CONTENTS
Monday, May 15, 1995
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12571
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 12579
Division on motion deferred 12589
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 12591
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 12591
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 12591
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12593
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12593
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12593
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12593
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12593
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12593
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 12598
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 12598
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 12599
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 12599
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12600
Bill C-91. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 12602
Bill C-325. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 12602
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 12603
Bill C-67. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 12604
Division on motion deferred 12610
Bill C-54. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotions Nos. 5, 6, and 7. 12610
Amendment to the amendment 12613
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 12617
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred 12619
Division on Motion No. 6 deferred 12619
Division on amendment deferred 12619
Division on Motion No. 12 deferred 12623
Bill C-88. Motion for second reading 12623
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12628
Bill C-85. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 12630
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 117; Nays, 65 12630
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 144; Nays; 40 12631
(Bill read the second time and referred to committee.) 12632
Bill C-89. Consideration resumed of motion. 12632
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 155; Nays, 29 12633
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 12633
Bill C-67. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 12634
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 12634
Bill C-54. Consideration resumed of report stage. 12634
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 25; Nays, 159 12634
Motion No. 7 negatived on division: Yeas, 36; Nays, 148 12636
Motion No. 12 agreed to on division: Yeas, 29; Nays, 155 12637
Motion for concurrence 12638
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12638
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 123; Nays, 61 12638
12565
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 15, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider allowing
the provinces greater flexibility in the provision of health insurance and
services.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the request in my motion is simple. The
Reform Party, like all Canadians, Canadian political parties,
Canadians working in health care and a multitude of other
Canadians, including the provincial premiers, recognizes the
provinces have been delegated legal and constitutional
responsibility to provide health insurance and services in
Canada.
As the provision of health services and insurance has been
delegated to the provinces, I am asking they be given the
authority to achieve it or to carry it out.
The actual delegating of this task is not the hard part. The
giving up of the authority over the actual control of how the task
is carried out is the hard part. Unless the delegator, the federal
government, is willing and able to devise the plan, update it as
necessary and authorize each aspect of it prior to its
implementation, in which case this is not feasible, the delegator
must be prepared to delegate out some authority and in order to
achieve what they want they identify what is to be achieved by
the provinces, what components or principles are to be included
and what standards of performance are expected. Then they give
the authority necessary for the provinces to achieve this.
As a national government we can legislate these guidelines,
standards or principles, or both, or whatever else we should call
them. We have done this via the Canada Health Act. We have
established five fundamental principles to be incorporated by
each province in its approach to providing health insurance and
services. The principles are accessibility, comprehensiveness,
portability, public administration and universality.
The Reform Party believes these are sound national
principles. The problem is not the principles themselves but the
accompanying description or definition applied to each of them.
For example, in the act the definition or interpretation of
accessibility includes only one aspect of what access to care can
actually mean, based on a person's ability to pay. That is
commendable, as it opens the door for all Canadians regardless
of their personal financial position to receive or have access to
health care.
(1110 )
However, another aspect of access is when does one have the
access to the actual treatment necessary for the condition one is
presenting. I am thinking now in relation to the when part from a
clinical or medical point of view. If a person requires a hip
replacement, for example, or finds a lump on their body in some
area it should not be, to get access to treatment can take
sometimes weeks or months. Access to treatment from a
medical and clinical aspect is extremely important, sort of the
stitch in time premise.
Early intervention in many situations saves future grief and
discomfort for the individual as well as saving health care
dollars in the long run, as one is addressing or presenting a
condition much earlier than one would be by leaving it for
months or weeks and so on.
There are other problems with the Canada Health Act. There
are restrictive clauses that create these problems. Portability
comes to mind as another one.
These problems must be addressed and resolved. The act
needs revising and updating, allowing for more flexibility for
the provinces not only in the administration and management of
the service but also in the actual meaning or interpretation of the
five principles. The meaning of decentralization of authority
must play a much larger role in our health care system to
preserve it.
In the Financial Post on April 22 of this year an article was
written by Alan Toulin entitled ``Decentralization Appeals to
Canadians' Desire for Control''. Alan Toulin is saying
Canadians want more control over the things that directly affect
their lives, and governments at all levels are feeling the pressure
of this growing public sentiment.
He also quotes a leading business figure from Quebec, André
Bérard, the National Bank chairman and chief executive officer.
12566
Mr. Bérard apparently delivered a speech in Ottawa on how the
process of decentralization is an inescapable force for both
businesses and governments at all levels.
Mr. Toulin makes reference that Mr. Bérard argues that those
levels of government responsible for the spending of the money
are the ones who should decide how health care, education and
income security should be organized:
Citizens are more vigilant and can have more direct control over the actions of
provincial and local governments when it comes to the spending decisions on
behalf of the public interest, Mr. Bérard believes. In a country as large and diverse
as Canada it is clear that many citizens feel Ottawa is a remote, lumbering
government that cannot be controlled by them.
``The nearer the level of government is to the citizens, the more merciless these
citizens are when they see public waste. They know that they are the ones who will
ultimately pay. They are merciless because they know that they will have real
power; that their voice will be heard; that their vote will not be diluted by millions
of others'', Bérard said.
He goes on further to sing the praises of decentralization.
That is basically what we are saying in this motion. There
needs to be more flexibility. That kind of authority can go to the
provinces and they can get on with providing health care
according to the five major principles. Then they will be
evaluated by the people in the province.
(1115)
Another component in the health care system that needs some
serious revamping is funding. The initial agreement between the
federal government and the provincial governments was a 50:50
split. Over the years that has eroded. We have a system of tax
points and cash payments known as established program
financing. Because the tax points grow over time as the
economy grows, the cash portion of EPF is shrinking. It is down
to 23 per cent now from 50 per cent.
Established program funding was introduced in 1977,
replacing the cost sharing of post-secondary education and
health care with a fixed per capita block funding transfer. That
was the first time federal funding growth was unrelated to
provincial program costs. It was designed to increase the rate of
growth in population and in the national economy.
Over the years further amendments were brought into the EPF
system. In 1986, Bill C-96 reduced the growth of the EPF
transfer. The payments were still tied to economic and
demographic growth but their annual per capita growth rate was
2 per cent lower than what it would have been under the old
formula.
In 1991, Bill C-69 froze the EPF transfers at their 1989 levels.
That was to be applicable for two years. In 1991 Bill C-20
extended the freeze on the per capita transfers to provinces for
another three years. Therefore the provincial entitlements will
continue to increase at the same rate as the population.
Beginning in 1995-96 the rate of increase of the EPF
entitlements will be limited to per capita rates of increase in the
GNP minus 3 per cent. We continue to play little games in the
funding component of our health system.
Instead of just health and post-secondary education in the
block transfers, government has added welfare into the block.
From an article on April 13 in the Globe and Mail entitled
``Ottawa is trying to heal health-care strife'', by Edward
Greenspon, he says:
Part of the logic of lumping the three programs into a single fund was to allow
Ottawa to blur their minds of where cuts fell and to pass to the provinces the hot
potato of how to distribute the pain.
Further along in the same article, he goes on to say:
Figures in the budget show that Ottawa will, in fact, reduce its cash transfers
over the next three years to $10.3 billion from $17 billion, a rollback of almost 40
per cent. And the government has given no assurances of when it will end.
Federal funding in support of health insurance and services
should be unconditional and should recognize different levels of
economic development in the provinces.
The federal government has established five fundamental
principles via the Health Care Act. It needs to be looked at from
the point of view of interpretation. It is a little ambiguous in that
the government can interpret it one way and the provinces can
see a different interpretation. We also need to look at whether we
actually need the cash component of the EPF as a whip to keep
the provinces in line. Is that really necessary?
In the article to which I made reference, I beg the question
whether it is actually necessary to have that kind of control over
the provinces. If one decentralizes it into the provincial area, the
people will rise up and say what they want. If they are not happy
with what they are getting, especially if they have the five
guiding principles from the national government to make some
sort of evaluation judgment, they will rise up and tell their
government to spend their health care dollars with less waste or
they can vote the government out and get one which will provide
the services.
(1120)
Put the control there. Let the provinces establish the methods
of providing health care according to the five basic principles,
and define them a little better so they are not ambiguous
interpretations, and let the people judge whether they are
satisfied.
In the Ottawa Citizen on May 1 an article entitled, ``Time for a
tonic'' stated: ``The provinces-are demanding more leeway in
controlling their costs. And increasingly, provincial cost-cut-
12567
ting measures are running afoul of the federal government's
reading of the Canada Health Act''.
To my mind the word ``leeway'' in that article is very
suggestive of flexibility. The provinces are asking for
flexibility. The article also makes reference to the government's
reading of the act. That could be interpreted as suggesting
different methods of interpreting how one can read the act; the
federal government reads it one way and the provinces may read
it another way. That again points to the need for revision of the
act, allowing for broader and more flexible definitions. At the
same time the need for using the cash payment as the whip
should be addressed.
The government must do something concrete and substantial.
It must take some positive action to preserve the health care
system for Canadians. It has been stated it is a priority of the
government by both the Prime Minister and the health minister.
However, when we consider the financial threats which our
health care system is facing and the lack of action by the
government to diminish those threats we wonder what kind of a
priority it is.
The most apparent action to date has been on a reactive or
defensive basis. With respect to the user fee situation in British
Columbia and the private clinic situation in Alberta, the
government's action was based on its interpretation of the
ambiguous accessibility clause of the health care act That has to
be addressed. So far that is the most assertive or aggressive type
of behaviour we have seen from the government in relation to
health and it has been in a defensive mode.
Other actions taken by the government tend to leave us
confused and without a sense of direction. It campaigned in
1993 on no cuts to health care. During its first year in office it
continued to say that it would protect the health care funding to
Canadians. However, earlier this year we started hearing things
like ``cuts to social programs, including medicare. We have to
address all social programs. If they are all going to be cut, then
health care will be rolled in there with them''.
We also heard the system needs to be reformed, that there are
problems with the health act and those problems must be
addressed. We also heard from various ministers the provinces
should be given more flexibility to manage their affairs.
(1125 )
Block funding was set up, including the three components:
health, post-secondary education and welfare. This is being
sold, to my mind, as an opportunity for provinces to have more
flexibility but in a sort of backhanded way. They are given less
money and then told they have three components where they can
be flexible applying that money.
That is not what we are saying in our flexibility plan. It is what
the government is trying to sell when it says that flexibility must
be given to the provinces. I think it was Ted Byfield who said we
have inflexible flexibility, which is basically what we are
looking at here.
Reformers believe that the provinces are fully capable of
providing quality health care to their residents as long as they
are allowed the stable funding to do so. They need the resources.
A workman is only as good as the tools he has.
The leader of the Reform Party said it best in Toronto last
November to the Ontario Hospital Association. I would like to
quote him. ``It is the provinces, not the federal government, that
have the constitutional jurisdiction to operate on our health care
system. It is the provinces, not the federal government, that
provide the bulk of health care funding. And it is the provinces,
not the federal government, that have the greatest experience in
health care delivery''.
I suggest a prescription. If the decision is to devolve health
care to the provinces what does this mean in a detailed type of
prescription? I would like to make three suggestions: first,
transfer tax room to the provinces; second, define core health
services; and third, amend the Canada Health Act with those
things in place on a national basis. The provinces would have the
guidelines and authority to get on and provide a health care
program that we can not only afford but want as well.
The Reform Party taxpayer budget outlined how we could
decentralize health care by ceding addition tax room to the
provinces. This would ensure more stable funding for provincial
health care over time. The provinces would not have to worry
about what new legislation, steps or cuts the federal government
would be making from year to year or the interpretation that
each different government would make to the various
components of the health act.
At the end of the process of the transferring tax room,
provinces would present the revenue levels and flexibility
necessary to fund health care according to the demands of the
electorate and within fiscal restraints.
Decentralization of health care would ensure that services
were delivered and funded by the level of government closest to
the people. I made reference to that earlier.
From the point of view of defining-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member's 20-minute
period is up. I wonder if she might give us some indication of
how much more time she might need to conclude her remarks,
and I say this respectfully, as the mover of the motion. Will the
member for Surrey North give us some indication whether she
could summarize and close within the next minute or so? I am
very reluctant to cut off anyone who moves a motion, but the
rules are very clear that the mover has 20 minutes.
Ms. Bridgman: I will be about a minute, Mr. Speaker.
12568
In conclusion, I proposed this motion because the federal
government seems unwilling to address the fundamental
problems facing health care in Canada: declining federal
financing, combined with the lack of provincial
manoeuvrability. The government has ruled out amending the
Health Care Act and the minister has portrayed herself as a
defender of it and thus medicare. This is not so and we must
defend it.
(1130 )
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to
the motion of the hon. member for Surrey North. I have worked
with her on the standing committee on health and have great
respect for her thoughtfulness.
The hon. member raised the issue of more flexibility for the
provinces. The provinces already have flexibility. The
provinces are responsible for managing the whole system of
health care for people in their provinces. The flexibility depends
on the needs of their people. The provinces decide where the
services go, how they are done and by whom and the payment for
people who deliver those services. They have all the flexibility
they need within the parameters of the Canada Health Act and
within the parameters of the five principles of medicare which
the member has just agreed that she supports wholeheartedly.
The member said that she supports those five principles. Then
in the next sentence she said that she disagreed with them
because she does not like what they mean. How can one support
the principles and then not like what they mean? It is inherent
that a principle means something. I find that a little confusing.
Those five principles have helped our health care system to
become one of the best systems in the world. If we want to judge
the best systems in the world, we should judge them by the
outcomes. Canada ranks second or third in the world depending
on how we look at the outcomes of some of those services.
Canada has one of the best health care systems in the world. That
is not only in terms of mortality, how people live or die, but also
the quality of their lives. This defines the kind of system we
have. We stand tall in terms of our health care system.
The member talks about problems of accessibility.
Accessibility has made our system what it is. Accessibility
means that as Canadians we all have access to health care
services when we need them, regardless of the size of our
wallets. That is probably the single most important thing about
our health care system that makes it unique. The size of a
person's wallet does not dictate the kind of health care received
or the kind of health care we have access to. The only thing that
dictates the kind of health care received is the clinical
symptoms, depending on whether it is needed, how urgently, and
when and how much is needed at the time. A very appropriate
way to deal with health care services is to define them according
to clinical methods rather than pocketbooks.
The member also talked about problems of portability. The
whole idea is that Canada is one country and this is a national
system and Canadians move across borders daily, weekly and
yearly. Our parents may live in one province, our children in
another and our grandchildren in another. The fact that we can
move across the country knowing that we have health care
coverage when we get sick no matter where we are in the country
is one of the most important strengths of the Canada Health Act
and of medicare. To ask that portability be removed and try to
balkanize medicare would do the country a great disservice. It
would destroy the strength of the program.
The member also said there are decreases in funding of
programs. Every reputable study done around the world tells us
that money is not the major and only criteria for a good system
of health care. If it were, the United States would have the best
health care system in the world but it does not. At the moment
Japan has the best health care system in the world according to
outcomes and it spends the least amount of money on health
care. Money is not the only criterion. There is also how and
when the service is delivered.
Eventually we must look at issues like health promotion,
prevention, the quality of life, poverty, and other things that
define health care. Those are the things we need to look at, not
costs. All of us know and all the studies tell us that we could
spend a lot less money on our health care system. If we provided
proper services and managed them appropriately we could have
an even better health care system.
When we talk about accessibility and outcomes, let us look
again at the United States where there are such poor outcomes.
The United States spends the most of any country in the world in
percentage of GDP on health care and it has the worst outcomes
of any developed country. In fact, the United States sits among
the developing countries somewhere between Cuba and
Czechoslovakia in terms of its outcomes.
(1135)
I do not understand what the member means when she talks
about the fact that she disagrees with these issues because they
are not borne out by fact nor by statistics.
The member is also concerned about the health and social
transfer, the fact it has become one massive block fund and that
it is a negative thing. This strengthens and interdigitates
services that rely upon each other. We know poverty is one of the
major determinants of health. It stands to reason that in a block
transfer, social assistance should be lumped alongside and close
to health. If we are going to concentrate on prevention then one
of the issues we are going to have look at is the issue of poverty
and how people should live in this country to give them a better
health status.
Another thing the member says is that she wishes the Canada
Health Act would recognize the different economic
development of provinces. We do. It already does. When we
look at transfer payments and equalization payments it is built
in to
12569
ensure that provinces which are not as wealthy as others have
been brought up to a level at which they can provide these
services.
I do not understand what the hon. member is concerned about
when all of these things are already being addressed in the
system of medicare and within the Canada Health Act.
Decentralizing, as the hon. member suggests, will give us less
control and will completely decrease, diminish and eventually
kill medicare.
The hon. member talked about evaluation. That is exactly
what the Canada Health Act does. It evaluates the system to see
whether or not it does follow the five principles of health care.
Again, I am a little confused as I try to understand what the
member wants when these things are already in existence.
Perhaps the member is not familiar with what these things really
mean.
The provinces are asking for more flexibility. The whole
Canada health and social transfer has been made to give the
provinces more flexibility. The provinces already have total and
complete flexibility in how they deliver services.
For example, not one single principle or clause of the Canada
Health Act prevents innovation and renewal of the health care
system which is what we are talking about today when we talk
about the health care system. It allows the greatest flexibility.
If we look at some of the other provinces like British
Columbia, it is moving closer to home. New Brunswick has
closed down hospitals and brought community care to the
forefront. Ontario is looking at regionalization and is looking at
how it can provide services in different ways.
Some provinces provide different providers to give care and
other provinces do not. Who gives care, when they give care,
where they give care, how they give care is completely under the
jurisdiction of the provinces. Therefore, the hon. member
perhaps needs to reconsider her motion and wonder if she is
asking for things that are not already built into the system.
The strength of this system is that the provinces can manage a
system and deliver the care. They are able to respond better in
terms of practical availability to the needs of their own regions.
Within each province there are differences between regions
including the urban and rural regions whose needs are very
different. Provinces have the ability to do all of that.
The only thing the federal government does is to enshrine the
five principles within the Canada Health Act which says this is
one country. We will all have certain principles that will ensure
every Canadian has access to health care regardless of ability to
pay and regardless of how chronically ill they are or what
genetic illnesses they have. All of that does not make any
difference to the quality of health care or their access to it.
In the United States it does happen. Those who have a chronic
disease are uninsurable. No matter how wealthy they are, they
cannot buy insurance. That does not happen in this country. The
strength of this country is the fact that each province does what
it does best in its own local way, providing good services for the
community. At the same time the federal government ensures
medicare, which is the heart and soul of what Canada is, is kept
sacrosanct across the country so we can continue to have
universal, accessible, portable, comprehensive and publicly
administered health care.
If we listen to the member's motion, actually she does agree
with the system the way it is.
(1140)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to the House for the next few
minutes and comment on the motion presented by the hon.
member for Surrey North. The motion seeks greater flexibility
and thus greater autonomy for the provinces in the provision of
health insurance.
For some time now, the Canadian health care system has been
at the centre of a wideranging debate on its current, disturbing
state, its uncertain future and indeed its very survival. There are
many who maintain that our health care system has reached a
critical point in is history. We on this side of the House deplore
the fact that Canada's Department of Health is consciously
absent from the debate, since we believe that the main cause of
the sorry state of health care in this country is the federal
government's decision to make drastic cuts in funding.
We must not forget that federal cutbacks in health care
funding have serious consequences for the public finances of
Quebec and other provinces. Quebec Finance Minister Jean
Campeau told Quebecers last week about the impact of federal
offloading on Quebec's commitments, commitments the Quebec
government cannot ignore. The federal government, however, is
doing just that, with predictable consequences for the provinces.
The federal government saved several billion dollars at the
provinces' expense by unilaterally imposing a freeze on transfer
payments for health care.
Moreover, in the last budget, Minister Martin made it very
clear that the government would continue to save money at the
provinces' expense by cutting $2.5 billion in 1995-96 and about
$4.5 billion in 1997-98.
By the end of 1998, $8 billion will have been cut since 1982.
And people are surprised to see Minister Rochon cutting mil-
12570
lions of dollars in order to be able to keep providing health care
services. Eight billion dollars, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine?
What can the provinces do in the face of this kind of offloading?
It should come as no surprise that a motion is before this
House, asking the federal government to give the provinces
more flexibility so they can decide how to meet the challenge of
providing adequate care services to their people.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois cannot support this motion
because we feel this would let the government off the hook for
the harm it is doing to the entire system. It would be too easy.
It has been some time since the federal government met the
commitments it made to its provincial partners in 1977. Today,
however, we are being asked only to seek more flexibility
which, at best, would mean privatizing certain services or
approving the use of private clinics and double billing.
For us there is only one solution: the federal government must
withdraw altogether from this provincial jurisdiction and give
the provinces fair compensation in the form of tax points.
It is clear that the federal government has reneged on its
initial commitments to the provinces. It is also clear that by
continuing to apply its standards to an area that falls under
provincial jurisdiction, while refusing to pay the real cost, the
federal government is like someone who asks you out to dinner
and leaves you with the bill.
Although at the time it was very critical of the policy initiated
by the previous Conservative government, the present
government is accelerating the advent across Canada of a
two-tier health care system, with on one side, basic services
covered by medicare and on the other, specialized care and
advanced technology available to those who can afford it. This
means waiting lists for some, but no waiting if you can afford to
pay.
Without comprehensive reform and the vision that is
necessary for a balanced health care system, excessive funding
cuts will set the new standard for the health care system.
(1145)
They can promise deep reforms all they want, and a national
forum presided over by none other than the Prime Minister, it
will mean nothing until they go beyond those empty promises.
The problem is that the Minister of Finance could not wait to
impose his reforms. In addition, just like his predecessors, he
coupled his unilateral, insidious and heavy cuts with mandatory
health care system reforms.
You would have to be naïve not to realize that the Canada
social transfer is just a veiled attempt to slash funding for
education, social assistance and health. You would also have to
be naïve to believe the Minister of Health when she says that the
Canada social transfer will actually ensure that the health care
system stays the way it is, yet give Quebec and the provinces
more room to manoeuvre. How can the minister actually say
such things, and believe them?
Let us be serious now; there is a paradox in the federal
government talking about giving Quebec and the provinces
more room to manoeuvre so that they can dispense quality
health care services yet all the while continuing to increase the
burden placed on the public finances of the provinces.
In 1977, when the federal government created the Canada
Health Act, it agreed to assume 50 per cent of the cost of
maintaining the health insurance system. Over the years, we
have seen that contribution shrink to 38 per cent. Betraying the
campaign promises made in the red book, the current
government would reduce its share to 28.5 per cent.
The federal government still does not understand that all of
these years of offloading to the provinces has aggravated their
financial situations as much as it has jeopardized the survival of
social programs. What is more is that by imposing overlaps in
areas that its own constitution does not give it powers, and by
continuing to cut funding, the federal government is preventing
Quebec and the provinces from finding real solutions to the
financial crisis they are fighting.
As many studies have shown, the federal government's
financial intransigence is propelling our health care system
towards radical changes. Nevertheless, Quebec and the
provinces are all trying to come up with solutions to forestall the
disappearance of the current quality standards.
The very essence of the motion before us today bears witness
to the will of Quebecers and Canadians to pull out all stops to
find a solution. Everybody is working towards this goal, except
the centralist government which refuses to live by its own
constitution and to respect the provinces' exclusive power over
health care.
What is sad, and history proves it, is that the federal
government has always had the same ambition: being the only
government in Canada.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the Reform
Party's motion. Although this motion supports certain
principles that we defend and denounces to a certain point the
federal government's unilateral pull-out from the Canada
Health Act, the contract it signed with the provinces in 1977, it
does not get to the crux of the matter.
In our opinion, the provinces should be the only operators in
the area of health care. From parliamentary commissions to
consultations of all kinds, Quebec and the provinces have
demonstrated that they are capable of rising to the health care
challenge. If only the government would stop penalizing them
with cut after cut without any financial compensation, they
12571
would be able to guarantee dignified health care services which
treat people with respect. That is the real solution.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak in support of private member's Motion No.
424, tabled by my colleague from Surrey North.
The motion is straightforward. It asks that the government
allow the provinces greater flexibility in the delivery of health
services. The motion before us recognizes that we have reached
a watershed in health care funding in Canada. The old system is
becoming increasingly unsustainable as federal and provincial
governments groan under the weight of a $72 billion doctors'
bill.
(1150 )
The challenge facing these governments, which the hon.
member for Surrey North addresses in the motion, is how to
reduce funding without threatening the fundamental principle of
medicare, which is that no Canadian will be denied access to
health care based on an inability to pay. What we now have to
ask ourselves is how this can best be done. I believe that Motion
No. 424 identifies the proper course.
Before discussing the motion, I would first like to provide you
with an explanation of how the health care funding crisis came
to pass. The starting point in all of this is to acknowledge that
health care falls exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. No
one disputes that fact. The only reason the federal government is
involved at all in the funding of health care is that 30 years ago it
promised the provinces it would pay 50 per cent of the tab if they
played by some of the rules. The culmination of this dollars for
influence funding arrangement was the Canada Health Act,
which was passed in 1984.
While the Canada Health Act may have been enacted with the
best of intentions, it effectively restricted the ability of
provincial governments to innovate and experiment in
delivering health services. Creative ideas and efforts in cost
control were automatically excluded from consideration. The
straitjacket of the Canada Health Act was not so onerous to the
provinces when the federal government was paying up to 50
cents of every provincial health care dollar. However, beginning
in 1977 the federal share of health care spending began to
decline. First the government shifted to a block grant, then it
imposed restrictions on the grant's rate of growth, and finally, in
the last budget, the federal government announced that the cash
portion of the grant would be reduced by 39 per cent over three
years.
Today the federal share of health care spending in Canada has
shrunk from 50 per cent to only 24 per cent. The cash portion of
that share is only $7 billion, which is 10 per cent of the $72
billion we will spend on health care this year alone.
In coping with cuts of this magnitude the provincial
governments face three stark choices: they can try to make up
the lost federal dollars by raising their own revenue; they can cut
the level of quality of their health care services; or they can find
newer, leaner ways of providing the level of services
constituents deserve. Clearly, the first two are not options.
Provincial governments are just as financially strapped as is the
federal government. Raising taxes simply is not a viable
solution any longer. Indiscriminately slashing programs is not
an option either. The only realistic avenue open to the provinces
is to come up with new ways of providing these services more
cheaply, more quickly, and better than before. However, the
Canada Health Act is standing in their way. The provinces do not
have sufficient flexibility and freedom to institute the kinds of
reforms that can put medicare back on a sound financial putting.
This places the ball back in the federal government's court. It
has two options: either continue to insist on preserving the rigid
interpretation of the Canada Health Act, in which case Ottawa
will have to resume picking up 50 per cent of the cost, or amend
and reinterpret the act to give the provinces the freedom they
need in order to meet the funding challenges ahead. No party can
pretend that the first is a realistic option. The federal
government cannot now nor will it ever again be able to pick up
half the tab of medicare as it exists today. Health care consumes
10 per cent of our nation's GDP, a greater proportion than any
other nation except for the United States.
What this motion is saying is that the federal government can
no longer have it both ways. The longer we insist on having it
both ways the greater the chance that our national health care
system will collapse under its own weight. The only realistic
course of action is the one this motion recommends; that is,
giving the provinces the ability to redesign their health care
services, allowing them to experiment and to improve on old
ways of doing things, and ultimately letting the voters of each
province decide how much health care they are willing to pay
for. This is the approach taken by Reform.
(1155)
What we have said in our blue book and what we have
reiterated in the taxpayers budget is that a Reform government
would provide unconditional federal funding in support of
health care services. While our taxpayers budget proposed
reducing current funding levels by $800 million, it also included
a pledge to turn over to the provinces additional tax points,
which would grow along with the economy.
What the present health care debate comes down to is the
question of trust. Reform is saying that provincial governments
can be trusted to uphold the fundamental principle of Canadian
health care: that nobody will be denied adequate health care
based on inability to pay. By refusing to amend or reinterpret the
12572
Canada Health Act, this Liberal government is effectively
saying that the provinces cannot be trusted to uphold this
principle.
My question for the government is this. Why on earth can the
provinces not be trusted? After all, medicare was not dreamed
up in Ottawa. It originated from one province experimenting
with new and better ways of caring for its people. Medicare
itself was born precisely because the federal government of the
day provided provincial governments like Saskatchewan with
flexibility in the field of health services.
I would also ask the government why it questions the
provinces' commitment to health care at a time when the federal
government itself is steadily reducing its own share of the
burden. Cash transfers for health amount to less than 6 per cent
of total federal program spending. Yet the provinces typically
devote between 30 and 40 per cent of their budgets to health
care.
Who are the true guardians of health care in this country? It
would seem to me it is the provinces. From a more pragmatic
viewpoint, why would this government doubt for a moment that
the voters of any province would allow a provincial government
to undermine the fundamental principles of medicare?
In closing, I would like to point out that the governments
closest to the people are held closest to account. Ultimately, in a
democratic society it is the people who should decide how a
province fulfils its constitutional duty to provide health care
services, not a federal bureaucracy.
I hope everyone will give their support to Motion No. 424.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I an indeed pleased to be able to participate in this
debate. I personally believe very strongly in the principles of
medicare and I know that they are also of great importance to
people not only in my own riding but across the country.
The Canada Health Act is a brief, simple act. It sets out the
five principles: public administration, universality,
accessibility, portability, and comprehensiveness. It has a few
definitions and deals briefly with penalties for failure to achieve
these principles. It does not, could not, and should not set out
how provinces operate their systems.
The preamble of the Canada Health Act is clear on this.
Provinces are free to build their own systems within the broad
framework of the Canada Health Act.
The guiding principle of medicare has long been that
Canadians' health and access to quality care should not depend
upon their financial means. In 1984 the Canada Health Act was
introduced by a Liberal government and passed unanimously.
The preamble of the Canada Health Act recognizes that
``Continued access to quality health care without financial or
other barriers will be critical to maintaining and improving the
health and well-being of Canadians''. This concept is also
brought out as the primary objective in Canadian health care
policy: ``to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental
well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable
access to health services without financial or other barriers, as
described in section 3 of the act''. It is within this framework
that I wish to address the motion before us today.
(1200)
Contrary to what some members in the House would have us
believe, the government does not have a rigid view of how
health care should be organized in Canada. The provinces
already have a large degree of flexibility in the organization and
provision of health insurance and health services. They have had
this flexibility for many years. The only conditions the federal
government assigns are that the provinces respect the
requirements of the Canada Health Act.
Within the requirements provinces can experiment and
change the way they deliver care, and many have been doing so.
Nothing in the Canada Health Act limits the flexibility of
provinces to realign the delivery and organization of their health
care systems. Almost all provinces have embarked over the last
few years on major reforms of their health systems.
The public administration criterion of the Canada Health Act
presents a good example of the flexibility inherent in the act
both in the provision of health insurance and in the delivery of
health services by the provinces. The criterion applies to
provincial health insurance plans and not to the administration
of individual components of the health care system such as
hospitals. This means, for instance, that private sector
management of publicly owned hospitals is permitted. In
addition the criterion allows administration authority of a
provincial health insurance plan to be delegated to an agency if
that is the wish.
Another example of flexibility inherent within the Canada
Health Act relates to hospital services. These services are not
directly tied to an institutional setting. Thus it is permissible for
acute care to be provided in the community in a patient's home,
for instance. It is always the provinces, not the federal
government, that determine which services will be given in
which setting.
The extramural hospital in New Brunswick is an example of
provincial use of the flexibility. Under the program the patient is
formally admitted to the acute care program. However, all
required services are brought to the patient's home and not to the
most expensive operating unit within the hospital structure
called the emergency ward.
I emphasize, however, that the government recognizes the
need for flexibility. On other hand it will not compromise on the
fundamental values upon which the Canada Health Act and
medicare in Canada are based. We are and we will continue to be
flexible in our approach to health care, but we will not permit
financial barriers to impede access to health services. If
flexibility means turning our health care system into a private
one that profits from the misfortunes of Canadians, the
government
12573
wants no part in it. We will not tolerate direct charges to patients
for medically necessary care.
During this period of constraint creative processes are being
produced by creative individuals in every province in handling
these fiscal problems. There are solutions and money can be
managed much more effectively than it is at the present time.
One of the most cherished services enjoyed by Canadians is
the health care system. Health care issues constantly rank as
number one across a variety of polls. The federal government is
the ultimate torch bearer of the one of the last truly national
programs. The central government, therefore, is morally
obliged to defend the Canada Health Act against policies that
seek to destroy it.
I believe as do many Canadians that the Canada Health Act
should be kept as it is. Undoubtedly any changes to the
fundamental principles upon which health insurance is founded
would cripple the most notable gains attained by the Canadian
health care system.
We need only look south of the border to realize how fortunate
we are to enjoy the health services we do. In the United States
approximately 35 million people are without adequate health
coverage. Health care horror stories abound south of the 49th
parallel. Even Americans who have medical insurance can be hit
by very high medical bills. In some cases, because of poor
family coverage, if a family member has a serious illness or an
accident the extra bills can be financially devastating. Moreover
American company medical insurance plans lock many
Americans into their jobs. This is because once a person
develops a chronic illness no other insurance company will
provide insurance at reasonably affordable rates.
(1205)
Certainly wealthy Americans can receive the finest possible
health care. However this is certainly not the case for the middle
and lower socioeconomic classes. It is interesting that the
opposition in the House is advocating a very similar system to
that of the Americans.
Some detractors of our health care system indicate that we can
no longer afford medicare in its present form as a result of our
fiscal situation. However most health economists agree that it is
not our medicare policy in and of itself we can no longer afford,
but the inefficiencies in the manner in which medicare is
implemented and delivered.
Significant improvements could be made in a number of areas
without compromising national standards. For example, the
unbridled growth of unproven and costly new medical
technology has ballooned health care costs without any apparent
return on the money spent. Another problem pertains to the
manner in which drug prices have skyrocketed over the recent
past. As well it appears supply and distribution of our medical
manpower need improvement.
These are but a few of the areas where efficiencies, if
introduced, could reduce the cost of delivering health care in
Canada. Above all, provinces must listen to those who deliver
and maintain health care services as well as those who receive
the services. Although some problems exist we must do what we
can to improve the system without destroying it. In a nutshell,
the difficulties facing our health care system are the result of
unlimited demands upon a limited pool of resources.
I feel compelled to rise today before the House to speak
against a motion that would ultimately lead to the dismantling of
the health care system that is dear to the hearts of many
Canadians. In sum, Canadians demand and expect direction
from the federal government for the preservation of our most
sacred national program. The government has a moral right and
the legal authority to ensure that this is the case. That is why we
must vote against the motion before us today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
12573
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
On the Order:
May 5, 1995-The Minister of Transport-Second reading and referral to the
Standing Committee on Transport of Bill C-89, an act to provide for the
continuance of the Canadian National Railway Company under the Canada
Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares of the
Company to the public.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-89, an act to provide for the continuance of the Canadian
National Railway Company under the Canada Business Corportions Act and for
the issuance and sale of shares of the Company to the public, be referred
immediately to the Standing Committee on Transport.
[
English]
I am pleased to open debate on Bill C-89, an act to
commercialize the Canadian National Railway.
This is an historic occasion, one that marks a very clear
turning point in the history of transportation in Canada. In 1923
the federal government completed the amalgamation and
takeover of five privately run railways: the Grand Trunk, the
Grand Trunk Pacific, Canadian Northern, the Transcontinental
and the
12574
Intercolonial. CNR was the result. With the help of the deep
pockets of Canadian taxpayers, CN grew into what it is today.
(1210)
Rail is not the only transportation method available now. Our
shippers have other choices: the trucking industry, which has
taken on a large part of the business; air freight; or through the
seaway and the Great Lakes by ship. There is potential for strong
competition in transportation in Canada, which is absolutely
essential in any modern economy.
The legislation is part of our government's intention to have
the private sector operate in areas where it can do the job best.
The Minister of Finance said in the budget last February:
Our view is straightforward, if government does not need to run something it
should not, and in the future it will not.
[Translation]
Under this bill, 100 per cent of the government's share in CN
will be sold in a public offering. All Canadians, including CN
employees, will have a chance to buy shares. A maximum of 15
per cent of shares may be held by any one individual or
company; there will, however, be no restriction on foreign
investors.
CN employees will continue in their current positions in the
new CN, and their pensions will be protected under the Pension
Benefits Standards Act. A standard stock savings plan will be
offered to CN employees to encourage their participation in the
new company.
The Head Office will remain in Montreal, and the Official
Languages Act will continue to apply to CN employees. These
provisions will have not impact on CN's ``saleability'', because
they have both been in place for a long time and have served the
CN and its customers well.
We believe that putting CN on a solid and viable financial
footing is the best way to ensure that it will be able to maintain
coast to coast rail service. CN must have every opportunity to
compete fairly and aggressively with all its competitors,
primarily, the trucking industry, CP Rail and the U.S. railroads.
To achieve these objectives, we have struck a balance between
the obligations we wish to impose on the new company and the
negative effects these could have on both the viability of CN and
on the value of our equity.
The size of the public offering of CN stock is the largest in
Canadian history and makes this balance a very delicate one. We
need to be careful about imposing too many restrictions on CN.
We must attract international investors, especially those in the
U.S., with positive experience in rail investment. We want to
ensure that the CN is free to function and finance its operations
as its competitors do.
[English]
It is not our intention to impose onerous foreign ownership
and service obligations on the new CN that do not apply to CP.
We want to make sure that control of CN is broadly based so that
no single individual or company controls more than 15 per cent
of the shares.
CN has to be put on a sound financial footing. To achieve this,
CN's current debt of $2.5 billion will have to be reduced to
approximately $1.5 billion. CN's debt will have to be reduced to
a level where it will receive an investment grade rating similar
to that of its main Canadian and U.S. competitors. Our goal is to
have CN in a capital position that would allow for at least a BBB
bond rating.
The company is expected to raise funds to reduce debt prior to
the sale by selling assets such as CN Exploration, which it has
recently done, and the Scribe hotel in France which is currently
being marketed. CN is also currently pursuing the sale of
CANAC and its AMF maintenance shops in Montreal as well as
some leasehold interests. CN's Canadian non-rail assets are not
part of the deal. They will be retained by the crown. Our
intention is to put the new company in a competitive position,
not to tip the level of the playing field in CN's favour.
The legislation represents the government's firm
commitment that both the company and the taxpayer must be
treated fairly when the shares go to market. We have put
together a unique structure to manage what will be the largest
initial public offering in Canadian business history.
We have an agreement with three investment banks,
ScotiaMcLeod Inc., Goldman, Sachs and Company of New York
and Nesbitt Burns Inc., to form a consortium for the purposes of
leading the deal. The arrangement will allow the Government of
Canada and CN to draw on the resources and experience of these
institutions in the decision making process.
(1215 )
Competition and a viable railroad system from coast to coast
is burdened by the current regulatory environment. It is my
intention to present to the House legislation that will chart the
way to major reforms of our regulatory regime before summer.
The legislation will provide the regulatory framework for the
future of transportation in Canada. It will encourage the creation
of short line railways and it will provide for real competition.
The regulatory process will ensure there will be no
abandonment of service unless no one, private sector or
government, wishes to take up the line. That will be the most
obvious benefit of the reform but it will go much further. It will
also provide the framework to allow all modes of transportation
to perform efficiently and effectively without needless
government intervention.
12575
The aim is to put in place the framework for integrated
transportation based on a policy that is consistent, transparent
and fair for everyone. Transport Canada will focus its efforts on
maintaining and improving the world class safety record
enjoyed by our transportation industry, whether on the surface,
in the air or on the water.
Our transportation system must be modern, dynamic,
innovative, growing and as unrestricted as possible. We must
constantly move forward to find newer and better ways to move
our goods and our people if we are to remain competitive as a
nation.
The air sector has been modernized with a national air force
policy, open skies, bilateral agreements with the U.S., the
international air routes policy and the commercialization of the
air navigation system that will take place in April 1996. We will
also announce the marine policy initiative the government
intends to pursue before the end of 1995.
I support the motion to refer this legislation to the Standing
Committee on Transport for review prior to second reading. I
believe the Standing Committee on Transport will be well able
to handle this task, as evidenced by the national marine strategy
report tabled recently by the chairman, the member for
Hamilton West. I look forward to hearing its suggestions and
views on this legislation.
Over the years successive governments have attempted to
maintain a reasonable level of competition in our rail
transportation system. That strategy has only been relatively
successful. It is time now for the government to withdraw from
the direct operation of railroads and let the private sector do its
job. It is time to put the private sector entrepreneurial skills we
know exist to work to make CN a viable, successful and
competitive operation.
I have every confidence that with this legislation the
government is taking another step in its commitment to
providing for an integrated, affordable, viable and competitive
transportation system in Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before following up on
the debate, I remind the House the debate will be at the
maximum 180 minutes-three hours-before the question is
put. Interventions will be no more than 10 minutes without
questions or comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois approves in principle the
government's proposal to sell CN to private interests. However,
it has serious reservations about certain provisions of Bill C-89.
I will propose amendments to these provisions in committee.
We object to clauses 8 and 16. We will also recommend an
amendment to clause 6 regarding CN property that may be
transferred to the Minister of Transport so that he can put it up
for sale later.
Let us start with clause 8. One purpose-undoubtedly
laudable-of its seven subsections is to prevent any individual,
corporation or associate as defined in subsection (4) from
holding more than 15 per cent of voting shares.
Notwithstanding these provisions, subsection (5) allows two
such associates to disassociate, so to speak, from each other for
the purposes of the act by submitting a statutory declaration
stating that they are not acting and will not act in concert with
respect to their interests in CN.
(1220)
Each of the declarants may acquire voting shares up to a
maximum of 15 per cent as if he or she was not associated with
the other person. This dispensation, which broadens the pool
and purchasing power of potential buyers, is probably necessary
given the size of the operation. However, CN administrators
must still be able to check if, in fact, declarants comply with the
terms and conditions of their statutory declarations.
We feel that such control would be difficult to exercise in the
case of foreign buyers. We are therefore proposing an
amendment under which subsection (5) respecting the statutory
declaration would be restricted to Canadian buyers. As a result,
two or more foreign associates will not be able to exceed the 15
per cent limit by submitting statutory declarations.
If clause 8 aimed at preventing an individual or corporate
takeover of CN must be approved in principle, the same cannot
be said of clause 16. Regrettably, even in this bill whose
provisions should have been purely financial in nature, the
government could not resist, once again, one of its old demons:
trying to invade an area of provincial jurisdiction.
Clause 16 may appear harmless. It reads as follows:
(1) The railway and other transportation works in Canada of CN, of every
subsidiary of CN and of every corporation formed by any consolidation or
amalgamation of any two or more of those corporations are hereby declared to
be works for the general advantage of Canada.
The catch is that, once they are declared to be for the general
advantage of Canada, these works will be subject to federal
legislation. If CN reaches a joint ownership agreement with a
short-line railway, this railway will shift from provincial to
federal jurisdiction, as suggested in the Nault report, we should
point out. And the deed will be done.
Not only is the principle of this federal encroachment on a
provincial jurisdiction unacceptable, but so are the economics
of it, as we all know that one of the main reasons short-line
railways can operate on sections considered non profitable by
major companies is that they are not subject to cumbersome
12576
federal railway regulations. Short-line railways need the
operating flexibility provincial regulations give them, at least in
Quebec.
This federal initiative is therefore likely to discourage the
creation of short-line railways and limit their numbers. We must
realize that each one of these railways is a section saved from
abandonment. If the government now interferes with the
development of short-line railways, this will mean that a larger
part of the rail network in Quebec and Canada will be
abandoned. So, we suggest that only interprovincial works of
CN and its subsidiaries, and not those works which are entirely
comprised within a province, be declared to be works for the
general advantage of Canada.
Moving on to the intention expressed by the minister to
purchase and sell separately CN non-railway assets, including
AMF, a Quebec company. This company employs some 1,300
people whose jobs could be endangered if the company's ties
with CN were severed. Under clause 6 of the bill, the minister
may, while CN is a Crown corporation, direct CN to transfer
such property. We will move an amendment providing that,
before selling these companies, the minister, to protect jobs,
will ensure that they are viable and, if need be, will take steps to
ensure that they are.
To conclude, while agreeing in principle with privatizing CN,
the Bloc Quebecois cannot help but notice that, far from
resulting from a rail policy based on the requirements of the
economy, this transaction pursues the purely budgetary goal of
bringing in a lot of money very quickly. It is not a rational
choice. It is a fire sale by a hard-pressed government.
(1225)
Pressured by creditors, obsessed by Moody's downgrading of
its rating, the federal government is putting up for public sale
one of our crown jewels, a national treasure, because it
desperately needs money to pay the interest on the accumulated
debt caused by 20 years of mismanagement. There may be no
other way out, but what an admission of failure.
We are witnessing, stunned by such incompetence and the
misfortune of being governed by such poor leaders, the decline
of a government that had its heyday before the current Prime
Minister began, some 20 years ago, as the then finance minister,
to dig this bottomless grave into which our national debt is
dragging us, and the proceeds from the sale of CN will be but a
shovel full of dirt in this grave.
In the face of this failure, how can one resist the temptation of
comparing the Canadian federal system to a father who has to
sell the family furniture and silver to pay household bills after
getting deep into debt because of profligate spending and
improvidence? No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that we, Quebecers, are
anxious to get out of the house.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when I made my first speech in the House I stated I was
not here to oppose for opposition sake. If the government
brought forward good legislation I would be the first to
congratulate it. I also stated if I thought the legislation was not
good I would offer constructive alternatives as to how the
legislation could be made better. Bill C-89 covers both of these
situations.
There is no denying the primary concept of the bill, to
privatize CN Rail, is a good move. It is something the Reform
Party has been pushing for since before the election. I spoke
strongly in favour of privatization during transport committee
hearings with the NEWCO concept and again when I made a
presentation to the all Liberal task force on CN Rail.
The tone of the discussions by the members of the all Liberal
task force raised the concern with me they might not be working
toward the privatization of CN Rail. I am very pleased to see the
government finally got around to doing the right thing. It is
certainly better late than never.
In keeping with the first part of my maiden speech, I
congratulate the government for accepting yet another Reform
policy. However, as it seems to be a constant pattern with the
Liberals as they adopt Reform ideas and policies, they lose most
of the common sense in our ideas when they put their own stamp
on them. This brings me to the second part of my first speech,
constructive alternatives needed to make a badly worded
concept a viable reality.
The Reform Party will support Bill C-89 at first reading so it
can be sent to committee where I hope the government will be as
receptive to amendments necessary to make this legislation
work sensibly and fairly as it was in following our idea on the
concept. In supporting the bill at first reading, I can assure the
House it is the concept and not the content we are in favour of.
With regard to the content, there are many problems I will be
addressing at committee. Areas of concern include the
minister's unrestricted power to reduce or even eliminate CN
Rail's debt. In this there is a potential for disaster for both the
Canadian taxpayer and the rail transportation industry. If the
minister plans only to do what is reasonable then he should not
mind restrictions in the bill to confirm this. If he plans to go
further than is reasonable then he must be stopped.
In the same area of concern is the question of the real estate
assets of CN Rail being separated from the rail operation to be
sold. The sale of these assets should be the primary method of
debt reduction of loans carried by CN Rail. That sale should go
to the private sector, not from the taxpayer owned corporation to
a department of the government using the taxpayers' money to
buy their own assets from themselves. This action would bring
us to a new height of creative accounting.
12577
There seems to be some confusion between government
departments, the Liberal dominated Standing Committee on
Transport and the minister as to what is really planned. The
Reform Party is quite prepared to help them sort that out in
committee.
I am also concerned about the section which limits the share
of purchases to a maximum of 15 per cent of the total shares. In
marketing the shares of CN Rail to the public there are only two
types of investors who would look at such an offer. One is the
common investor made up of individuals, companies or
investment groups. This type of investor buys shares primarily
for a return on investment. CN Rail's track record does not
provide a very rosy picture for this sort of investor unless they
feel a new private sector operator can run the company much
more efficiently than it has been run in the past.
(1230 )
This brings us to the second type of investor: a company or a
group of individuals who believe they can operate the rail
company much more efficiently than in the past, thus raising the
value of their investment. Such an investor would be far less
likely to invest if they felt they could not purchase a large
enough portion of the company to ensure that the needed new
operating efficiencies would be implemented. Let us not kid
ourselves, the general investors are not going to be lining up to
purchase a company with such a losing track record as CN Rail
has had.
Two provisions contained in the legislation that would create
restrictions on a new company when formed are neither common
to their competitors nor necessary. These two restrictions are the
requirement to maintain the corporate headquarters in Montreal
forever and the requirement to maintain the current official
language policy of the government. It makes no sense to require
a company to maintain its headquarters in any one city, nor to
require it to follow any other restrictions that are not followed
by the rest of their industry. As I said earlier, this company is
going to be hard enough to market without placing a bunch of
ill-conceived restrictions in the way of the sale.
Other concerns involve items that are not contained in the
legislation. These include some measure of protection for
Canadian investors, including individual workers and unions in
the company. The rail industry in Canada has occupied a special
part in the building of this country. Many Canadians may want to
try to be part of the revitalization of one of our national rail
companies and certainly should be given every opportunity to
participate. One way to ensure they would have this opportunity
would be to restrict the sale of shares upon introduction to
Canadian individuals and companies before opening it up to the
international market. I know that it will likely take an
international market to sell off all the shares of CN Rail, but
what is wrong with offering a little benefit to the Canadian
people who we are here to represent in the process?
Another area to be considered is the suggestion I made in my
presentation to the all Liberal task force last year. That idea
involves the consideration of selling only the rolling stock and
buildings of CN Rail and retaining the track infrastructure to
form a common rail system that would be open to all railway
operators on a cost recovery basis. This would include revenue
from diesel fuel taxes paid by the rail companies. To be
successful this would have to incorporate CP Rail's track as
well, but it would not have to be government owned. It could be
set up as an industry and user operated system, just the same as
we are in the process of doing in the aviation sector with air
navigation services. This would open up the track to any rail
operator, which would greatly enhance the potential for short
line operators.
These are some of the concerns I will be bringing to the
committee stage of the legislation. The government has shown
good sense in accepting the concept of Reform policies on this
issue. I hope the good sense will continue, so that they can also
accept the amendments necessary to change this from a good
concept to good legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-89, particularly
after hearing the objections made by the hon. member for
Kootenay West-Revelstoke to the CN head office's remaining
in Montreal. I simply want to thank the hon. member, because he
is helping us win the upcoming referendum. We often hear
members from English Canada say that Quebec gets too much
and that the federal government is too generous with our
province. It is just incredible to hear such comments.
That being said, my purpose is to tell those Canadians who are
watching us today about this important bill.
This will only be a foretaste, if I can put it that way. Indeed,
the real fight will come in committee, where our party intends to
condemn this bill. The Minister of Transport will appear before
committee members tomorrow afternoon, at 3 p.m. We hope that
he will answer our questions in a more explicit manner than he
has usually done in the House, where he is arrogant and often
hurls insults at the opposition.
As well, I can hardly wait until Wednesday, when the
transport committee will welcome CN's president, Paul Tellier,
the one who benefited from a generous interest-free loan of
$300,000 to buy a $345,000 house in Westmount. This will be
my first encounter with Mr. Tellier, since that generous loan was
granted to him.
12578
(1235)
And now for the most important aspects of this bill. In
committee, our party, the Bloc Quebecois, will seek
amendments because of two major objections we have to this
bill. The first one concerns clause 8. This clause is very
important because it imposes limits on the total percentage of
shares that may be owned by a person or a group of persons.
Let me tell you about some of my concerns. For instance, I am
afraid of an indirect U.S. takeover through company affiliates.
Presumably, the minister or the parliamentary secretary will say
that they plan to cap the percentage of shares held by Canadian
or foreign companies at 15 per cent and that this point is very
well covered. My point is that, as happens from time to time,
some companies might have certain agreements. I am not
talking about collusion. Certain agreements might be made
under the table, as they say where I come from, in order to do
indirectly what they could not do directly.
Clause 8 also contains the provision that CN shall maintain its
head office in the Montreal urban community. Obviously, Mr.
Speaker, unlike the Reform Party, our party cannot object to this
recommendation.
Subclause 2 of clause 8 refers to strict provisions that will be
enforced in the case of non-compliance with the 15 per cent
limit. Of course, there is no restriction on shares held by the
Government of Canada.
Subclause 4 provides a detailed definition of the term
associate. The Standing Committee on Transport will have to
consider this point later on. We find subclause 5 very disturbing
because it provides for exceptions to subclause 4. That is
something we will have to discuss in connection with the 15 per
cent ceiling on ownership of CN shares.
Another point that will also gain by further study is the
provision that the directors of CN shall determine whether
persons in the group comply with the statements in a statutory
declaration and are acting independently and not in concert. The
reason the government included this paragraph is probably that
it did not want to exclude companies which are part of vast
financial consortiums with independent subsidiaries from
becoming shareholders in CN.
I will give you an example. Could Bell Canada Enterprises
buy a 15 per cent share; Northern Telecom, 15 per cent;
Montreal Trust, 15 per cent; and Bell Canada itself, another 15
per cent? This would be tantamount to the situation I mentioned
earlier in which one interest could indirectly achieve what it is
prohibited from doing directly. The related companies I just
named could take a 60 per cent share of CN. That is food for
thought. In itself, this exception is certainly important, but it is
not particularly worrisome because clause 8 prohibits
companies from associating to form a controlling interest in CN.
Another paragraph of clause 8 defines control. Essentially,
``control'' means control in any manner that results in control in
fact, whether directly through the ownership of a majority of
shares or through negotiations between shareholders. Regarding
the definition of a voting share in clause 8, I would like to ask
what is the technical implication of the stipulation that a voting
share is a share carrying voting rights, including a security
currently convertible into such a share and currently exercisable
options and rights to acquire such a share or such a convertible
security? The Standing Committee on Transport will have to get
answers to these questions.
(1240)
With respect to clause 8, I have set out our party's position
very clearly for you. The Bloc Quebecois will propose an
amendment to close the gap we found in the bill.
We also strongly disagree with clause 16. We disagree with it
completely, because we believe it gives the federal government
the option of getting involved in what we in Quebec call the
CFILs, local trains, or what the rest of Canada calls short lines.
We consider this clause particularly underhanded, because it
declares Canadian National works and subsidiaries to be works
for the general advantage of Canada and implies that these
subsidiaries and works will remain under federal jurisdiction.
Thus, under any joint ownership agreement CN concludes with
CFILs, these short lines will come under federal jurisdiction. In
Quebec, a CFIL was set up for the lines linking the Abitibi and
the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean regions, where employees
agreed to operate the CFIL according to an agreement with CN.
Therefore, we consider that clause 16 flies in the face of
CFILs as an intraprovincial form of transportation, one that
operates within the province, which are thus currently under
provincial jurisdiction.
I do not claim to have a monopoly on truth. The people at
Transport Canada, the minister and Mr. Tellier will tell us the
opposite, but our understanding of clause 16 is that it will make
this means of intraprovincial transportation-that is, within the
province-, currently under provincial jurisdiction, come under
federal jurisdiction.
As you no doubt know, Mr. Speaker, our party, which has
repeatedly had occasion in this House to reject all the federal
government's attempts at centralization-what the Prime
Minister calls flexible federalism-will not let the federal
government try to lay its hand on this field of provincial
jurisdiction. In any case, this also came up in the Nault report,
which suggested that CFILs should come under federal
jurisdiction.
You remember the Nault report, the work of a partisan group
comprising only Liberal members and one Liberal senator and
excluding the opposition parties, the democratically elected
12579
Bloc Quebecois and Reform Party. This is part of what we
consider totally inadmissible, and we will call for amendments
to clause 16.
In closing, there is a third point where we require more
information. It concerns the future of CN's current subsidiaries
such as the AMF locomotive works in Montreal or the Can-Car
plant. We also want reassurance about the future of these
subsidiaries with a privatized CN.
With that being said, the best is yet to come on Tuesday and
Wednesday before the Standing Committee on Transport.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to make my contribution as one of the first
speakers on Bill C-89, which would privatize CN's rail assets,
including their track, rolling stocks, buildings, et cetera.
Unfortunately, the bill excludes a major part of CN's assets,
such as non-railway real estate assets, probably the most
valuable part of the company. Reformers would like to see these
assets sold off before the privatization effort takes place, in
order to reduce CN's debt load.
My hon. colleague has described a number of flaws with the
bill that need to be fixed. These include prohibiting the
government from arbitrarily cancelling all or part of CN's debts
prior to privatization; removing the requirement to leave CN's
headquarters in Montreal; removing the requirement that CN
comply with the government's policy of official bilingualism;
and removing the 15 per cent ownership restriction.
(1245)
I want to use my time today not just to point out the obvious
flaws in this bill but to talk about privatization in general and
introduce a number of ideas for consideration by the
government before this bill is sent to committee.
The privatization of CN is a good thing, but the government
has an opportunity to make it a great thing. I want to suggest the
government use this, its first effort at privatization, as a testing
ground for the privatization of all crown corporations.
In 1987 Madsen Pirie, president of the Adam Smith Institute
in London, a world renowned expert on privatization, spoke at a
Canadian symposium on privatization organized by the Fraser
Institute. He had this to say about the fundamentals of
privatizing a crown corporation:
When government engages in an activity such as privatization, it is speaking to
several audiences. Among the audiences that government speaks to are the
managers of crown corporations, the workers who are employed in them, the
members of the general public who are customers of crown corporations, the
general public who are taxpayers and who pay subsidies to support the losses of
those corporations, potential investors who might buy shares in those
corporations, the financial and business community which takes an interest in
their performance, and the media commentators who observe this process and
comment on the results and declare it to be a success or a failure. Every act of
privatization speaks to all of those audiences, and every act should be tailor made
to maximize the support of each of those different groups.
When reviewing this bill we should test it against Dr. Pirie's
list of vested interests or audiences. Bill C-89 must address each
of the groups affected by the privatization: the managers, the
workers, the customers, the taxpayers and the investors. If Bill
C-89 does not specifically address each of the needs and
interests of these groups, amendments will be necessary.
Dr. Pirie also outlined three key principles of privatization.
First, never cancel a benefit. If people are deriving a benefit
from the public activity of a crown corporation, never cancel it,
however unjust it is.
Second, make friends out of your enemies. Find out who the
people are who might lose on the privatization process and
structure the policy to make sure they gain instead.
Third, disarm the opposition. Identify all possible objections
to privatization and tailor make the policy so every single one of
these objections is dealt with in advance. The government
should ensure it has considered each of Dr. Pirie's three
principles in planning for the privatization of CN and the
necessary legislative measures are included in Bill C-89.
Based on these audiences and principles I believe that every
privatization initiative must have a list of groups with a vested
interest in the sale of CN and give them the first opportunity to
buy CN shares. CN employees should be given the first
opportunity and the highest priority. CN customers come second
on the priority list and Canadian taxpayers and investors are
third.
I would also like to explore some new ideas for consideration
by the government before Bill C-89 becomes the law of the land.
What about linking two or more government objectives into
one?
For example, the government is giving landowners in the west
a one-time payout for eliminating the WGTA subsidy for the
railways, commonly known as the Crow rate. Would it be
possible to give western farmers the choice to have their Crow
rate buyout in the form of shares rather than cash? Farmers
could then have a direct financial interest in the economic
performance of CN. If done properly, the government could
overcome opposition to both the Crow rate buyout and the
privatization of CN with one move. I offer this idea to be
explored by the government to lessen some of the negative
effects of both programs.
12580
In 1986 the Economic Council of Canada published the
report: ``Minding the Public's Business''. In chapter five titled
``Government Enterprise and Business'' the economic council
made the following recommendations:
Entry into rail carriage could be promoted in different ways. The provisions in
the proposed legislation could be expanded to make running rights more easily
available and to open entry into rail carriage to anyone who can meet the basic
requirements related to safety and liability coverage. Instead of regulating the
activities of CN and CP in their capacity as providers of the roadbed, the
management of all track could be assigned to a new publicly owned track
authority. This would require the nationalization of CP's roadbed and the
separation of CN's track from the other components of its operation.
Alternatively, a public track authority could be created, based exclusively on the
infrastructure of CN.
(1250)
This is an idea whose time has finally come. The government
should give serious consideration to establishing a public track
authority which would operate similarly to our highway system.
This would eliminate the tax disadvantage placed on rail
companies because while they pay fuel taxes, they also have to
pay the full costs of maintaining their own railbed. Trucks on the
other hand pay fuel taxes but their roadbed, the highways, are
maintained at public expense.
Such a public track authority could charge user fees to rail
companies based on the use they make of the tracks and as a
result could be self-financing. At some point in the future even
the public track authority could be privatized.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce supports a fully user
pay rail infrastructure. It had this to say in its 1994 submission
to the special joint committee reviewing Canada's foreign
policy:
Canadian businesses are increasingly pointing to an unlevel playing field
between the Canadian and U.S. commercial environments-.One tangible
example among many can be found in the Canadian transportation industry.
Rail, for example, provides the most economic mode of transportation for a
large part of Canada's freight and for many shippers is the only cost effective
mode. It is fundamental to Canada's trade, moving 40 per cent of Canada's
exports and provides a fully user pay infrastructure not liable to ongoing public
funding.
Finally, I would like to comment on the importance of the port
of Churchill to the farmers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The
privatization of CN should be seen as an opportunity to
privatize, expand markets, modernize and increase exports and
imports through the port of Churchill.
This will take more than just the privatization of CN. It will
take the co-operation and likely the privatization of both VIA
Rail and Ports Canada. It will take the co-operation of the
federal government, the governments of the provinces of
Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and the co-operation and support
of every community and producer whose future will be
improved by taking advantage of the most cost effective
shipping route for bulk commodities to our customers in
Europe, Africa and South America.
I respectfully ask the government not to look at the Churchill
line and the port of Churchill as a liability but as an opportunity
requiring creative thinking and a co-operative creative
privatization strategy. I hope to have an opportunity to comment
on a few of these ideas in future debates on Bill C-89.
I would like to close with the comments Dr. Pirie made at the
1987 Fraser symposium. He describes the most exciting part of
the privatization process. He said:
You will find privatization enables you to bring opportunities to ordinary
people. It gives your citizens a chance to take part in the wealth creating process.
It speeds up economic growth. It cuts the costs of government. It turns losses into
tax revenues. In Britain, it is ending the old politics of division-the old politics
of ``us who don't have it and them that do''.
These are the real reasons that Reformers support
privatization of crown corporations.
(1255 )
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to begin by commenting on the process here. As I
understand when the procedure for referring a bill to committee
before second reading was thought about in the standing
committee on procedure some time ago, frankly I do not think
this was the kind of bill we had in mind for referral to committee
so early on. In my judgment this is the kind of bill on which there
should be a full second reading debate on the principle of
whether or not CN should be privatized.
I would like to register my objection to what I would consider
to be a misuse of this particular procedure. Presumably it is in
order to avoid just that kind of full scale debate about the
privatization of CN, although I do not know why the government
would bother to avoid it. Obviously there is a great deal of
agreement between itself and at least the Reform Party on this
measure.
Also, the government has an obligation to instruct or ask the
committee, whatever is appropriate, to consult with the
communities and other stakeholders that will be affected by the
privatization. Just to have the hearings in Ottawa without going
to Winnipeg and other places where people have good reason to
be anxious about the effect of the privatization of CN is a
mistake. It is certainly something the government should
reconsider although I do not expect it too. It seems to be in an
unholy rush to have this all over and done with, a rush which I do
not understand.
This is a very sad day for me. I will have been in this House 16
years come next week. I have spent those 16 years defending and
promoting the role of CNR as a publicly owned railway compa-
12581
ny. I had hoped and for many years I had thought that this day
would never come. I certainly did not expect it to come under the
auspices of a Liberal government.
At times I felt if the Conservatives had been re-elected that at
some point they would have done this. I remember back in 1978
when I was just a candidate for Parliament and had not yet been
elected. I was critical of Harvie Andre, then a Conservative
member of Parliament for Calgary for his proposal to privatize
the CNR. I always thought that this was something in the back of
the collective Conservative mind. The fact that it is happening
now under a Liberal government to me simply makes the
point-I wonder if the Bloc Quebecois could have their caucus
meeting somewhere else, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to make a
speech.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Our colleague is
seeking the co-operation of the House. I would ask those who
wish to talk to do so outside the House if possible.
[English]
Mr. Blaikie: The fact that this is now happening under a
Liberal government is proof positive to me of the consistency
and the continuity of the corporate agenda which involves
deregulation, privatization and free trade. I have to say that even
I, and I have been here for a long time and know just how
devious and how flexible shall we say the Liberal Party is, find
the initiative taken by the government for the privatization of
CN to be deeply surprising and deeply wounding.
In my own case, I do not think there is a person in my family
for three generations who has not worked for the CNR at one
time or another or worked there their entire life. That is true of a
lot of people in my home town of Transcona where the main
back shop for the CNR is.
(1300)
I understand the position of the Bloc Quebecois in defending
that part of the legislation which calls for the retention of
Montreal as the location for the headquarters of the new
privatized CN. However, I hope it will be equally understanding
when it contemplates my anger that my community is not
protected in the same way. Transcona is every bit as much a part
of the history of the CNR as Montreal, going back to pre-CNR
days when the shops began to be constructed in 1908 and 1909
around which the town of Transcona was created.
I object to the notion some people are protected by this
legislation and others are not, that Montreal is protected; where
the headquarters of the CNR is and will be is protected.
Transcona's role in the life of the CNR is not protected.
Presumably Transcona shops can be sold, cannibalized,
balkanized, anything can happen to them. This legislation does
not even acknowledge the existence of that place. Therefore I
would like to register my objection to that.
I find it doubly insulting, offensive and tragic that not only is
CN to be privatized but it could very well be sold to a variety of
foreign interests. I see the solicitor general across the way. I
remember being inspired when I was yet a high school student
by the Gray report on foreign ownership of the Canadian
economy. We have come a long way since then. We have come a
long way since we hoped to repatriate elements of our economy
that were under foreign ownership. Now we have a Liberal
government, of which that same member is a member,
privatizing and at the same time making it possible for foreign
interests to own significantly Canadian National.
There is nothing in the bill to prevent the wholesale
dismantling of the CNR or its being broken up into a number of
fragments and sold off. I just finished reading this bill carefully
and there is nothing in it to prevent an informal alliance of
interests by which four or five American railways or other
companies could buy 15 per cent each of the CNR and through
that natural convergence of interests that does not fit any of the
legal descriptions we find in the bill manipulate the future and
the nature of the CNR to their own advantage in a way that may
not be to the advantage of Canada.
Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps it is passé to talk about
Canada. Perhaps it is passé to talk about making the economy or
the marketplace accountable to something called the country or
something called the public interest. Over time we have seen
that notion erode and finally, I think with this bill, completely
fall away so that voices like mine sound vaguely romantic or
unrealistic in this context.
Nevertheless, I think I speak for a notion of the country which
many people still cherish and which they regret seeing disappear
as a result of this.
(1305 )
There is no provision in here for the future of VIA. It says the
new CN can continue to charge VIA whatever it pleases. I would
like to have seen something in here which would have demanded
some accountability for what the new company would charge
VIA. Is this to be the way VIA will disappear because the new
company will charge VIA rates not tenable and therefore the
next thing to go will be VIA? I would like not to have seen any of
this but if it has to happen I would like to have seen
consideration of the notion of having all the track in Canada
owned by the government so that at least the government would
continue to have a stake in our transportation system.
Finally, I believe none of this had to happen. I believe with the
proper reregulation of our railway system the CNR and the CPR
could have been healthy and viable. Instead, thanks to
deregulation, thanks to imitating things happening south of the
border we allowed ourselves to evolve to a point at which our
railways are no longer viable.
12582
With the appropriate policy changes on the tax side and
various other changes we could have built a transportation
system publicly owned on one side by CNR and privately
owned on the other by CPR which would have been
environmentally friendly because it would have been in favour
of the railways. We have failed to do that. This will only lead
to more trucking and to a transportation system which in my
judgement will be less fit for the future than the one we have
now.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-89. You may wonder
why the health critic is interested in privatization or in Bill
C-89. I am interested in this matter because CN trains go
through my riding; they even go through one of the largest cities
in my riding.
This bill would allow the government to privatize the most
symbolic of Crown corporations: CN. It is surprising, to say the
least, to see how fast symbols are disappearing from Canada
these days. Institutions that were previously considered a sacred
trust are now faced with the sorry state of government finance.
The CBC's mandate has gradually eroded, since the
government no longer gives this corporation the financial
resources needed to meet its original goals. The Canadian health
care system is also caught in our government's financial mess.
While some still see our health care system as the great
Canadian unifying project, many realize, in the light of what is
happening across Canada, that the provinces can only do so
much given the federal government's unilateral cuts.
Privatizing CN would remove another page from our album of
Canadian symbols. No other institution has done so much to
help shape Canada as we still know it today.
How many towns and regions took shape and developed
around the railways? Yesterday's symbols are being destroyed
by the government's financial impasse. Through this bill, the
government wants to establish a mechanism that would allow it
to remove one of these symbols from its public accounts.
By and large, we agree with this move. We will, however,
monitor this operation very closely so that privatization does not
become a mess like the recent shady deal relating to Pearson
airport in Toronto. We clearly cannot let the interests of the
government's wealthy financial backers prevail over those of
taxpayers, who own CN. There are some justified fears that the
Pearson airport mess does nothing to allay.
(1310)
The bill says that the shares of CN will be transferred to the
Minister of Transport, who will hold them in trust for the
Government of Canada. On the direction of the Minister of
Transport, CN will have to submit an application for a
certificate of continuance under the Canada Business
Corporations Act. In fact, CN will cease to exist as a crown
corporation and become a business corporation.
The bill imposes certain constraints on the new articles of
continuance of CN. First, the voting shares that an individual or
group of persons can hold is limited to 15 per cent; second, the
head office is to remain in Montreal; and third, once privatized,
CN will remain subject to the Official Languages Act.
If passed, this bill would authorize the Minister of Transport
to deal with shares of CN with the approval of the Minister of
Finance. The Bloc Quebecois has nothing against the principle
of privatizing CN. However, we hope that CN will really see its
efficiency and competitiveness increase as a result of
privatization, as the government claims it will. To ensure that
the transaction will produce the expected level of
competitiveness for the new owners, CN should not be sold at
reduced price. We intend to monitor the government closely in
that regard, to prevent taxpayers from making a nice big gift to a
privileged few.
So, reviewing the provisions of this bill, we find certain flaws
that we would like to see remedied before final approval. Clause
8 of the bill imposes a constraint on the total percentage of
shares that an individual or group of individuals can hold. The
limit is set at 15 per cent. On the other hand, under clause 8(5), a
group of individuals known to be associates would be allowed to
hold more than 15 per cent of CN shares on presentation of a
mere solemn declaration to the effect that these individuals will
not act in concert.
It would be up to CN management to determine whether the
group in question stood by their solemn declaration and really
acted independently rather than in concert. Our main concern is
that this leaves the door wide open for a foreign takeover, since a
holding could meet these conditions. Several companies
operating independently may in fact have the same majority
shareholder. This provision, combined with the lack of
constraints on foreign ownership, makes us fear a possible loss
of Canadian control.
It is the minister's responsibility to keep this asset, built with
money from the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada, under
Canadian control. It would be unacceptable, after investing
billions in public funds in that railway network, to let it fall into
the hands of foreign interests. CN must remain under Canadian
control to avoid a rerouting of its traffic to feed American
railway companies.
Clause 8(5) is unacceptable in its current form, since it allows
a foreign group made up of related companies to acquire a
majority of CN's shares. The only protection against an
effective takeover is a decision by CN's board members to the
effect that these businesses comply with their pledge not to act
in a concerted manner.
12583
As you know, a company acts first and foremost with its
shareholders' interests in mind. If the companies which own
CN's stocks are all owned by the same shareholder, they do not
have to act in a concerted manner to do the same thing.
Consequently, Clause 8(5) must be reviewed or, at least, its
application should be restricted to Canadian groups.
We also object to clause 16, where railway and other
transportation works, as well as every subsidiary of CN, are
declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. That clause
would allow the federal government to interfere in areas which
fall under provincial jurisdiction, such as short-line railways. It
would be totally unacceptable, as well as economically
inefficient and unjustifiable, to have these railways come under
federal jurisdiction.
(1315)
These companies successfully operate sections which are
considered to be unprofitable by major railway companies. They
can do so because they are not subjected to the numerous federal
regulations on rail transport. These companies need the
flexibility afforded by provincial regulations to operate
successfully. This attempt by the federal government could
deter the development of such companies and could limit their
number. It must be understood that each of these short lines
operates on sections which were going to be abandoned. If the
government interferes with the development of such short lines,
more lines in Quebec and in Canada will be abandoned.
I am also concerned about the survival of existing CN
subsidiaries whose activities are not related to railway
transport. The minister said that those CN subsidiaries which
are not directly related to rail transport will be sold separately.
These subsidiaries include some Quebec companies which are
currently experiencing financial difficulties. We will have to
ensure that these companies can survive without CN, and that
their current level of employment is maintained.
In conclusion, we will have to review major elements of this
bill, so that a badly planned privatization does not result in a
waste of all the money the taxpaters of Quebec and Canada
invested in CN.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
about time a Liberal government realized the private sector can
operate and manage a commercial enterprise far better than
government can. I have been waiting a long time to hear that.
We on this side of the House support ending government
involvment in the financial sinkhole of political policy that
operated CN Rail. We do, however, have some concerns about
the manner in which this government is turning the former
government operated financial sinkhole into a commercial
operation.
As members know, when government sold off the money
losing Air Canada to private interests government also wrote off
Air Canada debt, which caused other Canadian airlines grievous
harm. The question to be asked is whether this government will
have the political courage to rid taxpayers of the money losing
CN without causing unjustified harm to Canadian Pacific. Will
this Liberal government act fairly, or will it continue
government intervention into private industry? I fear that on
both counts the answer if no.
This Liberal government has already written into this
legislation interventions that will severely harm CP Rail and
place manacles on the new owners, if any, of CN. This
government, in its usual haste to appear to do something, has
allowed the taxpayers to once again bail out previous
government errors.
Instead of ending government involvement in CN, this
Liberal government divorced one sector of CN holdings from
the other. Instead of having taxpayers bail out debt, why is this
government not selling off CN real estate assets and using that
money to pay down the debt? Why is government holding on to
the assets instead of sparing taxpayers further pain?
This Liberal government is asking taxpayers to forgive debt
that is rightly payable by CN. They ask taxpayers to once again
pay for governemnt mismanagement. This governent is also
asking anyone who purchases CN to be bound by rules and
regulations that will hamstring its future owners.
Why is this Liberal government making as a condition of sale
that the head office for future CN owners must remain in
Montreal? If this condition does not or will not make good
business sense, must the future owners be shackled with another
political decision? If CN is to be privatized, let the new owners
be free to decide what is best for the railway and its customers.
Why does the Liberal government always preach freedom of
enterprise and freedom for private business to operate in the
marketplace yet always place restrictions upon private
enterprise? That is anything but free. This governemnt states
that private industry can operate better than governemnt in the
marketplace, but then this government places cost consuming
measures, such as maintaining an official languages policy, on
prospective purchasers. Again, we have this government stating
one goal while doing everything in its power to prevent
accomplishment of that goal.
Why can this government never get it right? Why can this
government not understand that intervention in the freedom of
the marketplace or in constituents' lives will not encourage
growth and prosperity? We on this side of the House understand
fully that private initiative is the best means to economic growth
and wealth and that private initiative reacting to a free market-
12584
place will create opportunity for Canadians. Unfortunately, this
government cannot or will not believe that independent
Canadians know what is best for a continuation of prosperity.
(1320)
The members opposite continue to believe that private
property owned by free citizens must have government
interference to be viable. With that in mind, why is this Liberal
government restricting ownership by any one sector to 15 per
cent of outstanding shares? What if western grain producers and
operators can afford to and wish to purchase as much of CN as
they can to maintain a say in what prices will be charged to move
their grain to market? What if western interests want to make
certain CN will charge the price that is necessary to move the
grain and make a profit but prevent outside interests from
arbitrarily setting extremely high rates to ship their grain? What
if these Canadian interests wish to purchase more than 15 per
cent? Why can they not?
Why does this Liberal government continue to talk free
enterprise but always intervene in the free market? Why does the
government always put up barriers to the free movement of
goods, services, and enterprise? Can it not understand that its
outdated measures are holding back the future growth and the
competitiveness that are required to make Canada an effective
force in the world market?
Several ideas have been forthcoming that would allow
hard-pressed taxpayers to recover some of their investment in
CN. One idea is rationalizing the CN operation for public sale
based solely on offering rolling stock, trucking, and real estate
for public tender and having government retain ownership of the
iron highway. Taxpayers have purchased the asphalt highways in
this land. Why not allow taxpayers to keep the iron highways
they have purchased?
Just as government levies a fee to use the open road, a realistic
fee could be charged to all users of the iron highway. This
measure will allow taxpayers to receive some return on the
investment that opened this land from sea to sea. This measure
has been tried and found to be viable in Great Britain. Granted,
some may shout that government has no place in the iron
highway, and some may point out that there are wrongs to this
plan, but why does this government not allow discussion on this
point? This government is quick to shout that it has consulted on
many items in the agenda. Why is this government afraid to
consult on this measure in the House?
Do not misunderstand my criticism, Mr. Speaker. I am a firm
supporter of privatization, a firm believer that private industry
can operate an enterprise far more effectively and efficiently
than any government. I am a firm believer that private industry
can create jobs and economic wealth far better than any
government. However, there are several issues in this legislation
that do not offer the best value for the dollar to Canada's hard
pressed taxpayers. Make no mistake, it was tax dollars that
created the CN this government now wants to pass to private
ownership. I have no problem with that decision. I only have a
problem with the manner in which this initiative takes place.
Taxpayers deserve maximum return for their investment.
Taxpayers deserve liquidation of CN real estate assets to pay
down the CN debt, which may make this sale unattractive to
some purchasers. Taxpayers do not deserve to have their hard
earned dollars used to rid this company of one cent of debt while
any asset remains.
Taxpayers do not deserve to have a hidden agenda set by this
Liberal government, such as head office location or official
languages requirement, which other private enterprises can
forgo, to hinder the sale to and the profitability of future owners.
I believe I have raised several issues that require answers. I
believe I have pointed out to taxpayers why this government is
not giving them the best value for their dollar. It is now up to the
government to answer those concerns, and I challenge them to
do so.
(1325)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity today to speak on second reading of
Bill C-89, whose purpose is to privatize Canadian National, a
decision that was announced in the last budget and is well on its
way to being implemented.
However, before this bill does what it is supposed to do, which
is to privatize CN, there are a few points I would like to raise for
the benefit of the Minister of Transport and his colleagues, and I
am referring to the importance of the railways for resource rich
regions like the Abitibi in Quebec, the riding I represent in this
House. My concern is that this bill should benefit, not penalize
the railways.
The railway system was one of the keys to the economic
development of the Abitibi and, as we all know, was also
instrumental in the development of many other resource regions
in Quebec and Canada. I often wonder, when I see these small
rural municipalities along the railroad tracks, whether they grew
up around the railway station or attracted CN to the area so they
could expand.
We have to ask whether this government, like previous
governments, will again be wide of the mark with its railway
development policy and this new policy of privatization.
Could it be that once again, Quebec has been the first to
realize the importance of having a modern railway adapted to
the needs of today's economy?
We all know that the decline of our Canadian railways is not a
measure of their usefulness, since during the recent debate on
12585
special legislation tabled by the Liberal government to put the
railway companies and their employees back to work, much was
made of the importance of the railways for the economy in
general.
Oddly enough, the railways were called an essential national
service. so that the government could force a settlement during
this latest dispute, while in our region we had to fight to justify
maintaining sections of the railway network in order to preserve
our principal means of shipping our natural resources, our
mining and forestry products.
Despite the importance of the railways, the reason for their
decline is simple: no government has ever made a serious
attempt to remedy the situation when there was still time,
although it provided substantial grants for operating the
railways.
We have been trying to placate unions for too long, instead of
searching for efficient or cost-effective solutions for both the
employer and the employee. What effort has this government or
previous governments made to promote this means of transport
over the past 20 years? Absolutely none. We can sum up the
actions of the successive governments by the word ``cuts'' and
the federal leitmotiv ``we cannot afford it''. Infusions of capital
were certainly not the best solution, as we can see by the results
today.
Over the past twenty years or more, the only notable things
about the coast to coast rail system have been staff cuts,
abandonment of lines and cuts to client services. Instead of
investing in this great Canadian asset and creating jobs, the
government is cutting.
On the other hand, the government found a way to meet the
needs of western grain transporters, justifying itself by saying
that we need international trade and that our wheat producers
have to be competitive. Why did the government not place the
same importance on the transport of wood and minerals from
northern Quebec and northern Ontario?
Natural resources, and the jobs they create, are the foundation
of our economy. The executives controlling rail transport in this
country exhibited a flagrant lack of leadership skills. They
failed to rationalize an essential service and to make it cost
effective when they had the chance. They neglected their
responsibilities by letting rolling stock age without replacing or
improving it.
The longer they let it go, the higher the costs of getting the
equipment back on track. They had gotten so behind in their
upkeep and replacement of rolling stock that the situation came
to a head at the beginning of the 1970s. The situation only
worsened under VIA which, with the weather beaten material it
inherited from CN, was never able to break even.
(1330)
Furthermore, the leaders at the time denied the importance of
also maintaining efficient, competitive and aggressive
passenger service, deeming it less profitable than freight
transportation and not essential because road transportation was
available by car or bus. Through its policy, the government
supported this situation rather than look for solutions that would
put the industry back on a solid footing and would serve the real
needs of the communities affected by the flood of lost jobs and
services.
Is the government trying to isolate distant localities once and
for all by taking away their trains, airports, TV stations and even
the social programs the people have contributed to in large and
ever growing measure? No study has compared the huge costs of
highway maintenance with rail line maintenance in northern
regions such as Abitibi, with its notorious climate. The potential
end of rail transportation could mean increasingly poor roads.
The people in my riding know about this problem. They are
faced with increasing numbers of trucks on the road, since the
railway was not competitive and lacked the services to compete
with the trucking industry.
In my region, this type of transportation is causing a lot of
problems, since the highways were not designed to take such
heavy loads. It is always the same problem, unfortunately-a
lack of consultation. Government makes decisions without
consulting the regions and without taking their particular needs
into account. Even today, privatizing CN as outlined in this bill
does not guarantee that services will be maintained in outlying
areas. In spite of this, the federal government gives itself the
power to interfere in short-line railway operations through
clause 16 of Bill C-89.
This is totally unacceptable, since short-line railways were
created thanks to the initiative of rail staff and unions, who took
the risks that our leaders had avoided taking in the past. These
people feel that some sections abandoned by CN and the
government can become profitable through sound management.
To fulfil their potential, short-line railways also needed the
operating flexibility that only provincial regulations could
provide.
It would be dishonest for the government to discourage the
creation of short-line railways, or to try to hamper the
development or operations of those already in existence by
interfering whenever it feels like it. The short-line railway in
my riding of Abitibi is a very good example of a CN section. It
meets with the Lac-Saint-Jean line. We managed to rescue it
from abandonment with all the attendant advantages for our
region in terms of jobs, economic benefits, development,
transport, and so on.
I would also like to take this opportunity to address clause 8 of
this bill. As it now stands, this clause is unacceptable. Let me
explain. The government plans to sell most of CN, an institution
over 100 years old, through the largest share issue in Canadian
history, which would amount to some $2 billion.
12586
Like my Bloc colleagues, I deplore the fact that this
government did not include in the bill a clause explicitly
prohibiting foreigners from holding a majority of shares.
Today, I will try to explain to the Minister of Transport and all
his colleagues how important it is to encourage local purchase
by local investors if possible or any concrete gesture through
short-line railways.
Railways have played an important part in the development of
my region and many others, and they can still play this role if we
make the effort of identifying the needs of people in the regions
and helping them meet these needs. May I point out that we are
not dependent on the U.S., and yet the danger is real. The
presence of Goldman Sachs, an American firm, among the
brokers appointed by the government confirms the
government's need to issue shares outside the Canadian stock
market.
We also know that American investors are used to assessing
railway companies. There are at least a dozen on the stock
exchange list in the U.S., while in Canada, there is only CP,
hence the risk that less informed Canadian investors may not
recognize a good deal when they see it. That is why I propose
that clause 8(5) be deleted or at least amended to apply only to
Canadians.
To conclude, if the railway system was the connecting link for
all the regions of this country, and promoted its development,
why is it that today, on the eve of the 21st century, we are not
able to find innovative ways of making it profitable? The
railway is an essential public utility, connecting people and
businesses.
(1335)
If a committee to save the railway system were set up, I am
sure that we could come up with solutions, because I am still
convinced that solutions do exist and that short-line railways
are part of the solution. Personally, I think that privatizing CN is
not a bad idea in itself since investors are needed to boost the rail
industry if it is to become more performing and modern. And I
think that regional business functions may offer solutions.
Privatizing must take place in the interests of all stakeholders:
customers, employers and employees. In terms of profitability,
CN is not doing as bad as in 1992, with estimated profits for
1994 between $240 million and $250 million.
Perhaps we have the time and resources to make the right
choices. Let us take the time to weigh up the pros and cons of
Bill C-89 to try to make up for the mass of not so great decisions
made by rail officials and our governments over the past 20
years.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-89, which seeks to
privatize CN. First, it should be remembered that the Canadian
National was always a symbol of unity, with its lines crossing
the country from east to west and going deep into remote
regions. However, that symbol is disintegrating, just like
federalism, and no longer meets the aspirations and needs of
Canadians.
I agree with the Minister of Transport when he says that, given
its current structure, CN is not a profitable venture. And CN
must remain competitive. Maintaining our national railway in
the long term implies government ownership in the short term.
For reasons of profitability, and in an effort to find solutions
to eliminate CN's growing deficit, the government must ensure
the maintenance of an adequate service, particularly in remote
areas which are not served by any other public means of
transportation.
Let me give you some figures. My riding of Champlain is
served by two CN-operated railroad lines, Montreal-Senneterre
and Montreal-Jonquière. According to a 1992 Via Rail survey
on the origin and destination of travellers, 56 per cent of
passengers on the Montreal-Senneterre line were either going to
or coming from a remote destination. Twenty two per cent of the
respondents said that their point of departure or their destination
was otherwise only accessible by bush roads. In the early
nineties, Transport Canada found that 38,000 trips were made on
that line, with over 60 per cent of them originating or ending in
remote communities or places otherwise only accessible by
bush roads.
The same survey showed that 26 per cent of all passengers on
the Montreal-Jonquière line were going to or coming from a
remote community. Seven per cent of respondents said that bush
roads were the only alternative. In 1992, Transport Canada
found that close to 20,000 trips were made on the
Montreal-Jonquière line, with over 26 per cent of them
originating or ending in remote communities or places
otherwise only accessible by bush roads.
It should be noted that, after a decrease in the number of users
in 1990, there has been a significant increase, in the last two
years, in the number of travellers on these two lines, in spite of a
lack of marketing and poorer services, a well-known fact. Just
think of the environmental disaster resulting from the
derailment in the Tawachiche ZEC, close to the municipality of
Sainte-Thècle, in my riding of Champlain.
Of course, the railway service in the southern part of these two
lines has to compete with other means of transportation. Given
the length of the trip, the unaccommodating schedules, their
infrequency and our individualized travelling habits, the train in
its current incarnation is not competitive.
However, it does contribute to the autonomy of residents of
remote areas, it is an efficient evacuation method in case of
natural disaster and it could be at the heart of economic
development or promote tourism, if it were more
enthusiastically supported and its publicity campaigns better
targeted.
12587
(1340)
After reading Bill C-89, one has to wonder how the
privatization of Canadian National will affect the maintenance
of infrastructures in remote areas and one has to ask oneself if
the Minister of Transport can guarantee these people access to
public transportation where roads are not adequate?
This question is even more pertinent, since clause 16 of the
bill before us gives the federal government the right to meddle
with the property of short line railways. It is particularly
unacceptable and even economically inefficient and
unjustifiable for the federal government to take over all or even
some of these small operations.
One of the main reasons that these short line railways can
make a profit operating short lines is that they are not heavily
regulated by the federal government. These operations need the
flexibility which they enjoy under the jurisdiction of the
provinces. This federal initiative could discourage the creation
of short line railways and limit their numbers. We must not
forget that each of these operations saves a railway line from
abandonment.
If the government impedes the development of these small
operations, an increasing number of kilometres of track in
Quebec and in Canada will be abandoned.
Another aspect of Bill C-89 which makes me fear for the
future of remote areas is the lack of controls regarding foreign
takeovers of CN holdings.
The aim of the Minister of Transport in presenting this bill is
highly praiseworthy, but his prime obligation is to ensure that all
Quebecers and Canadians, who paid the cost of building and
operating the national railway, continue to have the service
available to them. One way for this to happen would be to limit
ownership of CN to Canadian interests.
Clause 8(5) is unacceptable in its present form, because it
allows a foreign group of associated businesses to acquire a
majority of CN shares. The only thing blocking an effective
takeover in such a situation is the decision by CN directors that
the companies in the owner consortium will stand by their
statutory declaration to not act jointly. A company acts first and
foremost in its own interest and in the interest of its
shareholders. If the companies owning CN's shares have
common shareholders, they would not need to act jointly in
order to achieve the same end.
Therefore, clause 8(5) must be deleted in order to limit
ownership of CN to Canadian groups.
In closing, I would remind the Minister of Transport that he is
responsible for keeping control of Canadian National within
Canada, because it was built with the tax money of Quebecers
and Canadians. With billions of dollars of public money already
poured into this rail system, it would be intolerable if it were
now to be taken out of the hands of Quebecers and Canadians.
Furthermore, if we are to keep CN rail traffic from heading
south to the American rail systems, it is vital that CN remain
under Canadian control.
In the past two quarters, CN has recorded profits of over $200
million. Now that it is beginning to make money, we sell it. CN
must be well managed, serving the needs of its clientele and of
the remote regions.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-89 which, as
we know, will have the effect of privatizing Canadian National.
This bill will also determine the mechanism that will be used
by the government to implement the process. As soon as the
legislation is passed, CN will no longer be a crown corporation.
It will become a business corporation.
When I began to examine this bill, I soon realized that some of
its clauses were cause for concern.
(1345)
Clause 6 of the bill allows the transfer of CN property to the
government. Under this clause, the government will be able to
take possession of CN affiliates and real estate not directly
related to the railway sector.
We also know that the minister made it clear he wanted CN to
keep only those assets directly related to rail transport. Assets
related to other sectors will be privatized separately.
I would like to take as an example the intermodal station in the
riding of Jonquière, next door to my own riding. If the station is
closed, all freight will be transferred to Quebec's highway
network, more specifically the highway through the Parc des
Laurentides wildlife reserve.
We know the Minister of Transport has no long term policy for
the road network, which means that the entire road network in
Quebec will be penalized. Safety will be a casualty as well.
People will have to cope with larger numbers of heavy trucks on
our roads.
To me, this clause rang some alarm bells. We know that CN
affiliates include businesses that are not in very good financial
shape but still manage to do the job thanks to CN.
One wonders whether these businesses will be viable without
CN and whether they will maintain the same employment levels.
Will these levels be maintained? I think this is a very important
question.
Eighteen months ago, throughout the election campaign, the
Prime Minister's main platform was creating jobs for the people
of this country. Eighteen months later, we see this promise was
not kept. Even worse, in the last budget the Minister of Finance
failed to include measures for direct job creation. I would even
12588
go so far as to say that the budget's impact will be the reverse of
what was promised in the red book.
In my riding, things are very bad, with over 30 per cent of the
population on unemployment insurance or welfare. Of this
group, a number of people have decided to give up looking for
jobs. They have stopped looking for jobs because there are none.
We are gradually killing off an entire generation.
Jobs in CN affiliates must be guaranteed so that we do not get
thousands more unemployed people looking for jobs. This is
particularly crucial when we realize that this government is
doing little or nothing to deal with this problem.
The Prime Minister seems to have forgotten the golden rule
which says that when you are the boss, never take on a task your
assistant will not be able to do. Let me explain. Clearly, neither
the Minister of Labour nor the Minister of Finance are in a
position to keep the government's promise that it would put
people back to work and provide for economic recovery.
(1350)
CN itself has concerns about this bill. I will take the specific
example of AMF Technotransport Inc. of Montreal, which
employs 1,300 people but, on its own, without the support of
CN, it may get into financial difficulty, which will add to the
unemployment statistics of the province.
Again, this bill does not contain any provision to protect jobs
in subsidiaries. This could be very dangerous, leading to jobs
cuts, layoffs and perhaps even businesses closing down. We
cannot afford this kind of luxury.
Another clause that would require further consideration is
clause 8. My colleagues mentioned it earlier, but I would like to
address it anyway, particularly as regards paragraph 5, which, as
it stands, authorizes a foreign group of corporations which are
associates to acquire majority control of CN.
The only thing that stands in the way of an effective takeover
in such circumstances under this clause is the judgment of the
CN board of directors, which they have shown in negotiations,
and collective bargaining in particular, with employees at every
level. Collective agreements were signed that were considered
generous at the time, but then the company only tried to take
these hard won rights away from the workers later on. They tried
to do so by seeking legislation like the bills that were brought
before this House a few months ago. Knowing how much
common sense the CN directors responsible for determining
whether the corporations in the owners group are complying
with their statutory declaration not to act in concert really have,
I doubt this can be achieved.
Everybody knows that corporations are guided first and
foremost by the interests of their shareholders, and that is
absolutely normal. So, if the corporations that own CN all have
the same shareholders, they do not need to act in concert to act
along the same lines. It is therefore essential that clause 8 be
amended.
Need I remind you that this railway system was built with
money provided by the taxpayers of Canada and Quebec? It
would be unacceptable for control over a railway in which
billions of dollars of public money were invested to be lost to
Canadians and that CN traffic be redirected toward U.S. rail
systems.
Finally, at a time when the provinces are asking the federal
government to give them more flexibility and to withdraw more
and more from certain jurisdictions, clause 16 authorizes the
federal government to interfere in a wide variety of provincial
jurisdictions through short-line railways.
In closing I would like to add that these entities should be
protected so that they can be sold to private sector enterprises,
but enterprises truly owned by Canadians and Quebecers.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-89 is a very important
bill to the railway industry and for the future of transportation in
the country. I appreciate the number of members who have
spoken and the vast number of questions which will be answered
in due course in the committee hearings to commence tomorrow.
I want to extend appreciation to the opposition parties, the
official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party,
for their support in principle of the bill. I understand it is
conditional support at this point in time and that we will
endeavour to answer their questions at committee. I should point
out that the NDP continues to be in a time warp. It believes the
government must own and operate everything to ensure that it is
run efficiently. Most members have indicated that we have a
tremendous opportunity to create a new CN with greater
efficiencies.
(1355)
I highlight two questions that have been posed to the
government. The first concerns no restrictions to foreign
investment. The Canadian taxpayer has helped to build
Canadian National and the Canadian taxpayer deserves to get
the maximum benefit for that investment. Therefore the experts
have indicated to us that to ensure the maximum benefit, one
cannot impose certain restrictions on the share offering to try to
get the best possible value for Canadian National.
Second, we have put a restriction on individual shareholdings
to a maximum of 15 per cent. A number of opposition members
have indicated that certain unaffiliated or unrelated companies
could band together to essentially take over Canadian National.
I want to say with regard to that concern that the experts have
told us it is impossible. The reason we have drafted the bill with
12589
such detail is to ensure that unrelated companies and individuals
could not band together to essentially have control of Canadian
National.
I want to make two other points. The Minister of Transport
indicated this morning that regulatory reform would be coming
up soon. It is as important as CN's privatization to ensure that
we have an efficient railway transportation system.
We all agree that transportation is key to our competitiveness,
to creating jobs and to exporting. That is why we want to create a
national, affordable integrated railway system in the country
that will allow us to be able to move goods and people as
efficiently and as effectively as we possibly can, and to ensure
that those jobs remain in the country and that we continue to
export.
Bill C-89 is going to committee and when it comes back I am
sure we can look forward to the support of all members of the
House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 73, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put
forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
[Translation]
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the
House stands deferred until 6.30 p.m. today, at which time the
bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
[English]
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5) the House will now proceed to statements by members.
12589
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you
might agree that in your chair you are more often a listener than
you are a speaker, but not all Canadians share the luxury of
hearing as you do.
May is Hearing Awareness Month and as such is an occasion
to promote greater public understanding of Canadians who are
deaf or hard of hearing. It is also a time to help those with related
communication disorders and to emphasize the importance of
protecting our hearing.
More than one million Canadians have a hearing loss. For
these people communication is not a simple task. It means using
teletypewriters, close captioning for television, listening
devices, sign language and oral interpreters.
This year the hearing awareness campaign will focus on
access and communication. Hearing organizations will be
working together to promote programs and services that
improve the lives of the hearing impaired in Canada.
Please join me in saluting the Canadian Hearing Society and
the Canadian Association of Speech Language Pathologists and
Audiologists for their devotion to improving the lives of
Canadians with hearing difficulties. Thank you all for listening.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April
25, I attended the official opening of the largest copper mine in
operation in Quebec, the Louvicourt mine, near Val-d'Or.
This mine, which will employ over 350 people for more than
10 years, is the result of a roughly $300 million investment by
partners Aur, Teck and Novicourt. This impressive achievement
shows how important government assistance, in the form of
flow-through shares, is to mining.
We deplore the fact that the government has rejected the
Standing Committee on Natural Resources' recommendation to
enhance the federal contribution to the flow-through share
system. The Minister of Natural Resources should be reminded
that the government's involvement in mining is not an
expenditure but a profitable investment that would benefit a
number of mining regions in Canada and Quebec as well as
thousands of workers.
12590
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals in this House are very proud of their connection with
the Ontario Liberals. They believe Lyn McLeod is going to be
the next premier of Ontario.
The federal Liberals support the Ontario Liberals' red book
policy. The Canadian finance minister has gone so far as to
interfere in the provincial election by ridiculing Ontario Tory
policies. However, speaking of ridicule, I wonder just how
proud Lyn McLeod is of the federal Liberals. Why does she not
ridicule federal Liberal policy that will see the continuation of
the MPs' very own porky pension plan?
Ontario Liberals understand the revulsion that Canadians feel
toward their MPP pension plan and say in their Ontario red book
they are going to scrap the porky plan.
Meanwhile, federal Liberals are poised to vote for their
pension plan. They want to hide it from Canadian taxpayers in
committee, which makes me wonder if federal Liberals are
proud of Lyn McLeod. Is she ashamed of them?
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal red book highlighted the importance of Canada's
infrastructure to our economy. Yet the Liberal government has
done another about face by selling off CN Rail which takes away
a vital link in our transportation infrastructure.
The Canadian people will no longer be participants in our rail
economy, the transportation link that built Canada.
In preparation for the sell-off, CN laid off 11,000 Canadians.
As a former trainman for CN Rail, I saw firsthand the good work
done in bringing grain and other Canadian products to market. I
am one of thousands of Canadians who are deeply concerned
about even further job loss caused by putting CN Rail on the
auction block.
With no rules on foreign ownership, CN is destined, with the
Liberal government's blessing, to be purchased by individuals
and corporations with no interest in Canada's future. The
Liberal government is exchanging an east-west transportation
system for a north-south system that will see even more foreign
control of the Canadian economy.
Bill C-89 brings to an end Canadians' ownership and control
of their own railway and only leaves further job loss and more
debt for Canada.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
being visited today by the Port Perry Cadet Corps. This corps of
young men, who attend both elementary and secondary school,
has a long history of achievements.
Having been formed in 1898, they are now fast approaching
their 100th anniversary. The purpose is not to train soldiers but
to train young men for the responsibilities of citizenship.
Being a part of the Department of National Defence, they have
expressed to me their concerns about possible reduced funding,
especially since they are often dependent on the local forces
base, many of which are now closing. They also expressed to me
the need to get funding down to the level of local decision
makers. Highly centralized authority often makes inappropriate
decisions with respect to local needs.
(1405)
I would like to thank Major Doodley and the 40 young men of
the Port Perry Cadet Corps who have made such a major
contribution to our community.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the United
Nation's International Day of Families which is being
celebrated today.
The United Nations calls the family the most crucial link
between generations, the purveyor of human culture, the
primary source for love, sustenance and shelter. I too call the
family the most important grouping of people in our society. On
this day to honour families I want to take a moment to honour
my own.
The family unit is fundamental to our society. Through our
families we strive to make the world a better place. Through our
families we hope to achieve harmony in the world by promoting
healthy values and instilling tolerance, understanding and
compassion in our children.
Families struggle to maintain cohesiveness in these stressful
times of social and economic change. Households are changing
but the family unit remains intact and strong as each member
supports the others.
The family is our strongest bond. I invite my colleagues to
join with me today in honouring our families.
12591
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second week of May is National Mining Week, when we focus
attention on the contribution this industry makes to Canada.
I would like to focus on mining in my constituency. This
industry is the main employer in many of our communities. The
mining industry makes a significant contribution to the northern
Manitoba economy through salaries and royalties.
I would especially like to pay tribute to the men and women of
northern Manitoba who work hard in our mines and smelters.
They are an important part of our northern community and they
deserve our appreciation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at
the Power Corporation stockholders' meeting, chairman of the
board and CEO Paul Desmarais, who is also the father-in-law of
the Prime Minister's daughter, said that, in the current
circumstances, it was not in his corporation's best interest to
invest in Quebec.
We learned at the same time that Power Corporation had
increased its stake in Southam, which is about to build a $55
million printing plant for the Gazette. Bloc members deplore
this blackmail campaign aimed at Quebecers on the eve of the
referendum campaign.
Everyone knows that, because of its influence, its family ties,
and the professional past of its senior executives, Power
Corporation has benefited from orders-in-council regarding
satellite broadcasting that were custom-made for one of its
subsidiaries, Power DirecTv.
Are we to understand from Mr. Desmarais's declarations that
he is now returning the Liberal government's favour?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this week being National Police Week, I
acknowledge the RCMP detachment in Burnaby, British
Columbia, Canada's second largest municipal contract
detachment, with approximately 240 officers. In every aspect,
this detachment exemplifies what is meant by serving the
community.
On January 15 the local RCMP began a community policing
pilot project, forging a new relationship with citizens. By
dividing the city into four districts, the force will eliminate a
central command, making officers more accessible to citizens,
essentially assigning each officer to his or her own turf. By
providing a greater presence in the local neighbourhoods,
through full service community stations, storefront contact
offices and a restructuring of the organization, this five-year
strategic plan is sure to make a difference.
There is much concern for safety on our streets and in our
homes. I congratulate the Burnaby force for its innovation and
diligence, and making my part of British Columbia a safer place
to live.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the week of May 14 to May 20 marks the 25th anniversary of
National Police Week in Canada, an event aimed at
strengthening co-operation between the police and the public.
As you know, the Liberal government cares about the safety of
Canadians. We must ensure that this co-operation between all
members of the community remains strong, to ensure that
Canadian law enforcement services continue to be efficient.
[English]
The police play a vital role in public safety and security and
this year's police week theme ``Partnerships with the
Community'' underscores this special relationship.
To mark the 25th year anniversary of police week, police
services across the country are undertaking activities to
underscore the importance of partnerships and co-operation
between the police and the community in the fight against crime.
[Translation]
Police forces in Canada do an extraordinary job. Their
achievements must not go unnoticed, and this is why we invite
all Canadians to pay tribute to those who work tirelessly to
protect them.
* * *
(1410)
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, May 15, is recognized by the United Nations as
International Day of Families.
This day provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the new
realities facing the modern family. Social, technological and
economic changes have significantly changed the make-up of
the so-called traditional family unit.
12592
This day must be an occasion to reflect on the evolution of
the major role played by the family, which is the cornerstone
of our society.
In spite of above-mentioned changes, one thing remains
certain: generations follow one another, but the family will
always play a fundamental role by providing our children with
an essential and special environment to foster their
development.
On this International Day of Families, I wish everyone the
very best.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday, five members of the Bloc Quebecois' commission of
cultural communities resigned to denounce the fact that they
were being manipulated by Bloc officials.
With their resignation, the cultural communities
representatives wanted to show that they would not have a real
role to play in an independent Quebec.
The few reactions from Bloc spokespersons following these
resignations clearly show the deep malaise which exists
between the Bloc and the cultural communities.
[English]
This is one more example of the failure of the Bloc as well as
the PQ to sell their separatist option to Quebec's cultural
communities. These Quebecers have seen through the PQ's
fearmongering and desperate tactics.
[Translation]
Quebec's cultural communities deserve respect; they do not
want to be ignored. Quebec's future will not be decided without
their input, in spite of what the Bloc and the PQ may think.
* * *
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today,
on the International Day of Families, the Bloc Quebecois wishes
to emphasize the importance of this primary social unit for each
and every one of us.
Many believe that the family is the place where the individual
is formed, for better or for worse. That is why it is so important
to aim for more equality in our society, and I mean not only
equal opportunities but also some basic equality in living
conditions.
In 1993, more than one million families in Canada were living
below the poverty line. For us as elected representatives, this
should be a day to reflect on what we hope to achieve in this
House and how we can improve the lives of families in Quebec
and Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Finance has gone on the hustings for Lyn McLeod and the son of
red book. In a speech to the Liberal faithful, the minister heaped
praise on the Ontario Liberals for setting a four-year target for
the elimination of the deficit, calling their so-called strategic
spending cuts laudable and their tax cuts sensible. This is very
ironic. In a classic case of Liberal doublespeak, it is another
example of do as I say not as I do. It is just like their MP pension
plan reform.
Despite constant Reform pressure, the minister has repeatedly
refused to set a date to eliminate the deficit and has actually
increased taxes by over $1.5 billion. Liberals love taxes so it is
not surprising that they would tax logic along with everything
else.
Not to worry. The son of red book will end up with the garbage
with its federal parent. Ontario voters will have the sense to
realize that it is only by the application of the sound Reform
principles of deficit elimination, debt reduction and the
resultant tax reductions which will ultimately work to-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bruce-Grey.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
within the last number of days I was troubled by some incidents
in connection with a francophone woman by the name of
Johanne Harvey living in my riding of Bruce-Grey, in the city
of Owen Sound of which I was the mayor.
I want to assure the House that the city of Owen Sound and the
Government of Canada are strongly committed to supporting
linguistic minorities across the country and promoting language
duality as an essential element of Canadian unity and identity.
We will continue to speak out on behalf of tolerance and
ensure that there are harmonious relations between linguistic
communities in Canada.
Our actions over the past year as a government are clear. We
have reaffirmed the vision of Canada in both our language and in
our community. We want to make sure all Canadians feel at
home right across this great country.
(1415)
On another note, I have been in contact with the mayor of the
city of Owen Sound and he takes the matter extremely seriously
and will look into it personally.
12593
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with only 24 days to the Ontario election, Bob Rae is
getting desperate.
Last Friday in Thunder Bay the premier and his nearly defunct
party reached a new low in campaign dirty tricks. In the middle
of an announcement by Liberal leader Lyn McLeod, a member
of the NDP's own provincial council, Alex Ng, rushed the
podium, screaming in protest.
Later Mr. Ng admitted to the media he was ordered to disrupt
the event by the NDP's central campaign, which had paid his
flight to Thunder Bay.
The premier apologized for the incident and announced that
Mr. Ng was withdrawing from the campaign. Mr. Ng's career as
a paid protester may well be over but at least he had a good start
on Bob Rae, who will start looking for a new job on June 9.
_____________________________________________
12593
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
although the Prime Minister says he is concerned about human
rights issues, on his recent trip to Russia to attend ceremonies
celebrating the 50th anniversary of V-E Day, it was clear once
again that the Canadian government's only priority is trade.
In fact, at the very moment when the Russian army continued
its attacks in Chechnya, the Prime Minister was discussing a
Team Canada trade mission with his Russian counterpart.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Considering
the foregoing, would the Prime Minister agree that his attitude
and that of his government, which subordinates human rights to
strictly commercial interests, does not give the Russian
authorities any incentive to show more respect for the rights of
the Chechen who are now being attacked by the Russian army?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everyone knows that I raised the issue of the people of
Chechnya with President Yeltsin, and I told him personally that
his government's attitude did nothing to further Russia's
interests in the world.
We were there to celebrate the 50th anniversary of V-E Day.
The Russians made an exceptional contribution since 27 million
Russians died during the war. We accepted the invitation as a
matter of course.
My colleagues in the Western world and myself refused to
attend the military parade, but we agreed to attend a parade of
veterans who fought during the last war. To show our
disapproval of what is now happening in one part of Russia, we
boycotted their biggest parade.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
prepared to accept the Prime Minister's reply, but if he really
wanted the Russian authorities to take seriously his concerns
about human rights violations in Chechnya, why did the Prime
Minister not tell them in advance that he would refuse to attend
the military parade, as a form of protest, like other heads of state
who were not afraid to speak out?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I made it quite clear, although I may not have had a
chance to announce my intentions publicly, but in
communications with other heads of state, we agreed we would
boycott this big military parade, and we did. The Russian
government was well aware that Canada would not attend this
parade.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister said President Yeltsin gave him assurances that
the Russian army had already been replaced by a normal police
force in Chechnya. However, immediately after his departure
from Russia, the Russian army was again bombing Chechen
civilians.
Considering the false assurances the Prime Minister received
from the Russian head of state, how does his government intend
to put pressure on the Russian authorities to stop human rights
violations in Chechnya?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have protested on several occasions. My colleague,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, brought this matter up several
times with his Russian counterpart. We are putting as much
pressure as possible on the government. And if the problem
persists, I will have another opportunity to launch a protest
when I meet Mr. Yeltsin in Halifax next month.
* * *
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Another item to add to the Power DirecTv file is the
submission this company made to the government dictating the
steps to be taken to reverse the CRTC's decision allowing
Expressvu to begin broadcasting as early as next September but
not Power DirecTv.
Will the Minister of Industry admit that he received Power
DirecTv's submission and that he dutifully followed all of the
instructions contained in the document, which demanded that
12594
the order be tabled in the House before April 24 to prevent
Power DirecTv from being put at a disadvantage?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, although this information is a little dated, I am pleased
to answer the hon. member's question. If he had read the
document, he would have noticed that we did not follow Power
DirecTv's recommendations. In fact, we received many other
recommendations in that period. We did not accept all of the
suggestions of Power DirecTv, but we did accept all of those
made by the Consumers' Association of Canada. The
recommendations we accepted were the ones made by that
association.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is a
very interesting explanation, but let us look at the facts. And,
given the appearances, the minister should find this case
indecent.
Does he not find it indecent that Power DirecTV, a company
owned by the Prime Minister's son-in-law, not only tried to
instruct the government on how to settle an issue to its
satisfaction, but that worse yet, the government, we have every
indication to believe, scrupulously followed its orders and
issued a decision tailored to the requests of the company?
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will repeat for the hon. member. He seems to have
failed to read a document which I think has been in the public
domain.
Certainly others have quoted from this submission received
by the government from Power Direct, one of many received
after the expert panel's report was tabled. In the case of this one,
which asked that we make changes to the direction and table it
on April 24, he will know we did not make changes to the
direction and we did not table it until April 26.
On many important elements we did not take its
recommendations. What we acted on were the very general and
very supportive recommendations of the Consumers
Association of Canada, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting,
ACTRA, et cetera. We took our recommendations from people
who are concerned about competition in this field in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice has assured us Bill C-68 is constitutional. He
has assured us that Canada's aboriginal groups have been made
part of this consultation process.
Last Friday Mr. Mosley, the assistant deputy minister, stated
consultation with the James Bay Cree took place when the
government provided the country with its white paper on
firearms control and through the issuance of Bill C-68. He
denied that constitutional rights of aboriginal people had been
violated.
Is the justice minister's definition of a consultation the mere
provision of what he intends to do with firearms legislation?
Does this explain why he has stated repeatedly he has consulted
with various groups and individuals including the James Bay
Cree, the attorneys general of Saskatchewan, Alberta and
Manitoba and the ministers of justice from Yukon and the
Northwest Territories, who have all stated they were not
consulted by the justice minister?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I engaged in
consultation for many months before tabling last November 30
the government's proposals, before tabling Bill C-68 on
February 14 of this year.
(1425 )
This consultation was not done through officials. It was not
done through publishing an options document. It was done
personally by my visiting all 10 provinces and both territories to
meet with national, regional and local firearms groups as well as
representatives of aboriginal communities.
The views we heard during that consultation process were
carefully and fully reflected in the legislation we put before
Parliament.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
letter signed by Ovide Mercredi to the minister. He says: ``For
God's sake, respect our rights''.
Bill C-68 has some draconian search and seizure provisions.
The police are given enormous powers and discretion to inspect
for firearms and search and seize without warrant. At one time
Canada had writs of assistance which were in effect permanent,
blanket search warrants. They were withdrawn and these kinds
of searches are no longer allowed.
Is the minister intending to bring back something even more
reprehensible than writs of assistance through his so-called
inspection provisions?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the
hon. member's recent enthusiasm for aboriginal rights as well as
his recent discovery of the importance of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms.
He is a very hard working member of the very parliamentary
committee now hearing witnesses and examining clause by
clause the provisions of the bill. If he has a constructive
suggestion with respect to the implementation of this act in a
fashion sensitive to aboriginal traditions and customs, I hope he
will make it in committee and we will listen.
12595
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the worst
thing we can do as a government is create laws and agreements
with the native people and then violate those very agreements.
There is growing concern from groups about many aspects of
the bill. The Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Civil
Liberties Associations are both concerned about Bill C-68. The
Canadian Bar Association will publicly elaborate its concerns
regarding the constitutionality of the so-called inspection,
search and seizure powers.
Is the justice minister still confident his bill is constitutional
in every respect?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): I am, Mr. Speaker, but the very
purpose of having hearings before a committee is to enable
groups such as those referred to by the hon. member to come
forward and express their views.
I have had no doubt from the beginning the bill can be
improved by that process. I listened with interest to the views
expressed to date and I will listen with interest to the views to be
expressed by the Canadian Bar Association.
Let me make clear if there are ways the bill can be improved
with respect to the inspection procedures or others we are very
happy to have those proposals. We will take the proposals from
the bar association and others and give them serious
consideration.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Public Works categorically refused last week to
break off negotiations between the federal government and the
firm Agusta regarding potential compensation for the Liberal
government's cancellation of the contract for the EH-101
helicopters. The Prime Minister stated a few days after his
election that the contract would be cancelled and no
compensation would be paid to anyone.
How does the Minister of Public Works justify his current
negotiations with Agusta, when the Prime Minister stated a few
days after his election, and I quote: ``The program is cancelled
and there is no compensation for anybody''?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
will know that under the terms of the contract there are various
provisions whereby the Government of Canada must provide
some funding to the contractor.
The Prime Minister's statements were made with that in mind.
We are proceeding with our negotiations as we would proceed
under any other normal circumstances upon the termination of
any contract with the Government of Canada.
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in view of the fact that Agusta has just hired the former director
of communications of the Liberal Party of Canada, Daniel
Despins, and the former special adviser to Pierre Elliott
Trudeau, James Peacey, as lobbyists in order to sell helicopters
to the Government of Canada, would the minister of public
works assure us that he is not negotiating a new contract on the
quiet with Agusta, in exchange for compensation for the
cancellation of the last contract?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
has made reference to two individuals, neither of whom I have
seen, heard, or communicated with since I have become a
minister of the crown.
I want to assure the hon. member that whatever a particular
company does or who it hires is certainly its prerogative. There
have been no representations made to me as a minister of the
crown regarding that particular incident.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
weekend edition of
The Globe and Mail ran a feature story on
illegal gun sales in Canada. In that article, Detective Geoffrey
Francis, who headed a gun running task force in the Toronto
area, stated: ``We already have good, strong laws in Canada for
controlling firearms. We have to start enforcing them''.
For 18 months the minister has done nothing to enforce the
laws we have. Why is the minister not enforcing the existing
laws instead of creating new laws that will do absolutely no
good?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that article effectively
pointed out the importance of taking action with respect to the
smuggling of firearms. However, the fact that this problem
exists does not mean that other things are not also needed. We
have to address all these concerns.
The minister of revenue and the people working in his
department, the solicitor general and members of the RCMP are
all working closely with other police forces. Indeed, when I met
with the attorney general of the United States here in Ottawa in
March, the first item on the agenda was the need for our
12596
governments to work together more effectively to deal with the
smuggling of firearms.
I fully agree with the hon. member, it is an important issue. It
needs more attention, and it will get it.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if he
agrees with me, he should have agreed with me 18 months ago
and got off his backside and done something about it.
I will ask the justice minister one simple question. Since he is
fully aware and has been made aware by a number of people that
registration will do nothing to curb crime, why does he not scrap
that whole idea and save the taxpayers a lot of dollars?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I were to do such a
thing I would disappoint the strongest supporters of registration,
the chiefs of police of the country, the frontline police officers,
the Canadian Police Association, the mayors of cities, the
professional health care workers, people who know of the close,
the practical, and the demonstrable connection between
registration of firearms and achieving greater public safety.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
We learned in La Presse on the weekend that somatotropin has
been entering Canada freely as customs officers are
unauthorized to stop it. All the while, the Minister of Health is
imagining that this hormone, which may pose a health hazard, is
not being used because of a moratorium on it.
Would the minister tell us whether Health Canada is taking
particular action against those who are importing somatotropin,
because the use of it is banned?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member has information she could share
with us on the sale of this product, which is not legal in Canada,
we would appreciate it if she would tell us.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would invite the minister to read this weekend's La Presse.
(1435)
How can the Minister of Health think that the Minister of
Agriculture's moratorium has any effect at all, when appreciable
quantities of this hormone are entering Canada, and does she
intend punishing those using this hormone despite the ban?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course, because it is not approved for sale in Canada.
As regards the moratorium, the hon. member should perhaps
talk to the Minister of Agriculture.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Minister of Transport suggested he might
cancel the problematic air traffic control computerization
contract with Hughes Aircraft. Now he has apparently offered
the company more than a hundred million taxpayer dollars to
supply a system inferior to that in the original contract.
How does the minister justify his about face, which will
actually reward a company for not living up to its government
contract?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the difficulties with Hughes on that contract are well
known. As the hon. member has raised in the House and as I have
agreed, we have to find a way out of that. It is a very difficult and
complex question.
It is a very odd situation to have the hon. member now suggest
that we should cancel the contract when has been such a stout
defender of the Pearson contract.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister did not hesitate to cancel the Pearson
airport contract without producing a single item of evidence of
wrongdoing.
Hughes is a year and a half behind schedule. It has stated that
it cannot provide what it contracted to provide the government
with and it wants even more money for what it does supply.
If Hughes insists on more money for an inferior system, why
does the minister not either approach an alternate bidder or
simply retender the air traffic control contract altogether?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there have been millions of dollars spent already on
this contract. I agree with the hon. member that the contract is
not being delivered on schedule and that it is over budget.
We are negotiating with Hughes to try to find a solution to the
problem. The hon. member would know that the contract was
entered into a number of years ago. It came to my attention that
there were problems with it and I immediately informed the
auditor general of my concerns. I have discussed the matter with
my deputy minister. We are going to try to find a solution to it.
The problem we face with Hughes I think the hon. member
would recognize as a good reason why we should proceed
12597
rapidly with the commercialization of the air navigation system
to ensure that those who deliver the service, the people who use
the service, and especially those who pay for it have a direct say
in how these services are built and maintained.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
After testifying before the commission on Quebec's future,
Pierre Laberge, a retired member of the RCMP and CSIS, has
now been barred from their Montreal headquarters, where the
association of former RCMP and CSIS members holds its
meetings. This ban was imposed by, among others, Normand
Chamberland, the current director of CSIS for the Quebec
region.
How can the Solicitor General justify such retaliatory
measures against a retired employee simply because he took part
in the proceedings of the commission on Quebec's future?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the association of former RCMP members is a private
organization that does not report to the government. It makes its
own decisions regarding access to its meetings.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
understand that the RCMP building comes under the
government's responsibility.
Can the Solicitor General tell us if the RCMP's intolerance
toward Mr. Laberge reflects the policy that the federal
government intends to apply to all federal employees who side
with Quebec in the upcoming referendum campaign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, access to the RCMP's premises in Montreal is an
internal management matter that concerns the RCMP. It is a
prerogative of the commanding officer, Deputy Commissioner
Thivierge, and not a matter for which the Solicitor General is
directly responsible. As I just said, it is an internal management
matter concerning the RCMP.
* * *
(1440)
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Thessaloniki is Greece's second city, capital of Macedonia
and the contemporary gateway to the Balkans. It is designated
the European heritage city for 1997.
Considering the size of our Greek-Canadian community and
the increasing trade links between Greece and Canada, will the
minister consider appointing an honorary consul in Thessaloniki
with responsibility for representing Canadian interests in
northern Greece and the southeast Balkans?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, indeed I would confirm to the hon. member that
this suggestion is very worthy and we will study it very quickly.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke has
drawn attention to the government's questionable decision to
proceed with the Hughes Canadian automatic air traffic system.
Yet we are informed that the defence department, 16 months
after federal auditors warned that the civilian system was two
years behind schedule and massively over the agreed contract
price, signed a $70 million deal for a military version of the
same system.
What prompted the Minister of National Defence to invest in
a system that does not meet the original specifications? Why did
he proceed with this project?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe
I addressed this question on Friday.
The air traffic control system is primarily being developed
under the auspices of the Department of Transport, and it
appeared only logical for the former government to have the
defence air traffic control systems at Canadian military bases
developed in co-operation with that being developed by the
Department of Transport.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is also reported that if the military system is installed
the department estimates its internal costs alone will add $106
million to the $70 million Hughes contract. Why would the
minister authorize such an expenditure on a system with so
many questions about its capabilities?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think
we have to emphasize that this contract was initiated by the
former government. My colleague, the Minister of Transport,
has done the government and the Canadian taxpayers a real
service in conducting an internal audit on this project. It is an
audit with which we at national defence are co-operating.
12598
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
After Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed a bill
providing for the automatic collection of child support, the
minister said on April 25 that, in the coming weeks, he would
propose measures to enforce child support orders.
Does the minister promise that the process he will put in place
to ensure payment of child support will not overlap with those
already in effect in several provinces including Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reference the hon.
member has made could perhaps be to a response I gave in the
House some days ago concerning the government's intention to
announce shortly its proposals with respect to child support in
general, including efforts to put in place an effective national
strategy for enforcement of orders requiring the payment of
child support.
I can give the hon. member my assurance that we share the
objectives of the Government of Quebec and other provincial
governments that have put in place methods to increase the level
of compliance with such orders. We will not be working at cross
purposes; rather, our intention will be to collaborate to ensure
that our efforts work together to achieve what we both have in
mind: the payment of the orders when they are made and proper
levels of support for children.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the minister undertake to endorse the federal-provincial child
support committee's recommendation that provincial
regulations prevail in the provinces that have such regulations?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): First, in relation to the
determination of the amounts of child support, we have
signalled to the provinces a preparedness to see separate
provincial formulae if there is a good need to have different
amounts, so long as they are the same in purpose and principle.
Second, as I mentioned, we are happy to work and I believe we
are already working closely with provincial officials in
developing enforcement methods that are complementary.
(1445)
Putting the matter shortly, we do not in any way wish to get in
the way of any provincial effort in Quebec or elsewhere in
Canada because we are all after the same thing.
I assure the hon. member of a willingness on our part to work
co-operatively with provincial officials from coast to coast to
see to it that people do not defeat court orders by moving, that
information is shared to permit enforcement, and that the level
of payment of the orders goes up across the country.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this morning at 10.50 a Canadian forces liaison
officer with the Somalia commission attempted to contact Major
Barry Armstrong at his home.
What was the problem? As everyone in the House knows,
today is the first day of a six-month tour in the former
Yugoslavia war zone for Barry Armstrong.
It seems that the Somalia commission was just as surprised as
members of the House that the doctor whose testimony first
sparked the inquiry has been removed from the picture.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Is it not
as obvious to the minister as it is to the Somalia commission and
to members of the House that Major Armstrong being posted to
this war zone compromises the investigation into the events in
Somalia?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
absolutely not.
The fact is that Major Armstrong along with other Canadian
forces personnel are required as part of their duties to be
deployed from time to time outside the country.
If the commission wishes to have Major Armstrong or anyone
else testify before the inquiry, it has to ask the person to come.
The forces will certainly make him available, no matter where
the person is residing.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister should be reminded that the
former Yugoslavia is considered a war zone. News reports
indicate that the situation is escalating. At this very moment the
Sarajevo airport is not even open.
How can the Minister of National Defence guarantee the safe
and timely return of Major Armstrong for his testimony to be
heard before the commission?
12599
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if any
members of the forces are required to testify they will be there.
* * *
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The report on Fraser River sockeye salmon stated that the
sales agreement under the aboriginal fisheries strategy last year
contributed to the mismanagement of the Fraser runs.
In response to the report the minister promised that all pilot
sales agreements would be signed by May 15. Could the minister
please update the House?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not have an announcement but I will do
my best.
The Fraser panel report indicated that the late negotiations of
sales agreements last year, negotiations that went into July,
contributed to poor management performance with respect to
the management of the sales agreements. The member for Delta
has said that once or twice in the House.
Having listened to both members, the member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands and the member for Delta, as well as
members on this side of the House, I am pleased to announce
that effective today all sales agreements will be signed two
months earlier than was the case last year.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. We learned this morning
that 13 per cent of gas pumps across Canada do not give accurate
readings, which translates into unjustified additional costs to
customers.
Does the Minister of Industry confirm this information and
what does he intend to do to remedy this situation, which is
prejudicial to consumers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too read a remark to that effect in the weekend papers.
The hon. member may be interested to know that a maximum
margin of error of 0.5 per cent has been set for gas pumps. There
are federal employees assigned to inspect the pumps and we
hope to have a report explaining these discrepancies in the near
future.
(1450)
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Minister of Industry not agree that, by having gas pumps
inspected only once every six years, he is failing in his duty to
protect consumers, who can then fall victim to any malfunction
of these pumps?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I fully agree that it is very important for inspectors to
be vigilant, so that they can detect the kind of problems raised by
the hon. member.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, many Canadians were shocked to learn last Friday that
when it comes to Canadian foreign policy the government
believes trade should take precedence regardless of a country's
poor record on human rights.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain the shift in
policy, given the fact that it breaks yet another promise set out in
the infamous red book wherein it reads: ``We will continue to
support democracy and respect for human rights worldwide?''
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the hon. member that we will
continue to act very vigorously to support respect for human
rights and democracy throughout the world.
There has been no change of policy. In response to the very
thorough review of the parliamentary committee we have
expressed in our presentations the various goals we want to
pursue in foreign policy.
One goal is trade. Another goal is to promote our values, what
we believe in. Certainly we believe in respect for human beings
and respect for democracy. This is one of many features of our
foreign policy.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that was not what was said last week. It sounds like we
will see no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil when it comes to
our foreign policy on human rights.
The attitude of the government shows the callous disregard
for the gross human rights abuses that are taking place all over
the world. I am sure the government's insensitive approach to
human rights will be little comfort to the valiant souls subjected
to torture and incarceration without trial while fighting for
human rights and democracy throughout the world.
Why has the government flip-flopped yet again on its foreign
policy commitments? Why has it broken another of its red book
promises?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely refute the allegations of the hon.
member. We have not changed our foreign policy. We have not
flip-flopped on the red book. It is quite the contrary. We are
delivering on our promises.
12600
One of the main promises we made to Canadians-and the
Prime Minister has said it all along-is to create jobs and
sustain the Canadian economy. We are doing it. Despite the
view of the hon. member we will work vigorously to promote
employment and growth in Canada and create jobs. That is one
aspect of our foreign policy.
By doing that it does not mean we are abdicating other
objectives we have, particularly to promote and sustain those
who are fighting for democracy and human rights in the world.
They are not contradictory. Quite the contrary, the two
objectives could go hand in hand and be promoted worldwide.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I listened carefully to the answers given by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs to the questions just asked.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs did not say that as far as the
government is concerned there is a link between trade and
human rights and that they are prepared to use trade in certain
circumstances to make sure human rights are upheld around the
world through our trade policy.
Will the minister say that there will continue to be a link
between human rights and trade policy? If he will not that is a
flip-flop.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that whenever we have
trade relations in countries where we have established good
rapport and created a climate of confidence, we will certainly
use the good rapport to promote human rights and influence
governments to change their policies and to accept our values
and our own objectives.
(1455 )
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
is the Minister of Foreign Affairs saying he rejects that
possibility with respect to any country guilty of severe human
rights violations, whether it be Burma in the present or South
Africa in the past? The government from now on will rely on
good rapport that is supposed to be established between
countries as a result of trade? Or, is he still open to the
possibility of using trade sanctions as a way of upholding human
rights around the world?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that in some cases, through the
United Nations, when all countries accept the imposition of
trade sanctions as happened in South Africa, Canada has
certainly joined others and supported the measures.
To try to be a boy scout on our own, to impose our own rules
on others when nobody else is following, is absolutely
counterproductive and does not lead to any successful future.
Therefore it is quite clear that our approach, the multiplicity of
objectives we are pursuing, is certainly much more conducive
to obtaining the end result.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The government has conducted extensive public
consultations on the reform of Canada's social programs.
During that process one of the important issues raised had to do
with unemployment insurance benefits for seasonal workers.
As the minister is expected to announce reforms to the
unemployment insurance system later this year, could the
minister assure the House that he will continue to give full credit
to seasonal workers in recognition of their valuable contribution
to the Canadian economy?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
in addition to general public consultations we have
commissioned some special initiatives. A seasonal workers task
force tabled its report about a month ago. We have had a special
working relationship with the construction trades. I have met
with representatives of the building trades and construction
unions last week in Toronto.
In all cases they made very significant contributions.
Therefore we will be responding to many of the representations,
including one which I think is important, that is that we would
seek an alternative to the two tier system originally presented in
the green book. We think there are better ways of doing things.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in order
to protect the insurance policy holders from events arising out of
corporate failure, the private sector created Compcorp, a well
run and efficient regulatory body. Even the Secretary of State for
Financial Institutions has applauded Compcorp's record in
dealing with the failures of two federally regulated life and
health insurance companies. Yet the government is pushing to
eliminate Compcorp in favour of a federally operated policy
protection board.
Why is the minister pushing to set up a public regulatory body
when one that fills the needs of the private sector already exists?
Is it not just another case of government overkill?
12601
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question and for his interest in financial
institutions legislation.
Perhaps the hon. member is aware that I made remarks in
Toronto recently on the question of Compcorp. I recognize it has
been effective. If they will make some adequate changes to
Compcorp we will certainly consider not proceeding with our
policy protection board.
The four conditions I set out at the time are: revised corporate
governance for Compcorp; greater access to privately financed
resources; the capability of levying higher assessments if
necessary; and, finally, to ensure the ability to arrange going
concern solutions. These are the minimum changes that we
would require from Compcorp and we would hope the private
sector would answer those concerns.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage indicated that he had provided
the Minister of Justice with instructions for the drafting of a
copyright bill. However, the federal government still has no
copyright protection policy.
Since the heritage minister is now waiting for his colleague
from justice, could the Minister of Justice tell us if he plans to
introduce this bill for consideration by this House before the
summer recess?
(1500 )
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot say. I am not
sure that I know the timing of the proposals. I do know that
officials in my department have been communicating with
Heritage Canada and are at work in preparing proposals to
improve the copyright law. As to timing, I am not able to answer
the hon. member. Perhaps I will inquire of my colleague and let
her know in the next day or two.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleagues for the usual reception.
On Saturday I met with a group of truckers in Nova Scotia
concerning Highway 104. They were protesting the diversion of
$26 million in funds from the federal-provincial agreement to
upgrade the highway for safety reasons among others and to
encourage interprovincial trade.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Given the fact that this
diversion has been denounced by the auditor general of Nova
Scotia as not conforming to the agreement signed between both
governments, will the Prime Minister rein in his minister of
public works so that he stops sending money to his own riding at
the detriment of the safety of the highways in Nova Scotia?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to welcome the leader of the fifth party back for
his monthly appearance.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. minister is going to get to his
answer.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that had the member
been tuned in, he would have known that the question has been
raised in the House on a number of occasions by members of the
Reform Party. As I indicated to them and as I want to advise my
hon. colleague now, the decision to build highways in Nova
Scotia is a decision of the Government of Nova Scotia. The
report to which my hon. colleague refers is a report by the
auditor general of Nova Scotia.
It is not unheard of and certainly no precedent for this
government to be able to reallocate funds and to be flexible
enough to recognize realities, whether that occurs in
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick or in
Nova Scotia. Under these agreements funds have been
reallocated.
Any beef the hon. member has would be with the few
colleagues he still has in Nova Scotia in the opposition there.
The Speaker: This brings to a close the question period. I do
have a point of privilege from the hon. member for Prince
Albert-Churchill River.
* * *
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday the member for North
Island-Powell River made the following statement about me:
Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Albert was adopted by binding
aboriginal ceremony into the Bird family of the Montreal Lake Bank in a
powwow about two years ago. Roy Bird, the chief of the band, is an important
player in this family. The member for Prince Albert has been co-opted by the
minister and is defending these negotiations with his adopted family.
Will the minister not agree that he has placed this member, knowingly or
unknowingly, in a conflict of interest situation?
I have been accused by the hon. member from the Reform
Party of being in a conflict of interest situation. I feel that these
accusations have very serious moral and legal implications
12602
impacting and affecting my ability to adequately function as a
member of Parliament.
I would like to make very clear that even if this suggestion
made by the hon. member were true, this is nothing more than an
honour bestowed by a community upon an individual.
So that the Reform Party can understand what this type of
ceremony would be about, it would be like receiving a citizen of
the year award from the chamber of commerce. It would be like
getting an Order of Canada from the Government of Canada.
(1505)
I would suggest this would simply be an honour bestowed by a
community upon an individual and is not grounds for any
conflict. Even more important, this honour was never bestowed
upon me in the first place. I wish to say I do not know where the
hon. member would get such a statement.
Mr. Speaker, whether or not you view that my privileges have
been violated, I would like the hon. member for North
Island-Powell River to publicly withdraw the comments and
apologize to the people of Canada for making statements that in
some parts of the country damage positive race relations. This is
the new politics promised by the Reform Party.
The Speaker: Colleagues, this point of privilege rises out of
one that was raised on Friday. At that time the hon. member was
not here to defend himself and that is why I waited until today to
hear what the hon. member had to say.
It would seem to me at first blush that this is not a point of
privilege; it is surely a point of debate and clarification. Many
times when these statements are made, they are made in good
faith, and I have to believe that they are because hon. members
are just that, hon. members.
I do not think the hon. member for North Island-Powell
River is here today. If we could let this sit until tomorrow, I want
to take a look at everything that was said. I want also to review
the video. If it is necessary, I will come back to the House but at
this point it would seem to me this is not a question of privilege.
_____________________________________________
12602
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to a
number of petitions.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-91, an act to continue the Federal
Business Development Bank under the name Business
Development Bank of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to inform the
House that it is my intention to propose that this bill be referred
to committee before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order
73(1).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-325, an act to amend the Food and
Drugs Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to the
House today my private member's bill entitled an act to amend
the Food and Drug Act, re lactose warning labels.
This bill amends the Food and Drugs Act by ensuring that any
packaged food or drug that contains lactose and is intended to be
sold and used by the public is packaged in containers labelled
with a warning that it contains lactose and may be harmful to
persons with lactose intolerance.
(1510 )
Lactose intolerance is a condition that affects one out of five
Canadians, which is about six million of the population. I hope
all members will take the time to carefully review this bill and
come to the realization that the proper labelling of food
containing lactose would certainly assist at least six million
Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition that
has been circulated across Canada. This particular petition has
been signed by a number of petitioners from the Oakville,
Ontario area.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the
House that managing the family home and caring for preschool
children is an honourable profession which has not been
recognized for its value to our society. They also state that the
Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the
choice to
12603
provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled,
the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour
to rise in the House to present a petition duly certified by the
clerk of Petitions on behalf of 98 constituents of Saanich-Gulf
Islands and surrounding area.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion
of the phrase sexual orientation.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise in this House
to present a petition with 263 signatures.
The petition is from residents of Cumberland-Colchester
wishing this government not to force the departure of Mr.
Richard Carroll of Stewiacke, Nova Scotia from this country
unfairly into the United States.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present a petition with another 125
names to add to petitions already presented to this House
regarding grandparents rights and the rights of grandchildren. It
is the wish of these petitioners that we address their problem and
vote in nature with it.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my duty to present to this House a petition signed
by 44 constituents from the town of Smooth Rock Falls who
oppose the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian
Human Rights Act. They say that this inclusion will infringe
upon the historic rights of Canadians such as the freedoms of
religion, conscience, expression and association.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to
present a petition today from 385 British Columbian
constituents many of whom are from my riding of New
Westminster-Burnaby.
The petitioners make it known in their petition that they are
overburdened with taxation due to high government spending.
Therefore they pray and request that Parliament reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement
a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.
By presenting this petition, these petitioners have displayed
their responsibility to help Canada get out of this fiscal crisis. I
wish to concur with this petition.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition today signed and started by
a constituent of mine, Shelly Siwack of New Westminster.
Fifty-seven petitioners signed the petition in order to voice
their opposition to Bill C-41 and urge members of the House of
Commons to not give passage to the bill.
The petitioners pray that Parliament not amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any
way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human
rights act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination,
the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present another petition in the course of action
undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early
release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
(1515 )
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 our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mrs. Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
missed the time for presenting reports from committees. May I
present the report now?
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth
report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration in relation to order in council appointments.
12604
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The Speaker: I am in receipt of a motion under Standing
Order 52 from the hon. member for Burin-St. George's.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I am requesting that you
grant leave to move the adjournment of the House for the
purpose of discussing a matter requiring urgent consideration,
the damaging and misleading statements made by the leader of
the third party in New Brunswick on Thursday, which I became
aware of late Friday-
The Speaker: I received notice from the hon. member, as
procedure requires. I believe the hon. member stated he wanted
to have an emergency debate on the fisheries and not on the
statements made about the fisheries.
I wonder if the hon. member would limit himself to debate or
at least to putting forth his points on debate on the fisheries if
that is what he wants to do.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my next sentence was that the
fishery in Atlantic Canada is a $1.6 billion export industry; $1.6
billion is a far cry from suggestions that the fishery is over.
Given the morale situation in Atlantic Canada right now and
given the importance of the fishery and the confidence issue that
is important to the fishery at this very difficult time, I feel it is
timely to have a full fledged debate on the issue to set the record
straight, to ensure false and misleading information is not
undermining the confidence of a very vibrant industry
employing tens of thousands of people in Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that is my application. I hope you will give it
your consideration.
The Speaker: To the hon. member with all respect, the
fisheries question in Canada on both coasts is one of great
importance to all of us in the House and to all Canadians.
However, I suggest the hon. member might have avenues to
pursue that other than an emergency debate. It seems to me at
this time at least an emergency debate on that topic would not be
in order.
I thank him for his intervention on behalf of his constituents
and for the work he is doing in that regard.
_____________________________________________
12604
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-67, an act to establish the Veterans Review and
Appeal Board, to amend the Pension Act, to make consequential
amendments to other acts and to repeal the Veterans Appeal
Board Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: When we last debated this matter the
hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan had the floor. He has 15
minutes remaining in his intervention.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, because there has been a lapse of several days I remind
all that Bill C-67 is the Veterans Appeal and Review Board Act
and that the purpose of Bill C-67 is to reduce the existing
backlog of appeal pension cases and to shorten decision time on
first application.
(1520 )
If it succeeds it will merge two existing bodies, the Canadian
Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board, and first
decisions on veterans cases will be made by the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and the bureau of pension advocates will
become part of the department and will work only on
preparation of appeals.
My unease with Bill C-67 stems from two sources. The first is
the change of position of the bureau of pension advocates. This
has long been an extremely important first level of contact for
veterans who have a case to make. To move it to the second level
is totally unacceptable. The second unease I have concerns what
I shall call the leadership factor in the Departments of National
Defence and Veterans Affairs.
Reaction to need within those departments has historically
been very slow. I do contend that at the sharp end of the
Department of National Defence, when we are talking about our
troops, it is very good. Its reaction time is good and it is flexible.
The farther we move in the chain of things behind the front line,
the more the bureaucracy is involved and the slower the
reaction. The bill's purpose is admirable but if the effect of the
bill will be to increase the size of the bureaucracy then I cannot
believe it will achieve its aim.
When I spoke to the bill very briefly last week I pointed out
delays of 40 and 50 years in recognizing our veterans'
accomplishments. The merchant navy waited for 50 years for
recognition. The veterans of Dieppe have waited for over 50
years and are finally receiving a simple clasp for a medal. The
veterans of
12605
the Korean operation have waited for well over 40 years to
achieve something. Other veterans of peacekeeping operations
are still waiting. There was a proposal from this side of the
House, supported by some members opposite, that there be a
Canadian volunteer service medal produced for peacekeepers.
However, I am sorry to say that was rejected by the House. There
is certainly a slowness in recognition.
The other side of this impasse in national defence I started to
illustrate the other day when I spoke about problems with
hearing loss of members of the Canadian forces. Way back
when, and we are talking a long time ago, when I was on the rifle
ranges we wore no ear protectors. It took literally years for the
Department of National Defence to come up with protection for
the troops on the ranges firing weapons. It took even longer for
any recognition of the fault of the Department of National
Defence to be echoed by the Department of Veterans Affairs
when veterans applied for hearing aids. The departments
dragged their feet. That is a syndrome visible within national
defence and veterans affairs.
Another example is the atomic energy corporation of Chalk
River. There were spills of radioactive materials. There was a
spill of the main reactor in Chalk River in the 1950s. People like
Jimmy Carter, not then the president of the United States but a
midshipman at Annapolis, came up to help clean up that spill. I
was there. I had some illness presumably attributable to
exposure to radiation. I tried to declare this on my release from
the forces but it was not even accepted by national defence and
veterans affairs.
(1525)
There is the gulf war syndrome. Our troops were in the
Persian gulf several years ago and some of them have
complained of a variety of symptoms. The same thing has
happened in the United States. The American veterans
administration has acknowledged and labelled the problem as
the gulf war syndrome. It has set up a registry at veterans affairs
across the United States where all gulf war veterans
complaining of health problems can get a complete physical
examination. There has been acknowledgement of it in the
United States. Here there has been nothing yet. We are still
looking at the problem.
I am not in a position to say there is such a thing as an illness
contracted whether it is from the oilfields, nerve gas or from
anything there. What I am saying is national defence and
veterans affairs invariably drag their feet in recognizing there
are problems.
There are sufficient symptoms displayed by veterans that it
should not be a problem. The symptoms include loss of memory,
aches in the joints, night sweats, severe headaches, loss of hair,
confusion, reproductive problems, stress within family,
attention disorder, fatigue, abnormal rashes, bleeding gums,
irritability, breathing problems and so on. They are surely
sufficient for our people to say get it out in the open and tackle
this thing and either put it to rest and say there is no such thing as
gulf war syndrome or there is and these are the attributes we
recognize.
I have a letter from the vice-president of the Canadian
Peacekeeping Veterans Association. He is reporting on the gulf
war syndrome problem: ``This report would be more extensive
had I received all of the information I am waiting for. Please
advise me if you would like me to keep you informed of any new
developments. Our methods of gaining information are very
tedious, as we are a non-profit organization that must rely on the
mail system, etc. We do not have the funds to travel to interview
the individuals in question. We also have full time employment
and must conduct this type of research after hours. Don't get me
wrong, we do this research because we believe in what we do.
We must help our fellow veterans. We would like eventually to
conduct an interview or have a questionnaire completed by our
gulf war veterans and their spouses. This would certainly
enlighten us as to the situation with regard to that''.
My point is veterans affairs and national defence should take
more initiative, should exercise leadership and show our serving
soldiers and veterans that they are interested and lay some of
these problems to rest.
We have other examples of the same thing. Somalia and the
use of mefloquine is another such example. Mefloquine is a drug
used as a malaria inhibitor. Years ago, I will not say how many,
when I was in Korea we used paludrine which had certain side
effects but nothing to the extent that apparently mefloquine
does. My colleague from Delta brought this up in the last six
months. He has asked for an investigation into the effects
mefloquine may have had on Canadian troops serving in
Somalia. He cited specifically Trooper Kyle Brown who, as we
all know, has been put into prison, and Master Corporal Clayton
Matchee and the men of the Canadian Airborne Regiment.
(1530)
I understand this drug is still in use to this day in Somalia in
spite of questions about its appropriateness. Apparently
Canadian troops in Somalia were given heavy doses weekly of
mefloquine which, as I say, is used as protection against
malaria. However, the drug is well known to have neurological
side effects. The manufacturer's literature states that reactions
are rare but include convulsions, psychosis, nightmares,
dizziness, headaches, confusion, anxiety and depression.
The Canadian medical personnel in Somalia reported that
Canadian troops experienced these side effects. In fact, the day
the drug was administered in Somalia was known as psycho
Tuesday.
In view of reports like this, I would expect that the
Department of National Defence-and I lump veterans affairs in
with it for this purpose-would show more leadership by taking
the initiative to say: ``Let us put a stop to nonsense like this. Let
us put a stop to the stories. We will determine accurately
whether mefloquine can continue to be administered, what its
side
12606
effects are, when it can and cannot be used, what its effects are
with liquor and so on''. We need to put these things to rest.
In conclusion, I find that leadership in national defence,
lumped in with veterans affairs, is lacking today. We have been
looking at a great many problems over the last year: Somalia,
the disbandment of the airborne regiment and the videos
pertaining to that, the reduction in the size of the forces,
equipment problems, morale problems brought out in the
Oehring report, having to do more with less in the way of
equipment and troops as brought out by Brigadier-General
Jeffries' report from Petawawa, the Fowler-Doyle-Létourneau
incident, the Somalia inquiry and the staffing of the inquiry
itself, the Bosnia-Croatia decisions, suicides in the forces and,
more recently, the block of access to information problems. All
of these things tell me that there are leadership problems in
national defence.
When I look at those problems and the foot dragging that goes
on, I say that Bill C-67 should be really looked at very carefully.
It should not be proceeded with in its present form. I am
absolutely against the relegation of the bureau of pension
advocates to a review position. This is not going to help the
veterans. The burgeoning bureaucracy that will be created by the
combining of two levels is going to be bad news once again for
the veterans and their administration.
Therefore, I speak negatively on this bill. The purpose of Bill
C-67 is laudable but its implementation, I am sorry to say, may
not do what we want for the veterans who are having problems.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to rise and speak in the debate today on
Bill C-67.
For the benefit of those viewing this at home, Bill C-67 has to
do with the review procedure for pensions of people who
represented and fought for our country in the last world war. It is
apropos that we should be speaking about this having just gone
through the victory in Europe celebrations and remembrances
last week.
(1535)
As we discuss the bill concerning pension reform we should
keep in mind that the average age of those involved is 74 years.
That means that the motivation for the government to proceed
with this bill now is to try to speed up the process.
When we want to find out how things affect veterans in our
country it makes sense to go to the Royal Canadian Legion. As
everyone knows, the Royal Canadian Legion by and large speaks
for veterans. To some degree it is supportive of the bill. Its
concern has to do with four basic facts. It wants to see that these
four basic principles in the adjudication of pension disputes are
met.
First, it wants to preserve the benefits and services provided
to veterans. That goes without saying. It does not want to see this
reduced in any way.
Second, there is a need to protect the benefit of the doubt
provision. If the bureau of pensions is to err on one side or the
other then it would err for the benefit of the applicant.
The third principle is to ensure an independence of advocacy
and adjudication. Members should keep that in mind.
The fourth principle is to achieve the necessary speed and
generosity to ensure that pensions and other benefits are
received by the veterans when they are entitled to them.
The Royal Canadian Legion believes these four basic
principles should be upheld by the bureau of pensions. Further it
has two basic problems with the bill. They are the levels of
expertise to be afforded the applicant at the first application
level under the new system and the need to maintain continuity
of process between the first application and any subsequent
review or appeal.
Members may know, but many people watching may not be
aware, that when a veteran appeals for a pension it is a two-step
process. If the pension is applied for and granted, that is the end
of it. However only 30 per cent of veterans who apply receive a
pension after the first round. Therefore, most of them go to
appeal.
When veterans are talking about the continuity of process,
they are saying it makes sense for their advocates at the first
level to also be their advocates at the second level at appeal.
It is interesting that of the 70 per cent who are rejected at first
application and go on to appeal, fully 80 per cent of applications
appealed are granted. That would be the benefit of the doubt.
Therefore, the vast majority who apply for a veterans pension
get it. Keep in mind that they are 74 years of age.
If we follow the logic of the whole process as I have described
it, a veteran, whose average age is 74, requests a pension. Thirty
per cent receive it and 70 per cent do not. Of those who do not
receive it and appeal, 80 per cent end up winning their appeal. A
lot of those would be based on the benefit of the doubt provision
which is one of the four principles the Royal Canadian Legion
particularly would like to have.
Another principle the Royal Canadian Legion has identified is
the importance of an independent adjudicator. That is the
Achilles' heel of the legislation.
(1540)
The government has stated a number of times that the goal of
the legislation is to speed up the time it takes a veteran to get a
12607
disability pension without the veteran losing any of the rights
the veteran currently possesses. That is a very laudable
objective. However, we have identified a serious deficiency in
the bill.
The disagreement centres on whether the bureau of pension
advocates should remain an independent body at the disposal of
veterans at the first level or whether it should be made part of the
department reserved for appeal level only. If 30 per cent of the
applicants get their pension and on appeal 80 per cent win, why
are we not making the gates a little wider at the beginning?
A number of arguments were made in the Standing Committee
on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and in the House in
this regard and they have been reviewed extensively. After
consideration I have concluded that the bureau of pension
advocates should remain an independent body at the exclusive
disposal of the veterans. Why? I fail to see how removing the
bureau from the first level will save any time in the current
system. The only way to speed up the system is to ensure that
more applications are accepted at the first level.
If 80 per cent of the appeals are granted, why not grant more
of them at the first level? These applications must be well
prepared in the future because the department currently rejects
70 per cent but goes on to accept 80 per cent on appeal. The
typical time it takes for a lawyer to prepare an application is two
to three months, a modest period of time to prepare a case when
the veteran is forced to battle the department to receive a
disability pension. The remaining delays at the first level, which
can take up to a year and a half, are the responsibility of the
department.
The problem is not with the veteran or with the lawyer who
prepares the application, the problem is with the department.
Much of that was identified earlier by my colleague who went
through a step by step process of showing how the application
goes from Ottawa, gets copied and then ends up in Prince
Edward Island because the former government decided to put
the bureau in Prince Edward Island.
Ironically, the government feels that removing the bureau
from the first level will speed up the system because it will focus
on appeals only. Under the legislation the government intends to
have departmental clerks assist the veteran in filling out the first
level application. That is a potential problem which the Royal
Canadian Legion identified because it is the skill and the
proficiency with which the first application is completed that
will determine its acceptance.
The first level decision would then be adjudicated within the
department. It could be true that the first level decision would be
faster, but would the acceptance rate be higher than the existing
norm of 30 per cent? Given the department's past record of
rejecting 70 per cent of first level applications, I doubt it. If the
veteran then has to appeal the case he has to go to a bureau
lawyer who would work directly for the department.
The current system is that an outside, independent lawyer who
is acting on behalf of the veteran, makes the application and then
follows through with the appeal. Under the new system a
departmental clerk will complete the application and only if the
application is refused would the lawyer go to work to prepare an
appeal for the applicant, which would take a further two to three
months. The veterans say that streamlining of the whole process
is in large measure due to how well the first application is put
together.
If the government intends to focus all of the bureau's
resources at the appeal level, then it is obvious that the first level
acceptance rate will not increase. The majority of veterans will
still have to wait years to get their disability pensions, and we
must remember that their average age is 74 years.
If the process is to be speeded up the first level acceptance
rate must be increased so that there will be fewer appeals. The
way to accomplish this is twofold. First, have the first level
application expertly completed by a bureau lawyer so that the
veteran's case is solid. Second, the department should consider
the success rate for past appeals, which is 80 per cent, and use
the benefit of the doubt provision more liberally to increase first
level acceptance. This two-track approach would substantially
speed up the system and serve best the interests of the veterans. I
know that it is serving the interests of the veterans that all
members of this House and indeed all Canadians are firmly
committed to achieving.
(1545)
While the intent in this bill is certainly a step in the right
direction, as with much legislation that comes before this House
there are certain aspects of it that could be substantially
improved. I draw again on the suggestions made by the Royal
Canadian Legion that the four paramount underpinnings of the
foundation of the veterans' appeal must be to preserve and
protect the benefits and services provided to the veterans of
Canada; to protect the benefit of the doubt provision; to ensure
an independent advocate; and to achieve the necessary speed
and generosity to ensure that our veterans, whose average age is
74 years, are honestly and fairly dealt with.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to address the House with
regard to Bill C-67 on third reading of the Veterans Appeal and
Review Board Act.
In the last few days our attention has been focused on the men
and women who served our country so valiantly 50 years ago,
men and women who left family and friends to fight for
freedom, democracy, and peace. As I and thousands and perhaps
millions of other Canadians witnessed the V-E Day celebrations
here in Ottawa and on television from Europe last week, it
evoked emotions of pride for this country and respect for all
12608
those who served here and abroad. While we have honoured
these veterans through pomp and ceremony, we have failed in
many cases to provide them with the compensation that is due
them.
I want to briefly refer to a couple of incidents that happened in
my riding. First, there was a huge air show in the city of
Lloydminster last week where we were able to show off both
military and domestic planes in a huge air show. It was a
success. The Snowbirds were involved. Of course they are based
at the Moose Jaw airbase. They were very well received.
A couple of days later there was another event in my riding. It
too occurred in the city of Lloydminster. It was sponsored by the
Kinsmen and the Kinnettes. It was a raising of the flag
ceremony. It was truly an honour for myself as well the mayor of
Lloydminster and one of the MLAs from the area to be involved
in the ceremony where annually they raise the flag and we
reflect on our country and the democracy we enjoy and
remember those who paid a heavy price for the democracy that
we enjoy. There was a colour guard there and cadets present, as
well as the Kinsmen and the Kinnettes and dignitaries.
Following the raising of the Canadian flag and following the
ceremonies I had an opportunity to meet with a couple of
veterans. They were two brothers from the area who had just
returned from the Netherlands and the celebrations over there.
We were able to talk with them about their own experiences,
first of all on the advancement into Europe when the liberation
took place and then the recent trip over there. They expressed
real emotion about the warm greetings and the warm reception
they received from the people of Holland for the efforts they had
been involved in 50 years before.
As I spoke to one of these veterans, one of these brothers, he
said he had not been able to stay the full time. He had not been
involved in the entire liberation, he said, because he got hit a few
times. He pointed to his left hip and said ``I got hit here first and
then a little while later I got hit in this hip, and then finally they
got me a little higher up, in the arm and the chest. After that they
decided they had better send me home.''
When we think of the commitment to democracy and we think
of the commitment to Canada and what we stand for that was
displayed by these veterans 50 years ago, it really humbles us
who have not experienced the sacrifice and hardship that they
did. It elevates in our minds the value of our veterans for their
dedication and for their service to our country, and not only our
country but democracy around the world.
Just a few minutes ago we also listened to the member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan as he also described some of the horrors of
war both past and fairly recently, including the gulf war and the
gulf war syndrome.
(1550 )
We realize that war is a terrible thing and that people are
involved in it not because they enjoy it but because they feel a
sense of duty and want to be involved for the pursuit of peace
and democracy.
We realize once again that we do owe them more than just a
thank you for a job well done. We need to come through with
more than just kind words and phrases, but with actions and
deeds as well. That is why it is a privilege for me to speak to Bill
C-67, the bill that deals with the Veterans Review and Appeal
Board Act.
The government has stated in this House a number of times
that the goal of this legislation is to speed up the time it takes
veterans to get their disability pensions without the veterans
losing any of the rights they currently possess. This too is the
aim of the Reform Party. Yet we disagree with the means to this
end.
One of the main points of disagreement centres on whether the
Bureau of Pension Advocates should remain an independent
body at the disposal of veterans at the first level or whether it
should be made part of the department reserved for the appeal
level only. A number of arguments have been made in the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
and in this House as well in this regard. They have been
reviewed extensively by my colleagues in the Reform Party, my
fellow MPs who sit in this part of the House. After careful
consideration we have concluded that the Bureau of Pension
Advocates should remain an independent body at the disposal of
all veterans.
Let me explain. I fail to see how removing the bureau from the
first level will save any time in the current system. The only way
to speed up the system is to ensure that more applications are
accepted at the first level. These applications must be well
prepared, because the department currently rejects 70 per cent
of first applications but then goes on to accept 80 per cent of
appeals at the second or third levels.
The typical time it takes for a bureau lawyer to prepare an
application is two to three months, a modest period of time to
prepare a case when the veteran is forced to do battle with the
department to receive a disability pension. The remaining
delays at the first level, which can take up to a year and a half,
are the responsibility of the department. Ironically, the
government feels that removing the bureau from the first level
will speed up the system because they will now focus on appeals
only.
Under this legislation, the government intends to have a
department clerk assist the veterans in filling out their first level
application. The first level decision will then be adjudicated
within the department. It could be true the first level decision
will be faster, but will the acceptance rate be greater than the
current 30 per cent? Given the department's past record of
12609
rejecting 70 per cent of first level applications, I doubt if this
will change. We have no reason to believe that Bill C-67 will
improve this situation.
If the veteran then has to appeal his case, he will have to go to
a bureau lawyer who works for the department directly. This
lawyer, who answers to the minister, must start to prepare the
appellant's case from scratch, which will take months or years,
because there is nothing in this bill that will speed up the appeal
process, which currently takes up to three and a half years.
One gentleman who had served in the armed forces for a
number of years waited approximately five years to receive a
disability pension for military related injuries. This was after he
had made several long trips for medical examinations for the
appeal process and after he had written a number of letters to the
department.
Veterans are becoming increasingly frustrated, frustrated to
the point that many are unwilling to go through the lengthy
appeal process. How many bureaucratic hoops must these
veterans jump through to receive what they are legally entitled
to?
If the government intends to focus all the bureau resources on
the appeal level, it is obvious the first level acceptance rate will
not increase. The majority of veterans will still have to wait
years to get their disability pension. With an average age of
veterans approaching 74, this is too little and too late.
I firmly believe that if the process is to be speeded up, the first
level acceptance rate must be increased so there are few appeals.
The way to accomplish this is twofold: first, have the first level
application expertly filled out by a bureau lawyer so the
veteran's case is solid; second, the department should consider
the success rate for past appeals, which is 80 per cent, and use
the benefit of the doubt clause more liberally to increase the first
level acceptance rate. This two-track approach would
substantially speed up the system and serve the best interests of
all veterans.
The government in this piece of legislation has also proposed
the merging of the Canadian Pension Commission and the
Veterans Appeal Board. It has been implied that this
amalgamation will streamline delivery and hence cut
turnaround time for pensions in half and eliminate the backlog
in two years. This is to be done without affecting veterans'
benefits or appeal rights.
(1555)
As this House knows, the Reform Party is in favour of
streamlining government and eliminating bureaucratic
entanglements. However, there must be some guarantee that the
veterans will receive what they are entitled to in the shortest
period of time. As I have already noted, only 30 per cent of
veterans' claims are accepted by the Canada Pension
Commission, whereas 80 per cent of the appeals heard by the
Veterans Appeal Board are accepted. Why is there such a
discrepancy in the rulings of the two commissions?
Currently the Canada Pension Commission has an
independent policy from that of the Veterans Appeal Board to
determine what constitutes a disability. With 70 per cent
rejection of veterans' claims by the Canada Pension
Commission, it is evidence that they have taken a more
restrictive view of the assessment of disabilities than the
Veterans Appeal Board.
What position will the new amalgamated board take? Will it
take a more restrictive position, as that of the Canadian Pension
Commission, or will it take a more liberal position, as that of the
Veterans Appeal Board? A more restrictive position taken by the
board will undoubtedly increase the number of second appeals
and lengthen the average turnaround time. Therefore it is
essential that if the two boards amalgamate they adopt the more
liberal policy of the Veterans Appeal Board. Any other position
would adversely affect veterans' rights and benefits.
In addition, there is some concern from veterans whether or
not the proposed Veterans Review and Appeal Board will
provide for a new and independent look at each of the levels or
simply be a review and appeal process. Under the new board,
commissioners may hear both reviews and appeals but not of the
same case. The whole review and appeal process would lose its
independent look. As a result, any appeal would essentially
follow the department's stated policy and procedure. The checks
and balances the two independent boards have provided would
be lost. Further, there would be no reason for a veteran to appeal
any decision made at the first level.
We have given our veterans medals. We have honoured them
in ceremonies, and rightly so. We have given our veterans
parades. However, we have failed to provide our veterans with
adequate financial compensation for their faithful and loyal
service to this country when it was due.
We in this House have a moral obligation to provide support to
veterans in a reliable and timely manner. How else can we say
thank you to those individuals who laid down their lives for us?
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
12610
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.
[Translation]
And the division bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a),
the recorded division on the question now before the House
stands deffered until 6:30 p.m. today, at which time the bells to
call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
* * *
(1600)
[English]
The House resumed from May 8, consideration of Bill C-54,
an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada pension
plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the
Unemployment Insurance Act, as reported (with amendments)
from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
The Deputy Speaker: Because of circumstances, the hon.
member for Calgary North has the floor.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on group No. 4, amendments
to clause 23 of Bill C-54.
For Canadians watching the debate, I will repeat that the bill
is an attempt to make the administration of some of the
government social services programs more streamlined, a little
more user friendly, so to speak. We think that is a good idea but
there is real concern expressed in this group of motions about
the accountability in the administration of these acts.
The Bloc has put forward two amendments to clause 23 and
Reform has put forward one amendment to clause 23. In fact,
that is the only amendment we have put forward on the entire
bill.
The purpose of our amendment is to ensure accountability of
the administration of these new rules and procedures. We think
it is right and proper that our citizens have access to these
programs in a way that is not unduly bureaucratic and which
removes as much red tape as possible. We are also very
concerned that it also removes the accountability of the
department and the administrators of the program from the
people because it removes needed accountability to Parliament.
We believe the amendment we are suggesting to the bill and to
clause 23 specifically would make the system more accountable.
We think they are very modest and sensible proposals. We have
not put forward a number of amendments but we think the issue
of accountability is so key and so necessary that we felt the
amendment we put forward ought to be seriously considered and
passed by the House.
The amendment we have put forward is set out in today's
Order Paper on page 17 under Motion No. 7.
Essentially the motion calls for the minister to be required to
make a report to the House every year within 30 days of the
beginning of the fiscal year. The report would tally the
overpayments under these programs, particularly CPP and OAS
and the amount of the overpayments. At the very least, the
minister and his department should be accountable to the House
and therefore, to the Canadian people we represent.
The House should know exactly how much the overpayment is
because it really identifies administrative error, waste and
inefficiency. If overpayments are being made, clearly the
department is not doing its job very well. Overpayments, of
course, very properly suggest these are payments over and
above what should be made.
It is necessary because the dollars available to assist people in
need under programs are becoming more scarce, with the
possibility of CPP going broke in the next few years. It is very
important that the dollars available actually reach the people
who are entitled to them. If dollars are going to people who are
not entitled to them, then clearly some of the difficulties these
programs are in will hit hardest the people who do need those
moneys.
Therefore, we think right after the beginning of the fiscal
year, the minister should give a report to Parliament through the
operating committee, of the administrative error that has taken
place in the last fiscal year.
(1605 )
It is all very well for the minister to report the overpayment
and the errors that have been made by his department, but then
what happens? The report will then be considered by the
appropriate committee and the committee will then decide to
what level the minister may have leeway to overpay for the next
year.
For example, if the department has made overpayments under
these programs of, say, $3 million the year before, the
parliamentary committee may say to the department: ``This is
simply unacceptable. We will make you accountable by putting
a cap of only $1 million on the errors and overpayments you can
make next year. We think that is plenty of room for error and we
want you to operate in that range''. The committee then will
decide how much margin for error that particular department
can operate under.
12611
This is sensible and sound management of very scarce and
needed dollars. It would give the minister a target and goal and
some parameters within which to operate. This limit would be
considered by a proper authority, which is Parliament itself.
Someone running a business, a board of directors of a
company, a school board, a union and even a household have to
have some kind of budgetary parameters within which to
operate. If there is an unlimited ability to overspend and to make
errors in spending, two things happen. One is that the operation
pretty soon does not operate on a sound fiscal basis and does not
live within its means. The other is that money which is needed in
other areas is simply not available because it has been wasted or
not properly allocated in the area being considered.
I think that this is nothing but a very sensible, sound and
modest way of ensuring that there is some accountability in the
spending of the department under this bill. Under these new
proposals we can effectively judge how well and how sensibly
the program is being run.
Without this kind of accountability we lose a couple of things
that are very important to sound management. One is the paper
trail. There has to be some record kept of spending, where it has
gone and why there has been overspending so that there can be a
good assessment of how soundly things are being run. We also
lose track of where the money is going. We do not want to do
that. That is important not just because of some accounting
fetish, but because money goes to people and the people who are
entitled to the money need it and are entitled to know that is
being well managed and put forward sensibly.
I urge the House to adopt this motion put forward by the
Reform Party. It enhances the bill. It enhances the service to
people and enhances our need to be accountable to the Canadian
public.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it fascinating to be discussing Motion No. 7
because of what the Reform Party is advocating. It is advocating
that the minister's discretion with respect to forgiving
overpayments should be wiped away and this special kind of
power given to the highest ranking officer.
(1610 )
Mrs. Ablonczy: No, that is not true. It should not be wiped
away. It should be accountable.
Mr. Dromisky: -to forgiving.
Let me begin my discussion of this amendment by outlining
briefly what it contains.
The Reform Party proposes that the minister should report to
the House how much overpayment benefit money is forgiven
each year. That is a simple request. The minister should make
recommendations regarding how much he should be permitted
to forgive in the upcoming year. The Reform Party believes that
the minister has a crystal ball and knows exactly how many
cases are going to appear before him and his ministry.
Therefore, he should be able to make such a judgment for the
future 12 months.
Reform proposes that a parliamentary committee should set
limits on how much may be forgiven in a year. Again we have to
use the crystal ball. The proposal also suggests that no amount
may be forgiven until the committee sets the yearly total and no
amount may be forgiven once that total has been reached.
When I first heard the motion, I could hardly believe my ears.
The Reform Party is supposed to be the party which believes that
less government is better government. Yet that very same party
introduced the motion which would add extra processes, extra
time, extra layers of bureaucracy and extra costs to the
administration of the old age security program. It really is
amazing.
Motion No. 7 betrays the Reform Party's fixation on the
minute details of the OAS program. Members opposite seek to
micromanage the program and the minister at great cost and for
no benefit whatsoever. It would like to have complete control
over every minute detail, every tiny aspect of the entire
program.
As usual, it is instructive to look at the facts surrounding the
motion. It is also worth while to note that these facts are at the
disposal of the Reform Party, as they are at the disposal of all
members of the House.
The Minister of Human Resources Development currently
forgives something less than $1 million in old age security
overpayments each year. As we have noted in debating other
motions, the minister is responsible for that amount but does not
have carte blanche to forgive overpayments. Certain conditions
must exist before the overpayment can be forgiven.
As the old age security program pays benefits in the order of
$18.5 billion each year, the rate at which overpayments are
forgiven is something in the order of five one-thousandths of
one per cent of the benefits paid. In addition, the amounts are
already reported to Parliament in the context of the annual main
estimates and public accounts. I will repeat that for the benefit
of Reform members. These amounts are already reported to
Parliament in the context of the annual main estimates and
public accounts. Hon. members already have the opportunity to
examine all of the figures in depth.
The motion by the Reform Party would create a duplication of
these processes, and to what gain? So that Reform members can
micromanage the minister's use of his discretion to forgive
overpayments which amount to something in the order of five
one-thousandths of one per cent of the program's expenditures.
If the motion were adopted, it could lead to disaster. Imagine a
committee setting a small limit on the amount which could be
forgiven. If that amount of money were used up in eight months
time, let us say, what would happen to the cases which occurred
12612
in the final four months of the year? The government would have
to tell those individuals that they must repay their debts even
though their circumstances were similar or worse than someone
who was overpaid a few months earlier. I do not consider this a
fair practice and no one else in the House does.
(1615)
With regard to the motions to amend Bill C-54 moved by the
Bloc and the Reform Party, the government finds itself right in
the middle. In one of the motions the Bloc Quebecois demands
the minister be required to forgive overpayments without regard
to the ability of the client to repay the amount. In Motion No. 7
the Reform Party seeks to prevent the minister from using his
authority to forgive benefit overpayments compassionately by
placing limits which would have to be respected no matter what
the ability of the pensioner to repay the overpaid amount.
On one hand we have a party that says never collect any
overpayment and on the other hand we have a party that says
never forgive any overpayment. The government recognizes the
need to recover moneys where warranted and to forgive
repayment where appropriate. I also believe ministers must
retain responsibility for the administration of their programs
and that this responsibility should not be removed, as would be
in the case of either Motion No. 6 or Motion No. 7 if adopted.
I firmly oppose Motion No. 7. I urge all hon. members in the
House to do likewise and to move to the speedy passage of this
legislation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
members of the official opposition are used to seeing their
amendments or their comments misunderstood or not
understood at all. This is once again the case. It must be
understood that we are significantly amending an act, and that
seniors or people who are eligible either for the Canada Pension
Plan or for family allowances may discover, at some point, that
they received more money than they were entitled to.
The current act, which we are in the process of amending,
includes a provision which is fair in that it provides the
following, and I quote: ``Where a person has received or
obtained a benefit payment to which the person is not entitled, or
a benefit payment in excess of the amount of the benefit
payment to which the person is entitled, the amount of that
benefit payment or the excess amount, as the case may be,
constitutes a debt due to Her Majesty and may be recovered in
proceedings commenced (a) at any time, where that person made
a wilful misrepresentation or committed fraud for the purpose of
receiving or obtaining that amount or excess amount''. In other
words, if someone cheats, the government can, at any time,
recover the money.
However, there is also a (b) in the existing section, and we
hope that the government will listen and keep that provision.
Part (b) provides this: ``in any case where paragraph (a) does not
apply, at any time before the end of the fiscal year immediately
following the fiscal year in which that amount or excess amount
was received or obtained''. We will see what these other cases
are.
We feel that the (b) part should be kept. But what is the
government doing? It is eliminating that provision. The
government says that any such payment constitutes a debt to Her
Majesty, as though the recipients were cheaters. I agree that the
government is significantly amending the legislation to make
things easier for the public. For example, I can think of the
income supplement for needy elderly people. As you know,
these people currently have to sign a form every year. The bill
before us provides that they will no longer have to sign that
form. However, it could be that, without any ill intent on the part
of the elderly, their situation may change, because they inherited
some money or for whatever reason, so that they are no longer
eligible for a supplement, but will not know that and may
continue to receive such supplement for years, until someone
finds out.
(1620)
Without being in any way guilty or even responsible, they
would find themselves in the situation of having to pay back a
large sum, even though responsibility for the overpayment
might rest entirely with the system. I asked the committee to
ensure that people knew what they were entitled to annually. I
was told that that would be done through the regulations. I have
no guarantee. I was shown nothing.
It seems to me that we cannot, on the one hand, increase the
opportunities for administrative errors and, on the other, remove
this limit, which forces the government to recognize that people
are not required to pay for the errors it makes, because in fact, in
this bill, the government is doing two things. It is taking away
the five-year period within which a person could make a claim
for benefits to which he was entitled. There was agreement with
that, but at the same time, the government is giving itself
unlimited powers to go after these amounts, which again may
not have been fraudulently obtained, but might simply be the
result of an administrative error. It is giving itself the power to
subject members of the public to serious hardship, even in the
case of an administrative error. We know that the people in
question are generally seniors or families on income support.
Therefore, it seems to me that this is a measure worthy of the
government's attention. We are concerned about the likelihood
of administrative errors, and we will be supporting the Reform
Party's amendment, and adding an amendment to the
amendment deleting subsections 7 and 8.
12613
The Reform Party wants members to be told exactly how the
legislation has been administered so that they are aware of the
large number of errors that have been made. We are in
agreement with that, but do not agree that the government
should not correct the errors, and we can be sure that the
government will wish to correct them only in those cases where
there has been prejudice done. We do not agree that errors
should be allowed to stand until the House moves in this regard,
particularly as any motion it brings forward can only be a
recommendation.
Here is the amendment. I move, seconded by the member for
Argenteuil-Papineau:
That Motion No. 7 be amended by deleting the new subsections (7) and (8).
But, it boils down to the same thing. Yes, we should improve
the administration of the law but, in doing so, we should be very
careful not to increase administrative errors and inconvenience
people who are most in need and who are often unable to defend
themselves. Individuals should not have to pay.
The current two subsections of the act stipulate that the
government can recover its due at any time, regardless of the
time which has passed since payment, if fraud is involved. If
administrative or other errors were in play-mostly
administrative errors-the stipulated time period is one year,
and I stress this point all the more because this provision is
contained in legislation, which increases the likelihood of
administrative errors. I would like to take this opportunity to
point out that we know, from what has gone on in our ridings,
that when the new computer program was introduced, there were
many administrative errors.
(1625)
These administrative errors hit citizens hard, citizens who did
not receive any pension cheques at all. Those are obvious errors.
When people stop receiving pension cheques, often, they call
their MP, and I am glad that that is what happens. But, other
administrative errors occurred, causing people to receive
supplements to which they were not entitled.
I do not know whether you have ever helped people of a
certain age who do not quite know how to go about it or what
their entitlements are to fill in those forms. They can easily, with
the best intentions, end up receiving benefits to which they are
not entitled and have no idea what to do to fix the situation. In
those circumstances, the same errors which deprived people of
their entitlements could have the effect of giving people benefits
to which they were not entitled, which they did not seek to
obtain and which they could be obliged to pay back at one point.
In my opinion, that is very unjust.
The government should take this matter seriously. Is that not
the rule of thumb to ensure that administrative errors do not
occur? Nothing is easier when cutting the payroll than letting
administrative errors go by.
I am not saying that this is the government's aim but that there
is nothing meaner and more stupid than wholesale jobs cuts
which end up negatively affecting seniors in particular.
I hope that they will listen to our message, which is not an
extremist message, contrary to what my honourable colleague
said, but one of reason and compassion for people. Far from
being extreme, our position consists of maintaining in part the
current legislation. It appears to me that it is more my
honourable colleagues opposite who are breaking with the
Liberal tradition, which used to take into consideration the
rights of people and was compassionate with them, a tradition
which is broken with here. I invite them to correct this serious
error in approach.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment to the
amendment by the hon. member for Mercier in order. We shall
therefore continue debate on the same group, including the
amendment moved by the member for Mercier.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the days have long since past when individual
Canadians had to rely only on themselves, their families and
their community for support during times of either
unemployment or old age. Instead, the federal government has
created the complicated system of tax funded programs of
support, often called our social safety net. Like any other net it is
full of holes, some of which are intentional but some of which
merely represent aspects of serving the public which were not
anticipated when the original legislation was drawn.
Bill C-54 represents the most recent efforts of the
Government of Canada to mend some of those unintentional
holes in our national safety net. It pertains to several major
pieces of legislation, including the Old Age Security Act, the
Canadian pension plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act
and the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The fact that it covers such a large amount of earlier
legislation makes one suspect Bill C-54 will be complicated. In
that regard the suspicion is correct. Several members of
Parliament have spent many hours studying and digesting what
the government has proposed here.
(1630)
According to the legislative summary provided by the
economics division of the Library of Parliament research, the
government intended Bill C-54 to achieve the following goals:
to improve service to clients of these major income support
measures; to better co-ordinate programs, administration and
the actual delivery of service; to eliminate some inconsistencies
between old age security and the Canada pension plan programs;
12614
to reduce administrative costs, and to save some trees and some
time by reducing duplication and paper burden, both for the
departments and their clients; and finally, to help members of
Parliament to better serve our constituents.
These changes will have wide ranging impact since they are
expected to benefit some 1.4 million seniors and save the
taxpayer about $10 million annually. Of course, nearly all
Canadians, including those in the Reform Party of Canada,
would approve of these goals. We all want more efficient
government, fewer program duplications and reduced federal
expenses. As one might expect, however, it is how the
government proposes to undertake these much desired
improvements that has led some of us to propose amendments to
Bill C-54.
The first section of Bill C-54 deals in clauses 1 through 24
with the Old Age Security Act. I must report to this House that
my constituency office frequently receives complaints from
seniors who are caught up in the red tape of the Old Age Security
Act sections.
People receiving the spouses allowance, SPA, and the
guaranteed income supplement, GIS, are required to reapply
every single year preventing any payments from being made
when the new fiscal year begins each April 1 until those
applications have been received and approved. Single handedly
that requirement imposes real hardship on the very Canadians
this legislation was aimed at helping, namely low income
seniors whose cheques are often delayed, for example if some
bureaucrat decides that information on the application must be
verified.
The simple fact is that the income of these least well off
seniors does not change much from year to year. Therefore it
seems to me to make far more sense to require only that seniors
must report changes to their yearly income. No report received
means there is no change.
On behalf of those seniors I personally congratulate the
government for eliminating the very irritating and generally
unnecessary piece of red tape. However, the question is not that
simple.
A House committee has been at work on Bill C-54. The result
of the committee's work is a series of proposed amendments
which this place has been treating in groups for the purpose of
organizing the debate.
Clause 23 of that first section of Bill C-54 is the subject of
amendments, or Motions Nos. 5 and 6 proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois as well as Motion No. 7 put forward by the Reform
Party of Canada.
Clause 23 deals with overpayments that people may have
received. Our position regarding Motion No. 5 is that when
Canadians receive payment to which they are not entitled, they
should pay the amount back except in those circumstances such
as hardship or death, which already appear on page 10 of the bill.
Regarding Bloc Motion No. 6, we oppose it because we
believe that department officials should stand behind their
advice and be accountable regarding our tax dollars. This
unaccountability by the bureaucrats and in some regards the
politicians has gone on far too long.
Regarding Motion No. 7, the Reform Party's concern
primarily relates to keeping the minister accountable to
Parliament. This has been overlooked for years. It is time that
the minister started to accept some of that accountability.
Motion No. 7 asks the minister to report annually to this
House regarding overpayments in either Canada pension plan or
old age security, providing details of their cost to taxpayers. A
parliamentary committee would then study this report and make
its recommendations regarding what the minister could or could
not remit the following year.
Motion No. 7 has the great advantage of keeping the
department and its minister accountable to the Canadian people
through members of Parliament who are the people's elected
representatives. What I am saying here is opposite to that which
the member on the other side said a few minutes ago. We in the
Reform Party say maybe it is time that MPs started to buckle
down and do some work on their own to help the minister out and
not just to pass it off.
(1635)
Very often even in my own riding of Okanagan-Shuswap I
hear complaints from voters that civil servants and bureaucrats
can do whatever they want with no accountability to the people
who pay their salaries. It is an ongoing complaint and not only in
my constituency. I am sure hon. members on the other side have
had the same thing happen. They must hear it at the parties they
go to or from the friends they associate with. It is an ongoing
concern in Canada that has to be addressed.
We must take every responsible opportunity to correct this
situation, where both bureaucrats and the courts run this country
instead of having a government of the people, by the people, for
the people. Too often we have government of the Ottawa
mandarins for their own purpose, or governments of the lawyers
and the judges, all too often to protect the rights of the criminals
rather than to defend the interests of the vast majority of
law-abiding citizens.
Until we can bring accountability back into this House we will
always have this complaint from our constituents. It is
unnecessary. It is something we must address and I believe
Motion No. 7 is the first step in a long process.
12615
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to be able to address this particular matter today. When
I came here in the fall of 1993 one of the biggest promises I
made to the constituents of Elk Island who elected me was to
exert pressure on the government to be accountable for the way
the taxpayers' hard earned dollars were being spent.
I remember very distinctly one of the things which shocked
me when I arrived here. There was an orientation for new
members. The individual making the presentation told us what
our office budgets were and explained the formula. Then he said
that it did not matter, that we could spend more, that we could
spend any amount we wanted to. I was getting upset and as a
brand new member I did not know what to do. Should I get up
and say that is wrong and we should not do that? I was getting
quite angry about this carte blanche that an MP had to spend any
amount he wanted.
Then the presenter said that to remember, any amount we
overextended or overspent on our budget or any category in it
would simply be deducted from our salary. I immediately
relaxed and was happy. He was obviously building it up. He said
that as a member of Parliament I had a personal responsibility to
be within my budget. If I am not trustworthy or not on the bit in
terms of managing my budget, then it would come out of my own
pocket.
When I left that meeting I remembered how my emotions
went up with anger and down with great delight that there was
one level of accountability. I then asked some of my colleagues
if it would not be wonderful if we could require that same level
of accountability from all members of the government, all of the
bureaucrats. A deputy minister would be required to give up a
portion of his salary for overspending the budget.
I have been watching the budget and we have been working in
committee on the estimates for the year and I am appalled. Over
and over we hear about cuts, cuts, cuts. Yet in every set of
estimates I have looked at so far the spending is up. The people
of Canada need to know that total government spending under
this new, much touted cutting budget is actually $2 billion more
than last year. The people of Canada and members of this House
ought to know that we are spending more and more.
When the hon. member from the governing Liberal Party was
speaking earlier, he made some comments about the Reformers.
He said that here is this group of Reformers who want
accountability and all they are doing is proposing something
that will cost more money. The member then said that the
amount of overspending is not really that much. Why, it is only
five one-thousandths of one per cent.
(1640)
Five one thousandths of one per cent is certainly not excessive
if it is put that way. But if we look at the tens of millions of
dollars which are overspent because of administrative errors,
because of lack of accountability and lack of resolve, I think that
maybe 100 taxpayers would be required to pay their total tax
bills just to pay for the overpayment. If we got those 100
taxpayers, or 1,000 taxpayers or however many are needed to
come up with the tax dollars to fund this administrative error, I
think we would have howls of protest. Perhaps then we would
have a greater cry for accountability.
The member said that it is an administrative hassle. It will
cost money to ask the minister to be accountable for the
overpayments. Yes, indeed, accounting for money is a cost item.
As any person who has ever been in business will tell us, the
money which is spent on reliable accountants and on acceptable
accounting procedures is usually money well spent. Money
which is spent in providing accountability usually provides a
saving of an amount much greater than the amount which is
required to deliver on that accountability.
I would speak against the Bloc amendment to the Reform
motion. What we are doing is we are promoting accountability.
The cry from the other side was that these people do not care,
that we want to cut people off. Another statement was that we
want to prevent the minister from being able to do his job.
Wrong on both counts.
We in the Reform Party believe it is time we managed our
fiscal affairs in such a way that we do not go down the tubes, so
that we do maintain the ability to help people who are truly in
need. As long as we keep on wasting money because we are too
lazy to account for it, we are diving headlong into a disaster.
That will prevent us from doing anything for anyone because we
will have either runaway inflation or increased taxes and
probably both in order to try to bail us out of a fiscal problem
which was generated by governments over the past 30 years.
There is probably nothing more urgent than bringing
accountability to the whole process.
There is a recommendation in our motion that the minister
must include his recommendations in his report. In other words,
we are not saying that the minister cannot do his job; we are
telling the minister to do his job and to do it well. Where it can
be improved, he should bring his recommendations to the
House. We will then provide assistance, via the House or a
committee, so that we can be more efficient and better stewards
of the money which Canadian taxpayers entrust to us.
We are saying to the minister that if he is overspending
because of administrative errors, if he is giving money to people
to whom it is not due, that money should be recoverable. If there
are mitigating circumstances which would recommend that on
compassionate grounds or for whatever reason it will not be paid
back, we want to know why that is so. We want to know what the
minister is going to do about it. Many years a go a very wise
12616
teacher of mine said: ``If you set no goals, you will be sure to
reach them. If you aim for nothing, you will be sure to hit it''.
(1645)
We are asking the minister to account for administrative
errors in his department that cost the taxpayers money. We are
asking the minister to come up with a plan that will save the
taxpayers money. I do not think anyone would argue that when
there is increasing competition for increasingly rare dollars
from government, the money should go to people to whom it is
intended. If someone receives money, whether it is OAS or CPP
or UIC, to which they are not entitled it is actually a violation of
the rights of the people who need it and it should be paid back
unless there are very severe mitigating circumstances.
We want the minister to aim ever higher. We want the minister
to say: ``Last year this amount of unauthorized payments were
made and we could not collect it back''. We want the minister to
stand in the House or table a report that will say what the amount
was. He must be up front with the taxpayers who are footing the
bill. Then he must also show his plan for reducing those costs.
He must show what he is prepared to do in order to make the
administration more efficient to reduce the number of people
receiving payments to which they are not entitled. If the
minister aims at nothing or says if we will have a certain amount
of overpayment, so be it, we cannot improve, that is exactly
what will happen. There will be no improvement.
However, as our amendment suggests, if the minister is
required to give a report, stage his plans for doing better then we
hopefully will find there will be improvement and fewer people
will receive money to which they are not entitled. There will
hopefully be fewer people required to pay back money they
should not have received because the administrative procedures
will be so honed to a fine art that people who are not entitled to
receive money will not receive it. That is the ultimate goal for
which we should strive and the goal which we should keep in
mind and work toward until it is actually met.
We recognize it is not possible for a minister to micromanage
his department. We say without equivocation that if the
committees are to have any function in the House, as we were
told by the so-called Liberal red book, we were to have more
meaningful activities for MPs, let them work in the committees
and deal with these recommendations.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with considerable amount of trepidation and at the
same time a certain sense of responsibility that I rise in the
debate on the bill.
What is operating here is a plea for accountability,
compassion and responsibility, efficiency and businesslike
operation of the affairs of the House.
In particular I draw the attention of the House to Motion No.
7, the Reform Party motion calling for the minister to make a
report to the House on where overpayments of CPP and OAS
were made and at what cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
I am sure members of the House recognize only too well the
largest group of people in Canada that deserves compassion
today are the taxpayers. All taxpayers are burdened, be they
young or old. They are paying taxes to a point at which they
believe it has become excessive. They find themselves unable to
do many of the things they want to do. They want to get into
some of the larger purchases. They want to buy houses, cars,
appliances and they find their discretionary income is getting
lower and lower even though their gross salary is increasing.
(1650)
We need to exercise some compassion. One of the greatest
examples of compassion the House could demonstrate is that the
money given to us by taxpayers be treated as money given to us
in trust, money not to be spent willy-nilly at whatever whim or
fancy might strike us at a particular time.
What is being called upon here is for the minister to say to all
of his servants, the servants to the House and to the people of
Canada: ``Do your administration honestly, do it fairly and do it
consistent with the legislation''.
To the credit of most of our civil servants I must admit to the
House that my association with our civil servants has been
exemplary. They have done what they could and they do make
mistakes, just as all of us make mistakes from time to time.
When they make a mistake who is responsible? If the servant to
the minister makes a mistake that servant is responsible to the
minister but it is the minister who is responsible for the action of
the people he has employed who report to him. The minister is
responsible to the House for the actions taken by him and under
his direction the staff he has appointed.
Therefore we ask that if there is an overpayment a committee
do study these issues and they be reported to the House so that
the responsibility can come back to the House. This is the
Parliament of Canada. Here the legislation is enacted; here the
responsibility ought to be demonstrated to all of the people of
Canada.
It is with pride that we sit here. It is with the responsibility of
knowing we are managing the people's money that we should
approach the various aspects of the administration. It is with this
intent that I come before the House to say the time has come to
be accountable, to be responsible and to recognize it is not just
the response we make to a stimulus but that we exercise the
ability and the skill we have developed in the background we
have so the right decision is made to emphasize that it helps the
people who need the help the most.
12617
Another group of people needs compassion. Those are the
people who need to be helped by our social safety nets. There
are many of them. There are those in our society, sad to say,
who abuse the system, who use fraudulent means to apply for
these benefits, who are dishonest in the information they
include. They are responsible for the actions they have taken
and they should be called to account. That is why this
recommendation in this particular bill, to amend the bill, so that
those overpayments do indeed become a debt to the crown.
These are necessary and they ought to be enforced.
Then there is that other group that may well have received
through administrative error or something else additional funds.
Those people may through no fault of their own have spent more
money than they probably should have are now unable to repay
even though they may have received the amounts in error. Then a
judgment call needs to be made. At that point the minister
should exercise his responsibility. If he can defend that decision
in the House, I am sure there are enough compassionate people
in the House who would say there are those who ought to be
forgiven.
We as a nation and as individuals would be the most
despairing people and the most despicable people if we could
not learn to forgive. Where there are honest mistakes made we
ought to forgive; where people demand compassion, we must be
able to give them that forgiveness. It can be done; it should be
done.
Let us be accountable. Let us be compassionate to our
taxpayers so we do not spend more money than we have to and
recognize they are already overburdened in the taxes they are
paying. Then let us call those to account who are responsible for
the administration. They report to the House, they report to one
another and they do these things honestly, credibly and
efficiently. Let us all forgive where that needs to be done, where
there are good reasons to forgive.
(1655)
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 7, the amendment put
forward by the Reform Party.
Why is commons sense usually the first victim when we give
consideration to change? I have stood in the House on more
occasions than I wish to count and have seen that basic common
sense becomes a trade-off between positive ideas for change
and partisan politics.
Canada has reached a crossroads. Our fiscal situation has
prompted a country wide debate on the state of our social
security programs. Our safety net is financially unsustainable
and many of the programs reflect waste and disturbing
inefficiencies which will ultimately hurt the very people these
programs were meant to help.
Motion No. 7 is one we believe can make the system more
accountable. Accountability is one of the basic planks on which
I was elected. I made a promise to constituents that all of my
analysis, all of the efforts and work undertaken on their behalf
would reflect that commitment to accountability.
There are many occasions in the House when all of us receive
letters from constituents who write to us from their heart about
expenditures and the danger to the basic structure of our social
programs. When I get these letters I know why I am here
challenging the government, demanding accountability on
behalf of the Canadians we represent and using common sense in
the deliberations we debate.
I received a letter from a lady named Irene in February of this
year. Irene wants some answers to some very basic questions.
She writes from her heart. She asks about accountability: ``Dear
member of Parliament, I am a senior citizen who is proud to call
myself Canadian. However, I have become more and more
concerned with the handling of our budget by our government. I
have decided to participate in the process by writing this open
letter to all members of Parliament regardless of party
affiliation to communicate my concern over what I and many of
my friends and family see as utter waste regarding unrealistic
expectations and greed and total absence of conscience for the
spending of public money''.
She is doing what I would call her political work,
participating in the process. She goes on to say: ``I have been
elected spokesperson by my group of friends, hence the lengthy
list of suggested budgetary cuts. By cutting the following
expenses we can perhaps cut less from programs that we have
supported with our many years of hard work and money.
Although these are but basic and straightforward budget cuts,
surely the more unpalatable cuts will be seen less as another
blow to the ordinary Canadian if it is perceived that all expenses
are open to scrutiny''.
What she is asking for is accountability. She goes on to list
two pages full of cuts she believes would be appropriate and
useful for government to take under consideration. Something
in her last point I found quite interesting: ``Why not increase the
resources of the auditor general to find waste and duplication
which they manage to find every year?'' I thought that was
appropriate to bring into the debate today since we are looking at
our estimates: ``However, rather than just report it, why not
increase the personnel so that follow-up action may be taken?
Every year we hear about all the waste and duplication in
different government departments. However, once the report is
made public, is that all there is? Is there any follow-up and/or
guidance for the guilty parties?''
Irene once again is simply seeking accountability.
12618
(1700 )
In Motion No. 7, which is basic common sense, we are trying
to bring accountability to that system so that we can say to Irene:
``Yes indeed, there is follow up to government waste. There is
follow up to issues and problems as they arise within the
bureaucracy''.
Having said that, I want to go through the point that Motion
No. 7 refers to because it is important to have for the record a
very common sense motion that reflects the values of the
Reform Party.
The motion calls for the minister to make a report to the
House on where overpayments in CPP and OAS were made and
at what cost to the Canadian taxpayer. That comment is very
much reflected in Irene's letter to me. It is basic information
about the government's bottom line. The report will then be
studied by a parliamentary committee made up of
representatives of the people who have entrusted us to make
decisions based on the Canadian taxpayers' best interests with
compassion and to do that with transparency.
The committee and not the bureaucrats will decide what the
minister can or cannot remit next year. It will make
recommendations on where and how to reduce the cost to the
Canadian people in overpayment. That is just and fair.
If this motion is adopted, it will return accountability to where
it belongs, in Parliament and not in the hands of the minister or
senior bureaucrats of the department where everything is done
behind closed doors. Let not the momentum of mediocrity
continue to plague the actions of the House as we move toward
change and become openly and completely accountable to the
Canadian people.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, it is my duty to inform
the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Mackenzie-
Canadian National.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have been quite surprised by the Bloc amendment to the motion
that we proposed.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe the hon. member has already
spoken to this motion, has she not?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, no, I spoke to the motion but
not to the Bloc's amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Since it is the same vote, the member is
precluded from speaking twice to the matter.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am a little
puzzled. My motion has been amended and yet I have no way of
expressing in debate my response to that.
The Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that the matters
were all grouped for debate. The member is correct that she did
not have knowledge of the amendment before she spoke earlier
today. Accordingly, unless anyone else wishes to intervene on
the matter, I can see no reason why she cannot speak.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I find the amendment proposed
by the Bloc to be extremely inconsistent with the stand that its
members are taking on the bill.
Bloc members are erasing the accountability of the minister.
They are saying that the minister should have discretion whether
he exceeds any limits on overpayment. Yet in a number of their
amendments, they say that the minister's discretion should be
erased. Here they want to give the minister discretion by
amending my amendment but in any other case, they do not want
the minister to have discretion. I would ask the Bloc to consider
the consistency of this amendment.
If they do not like the minister having absolute discretion in
clause 38, why are they saying he should have absolute
discretion in clause 23? I do not understand it at all.
(1705)
Erasing subclauses (7) and (8) of our motion will make the
committee's recommendation totally toothless. The Bloc
members are the ones who are always hollering and screaming
about the need for more fiscal accountability in the way
government spends money and to quit adding to the debt.
We have tried to bring forward a very simple motion that
would put some limits and some parameters around what a
department can spend. The Bloc members do not want that. They
want this department to have absolutely unlimited discretion to
overspend, to make payments that are not legitimate, necessary
or warranted, but there is nothing that Parliament can do to stop
this. They do not want Parliament to be able to stop this but they
are always complaining that departments are overspending.
I am really sorry but I fail to see the reasoning. The Bloc has
not even put anyone up to explain why it is doing this. I see
absolutely no reason why the Bloc is doing this. It seems
entirely capricious and illogical.
I would ask my colleagues in the Bloc to reconsider the
position they have taken which is not consistent, not logical,
seems to serve no good purpose and flies in the face of the
concerns they have expressed about this bill in their own
motions.
It is all very well to say the committee would look at the
overspending, but if Parliament has absolutely no ability to
place limits on ministerial and departmental discretion what is
the good of Parliament? Why are we sitting here? Is not the
whole purpose of us being here to manage the affairs of the
country in a realistic way?
12619
If this amendment passes we are saying that if departments
overpay, make all the mistakes they want, waste all the money
they want, send the money here, there and everywhere,
wherever they want, we cannot do anything about it nor do we
want to do anything about it. God forbid that we should say:
``This far and no more can your inefficiencies go''.
I appeal to the members of the House to reconsider their
position on this. If the minister wants to overspend and feels
there are good reasons to do this and has a logical explanation,
then he will have to convince a committee of the House,
parliamentarians, people who were elected to manage our affairs
and our money, that he has a good reason for needing to do this.
Is that not the whole purpose of us being here or am I missing
something?
I ask my friends in the Bloc for an explanation of why they
proposed this amendment. Failing that, I can only urge on the
House that it is totally frivolous. It is illogical. It is unnecessary.
It flies in the face of what we are here for. I urge that it be voted
down and the motion as proposed be accepted.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 6. Is the House ready for
the question.
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
(1710 )
[English]
The question is on the amendment to Motion No. 7. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8),
the recorded division on the amendment to Motion No. 7 stands
deferred.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ)
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting Clause 38.
He said: Mr. Speaker, finally, the last amendment to Bill
C-54. In Motion No. 12 I move the following amendment:
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I
understand it, the House voted on whether to accept the
amendment to Motion No. 7 but not whether to accept Motion
No. 7. We need to do that.
The Deputy Speaker: That will be done at the time of the
deferred division.
[Translation]
Mr. Dumas: Mr. Speaker, in Motion No. 12 I move the
following amendment: That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting
clause 38, which reads as follows: ``Where a decision is made by
a Review Tribunal or the Pension Appeals Board in respect of a
benefit, the Minister may stay-that is what it says-payment of
the benefit until the latest of-there are three choices-(a) the
expiration of the period allowed for making an application for
12620
leave to appeal to the Pension Appeals Board, (b) the expiration
of the period allowed for making an application under the
Federal Court Act for judicial review of the decision, and (c)
where Her Majesty has made an application under the Federal
Court Act for judicial review of the decision, the month in
which all proceedings in relation to the judicial review have
been completed''.
Why delete clause 38? Because the purpose of this
amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois, the official
opposition, is to prevent the government from suspending
payment of benefits during appeals, since these appeals arise
from the government's failure to manage these programs
satisfactorily. Senior citizens should not have to pay for the
government's incompetence.
Clearly, the government wants to discourage senior citizens
from filing appeals, since some people do not have the resources
to tide them over this waiting period. Clause 38 of Bill C-54
provides no guarantees for adequate financial security for
seniors.
In the report by the National Advisory Council on Aging, as I
said before, the disposable incomes of seniors were as follows:
the income of families where the head of the household is a
senior is 60 to 80 per cent of the income of other Canadian
families, depending on the standard used and the region.
(1715)
In 1989, the average income of families where the head of the
household was a senior was only $37,462 or 72 per cent of the
income of families where the head of the household was under
65. In 1989, the average income of single persons aged 65 or
over was $16,316, while the average income of single persons
under 65 was $23,080. A single person, for the purposes of this
clause, is a person who lives alone or in a household where he or
she is not related to the other members of the household.
Single persons, whatever their age, tend to have relatively low
incomes. Consequently, the gap between seniors and the rest of
the population is not quite as wide for those who live alone as it
is for families, but it is still significant.
By allowing himself to stay payment of the benefits during a
review or an appeal, the minister is depriving recipients of
money they need to live on, as it is often their only source of
income.
Seventy-two per cent of retired women and 50 per cent of
retired men receive old age security and guaranteed income
supplement benefits. Only 5 per cent of seniors make more than
$50,000. The life expectancy of seniors has increased. We must
ensure that their extra years of life are satisfactory.
By tightening the conditions under which seniors can appeal
what they consider an unfair decision, the government is trying
to discourage them by reducing their income. Yet, the
government itself admits that old age benefits are the only
source of income for a considerable proportion of recipients.
Let us keep in mind that the federal government has already
decided to reduce the deficit on the backs of the most vulnerable
by lowering the age credit. As a result, all taxpayers aged 65 and
over can apply for a tax credit equal to 17 per cent of $3,482 at
the federal level and 20 per cent of $2,200 in Quebec. This credit
is non-refundable, that is to say, it applies to the tax payable,
and the excess portion cannot be refunded. The unused portion
of the credit can, however, be transferred to the spouse.
On May 31, 1994, I rose in this House to oppose reducing the
age credit. I reiterated that the feeble efforts to reduce spending
were being made on the backs of the most vulnerable. During
that speech, I also asked the minister responsible for seniors a
question about the plan to install voice mail to answer inquiries
from seniors.
The minister simply told us about the speed of the proposed
service. I explained that many seniors are reluctant to use such a
service and that they express this opinion on a regular basis. If
you ask seniors how clause 38 will affect their decision about
whether or not to appeal a decision, the answer is clear: seniors
will not appeal because, for most of them, old age benefits are
the only source of income.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition,
cannot remain silent and let the government reduce the deficit
on the backs of seniors. Clause 38 of Bill C-54 must be deleted
so that the government will not be able to stay payment of
benefits during the appeal process.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, again I rise on
this question to try to persuade the government to make the right
decision. Since the calls are made by the Liberals, with their
majority whatever they decide will be, so I am going to try hard
to persuade them in the correct way.
There has been considerable inconsistency from Bloc
members, in the sense that with this amendment they are asking
that we take away from the minister the discretion not to pay.
(1720 )
In other words, if the minister decides that somebody should
not be entitled to some of these programs that are being dealt
with in Bill C-54 and some administrative bureaucrat in the
12621
system decides a person should not be receiving a benefit
because the rules say he should no longer be receiving it,
according to this amendment the minister would no longer have
the right to stop the payments.
To me, this is ludicrous. On the one hand they move a
subamendment to our motion, which would have the effect of
not giving the minister the right to make payments when they are
required, and here they are saying they do not want to have the
minister have the right to not make payments when they are not
required. That does not make sense to me.
As members opposite are thinking about this amendment, and
I presume they will be opposed to it, I want to strongly urge them
to be opposed to it. If the payments are not justifiable they are in
breach of the rules, and the minister should be able to stop those
payments.
Let us look at the scenario this sets up. A person receives
money and the department says no more money. Then the person
who is receiving appeals. During that appeal process, in which
the wheels of government can take quite some time, these
payments must be kept coming. If the person receiving them
really wants to take the system for a ride, they will make sure
that all of that money they receive is totally spent, so that if the
appeal goes against them they will be able to say they cannot pay
it back because they have no money. Then, on a compassionate
ground or whatever, according to the previous rules that money
would not be repayable.
It really means that the taxpayers are being totally dumped on
in terms of accountability if this amendment is accepted. As I
said, I urge the members opposite to pass the information on to
their leadership so that the leadership gives the direction to them
so they know how to vote and they will vote correctly in
opposing this amendment.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is easy to see from the large number of amendments
prepared on the subject that the opposition is not in favour of
making changes to the current appeal process.
I cannot speak for the opposition, but the Liberal Party of
Canada believes that our seniors deserve the best. With the
proposed changes to the appeal system we would be giving them
the opportunity to have their decisions reviewed as quickly and
fairly as possible under the best system we can offer.
Motion No. 12 is intriguing. By the debate that is taking place,
we see it is also very frustrating and confusing for the members
of the official opposition versus members of the third party
opposite. The battle that is going on between the two clearly
reveals to me and to other members of the House of Commons
that there is no simple answer to the very complex operations of
any great government such as we have in Canada. Simple
solutions just do not exist.
However, both parties have for some time, close to 18 months,
been advocating simple solutions to extremely complex
problems. I am just wondering after this lengthy period of time
whether or not that is a deliberate attempt, or perhaps it is
simply a matter of fact, that both parties lack the ability to
comprehend the complexity and profound depth of these
government operations. Perhaps they are deliberately trying to
confuse Canadians with these simplistic solutions and are
therefore misguiding the voting population.
(1725 )
We should begin by noting that the Canada pension plan
review tribunals hear thousands of cases every year, thousands.
These cases often are very complex. The legislation is also
complex. They are sometimes very difficult to adjudicate.
With human beings involved, mistakes are sometimes made
by these tribunals. When this occurs the minister must with
great reluctance appeal the decision to the pension appeal board.
This is only done where there are the clearest indications that a
mistake has been made. Nonetheless, the department records
indicate that 45 review tribunal decisions that were appealed by
the minister to the pension appeal board were in fact overturned
by that body. That 45 represents 80 per cent of the decisions that
were made and rendered in 1994. Had the minister followed
what appears to be the preference of the opposition and paid
benefits before he was absolutely certain they should be paid,
these 45 people would have been in the unfortunate position of
having to repay money to the government. Imagine the shock
these 45 people would have received if they had opened their
mail and discovered they had to pay back thousands of dollars
immediately. Naturally, they would be in the position where
they would have no assets, no funds, simply because they live
from cheque to cheque.
Therefore, closer examination of this motion, which the
opposition claims will give better service to clients, will in fact
reveal that many of those clients are put in a position where they
have large overpayments that must be repaid, because the
government is paying benefits before it is certain about
entitlement. We must not allow that to happen.
For all these reasons, I oppose Motion No. 12 and urge all hon.
members to do the same.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
someone is inconsistent in this House, it is certainly not anyone
on this side. I do not see where the consistency is in
saying-especially with respect to the Canada Pension Plan
which, we will recall, provides benefits to people with
disabilities of all kinds-that individuals who are denied
benefits will have to appeal. It is stated in the bill that the
minister may stay payment of any benefit until the later of the
following dates.
12622
How can those people who are often disadvantaged because
they have problems getting around and defending their case,
because they have to hire someone to help them-people who
will now be expected to appeal if they are convinced they
qualify, knowing that, if they are wrong, the law requires that
they repay-how can they, on top of everything, be deprived
of benefits while they have to defend themselves? It makes no
sense.
This is beyond me. If there is someone who does not
understand, it is not one of us. Examine actual cases and then try
and look us straight in the face and tell us that benefits should be
stayed, even though the legislation clearly provides for benefits
to be repaid. The pensioners who will appeal are those who are
sure they have a good case. But if they do not receive benefits
during that time, chances are that people will not appeal because
they are unable to do so. It does not make any sense to me. It
makes no sense and this so-called Liberal government should
examine this point closely before adopting this clause.
(1730)
The clause reads as follows: ``Where a decision is made by a
Review Tribunal in respect to a benefit''-so there was a benefit
to start with-``the Minister may stay payment of the benefit
until the later of-''
This means that those to whom benefits are denied or cut will
probably have to go on welfare and rely on the welfare plan in
their province. In some places, single individuals get something
like $250. When a handicapped person who has to pay a helper
loses his or her benefits and is told to wait until the very end, at
which time he or she will get benefits, this is absolutely
inconsistent and illogical; it makes no sense but, more
importantly, it shows a total lack of compassion.
I urge Liberal members to look at this legislation closely and
not from a partisan point of view. We, on this side, certainly did
not debate the issue on a partisan basis. We work for those who
are the least able to take care of themselves. This is how we have
to consider this issue. We took a close look at the amendment
proposed by the Reform Party and we agree with part of it.
However, we do not agree with the part which provides that the
minister must wait, even if he is convinced that an amount
should be remitted because an administrative error was made.
We feel that those who suffer the prejudice should not have to
wait.
In any case, the amendment proposed by the Reform Party did
not remove the minister's discretionary power, since the motion
only refers to a recommendation. That could only adversely
affect the people concerned, since the minister still had
discretionary power. I am answering the hon. member, because
we always enjoy debating the substance of these issues, but that
proposal does not make sense. The fact is that, if we look at all
these provisions and amendments, which are supposed to be
technical, we realize that this bill will significantly change the
relationship between the elderly, the handicapped and families,
on the one hand, and the state, on the other hand. This is what
this legislation is about.
It seems to me that we are all trying to protect the interests of
our fellow citizens. At the same time, we realize that the system
must include some protection. However, that protection must
not be provided at the expense of the public. We must not set the
whole system against the public. To deprive people of the means
to defend themselves when they risk losing their meagre
benefits, is certainly not consistent with social fairness,
accountability or good government. No. The government is
trying to save money on the backs of Canadians, by not
explicitly providing them with the right to appeal, a right which
is theirs.
One must have worked with people who had to fight the
system, whether as regards occupational safety and health
issues, or eligibility to disability benefits, to measure the
enormous challenge which these people face, given how hard it
is for them to provide the required evidence. Consequently,
there is no reason to come up with such a provision, in addition
to all the other changes proposed in this bill to favour the
system, at the expense of the public. To be sure, this is not a
legislation which the Liberals can be proud of.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are having a good debate today on some administrative
changes to Bill C-54. I certainly agree with my hon. friend from
the Bloc that we are trying to serve the citizens of the country as
well, as effectively, as compassionately and as truly as we can.
(1735)
Our country deserves the best we can give it. I remind my hon.
friend that if we are to run things effectively it should not be
done on the backs of citizens. Savings should not be looked on as
being something we do on the backs of people. Spending is
really what we put on the backs of people. Spending is a burden
which we extract from the hard work of our citizens and often
place on our future citizens as well. We have to look at all of the
administrative measures and all of the spending proposals in a
way which is fair to the people who need the money, fair to the
people who have to earn the money and fair to the people who
will inherit the debt we are building in order to spend some of
the money.
We cannot look at this issue as if only desperately poor and
needy people are being hurt. Those are the people we want to
help. If we are to continue to help them then we must be
responsible, effective and efficient in the way we administer
every government department.
I was saddened to hear the Liberal member deriding the
Reform amendment to this very complex bill. He suggested it
was put forward to hurt seniors. It does no credit to debate in the
House when attempts to constructively improve proposals of
government are simply dismissed as meaning to hurting people.
12623
It is beneath members of the House to suggest that any member
would be motivated by such repugnant motives.
The Liberal member also suggested the amendments were
simplistic. Is any attempt to improve government legislation to
be dismissed as being simplistic? I say to the people of Canada
that to look at complex bills, to study them, to assess the impact
and the effectiveness of them takes a great deal of time and
effort. It is done in an attempt to give the best to our country, to
ensure everything we do has the highest standards of
accountability in delivering the services which Canadians need
in a way we can afford and which we can count on over the long
term.
I appeal to members to respect and to objectively and
seriously judge the things put forward in the House, not to
deride, misrepresent and distort them in a partisan way. The
country will not benefit from that kind of approach. I am
saddened by that kind of approach and I appeal to members not
to take it.
Over 80 per cent of Canadians say they want our social
programs reformed. They know the programs are often abused.
They often give money to people who do not need it. There are
many examples of programs sending money to millionaires.
Any small attempts we make to these complex bills to make the
departments and bureaucrats accountable are somehow
dismissed.
Do we really want to say as parliamentarians to a minister or
to a department: ``Go out and overspend. Go out and make
allocations of money not warranted, to which people are not
entitled, in any amount you want. We do not care. We do not
want to know about it. We will not stop you. We do not want
limits on that''?
(1740 )
Surely we owe the people of Canada better responsibility,
accountability and management than that. I ask the House to
vote down measures which remove accountability and support
measures which add accountability.
Our ministers and our departments are not looking for ways to
defraud the Canadian people of money to which they are
rightfully entitled under these programs-far from it. There are
tens of millions of dollars going to people who do not need it,
who do not deserve it, who are not entitled to it, people receiving
money from programs not meant for that.
Surely we have an obligation and a responsibility in the House
to put a stop to that and to make sure the people who do need the
money are getting it and the people who do not need the money
and who are not entitled to it are not getting dollars that should
be going to the neediest people in our society.
I speak against Motion No. 12. It removes accountability in an
important way. I certainly urge the House to add more
accountability to the way these programs are administered
rather than detract from it.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The division is on Motion No. 12. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now
before the House.
Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a),
the division on the question now before the House stands
deferred until 6.30 p.m. today.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Raymond Chan (for Minister of Industry, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on
internal trade, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, I
thank you for this opportunity to speak on the occasion of
second reading of Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement
on internal trade.
The bill is another step in the process to create a new internal
trade regime that has been under way in Canada for some time.
Our objective is to reduce barriers to interprovincial trade and to
remove restrictions on the movement of people and capital
within the domestic marketplace.
12624
Passage of Bill C-88 will be a necessary step for Parliament
to take in order to implement the agreement on internal trade
signed last year by all the provinces and territories along with
the federal government.
At the invitation of the Prime Minister, first ministers met in
Ottawa last July to formally accept and sign the agreement the
committee of ministers of internal trade had finalized at the end
of June. With this accord, we were committed to a target of July
1, 1995 to have the appropriate legislative and regulatory
changes in place so the agreement could be legally
implemented.
In this sense, in putting this legislation before the House we
are meeting an obligation to provincial and territorial
governments we incurred when we signed the agreement in June
1994. The agreement on internal trade was an important step in
the quest to create an integrated domestic market in Canada.
(1745 )
In the 127 years or so since Confederation, we have seen a
hodge-podge of protectionist measures and trade conventions
develop, which have inhibited interprovincial trade and
restricted the flow of goods and capital between provinces in
Canada. These measures range from outright restrictions to
bidding on government contracts to a patchwork of regulations
and incompatible standards.
The government has felt strong and repeated pressure from
the private sector to deal with the problems associated with
internal barriers to trade and conflicting regulations on
cross-border flows of people and capital. We have received
representations from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association,
the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council on
National Issues, the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian
Construction Association, and so on. The list is long and the
problems are deeply felt and broadly experienced.
Such barriers put Canadian businesses at a comparative
disadvantage by restricting the size of the available marketplace
and by making the markets open to Canadian businesses even
smaller than they would be on an open national basis. In a time
of increasing global competition and more open markets in other
parts of the world, this can have the negative result of putting
Canadian businesses at a disadvantage to international
competitors, even in our own markets. In addition, there is an
economic cost related to marketplace inefficiency. The
Canadian Manufacturers' Association has estimated that
barriers to trade cost Canadians about $7 billion annually in
direct job and income loss.
In years past, when external trade barriers protected
economies like ours from international competition the
economic costs of internal trade barriers were tolerated. When
Canadian industry was sheltered from international competition
by tariff barriers of 10 per cent or even 20 per cent, the economic
costs were not so obvious. But a marketplace sheltered from
international competition is no longer the reality. International
barriers and tariffs are down. The market is global and the
competition is fierce.
We will not and cannot be successful in an open global market
if we operate in a closed market here at home. So we need to
adapt to the international reality in trade. Bill C-88 and the
agreement it implements is an important aspect of this process
and is part of the more open fundamental process of economic
renewal that the government is following towards its strategic
objectives for economic growth and job creation.
Last fall the Minister of Industry introduced in the House our
government's plan to build a more innovative economy. We
outlined our intentions for improving the economic climate of
Canada in four ways: to build a positive entrepreneurial climate
and to help small business grow; to expand markets for jobs and
growth through trade; to create an efficient and modern
infrastructure; and also to make technology work for Canada.
These are the areas where the government can have the greatest
impact on job creation.
While Bill C-88 will support all of these objectives, it has
special relevance for the objective to expand markets. To grow
and prosper, business needs an efficient and open marketplace,
an environment that encourages innovation and expansion, free
of unnecessary barriers.
With the agreement on internal trade and now with this bill we
have the elements to establish a new internal trade regime in
Canada, one that will allow us to make the most of our
interprovincial domestic market by encouraging innovation and
expansion and by removing unnecessary barriers to trade.
The Canadian economy is in a period of transition. There are
fundamental changes taking place because of the globalization
of trade and the rapid pace of technological change. Competitive
advantage in today's world depends less on location and natural
resources and more on innovation and ability to respond to
changing market conditions and to achieve economies of scale.
(1750 )
As we continue the transition from a resource based economy
to one where innovation, knowledge, and flexibility are the
underpinnings of competitive advantage, we need to ensure that
the domestic trading environment will accommodate and
expedite the necessary changes.
Bill C-88 will provide a supportive environment for the
economic transition process we are now experiencing. The
legislation that is before the House now is the result of a long
process of negotiations and consultation, which has involved
many Canadians with many different perspectives, ministers of
the federal government, ministers of all the provincial and
territorial governments, officials of all these governments and
representatives of the private sector. Also, it is interesting to
note that political parties of all stripes have co-operated in
negotiations leading to the agreement. There were different
12625
perspectives, but a shared belief that a more open trading
environment will be good for Canada.
In fact a striking feature of the process has been the high
degree of co-operation and goodwill that has been demonstrated
on all sides. Those Canadians who have been involved in the
process understand the compelling need to open our internal
markets and ensure that the Canadian marketplace works to the
advantage of all Canadians.
Over the last two years the negotiations and background work
were under the guiding hand of Mr. Arthur Mauro, a well known
Canadian businessman. Mr. Mauro acted as chairman of the
committee of chief negotiators and worked tirelessly to keep the
process moving toward its objectives and produced the
agreement that the ministers signed last year.
The work leading up to this bill has been exhaustive. It has
been thorough and it will be ongoing. It is our duty to keep the
process moving. The process began in June 1988, when federal
and provincial agriculture ministers compiled a list of barriers
to internal trade in agricultural food products. A
federal-provincial committee of ministers of internal trade with
a commitment to open market access within Canada was
formed. The focus of this group was comparatively narrow.
Topics of discussion included government procurement, wine,
spirits, and beer, transportation, professional mobility, and
standards.
The process had begun. Governments were now dealing with
the problems of internal trade barriers in an organized way.
Federal-provincial discussions continued and the focus
widened. Ministers also began to consider the need for a dispute
resolution mechanism as part of more comprehensive trading
agreements between provinces and territories.
In December 1989 a memorandum of understanding on
internal trade in agricultural products was signed by seven of the
provinces. The process was beginning to move.
Federal-provincial negotiators continued to meet. Agreement
was reached and memoranda of understanding were signed on a
number of individual issues, such as transportation and
government procurement.
By December 1992 the committee of ministers of internal
trade recommended that the process be accelerated and that all
parties commit to the goal of reaching a broad and
comprehensive internal trade agreement by June 30, 1994.
By March 1993 the negotiators agreed to three specific
principles as basic to an agreement. They were that governments
treat people, goods, services, and capital equally, irrespective of
where they originate in Canada; that government reconcile
standards and regulations to provide for the free movement of
people, goods, services, and capital within Canada; and that
governments ensure that their administrative policies operate to
provide for the free movement of people, goods, services, and
capital within Canada.
(1755 )
In August 1993 Mr. Mauro took charge of the negotiations. In
December 1993 our government reaffirmed its commitment to
the process, and in January 1994 chief negotiators were given
specific instructions to prepare a draft agreement for the
consideration of the committee of ministers of internal trade.
Ministers were looking for an agreement that would improve
three main elements: trade rules to apply to specific sectors or
issue areas; an elaboration on how the rules would apply in these
specific areas; and also a dispute resolution mechanism that
would encourage parties to negotiate settlements but not to
involve the courts.
Now the process was in high gear. An intensive series of
meetings was held during the period from January to June last
year. These meetings culminated in ministers agreeing to the
text of an internal trade agreement at the end of June. Following
that, the Prime Minister and all other first ministers signified
their acceptance of the agreement with a formal signing on July
18. The final legal text was put in place and accepted by all
parties by last October.
All governments agreed to make necessary legislative and
regulatory changes to bring the agreement into effect by July 1,
1995. Bill C-88 fulfils the commitment of the federal
government in this regard. Last year's agreement on internal
trade was a major step in a long process. It has demonstrated that
all governments can work together to achieve a common
objective that will benefit all Canadians.
What are we putting in place? The agreement on internal trade
gives a set of general rules that prohibits any new barriers to
trade and eliminates old ones in ten specific sectors or areas and
establishes a formal mechanism for the resolution of disputes
that may arise.
The agreement provides for the following objectives. It will
open the $50 billion annual government purchasing market to
competitive bidding throughout Canada. It will reduce
restriction on investment, including a code of conduct to forbid
incentives that lure firms to relocate from one province to
another. It will improve the ability of Canadians to work
anywhere they wish. It commits government to work on
harmonization of environmental protection, transportation
standards, and consumer protection. It will set up an impartial
publicly accessible process for resolving trade disputes between
governments and between individuals and governments.
12626
The dispute settlement mechanism is based on the principle
that it is preferable to solve problems informally and at an early
stage. It reflects the desire of governments to cooperate rather
than to confront or to litigate.
Therefore, it sets out a methodical, step by step process of
information exchange followed by consultations. Questions not
settled in that way may be brought to an impartial panel that
would make recommendations for solving the issue. Only as a
last resort, when a party has failed to change a measure found to
have violated the agreement, might retaliation be acceptable.
Even then, action would be limited both in effect and scope to
areas especially covered by the agreement.
Also important is the fact that the agreement has the potential
to grow and evolve. It deals directly with a large number of
current issues and it provides the framework for negotiations to
continue on others. Also, the agreement and this bill are parts of
a broad set of activities now under way to create a more open
trading environment throughout Canada.
The provinces and territories have obligations to implement
the terms of the agreement by July 1, 1995. Work is under way
on many fronts to make necessary legislative and regulatory
changes at the provincial and territorial levels. At the federal
level we have both an obligation to make the necessary changes,
as Bill C-88 does, as well as a duty to show leadership in order
to advance the process. It is fair to say this bill does not solve all
the interprovincial trade problems that have built up over the
last 127 years. However, it has moved us a considerable way
along the track.
(1800)
We see the process as one of forward movement. Some issues
are dealt with. Systems and procedures are in place for dealing
with others and new ones may yet come forward for our
attention. For example, in the energy sector a separate set of
negotiations is under way toward a similar deadline of July 1.
A process is in place to deal with the outstanding issues in the
agricultural sector. Issues related to interprovincial trade in
alcoholic beverages are not resolved either, but a consultative
mechanism is set up and deadlines for resolutions are in place.
In summary, for the first time in our history, we will have a
rules based system, a mechanism for settling disputes and a
work plan for the future. In the future other issues may come up,
for example, interprovincial regulations relating to financial
services or standards for environmental protection. There is the
further possibility of using the framework to consider
streamlining and harmonizing ``non-standards'' regulations.
Whatever new issues come forward, we will want to deal with
them in the same spirit of co-operation, shared objectives and
mutual interests that has now been established within the
agreement on internal free trade that this bill will implement.
With this legislation we are ensuring the framework is in place
and we are confirming our belief that the fundamental principles
of free trade will work.
When first ministers signed the agreement last summer they
committed to having the necessary legislative and regulatory
changes in place by July 1, 1995. Passage of this bill by the
House will ensure we meet our obligations to our provincial and
territorial colleagues as discussed at the recent meeting of
federal, provincial and territorial ministers in Calgary. It will
also demonstrate our continued leadership in the move toward a
more open domestic trading environment and it will reinforce
our other activities to create a more innovative economy.
I want to emphasize that passing this bill is not the end of the
process. It is part of a continuing one. This legislation builds the
foundation and establishes the framework within which we will
continue to build an effective domestic trading environment
over time. Look at how the GATT and the European Union have
evolved over time. The important thing is to establish the base
and create the mechanism to allow for flexibility to meet
changing economic conditions as they occur.
Trade agreements deepen and broaden with use and
experience and this one will too. Bill C-88 will provide the
foundation for moving toward a domestic trading environment
that will allow for the free flow of goods, services, people and
capital within Canada. The Prime Minister and other ministers,
including first ministers, have been actively involved in
broadening the marketplace for Canadian goods and services in
export markets. The Team Canada approach has been highly
successful in doing that.
Now we must bring the same spirit to improving the domestic
market for our businesses and our workers. Bill C-88 is an
important step in that direction and that is why we support it.
(1805)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this bill
is aimed at implementing the provisions of the Agreement on
Internal Trade signed with the provinces last summer. To this
end, the federal government must pass legislation to comply
with the agreement before its coming into force, on July 1, 1995,
as the minister said. Briefly put, this is the purpose of Bill C-88.
First, I would like to show that Bill C-88 assumes powers
which were never mentioned during the negotiations with the
provinces or when the agreement was signed. This indicates a
strong desire on the part of the federal government to centralize.
12627
In the second part of my speech, I would like to highlight
some of the aspects of international trade which favour the
political autonomy of the regions and the creation of economic
unions rather than the establishment of great federations with
a rigid and centralizing constitution such as the Canadian
federation.
Last summer's agreement deals with 11 specific areas,
namely government contracts, investments, labour mobility,
consumer protection standards and initiatives, farm products
and foodstuffs, alcoholic beverages, natural resources
processing, communications and transportation, energy and the
protection of the environment. However, the sections of the
agreement Bill C-88 deals with are basically those regarding
dispute resolution, as if all the federal government could do was
put controls in place.
Articles 1601 to 1604 deal with the establishment of a
committee on internal trade and its secretariat. The role of the
committee will be to supervise the implementation of the
agreement and to assist in the resolution of disputes. Article
1705 deals with the establishment of a panel at the request of the
disputing parties. The panel is made up of five members who
will have to decide on the validity of the dispute and on
retaliatory action that the complaining party will eventually be
authorized to take.
Articles 1710(4), (5) and (6) stipulate that, if the matter has
not be resolved within one year of issuance of the panel report,
the complaining party may request a meeting of the committee.
The committee shall convene within 30 days to discuss with the
complaining party the option of taking retaliatory action in
respect of the party complained against. So, the complaining
party may, until such time as a mutually satisfying resolution is
achieved, impose to the party complained against retaliatory
action of equivalent effect to the damage caused to the
complaining party.
If I am reminding the House of these few rather technical
aspects of the Agreement on Internal Trade, it is essentially in
order to highlight the context within which the interprovincial
agreement was reached. We must understand that the panel
decisions are not binding, which implies that the committee
governing the interprovincial trade agreement has no power.
If the party complained against does not comply with the
panel recommendations, article 1710 applies. As we saw, article
1710 deals with retaliation action that the complaining party
may take in respect of the party that did not comply with the
agreement.
In fact, the main purpose of this bill is to implement the
agreement on internal trade. The Bloc Quebecois has always
been in favour of freer trade, which is the context in which states
do business today. So, we support the principle of the
agreement, but if the federal government is the aggrieved party
under a trade agreement referred to in the agreement, it can
impose retaliatory measures. However, that is not what is said in
Bill C-88.
In fact, clause 9 goes well beyond the spirit of the agreement
reached by the provinces last summer. This is why we are
against the bill as it stands now. Clause 9 reads as follows:
For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of
equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement,
the Governor in Council may, by order-
And then it goes on. It says that the Governor in Council may
act, by order, which is the method usually used by an autocratic
government. This bill clearly shows that the Liberal government
wants to govern by order in council.
(1810)
Are we again facing Liberal totalitarianism? In fact, clause 9
means that, if a party is at fault pursuant to article 1710 of the
agreement, then the federal government, whether or not it is
party to the dispute, assumes the right to impose retaliatory
measures against all of the provinces without distinction.
Bill C-88 clearly indicates that the federal government
intends to interfere in interprovincial trade and be both judge
and judged, to provide through this agreement the power to act
by order in council, a power it alone can exercise, and to extend
the application of any federal law to the provinces, as mentioned
in clause 9(c).
Governing by order in council, setting oneself up as the
arbiter of interprovincial trade, are measures that go way
beyond the spirit of the agreement signed with the provinces last
summer. Nowhere in the 13 paragraphs of article 1710 of the
agreement is there mentioned any right of the federal
government to intervene in a trade dispute when it is not itself
one of the parties to the dispute, contrary to the retaliatory
measures described in clause 9 of Bill C-88, as formulated and
tabled before us today.
The range of retaliatory measures the federal government has
given itself in this clause is too broad. Its power of retaliation
can affect the entire population of a province and is excessive.
The problem stems, of course, from the fact that Ottawa has
legislative power over all Canadians and can impose legislation
on all the provinces.
Bill C-88 is another example. In our opinion, the retaliatory
measures contained in clause 9 must be toned down
considerably and the focus limited strictly to matters of trade.
The federal government would thus not be able to retaliate in the
social sphere, by attacking the Canada Social Transfer, for
example.
I would have one last word concerning the intentions of the
Liberal government reflected in this bill. Clause 14 of the bill
provides, in the best Liberal tradition, that appointments to fill
any position that may be necessary or advisable for carrying out
the purposes of the Agreement be by order in council. To prevent
any form of patronage on the part of the Prime Minister, the Bloc
Quebecois requests that appointments be systematically ap-
12628
proved by the House of Commons, as they should be in a
democratic system.
There is no doubt in our mind that this bill is highly centralist.
It is a sign of a retrograde vision of trade relations between the
various regions of the same continent. We are living in an era of
trade globalization, of the dissolving of tariff and non tariff
barriers, of open markets and not of the heavy, unilateral
regulation by order in council of a continental market by a single
state like Canada.
More and more, a new competitiveness can be found at the
local, regional and provincial levels, which goes against the
federal centralizing model. The new regional international
model of economic development is an example of the
globalization of economies, in which regional economic trade
areas are swallowed by the global market.
Fernand Martin, from the department of economic sciences of
the Université de Montréal, is unequivocal regarding this
regional international reality. He says that local businesses are
realizing that they are competing not only with domestic
businesses but with all other businesses, and that they no longer
benefit from the buffer of national borders.
This new reality on the world market underlies a second
economic phenomenon: the role of local economies in the
competitiveness of businesses. Regional space takes on a
strategic importance. In this context, the intervention of a
national state structure is no longer needed. By wanting to give
unprecedented powers to the regions, the Government of
Quebec fully grasped the new parameters of international trade,
something that the government in Ottawa failed to do. NAFTA
will decrease the federal government's power to intervene in
economic matters even more.
(1815)
Even now in the area of international trade, agreements such
as the GATT prevent Canada to a large extent from imposing
tariffs and subsidizing exporters. These international
agreements promote globalization of the economy and thus
reduce, along with regional economic development, the federal
government's control over the national and interprovincial
economy.
Globalization of trade was first and foremost the product of
the emergence of the multinationals. They initially turned the
states toward new economic spaces, such as NAFTA. Today
their ability to restructure an economic space is well
established. Accordingly, they confer international stature on
the cities and regions they locate in. These cities and regions in
turn form networks giving rise to decisions and economic policy
previously the domain of central states.
The federal government's regulatory authority, in these
circumstances, becomes less and less important, and it is clear
that clause 9 of Bill C-88 runs contrary to the current course of
international trade. This point is all the more relevant, and, once
again I quote Fernand Martin: ``-since economic development
is based on competitive development, which counts on the
quality of labour and on the infrastructures and economics of
large population centres and urbanization. These levers come
under provincial jurisdiction, because health, education and
land use planning do''.
Thus, in terms of economic development and international
competitiveness, membership in a centralized economic union
is today, at the dawn of the 21st century, of little importance.
However, the same cannot be said when it comes to belonging to
a region. Since Trudeau, the traditional federalist vision of the
federal Liberals has never gone beyond the level of a strictly
nationalist analysis. Like those from the Trudeau school of
thought, this liberal government is obsessed by the fact that it is
powerless to stop the national economy from being regionalized
under the influence of multinationals and the newly created
continental trade areas.
It should not be forgotten that as interprovincial trade is
increasingly following a north-south axis, Bill C-88, and more
specifically clause 9, are nothing more than the reaction of this
government without an economic agenda to this phenomenon
and, by and large, to the present changes.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to rise in the House today and speak to second reading of
Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade.
However, Bill C-88 is like Bill C-85 on pension reform, it has
more fluff than substance. Unfortunately it is another failure to
deal with a serious problem. It appears to be another broken
promise made in the famous red ink book. The Reform Party will
be opposing the bill as it is currently written because it would
implement an agreement that from a federalist perspective may
be a step backward in our already deplorable situation.
I would like to point out for the benefit of all members the
problems this bill brings, some historical perspective and as
always, the Reform alternative, what I believe can be an
inexpensive, agreeable and efficient solution to our current
problems.
We are all aware that Canada has a massive problem with the
free flow of goods, services and capital within our borders. We
are all aware of the hundreds of barriers that exist to trade
between the provinces, the billions of dollars this costs the
economy annually, the thousands of jobs that are lost to
Canadians and the larger than necessary government deficits
that continue to grow.
12629
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce estimates that
interprovincial trade barriers cost every Canadian family at
least $1,000 a year. Others have estimated that the cost per
family may be as high as $3,500 per year.
The chamber continues on to say: ``These estimates do not
capture the costs associated with new activity that is deterred as
a result of the existence of barriers. For example, existence of
internal barriers and the knowledge that new ones can be
introduced at any time can deter Canadian businesses and
entrepreneurs from undertaking new initiatives based on the
expectation of access to the whole Canadian market. Similarly,
the existence of internal barriers may discourage international
investors who seek to locate their plants in fully integrated
markets from bringing their productive investments to
Canada''.
(1820)
There is no partisan issue in these considerations. We have all
agreed, as did all the premiers last year, that these barriers to
growth, productivity and employment must be reduced and
eliminated. Even the current premier of Quebec has indicated
his willingness to find agreement in these matters. Free trade
within our borders is something every member of the House can
agree to, except perhaps the NDP.
Where some of us differ is on the issue of the best mechanism
to get there. The agreement signed last year between the
provinces and Ottawa is a faulty mechanism that may do more
damage than the good it intends.
A Globe and Mail editorial stated: ``To say that the signing of
the agreement on interprovincial trade barriers was a triumph of
federalism would be an overstatement. To say that it will create
a free market would be an illusion. To say that it will bring
stability and unity would be optimism''. The editorial continues
to talk about the status quo of barriers which will remain in place
saying: ``These are the wages of parochialism and the country
continues to pay them''.
What became perfectly clear at the outcome of the meeting
was not that the agreement to trade freely had been brokered but
rather that an excellent photo opportunity had been set up for
one candidate in the Quebec provincial election. All news
commentators made that point. All of them remarked on the
shallowness of the deal and in the final analysis they were right.
The deal was shallow and the photo opportunity was a bust. The
Quebec candidate went on to lose the election.
Unfortunately Canadians have to suffer with the results.
There is still no improvement in trade between the provinces.
The unity question continues to burn. We believe that in the
solution to our domestic trade problem we will also find the
solution to our national unity problem. The trade ties that could
be binding us together as Canadians are the trade walls which
are currently keeping us apart. Reformers and the BQ agree on
this point. The Liberals say they agree but their words have rung
hollow so far.
A Liberal Party pollster summed it up well when he said:
``The people on the street know this is no victory for federalism.
They know the deal is full of loopholes. They know that Canada
has successfully negotiated a sweeping free trade deal with the
United States but is unable to do so within its own borders''.
It is important to reflect on the statements that have come
from the government recently with respect to free trade. For
example, the finance minister estimated that the economy would
grow by 0.4 per cent as a result of the implementation of the
GATT agreement due to freer trade with other countries. On the
other hand, estimates by the Fraser Institute on the effect of
removing interprovincial trade barriers ranged from 2 per cent
up to a possible 6 per cent growth in GDP.
In other words, with the Uruguay round of the GATT we spent
seven years and millions of tax dollars to negotiate with 120
foreign countries to open up trade and yet we have an
opportunity to realize five to fifteen times the economic benefit
by legislating, negotiating and arbitrating among only ten
provinces. Unfortunately, the government has given only a
half-hearted effort so far.
The Minister for International Trade in speaking to the GATT
implementation bill stated: ``The agreement includes an
enormous package of national commitments to lower tariffs and
non-tariff barriers to merchandise trade''. It sounds wonderful
but where are the complementary commitments we need to
increase interprovincial trade?
The Prime Minister stated during the first ministers'
conference that thousands of new jobs would be created and it
would benefit all Canadians regardless of region. Unfortunately
the talk we have heard bears little resemblance to the inaction
we have seen in the flawed agreement. Let me explain where
some of the flaws are.
The agreement sets out to eliminate specific barriers but may
in fact create new ones and higher hurdles for business to cross.
An example is the provision contained in article 709 which
states that a province may adopt or maintain a measure that is
inconsistent with the articles on labour mobility if the purpose
of that measure is to achieve a legitimate objective.
(1825)
The list of legitimate objectives is extensive. Any province
wishing to maintain or erect a barrier need look no further than
this list to find a suitable excuse. Included are: public security,
safety and order; protection of human, animal or plant life and
health; protection of the environment; consumer protection;
affirmative action and so on.
In other words, labour mobility is restricted by the
self-serving interests of any province through the articles
contained in this agreement. Many would recognize this as the
current status quo, but early on I said this may even be a step
backwards. Such
12630
a provision could be used by any self-interested group in any
province to erect new barriers to trade.
The dispute resolution mechanism included in this agreement
may deal with these issues but it is not clear that the agreement
will bind a province that wishes to go its own way.
Another major impediment to change is article 1507, part III,
which states that nothing in this agreement shall be construed to
effect the existing rights and obligations of the provinces under
other environmental agreements, including conservation
agreements. It does not take very much effort to realize that if
one province wanted to keep in place an existing trade barrier,
all it would have to do would be to claim an environmental
exemption. Even worse, it is obvious that new trade barriers
could be erected under this article. Again the agreement appears
to be a step backwards.
One fact that cannot escape scrutiny is that many new
regulations, panels and other administrative functions have
been introduced in this bill both at the provincial and the federal
level. It is plain that a whole new bureaucracy will spring up:
new jobs for bureaucrats, new expense for the taxpayers but not
necessarily any benefits to consumers.
However, one provision stands out as an improvement over
the past practice and that is the proposed reduction in
restrictions on interprovincial trucking. The consensus in this
important area should not be dismissed lightly. Barriers to
trucking have raised transportation costs, resulted in
inefficiencies and lost productivity, and ultimately cost
consumers millions. I hope we can capitalize on the consensus
reached on this aspect of the agreement.
Some commentators have made the observation that the
agreement is only the first step in a process which will see more
agreements signed and barriers reduced. While this may be true,
Reformers believe that this first step agreement is not
necessarily a step forward. If we are going to improve the
situation, it is vital that all steps must move us forward and
reduce barriers, not leaving the possibility that new barriers can
be erected in their place. We have lived with the status quo for
too long already and Canadians deserve better.
It is important to look at the historical record and see where
we have been as a nation in dealing with this issue. When
Canada was created out of four British colonies in 1867 the
founding fathers of Confederation had one purpose in mind.
They believed that if they united, they could resist being pulled
into the American sphere of influence and retain their distinct
cultural heritage.
They saw two strategies as essential to resisting American
pressures. The first was a unified military which could better
defend the borders of Canada. Thankfully we have not had to
face a major threat on our own soil since that time. But our
armed forces have served with distinction in most major
conflicts and all peacekeeping missions since that time.
The second strategy to maintain a distinct identity was to
implement free trade between the provinces. It was believed that
the free flow of goods and services would strengthen economic,
political and cultural ties east to west instead of north to south.
It is quite obvious in which strategy we failed to accomplish
our objectives. The fact is that trade between Canada and the
U.S. today in many goods is freer and easier than the trade
between the provinces.
Where we do fall down on this issue, history has shown it
came because of ineffectual leadership in this area at the federal
level.
I see my time is running out. I have quite a bit more. Will I be
allowed to finish my presentation later?
The Speaker: You will at a later time, not today.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from May 12, 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 of the motion that the question be
now put.
The Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
45(6), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the motion of Mr. Boudria.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 214)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
12631
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Milliken
Mitchell
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Wappel
Whelan
Young
Zed-117
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-65
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bouchard
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dubé
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godin
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Jacob
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Maheu
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Peric
Pomerleau
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Wells
Wood
(1855)
[English]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly, the next question is on the motion that the bill be
read the second time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 215)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
12632
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Mitchell
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Wappel
Whelan
Young
Zed-144
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
de Jong
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-40
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bouchard
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dubé
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godin
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Jacob
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Maheu
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Peric
Pomerleau
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Wells
Wood
(1900)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the
motion.
(1905 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House in
the following manner: Liberal members will be recorded as
voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: The Bloc members will be voting no.
12633
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that Reform
Party members will vote yea, if it is done right, except for those
members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party present vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 216)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Allmand
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Manning
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Milliken
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Young
Zed-155
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bélisle
Chrétien (Frontenac)
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Solomon
Taylor
Venne-29
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bouchard
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dubé
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godin
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Jacob
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Maheu
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Peric
Pomerleau
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Wells
Wood
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the
bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
12634
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-67, an act to establish the Veterans Review and Appeal Board,
to amend the Pension Act, to make consequential amendments
to other acts and to repeal the Veterans Appeal Board Act, be
read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at third
reading stage of Bill C-67.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I think you
would find unanimous consent to apply to the vote now before
the House the vote taken on the main motion concerning Bill
C-85.
Since the usual discussions did not take place, if the whip for
the New Democratic Party wishes to say otherwise, I am sure he
will do so in a moment.
The Speaker: Does the hon. whip for the Bloc Quebecois
agree?
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
Mr. Silye: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Solomon: The Democrats in the House vote no on this
issue.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 215]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-54, an act to
amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the
Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment
Insurance Act, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred divisions on Bill C-54.
The first question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on Motion No. 1
will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 17.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to apply the vote in the following way: that the vote on
second reading of Bill C-89 be applied in reverse to the motion
now before the House.
(1910 )
If you were to seek it you might find similar consent to apply
this vote to report stage Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6, as well as to the
amendment to Motion No. 7.
Mr. Speaker, I think you would also find consent that it be
applied to report stage Motion No. 12.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party will vote no on all of those motions except report stage
Motion No. 12 on which we vote yes.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 217)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bélisle
Chrétien (Frontenac)
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Venne-25
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
12635
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Manning
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Milliken
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Young
Zed-159
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bouchard
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dubé
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godin
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Jacob
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Maheu
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Peric
Pomerleau
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Wells
Wood
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. Therefore Motions
Nos. 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 17 are defeated.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 218)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Mitchell
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Wappel
Whelan
Young
Zed-148
12636
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-36
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bouchard
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dubé
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godin
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Jacob
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Maheu
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Peric
Pomerleau
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Wells
Wood
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 carried.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 217]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost. Therefore I declare
Motions Nos. 13 and 15 lost.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 217]
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 217]
(The House divided on the amendment to Motion No. 7, which
was negatived on the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 217]
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 219)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-36
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
12637
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Mitchell
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Wappel
Whelan
Young
Zed-148
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Anderson
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bouchard
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dubé
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godin
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Jacob
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Maheu
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Peric
Pomerleau
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Wells
Wood
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 5 and 6 lost. I also
declare the amendment to Motion No. 7 lost and Motion No. 7
lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 12.
(1915)
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I think you
would find unanimous consent to apply the vote that was taken
on the second reading of Bill C-85 to the motion now before the
House.
I think you would find further consent that it also be applied in
reverse to main Motion No. 7.
The Speaker: Does the Bloc Quebecois whip agree?
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Yes.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats in the House
today will vote yes to Motion No. 12.
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 220)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bélisle
Chrétien (Frontenac)
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Solomon
Taylor
Venne-29
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Allmand
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
12638
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Manning
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Milliken
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Young
Zed-155
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bouchard
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dubé
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godin
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Jacob
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Maheu
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Peric
Pomerleau
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Wells
Wood
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 lost.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be
concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I think you
would find unanimous consent that the vote taken on the first
motion we voted on today, in other words that the question be
now put, be applied to the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, we do not agree. The New
Democrat members present in the House today vote yes on this
motion.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first vote of the day. If
the question now being put applies to the first vote, of course I
shall cast my vote with the government.
Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the same applies for me.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 221)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
12639
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Milliken
Mitchell
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Wappel
Whelan
Young
Zed-123
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Thompson
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-61
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bouchard
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dubé
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godin
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Jacob
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Maheu
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Peric
Pomerleau
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Wells
Wood
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
_____________________________________________
12639
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1920)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on May 8
I rose in the House and asked the Minister of Transport to
explain why the government appeared to have changed its policy
outlined in the red book of resisting U.S. influence in the
economy and in our nation by leaving the share offering that he
was proposing in his commercialization bill for CNR open to
foreign purchasers.
In the minister's response he said: ``I have not seen any major
changes in the way Canadian Pacific Railway operates and
handles its shipments, as opposed to CNR''. With that, he
apparently was attempting to justify the fact that on a one time
only offering of shares for ownership and control of CNR it
would somehow come out with a similar kind of shareholding as
Canadian Pacific.
12640
I think the minister failed to recognize that Canadian Pacific
began under the guidance of the government of the day and that
there was an initial policy of Canadian ownership and control,
even though some of the capital came from Great Britain and the
United States. That tradition of existing shareholders,
ownership, and control continues. It is not very likely that the
balance of control over CPR would change overnight, as is
possible with the CNR commercialization offering, because the
shares will be offered all at once. If there are no Canadian
bidders or purchasers it could conceivably all fall into the hands
of foreigners, with the only control being that no one purchaser
could hold more than 15 per cent.
I noticed that when the group that investigated
commercialization for the government looked at it, they were
attempting to answer the question of how competition could be
encouraged to ensure that pricing and outcomes are not affected
by the duopoly nature of railways in Canada. They were also
asked to describe how the rationalization and abandonment
process could be improved to ensure that efficiency and equity
are addressed.
It seems to me that the proposal I put forward of putting the
first share offering directly into the hands of farmers, because
the amount of money is roughly the same as what is going to be
netted from CNR after the brokerage fees are taken off and
because the government had already decided to allocate $1.6
billion toward that end-that a different use of those funds
would in fact allow for true competition because the users would
then be the owners of the railway and it would be in their own
interests to keep the prices for the service of the railway as low
as possible. This would in fact force a new, never before seen
kind of competition onto the rail sector in this country.
I cite as an example the kind of competition that resulted on
the prairies in the elevator system in the teens and twenties,
when farmers began taking over the ownership of government
owned elevators at that time and the elevator system became
truly competitive. For the first time in 20 years of buying grain,
a truly honest, fair weight and fair pay were given.
(1925)
This is the kind of thing we could expect if the government
would accept the proposition that there are other ways of
commercializing CN that would put full control directly in the
hands of the users not just of owners.
I stress to the government that the question of control is even
more important than who owns CN, the people who decide who
will be the board of directors. Those directors would be making
the decisions to operate the company afterward. If those
directors had to respond and be responsible to the users, the
resource industry which in this case would be the farmers, it
would be a big step toward true global competitiveness.
The minister has said that he does not think farmers want to
own CNR. He said outside the Chamber that he has some doubts
they would be able to operate the CNR. I point out that they have
a lot of experience outside of farm operations which has proven
to be very beneficial to them, their communities and the
economy. These have become very much commercial
operations. This has held the farming and rural community in
good stead.
For those farmers who do not wish to continue to hold shares
in CNR, it would be very simple for them to sell the shares. I am
sure that other resource users such as mines, timber businesses
and sulphur shippers would be interested in buying shares, as
would the initial farmer shareholders. As well, some port cities
would be interested in owning shares that might become
available from the farmers who wish to retire and dispose of
their CN assets. There would be quite a diversified ownership of
the company.
Most important, because those shares would come on the
market slowly and not in 100 per cent blocks as is the
proposition the government is putting forward, it would be
highly unlikely that foreigners would quickly get to own and
control the CNR.
It is especially important that when the east west policy is
fully abandoned by the government, the natural flow will be
north and south. The proposition of U.S. railroads and shippers
ending up controlling the second railway in this country is not a
prospect I who represent shippers in western Canada look
forward to.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government's objectives are
to put CN on a viable footing so that it maintains
competitiveness with other carriers and to maximize the value
of the sale of CN's shares to Canadian taxpayers.
To achieve maximum value the broadest possible distribution
of shares is necessary. The initial public offering of CN will be
the largest such issue in Canadian history. The Canadian equity
market may not be large enough on its own to absorb such an
issue of this size.
To ensure the divestiture of all the government's equity in CN
at maximum value, markets outside of Canada will need to be
assessed. The United States in particular will be an important
market. Its numerous investors are familiar with the rail renewal
and revitalization which Canadian railways and CN in particular
are undertaking. Foreign ownership restrictions could
jeopardize the participation of these investors.
Canadian rail policy does not restrict or prohibit foreign
ownership. More than 30 per cent of CP's limited shares are
owned abroad. By not limiting foreign ownership for CN it
ensures a level playing field between both CN and CP in their
ability to raise equity capital in global financial markets.
12641
The government's financial advisers agree that a foreign
ownership limit could reduce the potential size of the issue and
would reduce the price. Limits could also prevent the
government from selling the majority stake. Given the size of
the share offering, a successful issue would be endangered if the
potential shareholder base was limited to Canada.
While shareholder investment thresholds under the
Competition Act and Investment Canada Act could conceivably
have provided sufficient safeguards against an unwanted foreign
takeover, the proposed 15 per cent limit on individual share
ownership also acts as an effective constraint on foreign control.
Past experience with Canadian initial public offerings indicates
that foreign sales are unlikely to approach, let alone exceed, 50
per cent.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion
to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 10 a.m.
tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.)