberals are working on right now is
figuring out how to get more money from the taxpayer without
disturbing the voter. It boggles the mind to watch the
government go after capital gains. It is considering taxing
RRSPs and it is apparent that the Canada pension plan is in
major trouble due to revenue shortfalls.
The questions that beg to be asked by Canadian taxpayers are:
What is in it for me? Where are the incentives? What benefit do
we get from government spending? Can someone give us a
break? The answer is no.
The average benefit to taxpayers is about $20,000 per person
while they are paying out about $22,000. In other words, they
are getting less in benefits from the government than what they
are paying in taxes. That is why people are very sensitive about
paying taxes. We are at the high end of the tax scale. In fact, we
are too far at the high end of the tax scale.
For the Liberals it is the same old story. The answer to these
questions and problems are very complex. They must be studied.
They will need committees, subcommittees, task forces and of
course, to quote the finance minister, input for effective output
and we must square the circle to solve the problems facing
Canadians.
A planned economy is what the Liberals are targeting with
infrastructure, a $2 billion expense; CIDA, Canadian Interna-
8565
tional Development Agency, $2.2 billion, let us develop the
other countries, let us help them not Canada; direct grants and
subsidies to businesses, $2 billion. Yes, a planned economy.
That is when the politicians make the plans and the people make
the economies.
We have seen this movie before under directors Trudeau and
Mulroney. Now we are going to add director Chrétien to the list.
The only solution the current finance minister can come up with
is to blame, first, the previous government for the inherited debt
of $480 billion, as the Liberal government conveniently forgets
that close to $200 billion of that was left by them when it left the
House in 1983-84.
(1625)
Second, the finance minister blames the Bloc Quebecois, the
separatist official opposition, which he claims is negatively
influencing the investment community.
Third and most recently, after a year in power he blames small
and medium size businesses for not increasing productivity in
the marketplace. It is their fault the economy went into a
recession, according to the finance minister a couple of days ago
in an interview with the Financial Post.
What will be the fourth excuse? I do not know but it will not
be addressing the real issue. I would like to tell Canadians that
Reformers and the Reform Party are currently working on a
different script, a new story that will have a better ending for all
Canadians.
If there is anything this bill proves it is the need for true tax
reform. Listen to the 12 items the finance minister is trying to
deal with: capital gains exemptions; employee benefits; age tax
credits; homebuyers plan; charitable donations tax credit;
business meals and entertainment expenses; tax shelters;
partnership interests; divisive corporate reorganizations;
investment tax credits; expenditure limit for scientific research
and experimental development; small business deduction and
mine reclamation funds.
Mr. Schmidt: Mind boggling.
Mr. Silye: Yes, mind boggling.
Although we support all of these measures with the exception
of the capital gains elimination, it represents a whole bunch of
tinkering with little gain for Canadian taxpayers and the
government. It has spent a year doing nothing but politics as
usual, as did the Conservatives. Canadians voted for change.
They thought the Liberals would change the way we conduct
business and they have changed very little.
We need a new set of principles to set a new direction for
federal taxation. The need for reform in matters of taxation is
widely recognized. The federal government under Brian
Mulroney raised taxes 33 times and implemented the GST plan
in the face of widespread opposition.
The Liberal government is now considering revisions that
will inevitably prove to be even more unsatisfactory, a
combination of the son of GST, called the NATVAT, or a surtax
on income or both. Consumption taxes on top of income taxes
are not the answer.
Five fundamental principles should be applied to the
Canadian system of taxation: first, all taxation programs of
whatever kind should be for the exclusive purpose of raising
revenue to fund authorized government spending and should not
be for the purpose directly or indirectly to shape economic or
social activity.
Second, all taxation programs should be consistent with the
governmental role of creating a framework. It can be square or
round, whichever-we do not have to mess around, whether we
square it or round it, or round it or square it-just do what is
right so it widens people's choice and wherever possible leaves
power and responsibility in the hands of the people.
Third, tax legislation should be simple and easily understood
by taxpayers, permitting most taxpayers to file their own
returns.
Fourth, taxation should be visible, that is, no hidden taxes.
Fifth, rates of taxation should be limited and not punitive for
both individuals and corporations. The incentive should be to
reward production and leave more dollars in the hands of
taxpayers and wage earners than the government. The only
purpose of taxation should be to raise funds.
However, we have become accustomed to a multiplicity of
objectives in our taxation system. It tries to encourage domestic
production, investment in certain industries, charitable
donations and further education. It tries to discourage smoking,
drinking, imports and pollution. Unfortunately it also ends up
discouraging taxpayers.
There will always be convincing arguments for making the
taxation system more responsive to some other government
initiative. Examples are taxes on petroleum products to protect
the environment; taxes on alcohol or smoking to reinforce moral
standards and healthier living.
(1630)
Once we give in to one of these arguments we leave ourselves
open to making judgments based upon personalities,
effectiveness of lobby pressure, political expediency and other
human frailties.
I believe the only purpose of taxation should be to raise funds
needed to pay for government programs approved by the
Canadian voters. I believe a proportional tax is the answer to
creating a simpler, more efficient and more effective system of
taxation.
8566
The idea of a proportional tax is an attempt to improve upon
the flat tax models that have circulated for many years to
improve upon the single tax as proposed many years ago by the
member for Broadview-Greenwood who is presently working
on the single tax and trying to refine it, improve it and make
it understandable to the government. Now that he is on the
government side it would be hoped that members of the
government would pay more attention to the proposal because
it has a lot of advantages. There are a lot more advantages than
disadvantages.
Of course it has that one big weakness that governments do
not like and that government bureaucracies do not like. It is too
simple and because it is too simple it will not work. It has to be
complicated, convoluted and confusing before governments
will support it.
An hon. member: Isn't that a shame?
Mr. Silye: That is a shame. Much has been made of
simplifying the tax system. Successive governments have
succeeded only in adding dramatic complications while
explaining at the same time that they are simplifying it.
The member for Broadview-Greenwood as he spoke to the
bill today found himself saying-and it was the only part of the
speech I did not like-that he supported the 12 measures and
that it did improve the Income Tax Act. While it laid out a more
level playing field in 11 areas, it distorted the capital gains area.
It is easy to fall into that trap.
We defend a bill by explaining that it simplifies things, yet we
are adding to the problem. I do not know the cost in millions of
dollars for this one bill alone, but it probably involved
modifying different regulations, sections and subsections to get
the 12 items changed in the Income Tax Act.
Mr. Schmidt: It is 110 pages.
Mr. Silye: No, the Income Tax Act is more than 110 pages.
Mr. Schmidt: No, no. That is the addition.
Mr. Silye: The addition is 110 pages. It is amazing. The vast
majority of individual Canadians should be able to confidently
prepare and file their personal income tax returns without the
services of tax consultants. Tax consultants should be busy
calculating taxes on profits, not companies going into
receivership.
Requirements of a simple and fair income tax system are one
flat rate of tax, one personal exemption amount per individual,
the same deductions for all individuals and corporations, and a
clear understanding of the definition of income. A simplified tax
system also allows lower income individuals to claim a personal
exemption to avoid taxes on a basic living income. An
individual's income is much easier to track than an individual's
expenditures.
I would suggest that a proportional tax on income is the most
acceptable tax model for Canada. It is a flat tax model that
would be ideal for provincial and municipal governments,
although I am aware that the federal government cannot and
should not force provinces and municipalities to adopt any
particular tax policies.
What I mean is that the government determines where it
should spend the money, what programs Canadians want and
need and how much is required to deliver services. In the
process it has to be evaluated which government can better
deliver a service. As some of the services are pushed down to
lower levels of government and are within provincial
jurisdiction, they are given the same points in taxation to raise
the money for services because the federal government will no
longer need them.
That is how the system would work. That is how we could
clean up the current Income Tax Act. That is what I mean by
taking out income taxes as the driving vehicle for economic and
social development and social policy.
I call our version of the flat tax a proportional tax versus a flat
tax or a single tax because it would be calculated in proportion to
family size, income and therefore according to the ability to pay.
I will explain that a little further on when I get into a sample of a
single page tax return that I know members would look forward
to filling out one day in the near future.
(1635)
There is considerable logic to adopting a taxation system that
can be efficiently administered. The calculation of income
would utilize generally accepted accounting principles without
special rules specified by government.
This proposal defines income to be productive income from
employment, business and investments, including interest
income, capital gains, pensions and dividends. It also allows
immediate deduction of capital acquisitions in the year of
purchase but would not tax capital gains on an individual's
primary personal residence due to many economic variables
over a long period of time.
Let me review two tax forms that I believe would improve our
international competitive advantage if we adopted them within
two years. I am borrowing some of these points from the
member for Broadview-Greenwood, but it is very critical at
this point to get a handle on excessive spending by governments,
have more efficient and effective spending by governments,
determine which levels of government should be raising and
spending that money for delivery of services to the people,
determine which crown corporations should be privatized and
which ones are better administered and run by the private sector
versus the public sector. I cannot be told that all 380-plus crown
corporations are better in the hands of government bureaucracy.
8567
I recommend that over 90 per cent of them are better off in the
hands of the private sector.
Yes, there are some businesses and corporations that should
be administered by the crown and we should retain them, but we
should have a review of which crown corporations should stay in
government hands and which ones should go to the private
sector.
By deciding which level of government should deliver a
service we have removed the need to raise x amount of funds for
the federal government. By privatizing we eliminate the need of
direct subsidies to crown corporations and businesses of $2.2
billion. That is another saving.
Another aspect is the process of doing a government review of
government programs. No standing committee that I know of
reviewing the prior year's spendings on the main estimates
talked about a sunset clause. We do not have a habit of doing that
in the House.
Very few programs expire on a certain date; they go on ad
infinitum. In many cases cabinet ministers, ministers of the
crown who are currently trying to do the job that they were
elected to do a year ago, are in no way, shape or form in control
of the purse strings. Money is being spent by administration, by
the departments, that they only find out about if it hits the
newspapers or if opposition parties point out the misspending of
moneys. That just proves my point that we hold cabinet
ministers accountable but in effect they are not the ones who are
spending the money.
This has to be fixed and we are trying to tell the government
how to fix it. We are trying to point it out to the government, yet
somehow it refuses to listen to us and ends up embarrassing
itself. It knows full well that it is not in charge of these funds in
all cases.
Let us get back to the proportional tax system and what a flat
tax would be like. It would be one page in length. It would be one
side only. The other side would be blank so it could be folded
and mailed like that. It would have employment income;
investment income which includes interest, dividends, capital
gains and rental income; and any other income which includes
UI benefits, pensions, old age security payments, alimony, child
support payments and foreign income. That would be all the
areas of income that would be defined. The key principle under
income is that a buck is a buck. All personal income generated in
any form should be taxed with no special treatment for various
forms of income.
From this income would be deducted, for example, the
personal exemption. Everybody would have a personal
exemption of $12,000 to generate income; a spousal income of
$6,000 less the spouse's income; a child care deduction of
$5,000 up to age 7 and $3,000 between ages 7 and 14. RRSP
contributions would be deductible but the maximum would be
$6,000, not the current $13,500. That would tax higher income
people. They would not be able to find loopholes to reduce their
taxable income.
(1640)
This tax form is geared toward the middle income which
comprises the majority of Canadians. This taxation system
would help them. It is a taxation system geared to help people
who make between $45,000 and $65,000 per year so they can
raise families, look after their homes, look after their spouses
and look after themselves.
There would be an age deduction of about $2,000 for 65 years
of age and over. If foreign income is declared, any foreign tax
paid would be offset. Other mandatory deductions would be UIC
premiums, CPP contributions and any alimony or child support
payments.
The deductions I have gone through on a personal tax form are
at levels the middle class can afford. It would result in more tax
being extracted from the wealthy than is now the case and would
leave more disposable income in the hands of taxpayers.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) What is your rate?
Mr. Silye: I will get to my rate in a minute. Lower income
earners would be basically exempted from paying tax and
families would be granted a generous deduction to help them get
by on one income.
Leaving the dollars in the hands of the people who make them
in the first place eliminates the need for the government to
collect and redistribute the funds. There are handling costs both
ways and the net result is that the person who is dishing it out
and is making $18,000 a year and qualifies for some social
assistance gets less back than what he or she had in the first
place. Why not leave it there? That would help relieve some of
the strain, stress and pressure on our welfare program. It would
be a form of savings for the government as well.
The purpose of the RRSP contribution being reduced to
$6,000 from $13,500 would be to gear the program more toward
middle income earners, thus not appearing to favour the
wealthy. Spousal income up to $6,000 would be filed on one
return. However any spousal income exceeding $6,000 would
require a separate return with a $12,000 exemption allowance. It
might be a little difficult for two people to fill out two forms but
I do not think that is as difficult as the current tax form.
Let me refer to the advantage of the deductions I have
described. The child care deduction would help solve two of the
biggest problems in our society today. We have the Suzanne
Thibaudeau case wherein the recipient of child support
payments said they were not enough money and she does not
wish to pay tax on them, whereas the payer of the child support
payments has a deduction. If we do not allow the deduction for
the payer and do not tax the recipient, we will find that
settlements will be less and the whole single family syndrome
will be distorted.
8568
To help solve the problem, we would allow a reasonable
amount for child care to be given to all families, to all wage
earners, of $5,000 up to age 7 and $3,000 between ages 7 and
14. If there is a divorce, and it happens in 50 per cent of the
marriages these day, the recipient of child support payments
would be allowed to offset that income. The deductibility would
be back to normal. It would help solve a big headache for the
finance minister.
Members of the government have private members' bills that
conflict with what the finance minister knows to be valid and
true in terms of the taxation and deduction system. They are at
odds and have a problem on their hands. I am offering them a
constructive solution.
That is what a proportional tax form would look like. Some
people have asked me outside the House: ``How are we going to
make investments? It is going to hurt the economy''. The rate
charged in the proportional tax would be between a low of 15 per
cent and a maximum of 20 per cent. It would be somewhere in
that rage. It is a range right now because we have to determine
what services the federal government will keep. What services
is it going to look after? How much money is required for those
programs? To raise that amount of money it can look at the gross
incomes, look at the GDP and establish the rate.
(1645)
A corporate tax return would be just as simple. It would be one
side of one page. The gross income would include GST or
NATVAT or a combination, and all corporate income. The
deductions from this would include GST or NATVAT paid and
the cost of operations: goods, services and materials; wages,
salaries and benefits; interest payments; and pension
contributions. Another deduction would be dividends paid out
for domestic shareholders only. This eliminates the current
problem of double taxation on dividends.
Another deduction would be capital investments at cost, no
depreciation. That might surprise some people because a
company might be generating $2 million in sales and qualifies
for a loan at the bank and qualifies for a $4 million land and
building. That would be deductible against the $2 million
income and would create a loss. That loss would be carried
forward until the profits chewed it up. I believe we should only
tax income once and the recipient of that $4 million would be
paying the income tax.
The total deductions would be subtracted from the income and
the answer multiplied by the rate of 15 per cent or 20 per cent. I
recommend not to go higher than 20 per cent and not to go lower
than 15 per cent. A system like this is simple. It is
understandable. It is equitable and would be a lot more efficient.
The fundamental approach to corporate income is to ensure
that income is only taxed once, as I mentioned before. If we
apply this principle to the current GDP of $750 billion this could
generate a 15 per cent tax rate. Assuming that income is only
taxed once that goes through the economy and would generate
$112 billion. At a 20 per cent tax rate it would generate $150
billion.
We could almost have a balanced budget. If the government
spends around $160 billion including the interest on the debt to
raise $150 billion out of a taxation system at a 20 per cent rate
and leaves disposable income in the hands of those earning it,
the corporations and individuals, they would be making their
investments with after tax dollars.
There would be no need to have tax driven deals and tax
driven models. Accountants and tax lawyers would not be
figuring out ways to create loopholes for the following two years
which have to be shut off. That cycle would end.
People who take care of their basic needs, their food, shelter
and clothing and make over, say it is $25,000 or $45,000
whatever the amount is, might have a few thousand dollars to
invest. They would invest after tax dollars. They would give it to
a corporation. It could be a mining company trying to raise
money, an oil or gas company trying to raise money, or a
manufacturing company trying to raise money.
That company would invest the seed capital, generate its
product or services and would make a profit. The company
would pay out dividends to the shareholders. The company
would get a deduction and the recipients would pay the tax. It all
works. You do not need tax driven investment in this society.
If we just get our mindset into an acceptable mode for a
paradigm shift then we could make progress. The problem is that
not enough people in this country are ready for the change. I will
echo what I heard earlier from a government member on this
issue. Until people say they want change, until Canadians
recognize that change is attainable and there is an alternate
solution to this dreaded Income Tax Act and the income tax that
continues to rise and confuse people, until they accept the need
and demand change, nothing will happen.
I encourage all those who hear this debate to write their
members of Parliament or the finance minister with a copy to
their members of Parliament. Demand a response to the
question: Mr. Finance Minister, why will a flat tax not work? If
he has no answer, then ask him to check with the member for
Calgary Centre. I will provide him with some talking points.
(1650)
I want to speak about the provinces again for a second. The
current provincial tax rate would apply on the federal tax
payable as it is now.
8569
With corporations paying for tax this could mean more
revenue. We always hear from the Bloc members and some
government members that corporations do not pay their fair
share, that we have to tax corporations more, individuals at
their maximum, but we have to go after corporations.
Corporations would be glad to pay 15 to 20 per cent.
Individuals would not be glad but they would be willing to pay
15 to 20 per cent. Then we would get rid of a good portion of that
underground economy which people know can vary from as low
as $18 billion to $100 billion depending on the economists and
their mood for that day. If we brought this income out into the
open we would make gains.
The GST or the NATVAT, or a combination of the GST and
NATVAT, and a surtax on income, whatever the finance minister
finally does in a year, I am sure it will be the NATVAT. If it is not
the Deputy Prime Minister will have to resign. She made a
commitment during the election campaign to resign if the
government did not scrap the GST. I am going to hold her to that.
I will remind her of that as we get closer and closer to January 1,
1996 which according to the red book is the date by which it will
have eliminated or scrapped the GST.
With a combination of solid revenues and reduction in
government operations and expenses the result would be an
impressive surplus to go toward debt retirement. Then we could
lower taxes further if we wanted to. We could go to 10 per cent or
12 per cent. The Japanese currently have a single rate of 17 per
cent.
This system would be simple, understandable, equitable and
efficient. It would eliminate the need for convoluted tax bills
like Bill C-59. The government would not have to tinker with all
these social programs, the economic and business driven
programs. It would supply programs to the Canadian public,
determine the cost and raise the money to pay for them. It is
done and they are not tax driven.
Tax reform of this magnitude cannot take place without a
renewed commitment by the federal government to cut spending
and balance the budget. There are two sides to this issue. As the
song goes, you can't have one without the other. Thank goodness
that at least now after a year of our harassing the Liberal
government is listening to Reform and the finance minister is
planning cuts of $9.5 billion over the next two years.
I am pleased we are making some progress. I am pleased our
pressure is working because it is important. It is not important
for us to make political gains. It is important for us in terms of
being Canadian citizens that we are doing something in this
House for the good of all Canadians.
Canadians have been unequivocal in expressing their
opposition to further tax increases. Here is a solution that lowers
taxes. We in the Reform Party have heard the message.
The bottom line for the Reform Party is that the next federal
budget must not increase the total tax burden on Canadians.
However I have a hunch the finance minister will be forced to
find ways and means by tinkering around and probing, a little
thing here, a little thing there and will increase the overall tax
burden on Canadians.
The Reform Party does not object to the principle of
eliminating inequities in the existing tax system. That is why we
support 11 out of the 12 elements of this bill. It does level the
playing field. It does make necessary modifications. With the
exception of the elimination of the $100,000 capital gains, we
would be in favour of the other items.
We believe the solution to our structural deficit problem must
be found on the expenditure side rather than the revenue side.
Elimination of the deficit in three years requires substantial
measures. It is not the reduction of the deficit to 3 per cent of
GDP, it is the elimination of the deficit that will help us out of
this mess.
The Liberal government did a good study. It found that in
Europe the Maastricht treaty recommended that those
economies should target themselves to 3 per cent of GDP. What
it did not tell the Canadian public I am going to tell them right
now. In the economies in Europe the 3 per cent of GDP in the
Maastricht treaty applies to all levels of government.
Here in Canada if the Liberal government's intention was to
copy what is being done in Europe, then we would have to look
at the size of the provincial debts. They add another $250 billion
collectively. The reduction and the target for the deficit as a
ratio to GDP should be 4.5 per cent.
(1655 )
That is why we say that 3 per cent is not enough and not fast
enough. It is the elimination of the deficit that is important so
that this wonderful country, this beautiful home we live in can
finally have a mortgage. We could finally take that debt, equate
it to a mortgage on a home and remortgage our home over a 30
year period. We could start to pay off the principle and not just
borrow money to pay the interest.
Assuming a deficit of approximately $40 billion based on the
finance department's total 1994-95 deficit forecast and revenue
growth in the range of $14 billion to $18 billion based on the
finance minister's grey book scenario, it becomes apparent that
government expenditures must be reduced by $22 billion to $26
billion over a three year period.
8570
Deficit cutting is an exercise in setting priorities. We have
pointed these out. Many members in the Liberal Party laugh
at us and mock us, but we are serious. I stand before the Liberal
Party today in all seriousness and suggest that the people at the
top of government must be the first to make significant and
visible sacrifices before introducing cuts to government
spending.
Many members of the Reform Party have done so and many
members of this party will continue to do so. It is not to belittle
nor to embarrass any member in this House. All members should
be free to do what they want to do, but I am of the position that
we are going to show leadership by example. If we expect the
Canadian public to recognize that cuts are necessary, then we as
politicians should be prepared to make sacrifices as well.
Duplication and overlap between federal and provincial
governments must be reduced. That is why we have to
decentralize and evaluate both levels of government. Based on
these principles for instance if we applied this decentralization
theory and eliminated the duplication of services, $3.5 billion to
$6 billion could be saved, if the interprovincial barriers to trade
were also addressed. These are serious numbers and they are
worth considering.
The overhead costs of government could be reduced as a part
of a comprehensive restraint program. A 15 per cent reduction
would save $1 billion. At home if we had to reduce our budget by
8 per cent we could do it. That is all the Reform Party is
suggesting, 8 per cent in one year. With the increased disposable
income that this new proportional tax would present, more
money would be in the taxpayers' hands. That money in the
hands of the wage earners is more productive than in the hands
of a politician or a bureaucrat.
The federal government should not subsidize business or
special interest groups. There is a savings there of $2 billion.
Social policy review is important. After all the studies are
done it will get back in this House and we will look at it
seriously. This area is 67 per cent of the current federal budget.
Over a three year period there have to be cuts in the
neighbourhood of $12 billion to $18 billion or the Liberal
government will not reach its deficit targets.
The advantage of deficit elimination includes lower taxes for
Canadians which leaves them with more disposable income.
That will continue to fuel the economy. We would be able to
remortgage our debt over a 30 year period. We could introduce a
new taxation system as outlined in the proportional tax or work
with the Liberal government on a single tax system if we were
forced to. One way or another, I believe that together we could
come up with a tax system that would put us ahead and on the
leading edge of economic development and growth. We would
be ahead of rather than always following the United States.
In conclusion, Canadian taxpayers have already made it clear
that they want politicians with the guts and the vision to lead the
way with changes that will benefit them and their children, no
matter how difficult those changes may be. We have the guts on
this side of the House to recommend where we should cut
excessive spending. We also have the guts to put forth some tax
reform ideas.
It is a shame that government members are nothing more than
Conservatives in red clothing. It is a shame they have only
succeeded in adopting Conservative bills for a year. It is a shame
that in one year they have spent $40 billion more than they have
generated, just like the Tories. They host $1,000 a plate
fundraising dinners for their Prime Minister, just like the Tories.
They make patronage appointments, just like the Tories. In three
years I predict that if the Liberal government does not listen to
this party, the Liberal government will fall, just like the Tories.
(1700)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Jonquière-Native Peoples.
[English]
I have received notice from the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that he is unable to move his
motion during private members' hour on Friday, December 2,
1994.
[Translation]
Since it was not possible to arrange an exchange of positions
in the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 9(2)(a), I
will ask the clerk to drop this order to the bottom of the order of
precedence.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(b), private members' hour
will thus be suspended and the House will continue with the
business before it prior to private members' hour.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I cannot move that private
members' ballot item tomorrow. It has something to do with
Safe Driving Week, and I will leave it at that.
Pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), I wish to indicate that the
Liberal members will be sharing their time for the rest of this
day's debate.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Reform Party speak. I would
like some clarification. The hon. member has talked a lot about
support, that the Reform Party is collectively supporting a flat
tax idea. I would like him to explain the rationale for that briefly
if he could.
8571
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to remind the
member that we have now gone from the first three
interventions of 40-minute debate without questions or
comments to a new stage. Resuming debate.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to give my
speech.
I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-59, an act
to amend the Income Tax Act and the income tax application
rules. Last February the Minister of Finance told this House that
he was restoring fiscal sanity to government.
That budget was about jobs for Canadians now and lasting
jobs for their future. More important, that budget also offered
Canadians for the first time in memory real deficit reduction and
comprehensive changes to government programs.
Guelph-Wellington residents are concerned about their
future. They know that in the past governments have overspent.
They are also concerned that our current debtload includes
increased borrowing from foreign lenders. They see their money
being sent abroad and they would prefer that we concentrate on
programs that will encourage domestic growth.
They know that the only way to show the world that Canada is
committed to real deficit reduction is to prove our commitment
to fiscal discipline. This bill is an example of this commitment
and I am sure that all members of Parliament will want to
support this government in these measures.
Guelph-Wellington residents voted Liberal because they
know we promised to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP
in three years. That is a real commitment we intend to make.
They knew then and they know now that the Reform Party does
not have the plan for deficit reduction. They know that the
Reform Party has admitted that Reformers have no idea what
impact their ideas for spending cuts will have on Canadians.
Guelph-Wellington residents want spending cuts and
government action to be wise, made with their well-being in
mind. They want a government that is serious about its
commitment to Canadians.
Let me remind this House that our program of net spending
reduction over the next three years is the most significant of any
budget in a decade. Eighty per cent of the net fiscal
improvements set out by our government will be from spending
cuts.
These cuts as demanded from my constituents and
constituents all across Canada will reduce the operating budgets
of government departments by $400 million in the next fiscal
year, with savings rising to $620 million annually in 1995, 1996
and beyond.
As well, the extension of the freeze in government salaries
including those of members of Parliament will provide an
additional saving of almost $1 billion annually by 1996-1997.
We have extended our ideas to include all facets of
government. Grants and contributions made by government
including foreign aid and grants to businesses have also been
trimmed for savings of $253 million this year and $409 million
in 1996-1997.
(1705 )
Changes to unemployment insurance will reduce
expenditures by $725 million this year and $2.4 billion annually
thereafter. We are reducing. There is no question. We are making
changes to our social security system. These changes are
necessary in order to respond to a different and more
challenging society.
In an earlier speech in this House I outlined the support that
my constituents have shown for changes to social security. They
know that I as their member of Parliament and we as government
are listening, but they also know we can no longer provide
everything to everyone.
Social security changes like those announced to
unemployment insurance will recognize our diverse society, our
difficult economic situation and our commitment to ensuring
that our children, and my children, have a future.
Our budget is about co-operation. We have launched various
consultation initiatives asking Canadians what they want in our
future. These consultations have been welcomed by my
constituents. They also welcome co-operation with the
provinces and local levels of government which study reforms
and test new approaches. The challenge for deficit reduction and
wiser spending is not only going to result from spending cuts but
also from revenues.
My constituents have told me that taxes are too high and I
agree with them. Lower deficits will mean lower taxes. People
in Guelph-Wellington do not mind paying taxes as long as they
are fair and as long as they know the money is well-spent.
Bill C-59 answers some of those concerns. Included in this
legislation are changes to the corporate tax system that make it
fairer and also allow it to better target the tax assistance made
available to certain businesses. These include the reduction in
the business income tax deduction and GST credit for meals and
entertainment expenses; the elimination of certain tax
preferences aimed at small businesses that are utilized by some
large, private corporations; the elimination or reduction of
certain regionally based investment tax credits that have not
been cost effective in attracting new investment.
This legislation is about tax fairness and further broadening
the tax base. For example, the full value of employer paid life
8572
insurance premiums will now become taxable. This will remove
the advantage that people with corporate plans enjoy over
self-employed Canadians or those whose employers do not offer
insurance benefits.
The $100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption will no longer
be available for gain realized after budget night. The income tax
credit provided to persons over the age of 65 will be income
tested, affecting one out of every four seniors in Canada.
This legislation also modifies the provisions of the home
buyer's plan, extending it indefinitely for first time home
buyers, a move welcomed by real estate people in my area and
all across Canada.
The 1994 budget and this legislation are only the beginning.
These fiscal measures are but the beginning to our efforts to
reach our goals. Action must be taken. Our response must be
comprehensive and wide reaching.
Last year we spent $38 billion on interest payments, money
my constituents believe could have been used for programs and
services. My constituents have asked me to come to Ottawa and
end the past excesses. Most are prepared to do without certain
government services if it means we really make an effort to end
that cycle of deficit and debt.
Our government is committed to action. We will meet our
budget targets. There is no question. We have put an end to
unrealistic projections. We are serious about meeting our
commitments to the Canadian people. The measures included in
Bill C-59 deserve speedy passage so we can move on to the next
stage of our fiscal challenge. This legislation includes
significant measures that will improve the fairness of our tax
system while at the same time improving our fiscal situation.
(1710)
These measures originated in last February's budget. This was
a budget that took concrete committed action to bring
government finances under control, action that is an essential
step in Canada's economic revitalization.
My constituents heard the message in February. They
accepted it during the last election. My constituents want a
return to fiscal sanity. If we accept the challenge of fiscal
management we will not only restore our faith in ourselves, but
we will have made a real step in ensuring that our children will
have faith in us because we have acted for them and for their
future.
We cannot turn back, and this legislation today calls for our
support.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to congratulate the hon. member for her fine statements
today in support of this bill. I know that she is very concerned
about social justice within our country, to ensure that we are
taking care of those in most need and certainly the children.
We listened to the words of the member for Calgary Centre
who somehow decided he was going to outline for Canadians a
simple one page tax return that you fold over and just send in,
that this somehow is going to make the world a panacea and that
we can reduce taxes all of a sudden by having a smaller form. I
know that the hon. member who just spoke shares my view that
having a shorter form is certainly one thing and lowering a tax
rate is another.
She probably also would agree that the income taxes, for
instance, for an ordinary member of Parliament under the
Reform Party proposal would be reduced by about 13 per cent.
Of course, that 13 per cent, if we assume that the total amount of
revenue still has to be collected, would have to be collected from
somebody else which means that under the plan it would
certainly be unfair to lower income Canadians.
I want simply to ask the member if she feels that the finance
minister has brought in appropriate changes and that more
changes would be required, particularly in the areas of child tax
credits or child care expense deductions which would maybe
assist even further those most in need in our society.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon.
colleague from Mississauga South. There is no silver bullet to
the mess that we are in, quite frankly. That is the reality. I think
it is going to take numerous methods and types of procedures to
decrease this deficit. I think that we all have to be committed in
this House, every party in this House. It is going to be necessary
that we put our energies together to bring some sort of financial
stability to this country again.
Some of the methods that my colleague from Mississauga
South has talked about are certainly going to be some of the
options that the finance minister is going to explore.
As the finance minister has spoken about many times, we are
going to hit our budget targets and that is going to make things a
lot better in this country.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to support Bill C-59 today. Action that increases the
fairness of Canada's tax system, as this legislation does in a
wide range of areas, deserves non-partisan support from all
members of the House. I am surprised there is any debate on this
bill at all.
The specific measures in this legislation have already been
amply highlighted but I think it would be worthwhile to remind
members of the context which set out this legislation, the
February budget.
I believe it is fair to say that our 1994 budget set in motion the
most comprehensive, fundamental change in decades. It is
change that focused on three central goals, goals that directly
answer the concerns and priorities expressed by Canadians
during last winter's first ever series of consultation conferences.
Canadians wanted to see action to restore our country's
economic vitality and to create the jobs so many people
desperately need. The budget took that action through funding
for the
8573
infrastructure program, a commitment to rolling back
unemployment insurance premiums and through new strategies
to promote small business and technological innovation, the
sinews of the new economy.
(1715)
It is worth pointing out that the Canadian job situation has
seen a substantial improvement. So far this year, about 307,000
new jobs have been created. Just as important, those are full
time jobs.
Second, in last year's consultations Canadians also told us
they wanted reform of the social security system to ensure it is
fair, compassionate and affordable, a reform that delivers
incentives for work and creates jobs and opportunities. That
reform has been launched by the Minister of Human Resources
Development. The budget highlighted important steps in
meeting this challenge. The link between the length of time a
person works and UI benefits was strengthened. Assistance was
enhanced for those with dependents. These and other actions
growing from the sweeping policy review process now taking
place should reduce the cost of the program further and allow
premiums to come down.
The 1994 budget consultations delivered the third blunt
message: get government finances under control and make
government more effective, cost conscious and less of a burden
that undercuts job creation and entrepreneurship.
The government has consistently made clear that these are
obligations we must accept, not options. That is why the Prime
Minister and Minister of Finance have staked out a concrete
commitment to reduce the deficit to just 3 per cent of gross
domestic product in three years. They have made clear that this
is just a first step toward the ultimate goal: a balanced budget.
To support this goal the 1994 budget took fiscal action to
bring the deficit under $39.7 billion this year. Just as important,
the action plan was based on $5 of cuts in spending for every $1
of action on the revenue side. It is aspects of this revenue side
action that are included in Bill C-59. Measures such as the
elimination of the $100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption
and the reduction of the meals and entertainment expense
deduction for business will help the government's bottom line.
These actions do not respond to fiscal pressures alone. They
are also based on improving the tax system and ensuring that all
Canadian taxpayers are treated equally and equitably. To me that
makes such measures an example of win, win action at its best.
Let me return to the overall fiscal challenge of the budget and
our commitment to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of the
economy. I know that some hon. members feel this is too little,
too slow. But I and the government continue to share the view of
many Canadians, that too drastic action could risk the economic
progress needed to sustain consistent fiscal improvement.
One issue that I believe most members here can agree on is
that reducing the fiscal burden of government is not enough. We
must give better value for the taxpayers' dollars. That includes
eliminating unnecessary or cumbersome barriers to business.
The 1994 budget highlighted action here as well, including our
continuing commitment to replace the GST and an intensified
effort to eliminate program overlap and duplication between
levels of government.
As members can see the 1994 budget undertook vitally
necessary measures of which Bill C-59 represents merely a few.
This wide ranging action plan is still not enough. That is why we
emphasized that the 1994 budget was just the first important
step in a two stage process.
Canadians have made clear that further, more fundamental
change is needed in virtually every area of government activity
if our country is to face the future with renewed confidence.
They have told us that they must consulted on these changes.
That is why the budget highlighted an extensive process of
policy review and consultation to improve a wide range of
policies and programs. The House has seen this process at work
in the papers and reports such as those dealing with social
assistance reform and financing for small business.
Based on the continuing process of policy reviews and
consultations, future budgets will carry forward further detailed
strategies to encourage growth and new jobs. These will also be
strategies that will help ensure continuing progress on deficit
reduction.
Let me remind all Canadians that this two stage approach is
not a case of deferring action and evading responsibility and
leadership. Rather it reflects the dimension of the challenge
facing us all. As the finance minister has said, for Canada to
recover and grow we must regain a sense of national purpose, a
sense of national will. What we require now is the kind of effort
that we have agreed to expend only a few times in our history.
(1720)
To achieve this effort we must accept a fundamental fact of
Canadian life. Without reasonable consensus and real
consultation, dramatic change can become a disastrous failure.
We do not intend to fail because Canadians deserve success.
It is timely to highlight another aspect of our commitment to
consultation and more effective government. This is the change
we have made in the budget planning process itself. In the time
available before last February's budget we undertook public
consultations across the country, through conferences organized
by independent institutes. The Minister of Finance issued a
report on this process, openly addressing the advice we re-
8574
ceived, how the budget has responded, and why we did not
accept some suggestions.
This was just the start of a deeper process of reform to bring
budget planning from behind closed doors and to enlist the
insight and wisdom of Canadians, including parliamentarians.
As was promised in February the government has acted to
further expand the consultation process for the 1995 budget.
This has included the cross-country hearings by the finance
committee, ongoing town hall sessions by the finance minister
and other members, and the debate on budget options that
occupied the House yesterday.
To support this process of public consultation, to ensure that
interested Canadians are fully informed of the fiscal challenges
we face, the government has arranged for a range of materials to
be made available. This includes the workbook prepared by the
Canadian Foundation for Economic Education which has been
acclaimed for its ability to make the fiscal facts accessible and
engaging.
Bill C-59 is just one part of the 1994 budget that delivered
real action while setting in place the policy reviews and
consensus building that will deliver further action in the years
ahead. It was a budget that took steps to spur job creation while
recognizing the need for real fiscal discipline and improvement.
It is a budget that refused to abandon the values of compassion
and support for those in real need in Canada.
Politics has been described as the art of the possible but
Canadians want more than possibilities. They want to see a
government committed to doing all it can through concrete,
measurable action to help build a future of real opportunity and
real growth.
That is the challenge the government has accepted. That is the
goal the budget acted on, through the measures before us today.
That is the vision we will continue to build on in the next budget
and those the government will deliver in the many years ahead.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I really enjoyed the reference to balancing the budget,
being fiscally responsible and making sure that expenses are
under control. Those are the absolutely right things that one
should be saying. We have been saying them over here.
I failed to discover in the remarks made just a moment ago
exactly how this would be done by actually making a promise to
people that says we would reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of
GDP. This really does not ever get to the point of reducing the
deficit to zero.
We need a particular sort of plan. In my opinion it is not good
enough to say that it will be reduced to 3 per cent of GDP. That
means a deficit in perpetuity. Or is there something I missed in
the speech that shows us clearly that there will be a reduction of
the deficit to zero at some time?
Ms. Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may want to take
a look at the red book and the government's commitment. We
stated very clearly that our goal was to reduce the deficit to 3 per
cent of GDP in the first three years. Our ultimate goal is and
always will be a balanced budget. If we can achieve it sooner, we
will. The finance minister will set out a new fiscal plan in the
next budget. I anticipate that Canadians will review this plan
and be very pleased.
(1725)
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the member for her excellent presentation.
I wonder if she could make a comment in the area of
accountability. Members of the Reform Party have been
speaking about this quite aggressively. They presented one of
their proposals to the finance committee last Friday.
I took the time to add the figures up. There are five sections in
their program. The bottom line when we add up their $10 billion
reduction program is it adds up to $9.035 billion. It is short $1
billion. It is a $10 billion program for deficit reduction by the
Reform Party that is already short $1 billion.
I wonder if the hon. member would comment on a party that
would propose that sort of accountability.
Ms. Whelan: Mr. Speaker, Reform members have said over
and over again that we should be reducing the deficit to zero
tomorrow. They made a proposal to reduce it by $10 billion and
the figures did not even add up to $10 billion.
Canadians need to take a second look at what the Reform
Party has been talking about before, during and since the
election. They should also take a more serious look at what the
government has been talking about, what the Prime Minister, the
finance minister, and what all the government members have
been talking about.
We are serious about meeting our commitment. We are
serious about going beyond that commitment. We are serious
about reaching a balanced budget in the future.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, given the closeness of 5.30 p.m., I
wonder if the House would consider calling it 5.30 so this debate
would not expire and we could resume it tomorrow. If there is
unanimous consent to call it 5.30, perhaps we could proceed
now to private members' hour.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
suggestion of the chief government whip. Is there unanimous
consent that I see the clock as being 5.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
8575
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): 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.
_____________________________________________
8575
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-240, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Reform Party has
made a proposal concerning the safety of the Canadian public.
We as the legislative body of this great nation must take a lead
role in ensuring that our citizens live in safe communities. That
responsibility extends even with greater seriousness to those
who are simultaneously most vulnerable and most vital, those
who carry our future in their hands, our children.
Let me take a moment to tell of some of the things we in
Parliament have done to date to try to give both immediate and
long term protection to our citizens from people who have
shown little regard for the welfare of others.
In Canada's early history, clemency was unconditional and
only granted through the royal prerogative. In 1899 Parliament
passed the ticket of leave act which established conditional
release and a system of supervised freedom. The Governor
General could grant conditional release to anyone as a method to
bridge the gap between the controls and restraints of
institutional life and the freedoms and responsibilities of
community life, as one historian has noted. The Department of
Justice provided supervision and eventually established the
remission branch in 1913.
In 1938 the Archambault commission recommended that
rehabilitation become the purpose of incarceration. The Fauteux
report recommended the creation of the National Parole Board
which came into existence with the passage of the Parole Act in
1959.
It is important to note that in 1969, 31 years after the
Archambault report, the Ouimet report reaffirmed that
rehabilitation was the major purpose of conditional release.
More recent developments suggest that the protection of the
public is the primary goal of conditional release.
In 1978 Parliament amended the Penitentiary Act to permit
offenders to earn time off for good behaviour. Good conduct in a
penitentiary, it was hoped, was some indication that an offender
had changed the type of behaviour that led to incarceration in the
first place. In 1978 this period of remission when offenders were
in the community was called mandatory supervision.
By 1981, the Law Reform Commission expressed concern
about the small group of offenders who constituted an imminent
danger to public safety but had to be released under the
provisions of that law.
In 1982 the National Parole Board began suspending the
release of a small number of offenders who it believed presented
a danger to public safety.
The Supreme Court of Canada struck down this practice in
1983, saying that the board could only suspend in reaction to an
offender's behaviour on release, not in anticipation of
problematic behaviour.
In 1986 Bill C-67 amended the Parole Act to permit the
National Parole Board, after a referral from Correctional
Service Canada, to detain in custody until the end of their
sentence those offenders it deemed likely to commit an offence
causing serious harm before the expiration of their sentence.
The legislation introduced a schedule of offences which were
considered to have caused serious harm and required CSC to
review the cases of all offenders convicted of one of these
scheduled offences to determine whether they should be referred
to the board for a detention hearing.
On November 1, 1992 the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act replaced both the Parole Act and the Penitentiary
Act. This new act, known as the CCRA, eliminated the previous
system of earned remission and provided that statutory release
take effect at the two-thirds point of the sentence for offenders
who had not been granted parole earlier. In addition, it included
and amended the provisions for detention that had been added to
the Parole Act through Bill C-67.
The CCRA expanded the schedule of offences to include a
greater number of specific sexual offences. As well, the CCRA
calls for notifying victims upon their request of when detention
and other hearings are to take place and permits them to observe
such hearings.
Other measures in the CCRA include requiring an annual
review of offenders ordered to either remain in prison or to
reside in community facilities and one chance provision for
statutory release which means that certain offenders felt to
represent a certain level of risk but probably manageable in a
residential facility are given this one chance to prove
themselves.
Any breach of condition or increase in risk requires that they
return to prison until the end of the sentence with no further
opportunities to complete the sentence in the community.
8576
These steps have all been designed to give immediate, short
term protection to society by removing dangerous offenders
from the streets and, more important, to give long term
protection by effecting change in the behaviour of offenders so
that they will never commit another crime. The bottom line,
however, remains the same. We must do more to protect our
children.
We said in the red book that we share Canadians' concerns
that more must be done to better protect society from repeat sex
offenders. These measures are part of ongoing reforms to
improve our handling and management of these offenders in
federal correctional systems, especially those who victimize our
children.
We are all outraged by crimes perpetrated against our
children. We are angry and we demand measures that will
protect them.
(1735)
At present, the CCRA permits the National Parole Board to
detain sex offenders and certain other high risk offenders until
the end of their sentence if they cause serious harm and if they
are likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm if
released.
What about when the victim is a child, a person who cannot
articulate the problem or even realize that there is a problem
until many years later? We now know that when the victim is a
child, the serious harm caused by a particular offence may not
become evident for a number of years.
In addition, the victim may be too young to communicate
adequately the trauma inflicted by the offence. We must protect
and support our vulnerable children. It has been difficult for the
National Parole Board and CSC to determine that a child was
seriously harmed using the legal meaning of the term serious
harm.
Without this determination, the National Parole Board could
not legally detain the offender until the end of the sentence. The
Solicitor General has already introduced amendments that make
it easier for the National Parole Board to keep sex offenders who
victimize children in a penitentiary until the end of their
sentence.
This amendment removes the requirement to establish serious
harm as a criterion for detention in these cases. This gives the
board the authority to detain a sex offender if a further sex
offence against a child is likely. I would like to add that the
government has proposed to expand the list of offences for
which an offender could be referred for detention until the end of
the sentence.
This list includes criminal harassment, commonly known as
stalking, conspiracy to commit serious drug offences and
serious drinking and driving and criminal negligence offences
which result in bodily harm or death.
These behaviours also put our citizens at risk, including our
children. We all have a responsibility to protect our most
vulnerable citizens, our children, from predators like
paedophiles.
The National Parole Board must now detain offenders who it
feels may cause death or serious harm before the end of their
sentence. With the proposed amendments, if the victims are
children, the board will not have to determine serious harm. It is
assumed. This means that whenever the board finds that an
offender might reoffend against a child, it must detain that
offender.
The hon. member from the Reform Party oversteps the bounds
of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No administrative
tribunal such as the National Parole Board would be granted
such broad powers of post-sentence detention without due
process nor would the courts countenance this.
No government would put into place a system it knows would
be struck down by the courts, a system that is presently being
proposed by the hon. member from the Reform Party who is
promoting this private members' bill.
This government is certainly committed to strengthening
Canada's criminal justice system to protect the public and most
especially our children from dangerous offenders. Our
government has acted in an increasing number of ways to bring
about public safety, whether it be revisions to the Young
Offenders' Act, whether it be much tougher action against
criminals who utilize guns during the commission of a criminal
offence and other progressive change which will greater ensure
the protection of all our citizens.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
after the news we just heard about Mr. Bouchard's illness, I can
assure you that I will do my duty as I am expected to do as a
member of Parliament.
Bill C-240 is a prime example of a philosophy that is both
reactionary and repressive. The Reform Party is pulling out all
the stops to give the impression that this is a crisis and they are
the only ones who can save us. The bill introduced by the hon.
member does not provide any realistic or practical answers to
the problem of repeat offenders.
(1740)
In fact, it favours a drastic and simplistic response to a
complex problem. The bill consists of two parts. The first part
concerns the conditions to be met for conditional release, in the
case of an offender convicted of sexual assault involving a child.
Under the new conditions it would be easier to continue the
detention of such offenders by denying them a conditional
release.
They would have to serve their full sentence. The second part
of the bill concerns new regulations that would permit danger-
8577
ous offender findings to be made after sentencing. The concept
already exists in the Criminal Code. At the present time, the
dangerous offender finding can be made at the time of
sentencing. In the bill before the House today, this finding could
also be made just before the end of the sentence.
Once a dangerous offender finding has been made, the
offender's prison sentence may be extended for an
indeterminate period, irrespective of the original sentence. I
will first consider that part of the bill that concerns individuals
convicted of sexual offences involving young victims. These are
among the most repugnant crimes we can imagine. As I have
said before, society must protect itself against this kind of
individual.
Bill C-240 has the advantage of preventing the premature
release of these offenders. However, similar provisions already
exist in Bill C-45, whose purpose is to amend the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act. In fact, Bill C-45 provides that in
the case of a sexual offence involving a child, the National
Parole Board would not have to establish the existence or
probability of serious harm.
The Board must be satisfied that an offender is likely to
commit a sexual offence involving a child before the expiration
of his sentence. These provisions may be found in section 43(1)
of the bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act. Bill C-45 has been referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs where it is now under consideration.
Since the amendment proposed by the hon. member is in all
respects identical to the amendment from the Department of
Justice, I think it would be premature to comment at this stage.
The second part of the bill presented by my colleague deals
with finding an offender to be a dangerous offender. Clause 26
introduces an important amendment to the Criminal Code,
which would make it possible to detain in a penitentiary for an
indeterminate period an offender found to be dangerous. It
would be post-sentencing detention since this penalty would be
imposed after sentencing.
By presenting a bill of this kind, the Reform Party member
shows to what extent repression and vengeance underly that
party's policies with respect to criminal law. Looking at this
bill, I have the feeling that Reform members have never heard of
the principles of fundamental justice, procedural fairness, and
presumption of innocence. These are the principles which make
our society free and democratic.
To undermine these principles puts our society at risk. As
members of this House, we must be on guard and defeat rightist
proposals, which are taken up by a press eager to make us
believe that we are still in the midst of a crisis. Before
commenting further on this, let us first look at what constitutes a
dangerous offender.
Section 753 of the Criminal Code allows the court to find to be
a dangerous offender an individual convicted of a serious
personal injury or sexual offence. These offences are listed in
section 752 of the Criminal Code. Once the accused is found
guilty of any one of the offences listed in section 752, the court
hears the evidence presented by the Crown and hands down its
decision based on the following factors, as listed in section 753:
A pattern of repetitive behaviour showing that the offender is
failing to restrain his behaviour; the offender is showing a
substantial degree of indifference respecting the consequences
of his behaviour; the behaviour associated with the offence is of
such a brutal nature that it is unlikely to be inhibited by normal
standards of restriction of freedom.
(1745)
The decision of the court is given after the offender has been
convicted, but before sentencing. The court finds the offender to
be dangerous and, instead of imposing a regular sentence,
imposes a sentence of indeterminate imprisonment. This is the
harshest sentence that can be imposed by a court, since the
offender is not eligible for mandatory parole.
The case of the person is reviewed three years after the
conviction and every two years thereafter. In practice, these are
pro-forma reviews, since officers of the National Parole Board
never hesitate, except in a few rare cases, to recommend the
continuing of the sentence.
In her bill, my colleague proposes that the whole judicial
process be repeated just before the end of the sentence of a given
offender. Bill C-240 proposes nothing short of a new trial, with
new evidence and a new sentence. Let us remember that this new
procedure would not apply to a crime already committed, but to
a crime that might be committed.
In fact, it would amount to convicting again someone who has
already served his sentence. May I remind this House that the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects individuals
against double convictions. Section 11(h) says, and I quote:
``Any person charged with an offence has the right- if finally
acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally
found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or
punished for it again''.
As we can see, this bill would not withstand a constitutional
challenge. It also seems incompatible with the principle of basic
justice to go after an individual by reopening the investigation
and introducing new evidence on which the initial verdict could
not be based.
Another issue raised by this bill is that of relevance. The hon.
member herself admitted in this House that her bill only affects
8578
a very small number of inmates. The problem of repeat
offenders is much broader and requires more comprehensive
solutions than those proposed by my colleague.
She even wildly exaggerated an isolated case, arguing that her
bill would solve that kind of problem. The truth is that Bill
C-240 suggests only partial solutions and affects only
dangerous offenders representing 0.5 per cent of all Canadian
inmates now in federal correctional institutions.
If we look at the statistics a little more closely, we will see
that, as of December 17, 1992, there were 121 offenders
designated as dangerous in Canada. Interesting enough, none of
them were in Quebec, the vast majority of them being found in
Ontario and the Western provinces. Between 1985 and 1992, the
number of dangerous offenders on parole was limited to one per
year, a number which has always remained constant.
There are no facts which justify such drastic action. The
reactionary measures proposed by my colleague are also
superfluous, as the courts already have tools to identify as
dangerous any offender before them. Judicious enforcement of
the Criminal Code could solve many problems.
It is not enough to respond to public opinion as conveyed by
tabloids trying to boost sales and it is not enough to go after a
very small number of individuals. From now on, the Liberal
government must decide, in co-operation with the provinces, on
a global approach to identify repeat offenders and ensure that
society is better protected.
[English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to
speak to Bill C-240, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act in the Criminal Code.
I would like to thank the member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley for introducing this much needed
legislation. The member is my southern neighbour and we share
the same community of Surrey, a growing vibrant community
but also a community which has experienced many tragedies
over the past few years. The number of murders in Surrey and
the surrounding area is astonishing.
(1750)
It is also completely unacceptable, most of all to the people of
Surrey. A day does not go by without someone from the
community contacting me or my staff about problems with our
justice system in such areas as lack of deterrence, repeated
offenders, parole, young offenders, criminal intoxication
defence, and so on.
It is these concerns that we in this Chamber must respond to.
Canadians across this nation will no longer accept a slap on the
wrist justice system or a system which holds the rights of
criminals above the rights of victims.
Canadians from all walks of life are demanding action from
Parliament, not tomorrow or not next week, but now.
My colleague has responded to that demand by introducing
this legislation aimed at preventing violent offenders from
perpetuating further violent crimes upon our community and the
country.
This bill is the result of the concern that many Canadians have
with regard to repeat offenders repeating violent offences,
particularly sex offences. This bill would amend the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act to permit offenders convicted of
certain serious offences to be denied statutory release if they are
likely to commit sexual offences involving children.
This amendment would change the current legislation
basically by removing the serious harm aspect. Under this bill it
would only have to be established that a sexual offence was
committed by the offender and that further sexual offences
against a child are likely upon release. This bill would also
amend the Criminal Code to permit dangerous offender findings
to be made after sentencing but near the conclusion of the
offender's sentence.
The reason for permitting dangerous offender findings to be
made after sentencing and near the conclusion of the sentence is
that the court would have evidence as to how the offender
responded to the treatment and the degree of his or her progress
while in custody. This corrects a flaw in the present system
where dangerous offender findings must be made at the time of
sentencing. Only those who are still considered dangerous near
the end of their original sentences, as opposed to the beginning
of their sentences, would be detained.
How one will behave after a course of treatment and
educational sessions cannot be judged before they participate in
the sessions. Prejudging in this manner is not a motivating
factor for any individual to make an effort to change their
behaviour while they are in these courses of treatment.
The process that this bill proposes for identifying and
detaining offenders is as follows. The correctional service act of
Canada would identify those who are likely to commit offences
causing death or serious harm if they were released at the end of
their sentence. These offenders would then be referred to the
National Parole Board. If the parole board agreed that this
person were likely to commit such an offence, the board would
then refer the person to the appropriate Attorney General. The
Attorney General would then consider asking the court to find
that the offender is still a dangerous offender.
If the court accepts the application it could make an order for
continued detention. The results of this process continued
custody for an indefinite period of time, continued custody for a
8579
definite period of time, or supervised release in the community
for a period of 10 years.
This is fair and reasonable and serves two essential purposes.
It allows dangerous offenders to be kept out of the community,
and it ensures that the state or justice system does not detain
persons at its whim without good reason and due process.
When this bill was debated in the House on June 10 of this
year some members were concerned that this bill would be
contrary to certain sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. Specifically the resentencing provisions of this
bill were thought to contradict section 11(h) of the charter:
If finally acquitted of an offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found
guilty and punished for an offence, not to be tried or punished for it again;
(1755 )
The judiciary is the final arbitrator with regard to the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. However, this bill does not contradict
section 11(h). This section guards against being found guilty or
punished for an offence for which one has served the full
sentence.
Bill C-240 amends the serious harm definition of the
dangerous offender's designation. This means that those who
are designated a possible dangerous offender by the process
outlined earlier are done so on the basis of their past history,
their treatment and progress which incarcerated and the
likelihood of their offending again. This does not equate with
resentencing a person for the same offence.
Also this legislation is almost identical to the current
dangerous offenders legislation which was found to be
constitutional.
In October of this year the community of Surrey experienced
another tragedy when Pamela Cameron was murdered. It
appears that the chief suspect in this case could have been
detained had post sentencing detention legislation such as my
colleague is proposing been in effect. This is something which
all members of this House should carefully consider.
What we do in this Chamber with this proposed legislation
shows how serious we are in combating violent crime in our
nation and in providing for the offenders positive rehabilitation
programs that are not cut short of their effectiveness by a date on
the calendar.
I urge all members of this House of all political parties to
respond to the nationwide concerns over the justice system and
support these reasoned amendments to our existing system.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley for providing me with
this opportunity to speak on her private members' bill C-240. I
strongly believe in the merits of the proposed legislation and
what it endeavours to address. I encourage all my colleagues on
both sides of the House to support it.
There are two essential components to the proposed
legislation before us today. The first deals with the application
for dangerous offenders designation. The second part would
eliminate the requirement of the crown to prove than an offender
is likely to commit serious harm, especially as it relates to
assaults of children. It is this second component on which my
remarks will focus this afternoon.
Childhood is supposed to be a time of innocence, of
exploring, learning and growing. For far too many kids,
however, their childhood has become an unending nightmare
created by those repugnant sexual predators who prey on
children. It is a sad commentary on today's society that more
and more frequently we read in our newspapers about cases of
sexual abuse or assault where innocent children have been the
victims, in some cases ending with the death of a child.
Imagine the terror in those instances where the abuse
continues for years, where the child is terrified into silence by
threats against themselves or their parents and family. This is a
common tactic used by these monsters to control their victims.
Not one of us in this Chamber can forget the atrocities of
Clifford Olson. The very fact that man still breathes today is an
affront to the memory of his victims, defenceless, innocent
children.
This bill addresses these problems. Bill C-240 provides for
indefinite incarceration of dangerous offenders who prey on our
young society.
Whose rights are more significant here, the rights of a
convicted sexual predator or the rights of a child? Who among
us wants to condemn any child to the danger posed by these
offenders? Do they pose a threat? That is the question we should
ask. Cases upon cases show that upon release these predators are
likely to reoffend. Research shows a very poor rate of
rehabilitation in these cases. The very least we can do is make
provisions for the courts and the judicial authorities to protect
our children from those who are likely to turn another child's
life into a nightmare, or even murder a child.
(1800)
Law-abiding Canadians, and maybe that is too legalistic, or
ordinary Canadians like you and me and the people who live on
our main streets in our communities are absolutely fed up with
hearing about offenders' rights. What about the rights of the
little child? How can the House even consider any measure that
puts the perpetrators' rights above those of innocent victims? If
these offenders pose a risk of any sort to the public, to little
children, for goodness' sake let us keep them in jail. Some
would say let us keep them in jail until they rot.
8580
Canadians will no longer tolerate the lenient Liberal justice
system of the past 20 years. They are struck with disbelief of
the travesties of justice about which they have read in their
daily newspapers of repeat offenders who are released on parole
or on work release into unsuspecting communities.
The rage that is felt by the public at these crimes demands that
we in this place, their representatives, take action and take
action now. The public no longer has the patience to deal with
MPs who will not respect their constituents' wishes. If the
members opposite have any doubt in their minds about that, they
had better consult with their constituents.
This fall 16-year old Pamela Cameron of Surrey, B.C., was
raped and murdered. The man charged with the murder, James
Owen, is in the words of the director of the Canadian Police
Association ``a walking advertisement'' for the dangerous
offender legislation before us today. He has a record of 28 prior
criminal convictions, including rape, and refused all sexual
behaviour and substance abuse treatment programs that were
offered to him in prison. The authorities should be able to look at
this case and keep offenders like Owen in prison beyond their
sentence. Perhaps, just perhaps, maybe Pamela Cameron would
be alive today.
I have held a number of townhall meetings in my
constituency. My constituents have voiced their concerns and
outrage at this crime and many others. They have called on hon.
members in this place to act.
Perhaps little eight-year old Mindy Tran of Kelowna would
be alive today if the provisions before us had been enacted.
Today in my riding alone there are some eight cases of sexual
assault before the courts involving children: eight lives
damaged, eight kids forced to go through the hell of abuse.
Recently a school principal was convicted of molesting his
15-year old foster child. There have also been two recent cases
where fathers were convicted of sexually abusing their children.
There is another case before the courts where a neighbour
sexually assaulted a little girl for two years before it came to
light, and this suspect, a known sexual offender, had been
released.
Even the B.C. attorney general has recognized the need for
more severe sentences in these cases and, as my local
newspaper, the Penticton Herald, reported in an editorial:
``Respect for the individual rights should not take precedence
over public safety''.
These crimes involving children tear into the heart of the
communities where they occur. Every parent must shudder in
horror at the atrocities committed on these poor children.
What of these young victims? Currently the onus is on the
system to prove that an offender is likely to commit serious
harm in cases that involve sexual assault on children. The actual
harm to the child may not be evident for several years or even
decades. It is difficult for adults, let alone children, to
adequately communicate the effects of a sexual crime on them.
It is our responsibility as a society and as members of this place
to protect children from these vile, sexual predators.
(1805)
Parents in communities across the land raise a hue and cry
when such criminals are released into their communities. Why?
It is because experience shows that there is a very good chance
they will offend again, and this time the victim could be their
own child.
Parents want to protect their children. Short of imprisoning
kids at home they cannot because the judicial system does not
give them a chance to do so. Even courts have ruled that
convicted child molesters have the right to hang around
schoolyards and playgrounds. They have that right. That is
absurd. If the benighted charter of rights is causing this insanity
then it had better be amended.
Many of my hon. colleagues in this place are parents or
grandparents. This tragedy has to strike in their own homes
before the House hears their cries of outrage. Can we as people
stand by and see even one more defenceless child brutalized or
murdered by a sexual predator? I think not.
I call on all members of the House to unite on Bill C-240 and
protect our children. We have a chance to make a difference. Let
us not throw it away. Canadian kids are counting on us.
In closing, I would like to remind everyone how this day
started and each day starts in the House when the Speaker says
these words: ``Grant us the wisdom, knowledge and
understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the
benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions''.
Bill C-240 is a good law and I pray all members make the wise
decision and vote yes to Bill C-240.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I know the hon. whip of
the Reform Party is very vigilant. I will try to be equal to the
task.
Seeing no members rising for debate, I have received notice
from the the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley
who moved Bill C-240. Under right of reply she will have two
minutes to conclude the debate. Members must understand that
no one else can rise and that this will in fact conclude the debate.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to close debate
on Bill C-240.
I have appreciated the level of debate the bill has received in
the House. It has been interesting to see that members of the
Bloc have continued to debate against any changes of this
nature. They find them draconian. I suggest that they are not
listening to their constituents. A poll was taken by Léger et
Léger which indicated that 76 per cent of the people in the
province of Quebec support this type of legislation. It is nice to
8581
know that although Bloc members do not support it the people
of Quebec support it.
I have heard the argument on the opposite side that Bill C-240
may not withstand a court challenge. While there are countless
pieces of legislation that may not withstand such a challenge, I
believe that as parliamentarians we cannot abrogate our
responsibility as lawmakers because of the possibility of a court
challenge. I certainly hope that feeling is shared by all my
colleagues here. We cannot afford to shy away from legislation
solely because of a court challenge.
When I first introduced the legislation I did not think that it
would hit home quite so quickly. However, on October 4, as my
hon. colleague mentioned, a 16-year old girl was pulled off one
of the busiest streets in my community in the middle of the
afternoon and murdered. This legislation may have prevented
her death.
(1810)
If this bill is not passed it is inevitable that in the future there
will be more such deaths. This bill will not put an end to all
murders but if it prevents even one, it would succeed.
I ask all members of this House to please be concerned about
the lives of our children, the lives of the victims and support Bill
C-240.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): For proper verification, is
there unanimous consent to proceed to the proceedings on the
adjournment motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8581
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I put a
question to the minister of Indian affairs concerning the pitiful
state of public health in aboriginal communities on reserves.
According to Statistics Canada, the tuberculosis rate among
status Indians is 43 times higher than for Canadians born in
Canada.
This rate is comparable to those found in the third world,
whether we are talking about Africa or Asia, in countries that do
not enjoy the benefits of the kind of economy we have in this
country. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development let the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health reply on his behalf. The parliamentary secretary
mentioned the amounts now being spent by her department to
improve the health of aboriginal communities.
She mentioned one million dollars this year and several
million dollars over the next couple of years. I think this is not a
satisfactory answer, considering that such a high tuberculosis
infection rate, according to many experts, is an indication of
sub-standard housing conditions. I think it would have been
appropriate for the minister of Indian affairs to answer the
question, since he has a fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal
communities, for aboriginal reserves in this country.
Moreover, the minister could have mentioned that two years
ago, the aboriginal affairs committee had examined the state of
aboriginal housing and that the title of its report was Time to Act.
In its report, the committee found there was a backlog in housing
construction on reserves, and it also pointed out that there was a
lack of funding to renovate existing units.
Furthermore, in recommendation No. 7, the members of the
committee asked the government to deal immediately with the
health and safety problems arising from the condition of
aboriginal housing.
Finally, it is essential that the minister of Indian affairs, until
such time as appropriate and much needed action is taken, make
it clear to his colleagues at Health, Public Works and Finance
that budgetary cutbacks are not to be used as an excuse for
allowing these appalling conditions in aboriginal communities
in Canada to continue, shaming us in the eyes of the rest of the
world.
I would like to know whether the government really intends to
do something about this.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we
look at the frequency and the situation of the disease, we must
consider not only where we are but also where we have come
from and where our strategy to reduce the frequency of this
disease should take us.
[English]
In the 1930s we were faced with death rates, not incidence
rates but death rates, of 700 per 100,000 population among
Canadian Indians.
An extensive program to discover and treat active cases of TB
was begun in 1938. In the late 1940s the necessary funding and
expertise were provided, new sanitoria and nursing stations
were built and aggressive case finding, extensive vaccination
and new treatment regimes were begun.
These early efforts bore fruit and today the mortality rate is
almost negligible while the incidence of TB has been
dramatically reduced. In 1992 the rate was 60 per 100,000
population using official population figures for the First Nations
communities.
8582
The reason we were allocating additional funds to implement
a national strategy for the elimination of aboriginal
tuberculosis was because the decrease in rates had stalled.
There remains a number of active TB cases in older people who
continue to harbour tuberculosis and who become infectious as
they get older and suffer from other diseases and debilitating
conditions.
The government has been spending $1 million per year to
address this problem and has allocated an additional $2.8
million over the next three years.
While the spread of TB to other people is facilitated by
overcrowding and other personal and environmental conditions,
the main way to eliminate the disease from the population is to
find active cases at an early stage and treat them before the
bacterium is spread to contacts, particularly young children who
are especially susceptible.
The strategy which this department in partnership with First
Nations communities is putting in place aims to reduce the
incidence of TB to less than 20 per 100,000 by the year 2000 and
to eliminate the disease by the year 2010.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.)