CONTENTS
Friday, February 4, 1994
Bill C-2. Motion for second reading 925
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 932
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 939
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 940
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 941
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 941
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 944
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 945
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 945
Bill C-8. Motions for introduction and first reading deemedadopted 946
Bill C-9. Motions for introduction and first reading deemedadopted 946
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 946
Motion for concurrence in second report 946
Bill C-2. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 947
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a committee.) 949
Bill C-4. Motion for second reading 949
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 950
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 952
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 955
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a committee.) 956
925
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 4, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue)
moved that Bill C-2, an act to amend the Department of
National Revenue Act and amend certain other acts in
consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill
C-2. Revenue Canada plays a fundamental role in supporting
Canada's social and economic well-being. The Department
performs this role by enforcing Canadian law and sovereignty at
our borders, administering international trade agreements,
collecting revenue and redistributing funds to low and modest
income Canadians.
Due to the wide diversity of these activities, Revenue Canada
touches the lives of Canadians every day-whether they be
taxpayers, travellers, small businesses owners and employers or
members of large corporations.
For example, among the department's client groups are
150,000 large importers and exporters, 131 million travellers,
and 22 million individual tax filers.
[English]
This interaction and scope has Revenue Canada in a unique
position to understand what Canadians want; to know as well
that Canadians want Revenue Canada to find new and better
ways of doing business. I am sure everyone in this House wants
less red tape and bureaucracy and businesses in particular want a
lower overall compliance burden so that the Canadian business
sector can be more successful in the marketplace.
(1005)
As a government, we have made a commitment to all
Canadians that we will provide them with an administration that
is efficient, innovative, co-operative and fair. Canadians agree
with us that overlap, duplication, a lack of co-ordinated policies
in this country have placed a growing financial burden on the
shoulders of the taxpayers. To this end, reduced administrative
costs, less red tape and improved service delivery are vital
objectives of Revenue Canada.
[Translation]
Because the current Department of National Revenue Act
provides for one minister but two separate departments and two
separate infrastructures, this represents an impediment to the
optimal delivery of programs and services for Canadians. For
this reason, I am today speaking in support of Bill C-2, an act to
amend the Department of National Revenue Act.
[English]
The proposed amendments are administrative in nature and
are designed to consolidate, in law, the previously separate
components of customs and excise on the one hand and taxation
on the other. Consequently they will permit Revenue Canada to
operate and efficiently function from one single infrastructure.
The amendments are consistent with the government's
objective to provide efficient administration through the
streamlining of process and the elimination of duplication.
I wish to point out that the mandate of the Minister of National
Revenue will remain the same and that the integrity of
departmental programs will not be compromised with this
administrative consolidation.
On the contrary, administrative consolidation will permit
Revenue Canada to use resources more effectively and to build
on the strength of its components. Thus it will enhance the
department's ability to carry out its responsibilities for all
Canadians.
It will also allow the department to better co-ordinate revenue
administration activities with the provinces. This is a very
important objective of this government. Administrative
efficiency and the elimination of duplication are points
contained in our party's election platform. This commitment
was confirmed in last December's meeting of finance and first
ministers and was repeated in the recent speech from the throne.
As an example, shared information and co-ordinated
investigation efforts will strengthen enforcement programs
directed at smuggling, illegal trade, revenue generation and the
underground economy. It will mean better protection in regions
such
926
as British Columbia against drug smuggling and better
protection, we hope, in the regions of Ontario and Quebec from
cigarette smuggling.
Revenue Canada will be more accessible to its many clients
and will provide a broader range of information, services and a
one stop shopping process through the network of customs,
excise and taxation offices.
In Alberta, for example, this will result in our clients being
able to do business at all 12 locations of Revenue Canada rather
than at separate taxation, separate customs and separate GST
offices.
[Translation]
Overhead costs can be reduced by combining common
support services sharing administrative resources and systems
and eliminating duplication, where it makes sense to do so.
The goal is to do business more effectively. Revenue Canada
wants to capitalize on the benefits and opportunities to be gained
through administrative consolidation.
Through administrative consolidation, we are able to invest in
the primary automated lookout system in, for example, the
Windsor area in Ontario, and are therefore better able to protect
our borders.
(1010)
The passage of these amendments will enable Revenue
Canada to improve its ability to enhance revenue
administration, protect Canadian society, including in Quebec,
from illegal entry of people and products, deliver
socio-economic programs, and administer international trade
agreements.
In short, administrative consolidation will benefit both the
government and the millions of clients who deal with Revenue
Canada. Departmental savings in time, money and paperwork
will be redeployed to enhance program delivery and to provide
better service to clients.
[English]
As a government we are committed to restoring Canadians'
faith in our ability to provide responsive, effective and efficient
public administration. I am sure all members of the House agree
that no one can afford inefficient government.
Canadians voted for change. We have an obligation and an
opportunity to support that change today. As a government, we
have promised accountable, responsible and efficient
government where Canadians will get value for their tax dollars.
These legislative amendments enabling the administration and
consolidation of Revenue Canada will help us deliver on that
promise and begin the process of regaining the confidence of
Canadians in their institutions of government.
In conclusion, I am confident that Revenue Canada is capable
of meeting the goals that have been set for it to become the most
progressive, innovative and effective revenue administration in
the world. In order to start the process to accomplish this, I seek
the support of the House and all members in the speedy passage
of Bill C-2.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, we are
finally at the stage where we start examining bills. After one
hundred days in office-I read this week that it was a hundred
days since the election-this is the first bill before Parliament,
Bill C-2, an act to amend the Department of National Revenue
Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof. The
purpose of this bill is simply to change certain terms in order to
reflect a situation that has already existed for over a year.
As far as the principle is concerned, and the minister referred
to it in his speech, we certainly agree with the objective of
streamlining operations, and not just because it is in their red
book but because everyone wants us to do this. Everyone
expects this to happen, and it is a social principle our voters
want to see implemented.
However, we will have to conduct a more specific and
thorough analysis, and we will have an opportunity to do so in
committee. There seems to be no problem about the principle.
However, there are fears which may be justified in some
respects, and I would like to point these out to the minister. I
know that some have already been communicated to the
minister, and I would like to refresh his memory.
Before proceeding with this general analysis, there is one
point I would like to make. As I said at the beginning of my
speech, this government has been in office for over 100 days.
People often expect a new Parliament to start off with tough
measures, to make the kind of improvements we need in a
society that in some respects, and I am thinking of the economy
in particular, is headed for disaster unless something is done.
(1015)
I think it is symbolic that, as our first bill, we should have
something which in many respects seems rather minor and
somewhat disappointing. Of course we will have to wait for the
budget. After the election they told us to wait for the opening of
the session, and at the opening of the session they told us to wait
for the budget, and now I am afraid that when the budget is
brought down, they will tell us to wait for the next budget
because they ran out of time. We expected some tax measures
that would be an incentive for people to become honest citizens
and show a little more understanding for the system, and that
would give them a little more confidence in a fairer system.
In fact, there are few references in the red book to the tax
system. Last night I was reading this book again to try to find
something interesting. I was disappointed. I scanned the book
carefully for a reference to tax revenues, and I could not find a
927
single one. I saw the nice tables we see in all government
publications, but not much in the way of analysis and
recommendations.
So I wondered, since there is not much in the red book about
tax equity, if we would get anywhere at all in this respect during
this Parliament, since the government keeps referring to the
principles in the red book. Maybe they should consider
publishing a new and revised version. This is just a suggestion. I
remember at school we had first and second editions, so I
suggest they do a second edition of the red book that would
mention tax equity.
The Minister of National Revenue was expected to bring in
some tough measures. I remember raising the question with the
Minister of Finance, who said that the Minister of National
Revenue would, at the appropriate time, make an announcement
on cigarette smuggling, through the excise Tax Act and the
customs Act. He is very involved in this particular area as well,
but we are still waiting. Meanwhile, what is happening in
Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes? And some day British
Columbia as well. There is already a little of this going on, but
not to the same extent.
Meanwhile, we are not getting much in the way of
announcements. When I go back to my riding on the weekend, I
will tell my constituents that we worked on Bill C-2, which
provides for abolishing a deputy minister's position which, for
all practical purposes, has already been abolished. I think people
will be pleased to see some jobs being cut here, but they will also
be very disappointed.
On the revenue side, there is a lot of dissatisfaction among the
public which feels there is no fairness in our tax system. A lot of
this disenchantment with politicians and with all members in
this Parliament, arises from a sense of injustice.
I expected the government to work a little harder on this.
There is still time. Parliament will continue to sit, and I hope
that eventually, the government will have some proposals for us.
Consider the principle of this bill. Let us not get involved in
detailed analyses but look at the principle. The principle is, that
now there will be only one deputy minister for Taxation and
customs and excise, where previously there were two. This
principle was put into a piece of legislation. This seems proper
and reasonable, and I agree with the minister that streamlining is
necessary and that informatics and data processing systems can
be consolidated. However, perhaps there are a few questions we
should ask. There is some apprehension in this respect, and there
have been a number of changes back and forth. In recent years,
there were repeated proposals to switch Customs to another
department. It seems as though that the government cannot
decide where it should belong.
The main role of customs posts is to control our borders.
These people have a security role. They must watch everything
that crosses our borders, whether persons or merchandise. I
heard the minister refer earlier to drugs. There is a lot of talk
about cigarette smuggling lately, but people tend to overlook the
smuggling of illegal drugs which is big business and generates
tremendous problems because of the enormous amounts
crossing our borders.
That is the approach at customs. For historical reasons and
reasons based on economic principles, over the years countries
have imposed various customs tariffs to protect their
economies, because they thought that was the answer and was
also a way to make businesses more prosperous.
(1020)
Now, the trend is toward free trade and lower customs tariffs.
The customs sector is being asked to fulfil a dual role, namely
providing security and collecting tariffs.
This role is likely to diminish considerably in the coming
years, as free trade takes on greater importance. Soon, we will
be considering phasing in amendments to customs tariffs in
conjunction with NAFTA and the GATT negotiations. We have
many reasons to believe that in the long term, the role of
customs will become marginal.
Customs employees are concerned about being attached to a
sector where the prime focus is revenue, whereas their primary
role is security and control. As long as we have customs
tariffs-and I realize that the Department of Revenue must be
responsible for this area-I believe that the minister has to
address these concerns during the upcoming transition. I know
that he met and had some productive discussions with
representatives of the customs and excise union. They voiced
some concerns which cannot be ignored. They also have some
practical concerns about their personal future and I will get back
to this in my detailed analysis later on.
We must look at the role of the customs sector in the public
service somewhat philosophically. This may not be the best
solution, but of course we will learn to live with it. However,
some caution must be exercised prior to the consolidation so as
not to confuse the role of the two sectors and neglect security by
decreasing border controls.
Recently initiatives aimed at increasing border controls were
announced in Windsor. While this is very commendable, these
initiatives will have to do more than simply appease those who
fear for their jobs. They will have to be taken with a eye to
controlling what goes on at our borders. Tighter controls and
improved procedures are needed.
928
These are the fears people have, and they appear to be
justified.
CEUDA, the union representing sector workers, reports that
internal Revenue Canada studies on consolidation
recommended as one option that customs remain a separate and
distinct sector. However, since no one in this House and very
few other people have seen these studies, it is impossible to
know whether this option is viable. Perhaps the minister is
aware of these studies.
If internal studies were in fact conducted, what conclusions
were drawn? Were these genuine conclusions? If not, the
minister should make these studies public. Given the difference
between the customs function and the tax function, this study
should have concluded that it would be best to keep the two
separate.
Therefore, many concerns have been voiced and the people
involved have received a lot of support. They have received
support from the municipalities and the communities
concerned, from people who are afraid that the revenue side will
take precedence over security matters. Special attention will
have to be paid to this aspect of the issue and considerable
vigilance will be required in the years to come to ensure that
security remains an important consideration.
Let us now look at the bill. There is nothing extraordinary
about it as such and it can easily be read in five minutes. It is
only two or three pages long, but several sections warrant closer
attention. This bill will, of course, be referred to the finance
committee and we will certainly have a number of questions to
ask then. However, I would just like to draw the minister's
attention at this time to a few simple matters. For instance, it is
mentioned in the bill that the deputy minister holds office during
pleasure. One can ask why this should be the case? Was this not
the case in the past? This is only a minor detail, but every word is
important, apparently, in a legal text.
Further on, there is a provision which concerns me a little and
I hope that eventually the minister will clarify his intentions.
Under References, the bill calls for section 6 of the Act to be
repealed. The section in question which is to be repealed reads
as follows and I quote: ``The Minister shall cause to be laid
before each House of Parliament, not later than the fifth sitting
day of the House after January 31 next following the end of each
fiscal year, a report showing the operations of the Department
for that fiscal year''.
(1025)
This section would disappear. Would the report to Parliament
disappear? If so, why? I recall hearing our friend from the
Department of Finance during the election campaign and many
times since the beginning of the session say that openness was
important, that people must understand what is being done with
their taxes and that we need simple indicators. These principles
are often mentioned here. Perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps the
report will be made at some other time in some other way, but I
would like it to be required by law.
I am not at all pleased with that clause, but maybe he has a
good reason; the minister can explain it to us in due course or in
committee when we consider the bill clause by clause, but it
worries me. It is far from the principles of the red book, if I
understood it correctly, anyway.
But the key clause, which is at the heart of this bill and which
is hard to understand-the minister referred to it just now in his
speech, says this: ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
affect the status of an employee who, immediately before the
coming into force of this Act, occupied a position under the
authority of the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for
Taxation or the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for
customs and excise except that each of those persons shall, on
the coming into force of this Act, occupy their position under the
authority of the Deputy Minister of National Revenue''.
Basically, what they seem to be saying is that this bill in no
way changes the status of public servants.
At the same time, the minister says in a letter that ``we can
already see specific advantages'', since this practice is already
in effect and operational; there is now only one deputy minister
who does double duty; with this bill, there will be only one
deputy minister doing the job. So the minister says, ``We can
already see specific advantages, in particular since the
administrative consolidation-''. People often like to talk about
consolidation when the time comes to downsize; they use softer,
less offensive words. ``In particular, since the administrative
consolidation has already saved $30 million''.
There is something that I do not understand. We are told that
the status of the public servants did not change and then we are
told that $30 million was saved. I cannot believe that a single
deputy minister cost $30 million. At least, I hope so, and I doubt
that is the case.
I understand his principles when he says that they will share
computer systems and administrative services. That is true, but
it changes the status of public servants. How come the bill said
in the transitional provisions that it changed nothing? You must
understand that it is a transitional provision in the bill. How long
does the transitional period last? We will see when we analyze
the bill clause by clause. We will ask the minister or his
representatives to explain what it means.
The rest is clauses replacing references to two ministers in
other laws with a single minister now. There is no longer a
taxation division and a customs and excise division.
It is very well done. The lawyers are competent; they do good
research and can find all the references in all the laws. They did
a thorough job of research.
929
We cannot oppose the principle of streamlining-it is good
and desirable, but we can always wonder if it is really the right
place. The people at customs have concerns and feel that the
department is moving ahead quickly with this reform. On the
other hand, perhaps the public will defend the minister and say
that he is not going fast enough. But I would like us to be a little
more open about something, namely this. Was there really this
internal study and what did it conclude? Are they being joined
with the right department in the right way?
You know, it is tempting for a department to reach out in as
many directions as possible and to control many things. I must
say that this minister has quite a budget. The Department of
Revenue has an operating budget of $2.5 billion. That is a lot. He
has been given this responsibility; surely he can explain it. I do
not doubt his abilities, but we must be careful not to expand a
department which is already very big or to give it a role that may
be broader. I share those concerns with the customs officials. We
still support the principle but we will have questions to ask
before the finance committee, of which I am a member, and I
will be there when this bill will be studied.
(1030)
I would like to go back to a point I mentioned earlier, namely
the first bill tabled in the 35th Parliament. Bill C-2, other than
being the first bill tabled, will not make history by a long shot.
But if we look at past Parliaments, I do not imagine that we
would find many first bills similar to this one; they would have
been mere administrative measures, as a rule.
There is more to this bill. What will happen in the medium
term? What kind of structure will there be? How far do we want
to go with integration? That is another concern that people have.
Will we have regional offices poorly adapted to the reality of
customs and taxation? The minister seems to be denying it, and I
hope so. We have to watch out for this. Again, we must be
careful not to cause inefficiencies as we have done in the past.
Regional offices have not always been closer to reality, and I am
in a good position to confirm it, Mr. Speaker. It may not be of
great concern to us here in this House, but in my riding, the
office of the Quebec agriculture ministry is located in an urban
center and not in either of the two agricultural areas. This is very
frustrating for farmers and I sympathize with them.
We must do the same thing so that customs officers do not
have problems with regional offices-they are not very close to
the border-as long as they have very direct and close relations.
The Auditor General and others talked about closer relations
between customs personnel, the Solicitor General and other
authorities, in order to improve control mechanisms. I am
confident that the minister is taking this into account and that,
during this Parliament, he will try to work more closely with
others to improve operations.
We on this side of the House often talk about administrative
overlap but we know that interdepartmental co-operation is
often very difficult, not necessarily because of individuals but
because it is not a simple thing. This is something we must look
into.
The Auditor General often says in his reports that we must
improve interdepartmental efficiency and I hope that the
minister will work on this during this mandate because his
department has an important role to play in this respect. It is his
department that collects money from the taxpayers. It does not
do much for one's popularity to collect money from taxpayers'
pockets, not these days, Mr. Speaker. Especially as I feel they
are not getting good value for their money.
That is what they tell us every day. I will be travelling back to
my riding in a little while and I am sure that I will hear the same
thing again this weekend as usual. I will be embarrassed to say
that we, in this House, are now working on a bill that will cut a
deputy minister's position to save $30 million. The bill says
there will be no public service cuts but the minister's comments
clearly suggest that there will be cuts, retirements or early
retirements. Something has got to give. This $30 million must
come from somewhere. We cannot pull numbers out of thin air
like this. We must explain how this $30 million has been saved.
It is funny; every time we must make cuts or whatever, we
deny being opposed to cuts but we cut $30 million and say we
have become more efficient. Too bad it is taking us so long to
realize such things.
I am not convinced that this government will be better than its
predecessors in this regard. We often react poorly, but if one
looks behind the measures taken, one always finds the same old
speeches. Governments come and go but the arguments stay the
same. We have cut back, therefore we have become more
efficient, and we acted in the best interests of individuals. Well,
I hope so.
One day the minister is going to tell us how he saved this $30
million and state more clearly where we are going in the future
with a closer integration of customs and taxation duties. I know
he is still concerned with improving service to clients. He said
so this week and I congratulate him. Individual tax returns may
come a week earlier this year and there will be simplified forms
for seniors, which is a good thing. We are glad, people will like
it.
People are more worried about the amount they pay and the
unfairness they see in the system than when they receive their
tax refunds, if they get one. There is still a long way to go. I hope
that the House will soon have an opportunity to consider such
measures.
930
(1035)
I would prefer that the Finance committee first examine the
issue, since the minister directed us to work on the GST reform
or, if you prefer, on changing that tax. In any case, some changes
will have to be made, at least regarding the system as a value
added tax program. However, I would like us also to examine tax
expenditures, including the impact of tax incentives on job
creation, as well as the objectives of such measures and their
cost.
This week, the government announced a reform of social
programs. However, in this particular case, we are not being told
about a tax reform, or even the possibility of such an initiative,
which Canadians would be much more happier about. Indeed,
taxpayers would like to know that we are at least looking at
improving the taxation system. But the government is silent on
this issue; it does not even work on it because this is not yet part
of its agenda. I guess we will have to add an annex to the red
book. As I said earlier, new initiatives will have to be included;
some improvements will have to be made. Surely, there are
people who have worked on the draft of this legislation; the
message was heard, the staff was increased and the government
will undoubtedly be able to come up with a much improved
version.
An hon. member: A new and improved version.
Mr. Brien: A new and improved version, as the hon. member
says. I will conclude by saying that we will approve the principle
that each clause of this bill will be examined in detail by the
finance committee, that we have concerns regarding what
customs officers themselves have said, as well as some groups
supporting them. The minister met with customs officers, and he
may have reassured them. We must not overlook the role of
customs in this integration. There are important issues, and we
need not elaborate on the smuggling problem. Effectiveness can
be improved, but interdepartmental co-operation will also have
to improve. More importantly, the government will have to
introduce other measures if it wants the public to be pleased with
its performance after the first 100 days. Indeed, Canadians are
still waiting for concrete solutions to problems which directly
affect them, particularly the unfairness and the injustice of the
tax system.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today on the issue of Bill C-2, an act to amend the
Department of National Revenue Act and to amend certain other
acts in consequence thereof.
In the interests of reducing duplication and overlap of
debaters, today I will speak on behalf of the Reform Party which
in principle supports Bill C-2 in the spirit that has been put
forward by the Department of National Revenue and the
minister himself.
According to this department the approval of Bill C-2 will
enable it to be more responsive to changing needs, to streamline
operations, to reduce the administrative burden on taxpayers, to
reduce costs and duplication, and to improve the quality of its
services and programs.
My party supports the initial steps taken by the Liberal
government in an attempt to streamline departmental activities.
Combining immigration and citizenship, customs, excise and
taxation, and eliminating altogether the department of public
security will help reduce duplication and overlap. However the
Reform Party stresses the need for increased financial reviews
and reforms for all government departments to ensure that
taxpayers' money is being spent efficiently and effectively.
The Minister of National Revenue has stressed that his
department is responding to the needs of Canadians and
encouraging confidence and faith in revenue administration. We
hope that Bill C-2 will not represent the only step his
department is taking to reduce costs.
The reduction of costs associated with departmental
consolidation and the removal of a few individuals at the
executive level are just the tip of the iceberg when one considers
the amount of government waste that has existed over the years.
Superficial or cosmetic attempts to correct the injustices in
fiscal and political accountability will no longer be tolerated by
taxpayers.
(1040 )
Our party would encourage the minister and his government
to initiate line by line, item by item reviews of the departments
to find out where the money is going. Perhaps asking questions
like: Do certain departments have too many employees or not
enough? Are they best serving the interests of the public with the
resources allocated to them or not? Should they be living in the
town or city that they are working in, or should they be 60 miles
away with the government and taxpayers paying for mileage?
These results should be made public in their entirety in the
form of an annual report which could then be distributed to all
parties for a review. The Minister of Finance spoke yesterday
about the vast amount of experience of the individuals
assembled in this House. The government should take advantage
of this to help find new ideas to better manage its money.
My party wants the federal government and its departments to
demonstrate fiscal responsibility and exercise restraint. Our
philosophy is that the size of government can and must be
reduced without affecting the level of service taxpayers expect.
I congratulate the Minister of National Revenue in
amalgamating or intending to amalgamate two huge
infrastructures into one with the objective of streamlining
operations with the purpose of better delivery of service, as he
has said, less red tape, as he has said, and the co-ordination of
collecting revenues
931
with the provinces. This certainly appears to be a page out of the
Reform Party blue sheet and I appreciate that.
As mentioned, my party supports the idea of increased
government efficiency and cost cutting in the Department of
National Revenue provided that the quality of services to
Canadians is not affected in the field. Our constituents have
concerns, as also mentioned by the member for the Official
Opposition who spoke just prior to me, that Bill C-2 would
reduce the level of service in the field. I would like to voice
some of these concerns for the record so the standing committee
on finance, which will review this bill in detail, will be aware of
them.
It is feared that the combination of Revenue Canada Taxation
and customs Canada is designed to place more of an emphasis on
revenue collection, controlling the underground economy and
smuggling. customs officials must not be hindered in any way
by legislation from performing the important duty of protecting
Canadians from illegal drugs, weapons and criminal elements
by reducing their ranks.
By masking administrative cuts at the top, the minister is
leading by example. However, he must not reduce the number of
customs personnel in the field which would hinder their ability
to function effectively.
Individuals in the Manitoba riding of Lisgar-Marquette for
example are concerned that the savings from eliminating one
deputy minister may be lost tenfold by other problems arising
from the passing of Bill C-2. In their ports of Snowflake and
Crystal City, people are concerned that this bill represents the
first of several steps that would ultimately see the cutting back
or elimination of customs personnel at certain border points.
This concern stems from a pilot program in the United States
to establish automated permit ports at specified ports of entry on
the northern border. The main thrust of the U.S. program is to
expand the hours of low risk entry points so that they can be
open when staff are not on duty. Canadian and U.S. citizens will
be allowed to enter the United States unimpeded at specific
crossings when the port is closed.
This program was developed to promote efficiency and the
results, according to the constituents of Lisgar-Marquette,
may encourage the Department of National Revenue to follow
suit. However, constituents fear that ports like Snowflake and
Crystal City would become more attractive to criminal elements
looking for a trouble-free point of entry.
The illegal gun trade is a lucrative business. With easy access
to handguns in the United States this area could become a real
problem for customs border patrols and the RCMP. I am
expressing a concern and I hope the minister acknowledges that.
Increased efficiency must not come at the expense of
effectiveness.
One of the natural roles of government should be to protect its
borders and sovereignty, and I do not mean the definition of
sovereignty as used by the Official Opposition. Concerns have
also been raised by the customs union, several municipalities
and the media that with the consolidation of the two
departments, the resources for customs officers to effectively
defend the border will be strained.
The customs union is under the impression that increased
emphasis on these activities will lead to a reduction in resources
for other activities, such as controlling illegal immigrants,
firearms, pornography and stopping abducted children.
(1045 )
The customs union is seriously concerned about the effects of
this legislation upon the quality of services demanded. For
example, it is concerned that drug seizures will be reduced.
In 1991 there were 10,000 seizures at the border. In 1992,
there were 25,000 and in 1993 when there was an increase in
trafficking, there was a reduction in the number of seizures to
15,000. According to the union smugglers are using more
innovative and effective techniques to move illegal items into
Canada. It must be able to respond with the latest techniques to
catch them.
This is why the union is concerned that a lack of emphasis is
being placed on to these activities. By amalgamating two
departments into one, possibly the idea of making cuts at the top
would end up in the field. Once again, I know the minister does
not intend to do that. I hope he does not. He is shaking his head.
Therefore, these concerns should be laid to rest.
The union is concerned that these activities will only get
worse with the implementation of this legislation.
The Canadian Police Association has also criticized the
merger because the border is the first line of defence for guns
and other weapons which ultimately end up on Canadian streets.
Even with an elimination of a deputy minister, ensuring that
the level of service is strictly monitored and adjusted
accordingly should overcome these fears.
The Minister of National Revenue stated that he believes a
unified Department of National Revenue will build on the
strength of our existing customs, excise and taxation
administrations. It will better serve Canadians and strengthen
their confidence in Canada's revenue administration.
Consequently the Reform Party supports the principle on
which Bill C-2 has been proposed. We ask that the
parliamentary standing committee examining it take into
consideration the
932
possible negative effects expressed by our constituents through
my comments.
Improved efficiency and effectiveness can result from this
bill provided that reorganization and government cost savings
will be done with the security and best interests of Canadians in
mind.
Once again, we commend the Liberal government for
removing a piece of duplication and overlap from a government
agency and encourage much more of the same in areas where
government waste is evident.
As the minister of revenue stated in his speech today while he
was supporting Bill C-2, giving taxpayers value for their tax
dollars is definitely a most honourable objective and should be
supported by all members of this House.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, my comment will be brief.
I would like to congratulate the minister of revenue for
moving so quickly on the whole issue of minimizing the
duplication and overlap in any area related to taxation or service
to the public in the area of taxation. This is welcomed by most
Canadians. I am happy to see that the Reform Party recognizes
the importance of our seizing this initiative and acting on it
within the first hundred days.
I also have to say to the members of the Bloc, specifically to
the critic of the Bloc-
The Deputy Speaker: Please make your comments with
respect to the speaker who just spoke.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker,
regarding this whole notion of when we return to our ridings this
weekend, alongside the initiative that has taken place here today
in this bill there is another initiative that is closely related to it
which I am sure many members read about in the newspapers
today.
The whole process of examining alternatives to the goods and
services tax began yesterday in the finance committee. We as
members of Parliament should make sure when we go home to
our constituents and talk that we do not just refer to the activities
that take place in this House of Commons.
There is all kinds of activity, as the Reform Party member
alluded, and initiatives taking place that are good news for our
constituents.
(1050 )
Most Canadians would welcome the fact that the finance
committee said that by the end of June it wants to hear of all the
possible alternatives to the GST in our existing tax system. It is
very important that we give that encouragement to our
constituents when we go home.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, to
comment on the customs Act, Bill C-2, basically customs is
there for two major reasons. The first one is to make sure there is
a good flow of traffic across the border. It is also there for the
safety and security of Canadians.
One of the things that was alluded to by all members is that
there always have to be savings in federal departments, or any
department run by government. We have some 90 departments
that crown corporations and we have always said that we want to
look at them. There are reasons why we have them. If we cannot
run them efficiently we look at turning them over to the private
sector.
In this case the minister is amalgamating two departments.
Obviously there are going to be problems with staffing. There is
always going to be some staff simply because if they have
territorial problems they will go to members opposite and make
presentations.
One of the things that I want all members of this House to
remember is that whenever we work with departments the
people who work for government are servants of the general
public. We hear it time and time again that most of the problems
that are encountered, that frustrate the taxpayers of this country,
relate to the fact that bureaucrats or people who work for
government slow the process down. They get into some kind of a
culture in which all of sudden they have extra powers and they
impede the progress of citizens. We get a lot of examples of that.
One of the things that all members should remember is that we
should not inflame it by being in bed with any person who works
for any department with regard to territorial matters. All of us
who work for government must recognize that the taxpayer is
the person who funds all these programs. If there are any
efficiencies to begin with, they should be there and there should
be common courtesy for all.
I hope that when we examine any bill or any scenario in which
governments are downsizing or right sizing, as the case may be,
which is the term being used now, as the member who seconded
my motion on the throne speech said, we should be lean but not
mean.
As a government we should remember that and also remember
that when we are trying to do these things we are trying to do
them for the general taxpayer and we are trying to give
efficiency notwithstanding the fact that this jobless recovery is a
very significant and important thing that everyone has to deal
with, including government.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the
hon. member.
I would like to add that as a businessman over the last 23 or 24
years I have gone through downsizing, right sizing and cuts. I
have always found that the best and most effective cuts are made
at the top, but leave the people at the point of service, the point
of sale. The people at the top make the most money. By
eliminating one or two of those people we then in effect, perhaps
933
as we evaluate our service ability to give taxpayers value for
their money, can hire three or four more customs officials.
The way some of the bureaucrats get criticized by taxpayers
that some of them are rude and some of them are using their
powers abusively comes from the fact that they are probably
overworked. There is strain and stress in their jobs and it is up to
the Minister of National Revenue to make this determination
and find out if there are more people required in the field or not.
If we concentrate on what gets us the most compliments, it is
always the person, just like at a bank, who interfaces with the
customer. The tellers give the major banks a good reputation or a
bad reputation, not the VP in the ivory tower. It is the tellers, the
customs officials, the people the minister sends out to the field
to do tax audits. Those people who interface with the taxpayers
are the ones who give government a good reputation or a bad
reputation. Human resources is an important element and it must
be evaluated on the basis of the workload, what is expected,
proper compensation and a good working environment at that
level.
(1055)
In the last two administrations in this Parliament, because a
lot of the members in the Liberal party are also new, the previous
government spent most of its time improving the executive level
of operations and expanding it rather than improving the real
important areas of operations which were in the field.
I hope the minister plans to concentrate in that area. I believe
the reputation of all bureaucrats will rise accordingly.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I will not have enough time
to finish my comments before the start of Question Period.
Should I begin anyway?
The Deputy Speaker: We cannot very well call it eleven
o'clock, since Question Period is so important to everybody.
Would you mind starting? You have seven minutes.
Ms. Whelan: I have seven minutes but I will not be able to
finish.
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member
may be recognized but does she not have her full time after
Question Period?
The Deputy Speaker: Of course she will, yes.
Ms. Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of
Bill C-2, an act to amend the Department of National Revenue
Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.
This bill would enable the Minister of National Revenue to
consolidate two distinct departments under his responsibility
since 1926 into one and thus eliminate unnecessary duplication
and overlap within government.
It will also bring distinct benefits to taxpayers and it will
enhance the Department of National Revenue's ability to
provide more efficient and effective services and programs. It
will not compromise the integrity of programs in the area of
responsible enforcement, Canadian sovereignty and laws at the
border, revenue generation or trade administration, the lines of
business that make the department an essential national
institution.
My remarks will focus today on how the important
enforcement and compliance roles of Revenue Canada will be
recognized and reinforced, not undermined, through the
administrative consolidation which Bill C-2 will permit.
I will also speak specifically about customs activities, non-
compliance measures which consolidation will strengthen.
Revenue Canada customs is highly regarded and highly
respected as one of the finest services of its kind in the world.
This respect has been well earned and Canadians can rest
assured that this will continue to be the case within a unified
Revenue Canada. Not only due to its enforcement role but also
because of programs such as International Project Return, a
program to find missing children, Revenue Canada customs has
become internationally recognized.
To all of those who work for the safe return of missing
children to their families, the minister has assured me that
Revenue Canada customs remains committed to International
Project Return. Revenue Canada is firmly committed to
maintaining and strenghthening all its customs functions.
As national revenue minister, the hon. minister has said the
role of customs is essential to the social and economic well-
being of the country. Canadians have a right to safe communities
and safe environments and protection from unfair economic
competition.
For that reason the government is committed to a strong and
visible customs program and presence at the border.
Revenue Canada customs will continue also to have a clear
mandate to enforce Canadian law and sovereignty at the border
by preventing the entry of criminals, illegal immigrants,
pornographic material, prohibited goods and weapons. As well,
a mandate to protect Canadian business and industry by
administering international trade agreements. Further, a
mandate to protect local economies by collecting taxes at the
border as well as to provide service to other government
departments at border facilities. This mandate will be carried
out by competent, experienced managers and employees.
934
As well the customs and excise unions, some organizations
and border communities have expressed concerns about the
integration of customs within the Department of National
Revenue. Their concerns are unwarranted and unsupported.
Enforcement activities at Canada's border crossings are
important to this government and to Revenue Canada and will
remain so.
(1100)
In fact administrative consolidation will enhance and
strengthen customs programs by allowing first, greater
accessibility to a broader range of information, second,
increased use of technology, and third, a redeployment of
additional resources to better attack the underground economy
and to combat smuggling.
So far, from savings realized through the administrative
consolidation of headquarters, almost $13 million has been
reinvested in key customs initiatives such as enhanced
technology at airports and border points to speed up the
processing of travellers and goods and to facilitate the detection
of contraband-
The Speaker: I apologize for interrupting right in the middle
of a sentence. It being 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 30(5)
the House will now proceed to statements by members pursuant
to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
934
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to bring to the attention of the House a dispute between
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Nordion International
Inc. This problem has important public policy implications that
affect Canada's reputation internationally.
Nordion is a high-tech success story. The company employs
400 of my constituents in Lanark-Carleton. Internationally
over 300 million medical procedures that are dependent on
Nordion products are performed each year.
The dispute between AECL and Nordion is threatening the
future of Nordion and hurting Canada's reputation as a world
leader in nuclear technology.
I urge the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of
Industry and the Minister of Health to intervene to resolve this
unfortunate and critical dispute.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
President of the United States, Mr. Bill Clinton, announced that
he was lifting the trade embargo against Vietnam. That embargo
was imposed in 1975, at the end of the war between the two
countries. The American President stated that this was done in
an effort to clarify the fate of American soldiers still reported
missing after the war between the United States and Vietnam.
We hope that this initiative will be successful and that a
normal relationship can be established between the United
States and Vietnam in the interest of those two countries and
global peace.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party's Let the People Speak fax and voice
mail is a growing success. We have received approximately 400
faxes since the beginning of January. Between 10 and 40 faxes
and voice messages come into our research and communications
office daily.
Canadians with a wide variety of concerns fax us every day to
ensure their views are heard by members of Parliament.
Each day we ask and will continue to ask the government
questions which come directly from citizens across the country.
Reformers hope that these lines will help in a small way to
ensure Canadians' views are heard. They serve as a political
barometer of Canadians' opinions on a wide variety of subjects.
Right now, our barometer tells us Canadians are concerned
with high taxes, government overspending, and the need for
parliamentary recall.
Fax us at 947-7777 or call us at 947-8888 to express your
views.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
as budget time approaches I would like to remind the finance
minister that the previous government increased taxes to
individuals 34 times, while the level of corporate income taxes
have remained virtually the same over the past 10 years.
It is time that the hard-working people of this nation,
Canada's workers, farmers and small business people received a
break.
I hope the finance minister will at least retain if not improve
programs such as home ownership and agricultural income
maintenance programs such as GRIP and NISA.
935
By closing the corporate loopholes that have cost the treasury
billions of dollars each year in lost revenues more equity and
fairness can be established in our tax system and Canadians can
continue to rely on programs which have given them at least a
fighting chance in improving their lives.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie): Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my
concerns about the current restructuring the Department of
Human Resources Development is proposing for Erie riding
with respect to Canada employment centres.
It is my understanding that staffing at these centres in my
riding is to be reduced by approximately 50 per cent, with this
personnel to be relocated to larger urban centres in neighbouring
ridings. This void is to be filled by the use of computers to be
used by a basically computer illiterate clientele. This is not a
realistic or practical trade-off.
(1105)
I respect and compliment the department in its efforts to
streamline and reduce costs overall. However with an
unemployment rate in the Niagara region at approximately 15
per cent, such cutbacks in our area are inappropriate and
unacceptable at this time. The blind slash of the pen must be
reviewed.
The problem is further complicated by the lack of a regular
public transportation system between the respective
communities and the incidence of long distance phone calls at a
time when the financial resources of the unemployed are greatly
diminished. At a time when our riding needs more support the
bureaucrats are dictating less. Bigger is not necessarily better.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
pay tribute to a Nepean based firm, Northern Micro, an
innovative computer manufacturer. This company is a model of
what small business can accomplish.
As a Canadian manufacturer and network integrator, Northern
Micro began supplying its extraordinary combination of
performance and service in 1985. In 1993 business demands
required that Northern Micro triple its office space. Now it is
positioning itself for even greater success in 1994, doubling its
plant capacity and hiring 28 new staff.
At a time when the economy was at a standstill Northern
Micro used a creative mix of marketing moxy and aggressive
client services to boost sales to over $20 million, selling 10,000
computers and getting international recognition.
The federal government must work with Canadian business to
provide the proper supports and to create a positive climate for
economic growth and entrepreneurial spirit.
I put forth Northern Micro as both a model and a challenge for
all Canadians to reach for the stars and strive for that success.
We need that in this country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker, I
want to remind the House and all Quebecers that next week will
be the third International Development Week. Its purpose is to
increase our awareness of the living conditions of people in
Third World countries.
All across Canada, various activities will show Canadians the
economic and social situation of Third World countries and what
kind of work our non-governmental organizations are doing all
over the world, particularly in Africa.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the
volunteer workers from Quebec and Canada who remind us of
the needs of the underprivileged. They accomplish a
commendable task and deserve our gratitude.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make reference to the recent proposal by the federal
Electoral Boundaries Commission of Alberta. It was released
last Monday and suggests adding one new riding to Calgary. To
facilitate this it proposes enlarging the Vegreville, Crowfoot,
Athabasca and Elk Island ridings and totally eliminating the
riding of Beaver River, which has only been in existence since
the 1988 election.
What were its population projections? The numbers show our
population has increased by some 4,000 people since then so
why would it be eliminated so soon? Are we drawing lines
between urban and rural Canada again? Are we going to demand
that MPs travel even farther than they are now if Beaver River is
dismantled and segmented out to other ridings?
I encourage all my constituents to attend the public hearings
to be held in St. Paul, Lac la Biche and Redwater later this
spring. Phone 1-800-522-4125 for dates and times.
Beaver River lives.
936
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, as an
MP and the mother of two daughters, Athena and Vasilike, who
are here today, I would like to draw the House's attention, as
many members have done already, to the International Year of
the Family.
It is a very significant event and I would encourage all
members to organize events in their ridings to promote the UN
efforts in favour of the family unit. Contrary to a commonly held
belief, regardless of its make-up, the family is alive and well. It
remains the corner-stone of society.
If we are here today, it is thanks to our families' efforts and
sacrifices. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my
family for its support: my father Ioannis, my mother Vasilike,
my sister Anastasia, my brother Bill, and last but not least, my
husband, Constantinos Geropapas.
[English]
I call upon my colleagues to do their part in organizing events
like single parent family support groups, family picnics and
other activities to ensure that the International Year of the
Family is celebrated throughout our country.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to raise again in this House the subject of the RRSP home buyers
plan in order to emphasize its importance to many in my riding
and the Canadian economy as a whole.
(1110 )
The extension of the RRSP home buyers plan benefits will
allow thousands of Canadians to withdraw existing funds of up
to $20,000 from their registered retirement savings plans to
finance the purchase of their principal residence without having
to pay tax on the withdrawal.
The program also recognizes the importance of the housing
market to economic growth. Its extension will stimulate
residential real estate and job creation. The program also
recognizes that a paid off principal residence is for many the
cornerstone of their retirement plan.
I encourage all members of this House to support the
extension of the RRSP home buyers plan which will allow
additional time to re-evaluate the program and continue its
important contribution to economic recovery.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to tell the House today about an important concern in
Simcoe North that is indeed a major problem across the country.
I am referring to the closure of railway lines and rail spurs which
are critical to industry and economic development.
At a time when we should be investing in railways because
they make good economic and environmental sense, Canada is
allowing its railway system to be dismantled.
I implore the government to review Canada's transportation
policy to ensure that railway spurs feeding into main lines are
preserved. This will be good for industry, good for the
environment and will assist the government in creating new jobs
for Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): Mr.
Speaker, unlike the position on immigration put forward by the
Reform Party earlier this week in response to the speech by the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on immigration levels,
we wish to emphasize in this House that the Bloc Quebecois is
open to immigration. We recognize the major contribution made
by immigrants to Quebec and Canadian society. In fact, we have
been welcoming people from every part of the world and from
every socio-economic background for over 300 years; they have
contributed greatly to our collective wealth and helped make our
country what it is.
However, we want to make it clear that we will keep an eye on
the government to make sure that it does not weaken the
principles of the 1978 Couture-Cullen agreement, which were
reinforced by the 1990 Gagnon-Tremblay-McDougall
agreement-
The Speaker: I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon.
member.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, the
Conservative government threw Canada's financial dice for nine
years, taking a terrible gamble with our tax money. It bet heavily
on a rising economy hoping that the economy would outgrow the
deficit and the problem would just somehow go away. As we
know the economy did not grow fast enough and the result is
today's fiscal disaster.
937
In the budget to be brought down this month let us hope the
government realizes that good intentions, wishful thinking, or
hoping that somehow the right cards will turn up will never put
anyone to work. Governments should learn from the mistakes of
the past.
Reformers have been warning for years that high deficits and
high unemployment are directly related. We will seal the fate of
our unemployed by allowing deficits to balloon out of control.
Any budgetary plan that trusts in luck as a basis of its fiscal
policy will keep the unemployed out of work and that, you can
bet on.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the
athletes who will be representing Canada at the winter Olympic
games at Lillehammer, Norway. These young Canadians deserve
our recognition and full support for their hard work and
commitment to their sport.
I wish to mention one athlete, Michelle Ruthven, a resident of
Orangeville, a town in my riding. I wish to extend to Michelle
congratulations on behalf of myself and the residents of
Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe on her great
accomplishments as a Canadian athlete.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to express my deep satisfaction with the debates that
have taken place here over the past two weeks.
We MPs on all sides of this House represent the people who
elected us. The various points of view have helped me to better
understand this great country.
(1115)
I especially congratulate my hon. colleagues across the floor,
the Bloc and the Reform. They have spoken with conviction and
passion. I doubt if there is a country in the world that would
permit such a free exchange of ideas, ideas sometimes that call
into question the very fabric of this nation.
We have heard here and felt the strength that is Canada. We do
not pay lip service to freedom of speech, we live it. We should be
the envy of the world.
The Speaker: Perhaps my hon. colleagues will permit me an
observation. I notice that it is 14 minutes after the hour and all of
the statements we had for today have been delivered. May I with
respect to all hon. members compliment you, because we seem
to be getting our work done in time now. I think it is great we are
doing this.
937
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
While it refuses to divulge its plan of action to put a stop to
cigarette smuggling, the government expressed its intention to
enforce the law everywhere in Canada, including on Indian
reserves. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister herself said that
living on a reserve does not give the right to violate Canadian
laws.
Mr. Speaker, my question is: Will the Deputy Prime Minister
reiterate in this House her intention to enforce the law, and will
she promise to take necessary action to ensure that the law is
indeed enforced everywhere, including on Indian reserves, in
spite of the reservations expressed to that effect by the Solicitor
General?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, these days, the members
opposite keep repeating that smuggling we do nothing about
cigarette smuggling.
The Leader of the Official Opposition was a Cabinet member
in the previous government for 781 days, but he did not act. We
have been in office for less than 100 days. We will have a plan of
action next week, and this is what I call true action and real
governing.
[English]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, are we to understand that the government will
intervene everywhere, including in Akwesasne, to ensure that
the law is respected even though the Mohawk authorities in
Akwesasne declared yesterday that the RCMP had no right to
intervene on the reserve territory?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the problem of contraband
smuggling is not limited to reserves. It is an unfortunate mistake
on the part of the member if he leaves the Canadian people with
the impression that this is strictly a problem on reserves.
The problem of contraband smuggling is one that involves
organized crime. It is a problem that is spreading with rapidity
throughout major parts of the country. It is also a problem that
his leader sat in a cabinet for 781 days and did nothing about.
We have been in cabinet for less than 100 days. We have been
working very hard on a concerted plan which will respect and
indeed ameliorate the health conditions of Canadians and at the
same time deal with the enforcement issues.
I would say that is a government that is not about talk, it is
about action.
938
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, it is strange to hear this government talk about action,
considering that to this day only one minor bill was tabled, but
we did hear a lot of lip service.
I am also surprised to hear the Deputy Prime Minister
complain because we raise the issue of smuggling on reserves,
since she herself made a statement yesterday on national
television, regarding that problem.
Since other statements were also made on the national
networks yesterday, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to
follow up the request for an urgent meeting made by Mohawk
officials? As you know, some of their spokespersons have
threatened to stage a major confrontation if the RCMP tries to
enforce the law on their reserves.
(1120)
Will the government meet with Mohawk officials from
Akwesasne, Kanesatake and Kahnawake to discuss cigarette
smuggling? Yes or no?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday and
what the Prime Minister mentioned repeatedly, is that we are
asking all Canadians to respect the law, whether it is in a
convenience store or on an Indian reserve.
I am somewhat surprised by the member's question, because
on the one hand he claims that this problem strictly concerns
Indian reserves, while on the other hand he wants us to negotiate
with those who created the problem.
In fact, we have already initiated a dialogue with all the
stakeholders, including provincial governments. I know that the
minister responsible for aboriginal issues is meeting with all our
Cabinet colleagues to come up with a solution by next week.
This is what I call action and I am surprised to see the Bloc
Quebecois tell us about enforcing the law when it was precisely
a member of that party who was bragging about prevention-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bellechasse.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. The action plan on
cigarette smuggling that the government is about to announce is
said to include a six dollar cutback in taxes on a carton of
cigarettes. Nevertheless, provinces in English Canada are
joining forces against any cutbacks in taxes.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the
government is going to proceed with its plan to reduce federal
taxes on tobacco, even though it may be supported only by the
province of Quebec?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): First, Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing
as English Canada provinces. Canada is a country where all the
languages of the world are spoken. Just take a stroll in my riding
and see for yourself.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Copps: Second, the Prime Minister stated very clearly
that we were going to co-operate closely with the provinces and
try to come to an agreement. However, if we can not reach an
agreement, we are prepared to go ahead on our own. I should say
to the hon. member that his leader asked us last week to make a
move with or without Quebec. He should decide whether he
wants the co-operation of the provinces or whether he wants the
federal government to take the lead. As far as we are concerned,
we want to make a deal with the provinces.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Would
she not agree that the tax cutback action plan may prove
unefficient in Akwesasne, since this reserve is bordered by
Ontario, United States and Quebec, especially if the government
of Ontario refuses to lower its taxes on tobacco?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, our plan has not been
finalized yet and, therefore, it is very difficult at this point in
time to discuss the details. We want the Canadian people to
understand that it is not a problem unique to Indian reserves.
Those who buy smuggled cigarettes, one pack out of three in
Quebec and one pack out of five in Ontario, are all Canadians. It
is wrong to say that the problem is unique to reserves. It is a
smuggling problem, something which involves organized
crime, and we will propose next week a plan which will deal
with health and taxes, but especially with fair and equal law
enforcement for all Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
It is reported that negotiations to end the labour dispute on the
west coast have broken down. As the minister knows this is not
the first time labour disputes on the west coast have completely
disrupted the movement of resources and products to market, to
the detriment and well-being of thousands of farmers on the
prairies and other producers.
(1125)
Is it the view of the minister and his department that grain
handling should be declared an essential service? Has he made
939
strong representation to the minister responsible for labour, the
Minister of Human Resources Development, on that position.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question.
The question he has raised is one of broad policy
considerations. I must admit that in the last number of days I
have been focusing more importantly on the immediate concern
with respect to the work stoppage on the west coast. I am pleased
to take the opportunity of this question to provide an update on
the present situation.
As members will know the federal mediator that was made
available in this dispute was appointed last Tuesday, February 1.
The talks with the parties commenced on Wednesday. They
continued through the day on Wednesday and in fact until 5 a.m.
on Thursday. There was an adjournment during the day on
Thursday. The talks resumed at 3 p.m. on Thursday. As the hon.
member advised in his question, those talks broke off at some
point yesterday afternoon or last evening.
The mediator, Mr. Lewis, will be providing a full report
shortly-in fact it may be in hand at the moment-to my
colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development. The
minister is making his senior mediator from the offices in
Ottawa available to assist in bringing the parties back to the
table and resuming the discussions in Vancouver.
The government would strongly urge the parties to reflect
very carefully upon their respective positions and their
responsibilities in this matter. The parties should resume their
negotiations immediately.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the minister updating the House on this particular
dispute.
Would the minister give us a clear answer on the broader
question as to whether his department responsible for
agriculture-whether your department and you as the minister
favour legislating-
The Speaker: Please do not forget me. I feel lonesome up
here.
Mr. Manning: Does the minister's department favour
declaring grain handling to be an essential service? Could the
minister advise the House on that point?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member will
know, as a western Canadian with a great deal of interest in the
health and well-being of the western Canadian grains industry, I
am very anxious to pursue every conceivable possibility that
will enhance the position of western Canadian grain farmers
properly within the context of national public policy.,
The precise question he has asked in terms of labour relations
and other issues affecting the west coast grain handling situation
must be put within that broader national context of overall
policy considerations with which the Minister of Human
Resources Development, with his particular responsibility for
labour, would be intensely involved.
The idea the hon. member suggests is not a new one. It has
been proposed by others in western Canada from time to time,
but at the present moment it is not under active consideration.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a further supplementary question. I am sure the minister
does not want to see agricultural producers left twisting in the
wind.
Previous governments have legislated an end, as the minister
knows, to particular grain handling disputes on the west coast.
Would the minister recommend similar action in this case and
within what timeframe?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is helpful, in the
context of the circumstances existing at the present time, to
speculate about the proposition the hon. member has raised.
It is extremely important for us to urge the parties to assume
their responsibilities, to get back to the bargaining table and to
take full advantage of all mediation facilities that are being
made available to them in the present circumstances by the
Government of Canada.
They have a responsibility to resolve the dispute and to
resolve it fast.
* * *
(1130)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. During the election
campaign, on October 1st, 1993, to be more precise, in an
interview he gave to
Le Téléjournal, the Prime Minister was
asked if he would commit himself not to increase taxes for the
next two years. The Prime Minister replied, and I quote: ``So, I
want to be quite clear on this. There will be no tax increases''.
Can the Minister of Finance reaffirm the commitment made
by the Prime Minister not to increase taxes for the next two
years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member
telling us that his party does not want to eliminate tax
loopholes? If that is the case, it would be totally contrary to what
the finance critic of his party has told us.
940
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, I almost
found myself having to answer a question, when it should be the
opposite. So, I will ask my question again and suggest some
alternatives.
Would the Minister of Finance not agree that instead of
increasing taxes, we should implement the tax measures
Jean-Robert Sansfaçon is suggesting in today's Le Devoir,
namely a decrease from 80 per cent to 50 per cent of the
deduction rate for meal and entertainment expenses and the
same tax treatment for gambling and lottery winnings as for
capital gains?
Would the Minister of Finance not agree that there are other
measures besides tax increases that can be considered? Those
measures are the kind the Bloc could support.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): First of all, Mr. Speaker, if I am
helping him put his questions, it is just that I think our questions
are better. We have more experience.
I have read the article the hon. member just quoted and I found
it very interesting. I also find interesting the fact that, unlike the
Reform Party, the hon. member believes that eliminating tax
loopholes would really make the tax system more fair and
equitable, and is not just another way to increase taxes. I am glad
he is making this distinction, which the Reform members do not
seem to be able to do.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
One of the few mechanisms which the Canadian public has for
making direct input into the House of Commons is through the
use of petitions. Yet petitions seem to be simply tabled here and
left to collect dust. There is no mechanism whereby they can be
debated or acted upon directly.
Would the government entertain the notion of further
amending the standing orders so as to allow even for a one day
debate on those petitions that enjoy a large degree of public
support?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has made an interesting suggestion. I think it
can be best dealt with by having it studied by the House
procedure committee on which her party is represented. This
would enable the idea to be explored further.
In the meantime opposition parties have opposition days
during which they can debate subjects of their own choosing.
Certainly it is open to the member's party to use one of its
opposition days to discuss the subject matter of one or more
petitions.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, surely
some of these things are important to the government, not just
the opposition ranks.
My supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Would she allow debate on just one petition pertaining to the
credibility of Parliament and public trust in this particular
institution, namely the petition that is currently circulating in
the riding of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has called for this to be a matter of a change in
the standing orders. As a first step I think the broad implications
of having debates on petitions should be considered in the
committee set up by the House for the purpose of considering
such changes, and that is the House committee on procedure.
* * *
(1135)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the President of the Treasury Board. In December 1992,
the previous Conservative government froze the payment of all
grants in lieu of taxes on federal lands and buildings, which of
course caused a significant shortfall in revenues for
municipalities across Canada.
Does the Minister intend to honour the promise made by his
Prime Minister during the election campaign so that the federal
government meets its obligations regarding payment of grants
in lieu of taxes to local governments?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
am well aware of the concern that many municipal leaders have
expressed. Having been one myself formerly I understand the
issue involved here.
The matter is under review, as indeed the legislation is with
respect to grants in lieu of taxes which comes under the direct
jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services. I hope we can have a further response before long for
the member.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary. Should we understand that the Minister is
committed, on behalf of his government, to paying this year the
full amount of grants in lieu of taxes owed to municipalities,
941
such as Montreal and Toronto, as any responsible property
taxpayer should, thus leading by example?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
we want to carry out our responsibilities with respect to grants in
lieu of taxes right across the country.
We are looking at the matter, as I responded a few moments
ago, and will be responding accordingly.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
On Wednesday the Prime Minister said that he believed the
restrictions on free speech contained in the contested gag law
are compatible with democracy. He said that there are a lot of
people who want to influence the outcome of an election but ``do
not have the guts to run for Parliament''.
Why does the government believe that participation in the
political process outside the party structure should be so
severely restricted?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada
welcomes participation by every Canadian in the political
process. The Government of Canada is concerned about the
issue of paid advertising and paid activity which is a direct
attempt to influence the electoral process.
In 1976 when the Government of Canada amended the
Elections Act to put all political parties on a level playing field,
it did so because it recognized that money should not be the tool
to influence democracy.
The federal government believes that everybody should be on
a level playing field. The level playing field should not simply
restrict spending by political parties but there should be an open
opportunity for everybody to participate, not to buy their way
into influencing the election.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime
Minister. Political parties are not on an even footing and
political parties have a financial advantage over private
individuals in an election campaign.
Does the minister believe that Canadians should have to fight
all the way to the Supreme Court to defend their right to freedom
of expression during an election?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, nobody is denying
Canadians the right to free expression during an election.
The fact is that the Canada Elections Act requires that paid
advertising by political parties be restricted. Indeed official
agents of political parties are subject to fines and even jail terms
of up to five years if they do not respect the advertising
limitations.
All that the Liberal Party and the Government of Canada are
asking is that when it comes to paid advertising the level playing
field be preserved so that democracy can be preserved and no
single big money private interest can buy its way into
influencing the election process.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. We learned
recently that the Department of National Defence spends more
than $32 million a year for several military bands within the
Canadian Forces. Given the terrible state of Canada's finances,
does he consider it acceptable to spend $32 million on the bands
of the Canadian Forces?
(1140 )
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on a
number of occasions I have said that in view of the party's
commitment, as outlined in the red book, every aspect of our
defence budget is under review. I hope when we make our
pronouncements on changes in the defence budget, the hon.
member and his party will support the government's action.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, to
help his Minister of Finance who is desperately in need of
money, is the minister ready to use the same reasoning in the
case of the Canadian Forces bands as he did in the case of the
RCMP marching band?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
gave the answer earlier.
Is it a question that hon. members opposite are trying to
denigrate our cultural heritage as we see it in the Canadian
military with music and bands? I always thought that the hon.
member's party was one that was very concerned about cultural
942
matters. Now they are showing they are not interested in
Canadian culture. Military bands are very much part of Canada's
culture and I hope they will continue to support them.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The recently announced government immigration policy
which will allow for the entry of nearly 200,000 immigrants this
year under the family and independent class is commendable.
These expected new arrivals, in addition to further enriching the
multicultural fabric of our nation, will contribute greatly to
economic growth according to the Economic Council of Canada.
To give success to this policy, will the minister take steps to
ensure that visa offices and certified medical examination
centres in countries such as Ukraine, India, the Philippines and
others, will be sufficiently staffed and strategically located to
ensure that the application process is as convenient and as
speedy as possible.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon.
friend from Winnipeg North and also take the opportunity to
commend him for the leadership role he has taken within the
general policy areas of both immigration and multiculturalism.
The member raises a good point. There needs to be a
connection between the desired levels of immigration
announced and debated and the delivery mechanism.
I can tell the hon. member and the House that, for instance, we
have increased the number of visa officers at our High
Commission in India from 19 to a current 30. As well, we have
also put in place accredited medical practitioners because of the
demand in the state of the Punjab.
Since the fall of the Berlin wall we have opened visa offices in
Kiev, Bucharest and Prague. The hon. member is correct and we
are moving with dispatch.
* * *
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The issue of whether to lower cigarette taxes is especially
complex and divisive because there are many other issues
involved, including health care and crime to name but two.
Since the convictions of members on this issue do not follow
party lines, will the Deputy Prime Minister allow members of
her government to vote on cigarette taxes without considering it
a confidence vote?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has
made it quite clear that on issues that involve the spending of
taxpayers' dollars, the government has to have the confidence of
the House to be able to carry out those measures.
When the question relates to the budget or major initiatives on
excise taxes, the government needs the confidence of its
members to be able to proceed with money measures.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, if
members of the government vote according to their conscience
or according with their constituents' wishes on the issue of
cigarette taxes, can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House
they will not be disciplined?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should have
congratulated the member on her first question.
Second, I hope that every member of this House has a
conscience and when it comes to making decisions around
cabinet, caucus, party or government policy that we do not park
our consciences at the door.
(1145 )
The Prime Minister has made it very clear that when it comes
to matters involving taxation, the government must have the
confidence of the House of Commons to proceed with
initiatives.
It is not simply a case of saying on every tough issue that it is a
matter for an individual; on a tough issue which involves several
departmental initiatives, such as health issues, criminal and
enforcement issues, or tax issues, obviously we intend and need
to have a united front as the Government of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, Hibernia,
the oil drilling megaproject off Newfoundland, is becoming the
biggest white elephant in Canada's history.
The federal government is sinking billions of dollars into this
financial black hole, at the same time as we are finding out that
the Minister of Finance is seriously considering a sizable
increase in taxes.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence
of the Minister of Natural Resources. Does the Deputy Prime
Minister admit that this project is not financially viable and will
she confirm that the cost overruns could exceed $1.5 billion?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, of course, in the red book,
the Government of Canada adopted policies on this megaproject
for the future. I will also remind the hon. member of comments
943
made by Quebec's Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Christos
Sirros, who spoke on this issue this week.
That being said, the Government of Canada intends to respect
contracts and written commitments, because the government
has the right and the duty to honour commitments already made,
including those concerning the Hibernia project.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): An answer like that is
rather surprising, Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals cancelled the
helicopter contract as soon as they took office.
At any rate, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if she
intends to stop this hemorrhage of public funds, or are we to
gather from her answer that in fact her government will continue
to squander taxpayers' money on a political pay-off to the
Premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be
inappropriate to compare Toronto Airport with the Hibernia
project.
The Toronto Airport deal was signed during the election
campaign. It is also known that the Government of Canada had
made a direct commitment to cancel the helicopter contract and
that the former government, during the election campaign, was
in a position to withdraw the contract but the previous prime
minister did not exercise that option.
As a government, we have said that the future projects which
we will consider will not be megaprojects, because we cannot
afford them and it is not profitable for small and medium-sized
businesses, which are the basis of our red book.
That said, we want to respect the contracts and commitments
made in writing by the previous government. I presume that it
must also be the policy of the Bloc Quebecois, if it ever came to
power, to respect the contracts signed by previous governments.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and
reflects my genuine concern with decision making in the House.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain how and if the
parliamentary debate held last week on cruise missile testing
had any influence on the government's subsequent decision on
this matter?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): A
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I raise this issue to determine the relevance of these open
debates. My party and I applaud any steps taken by the
government to make Parliament more relevant.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House if the debate
had ended with a motion and a vote to curtail cruise missile
testing, would the government have bowed to the will of this
House?
The Speaker: Order, please. I will permit the Deputy Prime
Minister to answer the question. It is a hypothetical question.
However, if she would like to address it?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, obviously the government
respects the will of Parliament on any motion passed in the
House. That is democracy.
* * *
(1150 )
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of National Defence.
This morning's Globe and Mail contained an article regarding
Canada's Sea King helicopters which implied that in spite of
their recent use in the gulf war, off Yugoslavia, Haiti and
Somalia, they were not airworthy or capable of carrying out
their missions.
I wonder if the minister could comment on the airworthiness
of the Sea King helicopters and their capability for the jobs that
they have to do.
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question. I know he is very
interested in military matters.
When we cancelled the EH-101 we did so with the full
knowledge that the Sea Kings could last until the year 2000.
Indeed the EH-101s would not come on stream until about 1999
and 2000.
I recognize some of the comments made but in the article-I
read it this morning-the commanding officer at Shearwater
said that as far as he is concerned, like any aging equipment the
Sea Kings require more and more maintenance but are perfectly
safe.
I flew on one in the Adriatic before Christmas, 70 miles, pitch
black in stormy seas. It landed on the ship and got me back here.
I think it is a good enough indication of how airworthy they are
if they could take me that distance and get back safely.
944
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I would not want to end the week without asking a
question to the Minister of Industry.
During a conference in Toronto on the electronic highway, the
secretary of state for science announced the creation of an
advisory council. The name of the former president of TV
Ontario, Mr. Bernard Ostry, was mentioned as the chairman of
this committee.
Can the minister confirm that, indeed, Mr. Ostry will be
chairing that committee?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question. No, I cannot confirm
that.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, the fact that the minister will not confirm that will not
prevent me from asking a supplementary question.
Given that the minister already has recommendations
contained in the Ostry report on the electronic highway, could he
explain why we would need a second committee to study the
matter?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, as
we said in the speech from the throne, the implementation of a
Canadian strategy for an information highway is a priority of
our gouvernement.
Considering this is a sector constantly going through changes,
we believe we should have a committee to provide us with
precise information on an ongoing basis.
[English]
What we are looking for in the formation of an advisory
council on the electronic highway, is a group of individuals
whose interest in the information highway will touch on a
variety of fields; users, those who will be contributing to the
highway as well as outside sources. To compose a broad
committee which can keep track of the rapid change in this area
is what is vital to us in ensuring that we have adequate advice as
this important file evolves.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. On January 4, 1994 I
wrote to the minister with regard to the case of Patrick Kelly. He
is the former RCMP officer convicted of murdering his wife in
1981.
Since his conviction the crown's key witness, whose
testimony convicted Mr. Kelly, now admits her testimony was
false. Given this new information that now introduces
reasonable doubt, will the Minister of Justice take action to
review the case?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, may I acknowledge at the
outset my gratitude to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni for
informing me last evening of his intention to raise this matter. I
am grateful for his consideration.
As a result I have had an opportunity to review the dossier. I
can tell the hon. member that I have received correspondence
from counsel acting on behalf of Mr. Kelly, invoking the
provisions of section 690 of the Criminal Code. This section
empowers the Minister of Justice to grant mercy in the name of
the crown either by directing a new trial, or by referring the
matter to an appeal court for a review where there has been some
indication that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
(1155 )
I am now in the process of assembling the material that will
enable me to deal with that application, including requesting a
copy of the transcript at trial, the addresses to the jury, any
reasons for judgment that may have been given, also particulars
of any new evidence that counsel wishes me to consider.
In accordance with the invariable practice that material will
be organized and assessed. An investigative brief will be
prepared. It will be presented in the fullness of time to counsel
for the applicant for comment and then the matter will be put on
my desk for decision.
I assure the hon. member that I consider my functions under
section 690 to be among the most important responsibilities in
my portfolio. I will deal with this, as with all other such
applications, very carefully and I assure him it will be dealt with
in accordance with standard procedure.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, my
compliments to the hon. minister for giving such a full,
complete and direct answer when direct answers from this
government are sometimes very hard to come by.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I take it there is no supplementary.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
As was pointed out last evening on the CBC news, in its red book
the Liberal Party of Canada accused the previous government of
deliberately undermining our institutions and argued that
funding cuts to the CBC illustrated the Tories' failure to
appreciate the importance of cultural development.
945
The minister undoubtedly recognizes this excerpt from the
red book. Can he tell us whether he agrees with the position
taken by his party?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am more interested in the future than in the past. It is
precisely because of our concern for the future that we
announced yesterday a number of initiatives to help fund the
CBC's operations so that this great national institution can
continue to adapt, flourish and serve Canadians from coast to
coast.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to hear the minister say that the red book
is a thing of the past. Perhaps we will hear no more about it then.
Does the minister still claim to be a friend of the CBC family,
while preparing to implement the cuts decreed by the previous
government, cuts which the Liberal Party strongly condemned
when it was in opposition?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, the letter that I sent to the new president of the CBC
yesterday contained more than just an announcement that the
cuts decreed by the previous government would not be
rescinded. First, we indicated clearly that we would do
everything we could to ensure that the CBC continued to
flourish in spite of the cuts.
Second, we agreed to a long-standing request from the
corporation, namely that it be allowed to borrow money. In the
past, this request had always been denied. Third, we indicated
that we would look for other sources of funding which would
help the CBC to flourish. Therefore, to view the announcements
only in a negative light is unfair. The new president of the CBC
acknowledged that there was also a positive side to our
announcements.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Finance.
Earlier this week the minister stated that virtually everybody
at the pre-budget consultation conferences supported
augmenting the revenue side.
Mr. Jason Kenney, national director of Canadian Taxpayers
Federation and a great many other people have advised me that
as participants at the Calgary conference, every workshop called
for no increase in taxation. How does the minister explain this
discrepancy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as I expressed very clearly at the
workshops in Calgary and at the other three as well there are
differences of opinion as is natural. My statement was that at
virtually every conference there was tremendous support for
building equity into the tax system.
(1200)
If we take a look at the member's question, I would say that
not only virtually every member at those conferences but
virtually every Canadian would like to see the government
augment its revenues. Certainly we do on this side of the House.
We recognize the best way for that to happen is to get the
economy going and Canadians back to work. That is why we
were elected.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture
concerning a cattle disease known as BSE.
In the 1980s some 60 animals were imported into Canada
from the United Kingdom and one of these animals died of BSE.
There is some concern that this disease is still in the country.
Will the minister now share with the House what his plans are in
regard to this disease?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question about a very serious issue in the Canadian cattle
industry.
Canada's first case of BSE was diagnosed in December of last
year in Alberta. The cow was originally imported from the
United Kingdom in 1987. Continued access for Canadian cattle
and products to international markets depends very heavily
upon my department's commitment to undertake very stringent
control measures with respect to BSE.
The department is following a procedure that will ensure there
will be no animals remaining in Canada that could have had any
contact with any source of BSE infection. That position is
strongly supported by every major livestock organization in the
country as well as by veterinarian professionals, trading
officials and our international trading partners.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Once again we see the unemployment rates today have
increased. In the 100 days the government has been in power we
have seen two major promises made in the red book broken:
first, the implementation of the North American free trade deal
and, second, cruise missile testing.
946
On behalf of those 1.4 million Canadians without jobs, I ask
the Deputy Prime Minister: Will the government bring in
employment targets in its new budget so it can be held
accountable for its budgetary and fiscal plans?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the preamble to the
member's question is not correct. In fact the Liberal Party met
its obligations very specifically to get certain amendments to
the NAFTA. Those were achieved by the work of the Prime
Minister.
If we are going to make statements in the House we should
make sure we are on track. That being said, obviously the first
priority of the government is job creation. We are disappointed
that the figures are not better. We have a fiscal plan and a jobs
plan on track.
Because the hon. member has a great deal of experience in this
area, I know she is going to want to work collaboratively with
the Minister of Human Resources Development. We do want to
live up to our obligation to get Canadians back to work. That is
why they have put their confidence in us and we intend to
discharge it.
The Speaker: I want to share some information with my
colleagues. On a normal day we can get approximately 15 or 16
questioners on, but today was a particularly good day.
If I may make an observation both the questions and the
answers proceeded very well and we had 19 questioners on
today. This is the way the House should be going. With the
co-operation of members I think we can make it work.
_____________________________________________
946
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the second report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding changes
in the membership of standing committees pursuant to Standing
Order 104.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in
the report later this day.
* * *
(1205 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-8, an
act to amend the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act (force).
He said: Mr. Speaker, we put this bill before the House in
order to make the amendment to the Criminal Code which has
been referred to. We commend it to the House for its
consideration.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-9, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am told that all I have to do is to stand
and nod and not speak.
However since this is an historic day, this is the first bill I
have introduced, I thought I would just tell members about it. It
is an act to amend the Income Tax Act.
The Speaker: I would not want you to miss your chance at
history.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons):4 I move that the
second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton): Mr. Speaker, as is my
obligation under Standing Order 36, I present a petition dealing
with language and referendum.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, I rise
under the Standing Orders of this House to present a petition on
behalf of 35 of my constituents, requesting that a referendum be
held on the question of official bilingualism in Canada.
The petitioners believe that we are spending way too much
money on the official languages policy in this country. While I
do not share their view, I have the honour of carrying out my
947
democratic duty by reporting to the House all the views
expressed by my constituents.
[English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour to rise in
the House to present these petitions duly certified by the clerk of
petitions on behalf of the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex
and surrounding area.
(1210 )
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ban
the sales of serial killer board games and serial killer cards and
prevent any other such games, cards or material from being
made available in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed that all questions be allowed to
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The Speaker: Dealing with the supply period, pursuant to
Standing Order 81(8), it is my duty to inform the House that a
total of nine days will be allotted for the supply period ending
March 26, 1994.
_____________________________________________
947
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2,
an act to amend the Department of National Revenue Act and to
amend certain other acts in consequence thereof, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I would like to recap my
earlier comments in support of Bill C-2, an act to amend the
Department of National Revenue Act and to amend certain other
acts in consequence thereof.
This bill would enable the Minister of National Revenue to
consolidate two distinct departments under his responsibility
since 1926 into one and thus eliminate unnecessary duplication
and overlap within government.
It is an act that will bring distinct benefits to taxpayers and
will enhance the ability of the Department of National Revenue
to provide more efficient and effective services and programs.
I want to assure the House that this act will not compromise
the integrity of programs in the area of responsible enforcement,
of Canadian sovereignty and laws at the border, revenue
generation, or trade administration, the lines of business that
make the department an essential national institution.
I would also like to inform the House that Revenue Canada
customs is highly regarded and well respected as one of the
finest services of its kind in the world. This respect has been
well earned and Canadians can rest assured that this will
continue to be the case within a unified Revenue Canada. Not
only due to its enforcement role but also because of programs
such as International Project Return, a program to find missing
children, Revenue Canada customs has become internationally
recognized.
I would like to assure the member who raised this concern
earlier and I would like to assure all of those who work for the
safe return of missing children to families that the minister has
assured me that Revenue Canada customs remains committed to
International Project Return.
As well, Revenue Canada is firmly committed to maintaining
and strengthening all its customs functions.
As national revenue minister, the hon. minister has said that
the role of customs is essential to the social and economic well
being of the country.
As I mentioned earlier, Revenue Canada customs will
continue to have a clear mandate to enforce Canadian law and
sovereignty at the border by preventing the entry of criminals,
illegal immigrants, pornographic material, prohibited goods
and weapons. As well, a mandate to protect Canadian business
and industry by administering international trade agreements.
Further, a mandate to protect local economies by collecting
taxes at the border and also a mandate to provide service to other
government departments at border facilities.
I would like to assure the House that this mandate will be
carried out by competent experienced managers and employees.
As well, the customs and excise union, some organizations
and border communities have expressed concerns about the
integration of customs within the Department of National
Revenue. I again want to inform this House that their concerns
are unwarranted and unsupported.
Enforcement activities at Canada's border crossings are
important to this government and to Revenue Canada and will
remain so. Administrative consolidation will enhance and
strengthen customs programs by allowing greater accessibility
948
to a broader range of information, increased use of technology
and redeployment of additional resources to better attack the
underground economy and combat smuggling.
So far, from savings realized through the administrative
consolidation of headquarters, almost $13 million has been
reinvested in key customs initiatives such as enhanced
technology at airports and border points to speed up the
processing of travellers and goods and to facilitate the detention
of contraband and high risk travellers.
(1215 )
In 1993 Revenue Canada customs seized a record amount of
drugs worth more than $1.4 billion. I am sure that customs
officers will continue their outstanding work with law
enforcement agencies to keep drugs off our streets.
Enforcement does not begin only at Canada's border. That is
why Revenue Canada is negotiating agreements with carriers in
other countries to work together in the international fight
against drugs.
The government is very concerned about the level of
smuggling we are currently experiencing. Such illegal activity
cannot continue to the overall detriment of society and this
government is considering its strategies in this regard. We
believe that a strengthened enforcement role, both at the border
and in the boardroom, will help the government to tackle the
issues of smuggling and non-compliance.
I want to inform the House that by combining its resources,
Revenue Canada will be able to get tough with the small
minority who cheat the system. Administrative consolidation
will give Revenue Canada the resources, expertise and
information to conduct joint GST and income tax audits of
individuals and businesses to identify non-registrants and those
not reporting income, to conduct special investigations and to
improve its ability to identify non-compliance with all of its
acts and regulations.
It is up to this government to ensure that the law-abiding
majority does not suffer because of those who deliberately cheat
the system either by smuggling or not paying their taxes. All
Canadians should pay their fair share.
As the Minister of National Revenue has said, such illegal
activities constitute a significant threat to Canadian society and
to our economy. This government is determined to maintain and
enhance its ability to respond to these challenges. As well, this
legislation will permit the minister to organize the delivery of
programs and services. With improved accessibility, Canadians
will no longer have to run from one Revenue Canada office to
the next to get general information, make payments or pick up
publications and forms. All of this can be done at one time at
Revenue Canada's expanded network of offices across Canada.
As well, there will be a consolidated collections program.
Clients will eventually be able to deal with one revenue official
for all their accounts. The result will be efficient service that is
more responsive to individual business circumstances and
combined audits.
Revenue Canada recognizes that businesses usually have to
deal with customs, excise, GST and income tax auditors
separately. This is cumbersome and inconvenient, particularly
for small businesses. Therefore, Revenue Canada is developing
a consolidated approach to audit. This will mean better service,
reduced costs and less duplication. It will be less intrusive to
businesses because whenever possible combined audits will be
done at one time.
Finally, we will have a single business registration number.
Revenue Canada is taking the lead for the federal government by
developing a single business registration number; one client,
one account number. This is obviously a much simpler system
for businesses that sometimes have to use several different
account numbers when dealing with different parts of the
department.
The department plans to pilot this initiative in eight cities in
May of this year. There will be a single remittance for customs,
GST and income tax. The department is now examining a plan
which will allow it to accept single payments. This initiative
will simplify and streamline accounting for hundreds and
thousands of Canadian businesses and an offset system.
Eventually businesses will be able to offset a liability in one
area such as taxation with overpayments or refunds from
another area such as GST. This will make it possible for the
department and businesses to reconcile their accounts with one
single cheque. This will also simplify account processing for
businesses, improve their cash flow and reduce the cost of doing
business with the government.
We will also introduce a simplified combined annual business
return. Beginning in the 1993 taxation year, small businesses
with gross sales under $500,000 will be able to file a combined
annual return for both income tax and GST. They will be able to
pay both taxes with one cheque and even use a credit from one
tax account to pay an outstanding balance from another. This
will bring existing GST legislation in line with the fairness
policy which was recently developed for income tax filers. This
policy gives Revenue Canada officials flexibility when dealing
with persons who have not met their obligations due to
circumstances beyond their control.
(1220)
Revenue Canada is also piloting a new way of doing business
with its commercial clients starting with pilots in the
automotive and aerospace sectors.
949
The new business relationship changes the way customs
interacts with its commercial clients by re-engineering
processes and requirements and reducing red tape and
paperwork.
This new approach will generate significant savings for
clients. The big three North American automakers and the
aerospace industry together estimate a $180 million saving over
the next decade, something quite substantial.
This program has been well received by a cross-section of
Canadian businesses. Revenue Canada is committed to building
a first class revenue administration capable of adapting to new
economic and fiscal policies and one in which service is a
priority.
I tell the House today that Revenue Canada is an essential
instrument and must be capable of meeting these challenges
head on as an organization having service, voluntary
compliance, and enforcement as priorities. It would make no
sense to weaken our response capacity.
The proposed bill will not undermine the effectiveness of
Revenue Canada customs or make it play second fiddle to
revenue generation. Administrative consolidation will instead
strengthen the government's capacity in this important field. It
is for these reasons that I recommend the support of Bill C-2.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary
secretary and her minister for bringing this bill in so quickly and
congratulate the parliamentary secretary for her emphasis that
this bill will look into and put a stop to the illegal entry of
criminals, the entry of illegal immigrants and will provide more
resources to combat the smuggling of the drugs and the liquor
that are coming into this country.
I have said many times before that there is a criminal element
taking over the economy of this country. I am glad that this
minister and this parliamentary secretary are acting so quickly.
I would like to pose a question based on representations I have
received from constituents and other people. When Canadians
return to Canada if they have been out of the country a very short
time they can bring tax exempt goods back with a maximum
value of $20. If they have been out of the country for 48 hours
they can bring goods back worth $100. If they are away for seven
days they can bring back goods worth $300.
I wonder if this bill does address this. If not, would the
parliamentary secretary take representations about looking into
increasing the exemptions? Many families come back and they
cannot even buy goods for their children for $100.
My recommendation and their recommendation would be to
increase those exemptions perhaps to $50, $200 and $500, or
something like that.
Ms. Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon.
member that this bill does not address that issue but we will
certainly take that under advisement and look into it.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
(1225 )
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Justice) moved that
Bill C-4, an act to amend the Crown Liability and Proceedings
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to introduce debate on the second reading of
Bill C-4, an act to amend the Crown Liability and Proceedings
Act.
Last summer Canada, the United States and Mexico
concluded two agreements which were additional and
complementary to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
One of these agreements is the North American agreement on
environmental co-operation. This agreement commits the three
countries to environmentally sustainable economic growth, to
effective enforcement by each country of its environmental laws
and regulations and to increased co-operation in the
development of such laws and regulations.
The other is the North American agreement on labour
co-operation which promotes improvement of working
conditions in the North American workplace for all workers.
[Translation]
Under these complementary agreements, the three countries
must not only enforce their labour and environmental legislation
but also correct any pattern of failure to effectively enforce the
existing legislation. These complementary agreements have
created international obligations for Canada.
[English]
In order to enforce these obligations each agreement provides
for the establishment of panels to make findings of fact and
determinations. In carrying out these functions a panel may in
its determination require a country to adopt an action plan to
correct any failures to enforce its own laws or standards. In
certain cases the panel determination may require the offending
party to pay a fine.
The proposed amendments to the Crown Liability and
Proceedings Act, for which the Minister of Justice is
responsible, are before us today to permit domestic enforcement
by the Federal Court of Canada of determinations relating to
Canada's international obligations which may be made by these
trinational panels. Without these amendments no mechanism
exists in Canadian law whereby our domestic courts can be
employed to
950
require the government to live up to its international
obligations.
[Translation]
Canada respects the rule of law. It does not have a problem
with using its national legal framework to enforce international
rights and obligations.
[English]
I would like to outline briefly the process of how penalties
will be enforced against Canada under the agreements.
In the highly unlikely event that Canada were to fail
effectively to enforce its environmental and labour laws and
standards and had demonstrated a persistent pattern of failure to
do so, a trinational environmental or labour panel could require
Canada to adopt action plans to correct the problems identified
by the panels. Canada could also be subject to fines which are
called monetary enforcement assessments in the bill. Very
politely, I may add.
Under the agreements any failure to comply with an action
plan approved or established by a panel or to pay a fine levied
against Canada can only be enforced through the filing of the
panel's determination with the Federal Court of Canada. It
would then become a judgment of that court and is enforceable
as such against the federal crown.
A panel determination that is made an order of the federal
court would be enforceable in the same manner as any other
order of the court subject to certain limitations.
[Translation]
This mechanism could not impose such an order on a
provincial court unless the province has signed the agreement in
question and the order relates to an area of provincial
jurisdiction. In such a case, the province would have to amend
its enabling legislation so that the order can be tabled in the
province's superior court of competent jurisdiction. Such
amendments would have the same effect as Bill C-4 for the
federal government.
(1230)
[English]
Canada negotiated the right to set up this process thereby
avoiding other remedies such as trade retaliation which will be
applied in the case of the United States and Mexico. Many of us
heard about this negotiating process and the results of the
process frequently during the election campaign.
I would also draw the attention of the House to provisions in
the bill which promote the finality of the enforcement
procedures. Under the proposed legislation there would be no
right of appeal against a panel determination or an order or
decision made by the Federal Court in any enforcement
proceedings.
Because this is a strictly international determination which
calls for particular expertise and complex international issues,
Canadian courts would not be allowed to override the panel's
determination.
The bill also contains a privative clause to exclude domestic
judicial review of the panel proceedings, panel determinations,
enforcement proceedings taken in the Federal Court and orders
and decisions made by the Federal Court in any enforcement
proceedings.
This provision is similar in some respects to one already in
place concerning the North American Free Trade Agreement.
[Translation]
The government is presenting these amendments early in the
parliamentary session to fulfil its commitment towards the
United States and Mexico.
In an exchange of diplomatic notes with the United States and
Mexico on the coming into force of NAFTA, the minister
promised on behalf of the government to ask Parliament for
permission to implement these extra-judicial settlement
mechanisms at the national level. He made a commitment to
submit this request as soon as possible.
[English]
I commend this bill to the House for consideration and I urge
all hon. members to lend their support.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, this is
the 102nd day that the Liberal Party of Canada has been in power
and we are presented with two bills. This is a big first, and I want
to congratulate the Minister of Justice who is showing the most
courage by presenting Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 this afternoon.
First, I should say that the Official Opposition will support
Bill C-4 introduced by the Minister of Justice. Over the last few
years, a consensus has developed in Quebec regarding the
opening of our society to international competition. Quebec
must participate actively to any initiative intended to reduce
trade barriers and to promote international trade. To that effect,
our support for that Bill also applies to the principle of NAFTA
and to the objectives set out in the side deals.
However, I would like to convey to the House some of our
concerns regarding the Canadian process for passing accords.
Quebec has, for a long time, made it known that it wanted to be
involved when international issues relating to its jurisdiction
were being discussed. This is part of what we might call the
traditional demands of Quebec. This involvement was upheld by
a 1937 decision of the Privy Council, which confirmed that the
federal government had to have the agreement of the provinces
951
to implement international accords affecting their jurisdictions.
It is on the basis of that decision that Ontario lodged an appeal to
the courts disputing the legitimacy of federal action in this
matter.
(1235)
I repeat that the Official Opposition approves the principles of
NAFTA. Let me remind this House that Quebec was the
strongest advocate of NAFTA and of the free trade agreement
between Canada and the United States. During the 1988 election
campaign, the Conservative Party used the free trade agreement
to get votes in Quebec. With the support of the Parti québécois,
the Conservatives were able to win a lot of seats in Quebec and
thereby get a second straight mandate.
If Quebecers were so strongly in favour of free trade, it is
because they understood that the future of a small and dynamic
modern society such as ours is contingent upon being open to the
world and having access to major markets. Far from advocating
a rigid and inward-looking form of nationalism, Quebecers are
confident in their ability, and they are ready to face international
competition and conquer new markets.
The federal structure never allowed Quebec to fully affirm its
autonomy and extend its jurisdiction to an international level.
Quebec can no longer endure this situation which limits its
possibilities; the failure of the Meech Lake Accord confirmed
the dead end in which Canada put itself.
Let us not forget that Quebec was always willing to
participate in federal-provincial consultations on NAFTA, and
always strongly defended Quebecers' interests at those
meetings. The terms and conditions relating to Quebec and
Canada in the side agreements must take into account Quebec's
legitimate wishes and reflect the jurisdictional realities that
exist in Quebec and Canada. Under the 1867 Constitution, the
Official Opposition will not approve any agreement before
receiving assurances that Quebec's areas of jurisdiction will be
respected.
Negotiations are under way between Quebec and Ottawa in
order to implement the side agreements. The Official
Opposition is keeping a close watch on these negotiations. It
would be totally unacceptable for the federal government to take
advantage of Quebec's agreement in principle to unilaterally
impose its own environmental and labour standards, two areas in
which Quebec is determined to maintain its prerogatives and its
autonomy.
Quebec cannot be satisfied with a hasty consultation when
issues affecting it so deeply will be discussed in committee. We
will soon find out whether the federal government's appetite for
centralization will gain the upper hand once again.
So that is the position of the Bloc Quebecois and Official
Opposition.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, today I am
speaking as chairman of the Reform Party committee on
international trade.
The topic is Bill C-4 which will permit the full Canadian
enforcement of two NAFTA side agreements: the North
American agreement on environment co-operation and the
North American agreement on labour co-operation.
I will begin my statement by saying that the Reform Party
supports this bill, although we do have a few areas of concern
that I will be expanding upon later in my presentation. Our
support of NAFTA is on the condition that Canadian businesses
can take full advantage of this important agreement by reducing
government spending and lowering taxes in this country; by
eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, and by shifting
emphasis from welfare to retraining and technological
development.
(1240)
Because we support NAFTA we support the necessary
enacting legislation introduced in Bill C-4. I would like to
commend the government for signing NAFTA. I was encouraged
in the throne speech by the promise of an activist trade policy
and by improving access to export sales. I was especially
encouraged by the promise to work with provincial governments
to eliminate internal trade barriers.
Canada is a trading nation and benefits enormously from trade
liberalization. Canada produces a surplus of many goods and
services which are in demand around the world. Yet Canada
cannot possibly produce the full range of goods and services that
Canadians need so it is to our advantage that we maximize and
optimize trade. Greater and freer world trade will open up new
markets and new opportunities. It will provide more jobs, raise
our real income levels and add to the strength of the Canadian
economy. The overall prosperity of Canadians will be enhanced.
In Canada, trade accounts for one out of every four jobs
generated. In my riding of Peace River we are very dependent on
trade to provide jobs; in the agriculture sector, oil and gas, and
also in forestry. Twenty-five per cent of everything we produce
is exported and the total value of exports is increasing all the
time.
This underlines the importance of participating in both
NAFTA and the GATT trade agreements. The NAFTA
agreement allows Canada to reach its long-term objectives and
will
952
strengthen environmental co-operation in North America;
promote sustainable development on a continental basis; create
an effective institution to oversee this agreement; effectively
enforce and enhance compliance with domestic environmental
laws.
In the area of labour co-operation, NAFTA will improve
working conditions and living standards in all three
participating countries and it will protect, enhance and enforce
basic workers' rights.
In order to benefit fully from any trade deal, the government
must ensure that Canadian businesses are in a position to
participate fully in the new opportunities that exist.
The hon. member for Calgary Southwest and many of my
colleagues have spoken about the importance of bringing down
the cost of doing business. We must eliminate deficit spending
so that we can finally lower taxes. We must eliminate
interprovincial trade barriers.
There are many categories of barriers. In the agriculture and
food processing industries over 100 barriers exist. They include
production quotas, differential labelling, quality and packaging
standards, and transportation and stabilization subsidies.
In the liquor, wine and beer industries we have provincial
production requirements, local bottling requirements,
differential mark-ups, quotas, packing requirements and
marketing favouritism.
In the transportation industry, we have different licensing
requirements, size and weight requirements, safety regulations,
provincial transportation board discretionary powers, and
varying fuel and sales taxes.
In the area of government procurement, we find explicit and
implicit preferences for local suppliers and requirements for
locally produced materials. With government procurement
expenditures exceeding $100 billion per year, approximately 20
per cent of GNP, this is by no means insignificant.
In the area of labour mobility, there are different licensing
requirements for professionals and trades persons from
province to province. These barriers create significant
impediments to people wishing to move to another province
since skilled workers have to meet additional licensing
requirements.
In the area of capital mobility there are industrial incentives,
local investment funds and local tax incentives. Such carriers
are often used for regional development and create an inefficient
allocation of our financial resources.
The cost to our nation of these and other internal barriers is in
the neighbourhood of $6.5 billion per year. Interprovincial trade
barriers have fragmented the marketplace and hindered
Canada's ability to compete internationally. Furthermore, these
barriers give competitive advantages to large firms that can
afford to comply with the stringent rules imposed by
government. At the same time they hinder small businesses
from reaching their market potential. Unless we can improve
competition within our own borders and can lower the cost of
doing business by providing some tax relief, we will never be
able to reap the full rewards of the expanded trade opportunities
that exist.
(1245)
I have outlined our party's concerns on the need to let
businesses take full advantage of this trade agreement. We
expect the government to take the necessary steps to allow this
to happen.
Let me get back to Bill C-4. Under NAFTA a compliance
mechanism has been established in the event an arbitral panel
finds persistent patterns of failure by a country to effectively
enforce its labour and environmental laws. If a country fails to
correct the problem, the panel may impose sizeable fines. In the
event that a fine is imposed on Canada, and it is very unlikely
this will happen as one speaker said earlier, the fine would
ultimately be enforced by domestic courts.
At this stage we support this bill and its enabling legislation in
order to move quickly to bring this trade deal into full effect. But
we do have a few specific concerns that need to be addressed.
First, the bill states clearly that any panel determination that
would enforce Canadian labour laws or standards cannot be
appealed. We would favour the addition of an appeal process.
Second, we would insist that Canadian members on this panel
be chosen on the basis of fair regional representation.
I trust that the standing committee reviewing this legislation
will address our specific concerns.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak
today on Bill C-4. Many members will realize this was a central
issue for us not only during the last campaign but during the last
Parliament.
Many of us participated in the around the clock debate when
the then government brought in the NAFTA. Our critic for
labour, the member for Kenora-Rainy River, led the debate.
We did our best to get the government to include side deals on
NAFTA related to labour and environmental standards that we
believed to be so necessary and so important for the integrity of
this agreement.
We did not have such luck. But it was amazing during the
election how our NDP opponents forgot about that debate. They
forgot that we debated around the clock and we did our best to
fight for amendments to the deal. In fact I remember at one time
during the campaign they said that the Liberals were really
going along with the Conservative Party package on NAFTA
when that was not the case.
953
I am happy to speak in the House today, approximately 100
days since the government was sworn in. It was the Prime
Minister who within the first week of taking office declared that
we would only get behind NAFTA if we could have enforceable
side deals. Therefore, I think it is important for all Canadians to
know that NAFTA has been strengthened and improved. I
believe the side agreements on environmental and labour
co-operation will go a long way in allaying the justifiable fears
of Canadians in these areas.
(1250)
I specifically like that this tripartite commission which will
be set up will be so specific in its area of responsibility and
priority that it will include limits on specific pollutants,
assessing projects with transboundary implications and
reciprocal court access. This is the specific type of thing those in
Canada who were opposed to the NAFTA, myself included,
wanted attached to the agreement.
Also with respect to the environment the minister of trade
went to extra lengths in the area of water. In the last Parliament
we listened to lawyers and experts from across Canada who had
the view, as did many members, that the issue of water was not
clear. In fact they could have access to our water either through
the free trade agreement or the NAFTA. Many of us were very
concerned about that. I give credit to the minister of trade who
went the extra distance to cite water specifically. In fact under
these side agreements there is absolutely no way the Americans
or Mexicans have unfettered access to our water.
The last point I want to make is in relation to labour. In my
riding labour was a major concern and I supported this concern.
We are going to have to be very diligent about this issue because
many people are concerned about the labour standards in
Mexico, especially with this notion of hiring young children and
the working conditions. No one in this country could tolerate
those working conditions with any kind of conscience at all.
Under the very specific mandate to the labour commission in
this side deal we can assure Canadians if there is any action
taken in any corporation or any activity in Mexico they can
appeal to this commission. We will have representation there
that will bring the matter to the attention of this Parliament and
that is ultimately what Canadians want.
I am happy to see that all three parties are united on these side
agreements to the NAFTA. However, we are going to have to be
very diligent and watch this agreement very closely because I
know that a large number of Canadians are still very dubious
about it.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I make a comment for clarification on this additional
measure.
Can it be explained in plain language on the record, how a
local citizen or a company could intervene when they observe in
the marketplace that these new orders of the Federal Court,
generated from this tripartite commission, can bring others to
account, that these new orders will be obeyed and observed both
here in Canada and in comparable jurisdictions.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary to the minister of trade will be speaking
momentarily.
My understanding of this agreement is that when there is a
situation having to do either with the environment or labour
where we believe the agreement is not being followed, then we
would report this to the commission which has the jurisdiction
and will allow the claim to be analysed. If the claim is justified
and someone is defaulting then action can be taken right away.
(1255)
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, the commission makes a ruling. I
believe that ruling will then become an order of the Federal
Court of Canada. There is the issue of compliance with that
order. I am certain that companies will be looking at the
marketplace to see whether those orders are being complied
with. Are they then to go back to the commission that made the
order in the first place?
I am looking for some clarification in that respect.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member raises a valid point. This is my understanding of it and I
stand to be corrected by the parliamentary secretary to the
minister of trade.
Let us imagine there is a court ruling that labour standards are
not being followed which essentially would violate the terms
and conditions of the agreement. It is then incumbent upon the
parties who signed that agreement to implement the direction of
that court or panel. We have to have some basic goodwill. If that
type of judgment is asserted then the parties involved would
make sure that the implementation or correction would take
place.
The member raises a very good point. When I debated this
point in opposition we heard from many people that the
implementation of the agreement whether it be on
environmental standards or labour standards would be the great
challenge.
The fact that we have isolated from the agreement a special
commission both in terms of labour and environment is almost
like an enhanced scanner on those two types of activities. My
understanding would be that all parties would be much more on
alert knowing those panels exist to monitor all activities.
That is our greatest hope. I have not heard of a better way to
put some teeth into the agreement.
954
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to
rise to speak to this bill, an act to amend the Crown Liability and
Proceedings Act.
I would first like to congratulate our Canadian representatives
who worked tirelessly to ensure that there is fairness in our trade
relations. It will open a tremendous market for Canadian
business and Canadian industries abroad.
At the same time I want to congratulate all those who were
involved in the negotiations in the three countries, particularly
when it came to the side agreements. I know how difficult it was
at times in pursuing these negotiations.
The object and purpose of this legislation can be stated in a
few words. This legislation ensures that trade sanctions cannot
be taken against Canada under the North American Free Trade
Agreement, on environmental and labour co-operation.
What this legislation does is give effect to the unique
provisions written into these agreements for Canada which
provide that our own Federal Court of Canada would enforce a
panel determination against Canada in the unlikely event that
this should ever occur.
This was the agreed outcome of the trilateral negotiations
when Canadian negotiators insisted that for Canada the trade
sanctions were an unacceptable recourse and remedy
particularly for environmental and labour disputes. Canadian
negotiators proposed instead, and it was accepted by the
American and Mexican negotiators, that the Canadian courts
would enforce the integrity of the agreement as it operated in
Canada.
The bill before us gives us legal effect to the negotiated
outcome that Canada achieved in the so-called NAFTA side
agreement negotiations on environmental and labour
co-operation.
(1300 )
This amendment is the only legislative measure necessary for
Canada to completely fulfil all of its obligations under the North
American Free Trade Agreement on environmental
co-operation and labour co-operation.
[Translation]
The environmental and labour co-operation agreements
protect Canada's interests in these fields, with respect to the
North American Free Trade Agreement. These agreements
reinforce and broaden important commitments made by Canada,
the United States and Mexico.
The three countries have pledged to work together to
co-operatively pursue environmentally sustainable growth and
promote the rights of workers across North America.
More important, both agreements reinforce NAFTA's
provisions regarding labour and the environment. They
guarantee that the increase in trade we are seeking will not
happen at the expenses of the environment or Canadian workers.
At the present time, we are setting up a commission, under the
North American Agreement on Environmental Co-operation,
which will work to foster close and ongoing co-operation
among the three countries. It will have as a mandate the
promotion of sustainable development, the development and
implementation of environmental regulations, and the
settlement of disputes arising from non-compliance with
existing legislation.
The commission will ensure the implementation of an agenda
reflecting priorities, including setting limits on certain
pollutants, evaluating projects having an impact on both sides of
the border, and guaranteeing reciprocal access to tribunals.
The commission, in co-operation with the Free Trade
Commission, will also ensure that the objectives of the
Environmental Co-operation Agreement are met.
Established pursuant to the North American Agreement on
Labor Co-operation, the Commission for Labor Co-operation
has the same purpose. It will promote the application of a
comprehensive set of principles considered essential by the
three countries involved.
The Commission will also give effect to the promise made by
all parties and set forth in the NAFTA preamble, that is
``improve working conditions and living standards'' and
``protect, enhance and enforce basic workers' rights'' in the
three countries, on ``their respective territories''. The
Agreement guarantees that legislation governing health and
security, children's work, as my colleague mentioned earlier,
and minimum wage will be respected in the three countries.
The agreements are based on a very close and permanent
co-operation between the three countries, but they go much
further than mere co-operation. In fact, each country signing
these agreements will be committed to enforcing on its territory
any national legislation concerning environment and labor.
[English]
The North American free trade agreements on environmental
and labour co-operation in fact does strengthen and improve the
environmental and labour objectives of the North American
Free Trade Agreement.
Through these side agreements Canada, the United States and
Mexico have pledged to work together to co-operatively pursue
environmentally sustainable growth and promote the right of
workers across North America. Achieving these agreements met
two of the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for
proceeding with NAFTA on January 1, 1994.
955
(1305)
In addition, the government sought a subsidy code, an
anti-dumping code, a more effective dispute resolution
mechanism, and maintenance of Canada's energy security.
Through these discussions with the governments of the
United States and Mexico, we were able to successfully
negotiate improvements to NAFTA that addressed these
Canadian concerns. Understandings were reached on subsidies,
dumping and national sovereignty on water resources.
At Canada's insistence, the three NAFTA countries have
established working groups on subsidies, countervail and
anti-dumping. Through these working groups we will seek rules
and procedures on subsidies and dumping to make cross-border
trading conditions more secure.
Ultimately, these badly needed improvements will make
dispute settlement more equitable and substantially improve the
business climate among the three partners countries.
In order to correct some of the false interpretations about
NAFTA and water, the three governments have made a joint
declaration on water. It states that there is nothing in the North
American Free Trade Agreement that could force Canada, the
United States or Mexico for that matter to export water.
The government's declaration on energy spells out our
commitment to energy security for all Canadians, an important
element of our overall economic priorities which also states that
Canada will continue to be a strong and reliable supplier of
energy to our customers, reinforcing our industry's expanding
role in the North American energy market.
Taken together, these improvements enabled the government
to proclaim NAFTA on January 1, 1994 and the government is
satisfied that the North American Free Trade Agreement will
advance Canada's trade policies objectives as stated in this
House by all three parties.
I want on this note to thank all my colleagues who have made
comments in this House and I am delighted to see this bill
moving ahead. It is a great day for all of us and a great day for
Canada and for the tremendous opportunities that will come as a
result of this agreement.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I want to express to my colleague,
the Minister for International Trade, how delighted I am that this
bill has come before the House today, so quickly after we have
taken office.
There are many Canadians who have been concerned about
this issue and I want to put a question to my colleague because I
have a very special and specific interest in this.
Recently Ovide Mercredi, Bob White, head of the Canadian
Labour Congress, and others made a visit to Mexico during
which they were investigating conditions that exist there today,
or are purported to exist, under which people already were
maybe taking advantage of the relationship that we have in this
trade agreement. I have been notified of this and many people
think that those of us as Liberals who campaigned against
NAFTA have walked away from that commitment.
I have a question for my colleague. Is it his view that these
side agreements and this piece of legislation that we are putting
through the House so quickly today will supply us with the teeth
necessary so that when incidents such as were described in the
papers recently in terms of people in the community being
repressed, et cetera, for certain activities they will help us in
addressing that type of incident?
Mr. Harb: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his
comments on this issue.
Everything we do as a country and as a society has and
continues to be in the best interests of our workers and our
businesses. We will continue to further the dialogue between our
partners both in the United States and Mexico in order to ensure
that the quality of life that our workers enjoy here in Canada is
enjoyed elsewhere. This bill will further these initiatives for the
best.
The Deputy Speaker: That appears to be everybody who
wishes to speak. I call on the parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader to close the debate.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
just wanted to answer the question raised by the hon. member for
New Westminster-Burnaby. It was a very careful question and
slightly tricky from the legal point of view.
The decisions that will be registered in the Federal Court of
Canada and that thereby become enforceable in Canada will be
decisions that are made against the Government of Canada for
breaches of its international obligations.
My understanding is that having been made against Canada,
the decision becomes an enforceable obligation of the
Government of Canada by virtue of its registration in the
Federal Court of Canada and the Government of Canada, like all
good citizens, complies in all respects with the orders of its
courts. Therefore, there should not be further need for
enforcement. If it is a fine that has been levied on the
Government of Canada payable to the other countries, the
Government of Canada would then comply with the order of its
domestic court and pay the money to one of the other countries if
that is who the fine were payable to.
So I think that is the answer to the hon. member's question.
Because it is a court order in Canada by a Canadian court, the
Government of Canada would pay it. He will note that the
956
amendment is to, I believe, the Crown Liability Act which is
designed to allow the courts to make the orders against the
crown.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, in view of the excellent progress
we have made and the co-operation that has been forthcoming
on all sides of the House, I think Your Honour will find a
disposition on the part of all members to call it four o'clock.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the disposition of the House to call
it four o'clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being four o'clock p.m., this House
stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.14 p.m.)