CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 10, 1995
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 12409
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12410
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12411
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12411
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12411
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12413
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12413
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 12414
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 12414
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 12416
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 12416
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12417
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12417
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 12418
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12418
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12419
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 12420
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 12420
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 12420
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 12420
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12421
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12421
Motion for concurrence 12423
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 119; Nays, 64 12423
(Motion agreed to.) 12424
Bill C-85. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 12424
Motion negatived on division: yeas 32; nays 134. 12436
(Motion agreed to.) 12443
12407
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 10, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the Hamilton-Niagara region hosted a meeting of the
environment ministers from the G-7 countries. My work on the
House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs has
reinforced for me the necessity of acting on a global level. As
nations, our economies and environments are intrinsically
linked and must be addressed globally. The G-7 visit gave the
Hamilton-Niagara region an opportunity to demonstrate its
commitment to environmental sustainability.
As a well respected member of the international community,
Canada has every reason to be proud of its environmental
accomplishments in local communities like Hamilton-Niagara
and on a national level. Later this year we will host the G-7
summit in Halifax. This will give us an additional opportunity to
show the world Canada's achievements.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
anyone who has watched the activities of Opération Dignité in
eastern Quebec knows that it is fully committed to keeping
small rural communities alive.
Today, I would like to pay tribute to one of the pioneers of
Opération Dignité, Jean-Marc Gendron, who passed away
recently. The heart and leader of Dignité II, he inspired people
living in rural Quebec to live with dignity. Unfortunately, his
relentless work negatively affected his health, which had been
deteriorating for many years.
Jean-Marc, you gave your life so that others could take charge
of theirs. Everyone living in rural areas thanks you. The
foundation you created will ensure that you will never be
forgotten. Thank you, Jean-Marc, and long life to all small rural
parishes.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week has been declared both national forestry
week and national mining week. Last year these two industries
jointly provided 421,000 direct Canadian jobs. For 1993,
forestry and mining together accounted for $10 billion more to
Canada's balance of trade, meaning exports minus imports, than
the combined production of energy, automotive vehicles and
parts, agriculture and fishing.
Last week I had the pleasure of attending the AGM of the B.C.
Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association. Far from being a
sunset industry, these people represent world leading
companies, which are constantly inventing better ways to use
our natural resources with improved environmental safeguards
and full cooperation with all who depend on our beautiful but
limited land base.
On behalf of all Canadians, I want to thank the forest and
mining industries for their continued contribution to making
Canada one of the most prosperous nations on earth.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, this is national forestry week in Canada and I want
to bring to Parliament's attention the fact that this year's
designated forestry capital of Canada is the town of Meadow
Lake in northwest Saskatchewan.
This week Meadow Lake residents are celebrating the
occasion in fine style, with events focusing not only on the
forest but also on the outdoors, on youth, on children, on seniors
and on the community itself.
The Meadow Lake forestry capital society has done a
tremendous job to make this special week a successful one
within the town. It deserves our support and congratulations.
At the same time, all parliamentarians must take account this
week of the value of the forest to Canada's long term economic
and environmental security. Forestry work can be well managed
at the local and provincial levels, as has been illustrated in
12408
Meadow Lake. However, there is a real and pressing role for the
federal government in forestry matters.
During national forestry week we should renew our national
commitment to the forest and all that it embodies.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
students and teachers of Lincoln Heights school presented ``We
Canada, Oui'', a variety show production in celebration of
Canada, on May 3 and 4, 1995. Two hundred and fifty students
from kindergarten to grade eight and their teachers recognized
the Canadian arts and history by sharing their talents through
acting, dancing, singing, and gymnastic displays.
With the Quebec referendum expected sometime this year,
teachers Pat Wilson, Nancy Tanguay, and Sue
Thorne-McCaffrey, coordinators of the show, proposed a theme
celebrating Canada for a school-wide production as a way of
supporting a united Canada and feeling good about our country.
``We Canada, Oui'' evolved into a total school effort as teachers
and students from all grades at the school worked together and
shared in the excitement of creating a performance that blended
their efforts and originality with Canadian content and tradition.
The teachers and students of Lincoln Heights school,
Waterloo, Ontario, are to be congratulated. The commitment to
a united Canada, our youth, and our future are strengthened
through efforts such as ``We Canada, Oui''.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week I had the privilege of speaking to the Habitat for
Humanity board of directors, whose members were meeting in
Ottawa.
Habitat for Humanity is an international non-profit
organization dedicated to the elimination of poverty housing.
Habitat builds homes for low income families, relying on
volunteer labour and donated materials from various sources.
[Translation]
Those who qualify for houses are required to pay a reasonable
mortgage and the money they pay goes towards the construction
of other houses. They must also help build their own and other
Habitat houses. To date, Habitat has constructed more than
22,000 houses in 40 countries of the world.
In Vancouver East, my riding, they say that approximately
8,000 people are without acceptable housing. I am pleased to
announce that my riding will be the first in British Columbia to
have Habitat houses.
[English]
Habitat is truly a humanitarian effort. It is vital that we
encourage the initiatives of organizations like Habitat for
Humanity.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Reform Party and particularly its immigration
critic again demonstrated that they have succumbed to the
radical views of the extreme right in the United States.
The Reform critic finally bared his soul, not in the House, not
in Canada, but at a right wing rally on the steps of the U.S.
Capitol. He finally showed his true colours by sharing a
platform with those who are promoting controls against
immigrants, who link immigrants to violent crimes, and who
accuse immigrants of murdering our children. In the Reform
Party critic's comments he linked immigrants to violent crime,
which he said is the number one concern of Canadians and
Americans.
(1405)
The Reform Party's persistent intolerance brings shame not
only to this House but to all of Canada. The Reform Party does
not speak on behalf of Canada, and Canadians will make sure
that they never will.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning's
Toronto Star announced that the CBC's English
network is forced to coproduce television shows with foreign
companies, especially from the United States. Therefore, we
will slowly but surely watch the Americanization of the CBC.
This is neither a coincidence nor a deliberate change in the
CBC's programming.
Could it be that the budget cuts affecting the English and
French networks of the CBC are dramatically reducing the
production of Canadian television shows? It is very likely that
this is the case. The English network no longer has the means to
produce its own shows.
The Liberal government is therefore presiding over the
systematic dismemberment of what has long been cherished as a
pillar of Canadian culture. The English Canadian culture, with
the unwilling help of the CBC, is on its way to becoming a
carbon copy of the North American culture.
12409
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the answers to my Order Paper Questions 134 and 138
clearly show that the Minister of Justice has no idea if his
multi-million-dollar registration system is going to improve
public safety, reduce violent crimes, or save lives.
He admitted he does not even know how many crimes have
been solved by the 60-year old handgun registration system. He
does not know how many seized handguns have been traced to
their legal owners. He does not know how many legal handgun
owners have been charged with a firearms offence as a result of a
successful trace. He does not know how many legal handgun
owners had their registrations revoked as a result of being
convicted of a violent crime. He does not even know how many
registered handguns have been used by registered owners in
homicides, suicides, or other firearms-related crimes.
How much more evidence do we have to present before
someone in the Liberal cabinet finally wakes up to the fact that
the justice minister has not done his homework?
* * *
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May
14 and 15 the Canadian Jewish Congress will be holding its 24th
triennial plenary assembly in Montreal.
One thousand delegates from communities across the country
will be gathering to elect the new CJC president, vote on policy
resolutions, and participate in workshops and sessions dealing
with a wide variety of national and international issues. These
issues include anti-Semitism and racism in Canada; domestic
social policy issues; national unity; Israel and Jewish
communities throughout the world; and a commemoration of the
50th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps.
[Translation]
The theme of the meeting which will be held this weekend is
``Going beyond history: Building a better future''. The
Canadian Jewish Congress, which works with many different
communities, is an important non-governmental organization
which fights for human rights, among other things. We hope that
the CJC's discussions will be fruitful.
* * *
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Quebec Minister of Finance tabled his first budget yesterday.
This budget is a timid step-too timid-towards getting
Quebec's finances on a sound footing. In fact, it is quite
unfortunate that, for reasons that have to do with the
referendum, the real decisions have been postponed until next
year.
And what about the statement by the Quebec Minister of
Finance that a vote in favour of sovereignty would prevent
future tax increases in Quebec? This is, at the very least, an
outrageous attempt to blackmail the people of Quebec.
Once again, the Péquistes have shown that no matter how
important the items on the government's agenda, they are
incapable of rising above petty politicking.
* * *
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in a way I was glad that for once the Quebec
government was talking about figures instead of their
everlasting refrain about separation.
However, the Péquiste finance minister simply had to make a
connection between tax increases and Quebec's constitutional
future. Quebecers know perfectly well that separation may cost
us a lot of money in taxes. They also realize that the spectre of
separation creates an uncertain economic climate.
Let us look with optimism to the future and to the day when
the Government of Quebec will be rid of this uncertainty and
those who cause it and will consider taxing company profits, not
payrolls, in an economy that works.
* * *
(1410)
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
Sarajevo suburbs under intense and brutal bombardment, which
has added 11 dead and 40 wounded to the casualty list in this
conflict, UN peacekeepers are no longer able to protect the
Bosnian capital from future Serbian bombardment since their
commanding officer refuses to authorize NATO airstrikes.
We want to express our grave concern about the fact that the
UN is powerless to defend this safe area. Need I recall that the
Serbs continue to prevent the reopening of Sarajevo Airport,
which has been closed to humanitarian flights for one month?
As the UN and NATO do nothing, the noose continues to
tighten around Sarajevo, where Serbian tanks have re-entered
the 20-kilometre exclusion zone and are firing mortar shells
into the heart of the city.
We can only hope that the UN will quickly take control of the
situation again, to prevent further casualties.
12410
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when I
arrived in Ottawa almost two years ago I decided to make a
concentrated effort to support the government whenever I
thought it was doing the right thing. I gladly rise today to
partially fulfil that pledge.
Reformers believe the duty of elected members to their
constituents should supersede their obligations to their political
parties. Three Liberal members recently adhered to those
principles. I would like to congratulate the members for Kent,
Huron-Bruce, and Timiskaming-French River for their
commitment to the voters in their ridings.
Unfortunately, other Liberal members of Ontario have yet to
illustrate the same commitment. They will be given the
opportunity in the near future. Hopefully their ridings will be
foremost in their minds at that time.
As long as the voters take second place to partisan politics in
this House, the old saying about safety in numbers will not apply
to Ontario's voice in Ottawa.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on June 8, 1995, Ontario voters will be going to the
polls to elect a new provincial government. This time they will
do it right.
In 1993 we promised to restore hope to Canadians while
creating jobs and building a strong economy. The red book
outlined some of these campaign promises. Over the last 18
months the Prime Minister has governed with integrity and
honesty, as he said he would.
Last week Lyn McLeod unveiled the Ontario Liberal plan,
reiterating that her party's top priority is to get Ontario working
again after five years of NDP misery. On June 8 Premier
McLeod will be able to put the Liberal plan into action, as we did
18 months ago.
I wish Lyn McLeod and all the members of the Liberal team
success in their campaigns. On June 8 I will be supporting my
provincial representative, Elinor Caplan, MPP for Oriole.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certain things always seem to go together: warm
weather and barbecues, summer cottagers and Muskoka, an
election in Ontario and a Liberal plan that works for the voters.
Municipalities across Ontario have benefited tremendously
by our federal job creation initiatives, and specifically by the
Canada-Ontario infrastructure program. When Lyn McLeod is
premier of this province, Ontarians stand to benefit even more.
Lyn McLeod and her Liberal team are committed to job creation
and will work in partnership with the federal government to
achieve the objectives of the infrastructure program.
The infrastructure program has been a resounding success.
More than 14,000 jobs will be created in this province. All
projects previously approved under the program will proceed
fully funded and on schedule. That is the mark of good
leadership, the mark that Lyn McLeod will bring to this province
on June 8.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, celebrations were recently held all
across Canada and in parts of Europe honouring the thousands of
veterans who fought in the second world war.
In my constituency I was privileged to take part in ceremonies
held in Markham and Stouffville commemorating the 50th
anniversary of the end of the second world war. It was indeed an
honour to meet with these veterans and talk about their many
memories of the battles that were fought.
During these conversations an extremely disturbing problem
was brought to my attention by a group of veterans. They
informed me that the Sunnybrook Medical Centre Veterans'
Wing, located in Toronto, has recently raised the monthly
in-residence rent by 35 per cent. This is having a major impact
on some 300 veterans who reside in this clinic. I was extremely
saddened by this news. These veterans gave the ultimate gift to
our country and now they seem to be left to fend for themselves.
(1415)
I urge the government to immediately intervene in the matter.
These veterans simply cannot afford such a dramatic increase in
their cost of living expenses.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, before we begin question period, I
would like to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery
of Dr. Alfred Sant, Leader of the Official Opposition of Malta.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
12411
12411
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in his budget speech, the Quebec
Minister of Finance brought home the negative impact of the
massive cuts to the federal transfer payments used to fund social
programs, which were announced in February's budget. While
hastening its financial withdrawal, Ottawa intends to maintain
its national standards, indeed impose new ones.
The Quebec Minister of Finance said yesterday, and I quote:
``By the end of the decade, the federal government will no
longer be making any transfer payments to Quebec for social
programs. In fact, Quebec will be making payments to the
federal government''.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Would the
minister confirm the conclusion reached by his Quebec
counterpart to the effect that the massive cuts made in his most
recent budget to transfer payments to the provinces to fund
social programs will mean a shortfall of $650 million next year
for Quebec and of $1.9 billion in 1997-98, if the federal
government continues its practice of allocation on a per capita
basis, as he himself has said?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have discussed
this repeatedly. The shortfall next year will be $350 million. As
regards the following year, we will have discussions and
negotiations to decide how we will allocate federal transfers to
the provinces.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the deficits we are running
up, because the Minister of Finance seems unable to count. He
continues to deny figures that are perfectly clear, figures arrived
at through his own budget calculations.
Would the minister acknowledge that, as of 1999, in four
years' time, Quebec will no longer receive any transfer
payments for social programs, but will in fact have to send a
cheque to Ottawa for the Canada social transfer paid to other
provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ages ago,
discussions were held between the provinces and the federal
government, and tax points were transferred to the provinces as
the result of these discussions. Quebec in fact received more tax
points than other provinces.
However, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and I have clearly
indicated our intention to begin negotiations with the provinces
to enable both the federal government and the provinces to
straighten out and stabilize public finances.
Now, as to the first point, where the Leader of the Opposition
was finding fault with my figures, I would suggest that, if he
does not agree with equalization payments, he should say so.
However, if he agrees that Quebec benefits enormously from
equalization payments, he will acknowledge that my figures are
valid.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, if I were the minister, I would feel somewhat
embarrassed about alluding to equalization payments, given that
his first act in January 1994 was to cap equalization payments
thereby depriving the provinces of $1.5 billion over the next five
years.
The minister acknowledges that the federal government is
hastening its withdrawal from transfer payments for social
programs. Under these conditions, how can he talk seriously of a
cost effective and flexible federal system, when he will be
depriving Quebec of $2.5 billion over the next two years and
when Ottawa will no longer pay a cent to fund social programs
by 1999, all the while maintaining its tax base and claiming to
set national standards in Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know
where the Leader of the Opposition keeps getting these
misleading figures, which have no basis in reality. Perhaps they
help his argument. Some of his figures are global, but, as we
have already said, we are going to have to negotiate with the
provinces individually.
(1420)
As for equalization payments, we have signed the agreement
with the provinces. In other words, we have succeeded in
reaching an agreement, something the previous government, of
which the Leader of the Opposition was a member, had refused
to do during its term of office.
* * *
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
According to a midday report by the CBC's Johanne McDuff,
the Krever Commission was told that, in the 1980s, Connaught
Laboratories, the Canadian blood fractionation centre, got their
blood product supplies from the United States and that most of
the blood came from prison inmates in Pine Bluff, Arkansas,
who are very high risk donors. To hide this fact, Connaught
Laboratories put Canadian Red Cross labels on these products.
12412
Given the seriousness of these revelations, does the minister
intend to intercede with her colleague, the Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, to get him to lay criminal
charges against those who falsified products knowingly or were
involved in these manipulations which had tragic
consequences?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are taking these matters very seriously. We put
aside $12 million for the Krever inquiry commission, and we
want to wait for Justice Krever's report on the problems
experienced with the blood supply system in the 1980s.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have had enough of the minister's irresponsible, thoughtless
rhetoric in this matter.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Picard: Given the seriousness of this morning's
revelations, does the minister not realize that she must take
immediate action against those responsible for this scandal?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to understand how
serious it is to ask a judge to conduct an inquiry. We must not
interfere in these proceedings. It is up to Justice Krever to reach
these decisions and to make representations to us before
submitting his final report if he sees fit to do so.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on legislation that affects traditional aboriginal
hunting rights, the federal government has a constitutional
obligation to consult in a prescribed manner with the James Bay
Cree and the native bands of Yukon.
Section 24.4.26 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec
Agreement states that all regulations relating to the hunting,
fishing and trapping regime proposed by responsible
governments shall be submitted to the co-ordinating committee
defined in the agreement for advice prior to enactment.
Yesterday it became quite clear that the Minister of Justice
failed to consult the James Bay Cree or the aboriginal people in
Yukon on his proposed gun control bill in the prescribed manner.
According to the Liberal chair of the justice committee this
makes the entire legislative process unconstitutional.
Will the Minister of Justice put his bill on hold until he has
consulted the James Bay Cree and the Yukon First Nations on his
gun control bill in the prescribed manner?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I record my
astonishment that such a question would emerge from the party
that to date has refused to meet with aboriginal people,
describing them as a special interest group.
That such a question would emerge from a party that has voted
against every single piece of legislation introduced in the House
to advance aboriginal rights and that less than a year ago voted
against legislation giving rights of self-government to the
Indians in Yukon to which the leader has referred.
The record will show that I consulted throughout the country
before preparing the proposals that are engendered in Bill C-68.
In addition to the consultations carried out in advance of the
legislation, we have already put in place an elaborate and
unprecedented process of consultation with the aboriginal
leadership and communities throughout the country.
(1425)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the minister introduced his gun control bill he
said, as he said again today, that it was the result of the most
extensive consultative process known to man. He had consulted
everyone from Elvis Presley to the ghost of Mackenzie King.
The evidence is now mounting to suggest the minister's
information tour was neither extensive nor substantive in many
instances. He forgot the legal requirements of the James Bay
Cree agreement and the provincial politicians in Alberta and
Saskatchewan say the minister's consultations were a joke.
Has the minister assessed the damage that can now be done to
federal-provincial and aboriginal relations if the government
rams through this defective bill in its present form?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for a period of almost
one year I have met with individuals, groups, associations and
representatives of governments at all levels in the country to
discuss firearms' control. That consultation has been complete
and entirely in accordance with our legal and constitutional
responsibilities.
To listen to the leader of the third party one would conclude
that to him consultation means doing exactly what he would
have us do. In fact, the consultations in which we have
participated over this last year have resulted in a bill which is
respectful of and responsive to the needs of aboriginal peoples,
among others, in the country.
We will proceed with the legislation which is very much in the
public interest.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, these allegations of deficiences in the consultative
process are coming from the Attorney General of Alberta, the
12413
Attorney General of Saskatchewan and representatives of the
James Bay Cree.
What we have here with respect to gun control is yet another
top down, made in Ottawa solution to a problem; the NEP, like
the Charlottetown accord, like the TAGS program and a whole
bunch of others. They start with an allegedly high level of
consultation and high levels of support which then diminish as
the provinces and the people get a look at the content and
discover the flaws.
Is the minister willing even at this late date to listen and
respond by incorporating legitimate concerns of Alberta,
Saskatchewan, the James Bay Cree, the Yukon First Nations into
his gun control proposals?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the contradictions in
the hon. member's position are almost too numerous to identify
in these brief moments.
Let me begin by observing that he is hardly in a position to
champion aboriginal rights in the House of Commons. Second,
this is the party of law and order that in not supporting Bill
C-68, stands against the chiefs of police and frontline police
officers.
This is the party that would have us listen to the people. The
Attorney General of Alberta comes to this city and tells us he
opposes gun control when his own public opinion poll shows
that two out of every three people in his province are in favour of
it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when the Quebec Minister of Finance announced
yesterday that the Quebec government intended to implement a
series of measures to give the province a real policy on
manpower training, he requested that the unemployment
insurance premiums levied in Quebec be reduced, and I quote:
``These premiums are at any rate too high, given that the
unemployment insurance fund is now in a surplus position and
that the federal government is using some of the premiums to
intervene in programs which are in fact our responsibility''.
(1430)
Does the Minister of Finance intend to follow up on his
counterpart's urgent request to reduce the unemployment
insurance contributions of Quebec businesses, which would
prove that he is dedicated to job creation and that the federal
government is moving towards withdrawing from the sector of
manpower training?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of
Quebec's business community clearly indicated at our meetings
with them that they preferred to accumulate a surplus in their
fund to ensure that there will be no need to increase premiums
during the next economic downturn, like what happened during
the last one. Such is our intention. We would certainly like to
reduce them, but we would also like to keep them at that level
once they are reduced.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, are we to understand by the Minister of Finance's
evasive reply that he will continue to skim money from the
unemployment insurance fund, to use the huge surpluses that he
is generating by setting premiums too high to increasingly
interfere in a sector where he has no business being and stifle
Quebec's job creation efforts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my answer
seemed evasive, I will repeat it. It is the members of the business
community in Canada, in Quebec, and in Montreal who asked us
not to lower the premiums, but to create a surplus in the
unemployment insurance fund, because they do not want to have
to increase premiums during the next economic downturn, as
such increases are a real hindrance to job creation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
December 7, 1994, in answer to a question regarding the extent
to which the justice minister had consulted with the provincial
attorneys general on Bill C-68, the justice minister stated in the
House:
Consultation was engaged continuously with officials in the offices of every
provincial and territorial attorneys general, every one of them.
The attorneys general of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Yukon
have flatly denied there was any serious consultation, let alone
continuous consultation.
Will the justice minister explain the enormous contradiction
between his statement to the House and the declarations of these
attorneys general?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the statement that I
made on December 7 was true then and it is true now.
The officials in provincial governments were kept abreast
throughout the process last year. They were told exactly the
proposals that were under consideration. The paper of
November 30 came as no surprise to any of them.
12414
In so far as the province of Alberta is concerned, we already
know from the attorney general's poll in that province that
two-thirds of the people of Alberta support the proposals.
As far as Saskatchewan is concerned, I suggest the hon.
member wait until after the election in that province in June at
which point this will become a lot less significant for that
government.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have a
good idea of what happened in Manitoba where the Liberals lost
50 per cent of their seats.
Aboriginal representatives from Yukon as well as the James
Bay Cree claim a constitutional right to be consulted in the
prescribed manner before the enactment of Bill C-68. Both
groups claim consultation in the prescribed manner never took
place. The James Bay Cree indicate their letters to the justice
minister regarding the matter were never even answered.
How does the minister explain the violation of the
constitutional rights of these aboriginal peoples?
(1435)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, neither the Department
of Justice nor the government has any lessons to learn from the
hon. member with respect to consulting aboriginal people.
During the course of past months I have visited the Inuit in the
Northwest Territories. I have travelled to Yukon. I have been to
the northern parts of every province to speak with aboriginal
communities to learn their concerns and their perspectives on
the issue.
I urge the hon. member to do exactly the same. Let him learn
as I have the perspective of aboriginal communities. He will
learn as I have the appalling fact that firearms are the leading
cause of accidents and death in many of these communities.
We are confident we have complied with every constitutional
obligation for consultation. That consultation continues and it
will.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government is launching a series of pilot projects at
Canada Employment Centres in Quebec. In Jonquière, for
instance, we have one of the first single-wicket operations,
where the federal government wants to control manpower
training by bringing all agencies that provide manpower
training under the aegis of the Canada Employment Centre.
My question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs. Does the minister realize that his government's pilot
project directly contradicts a consensus in Quebec on the need
for transferring manpower training to Quebec, and that this is an
instance of direct provocation aimed at the Quebec government?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
The hon. member should know that the federal government
has co-operated a great deal with the provincial governments
throughout Canada. As a matter of fact, there are proposals
tabled with the provinces that speak to the clarification of the
responsibilities of both the federal and provincial governments
to arrive at the delivery of a more efficient system so that at the
end of the day the people of Canada, whether they live in Quebec
or outside Quebec, can have the best possible service.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs must know that the
most important mechanism in this respect in Quebec is the
Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre.
Would the minister agree that setting up an entirely new federal
manpower network is a clear indication that Ottawa has no
intention of transferring manpower training to Quebec?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member is interested in an intelligent
discussion of the issue, perhaps he should know that Human
Resources Development Canada had approximately 50,000
labour market contracts in Quebec; 9,600 contracts with
non-profit organizations; 9,300 contracts with private sector
firms; and 2,800 contracts with public sector organizations.
The point I am making is that there is a need to deal with these
individuals. At the end of the day Quebecers will realize that
there is a role for the federal government to play in co-operation
with the provinces and local organizations.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of Indian affairs.
Since the minister was instrumental in establishing a modern
agreement with the natives of Yukon, why has he not insisted on
consultation with the justice department in the creation of Bill
C-68?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last September I had
the privilege of visiting the Yukon territory, meeting with
representatives of the Council for Yukon Indians, discussing
with them their perspective on firearms, reviewing the options,
going to communities like Kwanlun Dun outside Whitehorse,
meeting with members of those communities, talking about the
way
12415
firearms are used as tools, talking about community needs and
becoming sensitive to perspectives of the aboriginal
communities on the issues.
That perspective is reflected in Bill C-68. I point out, as the
hon. member will know as a member of the committee that is
considering it, that section 110(t) of Bill C-68 provides
expressly that provision can be made for the manner in which
the bill is implemented in aboriginal communities, including
those in Yukon.
(1440)
That is the kind of approach we think is right to achieve
community safety while respecting the aboriginal perspective.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, he is
talking about something once it becomes law. I guess the real
problem is that big city lawyers do not understand the word
consultation.
According to the agreements consultation must take place
when any legislation may have an impact on hunting and
trapping activities. It seems strange to me that consultation
takes place after the legislation has received second reading.
Is the minister prepared to listen to the recommendations of
Yukon natives who say to stop the proceedings until the proper
procedures are followed?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, September of last year
was some five months before the bill was tabled in the House.
That was consultation before the tabling of legislation.
As far as the point of view of the people of Yukon is
concerned, the committee of which the hon. member is a part is
now listening in detail to the evidence of witnesses. I have no
doubt they will have proposals to make to improve the
legislation, but in the final analysis the government remains
persuaded that the bill, its provisions and its approach, is exactly
what is needed to enhance community safety throughout the
country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Public Works.
In the matter of the cancellation of the contract to purchase
EH-101 helicopters worth nearly $6 billion, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Public Works confirmed in April
that the government was now negotiating with Agusta the
amount of compensation it would have to pay the E.H. Industries
consortium.
Would the minister of public works agree that the government
should stop all negotiations with Agusta and conduct a judicial
investigation into the circumstances around the awarding of the
EH-101 contract, considering the many serious charges of
corruption and misappropriation of funds pending against
Agusta in Europe?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at
least the minister is consistent.
How can the minister justify continuing talks with Agusta
without first investigating the actions of this company as
demanded by the Minister of Human Resources Development in
April 1993? Does his answer mean that the government is
prepared to turn a blind eye and negotiate compensation
payments that may be as much as several hundred million
dollars? What is at the bottom of this?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very briefly, a
contract was consummated. A contract has now been nullified.
We are in the process of negotiating that contract. When it is
complete the House will become aware of its details.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency.
The issue of investment is extremely important to small and
medium size businesses. They may not be interested on that
side, but the issue of investment is extremely important across
Atlantic Canada.
Given recent media coverage of the meeting of the minister
with the four Atlantic premiers and the chartered banks on a
proposed Atlantic investment fund, will the minister now
inform the House on the status of the proposal?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
12416
member for the unexpected question and share with members of
the House that the Atlantic region is the only region of the
country that does not have a venture capital fund.
On behalf of the Government of Canada and the four Atlantic
premiers I met with representatives of the chartered banks. We
had a very comprehensive and detailed discussion on such a
proposed fund as an Atlantic venture capital fund. We assured
representatives of the banks, I on behalf of the Government of
Canada and the premiers on behalf of the provincial
jurisdictions, that in no way would governments want to operate
such a fund as the Atlantic venture capital fund.
As a result a working committee has been struck. It is being
led by the president of ACOA. We are working on a regular basis
with the banks.
(1445 )
I hope in due course I will be able to come back to the House
and provide more details relating to the Atlantic venture capital
fund enhancing opportunities for businesses in Atlantic Canada.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the solicitor general stated that he
could not confirm the assertion that Luke Desilets was recruited
to CSIS to spy on the Aryan nations because he was respecting
the law that was passed by this Parliament.
However, previous solicitors general have publicly identified
Warren Hart, Claude Morin and Marc Boivin as RCMP security
service or CSIS sources. These ministers stated that they were at
liberty to do so because these individuals had identified
themselves as human sources. Luke Desilets also identified
himself as a human source for CSIS.
Will the minister now follow in the tradition of these previous
ministers and confirm that Luke Desilets was a CSIS source?
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we very well know,
the matter is currently being investigated by CSIS. I am not at
liberty to comment on the operations of CSIS.
I should add there is also SIRC which has the mandate to look
into this and possibly make a recommendation to the
government and to the service in relation to this matter as raised
by the opposition member.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the minister, through
the parliamentary secretary, continues to hide behind section 18
of the CSIS Act. If he would read down to section 18, paragraph
2, he would see that Parliament also gave him the authority to
reveal the identity of a source just like his predecessors did.
The solicitor general still appears reluctant to use the power at
his disposal. I ask the parliamentary secretary: Is it the intention
of this government to be even more secretive than the previous
Conservative government?
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, CSIS has a specific
mandate to look into any problems that might arise in so far as it
concerns the security of Canada. This is one allegation we are
looking into. I can assure the hon. member that we have a
process in place. It is working. It has worked in the past and I am
sure it will work in the future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
On November 1, 1991, the Transport ministers of Canada,
Quebec and Ontario announced they would share the cost of a $6
million feasibility study on operating a high speed train similar
to the TGV in the Quebec-Windsor corridor. This study was to
be finished not later than November 1993, and the agreement
between the three governments expired on March 31, 1994.
Since the study has yet to be submitted to the minister, could
he explain why the report has been delayed for more than 16
months and tell us what he is doing or intends to do to put an end
to this unacceptable situation?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. It is a
rather tricky situation. Since three governments are
involved-the Government of Quebec, the Government of
Ontario and the federal government-a consensus among all
three governments is essential before the study is submitted to
the responsible minister and published.
Discussions are continuing to see if we can reach a consensus
on the report. In fact, our deputy minister met his Quebec
counterpart not long go, and the change of ministers in Ontario
may have delayed things as well.
We are still waiting for all three governments to agree so there
will be at least a consensus on the issue.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Minister of
Transport.
Considering the studies he already has, including the joint
study by Quebec and Ontario, why will the minister not at least
take a preliminary position on this high speed train project
which, first of all, would provide us with expertise that would be
eminently exportable; second, would create thousands of jobs,
12417
and third, would be financed to a considerable extent by the
private sector?
(1450)
The Speaker: Hon. members, I will give the minister the
floor but I would like to point out that a question does not have
three or four parts. It is one question. The Minister of Transport.
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to emphasize that we are all anxious to get to the
end of this exercise. It has been a costly one. There have been a
lot of studies. There has been a lot of expense on the parts of the
Government of Ontario, the Government of Quebec and the
Government of Canada.
It would be highly irregular after all the time and effort put
into this by three governments to have the Government of
Canada set out its policy unilaterally. That is one of the things I
hear my hon. friends in the opposition refer to constantly as
being an improper way for the Government of Canada to act.
When we consult and try to arrive at a consensus, it is not
acceptable. When we try to dictate terms, it is not acceptable.
We will just do the best we can to bring this to a conclusion as
quickly as we can.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we have been provided more evidence of how the Liberals go
about giving the impression they are meeting their promises in
the red book.
One of the promises was to cut $10 million from ministerial
offices. We have a document to all ministers from Treasury
Board dated April 27. It states that although current policy
requires that 100 per cent of the costs of regional offices be
charged to ministerial budgets ``indications are that some
departments have been absorbing these charges'', not the
ministerial budget.
Would the President of the Treasury Board tell the House
which departments are engaged in the cooking of the books,
which is illegal according to the Financial Administration Act?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise to the question is all wrong. The
government did cut $10 million from ministerial budgets,
including the office of the Prime Minister. As led by that
commitment, it has made those cuts.
The ministerial regional offices continue to be operated in a
way that is most cost efficient and will be subject to further cost
efficiencies in the future. The minister of public works indicated
the other day that we have closed a number of them already.
They are all being handled in a proper fashion.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is rather ironic that the President of the Treasury Board said
that.
I want to quote again from this document we have. ``The cost
sharing will in effect allow ministers to respend the amount thus
saved. This will result in an increase to the costs of running
ministers' offices''.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Since the
Prime Minister's office provided concurrence on this financial
sleight of hand designed to fool the taxpayers, will the Prime
Minister now come clean and table a full report showing which
ministers' offices are practising these hocus-pocus politics?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again the preamble is all wrong.
These ministerial regional offices are provided not only for
ministers who are resident in the cities in which they are located
but also for visiting ministers to conduct government business.
The Treasury Board continues to examine the operation of these
facilities. It will be making changes to ensure that they continue
as in the past to be operated in the most cost efficient fashion.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the future of
the Newfoundland dockyard. Currently only a few tradespersons
are working at the dry dock, down from 850 last year. Given the
importance of the dockyard to the economy of St. John's will the
minister inform the House about his plans for the dockyard?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question of the dockyards in St. John's is one that
has been discussed very thoroughly.
We have advised the president of Marine Atlantic to look into
the commercialization of all the activities of Marine Atlantic,
including the dockyard at St. John's.
The future of the dockyards at St. John's lies completely in the
hands of the management of Marine Atlantic and especially the
workers at that facility. We lost in excess of $3 million there last
year. We do not intend to have that happen again.
(1455)
Unless we can find a buyer for the dockyards at St. John's or a
better solution than what we have been able to come up with so
far, there will be no alternative but to close it. I hope that will not
be the result of the work we have undertaken there. The board of
directors and the president of Marine Atlantic have been given a
12418
very clear directive that we have to commercialize the activities
of that entire operation. That includes the dockyard at St. John's.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Part III of the
Estimates of the Department of Agriculture provides that, and I
quote: ``Dairy policy is expected to be a focus of analysis in
1995-96 and will cover the impact of the introduction of
recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) in Canada''.
In view of the fact that available studies appear not to contain
sufficient information to permit the marketing of the hormone
and that the Department of Health has not announced any change
in this regard, how does the minister explain the hormone's
expected arrival on the scene this year?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is
perhaps misinterpreting that particular phrase used in part III of
the estimates.
Obviously the issue of RBST use in Canada is under
investigation at the present time in two different forums. One is
the established legal regulatory forum which is under the
jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Health. As I
understand it the appropriate officials in the Department of
Health have not yet arrived at any determination as to what some
future decision may or may not be with respect to RBST use in
Canada.
Last year a second analysis was undertaken quite apart and
independent from the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department
of Health. That study was initiated by the agriculture committee
of the House of Commons. It held public hearings and made a
number of recommendations, including the proposal that
whatever the regulatory decision of the Department of Health
might turn out to be that at least for a one-year period the
potential use of RBST in Canada ought to be delayed.
Some hon. members: Time.
Mr. Goodale: We negotiated that delay with the companies.
A task force has been analysing a variety of questions in the
meantime. That task force report has been submitted to me. I
have provided a copy of the task force report-
Some hon. members: Order.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George-Peace
River.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am in receipt of a letter sent to the minister of Indian
affairs on March 21 by members of the Yellow Quill band in
Saskatchewan. In it there are serious allegations regarding the
misuse of band assets, capital project funding and housing
moneys. As of February 14 the band was running a $2 million
deficit. Band members have called upon the minister to uphold
his fiduciary obligation and make their chief and council
account for all spending.
The minister has had this letter for a month and a half and his
officials have known about this problem for much longer. What
has the minister done about it?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of Indian affairs I
will take the question under advisement.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
As he will know, under Bill C-76 the Canada social transfer
section clearly is a fundamental restructuring of Canada and of
our national health care and social programs. A United Nations
committee has expressed concern. I do not believe that
anywhere in the very much mentioned Liberal red book was it
suggested to the Canadian public that we would fundamentally
adopt a Reform Party policy in transferring these programs to
the provinces.
Given the fundamental restructuring that this section on the
Canadian social transfer represents, would he appoint an
independent commission? We have done this in the past with the
Hall commission and the Macdonald commission. It could study
this particular section and come back truly with an independent
view of what this means for the future of Canada.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has already
happened a couple of times today, the premise of the question is
absolutely wrong.
The fact is that the CHST enables the federal government
along with the provincial governments to maintain in place a
sustainable and highly progressive set of social programs.
12419
(1500 )
The Canadian health and social transfer enables the federal
government to keep its covenant with Canadians that there will
be no residency requirement for welfare and its even greater
covenant that the principles of the Canada Health Act will never
be taken away from us.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Throughout
its history Canada has benefited from periodic infusions of
capital investment from countries across the globe. In recent
years however, foreign investors have viewed Canadian markets
with some reluctance.
Can the minister inform the House what is being done to
improve the attractiveness of Canada to foreign investors?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the
question is dead on.
It is very important for Canada to maintain a good climate for
investment. That means a sound balance sheet. That is why we
are so pleased the budget of last February was so well received
by the international markets and by Canadians.
At the same time we have to recognize that as a low inflation
country for which we paid a very dear penalty we must maintain
the tremendous asset of low inflation and very high productivity
of our workforce.
We must congratulate the Minister of Human Resources
Development for this transition from passive to active support.
The new industrial policy is trade policy with the trade mission
of the Prime Minister. I would congratulate my colleague the
Minister for International for International Trade.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I wish to draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of a Canadian ski legend. She was a gold
and silver medalist in the 1968 Winter Olympics in Grenoble,
France.
Nancy Greene-Raine, you honour this House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
12419
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
42 petitions.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as deputy chair of the Canadian Group,
Inter-Parliamentary Union, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I
have the honour to present to the House, in both official
languages, the report of the Canadian Group,
Inter-Parliamentary Union.
This is the report of Canada's official delegation to the 93rd
Inter-Parliament Conference held in Madrid, Spain, from
March 27 to April 1, 1995.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 76th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order
92.
Those items are Bill S-7 in the name of the hon. member for
Brant; Bill C-316, the hon. member for Cambridge; Bill C-319,
the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest; Bill C-267, the hon.
member for Québec; Motion No. 382, the hon. member for
Mississauga South and Motion No. 381, the hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan.
This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
While I am on my feet I also have the pleasure to present the
77th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs.
[Translation]
It is about the form used in the Journals of the House of
Commons for the Speaker's tabling of supply bills for royal
assent.
12420
(1505)
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am submitting two petitions
signed by over 500 people from my riding and from
neighbouring regions.
Given that seniors are generally at a loss when faced with
voice mail technology, and considering that they need
personalized service, especially regarding their enquiries on
guaranteed income, these petitioners demand that the
government suspend implementation of voice mail for seniors'
services and maintain the personalized services that they so
require, as the Bloc Quebecois has already demanded several
times.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have 15 petitions.
The first five petitions contain 324 signatures. The petitioners
pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the
unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
next five petitions contain 456 signatures.
The petitioners pray that Parliament not repeal or amend
section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way to uphold the
Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to
disallow suicide and euthanasia.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
final five petitions contain 475 signatures.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and
freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that
has been circulating across Canada.
This particular petition has been signed by a number of
petitioners from the Lethbridge, Alberta area. The petitioners
would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families that make the choice to provide care in the home to
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the
aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families that decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions that I am pleased to present in the
House today on behalf of the constituents of Yorkton-Melville.
The petitioners state that Canadians are already overburdened
with taxation due to high government spending. As the
Saskatchewan government is on the verge of balancing its
budget, allowing Saskatchewan taxpayers to see the light at the
end of the tunnel, the petitioners request that Parliament reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes.
Those who signed these petitions urge the government to
please consider this.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another 52 petitions which are all very similar.
They are signed by over 1,200 people from the provinces of
Ontario and Saskatchewan, including my riding of
Yorkton-Melville.
All the people who signed these petitions are concerned about
the public safety of all Canadians and feel that the existing
controls on law-abiding, responsible firearms' owners are more
than enough to ensure that safety.
They therefore call on Parliament to support laws that will
severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the
commission of a crime, to support new Criminal Code firearms
control provisions that recognize and protect the right of
law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, and
to support legislation that would repeal or modify existing gun
control laws which have not improved public safety or have
proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly
complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.
(1510 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise again to present another petition in this course of action
undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early
release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
12421
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving
the full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present to the House petitions from my
constituents of Langley and Abbotsford, British Columbia.
The first petition asks Parliament to ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
change in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition asks that Parliament not amend the human
rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of
rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36, I would like to present two
petitions from the residents of my constituency.
The first petition is from residents of the Caslan-Boyle area.
The petitioners ask that Parliament achieve a balanced budget
through reductions in government spending rather than tax
increases.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from residents of the community of
Athabasca.
The petitioners ask that Parliament not amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval for same sex
relationships or homosexuality, including amending the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual
orientation.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present two petitions dealing with the
firearms legislation, one with wording very similar to that of the
petition presented by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.
The second petition calls on Parliament not to accept the
justice minister's anti-firearms proposal and insists that he
instead bring forward legislation to convict and punish
criminals rather than the innocent.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a third petition to present, again from the
residents of Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
The petitioners call on the government to reduce government
spending instead of increasing taxes.
I trust all members will keep that in mind when we vote this
afternoon.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour to present three petitions today.
Two of the petitions ask Parliament that in light of the
murders of Melanie Carpenter, Pamela Cameron, Jesse Cadman
and many others, to make the following changes in the criminal
justice system: to rescind the mandatory release legislation
where violent offenders are involved; to ensure all information
about violent offenders, including prior offences and refusal to
enrol in treatment programs is provided to those making
decisions on release of parole; and to separate violent offenders
from society until it can be proven they will not reoffend.
I concur with the petition.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition is signed by 68 residents of Surrey
and the surrounding area.
The petitioners request that Parliament reject the justice
minister's gun control proposal and call on the minister instead
to bring forward proposals which will enable the police and the
courts to deal quickly and firmly with perpetrators of violent
crimes of all types.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, questions Nos. 162 and 165 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 162-Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre):
What was the cost of the advertisement placed by the FBDB on pages 80 and
81 of the December 5, 1994, issue of MacLean's magazine, what are the criteria
for the purchase of advertising by the FBDB, and how much money was spent
on (a) magazine, (b) newspaper, (c) radio, and (d) television advertising by the
FBDB in each year since 1988?
12422
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): There was
no Federal Business Development Bank (FBDB) advertisement
placed on pages 80 and 81 of the December 5, 1994 edition of
Maclean's.
FBDB placed an advertisement on page 49 of the November
28 edition and on page 101 of the November 14 edition. Both
were part of FBDB's national advertising campaign. The
November 28 advertisement was free, i.e., at not cost to the
FBDB.
The regular price for an advertisement like the one full page,
four colour, that appeared in the November 14 edition of
Maclean's is $27,480. The actual cost to FBDB for that ad was
$23,076, representing 19 per cent off the regular price.
It should be noted that FBDB advertising is entirely paid for
by the bank, which operates on a full cost-recovery basis in its
financial services.
In its last examination report to the FBDB 1993, the office of
the auditor general noted that the bank lacked comprehensive
plans for marketing its services. To address this concern and
achieve its objectives related to the complementary lender role
of the bank, the bank seeks the expertise of external experts to
develop, co-ordinate and implement national advertising
campaigns, in order to maximize its impact with target
audiences and minimize its costs.
Therefore, the purpose of FBDB advertising is to accurately
and timely inform as many small and medium sized businesses
as possible and potential entrepreneurs of the availability and
nature of the innovative financing and management products
and services offered by FBDB.
FBDB national advertising is limited to print, media, such as
magazines and newspapers. FBDB does not advertise on a
national basis on radio or television.
A smaller annual budget is allocated to each of the bank's 78
branches nation wide for the placement of local advertising in
their community. Branch managers typically use the most
effective local print media for reaching small and medium sized
businesses and promoting local financing and management
services programs offered by the bank. Exceptionally, a very
small proportion of local radio advertising may be used. No
television is used.
As mentioned, there is no national advertising on radio and
television and only print media are used. A specific breakdown,
along the categories listed above, is not recorded. Total amounts
spent during past fiscal years since 1988 are as follows:
![](/web/20061117183420im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1988x02_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117183420im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1988x02_r1.gif)
Total amounts spent for fiscal year 1995 are not yet available.
Question No. 165-Mr. Hanger:
What were the acceptance versus rejection rates of each of the Immigration
and Refugee Board regional hearing offices in December 1994 and January 1995
versus the same period a year earlier?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.):
![](/web/20061117183420im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1981401_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117183420im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1981401_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117183420im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1981401_r2.gif)
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I would ask that all remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On April
26, 1994 I submitted Question No. 40 on the Order Paper
regarding government grants to businesses. I asked for an
answer within 45 days.
12423
I will ask again. When will the government please give me
an answer to this question?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the government has been working
assiduously on trying to get a response to the hon. member's
question.
(1515 )
In fairness to the government-and I acknowledge that the
delay has been significant in this case-the hon. member must
be aware that the question asks for information from every
government department. There has been real difficulty trying to
determine which grants made to persons are grants to
businesses. In the sense of the hon. member's question, he asks
for grants to businesses. It is often difficult for departments to
tell if a grant to an individual was a grant to that person's
business or to the individual.
Given the complexity of the question and the numerous
departments that have to be canvassed, the hon. member will
have to exercise his usual patience and wait until the
government gets the answer together.
* * *
The Deputy Speaker: I should inform the House that earlier
today the only notice of motion for the production of papers on
the Order Paper was withdrawn.
(Motion withdrawn)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.) moved that the ways and means
motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act tabled in
the House on April 25, 1995, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 212)
YEAS
Members
Allmand
Arseneault
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Hickey
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Young -119
12424
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Chatters
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Fillion
Frazer
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
Meredith
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Williams-64
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bachand
Baker
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Caccia
Caron
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dubé
Finlay
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Guay
Harvard
Hubbard
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacDonald
Marchand
O'Brien
Plamondon
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Tobin
(1525)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, sorry, I was
unavoidably detained when the question was put talking about
the government's lack of integrity with the press.
12424
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 9, 1995, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the
continuation of a certain provision, be read the second time and
referred to a committee and on the motion that the question be
now put.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I
understand that probably the standing orders were not broken by
the fact that we held a vote without a 30-minute bell. However, I
am concerned that a precedent is being set that is not wise. There
was not all party agreement that we suspend the normal
30-minute bell. It does make it difficult to keep members here
and to allow them to exercise their franchise in the proper
manner.
I urge that the House be a little more considerate about
rushing the vote on some of these matters.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member, who is
a very experienced member now, knows the rules of the House.
The timing of the bells for any vote is governed by mutual
agreement of the two whips who take the vote at the time,
namely the chief government whip and the chief opposition
whip. That is clearly in our standing orders. I am sure all hon.
members, particularly someone who holds the position of House
leader, know that.
The Deputy Speaker: Points were made on both sides. All
members know what the rules provide, as was indicated by the
government whip. If we are to have an atmosphere of better
cordiality in this Parliament than in the last Parliament, I would
hope that in the future the whips of the government and the
official opposition would indicate to the House leader of the
Reform Party that there will not be a bell held after the vote. I
would hope that all members would respect one another on that
issue.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the courtesy call was
extended to the members yesterday. What the Speaker has
indicated as advice was followed, even though there was no
requirement in the rules of the House. That courtesy was
extended because we are a very courteous government.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, there were some discussions
yesterday. There was some indication that there may or may not
be a 30-minute bell, a 15-minute bell, or an immediate
walkdown. Some of us were left to believe that there might be a
period of waiting, perhaps 15 minutes, before we would come in
and vote. That was not clearly communicated to my caucus. That
12425
is why I am concerned about a precedent being set. It does not
provide an atmosphere where we can work co-operatively
together.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose has
two minutes left in his intervention.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
spend the last two minutes repeating some of the things I said
yesterday.
The main reason I will be voting against this bill is because I
want to represent the people in my riding. It is difficult for
people across the way to understand that, but the people in my
riding say there should be no more gold plated pensions. They
would like to see a pension but they would like it to be the same
as what they have to accept in the private sector. That is
completely fair.
(1530)
Although I cannot represent other people I have spoken in
about 37 ridings, most of which are Liberal ridings. I would like
to express on behalf of the people in those ridings that they too
would like to see their members opt out of these types of pension
plans. However they know that it will not happen. There happens
to be a little problem. Possibly it is greed.
I want to make sure the government will hear the people when
they ask for a plan to be provided that is compatible with the
private sector. The government should consider establishing a
separate group, a third party of the citizenry. Let the employers
decide what they should pay in the way of pensions, salaries, and
a few other things.
The Reform Party is prepared to do that. If Bloc members and
the Liberals would like to come aboard, we could select people
from the private sector and meet together to determine what we
should receive in the way of pay, pensions and so on. We would
certainly go along with the idea and I would accept whatever
they decide.
As a reminder to the Liberals, especially to my friend from
Kingston who seems to have forgotten, he works for the people
of Kingston. They do not work for him. Let them set the salary
and the pension. That is the fair way of doing it.
As leaders let us set the example. Everyone in the country is
required to tighten their belts, to do more with less. For heaven's
sake, the least we can do is set the example by refusing the
pension. We could set examples in a lot of other ways as well.
We could cut totally unnecessary trips to Asia, Africa, Europe
and all over the world. It would result in a saving of $1.8
million, which would help meet the needs of many people in the
country who are suffering for one reason or another.
There are many things to consider. Take a look at my frame. It
crawls into an economy seat every time I get on a plane. If you
think that is fun, trade sizes for a day and I will let you try it. It is
a sacrifice to do it and I do not mind. I will continue to do it.
All of us need to sit back and realize that we are asking
Canadians to help us solve the problem created by the
politicians of the past in terms of the country's debt and deficits.
Let us get our act together, think of our future, think of the
children we are raising and think of our grandchildren. Let us act
like statesmen and forget the politics and the silliness.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to speak to Bill C-85, an
act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances
Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision.
Bill C-85, which will amend the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act, has been touted by the Prime Minister
as a great pension reform package that members of Parliament
deserve because they are so underpaid.
If anything raises the ire of Canadians, it is the scandalously
generous pension provisions given to members of Parliament.
Even more disturbing is the attempt to conceal from the public
just how rich the pension plan remains even after the proposed
changes.
The government reports in the public accounts, part II, how
much MPs spend on office expenditures, travel and their
salaries. It is very interesting to note they refuse to tell the
public how much the members of Parliament pension scheme
costs.
A former Liberal member introduced a private member's bill
which would allow the auditor general to report more frequently
so that waste and mistakes would be more readily exposed. This
process would open the operations of government to closer
scrutiny by Parliament on behalf of the people. What happened?
The government said: ``No way. We do not want closer scrutiny.
We do not want the public to know what is really happening with
their money''. Then it gave the hon. member a pat on the back
and sent him to the other place.
Regrettably, the cost of the members of Parliament pension is
not readily available to anyone.
(1535 )
Even though this new law will reduce the accrual rate for
benefits by 1 per cent, that is from 5 per cent to 4 per cent, it still
remains double the rate found in registered plans in the private
sector. There will be provisions for full inflation compensation
whereas 78.3 per cent of private sector pensions have no
automatic adjustment for inflation.
Furthermore, the members of Parliament pension account
earns a generous 10 per cent interest so the costs attributed to the
plan are effectively lowered. Yet MPs who choose to accept the
one-time offer to opt out of the plan will be paid only 4 per cent
on their contributions.
It is there but little is said about the higher rate of pensions for
MPs leaving office with more than six years service. Even if this
12426
group were to opt out of the plan, they will be paid their pension
for the period prior to October 1993 under the conditions of the
old pension plan.
Further bringing the new plan into question, MPs elected in
the next Parliament will be required to participate in the pension
plan. There will be no future open ended choice to say no to the
gravy train. Why is the option to choose not to participate in the
plan closed off at this time?
Fifty-two Reform members of Parliament have forced this
issue of pension reform, but the government's presented reforms
are really an insult to Canadians. Until the government changes
the retirement compensation account, the account the
government and previous governments have used to pay benefits
greater than those allowed under a registered pension plan
provided for by the Income Tax Act, Reformers and some other
principal members of Parliament refuse to be part of the charade
and deception. We are not willing to ask Canadians to pay for
this pension windfall.
Right now, after only 10 years, members of Parliament can
receive a pension worth half their salary. Anyone else would
have to work and contribute to their pension plan for at least 25
years to achieve this and for most, without inflation protection.
Also under the new plan taxpayers still pay $3.60 for every $1
the member of Parliament pays into his or her retirement
pension. As a comparison, federal public servants are matched
dollar for dollar, a ratio often seen in the private sector as well.
The report by Sobeco, Ernst and Young suggested that pension
benefits be limited to retirees who are at least 60 years of age,
but the Prime Minister said members of Parliament have earned
this pension even after only six years. Granted, for members
who came into this House after October 1993, the new law
would set eligibility at a minimum age of 55 for benefits accrued
after this bill becomes law. Five more years to age 60 was too
long to wait. The outside packaging looks okay, but if we open it
up the box is empty.
Reformers do not need to hire consultants to tell them that the
members of Parliament pension should be reined in, just listen
to the ordinary working people of all ages and income ranges.
They have told government what they think, yet the government
seems unwilling to listen to Canadian citizens. It studied the
issue and studied the issue, all the while taunting us with a
carrot, promising real change.
We know the amendments are a done deal. The Liberals have
the numbers in government to do what they want, but the one
thing they can be sure of is that this issue will not go away. It will
still be an election issue next time around so they will still have
to answer to the voters.
A number of hon. government members have pointed their
fingers this way and made allegations that some Reform
members are double dipping. We on this side of the House have
made it clear that we object to double dipping. We recognize that
Bill C-85 attempts to remove double dipping practices and we
commend the government for its move in this aspect.
Former members of Parliament who were given political
appointments to work at another federal job should not draw pay
for that job while continuing to draw their MP pensions. Private
sector workers must earn their pensions by working 25 or more
years before they are able to collect benefits. Again I point out
some members of Parliament need only have served six years to
collect these generous packages.
Individuals in the private sector who have earned and are
collecting pensions can and do take other employment while
continuing to collect their pensions. After all, they have had to
win the job they occupy; it is not given to them as a patronage
payoff. In this aspect, I had to win this job by convincing the
voters of my constituency that I was their best choice to
represent them here in Parliament.
(1540 )
Liberals are quick to point out that some Reform members,
myself included, collect military pensions while at the same
time earning salaries as members of Parliament. I collect an
annuity for more than 36 years service in the Royal Canadian Air
Force and the Canadian Armed Forces. I paid into that
superannuation account with matching government
contributions for 35 of those 36 years. Benefits accrued at 2 per
cent per year, which is the normal rate for pension plans in the
private sector.
The annuity I draw comes from a superannuation fund paid
into by former and present members of the RCAF and Canadian
Armed Forces over many years. That fund currently stands at
just under $30 billion so the notion that my annuity is a gift out
of the taxpayer's pocket is simply untrue. My annuity has been
fully paid for and hon. members should be aware of that. Some
of my colleagues also earn pensions and for many years made
contributions to their pension plans.
What some government members are trying to do is compare
apples and oranges. These pensions are a far cry from the
generous pensions doled out to former members of Parliament
who receive appointments to serve on various government
boards or commissions.
Canada is among the world's most generous countries when it
comes to members of Parliament pensions. There is no other
country in the world which pays parliamentarians a pension
after serving only six years in office, with no minimum age to
retire.
In December 1993 the leader of the Reform Party wrote to the
Prime Minister saying:
12427
Reform MPs sincerely believe that the credibility of Parliament in dealing with
the financial crisis facing the federal government will be increased if every
parliamentary caucus reviews the MPs' pension, pay and perks package and
agrees to significant reductions.
By doing so, the 35th Parliament can increase its moral authority to appeal to
other Canadians to make the sacrifices necessary to permit a balancing of the
federal budget.
In Bill C-85 government has fallen sorely short of achieving
appropriate and necessary member of Parliament pension
reforms. Surely it should reconsider.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
remind Canadians watching the debate today that we are
discussing the acceptability of the proposed pension for
members of Parliament. As they are probably aware, the Liberal
government introduced some changes to the former pension
system. The changes have been set out in great detail in a
number of speeches today and I am not proposing to repeat
them.
The issue is very simple. Is the proposed plan fair and
reasonable? Is what is being proposed as a pension for members
of Parliament fair and reasonable? The answer is very clear. No,
it is not fair and reasonable. There are a number of reasons for
this.
My colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands and a number of
other colleagues have set out the reasons yet again. It is very
clear that what is proposed is not fair and reasonable. There are
three areas in which the plan is not fair and reasonable.
It is incredibly rich. It allows a level of pension that is illegal
for any other Canadian. If any other institution or organization
proposed to give its employees this kind of a pension it would be
prosecuted. It is flatly illegal. Somehow the richness for
members of Parliament is okay. The lawmakers can have
different rules. It simply flies in the face of what is right and
what is just.
It is an inequitable system. No other Canadians in the country
could ever expect to have this kind of a pension plan, yet to a
very large degree those self same Canadians will have to pay for
the pension plan that is being proposed.
A constituent phoned my office yesterday and said that he had
worked for a major oil company for 30 years. He said his
pension was not any better alongside an MP who has worked
only six years. He wondered how that could be, and he had to pay
for it.
It is clearly inequitable for lawmakers to have a pension and
benefits that are unavailable to any other Canadian. These
benefits are fully indexed. There are virtually no other pension
plans available anywhere in the country that are tied to the level
of inflation. Yet lawmakers feel they are entitled to that. This is
not a fair and reasonable plan.
(1545)
The sad thing about this is that the people who have to pay the
shot for this plan have no say in how the plan is structured. In
any other plan, most or at least half of the benefits are paid for by
the person receiving them. In this particular plan the people
receiving the benefits pay one-fifth or one-sixth of the benefits
they will eventually receive. The people who have to pay the
lion's share in this plan have no voice in the negotiations
whatsoever, except what we might choose to give them.
My friends in the Bloc would say it is very bad labour
relations when one party simply sets down the benefits they
expect to take and the other side has to pay them. That is clearly
inequitable and unreasonable.
In spite of the fact that this plan is not fair and reasonable, the
Liberals go through a song and dance saying that yes it is. We
should examine those arguments because as Canadians we need
to judge whether or not this is a good and fair piece of
legislation. Reformers are saying loudly that it is not. I have
given some of the reasons and my colleagues have given more.
Let us see what the Liberals are saying. The first thing they
say is: ``At least we did something''. For those who might be
watching these debates and who are students of political
science, they might see this as a very interesting and excellent
example of spin doctoring, of how a clearly untenable and
indefensible proposal by a government is put forward as being
equitable and defensible.
First the Liberals say: ``At least we did something. We made
some cutbacks. We made some changes. We brought in reform''.
I might add this was thanks to Reform members who have kept
raising this issue over and over in the House. I dare say the
Liberals would have been quite happy to forget it if we had not
pushed them to the mat and said: ``You must do something about
this MP pension plan. Canadians simply will not stand for it to
be left as it is''.
The second thing they say is: ``We never promised to do
anything more than this. We have done everything we said we
would do''. I suggest the real issue is whether it was the right
thing to do. Is that not what we are here for, to do the right thing?
Or are we here to do the least thing possible so we can say we did
something? I think Canadians should judge.
Then there was a very interesting argument brought up by the
President of the Treasury Board. He said that they were doing
this because they care about their families and the people who
are saying this is not a good plan should really think about
whether they really care about their families. All Canadians care
very much about their families, particularly the Canadians who
are going to have to pay the shot for this pension plan that will
benefit the families of a very few. It is the families of Canadians
12428
and Canadians themselves and fairness for all that we should
thinking about, not just ourselves and our families.
I find it rather remarkable that somehow a plan that is unfair,
greedy and beyond what any other Canadian family could ever
hope for is excused and justified on the basis that we care about
our families. I do not think so.
Then the argument is brought up that almost half of the MPs
do not qualify for a pension anyway. So? We are talking about
the people who do qualify for a pension. Is the pension for those
who do qualify fair and reasonable? The answer is no.
Then the President of the Treasury Board brought up studies
that propose MPs should earn more. The President of the
Treasury Board said that we do not dare do that; we do not dare
follow the recommendations of those studies. What he actually
said was interesting if one follows political speak.
(1550 )
He said that it is not functionally possible at this time. Then he
suggests it is okay to stay unreasonable on the pension side
because we cannot do anything about the other
recommendations. I do not think that two wrongs make a right in
the minds of Canadians. Reform is against increasing either the
salary or letting the pension stay unreasonable, particularly in
light of the fact that the country is not living within its means.
The next argument is interesting, which is the great sacrifice
MPs make to serve the public good. Being an MP I can say there
is some sacrifice involved, although I do not notice any shortage
of people willing and able to make that sacrifice. There are
literally millions of Canadians who make sacrifices to serve the
public good.
This week in the House we rose in a standing ovation to
acknowledge and show appreciation for the Canadians who
made the ultimate sacrifice. They went overseas and had the roar
of guns in their ears. They suffered the separation from their
loved ones, fear for their lives, danger and injury for an
unlimited period of time. They made a sacrifice.
What about the people in the private sector who go all over the
world to pursue trade opportunities on behalf of their
companies, suffering from jet lag and all of the deprivations of
travel? What about the millions of Canadians who sacrifice in
both their personal and professional lives to give care and
guidance to their children?
Sacrifice is a part of life. For MPs in the House to say we are
making a sacrifice and therefore we should be given special
consideration is ludicrous. It will not wash with Canadians.
It might be interesting for members of the House to know
about a survey I have been doing in my riding. I asked whether
they supported MPs receiving the benefits outlined in the
information I gave them. Eighty-seven per cent answered no.
Question: Do you agree with your MP's decision to opt out of the
MP pension plan and provide for her own retirement through a
personal RRSP governed by the same guidelines as all other
Canadians? Answer yes: 88.7 per cent. Question: Do you think
MP pension benefits should be reduced retroactively to reflect
Canada's current fiscal situation? Answer yes: 87 per cent.
It is very clear that Canadians are fed up with politicians who
say one thing and do another, who decry any suggestion of a two
tier health care system. They bleed from every pore at the mere
suggestion, but a two tier pension system that benefits them is
just fine.
It is time we showed some leadership in the House and put our
money where our mouth is. Reformers are prepared to do that. I
challenge government members to show that we want to do what
is right and fair for the country and we want to be on an equal
playing field with the citizens of this country. We are prepared to
do that in the matter of the pension plan.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my colleague who just spoke. That was
well said. I hope hon. members on the other side were listening.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This
is a serious matter. We do not have a quorum and that concerns
me.
The Deputy Speaker: There does not appear to be a quorum.
Call in the members.
(1555 )
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: There is now a quorum. Resuming
debate.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, when Europeans first came to
Canada everyone had such a short life expectancy and society as
a whole was so poor that people basically worked hard from
childhood until they died. Some third world nations are still like
that, but the industrialized world has made enough advances in
public health and medicine that diseases which used to claim
huge numbers of people have been either controlled or
eliminated in developed countries.
We generally expect to live long and healthy lives. For
example, as of 1992 the Canadian life expectancy for women
was 81.2 years while some say that we overworked men
nevertheless manage to survive for an expected span of 74.9
years.
In addition to improved health, there are other major
achievements of developed countries. We generate sufficient
wealth so that both our children and our seniors no longer need
to be involved in the direct production of wealth. We provide
free public education for our young people at least to the age of
16.
12429
We pride ourselves on the fact that child labour is a thing of the
past in our modern industrialized world.
At the other end of life, industrialized nations also provide a
special time when the wealth of society allows the elderly to be
free from the need to produce more wealth. For Canadians age
65 and older, advances in medicine and improved nutrition have
also made it possible for them to enjoy improved health and
independence.
I had the opportunity last week to drop in at the beautiful
lakeside community of Sorrento in my riding of
Okanagan-Shuswap. The 220 members of their old age
pensioners branch had raised enough money with no
government grants of any kind to build a 30 by 60 foot addition
to their original meeting place so that they could have room to
enjoy such things as carpet bowling, snooker and darts. They
also did the majority of the physical work themselves, erecting
the walls and rafters.
Some of these seniors I am speaking of are in their 80s. I was
impressed not only with their energy but the enthusiasm they
showed and the sincere concern they had for Canada. The
seniors told me they are also concerned about whether Canada
can continue to provide pensions on which they all depend
because of excessive government spending, such as the gold
plated MP pension plans.
Of course some of these seniors have been thrifty and
fortunate enough to own their own homes which keeps their
monthly expenses down. Some seniors receive cheques from
company pension plans or interest payments from their life
savings, but many live on nationally funded pensions.
Low income seniors, especially elderly widows, tell me they
have great worries about adequate housing, health care, home
care after hospitalization, and public transportation.
Nevertheless overall this is a generation of people who lived
through the great depression. They know how to make do as they
say, meaning that they can get by on very little without
complaining.
For example, the monthly maximum payment this quarter for
single seniors receiving old age security and the government's
income supplement is $850 a month. For married seniors both of
whom are over age 65, the monthly maximum payment this
quarter from the federal pension and income supplement
combined is $689 a month each. In other words, senior couples
are living on less than $1,400 per month or $16,542 per year
from which they must also pay taxes.
Nationally, StatsCan set the low income cut off at a point
where more than 54.7 per cent of income is required to pay for
food, shelter and clothing. In rural areas, for 1993 the low
income cut off for families of two was $14,238. For small towns,
the level was $16,329. Therefore it is only in rural parts of
Canada that seniors living on OAS and GIS escape poverty. The
majority of Canadians live in cities. The low income cut off for a
family of two shoots up to $20,603 in cities like Vancouver,
Toronto and Montreal. Remember, married seniors get $4,000
less than that.
(1600 )
I want to contrast the pensions of those average Canadian
seniors with members of Parliament, who have been in the
remarkable position of being able to pass the very law that
determines how much pension they will receive. How would
reasonable MPs decide on their pensions? Would they look at
what is done in other countries? For example, in the United
Kingdom parliamentarians contribute 6 per cent of their salaries
and are eligible for pension after 55 when age plus years of
service equal 80. The United States congressmen contribute 1.3
per cent and can qualify at age 50 with 20 years service.
Obviously Canadian MPs ignored those standards, both for the
present pensions and their so-called reforms.
Bill C-85 at long last proposes to reform MPs' pensions so
that they cannot qualify until age 55. It also ends double
dipping. For both these improvements I congratulate the
government. However, these were merely two small baby steps
toward badly needed major strides that should have been
performed in reforming MPs' pensions in this country.
Our goal should be nothing other than a pension plan similar
to those allowed to everyday Canadian seniors. For them the
Income Tax Act continues to set a 6 per cent limit on pension
contributions. However, under Bill C-85 MPs' pension
contributions will only drop from the present 11 per cent to 9 per
cent. It is still 50 per cent higher than allowed for the private
sector and it is still costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
Another point I wish to raise concerns the opting out
possibility. The entire pension plan should be significantly
reformed so that no MP in good conscience would see any need
to opt out. Without those complete down to earth reforms to the
MPs' pension plan, every newly elected member of Parliament
must have the option to turn down the pension plan, which
through Bill C-85 has merely gone from being solid gold to
being gold-plated. In my opinion, even after passage of Bill
C-85 MPs' pensions will remain a national disgrace.
When the Liberals were elected the Canadian people accepted
them as they would at a wedding. They looked at them as either
the bride or the groom. They gave them the ring to run this
country. Unfortunately, since then, through acts such as this
piddling around with the MPs' pension plan, I am afraid the
Liberal government has given the Canadian public the finger.
We do not have to delve too deeply to see what it is costing the
Canadian public today to keep what these MPs seem to say is
12430
their right. Does any member of Parliament think that the only
reason he came to this place was in order to get a pension and his
only way of being paid back is through that pension? I would
like to know what their commitment to Canada is. I find it hard
to accept that there is anyone in this House who would use that.
I hear nothing from the other side with regard to this debate. I
have yet to hear anyone on the other side stand up to address this.
I find this strange. Are they afraid the Canadian public would
not listen to what they say, or if it did listen it would want to turf
them out? I think it is probably the latter. Hopefully I am wrong.
I would sincerely like to see a member from the other side rise
and speak to this issue. The Canadian public would also like to
hear them speak to this issue. We have had only smoke and
mirrors from the other side with respect to this. Perhaps it is
time they clear the smoke away and tell us exactly what they
have done to reform the MPs' pension plan and what the cost
will now be to the Canadian taxpayers, who perceive the MPs as
living off them like parasites.
It is sad to say that in this country we have fallen that badly.
The obligation should be for someone from the government side
to stand up and support their own pension scheme. If they would
go out and talk to seniors and see how much they have
contributed to the country, with no guarantees, they would be
really surprised. Maybe we should be a little ashamed of what
we have allowed to happen in this country.
(1605)
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to put some perspective on the
controversy. I will end with a demand for greater openness in the
process of setting the compensation for members of Parliament.
In economics, one of the most difficult problems we have is to
explain the relative wages of people in different occupations.
Why does a dishwasher earn typically only the minimum wage?
Why do miners earn considerably more than that? What should
be the right pay for teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, and MPs?
Who knows?
In economics we have some answers. One side explains that
generally compensation for workers is higher where greater
skill and training are required. People who go to occupations
that require only high school graduation will typically get a
lower level of pay than those who had to graduate from
university. Certainly those in graduate and medical school
occupations make more than those with lower educations. I
think this is a widely accepted principle. There is no problem
with fairness. That is generally accepted in society.
Also accepted in society, and the data show that this can be
verified, is that the riskier a job, risks like illness and accident,
the higher should be the pay. The greater the discomfort, if you
have to work in the middle of the night or in a dirty environment,
then pay tends to be higher than when it is in a pleasant
environment.
Generally these elements are verified by empirical studies.
Yet even at a time when there was no government to appeal to
there were differences in wages, which could not be explained
by these factors alone. Economists know a structure of wages of
different-
The Deputy Speaker: Point of order, the hon. member for Elk
Island.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, the member for Capilano-Howe
Sound has very important things to say and I think there should
be more than two Liberals present to hear it. I call quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: I will ask the clerk to count the
members present.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: We have a quorum.
The interval does not come off the member's time.
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to put some
perspective on the debate about pensions by suggesting that
what has happened in Canada and many other democracies is we
do not have a transparent system.
In free markets, when there is no government to step in
constantly and listen to people about their unhappiness about
their wages, there is a very important equilibrium achieved in
markets. Individuals under their own free will can walk up to
someone and say they would like to work as a cook, as a miner,
or whatever it is, and he or she gets employed. They are
obviously better off than with anything else they would have
done. They are happy. They have had a decision. They have
maximized their welfare.
(1610)
One can imagine that in a world like that, without any
government, we can develop a situation where there are just the
number of cooks who want to work at the wage that is being
offered them to be cooks. There are just the number of nurses.
There will be neither people who are looking for jobs nor will
there be shortages. The wages that come out of such a
competitive system may be interpreted as being efficient and in
some sense representing the best distribution of wages our
society can arrive at.
We all know that especially in the post-war years
governments have taken it upon themselves to correct the
outcome of the market. We have opened our ears as members of
Parliament
12431
to people who do not like the structure that has come from a free
market where people under complete freedom, talking to each
other and making contracts without coercion, have produced
this outcome.
We hear stories that are so appealing they always bring tears
to my eyes. I hear farmers telling me: ``My income was only so
much. My wage was only so much. Do you know how important
my job is? If it was not for us farmers there would not be any
food and we would all die. Therefore, I think I should earn
more''. I do not have to elaborate on what the nurses and doctors
say and what the teachers say would happen to the next
generation if they were not there.
All of this sounds very good. The people who say this all the
time have themselves completely convinced that the wages a
free society and free exchange have produced are not right. They
need more and more. This has created the kind of division in
society we have today, inefficiencies and problems. The wages
are set so high that there are long waiting lists of people who
wish to join that occupation and others where the wages are too
low and they cannot find workers for it. It is a sad thing. I believe
that decentralized decision making was much better. However,
we are now in an ideology that says the government has a right to
step in.
I want to now turn to a special problem that is associated with
setting the wages of people like members of Parliament, where a
government has to be involved. Here the problem is that until
now there has never been a shortage of people who want to apply
for the job. I do not know what the right wage is. I challenge
anyone. The big problem is that the wage that is set will
determine on average what quality of skills, intelligence, and
energy you get of people who apply for the job and ultimately
will end up in the Chamber.
I think almost everybody would agree if today the wages for
MPs were $20,000. What we would get on the one hand would be
people who could not make more than $20,000 in the private
market. On the other hand, we would get very rich people to
whom this would be a hobby. It would be a totally undesirable
mix of people here in Parliament. However, who is to say what is
the right wage? We cannot ask members of Parliament any more
than we can ask farmers, nurses, doctors or teachers. They will
all say they have the most important job in society and it should
be very, very high. Of course it cannot be done like that.
What is the next best solution? Historically, we always have
to come up with some wage. What is the right wage? The
Government of Canada and all democratic governments have
taken recourse to appointing commissions. The other day
another commission report was released on that subject. I
looked back. There must have been commissions in the history
of the Parliament of Canada at least every four or five years
since the founding of Parliament. They have all said that the
wages should be higher than they are.
(1615 )
To the best of my memory they said the wage should be set
around $100,000 or $120,000 a year. I am not endorsing this. I
do not know what the right answer is.
One of the big problems comes once these wages are
announced by these wise people. They are typically appointed
with the consent of a broad spectrum of people. Canadians
believe these wages are high relative to the norm.
I have recently been having a lot of fun asking people I meet at
dinner parties or at political conventions what the average
income is of a Canadian working in manufacturing. Very few
know it is $32,000. I ask what income does one have to earn to
belong to the top 10 per cent of income earners in Canada. It is
$52,000. The kind of people one meets when one is a member of
Parliament typically say it is somewhere around $80,000 or
$100,000. Some young students who come to lobby me tell me it
is $1 million. It is $52,000 or $53,000.
It is quite clear the kind of problem we are facing as a
Parliament in our system. People who have the best in mind for
Canada say that if we want quality people in Parliament, we
should set a wage that right now would probably be putting them
in the top 1 or 2 per cent of the income distribution. Yet the
majority of Canadians have lower wages.
It was not malice on the part of past Parliaments that took a
way out of this which is now beginning to haunt us. They have
set wages which are within the realm of acceptability in public
opinion. Then they have begun to hide compensation in order to
achieve a level of compensation that is consistent with what
these wise people have said it should be. That is why my whip
said the other day that if we look at the hidden compensation we
would reach a level that is a little below what these commissions
have recommended recently.
As is typical with all these procedures without checks, once
members of Parliament in recent years found out they could get
away with hiding compensation, they went overboard. They
went overboard in the form of pensions. It was clearly a mistake
on their part to have gone as far as they have by overshooting the
amount of compensation hidden in the pension.
What I conclude from this analysis of our current problems is
that the issue faced by Parliament today is not the narrow focus
on the pension; it is what my colleague the whip has said. We
need a more rational structure, a transparent structure of the
compensation for members of Parliament.
We should also be open with the people of Canada. In today's
age of high levels of education, of communication, of
understanding, I am personally convinced and have enough
confidence in the democratic system that people would accept
the judgment of those wise people and say: ``Yes, we want that
quality of people to run for Parliament. We do not want it to be
12432
reserved for only the rich or people who don't have anything
else to do. We want to attract good people''. They would
probably go for a compensation that is very close to what we
have now, but a much lower pension. That would be consistent
with what the last commission said.
In my judgment we need a more transparent, open system that
would put all of the cards on the table. We would end up with this
being accepted by the people of Canada.
(1620 )
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the pension plan was introduced in 1952 by an act
called the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. It
was amended in 1992 to coincide with the Income Tax Act.
During the course of this debate the conditions of the pension
have been illustrated several times, so I do not wish to go into
that, other than to look back to pre-election 1993 when there
was considerable concern among Canadians as to how the
pension plan had developed since 1952. There was enough
concern, obviously, that in 1991 an amendment was passed to
bring it in line with the Income Tax Act. Here we are in 1995
again looking at a possible adjustment to the pension plan.
Some of the things which were of great concern to the Reform
Party prior to the election were members of Parliament having
to serve only six years to be eligible to draw the pension,
regardless of their age. Another condition which was of great
concern to us was the indexing. I think at age 60 it was indexed
according to the cost of living. A third concern was the fact that
the pension was based on the best six years of salary. It did not
say whether they were consecutive years to my knowledge.
The people of Canada had concerns about the provisions in the
plan. They were not happy with it because it did not coincide
with the private sector. It tended to suggest very strongly that
there was a two tier system for pensions in the country, one for
MPs and one for everyone else.
I assume some pressure was brought to bear through 1992 and
some adjustments were made, such as passing the amendment
which would put the plan in line with the Income Tax Act.
Now we are considering Bill C-85. I actually do not
understand what the bill will do to address the general concerns
which were expressed about the pension plan prior to the 1993
election.
When I read through it I notice that the eligibility age has been
increased to 55. That rules out the concern of getting a pension
after six years of service. The person would still have to wait
until they were 55 years old.
The plan was brought in originally in 1952. In those years I
can remember that my parents, for example, were looking
toward their retirement. The eligibility age was 65. The trend at
that time from a health and a technological point of view was
that men, because they formed the major part of the workforce in
those days, would retire at 65 and be dead of a heart attack or
some such thing before they reached 65 and a half.
I suggest strongly that over the years we have made advances
in health, not only in the curing of various conditions but also in
prevention. We lead a much more healthy lifestyle, so 55 is not
really rational for 1993. If we were debating this in 1952 when
the plan was originally implemented it might have some
validity.
That is one thing which Bill C-85 does in addressing the
inequities of the existing plan. As far as I can see it really does
not do much of anything else. It talks about opting out or opting
in, however the phrase is worded. That is a one-shot deal. It
applies to members of Parliament now. It includes those who
have six years' service. Once that happens every MP who comes
along after this will have to participate in the plan. The
amendment does not really address much other than an increase
on when one can draw the pension. To my mind that is not
enough.
(1625)
The whole pension issue and this bill, when one looks at it in
its entirety, is an excellent illustration at how out of touch
government politicians are with the Canadian public. There was
a hue and cry about pensions prior to the election. The majority
of Canadians realize that even with these changes in the pension
plan, it will far exceed those available anywhere else in Canada.
The other component in this plan that has to be looked at very
seriously is the retirement compensation account and the
mechanisms used in paying out the benefits.
Regarding the opting out situation, there will be no choice. It
is a one-shot deal. It is going to put a number of Reformers, who
will come into this Parliament in the next election in great
numbers, in the position of having to participate in the plan. It
will be against their principles.
One of the things that illustrates the point I am talking about
now is an article that was in the Vancouver Sun on February 9,
1995 by Barbara Yaffe. That article was entitled ``Pension tiff is
a measure of MP-voter rift''.
In her article she pointed out that one of the problems with the
pension issue is that MPs are the ones that determine the
12433
pensions. Many of my colleagues have made reference to the
same point. One wonders how many other jobs there are where
people can determine their own pension benefits.
We have two options basically. We either have a pension plan
or we do not. If we choose to have a pension plan, the Reform
position is to bring it in line with that of the private sector,
including such things as retirement age, indexing, et cetera. It
should allow MPs the choice of whether or not to participate and
seriously consider the benefits of allowing for some
independent body of Canadian taxpayers to decide on the plan's
perks, mechanisms, et cetera.
The pension plan as it stands is not acceptable to the majority
of Canadians. The changes proposed by Bill C-85 are tokenism
or lip service. I am quite confident that the Canadian public will
come to this conclusion as well.
All of us must constantly keep in mind that the Canadian
people are the ones who pay the bills. We work for them. It is
probably why we are called public servants. That seems to be
something that some of us tend to forget quite easily once we
come to Ottawa.
Once again I refer to the article by Barbara Yaffe. She writes
that this unsavoury struggle over politician pensions has
revealed one thing quite clearly. ``How utterly out of touch some
MPs are with the real people in their ridings''.
One must wonder why only Reformers seem to be speaking on
this bill. Does this issue not concern the constituents of any
other members of the government?
The people of North Surrey have been very clear on this issue.
I cannot accept this pension plan as it presently stands, nor can I
accept the proposed changes in the bill. My constituents have
also said to me very strongly that we must get these opinions out
here on the floor of the House because the government is not
listening to them.
(1630 )
Therefore I want to tell all members of the House and my
constituents in Surrey North that I will not be participating in
the pension plan. I am joining my colleagues in opting out until
something comes along that is much more equitable with the rest
of the country and my fellow Canadians.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek
unanimous consent to address the bill again. I have spoken to it
once, but in light of the fact that I have sparked some interesting
reaction I was wondering if members of the House would be
willing to allow me to speak to the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
member speak again?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on the issue
of MPs pensions. It is certainly one issue that raises the blood
pressure of the majority of Canadians and one time slot on the
parliamentary channel that receives attention.
I dare say there is not a single MP who has not been dogged by
constituents on the issue. The obscenity of the bloated pension
scheme for MPs raised the hackles of the majority of Canadians.
If I were not to opt out of the plan my face would be as red as the
Liberal red ink book. It is the ultimate in Liberal spin doctoring
to call it pension reform. I do not know how MPs could face their
constituents.
I remember during the campaign being told by the incumbent
when I complained about the MP pension scheme that once I got
here I would certainly change my mind. I have not changed my
mind.
I challenge any government member to look in the face of a
struggling overtaxed and overextended constituent and defend
the ultra-luxurious pension plan. I further challenge
government members to defend Bill C-85 and the so-called
amendments contained in the legislation.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell can
obfuscate, twist and distort the Reform position on MP
remuneration. I challenge him to tell a dairy farmer in
Cumberland why he deserves the gold plated pension. I bet he
hopes no one is watching the theatre of the absurd practised by
the member on the issue of pensions.
We are witnessing a serious double standard characterized by
greed and complete disrespect for the taxpayer's dollar. On the
one hand the government preaches deficit reduction and debt
control. On the other hand it introduces Bill C-85 under the
guise of reforming the obscene pension plan. In other words, do
what I say and not what I do. This is not the kind of leadership
Canada needs at this time. It shows a lack of leadership.
The Reform Party supports a pension plan that brings MPs
pensions into line with private sector pensions. In my view if the
Liberal government vacillates on the issue it will vacillate on
every issue. There is a major principle involved and the
government has fumbled the ball. Where is its conscience? What
does Bill C-85 give us and the taxpayers?
The bill lowers the rate at which benefits accrue. At 4 per cent
they are still double the rate allowed for registered plans under
the Income Tax Act. The so-called reforms include provisions
for virtually full compensation for inflation which certainly
does not parallel private sector pension plans. Over 78 per cent
of private sector plans have no automatic adjustment for
inflation.
12434
The bill's minimum age provision of 55 does not go far
enough. Under the Income Tax Act pension benefits must be
reduced by at least 3 per cent per year if collected prior to
attaining the age of 60 or alternately has 30 years of eligibility
or attaining age and years of service totalling 80 years. This
avoids that provision of the Income Tax Act.
(1635)
The legislation before us today will still use the special
arrangement called an RCA account to pay members' benefits
that are twice as generous as private sector norms. Until this is
addressed, the whole bill is just window dressing. I want to see
the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell sell this to a hard
working farmer in his riding who has to save and administer a
plan of his own. I have hard working loggers, miners, mill
workers, fishermen and business people in my riding. I would
not envy trying to sell it to them.
We estimate that long run costs for the new pension plan will
be close to 50 per cent of the payroll costs for currently sitting
members. A plan the Reform Party could have supported would
have had a maximum cost to taxpayers of 9 per cent of payroll.
Again the government is bleeding the taxpayer dry and at the
same time selling snake oil to cure the illness. It is deceitful and
unfair, especially given that it will not allow opting out for
members elected in the next election. The pension scheme will
be an issue in three years. We guarantee it.
Many Reform MPs ran their election campaigns promising to
come to this Alice in Wonderland place and reform MPs'
pensions. It was a solemn commitment to weary Canadians bled
dry by greedy governments. The government's response has
been to raise MPs' take home salary by reducing the MPs'
contribution rate to the pension plan.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure
what the hon. member has to say is extremely important, but I do
not see a quorum in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: The member is quite correct. There is
not a quorum. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: We have a quorum. Debate shall
continue with the hon. member for North Island-Powell River.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, this will serve to keep the ratio of
government to member contribution very high.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell talked
yesterday of openness, honesty and sincerity. There is not a
scintilla of veracity in what the government is telling Canadians
about the pension plan. When we add this insult to the $550
billion debt, we are truly a country in trouble.
The government is touting Bill C-85 as pension reform but it
is not telling the complete story. Does the member for Hamilton
East call a new pension of $2.7 million from the old $3.3 million
windfall a reform? It is obscene and warrants the scrutiny of fair
minded Canadians. It is truly unresponsive and says to every
Canadian: ``You sacrifice, not me''.
(1640)
I will be opting out and joining the majority of Canadians who
are not taking advantage of the system and who are looking for
leadership on issues like this one that we are not receiving from
the government.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill which is about
more than the pensions that some members of Parliament will
collect, much more. The bill reflects a difference in beliefs
about the role of a parliamentarian and about the relationship
between government and those who are governed.
It might seem like a bit of an exaggeration to say that a bill
dealing with pension reform reflects ideals about the very nature
of governance in a democratic society. I do not think it is an
exaggeration at all. Furthermore, with the benefit of time, the
people of Canada will agree with me that the position taken by
MPs on the bill reflects how they feel about their position in
government. It tells a story about how they feel about their
constituents. It even tells a story about how they feel about
democracy.
Let me explain. Canadians become a little sensitive when
their politicians use U.S. examples. Nonetheless it is impossible
to deny that U.S. experience provides us with an example of how
representative democracy works: its problems and its benefits.
In the greatest document ever written to defend American
democracy, the federalist papers, the authors speak in paper No.
35 of the qualifications of representatives in government. They
write that representatives should be members of various classes
of people from society and economy; that those people should be
chosen by a majority of their constituents; that those people
should be inspired by a desire to protect the interests of their
class in the economy, to represent their communities; that those
people should be elected for a very limited period of time, after
which they should return to their former positions in the
economy, back to their former places in life. People elected to
government should be inspired and motivated to go into public
life by a sincere commitment to their communities. They should
expect nothing more than to represent their families, friends and
neighbours.
12435
The model from the federalist papers does not speak of a
class of professional politicians. No, the ideal politician is a
real person from the real world who takes a short time out of
his or her life to do his or her patriotic duty and represent his
or her community with enough remuneration to survive but not
enough to prosper. That would have to wait until his or her
limited time in government was over and he or she returned to
a former profession.
That is one model or one vision of what the government and
legislators should do. There is another, that of the professional
legislative class, one where legislators are not so much chosen
as they are born or made and where there are different incentives
to get into politics. I am not referring to the incentives of
patriotism or a willingness to sacrifice for one's community but
an ambition to achieve power, to establish oneself in powerful
circles and to make money. Representation of the people for this
kind of politician is nothing more than saying the right things to
avoid being voted out of office and thereby losing the security,
power and prestige that public life offers.
That is the sort of politician Canadians have learned to dislike
so passionately. Canadians are more disillusioned than ever
about their politicians. Politicians consistently rank at the
bottom of public opinion poll surveys. People do not like us.
When I ask my constituents what they do not like about
politicians I consistently get the same answers: ``Politicians are
only in it for themselves. They only want to make money and get
power. They lie all the time just to stay in office''. That is quite a
commentary.
(1645)
Is it any wonder people are fed up with politicians? Members
of the House have expanded their powers, expanded their
salaries and expanded their pensions without ever consulting the
people of Canada. Members have expanded their power and
their purses. They have created what some of the founders of
modern democracy hope to avoid: the creation of a professional
class of politicians more concerned about their comfort than
about the needs of the community and the country. In other
words, the politicians have become Ottawa's messengers to the
constituents.
Here we are debating this pension reform bill. Some reform.
This debate and the divergent attitudes and opinions of the two
sides of the House-and I am not including the Bloc in my
comments since it is absurd for the Bloc to even be participating
in this debate-reflect more than just a different administrative
view of how pensions should operate. They reflect a
fundamentally different view of how Canadian democracy
should operate.
The Reform Party believes in the first model of
representation: non-professional politicians who represent their
communities out of a sense of duty and patriotism, politicians
who expect nothing more than to return to their stations in life
with a nod from their communities and the occasional ``job well
done''. We want nothing more than to be given enough
remuneration to survive while we are here and then go home to
our communities with respect.
The Liberals on the other hand are concerned more about
providing themselves with perks, power and pensions, pensions
which have become the flashpoint of voter anger, and rightly so.
Why should parliamentarians receive pensions which are richer
than anything the private sector could even dream of? Why
should citizens who are taxed to the max be forced to pay for this
unbelievable scheme? The politicians in power across the way
do not believe that politics should be about sacrifice for the
country. They think the country should sacrifice for them.
Liberal politicians do not ask what they can do for Canada, they
ask what Canada can do for them. That bothers Canadians. That
causes Canadians to lose faith in the political process.
The Reform Party's philosophy on pension reform is simple:
do not give us one. Leave us alone. Go ahead and take the cushy
pensions. Go ahead and force the taxpayer to cough up $4 for
every one. Clearly, that is what members across the way are
saying, but leave us alone.
If their vision of democracy and representation is one which
includes establishing a permanent class of highly paid, highly
pensioned, highly perked politicians, then so be it. Let us
represent our constituents the way we want. Allow us to be
servants of the people rather than demanding that the taxpayers
serve us. Let our visions co-exist. Let them compete. Then let
the voters decide come the next election. We are more than
happy with that.
This pension reform bill does not do that. It forces the next
crop of Reform MPs to take this ultra rich pension package
whether they want it or not. How absurd. How cynical.
Canadians want responsible government. They want
responsible governors, people they can trust, people who will
serve willingly because they want to serve, not because they
want to retire after a few years on tens of thousands of dollars
indexed to inflation. Being a member of Parliament is an
opportunity to leave an indelible mark on this great country. It is
an opportunity to give something back to the communities
which have given us all so much. It is a privilege.
The current pension plan and the new pension package is a
slap in the face. It is a slap in the face to all constituents and all
communities. I urge my fellow members on both sides of the
House to take a step toward restoring representation with
integrity to Canada. Take a step in the direction of restoring
trust. Vote no on the bill and vote yes to integrity and trust. I am
going to opt out of the plan.
(1650 )
Given the lack of interest on the Liberal side and the many
inadequacies of Bill C-85, I move:
12436
That this debate be now adjourned.
The Deputy Speaker: This is not a debatable motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 213)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Mayfield
Meredith
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Silye
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-32
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Althouse
Arseneault
Assad
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Bélanger
Bélisle
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Zed-134
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bachand
Baker
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Caccia
Caron
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dubé
Duceppe
Finlay
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Guay
Harvard
Hubbard
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacDonald
Marchand
O'Brien
Plamondon
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Tobin
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
12437
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business.
_____________________________________________
12437
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 31 consideration of the
motion.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak today on the motion regarding hate
speech on the Internet.
I agree wholeheartedly that the government should move with
speed to adopt legislative measures aimed at stopping the spread
of hate propaganda through computer networks.
The information highway is a wonderful resource, which
provides education and information to people worldwide. The
Internet is a powerful communication tool. It links people of
various nations and backgrounds easily and rapidly, helping
spread understanding and knowledge around the world.
Like many tools or new technologies, the information
highway can be used for harmful purposes as easily as for
positive purposes. Unfortunately, the many benefits provided by
the new technology are as attractive to hatemongers and racists
as they are to scientists and students.
As I am sure many members are aware, even a brief glance
through various Internet discussion groups reveals material that
is deeply offensive and contrary to Canadian values. The
material ranges from recruiting messages from the Ku Klux
Klan to pornography and Holocaust denial tracts.
In January a university student was arrested in Michigan for
issuing threats after he posted a computer message describing
how he wanted to torture, rape, and murder a fellow student. In a
recent case in Calgary, police arrested a man for possession of
child pornography that he had acquired from a computer bulletin
board linked to the Internet.
It is true that in order to obtain much of the offensive material
one has to go actively looking for the appropriate computer
bulletin boards. However, some sources of pornography
advertise their services in the computer discussion groups.
Although some work is required to find offensive material,
pornography and hate propaganda often end up in the hands of
impressionable children. As I am sure many members are aware,
children and young adults are often far more proficient with
computers than their parents are. We should not underestimate
the persistence of some children.
We need to develop software that would allow parents to
screen material that comes into their homes or schools, similar
to what we can now do on TV. Children should not have access to
pornography through computer bulletin boards, just as they are
not able to purchase pornography from local stores. Parents
must be able to control what their children view.
There have been cases of white supremacists using computer
bulletin boards to attempt to recruit new members, especially
among students and other young adults. We do not tolerate white
supremacists recruiting in person in our schools, so I see no
reason to tolerate them sending their hate propaganda to school
children through computers.
(1735 )
Freedom of speech is one of our most important values.
However, freedom of speech needs to be tempered by
responsibility. It may be a cliché but it is nonetheless true that
freedom of speech does not protect one's right to yell fire in a
crowded theatre. In a similar fashion, freedom of speech does
not protect hate speech. Canada already has laws dealing with
the distribution of hate propaganda by conventional means such
as books or on TV and radio broadcasts. However, our current
laws are not having much impact on the electronic highway. So
far there has not been a single case I am aware of brought against
anyone spreading hate across computer networks.
Some users of the Internet have argued that they can regulate
themselves. Certainly there are some examples of Internet users
challenging and discrediting hatemongers. However, there is
much offensive material out there. In a perfect world
self-regulation would work; but as we all know, this is not a
perfect world.
A combination of legislative action and self-regulation would
perhaps be the best approach. We should encourage the
development of a code of conduct among Internet users to
discourage offensive E-mail and discussion groups. Some have
likened the Internet to a town square or a worldwide debating
forum. Just as there are accepted norms of conduct for
discussions in public places, there should be norms of
acceptable behaviour on the electronic highway.
Along with self-regulation, there should be some direction
from Parliament. Canada's current laws are apparently having
little effect on the electronic highway. The motion we are
debating at the moment is needed to push for the expansion of
current legislation to cover the Internet. This motion may not
have any legislative authority, but it will demonstrate this
House's desire and will to limit the spread of pornography and
12438
hate propaganda. It will provide the courts with some guidance
as to the option of the House of Commons regarding this issue.
I compliment the Minister of Justice for his statement last
week at an international conference on crime prevention in
Cairo, where he said that the government is considering new
laws to limit the harmful use of computer networks and other
forms of communication.
I believe this motion will encourage this government and
others to continue their efforts to find a way to limit the spread
of hate propaganda and pornography through the Internet. We
need to encourage international cooperation to deal with the
spread of hate propaganda.
Given the worldwide nature of the Internet, regulation will
require worldwide effort. It will be difficult to limit
pornography and hate propaganda if what is banned in one
country is easily available through a computer bulletin board in
another country. Just as hate groups are cooperating in order to
spread their hatred of others, all countries must unite to combat
hate groups.
I am well aware that it will not be easy to find ways to attack
the spread of offensive items on the information highway.
However, just because something is difficult it does not mean
that we should not try. At the very least, by passing this motion
we will send a message to the hatemongers and pornographers in
the Internet that their messages are not welcome in Canada.
I congratulate the member for Winnipeg North for having the
foresight and initiative to bring forward this motion
encouraging us to give serious thought to this matter. I hope all
members of this House will support this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak on Motion No. 384 tabled by the hon. member for
Winnipeg North requiring the government to move with speed to
adopt legislative measures aimed at stopping the spread of hate
propaganda via the electronic information highway while
simultaneously preserving the legitimate use of the freedom of
speech.
I would like to express my support for this motion
immediately and I congratulate my colleague for Winnipeg
North on this excellent private member's initiative.
As a member of a minority and a fighter for human rights
since my youth, I am very much attuned to the fight against hate
propaganda. I worked for many years with the union movement,
which was behind the fight against racism and discrimination. I
was also on the board of directors of the Quebec Civil Liberties
Union. Many messages of hate and intolerance are directed at
minorities, particularly visible minorities.
(1740)
We must fight hateful, racist and discriminatory remarks
expressed in all sorts of ways, including those appearing on the
Internet.
Information technology is advancing by leaps and bounds.
Thanks to the computer network, of which Internet is the latest
and most impressive example, we can be in instant contact with
people on other continents and in distant countries.
Internet currently comprises over 30,000 networks, 2.5
million computers and 35 million users in over 100 countries.
These figures are rapidly increasing. A computer, a modem and
a telephone are all it takes to access this information highway.
The Internet network can transmit documents, images, voice,
music, films and so on.
Many Canadian firms are involved in setting up electronic
highways, including Bell Canada, Northern Telecom, Unitel,
Videotron, Rogers Communications, Stentor and the Sprint
group.
These new technologies, however, cause considerable
concern in some sectors of society as the media point out
increasingly. What we have here, in some respects, is a public
debate on certain basic moral values of the highest importance.
All democratic societies must combat racism, discrimination
and hatred. On the other hand, they must also protect freedom of
speech and expression, and every person's right to respect,
dignity and equality.
But, the state is not always well equipped to rise to the
challenges brought on by the rapid and overwhelming
development of new information technologies. I think that the
motion introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North is of
great merit, for it opens up discussion in this House on this very
important issue.
Under our justice system, it is section 163 of the Criminal
Code which governs obscenity and section 319 which governs
the distribution of hate propaganda. The first provision, more
particularly subsection 163(1), states that ``Every one commits
an offence who makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates,
or has in his possession for the purpose of publication,
distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture,
model, phonograph record or other thing whatever''. This
subsection deals with mechanical or electronic means.
On the other hand, section 319 states that ``Every one who, by
communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred
against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to
lead to a breach of the peace is guilty-''. The provision
describes two situations giving rise to a criminal offence: ``(a)
inciting hatred by communicating, in any public place,
statements that may lead to a breach of the peace'', and ``(b)
promoting hatred against any identifiable group by
communicating statements other than in private conversation''.
12439
Are these provisions adequate to deal with the problems
identified? For some people they are, but not for me. I should
mention that our Criminal Code applies only in Canada, but the
situation we are describing goes beyond our borders.
(1745)
The problem is an international one, and it is therefore
necessary to promote international co-operation on this issue.
Incidentally, Canada has signed international conventions that
could apply to this area. The two most important ones are the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, ratified in 1947, and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, ratified in 1976.
Hate messages may be sent from any country. It is therefore
desirable to draft and adopt international guidelines for the use
of the Information Highway.
The matter should even be taken up at the UN. The U.S.
Congress is now examining a bill that deals with the
proliferation of this kind of information on the Internet. One of
the provisions of this bill provides for fines of up to $100,000 if
a person uses a computer to annoy, insult, threaten or harass. I
think this is an interesting proposal, and I also think a certain
amount of co-operation between Canada and the United States
would be desirable in this respect.
I support the suggestion made by the mover of this motion that
we should adopt a code of conduct for suppliers of services on
Internet and provide for a complaints mechanism.
The authorities should also start a campaign to educate the
public and Internet users and suppliers on the right way to use
the Information Highway and their responsibilities in this
respect.
Users and service suppliers should also exercise a certain
amount of self-discipline and restraint. So far, there have been
no instances of legal action in Canada. The Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada must be vigilant when dealing
with statements inciting hatred, violence and prejudice that are
transmitted on the Internet. These hate messages constitute
statements in the meaning of section 319 of the Criminal Code.
The government should table legislation in Parliament to deal
specifically with such cases.
The government must act immediately. We must fight racism,
discrimination and intolerance. We must fight neo-Nazi
groups, extreme rightist groups that promote white supremacy,
anti-semitic groups, the Klu Klux Klan and all other groups that
promote this kind of prejudice, and finally, all those who use the
Information Highway to spread hate propaganda.
I therefore support this motion.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to address the very timely topic of Motion
No. 384 today, that the House move with speed to adopt
legislative measures aimed at stopping the spread of hate
propaganda via the electronic information highway while
preserving the legitimate use of freedom of speech and
expression. If legislation is passed on this issue the government
will inherit a truly enormous task.
I stand in support of this motion because we must always be
fighting against wrong wherever we find it. Due to the
increasing accessibility of illegal material directed especially at
our young people we must struggle even harder to protect
impressionable minds from feeding and growing on a diet of
hatred, ignorance and fear.
I have a person in my constituency who has received quite a
bit of publicity lately. This man is a young, white supremacist
connected with militant American groups and, as the media
loves to do, he was featured on television a few weeks ago. He
said that he hates the government with a perfect hatred.
(1750)
While I may have my own problems with the government, it
certainly does not deserve hatred. The very fact that this fellow
was allowed to say what he said on national television without
being thrown in jail shows that he is obviously wrong in his
beliefs.
In a great many other countries he would be more justified in
making such venomous diatribes. In Canada it is easy to grab the
spotlight and heap abuse on our system even while standing
within the shadow of a benevolent government. I would be
interested to know if he not only derives his freedom, but also
gets his living from the very government that he says he
despises.
I was reminded of this outrageous philosophy at our local V-E
Day remembrance day services I attended last weekend.
Together we remembered the millions of young soldiers who
dashed all their hopes and dreams against Hitler's mightiest
armies, the man who attempted to put the whole world under his
jackboot.
Hitler did not care about the Canadians, the Europeans, the
Americans, the countless Asians who died. He did not even care
about his own people. He cared about power. He used young,
impressionable, dissatisfied men, like the man from my
constituency, to get it for him. Many of them died along with
their leader in the second world war.
It is an incredible irony that the very system that tens of
millions of people fought to the death to preserve is now being
used to shelter someone like this, who promotes Hitler's
philosophy. It stands as yet another proof of the incredible
strength and essential goodness of our political system. While
we must
12440
preserve this freedom, we must also preserve the stability of the
system. Otherwise all those soldiers would have died in vain.
As the human body tolerates all sorts of germs, it also
struggles against infections. Our society is like an organism that
plays host to all sorts of philosophies but it, too, has the right to
guard against those which are most destructive.
Hate literature and hate propaganda on the Internet are like
pollution washing up on a seashore. Although we may never get
rid of all the pollution, we must always keep cleaning the sand
on our portion of the beach or else eventually we will be buried
in the pollution. More and more hate literature is washing up on
our personal shores, in our homes and businesses each and every
day. We must actively battle it or risk having impressionable
people won over by it.
Those who would claim an untrammelled right of freedom to
use the Internet for any purpose stand on shifting ground. They
would never claim that right in other areas. For instance, no one
acknowledges the right of bank robbers to use our system of
roads with complete freedom. Every time bank robbers use our
highways to get away, the police do their utmost to stop this
abuse of freedom. It should be the same when one travels the
information highway.
To use another analogy, no one would claim that the
government has no right to regulate the use of poisons in the
marketplace, to pass laws to make sure that the poisons do not sit
on a shelf alongside the food that we must purchase. Likewise,
there are poisonous thoughts that should never sit on the shelf
beside harmless chat groups and information libraries on the
Internet.
There is a difference between freedom and licence. Freedom
is simply the right to do whatever is good but licence is the abuse
of that right in order to harm others. In the case of the Internet,
the definition of harm becomes all important.
One of the hardest things is to define an intellectual crime
where victims do not suffer physical or monetary loss. Should
all white supremacist material be thought of at hate literature? Is
pornography hate literature? Are religious messages that decry
the actions of a person or a group based on a legitimate sense of
moral offence hate literature? How can one determine the degree
of hatred? Is just a little bit of hatred okay? It is very difficult to
define a hate crime.
The next problem we encounter is very nearly
insurmountable. That is the matter of enforcement. The member
for Winnipeg North is perhaps suggesting the most difficult of
all possible tasks, an act of global regulation.
Internet messages are nearly anonymous. There are trillions
of possible hiding places in the Internet. The sources of hate
literature are limitless and the criminals can be located
anywhere in the world. If one is found and prosecuted within
Canadian borders, 1,000 can take his place from any other
country.
Obviously any regulation of the Internet would require
international co-operation and it could only hope to drive the
worst offenders underground. I note with satisfaction the
Liberal House leader was reported on March 28 to have spoken
favourably about an international agreement to stop the flow of
this material into Canada. That would be necessary.
(1755)
We want to avoid a vast bureaucracy of Internet police hired
to listen to private conversations. If a police force was able to
listen to all private telephone conversations, we would think it
was a terrible abuse of human rights. I would certainly think so
as well. All kinds of offensive things are communicated every
day in person or over the telephone lines. People have a right to
their privacy even when they say bad or ridiculous things.
However, the difference between personal communication
and the Internet is that personal communications are
inaccessible to all but the communicating parties. Through news
groups the Internet makes essentially private conversations and
communications available to anyone. That makes the Internet a
thing of beauty and a beast at the same time.
A partial answer is in international agreements but perhaps
the most effective answer lies in the actions of the people of
goodwill who might act as volunteer watchdogs on the Internet.
Millions of people read each other's thoughts each day and
comment on them. Thousands of users can get together and
electronically sanction someone who abuses the information
highway.
This volunteer policing effort holds real promise for cleaning
up the Internet, but once again that careful balance between free
speech and responsible speech must be preserved, providing
room for legitimate disagreements. That is why I think the most
effective action the government could take is not legislative.
Government could get the best bang for its buck by supporting
the development of a set of Internet conventions or broadly
based rules. Call them operating rules, call them a public code of
conduct or electronic ethics. These guiding principles would
suggest to users when they should report to police, when they
should simply reproach the sender or when they should band
together to sanction another user.
Most Internet users around the world are responsible people,
despite the horror stories we read in the newspapers. If there are
vastly more responsible people than irresponsible ones, then it
should be simple to obtain their co-operation in stopping the
spread of material that is illegal.
12441
The government could sponsor a small advisory group to take
leadership in this area, to draft these voluntary Internet
conventions using the legal assistance that government can
provide and have the group go global on the Internet with its
proposals, not working necessarily from government to
government but from user to user. Let users decide among
themselves what should be allowed and what should not.
Winston Churchill said in a speech at Harvard University in
1943 that the empires of the future are empires of the mind. This
has never been more true than in the case of the Internet. At the
moment it is purely an intellectual kingdom, but thoughts are
powerful. Ideas in cyberspace translate into real world action
and an Internet kingdom without laws will one day generate
lawless deeds.
If the government passes laws to prosecute the worst
offenders and helps to develop conventions for voluntary action
on the Internet, this intellectual kingdom will become one of
peace and safety. We can hope for nothing better for us and for
our children than to experience that peace.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for
Winnipeg North. I applaud his efforts on behalf of Canadians in
bringing this to the attention of the House and moving to take an
important step by recommending we take action and move
forward in abolishing hate and hateful messages on the
information highway.
It is clearly not an easy aspect to consider as the Internet is
travelled and is accessible from anywhere in the world. It is
important subject matter and an important area for us to be
concerned about as our children increasingly participate in and
use the Internet and computers generally.
We must think not only of Canadians. Our messages travel
around the world. We must think about people in other countries
as well. Canada is a society that has grown and developed a very
important ethic of tolerance, an ethic in which we disagree with
those who tend to promote hate. We would like this concept of
tolerance that we have developed in Canada to be spread around
the world through media like the Internet through approaches
like the worldwide web.
(1800)
Let us keep in mind at the moment that the problem is
relatively small. At this point only a tiny proportion of the 5,000
Usenet discussion groups have any problems that might come
under this concept of hateful material.
Nevertheless, it is important because of the rapidity with
which the Internet is expanding, which it is estimated now
reaches some 40 million people around the world, that we start
to move in this area. In doing so, I think it is important to first
recognize that there are areas under the current
telecommunications legislation and regulations where offensive
and unsolicited content or messages can be dealt with.
For example, under section 8.2 of Bell Canada's terms of
service which sets out the basic rights and obligations of
telephone companies and their subscribers, customers are
prohibited from using the public telephone network in a way that
is contrary to law for the purpose of making annoying or
offensive calls. Originators of such calls, hate or racist
messages on a telephone answering machine can be prosecuted.
The public can file complaints with the telephone company or
the CRTC who will pursue these investigations.
Section 41 of the Telecommunications Act authorizes the
CRTC to take regulatory steps to protect consumers against
possible abuses from unsolicited telecommunications,
computerized solicitations or junk faxes which may contain
offensive content. Under this section, the commission
introduced regulations restricting the use of automatic dialling
and announcing devices for the purpose of broadcasting
commercial messages, as well as various safeguards to protect
consumers against unsolicited messages such as call blocking.
While not intended specifically to control the dissemination of
offensive content, these regulations can nonetheless be used to
discourage abuses in this area.
Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act gives the
commission some latitude in allowing telecommunications
carriers to take into account the content or the message it carries
over its facilities.
A case in point is the commission's approval of a number of
safeguards to protect consumers, particularly children, against
unwanted exposure over the 900 number telephone service
which delivers audiotext services, including so-called adult
entertainment.
The commission granted the telephone companies some
discretion to refuse to provide billing and collection service to
certain 900 service operations which in the opinion of the
telephone company offer a program or service which does not
comply with the program content guidelines approved by the
commission. This forces the service provider to use an
alternative billing method such as credit card billing,
prepayment or some other approach which provides greater
control by consumers over the use of the service. The CRTC has
also provided a number of other protection measures, including
the provision of call blocking of 900 service upon request.
Consequently, in situations where the material is not illegal
under the Criminal Code there may still be levers to block,
control or limit its dissemination.
There is of course no reason to believe that the Criminal Code
itself cannot be used on the information highway, although to
date it has not been so applied, but it remains there. It is an area
12442
which as in other forms of communication, print media, et
cetera, can certainly potentially be used.
Under the information highway advisory council there are
some initiatives already under way. The advisory council, which
we appointed last year, has been looking at this area along with a
number of other areas in terms of how Canada should have solid
initiatives and policies in the area of the information highway.
(1805)
At its most recent meeting on April 21 the council brought
forward for third reading a four-pronged approach to the
limitation or attack on any hate messages which might be found
on the information highway. The four-pronged approach
includes attention to law enforcement in this area, to the
development of a code of ethics as it applies to the information
highway, and also education and public awareness. This area is
growing very rapidly in use. It is important for school children
and people in communities and for all Canadians to develop an
awareness of what the media is, how it works, and the
limitations and advantages of it.
Another approach is the technological approach. It is rather
interesting that the technology to block, monitor or interfere
with hate messages and hate propaganda is something which is
coming. It may provide users of the information highway with
approaches that will be very useful in the future.
With regard to the already existing legislative measures, I
would like to talk about four points briefly.
Criminal Code sections 318 to 320 may apply. Also section 13
of the human rights act can apply. One problem is that
computers on the Internet do not recognize international
boundaries. It would therefore be rather difficult unless there
are common international standards, regulations or laws to
control it when it originates from other countries. There may be
potential for bilateral and multilateral arrangements. This is
something that could and should be pursued.
The second prong of the approach suggested by the
Information Highway Advisory Council deals with development
of a code of ethics. Other areas of communication, for example
many of the established media industries such as broadcasting,
cable television and sound recording have successfully adopted
voluntary guidelines to deal with offensive content. We feel it is
advisable to move in this area on the information highway.
The third prong of the council's strategy deals with public
awareness, an important initiative which we need to undertake.
It also deals with technological approaches which can be used to
block transmission to allow schools and parents to filter content
coming into homes and schools. I think we will see these sorts of
filters more widely used. These can be very helpful in allowing
individual Canadians to control access and content coming to
them.
These sorts of initiatives are coming from the Information
Highway Advisory Council. This is a grassroots move and is
strongly supported by my hon. colleague for Winnipeg North.
The motion is an important step forward. I support it and think
we can move forward together and create an electronic world
which is not only exciting, but is also one which is ethical.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the
motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
The information highway has the potential to become one of
the most glorious tools ever imagined, providing links between
people all over the globe. Its potential for positive interaction
for the sharing of information and ideas and education is
unlimited.
(1810 )
How tragic to think of it instead as a tool for those who would
use it to spread their own malicious, bigoted, racist ideas,
particularly to our children. I have read some of the vile
messages these people have posted. The thought that my
children might also read them makes me sick at heart.
Canada has long had a reputation as a tolerant and
compassionate nation, accepting with open arms immigrants
and refugees from all over the world. Many of these people have
fled their homelands to escape persecution. Many were being
persecuted on the basis of their race alone. They have come to
this great country believing that at long last they will be free to
live their lives in peace. I can only imagine their horror when
they discover their young children innocently tapping into a
cesspool of hate propaganda.
What of our older citizens who have lived through the
unspeakable horrors of the second world war, some as fighters in
our armed forces, some as victims of the madness of the Nazis?
This year and this week in particular we are remembering the
end of the second world war in Europe 50 years ago. We are once
again celebrating the victories of those men and women who
fought so valiantly to make the world safe for democracy. We
are remembering those who lost their lives so that we could live
in freedom and dignity. Were these sacrifices for nothing? Do
we not owe it to them to continue the fight?
Our veterans came back to Canada from the war with an
understanding of what happens when one group of people
determines that another is inferior to themselves. They saw
firsthand the inhumanity man can inflict on his brother in the
name of nationalism and racial superiority. They taught their
children and their children taught their children the importance
of tolerance for the beliefs of others. How sad that their
great-grandchildren are being targeted for this misinformation.
How sad that the very first information they might receive about
12443
the Holocaust could be misinformation from a revisionist intent
on reviling the Jewish people.
People have fought and died to preserve the rights and
freedoms we enjoy in this country, but they did not fight and die
to preserve the right of one group of people to defame the
reputation of another. They did not fight and die so a skinhead
using equipment at a publicly funded university could call into
question the rights of Asian and black people to live in freedom
and bear children.
Freedom of speech and expression is one of the most
important and basic rights of all Canadians, but it is not a right
without limitation. We have laws in this country prohibiting the
public incitement of hatred. These people are breaking our laws.
We have heard that the users of the Internet are a self-policing
group and are flooding those who are spreading hatred with
messages countering their arguments. I commend these people
for caring enough to try to counteract the hate propaganda, but
my concern is that these messages are still being received. Right
now it seems impossible to stop the perpetrators of hate
propaganda on the Internet. That is why it is so important to start
looking for solutions immediately.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North has suggested a number
of areas in which the Canadian government can begin looking
for solutions. I am in full agreement with all of these
suggestions, particularly his suggestion that these measures
must be taken immediately. Time is of the essence. We must stop
this flow of hateful and hurtful information now. The
information highway must be a conduit where all people feel
welcome.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly I am very delighted over the last two hours of
debate on the motion to have observed a unanimity of hearts and
minds on this very crucial issue. I feel a resolve on the part of
Parliament not to allow hate in Canada. It is a commitment to a
fundamental Canadian value.
On that note, I would appreciate it if you would seek
unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to adopt the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.17 p.m, the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.17 p.m.)