TABLE OF CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 25, 1994
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4383
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 4384
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4386
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4387
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4387
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4387
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4387
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4388
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4388
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4388
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4388
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4389
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4389
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4389
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4389
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4389
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 4390
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4390
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 4390
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4390
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4390
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4391
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4391
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4395
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 4395
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 4395
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4397
Motion for concurrence in 22nd report 4401
Motion for concurrence 4403
Bill C-28. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 4403
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4403
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4405
Bill C-27. Motion for second reading 4411
Motion for reference to the committee of the whole 4416
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, byunanimous consent, the House went into
committee thereon, Mr. Kilger inthe chair) 4416
(Clauses 1 to 139 inclusive agreed to.) 4416
(Bill reported and concurred in.) 4416
Motion for third reading 4416
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 4417
Consideration resumed of motion 4417
Motion negatived on division: Nays, 147; Yeas, 48. 4419
Bill C-28. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 4419
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 156; Nays, 46. 4420
Consideration resumed of motion 4420
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 4422
4383
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 25, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, the
Georgian Bay '94 Marine Heritage Festival is a co-operative
initiative that will involve 61 shoreline municipalities along
Georgian Bay and the north channel.
More than 100 community and family oriented events will
take place between June 1 and September 30. These activities
will include cultural celebrations, heritage re-enactments,
interpretive and educational environmental events, on the water
competitions including the International Atlantic Challenge and
the tall ships visits to the communities all along the bay.
I congratulate the organizers of the Georgian Bay '94 Marine
Heritage Festival for their initiative in promoting this unique
part of Canada. I encourage all Canadians to take part in this
historic event.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, we would like to draw the attention of the House to the
excellent job being done by Red Cross physicians in Rwanda.
Under extremely difficult conditions, these professionals are
taking care of the wounded who manage to escape the slaughter
that is going on in that country. These doctors often risk their
own lives to save a population devastated by a civil war that has
killed half a million people so far.
We are all affected by this intensely tragic situation. We
cannot remain unmoved by the suffering of the men, women and
children in Rwanda who are receiving essential care from these
doctors.
On behalf of the Official Opposition, I want to congratulate
the physicians of the Red Cross and thank them for the
generosity and compassion with which they are doing their
work.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, for the past several years the Solicitor General of
Canada has recognized May 25 as Missing Children's Day in
Canada.
There were approximately 56,000 children reported missing
in Canada last year. While most of these children returned home
safely within 48 hours, many did not.
The Missing Children's Society of Canada is a registered
non-profit organization whose purpose is to search for runaway
and abducted children.
Working on the front lines in the search of missing children,
May 25 truly has a special significance for the Missing
Children's Society of Canada. It is a day of renewed hope, a day
to remember. It also presents the greatest opportunity to provide
awareness of this issue to Canadians in an effort to prevent
another child from going missing.
From Halifax to Victoria, mayors of Canadian cities are
proclaiming the week as Missing Children's Week in their cities.
I invite all members to join with me on behalf of the Missing
Children's Society of Canada and the Reform Party of Canada to
recognize May 25 as Missing Children's Day in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak in recognition of National Missing Children's Day.
There is a month long campaign organized by Child Find
Canada which seeks to raise the awareness of the abduction of
children in Canada.
4384
The green ribbon I am wearing on my lapel today is a symbol
of hope. It was conceived by the students and staff of the Holy
Cross Secondary School in St. Catharines following the
abduction and subsequent murder of a young girl in that
community.
[Translation]
The abduction of children is a terrible thing, and I think
Parliament should be very much aware of this. We must do
everything we can to reduce the number of abductions and, if
possible, prevent them altogether.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker, it
has been encouraging to read recently that the Minister of
Transport is prepared to make public some of the problems
encountered by VIA Rail in attempting to make it a real
business.
The recent revelation of VIA employees being paid for 28
days when only 12 days have been worked is one stark example
of the baggage that train line carries. Other examples are the
inability of VIA to question bills submitted, non-negotiation of
track rates and schedules dictated by freight trains.
[Translation]
The time has come to use some common sense about VIA
Rail.
Perhaps it should cost more for cars to use highways and it
should cost less to use trains for people who leave their cars at
home.
The government could promote a transportation policy that
would help VIA Rail to survive and at the same time it could
show how to preserve this railway service.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment and the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food recently announced 10
partnership projects in Ontario promoting sustainable
agriculture practices to benefit and restore fish and wildlife
habitat. These demonstration projects are part of the
wetlands-woodlands-wildlife program identified as a priority
initiative under the Canada-Ontario agriculture green plan.
This plan provides over $1.8 million over the next three years
for demonstration projects that range from windbreak plantings,
conservation cropping and tillage practices, to enhancing
natural wetlands and woodlot areas that will provide food,
shelter and nesting habitat for a number of wildlife species.
The goal of this program is to promote the development and
adoption of sustainable farm management practices and new
technologies. I am very pleased that one of these projects will be
located in my riding of London-Middlesex.
The enhancement of the Caddy-Bott drain in Middlesex
county demonstrates this government's commitment to working
in partnership with our farmers to promote environmentally
sound agricultural practices that will ensure the long term
viability of Ontario agriculture.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government is continuing to project abroad a totally biased
image of the Canadian reality.
In an ad published by the Canadian embassy in Poland, the
eligibility criteria stated for emigrating to Canada is knowledge
of the English language. No a word about French, as if it was not
even used in this country.
It is obvious that while on the one hand it is touting the virtues
of Canadian federalism, on the other hand the government is
telling foreigners that in Canada, English is the only official
language.
This is one more reason why international relations should
come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec, only Quebec
being capable of projecting abroad a realistic picture of its
distinctiveness and reality.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to inform the House that last July 23 to 25
an indigenous people's celebration was held in Moose Jaw.
Soon after I was elected as MP in October, businesses and
organizations that had provided goods and services to this event
approached me with the news they had not been paid for their
services. The problem is serious because we have identified
possibly $200,000 worth of unpaid bills. I have informed both
the federal government and the Saskatchewan provincial
government about this situation.
4385
I have a deep concern that a successful resolution be found
to this problem. I am encouraged by the patience of the business
persons involved as we work through this problem and by the
openness and responsibility being taken by the newly appointed
aboriginal leaders in Moose Jaw.
I am hoping we can carefully reach a successful conclusion to
this matter. I will keep the House informed.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
commend the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on
introducing new legislation intended to protect our straddling
fish stocks. However, on the very same day that the minister
introduced the new legislation there were seven Cuban fishing
vessels fishing within the 200-mile limit.
As a result of the recent awarding of the fishery observer
contract to Biorex, there were seven observers on site of which
only three were experienced in monitoring this type of vessel.
The other four observers did not have the experience to obtain
the data DFO requires to effectively monitor their activities.
While I commend the minister for the new legislation, I have
to wonder how the minister can justify announcing the
legislation when the awarding of the observer contract by his
own department has taken away the only effective, trained and
experienced tool we have to adequately protect our fish stocks.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to add my words to those of the member for St. Boniface. Each
year in Canada police receive thousands of reports of missing
children who are classified as runaways, abductions by
strangers, or parental abductions.
Too frequently these children are extremely vulnerable to
violence and exploitation on the streets. In the greater Toronto
area Operation Go Home is just one of thousands of
organizations dedicated to making Canadian communities a safe
environment for our children.
Since 1984, May 25 has been recognized in Canada as
National Missing Children's Day. This is an opportune time
during the International Year of the Family to renew our
commitment to crime prevention and to safer homes and streets
for our children.
I invite all Canadians to join us in recognizing this day by
wearing a green ribbon of hope.
(1410 )
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to pay tribute to the organizers and participants of
ActiveFest '94.
Volunteers began meeting in November last to discuss what is
hoped to be an annual event. More than 70 volunteers from
throughout Muskoka have come together to promote health care
issues.
Muskoka ActiveFest '94 is a 10-day celebration of active
living which runs from May 27 to June 5. There are over 120
events and activities people can participate in. Citizens and
visitors alike are encouraged to try a new activity or sport. Many
events will cater to the family, from golf to line dancing to
aerobics. There will be something for everyone, from
youngsters to senior citizens as the community joins together to
create a better health environment.
Schools, businesses, citizens and the medical community are
promoting the benefits of quality daily physical education and
active living with ActiveFest '94.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, we cannot
underestimate the importance of declaring May 15, 1994 as the
International Day of the Family.
This United Nations declaration pays tribute to families
around the world, promoting awareness of their needs. The
family is the most important unit in our communities.
The realities of this decade, the growing emphasis on family
values, demographic and socioeconomic changes are placing
enormous pressures on workers of all levels and professions. We
must find that golden balance between meeting the family
obligations and fulfilling workplace demands.
As a person who is committed to these dual responsibilities,
as so many of my hon. colleagues are, I hope the celebration of
the International Day of the Family will sensitize all of us.
Throughout our lives we seek our joys with, as we seek our
comfort from our families.
In 1994 we have an opportunity to strengthen our
relationships with the people closest to us. Strong and healthy
families create strong and healthy societies.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the federal government appointed a
hard-liner to the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service in the person of Ward Elcock.
This morning, Canadian Press reported troubling comments
from a former official of the Security Intelligence Review
4386
Committee, Ron Atkey, who applauds Mr. Elcock's
appointment, stating that he is ``a man with a firm grip with
troubled times laying ahead in various parts of the country, and
particularly in Quebec''.
Thinking back to the questionable schemes cooked up by the
federal secret services in days gone by, or so we thought, one can
wonder whether the good old Liberal era when such a close eye
was being kept on Quebec leaders are not making their way
back.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, over
the last week I have spoken to many constituents at town hall
meetings. At those meetings the question of Quebec has been a
hot topic.
My constituents are concerned about the government's lack of
leadership on this critical issue. While the Leader of the Official
Opposition jets around Europe promoting his vision of an
independent Quebec, the people of Nanaimo-Cowichan grow
weary of the separation debate. They also wonder why political
leaders in France and Belgium are willing to comment on
Canadian solidarity, yet not a word from our own Prime
Minister.
The people of western Canada are not satisfied with status quo
federalism and are demanding change. That demand is leading
to new rumblings of discontent with traditional federalism in the
west. This is the result of a disenchanted electorate from coast to
coast.
If the Prime Minister wants to run this country with his head
in the sand, he might want at least to peek out from time to time
to make sure the ground around him is still solid.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to recognize the role of the Minister of Public
Works in contributing another key element to this government's
campaign to bring a new level of integrity to government.
On May 16 the Lobby Monitor informed us that the
Department of Public Works and Government Services has
tightened standards in the language of its contracts which
effectively bans the use of contingency fees by lobbyists
involved in procurement work.
This was a promise of the Liberal Party during the last
election campaign. This is a critical element of this
government's work in bringing a new era of openness and
integrity to federal contracting.
Liberals keep the promise.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
in honour of the annual Law Enforcement Torch Run for the
Special Olympics.
(1415 )
The Law Enforcement Torch Run is organized and supported
by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Provincial
Association of Police Chiefs, various Torch Run co-ordinators,
and over 11,000 law enforcement personnel.
The Torch Run which began last week will see thousands of
volunteers and law enforcement officers carry the flame of hope
right across the country.
The Law Enforcement Torch Run is conducted with three key
objectives in mind: to increase public awareness of the Special
Olympics, to raise funds for these Special Olympics, and to
create a sense of commitment to the community and Special
Olympics programs across Canada in conjunction with local law
enforcement agencies.
This year the Law Enforcement Torch Run hopes to raise $1.5
million for the Special Olympics in Canada. I am confident that
all members of the House join me in supporting the Law
Enforcement Torch Run.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, today
marks the beginning of the fifth season for Rocky Mountaineer
rail tours, a private company which runs tourist rail traffic
through the beautiful Rocky Mountains to Banff and Jasper.
Rocky Mountaineer has its head office in my riding of North
Vancouver. It receives no taxpayer subsidies. It creates a
significant number of private sector jobs and has generated
more than $5 million in tax revenues for all levels of
government.
There have been rumours that VIA Rail may try to get back
into the passenger rail business on the same route as that
travelled by the Rocky Mountaineer. However a 1990 contract
states that this cannot happen without cabinet approval. There is
no logical reason to allow a taxpayer subsidized VIA Rail to
compete unfairly with a private sector venture.
I urge all members of the House to strongly oppose any
permission for VIA Rail to re-enter this market. I also ask all
members to join me in wishing Rocky Mountaineer rail tours its
best year ever in 1994.
The Speaker: Before we begin question period today I want
to draw the attention of members to one thing. From time to time
we are given to introducing special guests in our gallery. Once or
4387
twice a year we are honoured that some of our former colleagues
come back to Ottawa.
I wonder if all former members of Parliament who are in the
House today would please stand so that we can welcome them all
home.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
4387
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In a speech
yesterday to the Canadian American Business Council in
Washington, the Minister of International Trade condemned the
attitude of the United States with regard to a number of trade
disputes with Canada, particularly disputes over softwood
lumber, wheat, steel and pork. He even hinted at a possible
cooling off of trade relations between the United States and
Canada.
In light of the warning issued by his minister in Washington,
can the Prime Minister tell us what concrete action Canada plans
to take to get the Americans to stop implementing measures that
are incompatible with GATT and NAFTA rules and that have a
considerable impact on several sectors of the Canadian and
Quebec economies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
fully support the action taken by the minister in question. It was
important to get across to the Americans that we were not at all
pleased with what was happening in certain areas. With respect
to softwood lumber, the dispute settlement panels have ruled
three times in our favour. Yet the Americans have always
appealed, which is not a good thing. The same thing has
occurred in the case of wheat. We are respecting the rules of the
game and we want the Americans to do likewise.
(1420)
The minister, who I am confident has the support of all
members of this House, wanted to make it clear to the
Americans that we are prepared to play by the rules and that we
hope the US will do likewise.
[English]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I also take note that the Prime Minister supports the
position adopted by his minister yesterday.
Does he agree with and does he subscribe to the harsh
judgment of the Minister for International Trade to the effect
that the fundamental problems on delaying the trade dispute
between Canada and the States ``is that the administration of
President Bill Clinton has an unclear commitment to free
trade''?
It is a strange position for a Liberal minister supposedly
against free trade and now complaining about lack of
enthusiasm from the American president.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
trade between Canada and the United States is huge. More than
75 per cent of our trade is with it. It is normal that we have some
difficulties from time to time.
We have some cases at this time in which we are not happy
with the slow movement of the Americans. We are respecting
the rules and we expect them to respect the rules.
In the softwood lumber it has been established clearly that we
are following the rules. We are completely competitive. We are
not doing anything against either the GATT or the NAFTA. Not
only that, the tribunal ruled three times in our favour on it.
On the question of wheat it is the same. We are selling wheat
to them, for example durum wheat, for one reason: our wheat is
better than theirs and American consumers know it. Seventeen
senators in Congress said that they should not impose tariffs on
Canadian wheat, but in the American system they are not as
decisive as we can be in Canada. We have to put pressure there.
That is exactly what the minister did yesterday in Washington
and I am happy to see that he has the backing of the House.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, quite aside from his minister's bravado and his own
lofty statements in this House, does the Prime Minister plan to
speak directly to President Clinton in an effort to genuinely
protect those sectors of the economy affected by the actions of
the United States?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
have discussed issues such as softwood lumber, the West Coast
fishery and wheat on several occasions in the course of
telephone conversations with the US President.
Yesterday, the minister addressed an important gathering in
Washington and delivered the Canadian government's message,
namely that we want free trade with the US to continue and to
this end, we will play by the rules, providing the Americans do
so as well.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, after their
conference last week, the Western premiers asked for the
transfer of federal powers to the provinces in several areas,
including telecommunications and manpower, thus echoing
Quebec's demands.
Does the Prime Minister admit that the western Premiers'
requests show once again that there is a serious responsibility--
4388
sharing problem in Canada and that the political structure is no
longer adequate as it leads to costly and inefficient overlap and
duplication?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the Supreme Court ruled that telecommunications was an area of
federal jurisdiction. So the government is only abiding by the
Canadian Constitution.
Will it be possible to make administrative arrangements to
satisfy certain provinces which control some elements of the
telephone service? I hope we will be able to do so but there is
certainly no duplication in this area because the Supreme Court
has recognized very clearly that telecommunications come
under federal jurisdiction.
With respect to manpower, the Minister of Human Resources
Development is still discussing with the provincial governments
at this time. We hope we will be able to make arrangements if
necessary and I am glad to see that not only Quebec but also
other provinces want better arrangements, and we hope to work
out some kind of accommodation. Of course, what will be good
for western Canada will also be good for Quebec and vice versa,
and I hope that if everyone simply looks at the problem
rationally instead of using it for political confrontation, we will
be able to find a reasonable solution.
(1425)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, can the
Prime Minister explain in a satisfactory manner why his
government and himself, who yesterday boasted of his
determination to solve the unemployment problem, are still,
after several months of negotiations, totally unable to sign with
Quebec an agreement that would save $250 million a year in
waste and better serve the jobless?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon.
member check his facts. We have done an analysis. The numbers
he used are not correct. They were based upon an OECD study
which had nothing to do with Canada itself. It was simply an
averaging of all countries in the OECD regime that did not
explicitly look at the facts as they relate to Canada.
Therefore the facts presented are not exact. We have already
communicated that to other governments and they understand
the figures on duplication. At this very moment we are
negotiating with the provinces a series of agreements to have
single witness deliveries, to share locations, and to provide for
joint sponsorship of programs.
Unlike the hon. member we are taking action when he only
blows steam.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
As the Prime Minister knows the securing of Canadian
federalism and the future of federalism in Canada is not solely a
federal responsibility. The provinces have an integral role to
play in the operation and preservation of the federal system, but
last week a number of the western premiers expressed several
concerns about how the national unity issue was being handled
or not handled.
Does the federal government intend to actively consult the
provinces and involve them in a joint effort to strengthen and
promote national unity over the next few months?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
have no doubt that all premiers of Canada, including the premier
of Quebec, want the country to remain together. I know when I
met with them in December that we discussed that. They want to
do what is needed to do that. Everybody agreed at that time that
the best way was to provide good government and to look at the
duplication that exists between levels of governments. Some
western Canadian premiers made representation last week in
different fields and we are looking into that.
When there are two or three levels of government in a country
there is always a conflict of jurisdiction. It is inevitable but it is
a system that works very well for Canada.
In countries like Great Britain and France in which there is
only one level of government people want to have two or three
levels to bring the government closer to the people. Everybody
in Canada will recognize that with our federalism of today we
have one of the most decentralized federation in the world, aside
from perhaps Switzerland.
There is always a constant battle for adjustment. It is the
dynamism of our federalism. We can adapt because there is a lot
of flexibility in our Constitution.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question.
Some of the premiers and many other Canadians want to be
assured that the federal government is preparing a principal
federalist response to the various problems and issues that
Quebec's separation could create for Canada and the other
provinces. These are problems and issues which the Prime
Minister considers hypothetical and which he said yesterday the
federal government does not want to think about for fear of
being accused of accepting the inevitability of separatism.
4389
Who should be preparing the federalist response to these
problems and issues if the federal government is not prepared
to accept the responsibility?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
accept the responsibility. I said to everybody that talking
Canada down like the hon. member is doing all the time by
saying that nothing works in Canada is conducive to that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1430 )
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): In spite of the difficulties I
always said that Canada is the best country. I am not down on
Canada. It is the best way to convince everybody that Canada is
still the best country in the world in which to live.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
each non-response from the government to this question just
creates more uncertainty about the leadership for the
advancement and promotion of federalism and where it is going
to come from. Each non-response causes the national unity
vacuum to grow.
Does the government intend to provide the House with an
opportunity to freely debate the federal response to Quebec's
separatism before we recess for the summer?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member said he will table a paper very soon. However,
if the intention of the leader of the Reform Party is to reopen the
constitutional debate, my answer to that is no.
Yesterday that was more or less the approach you took and on
the second question you backed down. We will wait for your
paper to see where you are.
The Speaker: Order. I know that the right hon. Prime
Minister will want to include me.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister continually blames the opposition and
sovereigntists for all economic woes, for the poor labour market
and the sorry state of the nation's finances. The finance
minister's irresponsible statements, erroneous forecasts
concerning the 1993-94 deficit and anemic budget have had a
major, very negative, costly impact on the economy and on
financing Canada's public debt.
Does the Prime Minister not agree that the irresponsible
statements of his Minister of Finance and his budget's lack of
credibility are the real reasons that Canadian interest rates are
higher than American rates and that since his budget was tabled,
this differential has cost Quebecers and Canadians thousands of
jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not agree that the Minister of Finance is irresponsible. No
minister takes his work more seriously than the Minister of
Finance. No minister is more respected by the business
community than the Minister of Finance. He has my full
confidence.
The hon. member knows very well that something within our
control which can be done on financial markets now is to make
our country politically stable, which would do a lot for its
economic stability. We are not the ones creating political chaos
in the land.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
does the Prime Minister not agree that instead of looking for
scapegoats everywhere, he should look at his finance minister
who, because of his weakness and lack of political courage,
refuses to make real decisions to restore the nation's finances,
create employment and give people confidence in the Canadian
economy again?
He is the real culprit, Mr. Speaker.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
all indicators clearly show that the Canadian economy is now
headed in the right direction.
Since this government took office, consumer confidence has
increased considerably. The number of unemployed people in
Canada has gone down. I think that the budget presented in
February was very, very well received by the financial
community because they know that this Minister of Finance and
this government have a very specific plan. We want to create
jobs, that is our priority. To do so, we must reduce the deficit to 3
per cent of gross national revenue within three years.
We will keep this promise as we have kept other promises, and
the financial community will indeed have confidence in Canada
when we clearly establish this country's political stability.
* * *
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Prime Minister.
The UN economic sanctions and embargo on Haiti have been
in effect since only May 21 but already we have seen an inability
to enforce the embargo with gasoline and diesel fuel now
crossing the border easily from the Dominican Republic.
On May 10 the Minister of Foreign Affairs told the House that
he had every reason to believe that the Dominican Republic was
going to co-operate and adhere to the UN sanctions. I pointed
out to the minister at that time-
4390
The Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. member to put his
question now.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Can the Prime Minister comment on
the substantive action that he plans to take to ensure strict
compliance with the international embargo on the part of the
Dominican Republic?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to respond to this question on sanctions in Haiti.
Canada is doing everything it can to make sure sanctions stick.
We were part of a UN mission that explored the Dominican
Republic border in the last few days. We will be making a
démarche to the Dominican Republic, insisting it does
everything it can to stop up the gaps in the sanctions net that
exist at this time.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, we recognize the
great job that our peacekeepers and foreign missions are doing.
However Canadians need some criteria to go on before we get
involved in further actions on an ad hoc basis.
Could the Prime Minister or the minister please tell us if they
are prepared to work in conjunction with the foreign affairs
committee to develop such a set of criteria for future actions or
accelerated actions in places like Haiti?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, the government has always stated it
is open to having all manner of public dialogue on foreign
policy. At this moment we are going through, with the assistance
of the committee, a complete review of foreign policy. This does
not preclude a discussion about how our peacekeeping efforts
can be improved.
Having been involved as a country in peacekeeping missions
all over the world and with scarcer resources today, we are very
interested in the Canadian view of how we can be more effective
and efficient in our peacekeeping role.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
One of the warnings given to the minister in a confidential
draft on the communications strategy regarding the social
program reform, which was made public yesterday by a member
of Parliament, reads as follows:
[English]
``UI cuts seen by the population as evidence that government
wants to fight the deficit on the backs of the poor''.
[Translation]
Under the circumstances, will the minister tell us if the delay
in tabling his action plan is the result of a split among cabinet
ministers regarding what is at stake, as suggested in a
recommendation from the same report which proposes this
strategy: ``-demonstrate Cabinet solidarity on socio-economic
agenda''?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows over
80 per cent of Canadians are very anxious to see major
initiatives taken to reform and improve our social programs.
That very strong support is also reflected in the cabinet and
caucus on this side of the House.
The only place where there are divisions, the only place where
there is any opposition is in the source and background of the
Bloc Quebecois. It is the only group in the country that does not
want to see reform go ahead and we know why.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, the minister
does not have to listen to the advice of his civil servants.
However, he must tell us if, and how, he can justify, given the
current situation with respect to public finances, the wasting of
more than one million dollars on a communications strategy
designed to explain to the poorest how they will have to put up
with cuts totalling billions of dollars.
(1440)
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the document referred to by the
hon. member is merely a draft suggesting options for
consultation. It was prepared by civil servants and it does not
reflect cabinet policies. I did see the document; it is a list of
ideas for a presentation.
In my opinion, the most important tool in terms of
consultation is the Parliamentary committee, and I intend to
hold extensive consultations with all Canadians through that
committee. This is my position; it is not the hon. member's
position.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
4391
Yesterday the minister admitted that the principle of
accessibility in the Canada Health Act must recognize the
importance of timeliness as well as affordability. She then
suggested it was not her wish to cut health care payments to
British Columbia but was forced to under the Canada Health
Act.
Can the Minister of Health explain why enforcement of
unworkable sections of the Canada Health Act should take
priority over the right of Canadians to accessible, timely health
care?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the
enforcement of the Canada Health Act is certainly very
workable and it is done very quietly, very methodically,
systematically and pragmatically.
In this case we are guaranteeing that all Canadians, especially
all residents of British Columbia, have access to a doctor
regardless of whether they have money or not.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, two major
problems confront Canadian health care today: affordability for
the provinces and accessibility for individuals.
By reducing payments to B.C. and threatening Alberta and
other other provinces with similar penalties, the minister is
making both these problems worse.
When will the minister recognize that her enforcement of the
Canada Health Act is actually making health care less accessible
for Canadians? When will the minister admit the need for
reforming totally the Canada Health Act?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am quite happy to hear where the Reform Party really stands on a
national health care system. It obviously is in favour of user
fees. It obviously is, in this case, in favour of a two tier system,
one for the rich and one for the poor.
On this side of the House we believe in a national health care
system where your needs are met, not your wants and not based
on the size of your pocketbook.
It is very important that all Canadians be reassured that in this
time of very tight money, we are able to give predictability and
stability to transfer payments in health and tell Canadians that
we are here to guarantee they will be treated based on their
needs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human
Resources Development. According to a study carried out for
the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, unemployment
cost the Canadian economy more than $109 billion in 1993 and
governments alone absorbed $47 billion of the cost of
unemployment. The authors of the study are asking the
government to put in place a pro-active employment policy.
Will the minister admit that the timid employment recovery
measures proposed by the government are not enough just to put
1.5 million unemployed people back to work and reduce the
intolerable cost of unemployment which is now $109 billion?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have that
question from the hon. member because it points out, if nothing
else does, how important it is that we undertake major reform
initiatives to change many of our programs, the whole purpose
of which is getting people back to work.
I met with the director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives
last week. We had a very good discussion about how we could
help many of those who are presently using benefits to go back
to work, to develop a system where we could give incentives for
them to participate in the wide variety of activities in the private
sector, the volunteer sector and the third sector.
I agree totally with the hon. member that the number one
purpose and objective of this House is to get people back to
work. That is why I hope that he will go to work on his
colleagues and get them to back the kind of social reform we
want to bring in.
(1445)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, considering the study's conclusion that consultation
among economic partners is essential to ensure employment
recovery, does the minister not realize that his proposal for the
reform of social programs is not on the right track, since it has
not been able to generate such a consensus among economic
partners and more specifically with the provinces?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this House
more concerned about the problem of unemployment than I or
members of this government. We were elected last October on
that mandate from Canadians and we take that mandate very
seriously.
In all sincerity to the hon. member, he cannot complain about
no consensus because we have not tabled a report yet. It is
unfortunate that some of his colleagues in his own party are
doing their best to try to undermine the whole purpose of the
report which is to get people back to work. I hope he will use his
good offices to work on them so we can get Canadians back to
work.
4392
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development.
With a global technological revolution taking place Canada's
future prosperity depends in large part on our ability to forge
partnerships between research institutions and the private
sector, thereby creating spinoffs which will ultimately create
high quality jobs for the future.
In the budget the government promised increased emphasis
on science and technology. Could the secretary of state please
provide an update on the progress that is being made to ensure
Canada's potential is realized?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)): Mr. Speaker, our government is in the
process of developing a strategy which will put science,
research and technology at the forefront of a national system of
innovation to help move along many of the items on our agenda.
We will shortly announce in the coming weeks the details of
the promised Canadian technology network and the technology
partnerships program. During the course of the summer I will be
discussing with Canadians across the country in a series of
meetings the options that we have in terms of science, research
and technology in moving the agenda along.
This will be followed by five regional conferences in the fall.
I invite my hon. colleagues to participate in this important
dialogue together with business, industry, federal laboratories
and universities.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
As today is National Missing Children's Day it would have
been appropriate for the government to announce its plan to
introduce a national registry of all convicted child sex
offenders.
On April 26 the minister assured this House that an options
paper on a national child abuse registry would be available in the
month of May. Yet yesterday the Solicitor General announced
that plans for such a registry may have to wait until after the
summer recess.
Can the minister advise this House when such an options
paper will be made available? More important, when can
Canadians expect a national child abuse registry?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the plans of the government
remain unchanged. We do expect that the discussion paper will
be available before the end of the month and we intend, as I said
I believe in April, to have the register in place at least by
adapting the CPIC computer system in the fall of this year.
The Solicitor General made clear yesterday that his ministry
and mine are at work with interested parties including the
provinces in making the arrangements to make it possible before
the end of the year by adapting the CPIC system to have a
reliable registry of those convicted of sexual abuse of children
so that we can ensure public safety in this important respect.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
A supplemental, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister advise us that in establishing such a registry
if the rights of children and the rights of child abusers conflict it
will be the rights and protection of the children that will take
priority in Canadian law?
(1450)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member
that the protection of children is the paramount concern of this
government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of public works. Last February 18, I
gave notice of a question appearing in the Order Paper in which I
asked the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
what the regional distribution was of all contracts awarded by
his department and to whom these contracts were awarded in the
past two years. The Standing Orders require the Minister to
respond within 45 days.
Can the minister tell us what he is waiting for to finally shed
some light on the distribution of federal government purchasing
contracts throughout the various regions of Canada?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question. With regard to providing the answer, I think the
hon. member knows, because it was asked of me at committee,
the request which is being made will require the Government of
Canada to absorb a very high expenditure of public funds in
order to provide all of the necessary information that she has
asked for.
However, as I indicated at committee and as I now state again
we would be happy to provide as best we can within the fiscal
4393
capacity of the Government of Canada all of the necessary
information which I am certain will address all of the questions
and all of the concerns the hon. member has.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, would the
minister have us believe that the government has no information
on the regional distribution of federal contracts?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member
knows quite well that the request which she has made, although
on first instance may appear to be very reasonable involves a
large expenditure of taxpayers' money in order to provide the
necessary information.
However, as I indicated at committee and as I repeat here once
again we will be happy to review with the hon. member the kinds
of information which will respond to her questions and allay her
fears with regard to the purchasing practices of this department.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
A couple of weeks ago the minister for immigration did some
tough talking. He said he wanted to close loopholes and prevent
people who should not be in Canada from coming in through the
back door.
However, last week he changed his tune. Now he says the
system is too strict and that we need to accept more people
whose refugee claims were rejected.
How can this minister justify talking tough and at the same
time create an all new level of bureaucracy to pave the way for
failed asylum seekers to stay in Canada?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, talking tough and talking straight
is a hell of a lot better than talking nonsense.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order. I am sure that was a slip of the lip. I am
sure the hon. minister would want to withdraw that four letter
word.
Mr. Marchi: I have no problems withdrawing. It was a slip
from the lip right from the hip.
I'm on a roll, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: One day we have Shakespeare and now we have
poetry. Did the hon. minister withdraw? He did. The hon.
minister of immigration.
Mr. Marchi: Very clearly, yes. I forgot the question.
The Speaker: Perhaps the member could ask his second
question.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, I would
be delighted to ask the question again for the minister.
My question to the minister was how can he justify talking
tough and at the same time create an all new level of bureaucracy
to pave the way for failed asylum seekers to stay in Canada?
(1455 )
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, upon becoming Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, one of the first things I asked
NGO representatives to do on a non-remunerative basis, on a
very quick basis, was try to put together a report of
recommendations on how we can better deal with the automatic
review and the humanitarian and compassionate review under
the immigration refugee board. There was concern because it
lacked clarification and it lacked definition. I have accepted the
premise of the report.
Upon accepting the premise of the report I believe it is logical
in the interim to allow those individuals since 1993 when the
automatic review started to have a review of their cases to
ensure that through that lack of clarity those individuals did
receive a fair determination.
That has absolutely nothing to do with those cases of
criminality that do not deserve the compassion or the tolerance
of our system.
We will have a bill in this House before we leave for the
summer to deal with precisely that issue.
The Speaker: A very short supplementary question.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, we are
concerned about the millions of legitimate refugees who are
languishing all over the world, many close to death.
This minister is making it easy for the migrants who have the
economic wherewithal to travel to Canada and claim asylum.
We are concerned about queue jumpers.
Will this minister admit that under his supervision the inland
acceptance rate has shot up 12 per cent and that inland asylum
seekers are jumping the queue and straining our ability to accept
desperately needy refugees from abroad?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, this government's red book was
very clear. It places a great deal of evidence on overseas
selection. As the hon. member alludes to, it is cost efficient but
more important goes precisely to the matter of those who are in
the refugee camps who are true refugees.
The reality of the 1980s and 1990s is that all over the world,
not only Canada, these migrants are on the move. Refugees are
no longer waiting in the camps for our visa officers and so they
are coming to our country. That has necessitated the
international community and all its member states to try and
have an inland determination system. You cannot move the
clock back and
4394
pretend that in this day and age of technology and transportation
people will not move.
We are trying to make that system the best we can so that we
can give sanctuary to the true refugee, and the false has no
business applying as a refugee.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
On May 12 amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection
Act received royal assent. This legislation will allow Canada to
take action against foreign fishing vessels fishing contrary to
conservation measures on the Grand Banks outside Canada's
200-mile limit.
Can the minister advise this House when and how we can
expect to see this measure enforced?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the regulations to bring the new act into force were
approved by cabinet this week and will come into effect the
week of May 30.
All stateless and all flag of convenience vessels are being
notified of the new legislation. We are already receiving
indications as a result of boardings that have taken place over
the last few days that many of these vessels will leave
voluntarily. We hope that all vessels will leave voluntarily
because those that do not will be seized and charged under a new
Canadian law.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, we
learned from a press release issued by the Public Service
Alliance of Canada that the federal government has
considerably increased its spending in several departments by
using the services of outside contractors. Between 1984 and
1992, contracting out increased by 207 per cent for National
Health, 247 per cent for Supply and Services and a full 628 per
cent for Customs and Excise Canada.
(1500)
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. How
can the minister justify freezes and cuts in the public service,
when contracting out has increased so phenomenally in recent
years?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, of
course those are actions which were taken by the past
government. This government is reviewing the contracting
procedures.
Not all of the contracting out is for work that could be done by
the public service. Where it could be done by the public service,
we would want to examine that. We want to make sure the
taxpayers' dollars are spent in the most efficient and effective
way. If it can be done better in house, fine. In some cases
however, it would be justified to contract out.
We are reviewing that matter. We will also ask the
government operations committee to review that matter
together with the Treasury Board.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Agriculture.
About three weeks ago a joint agriculture and transportation
subcommittee met to deal with the issue of grain movement
problems in Canada. The result of these meetings was a letter of
recommendation presented to the ministers of transportation
and agriculture.
Why has there been no government action resulting from
these recommendations?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport and I have
received the letter from the subcommittee on agriculture and
transport.
In addition to considering that letter ourselves at a
departmental level, we referred the contents of that letter to a
group of grains industry senior representatives at a meeting
which I called in Winnipeg on May 16. All of the subject matter
contained in the letter is now the subject of a variety of working
groups being undertaken by the grains industry representatives
together with government.
I have asked those representatives to have a report to me no
later than next Monday in terms of the type of actions which can
be implemented quickly in this crop year. This is to make sure
that our grain transportation difficulties are resolved as much as
that is humanly possible and further to make sure that this
country does not get into that kind of problem again in a future
crop year.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
4395
Today a report was released that indicated young families in
this country are living in conditions of poverty not seen since
the Depression.
According to a departmental document leaked yesterday, the
government is prepared to spend over $1 million on what can
only be called self-promotion of the social policy review-not
doing it, but promotion of the social policy review.
I would like to ask the minister if he would take those funds,
over $1 million, and put them into job creation for these young
families that are quickly sinking into poverty.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question.
There have been no million dollars assigned. That was partly a
figment of imagination put forward by one of her colleagues. We
have not made any decisions about any communications
strategy or what it would cost.
I think the hon. member would be the first one to acknowledge
that in putting forward a number of proposals for reform of
social programs we have to make every effort possible to have a
wide range of Canadians involved. This includes young families
who are very much affected by the economic conditions of
today. That means we have to find ways of reaching out to them.
I can assure the hon. member that one of our primary
objectives and concerns is how we can improve the position of
young families, especially the children of young families, which
must be the concern of every Canadian. To do that we will reach
out on a very broad based consultation using the committee of
this Parliament to do that. We will provide the most resources
possible to meet that very problem which was highlighted in the
report.
_____________________________________________
4395
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, in April I had the privilege of
leading the Canadian delegation to the elections in South Africa,
that historic moment in time. It is my pleasure today to table, in
both official languages, the report of that delegation's
experience in South Africa.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, under the auspices of
tabling of documents I would like to table for the benefit of the
House the audit report of the Canada Communication Group, in
both official languages, as well as the Canada Communication
Group audit action plan prepared in both official languages.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few words
today on the subject of Rwanda.
[Translation]
The massacres that have engulfed Rwanda since April 6 have
already cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of children,
women and men, while millions of others are streaming out of
the area or country in terror.
The needs of displaced families and those stranded in their
urban homes are increasing as time goes on. Fresh food is not
readily available. Stocks of medical supplies are rapidly being
depleted. And the lack of clean water is complicating an already
explosive situation.
Sanitation and lack of access to clean water have been the
most serious problems facing displaced people in urban areas in
Rwanda and has also been a threat to the refugees in camps in
Burundi and Tanzania.
Health problems are also escalating, mainly respiratory
infections, diarrhea and malaria, which have been traditional
ailments in refugee camps.
[English]
Shortly after the Rwandan conflict broke out Canada assumed
a leadership role. First of all, Canada's Department of National
Defence operates the only relief flights going into Kigali.
Second, CIDA has promptly responded to appeals by the Red
Cross and international non-government organizations for
emergency aid to assist those in desperate need.
Canadian aid amounting to $4 million has already flowed into
Rwanda through emergency organizations such as the
International Committee of the Red Cross and Doctors Without
Borders.
4396
In addition to this the UN peacekeeping forces in Rwanda
are currently under the direction of a Canadian, Major-General
Romeo Dallaire, who has requested and obtained an increase
in UN troops and an enlarged mandate in order to protect
humanitarian operations.
Canada pressed the Security Council of the United Nations in
order to have the UN more actively engaged in a search for a
resolution of this disastrous conflict.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken the initiative of
asking for a special session of the UN Human Rights
Commission. At this very moment this special session is
addressing the situation in Rwanda on an urgent basis.
After consultation with Canadian NGOs last week I am
pleased to announce today on behalf of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs that Canada will contribute $7.606 million in
supplementary humanitarian assistance to the victims of this
terrible conflict in Rwanda. This new contribution will be
allocated as follows: $4.856 million, representing 64 per cent of
the envelope, will go to nine Canadian non-governmental
organizations operating in Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda and
Zaire; the International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies will receive $750,000 in Uganda and
Tanzania; and the United Nations High Commission for
Refugees will receive $2 million for its activities in Tanzania.
[Translation]
These CIDA funds will help fulfill basic needs like drinking
water, sanitation, shelter and health care. Our aid workers and
military personnel are doing their very best to maintain a lifeline
to the victims of this tragedy. Canada is determined to continue
to support their efforts through the UN system, the Red Cross
movement and Canadian non governmental organizations
operating in the region.
(1510 )
[English]
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those
many Canadians who are part of the aid agencies,
non-governmental organizations and peacekeeping forces in
this region of Africa. Let us not forget that these women and men
risk their lives every day in order to relieve the suffering of a
truly tortured people.
I would also like to give recognition on behalf of the
Government of Canada to those countries that have most
generously welcomed the growing numbers of refugees that
stream across their borders every day.
In conclusion, I want to join all Canadians in praying that the
many efforts currently undertaken by the international
community will lead to resolution of the conflict in Rwanda and
that a peaceful dialogue will assume its place.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois welcomed the news today that the Canadian
government has decided to provide additional humanitarian aid
for the victims of the conflict that is now raging in Rwanda.
Only yesterday we urged the federal government to act as
soon as possible on the resolution by the Security Council to
reinforce the UN mission in Rwanda, and we welcome the
additional contribution from CIDA announced this afternoon by
the Secretary of State.
The additional emergency aid comes at the right time. We are
confident that the amounts committed by Canada will help
Canadian non-governmental organizations in Tanzania,
Burundi, Rwanda and Zaire, as well as the International
Federation of Red Cross Societies and the Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees, which are also active in Tanzania
and Uganda.
There is an escalating need for so many things. There is a
shortage of food, drinking water and medical equipment. Public
hygiene is a problem, as is the disease spreading through the
refugee camps.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to take this opportunity to
commend the courage and invaluable contribution of civilians
and military personnel from Canada and Quebec who are
working over there with relief organizations to alleviate the
suffering and help meet these needs.
Uganda has also requested the help of the international
community to remove the thousands of corpses of Rwandans
civilians which are rotting in Lake Victoria. A member of the
government put it in the following terms, and I quote: ``The
situation is horrible. Thousands of bodies are caught in the
marshes surrounding the many islands in the lake, and we do not
have the equipment to remove them''.
Meanwhile, mortar attacks prevent relief organizations from
getting food from the warehouses to feed the thousands of
civilians living under UN protection.
Today, according to a news release, two scheduled
humanitarian flights were cancelled because a Canadian C-130
was hit by a bullet. According to the same news release,
UNICEF expects malnutrition to become a problem within the
next two weeks.
That is why last week, the UN Security Council authorized the
deployment of an additional 5,500 peacekeepers. The UN
mission in Rwanda will also be responsible for the safety and
protection of displaced persons, refugees and civilians who are
at risk, which will include the creation and maintenance, where
possible, of secure humanitarian zones.
Ghana, Ethiopia and Senegal have each committed 800
soldiers. It is reported that they may not have the necessary
equipment, including armoured vehicles, take their position
4397
between the opposing Rwandan forces which have been fighting
since early April.
As yet, there has been no response from the international
community, so that the actual deployment of the peacekeepers
may well take several weeks.
Meanwhile, the killing continues, and according to the latest
UN estimates, more than 500,000 people have died and
hundreds of thousands are refugees.
Will the Department of Foreign Affairs take part in
reinforcing the UN mission in Rwanda? The Secretary of State
did not answer that question today.
(1515)
Canada has a very important role to play in Rwanda. CIDA's
response to requests for emergency assistance by the UN and
non-governmental organizations is part of that role, and we
welcome that decision.
Today, at an emergency meeting of the UN Human Rights
Commission in Geneva, several countries are calling for
punitive action against the perpetrators of the slaughter in
Rwanda and for international action to put an end to the killing.
We can only hope that peace will be restored as soon as possible
in that country.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, the Rwanda
situation has opened the eyes of many across the world to the
incredible obstacles that the international community must face
in the days to come.
The civil war in Rwanda is certainly of incredible concern to
Canada. Our leadership role in international relief demonstrates
our deep concern for the peoples of the world.
Unfortunately we have witnessed the civil war become ten
times worse in only the last few weeks. The estimated casualties
have ranged from 500,000 dead, 500,000 wounded and two
million refugees. The largest refugee camp in the world now
exists in Tanzania where over 300,000 refugees are taking
shelter from the massacres in Rwanda.
The inability of the factions in Rwandan society to settle their
differences and establish effective government is no longer an
issue facing Rwanda alone, nor is it an issue solely for Africa.
Rather, it is an issue for the international community and we
must step up and face it.
To some degree we have done this. Nearly every major world
relief organization is operating either in Rwanda or in the
neighbouring countries in order to assist the hundreds of
thousands of refugees fleeing from this area.
We have great respect for the individuals from all over the
world who are there doing what they can to make a difference in
this war torn place.
We also hold in high esteem Canadians who operate the only
flights going into Kigali. I can accurately say that we are all
proud of the role Canada plays in relieving international
tensions and handling international traumas.
The position of CIDA on the forefront of this situation is
highly respected and appreciated by many in the international
community. A comprehensive understanding of the role Canada
is playing requires the study of our goals and methods in this
region.
It is clear that we all desire to see a country that could be
united with political and economic stability.
We must play a role in foreign countries. However, we must
make the decision making process much more transparent. We
cannot operate in an ad hoc arrangement and Canadians are
demanding accountability when it comes to our decisions on
programs like this, particularly with regard to aid.
It is hard for me to really understand what is happening in
Rwanda, as I was fortunate enough to visit this country; a rich
country in terms of its natural scenery, its wild animals and, yes,
its people. I will always remember those market scenes of
people smiling and happy, trading their goods, everybody with a
baby on their back. It is difficult to understand how that could
change. I guess it really demonstrates how fragile all
democracies or all types of situations are.
In summary, I would applaud the statements that the secretary
of state made. However, I would ask that we always remember
the accountability. We must provide the criteria so that the
people of Canada understand what we are doing in such aid
projects as this.
* * *
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, earlier this day I released
the audit report of the Canada Communication Group.
As some hon. members may recall, I requested that an
independent audit be conducted as a result of allegations made
by suppliers, members of Parliament and concerned citizens on
possible conflicts of interest in the contracting practices of the
Canada Communication Group.
[Translation]
After listening to suppliers, I decided to act quickly to get the
facts out in the open. That is why Deloitte and Touche were
asked in March to come in and examine the Canada
Communication Group's contracting practices. This impressive
audit was conducted in just six weeks.
4398
(1520)
It is clear from the audit report that the Canada
Communication Group's role as both a supplier and a
contracting agent results in an inherent structural conflict of
interest.
[English]
The auditors have recommended, and I have accepted as I
have accepted all of the recommendations which have been put
forward, that the Canada Communication Group procurement
activities be transferred to the supply operations group within
Public Works and Government Services Canada. This transfer is
to be completed by August 1 of this year.
The decision to sever Canada Communication Group
contracting arm from its service delivery component directly in
my view addresses this finding of an inherent conflict of
interest. The Canada Communication Group will continue to
provide, however, a full range of services. However, the removal
of the contracting activity eliminates both the potential for
conflict of interest and a major irritant to suppliers across this
country.
As well there are well over 150 employees at the Canada
Communication Group whose lives will be affected by this
decision. All affected will become employees directly of Public
Works and Government Services Canada.
It must be noted that the auditors found the Canada
Communication Group business practices to be consistent with
its charter. Further, the auditors concluded that there was no
evidence of illegal or fraudulent activities. The auditors also
recommended that an advisory committee be established to look
at the Canada Communication Group organizational status and
its future evolution. This committee to be comprised of
government and industry representatives will consult widely
and extensively with all stakeholders in mapping out the future
directions for the Canada Communication Group.
Officials are now finalizing the mandate of the committee and
I expect to be able to name the members in the next few weeks
and to have the final report from the committee some time in the
very near future.
At the same time the Canada Communication Group in
consultations with client departments, suppliers and central
agencies is to develop and publish a policy and guidelines on
conflict of interest. The advisory committee will review and
approve the policy and determine how the policy is to be
monitored for compliance.
I do not think that one can talk candidly about the Canada
Communication Group without acknowledging its status as a
special operating agency. I already noted at the Standing
Committee on Government Operations that the concept of a
special operating agency is an important one but should be
reviewed. I am looking at the issue of special operating agencies
with my colleague from the Treasury Board. We need to
re-examine the purpose of special operating agencies and the
type of government services which benefit most from being
structured along those lines.
I fully expect that the special operating model as structured by
the former government will come under further scrutiny and
reviews which are now presently under way.
In closing, I want to assure all hon. members that their input
on the review of future options for the Canada Communication
Group will be welcomed. It is my hope and expectation that a
full and frank discussion will evolve and that the Canada
Communication Group and the Government of Canada will
emerge even stronger as a result of this particular process.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, I read the
statement made by the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services concerning the Canada Communication
Group. Some elements sound vague and raise some very serious
concerns.
As all stakeholders and certainly the minister himself knew,
the outside firm Deloitte and Touche confirmed there was a
conflict of interest in this special operating agency or SOA.
(1525)
The minister either did not keep his eyes open or did not have
the ability to review this matter himself, since it was an outside
firm that made him see the light. In any case, it may be better
this way since this firm only took six weeks to write its report
whereas the minister would surely have taken six or twelve
months if not more to do the same.
The first concern relates to the transfer of the Canada
Communication Group's purchasing operations with all 150
employees affected to the supply operations arm of the
department. Should this transfer exercise not be subject to an
extensive review to rationalize departmental staff and
resources?
The Bloc Quebecois periodically asks for a comprehensive
review of public expenditures. Would it not be appropriate to
take advantage of this adjustment to streamline spending and cut
the waste of public funds?
Can the minister also assure us that the supply operations
group within his department will be completely transparent and
that the new status of the 150 employees will effectively stop
any conflict of interest with the Canada Communication Group?
The announcement by the minister that an advisory
committee will be set up to examine the status of the Canada
Communication Group does not come as a big surprise to us.
The Liberals have become the undisputed champions of
advisory committees. We wonder whether ministers need their
own staff since they always rely on advisory committees. Do
ministers of this government have the authority to analyze,
consult and make decisions on their own? Can they do the job
themselves?
What guarantee do we have that this other advisory committee
will not be made up of friends of the Liberals? On what basis and
under what conditions will members of that committee be
appointed? There are numerous concerns, Mr. Speaker.
4399
I suggest to the minister that all members of the Standing
Committee on Government Operations should sit on that
committee. The minister should use a committee which already
exists and whose members are MPs elected by the public.
Instead of doing your usual show, I ask you, when the committee
does its work, to open the books, to provide all necessary
information, to invite your civil servants and let them express
their views, and to consult all those interested in this issue. In
this way, we will be able to shed some light on the issue and
propose new options through a transparent and open process, as
is the public's wish.
We are concerned by two other aspects in the minister's
statement. While setting up an advisory committee, the minister
is asking Communications Canada to develop and release a
policy on conflicts of interest. Why is that not the committee's
responsibility? Given its mandate, it is incumbent upon the
committee to recommend such a policy. Again, more
duplication of studies and consultation processes!
Finally, the minister says that he is reviewing the whole issue
of Special Operating Agencies, including Communications
Canada. What a mess, Mr. Speaker. The minister is looking at
SOAs, the advisory committee is looking at a SOA, and the SOA
is looking at itself. As far as we are concerned, this is pure
improvisation.
Logic, intelligence, simplicity and common sense do not
seem to be the forte of the minister responsible for SOAs.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to respond on behalf of the Reform Party to the minister's
statement.
Before I do, however, I would like to mention that we did not
get a copy of this report from his office until 90 minutes prior to
this announcement. Since he knows that we are expected to
respond directly after his statement in the House, and since his
own party was scathing in its criticisms of such lack of
information and lack of co-operation from the old government
when it was in opposition, I would think that the minister would
be particularly sensitive to the actions of his own people and
would like to look into that in his own office.
One can imagine the righteous indignation from the minister
if he were on this side of the House while the government
delayed the release of a potentially embarrassing report.
In dealing with the audit report of the Canada Communication
Group I will start by commending the minister for the quick
turnaround in this audit. While we are happy that the
government has moved on this issue, I cannot help but wonder
why the government needed an audit in the first place to
determine that as both supplier and contractor, CCG was in a
conflict position. That appears to me, and I would hazard to say
to most of the country, to be self-evident.
(1530)
This audit was moved up due to a series of complaints against
CCG across the country from private sector companies that felt
they were unable to compete fairly for government business.
These are the types of rumours that have circulated about CCG
in recent press clippings.
First, there was a director general attempting to contract work
to the private sector. CCG co-ordinates the bidding process. The
winning bid selected by CCG is CCG. The agency comes in just
below the lowest private sector bid. Understandably all sorts of
questions about insider knowledge emerged.
Second, CCG is one of the bidders for a substantial contract
with the federal government and it wins with the lowest bid.
Only afterward is it known that CCG had a small advantage over
the other firms in that it did not feel the need to include its
employees as labour because CCG did not have to pay them for
the work on the specific project since they already had a federal
salary.
One area the minister did not address with any substance deals
with the whole issue of special operating agencies or SOAs of
which CCG is one. There has been much criticism that these
SOAs create unfair competition for those wanting government
contracts.
More and more, companies are finding themselves facing off
against SOAs for contracts within government and even outside
government. Several national industry associations have said
that they have been deluged with complaints from their
members. Companies have complained that these SOAs receive
insider information because of their privileged position within
government that can assist them in winning contracts.
Others complain it is not fair that SOAs, which are essentially
subsidized by taxpayers' money, are allowed to bid against them
in the first place. Still others complain that it is not fair that
SOAs are winning contracts with universities and
municipalities. Finally, some wonder if allowing government
departments to compete for contracts internationally is such a
good idea.
A number of questions need to be answered with regard to
SOAs, none of which the minister has addressed today. Are there
any rules governing SOAs when they find themselves competing
with the private sector? Each SOA runs according to a private
agreement worked out between it and the department.
Technically, when government departments offer to do work
for another government department, the transaction does not fall
in the category of contracting. It is called the provision of
professional services according to one analyst. When SOAs
aggressively seek out work that might have gone to public
4400
tender, it is not competing for contracts because all SOAs are
still 100 per cent owned by their departments.
Also the reason why SOAs such as CCG are bidding on
contracts with municipalities and universities is they have
literally interpreted the standard rule that work can be sought
within government to include any level or institution of
government. As for international contracts with foreign
governments, government departments compete for these
because they feel they as government often have the best chance
of securing work.
The whole issue of SOAs has not been adequately addressed
today by the minister other than his tepid reference to another
government study on conflict of interest and some new nebulous
review by his department and the Treasury Board on the role of
SOAs. This needs much more serious attention in our opinion.
In reference to the auditor's report itself, the auditor has made
five major recommendations respecting these conflicts of
interest. However of greatest interest to our party is a
recommendation that either CCG be privatized, given crown
corporation status or retain its special operating agency status
but with revised goals and targets.
Our party has a bias toward privatization and in the case of
CCG this option does bear exploring. In the interim, the minister
has moved to put CCG's procurement arm under-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the member has
forgotten during the week that he is only allowed to have as
much time as the minister took in his statement. His time has
expired.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: Very briefly.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is an important point of
order. My colleague opposite made reference to the fact that he
had not been provided the information well in advance. I want
the House and you, Mr. Speaker, to understand that with the
previous administration it was not uncommon.
(1535 )
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not need to hear further to
that. It is certainly not a point of order.
Mr. Dingwall: I have a point of order. I have something that I
wish to add-
The Deputy Speaker: Please get to the point. The hon.
minister.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed to complete my
point of order, I will arrive at its final conclusion.
A member of the Reform Party stated in the House that he did
not have sufficient time to examine the statement which we
provided 90 minutes in advance. Perhaps it is for this reason: the
Reform Party demanded of my office that we hand deliver the
report by ministerial car and driver so they could have full time
to examine it.
If that is not a bogus point by the hon. member, I do not know
what is, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The House leader for the Reform Party
and perhaps the member who was spoken of would wish to speak
as well afterward.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, these comments are totally
unfounded. We have an agreement with the government that it
will provide us with minister's statements in a reasonable time,
which is more than 90 minutes. We have had an ongoing
problem with having those statements received as agreed on
previously.
It is the minister's problem. It is not our problem.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the point the House leader made is
entirely true.
Further, this audit that we are referring to, not so much the
minister's statement, could have been sent out a lot earlier than
it was. There is no reason in the world why it could not have been
brought over at the beginning of the day.
I categorically refute what the minister has said. There is
absolutely no excuse for not getting this report before 90
minutes before the minister's statement.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 22nd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
membership of committees.
[Translation]
With leave of the House, I intend to move concurrence in the
22nd report later this day.
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of
the Standing Committee on Finance.
4401
Pursuant to an order of the House dated Tuesday, April 19,
1994 the Standing Committee on Finance studied Bill C-17, an
act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions
of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994 and
agreed to report the bill without amendment.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
think it would be possible to dispense with the reading of the
22nd report of the standing committee since it only concerns a
matter of one change in a committee.
If the House gives its consent, I move:
That the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I wonder if that
one change involves me. If it does not, I have no problem.
Mr. Milliken: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I have forgotten what
the change is but I do not believe it concerns the hon. member.
The Deputy Speaker: The Table indicates as well that it is
not.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That three members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and one
staff person be authorized to travel to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island
from July 10 to 13, 1994 to attend the 16th annual conference of the Canadian
Council of Public Accounts Committees.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1540 )
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition
which was forwarded to me by Mr. Robert Gerber of Cambridge
and is signed by constituents from my riding of Cambridge.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate public approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality.
I am endorsing and fully supporting this petition.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, I have
the pleasure of submitting a petition signed by over 1,500
residents of my riding who ask Parliament to urge the minister
of immigration to legalize the status of the Dudka family so that
they can lead an honest, peaceful life in Quebec, as they intend
to.
Given that the Dudkas have been living in Mascouche since
January 7, 1992, but failed to obtain refugee status, that both
parents have stable employment, that the family has adjusted
harmoniously to the Quebec society, that support for the Dudkas
is already widespread, that there are two children in this family,
one of whom was born in Quebec, and that their lives would be
in danger if they were forced to return to Argentina, I feel duty
bound to ask the minister to consider this petition and grant
refugee status to the Dudka family in Quebec.
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from my constituents to amend the laws of Canada to
prohibit the importation, distribution and sale or manufacture of
killer cards and to advise the producers of killer cards that their
product, if destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.
I believe the commercialization and glorification of violence
in our society should be abhorred by all. Tomorrow the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will start its
examination of the government's legislation that will seek to
control such serial killer cards. I am glad to be part of that
process.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions. The first one is signed by members of the
community of Kamloops, British Columbia, and brings to the
attention of the House that currently there is no national
legislated witness protection program or witness relocation
program in Canada.
It also brings to the attention of the House that there is
currently a private member's bill, votable, Bill C-206, which
happens to be my bill.
The petitioners pray that Parliament enact Bill C-206 at the
earliest opportunity and provide a statutory foundation for a
national witness relocation and protection program.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by constituents of my riding and
neighbouring areas of the city of Toronto. It prays that Parlia-
4402
ment act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child
by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition is also signed by members of my constituency as
well as people in adjacent ridings.
It prays and requests that Parliament not amend the human
rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present. Pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a
300-name petition requesting the following:
We your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to
maintain the present exemption on the excise portion of ethanol
for a decade, allowing for a strong and self-sufficient ethanol
industry in Canada.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): The second petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36 is a 200-name petition from the
Stayner area of my riding requesting the following:
We the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call
upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to ban the
sales of the serial killer board game and to prevent any other
such game or material to be made available in Canada in order to
protect innocent children.
* * *
(1545)
[Translation]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 35 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 35-Mr. Williams:
What were the names of the federal statutory programs that expended over
$250 million in the fiscal year 1993-94, and under what department or
departmental jurisdiction did each of these programs fall?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): There is a table
at the front of the 1993-94 main estimates (pages 1-54) which
identifies all statutory items in the estimates for that year by
program.
The individual items which exceed $250 million are:
-Payments under the Farm Income Protection Act in the
agri-food program of the Department of Agriculture,
-Payments to international financial organizations in the
financial and economic policies program of the Department of
Finance,
-The public debt charge program of the Department of
Finance,
-The fiscal transfer program of the Department of Finance,
-Military pensions in the Department of National Defence,
-Payments to provinces and territories for hospital and
medical care in the health program of the Department of
National Health and Welfare,
-Payments to the provinces and territories under the Canada
assistance plan in the social program of the Department of
National Health and Welfare,
-Old age security, guaranteed income supplement, and
spouse's allowance payments in the social program of the
Department of National Health and Welfare,
-Grants to municipalities and other taxing authorities under
the real property program of the Department of Publics Works,
-Post-secondary education payments and interest and other
payments under the Canada Student Loans Act by the Secretary
of State, and
-Payments to railway companies by the National
Transportation Agency under the Western Grain Transportation
Act.
The above programs account for approximately 97 per cent of
total statutory spending.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: The question, as indicated by the hon.
parliamentary secretary, has been answered. Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
4403
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all notices of motions for the production of
papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all notices of motions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that pursuant
to Standing Order 33(2)(b) Government Orders will be extended
by 28 minutes because of the ministerial statements.
* * *
Hon. David Dingwall (for the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions) moved that a ways and
means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and
the Income Tax Act, laid upon the table Tuesday, May 24, be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
4403
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 24 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-28, an act respecting the making of loans and the
provision of other forms of financial assistance to students, to
amend and provide for the repeal of the Canada Student Loans
Act, and to amend one other act in consequence thereof, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to this bill this afternoon. I say that
because it gives me an opportunity to address the House on a bill
which affects the very group on whom we place great hope for
our future, our youth.
I am going to approach the bill from three advantage points:
as a parent, as a women previously in pre-doctoral studies, and
as an elected representative; but first let me set the stage in
terms of our current employment scene because it is inextricably
linked to the financial security of our students.
It is alarming to know that Canada is described as a country of
structural unemployment. This means that after each of the
recessions experienced over the past 20 years unemployment
has declined but overall has remained higher than before each of
the recessions.
The International Monetary Fund has placed the blame
squarely on generous unemployment benefits which discourage
job hunting; greater unionization, centralized wage bargaining
and high minimum wages which reduce labour market
flexibility; and high non-wage costs which discourage hiring.
These are the realities of our job market, not a promising set of
circumstances by any stretch. Yet this is what awaits those with
high hopes, those who graduate from our universities and
colleges and enter this jobless market.
The effects of this situation spill over into summer job
opportunities, jobs which mean financial survival for most
students. Recent figures show an alarming trend in summer
employment opportunities. Current unemployment rates for 15
to 24 year olds remain at 1993 figures, that is 18.1 per cent. This
is up from 17.9 per cent in 1992, 14.5 per cent in 1991, and 10.5
per cent in 1990. Students have expressed outrage and now many
feel apathetic toward a system of diminishing options.
(1550 )
This bill is not only timely. It is absolutely necessary to meet
the needs of students in a recovery where there are few jobs,
little choice and scarce money. Bill C-28 contains some positive
elements and as a parent I commend the government for
recognizing that our present system for educational funding is
outdated.
Like most families with children in university, mine had to
find a balance between parental financial support and other
sources to sustain a university education. Our children have
worked part time to augment their costs and until they reached
21 years of age this was a satisfactory arrangement. However it
was our family's choice beyond that point that our children
looked to extending that support network to include government
student loans.
It should be noted that it has become increasingly expensive
to sustain a reasonable standard of living while attending
university. Even with the combination of parental support, a part
time job and a student's loan, financial worries remain a
consideration and a burden to most students. Our children were
no exception.
I recognize like most Canadians that in 1994 our colleges and
universities are in a state of crisis. Nobody agrees with this more
than administrations, faculty, staff and students either attending
or looking forward to attend university or college.
Here are some examples of the problems that post-secondary
institutions face today. Federal transfers to provinces fail to
keep up with the rate of inflation. Tuition fee increases are
inflexible and capped at low levels. There is an ever increasing
demand by the public for access to institutions of higher
learning. University and college staff unions are demanding and
4404
winning continuing wage increases that are higher than those in
the private sector.
The Canada student loans program or CSLP is an important
program. I am pleased the government recognizes that it needs
reforming to make it more effective. However it is unfortunate
that the government sees the CSLP as the only problem with
Canada's post-secondary educational system.
Any student loans program should preserve and enhance the
quality and accessibility of post-secondary education, but Bill
C-28 fails to do so to any meaningful extent. Despite significant
changes in post-secondary education and its clientele, student
assistance programs have remained relatively unchanged since
coming into existence in 1964-65. Although joint studies of
student aid needs have been undertaken on occasion they have
not resulted in any formal agreement among federal and
provincial governments for a new a comprehensive students
assistance program.
In the five-year period between 1988-89 and 1992-93 the
university tuition fee price index for Canadians increased by 58
per cent. This means that during that five-year period the
adjusted cost increase to a Canadian student was 58 per cent.
When one factors in the cost of living adjustment it is easy to see
why students are clamouring so loudly about increased costs of
education.
During that same time period there was no commensurate
increase in loans for students to access. Students were expected
to pay substantially increased costs. Yet they were provided with
no opportunity to access more funds. As a result more students
took jobs to pay for their courses. The effect of this has been to
increase the average length of study to five years for what was
once a four-year degree program. Because the degree takes five
years the student's gross costs increase. This means a student is
required to access yet more loan support.
In effect by allowing costs to increase in this manner without
increasing access to loans, the government increases its cost to
itself. When students are in the system longer they take up more
resources. When their loans are larger they are more inclined to
default given the repayment system of the past. Ultimately the
decision not to increase student loans cost the government more
than giving the loans would have done.
(1555)
The best proposal in the bill is to increase by 57 per cent the
limit on the loans to students. Interestingly the increase to 57 per
cent on loan limits was a recommendation made in a study
commissioned by the department of the secretary of state in
1990. However the study made 13 recommendations and this is
only one of the 13 recommendations that the government is
implementing. Even more intriguing, the government is
choosing to implement some proposals that were not
recommended by the study at all.
The government says that it is interested in hearing
constructive ideas to help it do its job. However it seems content
to ignore constructive suggestions commissioned by the
government from independent non-political organizations and
paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. It ignores them unless the
ideas fit with its preplanned agendas. These are often developed
in the back room with little attention paid to the realities facing
Canadian families.
One of the proposals in the legislation which does not come
from the government study is a plan to provide grants to meet
the exceptional cost of women students in doctoral studies. I
should remind the House that the study of the secretary of state
made no recommendations for any grant or loans to women in
doctoral studies. For that matter, it made no recommendations
for any grants or loans whatsoever that discriminate on the basis
of gender.
The wording of the legislation suggests that women have to
endure more or exceptional costs as doctoral students. However
I believe that women do not incur any more exceptional cost as
doctoral students than men do. Many of us have families and
mortgage considerations at this point in our careers. When I was
a masters candidate and a Ph.D. candidate I did not incur any
cost that would not have been equally carried by any of my male
colleagues.
The intent of the legislation must not be to redress exceptional
costs that women face but to redress the fact that there are
limited post-graduate opportunities for mid-career
professionals in Canada. Our current programs are inflexible,
lacking creativity, and most certainly do not respond to the
private sector needs of advanced training and skills
requirements.
As well an attempt to redress the statistical difference in the
larger numbers of male candidates over female candidates
should not be accomplished in such a blatantly discriminatory
fashion. The numbers of women in post-secondary institutions
have been increasing steadily without violating the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. I do not understand why there is such
focus on affirmative action tactics when in my view they are
completely unnecessary.
In fact the number of women enrolled full time at universities
increased by 79 per cent between 1975 and 1990, while during
the same time period the number of men increased by only 19
per cent. Presently women constitute at least 50 per cent of full
time students in both colleges and universities and 54 per cent of
all part time university students. In 1990-91 women constituted
55 per cent of students at the college level, 53 per cent of full
time undergraduates, 45 per cent of masters graduates, and 34
per cent of Ph.D. candidates.
4405
It is clear that women are very well represented in our
colleges and universities. They have managed to do so without
affirmative action. The implication that women are unable to
compete adequately at the doctoral level without special
assistance is quite unacceptable to me. I am sure this
assumption is one that I and most women and men reject. There
is ample evidence to suggest that women can compete fairly
on an even playing field at the doctoral level in their studies.
In 1975, 23.9 per cent of all doctoral students were women. In
1993 the 35 per cent figure that I mentioned demonstrates this.
This is an increase of 11.1 per cent in 18 years. It is a healthy
increase. Yet we must do more to ensure that these numbers
grow by ensuring opportunities for both men and women who
reach this level of their academic careers.
What is needed is a student assistance program that allocates
funds to students on the basis of need. When need is the sole
criterion, gender fails to be a consideration. Everyone may
apply for a loan regardless of their gender. They must only be
able to demonstrate a need for the loan.
(1600)
When this bill goes to committee I am certain the House will
see the wisdom in removing such an uninspiring and
discriminatory program and will include male doctoral students
also.
I stated earlier that I would also speak as an elected
representative and offer helpful alternatives to deal with the
crisis our students in post-secondary institutions are facing.
The unemployment rate is still 11 per cent. The government
seems content to undertake little action and to let it remain at
that high level. It was reported in this weekend's Financial Post
that the unemployment rate for 18 to 26-year olds is close to 18
per cent. Given these staggering figures, it is clear that students
will have problems getting jobs and repaying their loans.
The Canadian Federation of Students, the Association of
Universities and Colleges of Canada, and the federal
government's commissioned study are all recommending
income contingent repayment programs. This legislation only
waves a hand in the direction of this recommendation by
introducing pilot projects. It should put its fist firmly down and
introduce the program in its entirety across the country.
As well, the government has spoken of its commitment to
quality education in Canada. It has a wonderful opportunity to
show Canada the depth of its concern. It could make the transfer
payments for education to the provinces indexed with the annual
rate of inflation.
What is also needed today is leadership that will establish a
national standard of post-secondary education in a flexible
environment. More and more Canadian businesses are
introducing flexible work hours for their employees. What is
needed in the educational system are equally flexible study
programs that meet the needs of professionals who are
attempting to re-enter the post-secondary education system.
What we need today in Canada is not a government that
simply looks at short term solutions to problems. We need a
government that cares enough to look to the future in order to
provide solutions that will guarantee long term, high quality
education in Canada. This government should appreciate all of
the ideas shared in this debate.
The Deputy Speaker: There are 10 minutes for questions or
comments. Is there any member wishing to do that? Resuming
debate.
Colleagues should know that we have now passed the five
hours, therefore we have gone to 10-minute speeches with no
questions or comments. I understand the member for North
Vancouver has unanimous consent to speak for slightly longer
than 10 minutes. Is that correct?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I will try to
be as brief as I can and I do thank the House for agreeing to
extend my time.
The present student loans program is a program under which
the federal government-for which one can read
taxpayers-pays interest on loans negotiated by students at the
banks. In 1991-92 the cost was around $465 million, less about
$110 million recovered on defaulted loans. The program
assisted about 235,000 students.
One of the improvements to the program which has been
proposed by the Reform Party is the adoption of a repayment
system similar to that already in place in Australia, Sweden and
New Zealand. The repayment system would be income
contingent and would work in conjunction with a more generous
loan program.
Such a change would recognize the need by students to have
funding available for their education, but it would also ensure
that taxpayers were repaid at a future time at a rate dependent
upon the earning power of the student.
A carefully instituted income contingent loan program would
make university education more accessible. It would move more
of the responsibility for the cost of university education on to
the students themselves, albeit on a deferred basis.
I have met some students who feel that society should bear the
entire burden of their education costs with no loans and no
repayment ever required. It would be nice if it were as easy as
writing a cheque, but reality is now dictating a more prudent
approach.
For those members opposite who rolled their eyes skyward
when I said that more responsibility for the cost of education
should fall upon the students, I ask that they consider the ability
of taxpayers to continue to foot the bill.
4406
(1605)
Two of the countries I mentioned which have instituted the
income contingent loan program, Sweden and New Zealand,
have faced debt crises within the last decade. We should talk
about these things before we are also forced into a situation
where a cash crisis makes us make hasty decisions.
I would like to quote from an editorial entitled: ``The
universities we deserve'' which appeared in the Globe and Mail
on July 27, 1993. It describes how an ICR loan program would
work. To quote:
Every university student would be offered a government sponsored loan.
These loans would be available not only to poor students, but to anyone who
wants help supporting themselves through university. After graduation, the
student would begin paying the loan back, with collection taking place through
the income tax system. And here is the key to ICR: repayment is income
contingent. Everyone would pay back a set percentage of income, not a set
amount. Those making a higher income would have to pay their loans off sooner
than those making a lower income who would pay it off over a longer period of
time. Combined with greater freedom for universities in setting tuition, ICR loans
would make it possible for universities to charge a realistic price for their services
without harming accessibility.
It would in fact make it easier for some people to go to university, by giving
loans to the middle class who are not now considered to be poor enough to merit
a Canada student loan. And ICR recipients could rest assured that the
government would not, the minute they graduated, be breathing down their
necks for payment.
The current Canada student loan plan has a very high default
rate. It is only available to people from low income families and
has a tough repayment schedule regardless of post-graduation
income. ICR would address these problems whilst also helping
to deal with the funding crisis in the universities.
The general thrust of Bill C-28 is good but it would be even
better with the incorporation of an aggressive income
contingent repayment scheme. I hope that government members
will support an amendment along these lines at some stage.
In 1991 the Smith Commission of Inquiry on Canadian
University Education concluded that: ``A preoccupation with
underfunding pervades every campus-.The effect is extremely
negative''. Unfortunately, the solution to that funding problem
is not going to come from the federal government. The deficit
and debt burdens will prevent us from increasing allocations.
Creative approaches are needed and Sweden, Australia and New
Zealand have shown that income contingent repayment schemes
can assist students and universities at a time when funding is a
problem.
A spinoff benefit for taxpayers would be the knowledge that
defaults would be all but eliminated. Loans would be repaid over
time and in a manner sensitive to the long term earning ability of
the student.
By 1992 defaults under the present Canada student loans
program had reached almost one-third of the student loans
which were at repayment stage. The value of defaults
accumulated on the books since 1964 has reached almost $1
billion and there are significant costs to the taxpayers for the
hiring of collection agencies to try to collect on these defaulted
loans. The costs are currently reported to be in the range of 18 to
29 per cent of the loans recovered.
Enough is enough. Society is prepared to help students to pay
for their education. In fact it wants to help students pay for their
education, but some responsibility to repay those loans must be
part of the contract. An income contingent repayment plan
automatically deducting at source is the fairest and most
efficient way to protect the interests of students, universities
and taxpayers alike.
It is a fact that individuals with university degrees have a
considerably larger lifetime income than those whose highest
level of education is high school. In fairness to the taxpayers
who helped them get this higher education, students should be
prepared to begin repaying their loans as soon as their income
permits. This might sometimes mean that loans would not be
fully repaid until students were into their 30s or even early 40s,
but at least there would be assurance of eventual repayment
without the need for collection agencies.
One practical problem that must be overcome is the actual
funding of an ICR program. Our cash strapped finance minister
is not in any position to raise additional revenues or increase
deficits, even for such a commendable cause. We again need to
look for alternatives.
(1610 )
We could continue to try to raise the necessary money through
the commercial banks of course. Alternatively the lending
program could raise funds through the issue of bonds. A stock
exchange market for second-hand bonds could be subsequently
developed, similar to the system used by the Student Loan
Marketing Association of ``Sallie Maes'' in the United States.
What an opportunity for parents, to invest in bonds which
would be used to fund income contingent loan programs for
students, an investment in the future with the knowledge that
repayment would occur through automatic deductions at source.
Students applying for loans would of course have to supply their
social insurance numbers and their loan contracts would have to
be registered with Revenue Canada.
The ICR system is supported by the Association of
Universities and Colleges of Canada. The system would remove
the present interest exemption during attendance at college and
university. This would result in worthwhile savings to the
4407
taxpayers without having any significant effect on student loan
repayments.
In 1987-88 the interest payments by government for students
still at college amounted to over $150 million and collection
costs that year were almost $11 million. The cost of exempted
interest payments and collection procedures falls directly on to
the taxpayers, but two-thirds of those taxpayers do not have
post-secondary credentials. In other words, the present system
places an unfair proportion of the cost of the present student
loans program on a segment of taxpayers who receive no benefit
in return for their generosity. It only seems fair that students
who benefit should ultimately be responsible for the cost of the
assistance they receive from the taxpayers.
Subsidies in our society are usually justified on the basis of a
social benefit of some sort, but in the case of student loans the
recipient can expect to receive significant long term private
benefits. While these private benefits are accruing the present
loan subsidies represent a transfer of income from taxpayers
who do not use higher education services for their families.
The sighs and eye rolling on the opposite side of the House
may be reaching epidemic proportions so I feel I should give an
example of an income contingent loan payment plan.
Let us say that when a student first graduates he or she does
not immediately secure a long term job but settles for a
temporary job at $12,000 a year, quite a low salary. The
payments on the student loan would be 3 per cent of earnings, or
$360 a year. That is just $30 a month, hardly likely to cause
hardship.
Let us say that as time passes the student secures a job earning
$50,000 a year. The payments could increase to maybe 5 per cent
per annum, or $2,500 per year. It is not an excessive amount but
enough to get previous student loans paid off fairly quickly.
If the student became unemployed, then payments would be
deferred until his or her annual income rose above the preset
threshold once again.
Many students who oppose the ICR program do so because
they do not like the idea that responsibility for loans should be
more firmly placed upon individual students. They feel that
society should pay the full shot. Unfortunately the reality is that
the money is not available and unless we introduce programs
like income contingent loans, there will be a continuing
deterioration in funding levels for higher education.
I might suggest that if the government wants to free up a little
more money it would be well advised to take note of an item sent
to me by Evelyn Leeburn of North Vancouver. It is a newspaper
clipping which reads: ``Two Clayoquot protesters themselves
facing contempt charges have won a $16,000 Canada Council
grant to do a documentary on women at the anti-logging
blockades''. What sort of nonsense is this? This money would be
much better spent on higher education.
In summary, I would like to say that Bill C-28 does improve
the present situation, even though it fails to show strong and
decisive leadership in terms of ICR loans. I give the government
credit for including clause 15, part (o) of the regulations, which
provides for some experimentation with ICR. We in Reform
hope that this will lead to a much larger scale ICR program in
due course.
(1615 )
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to
speak to Bill C-28 dealing with the federal government's plan to
reform its program of student assistance.
In my role as Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific, I am well
aware of the importance of post-secondary education to
Canada's economic and social development in the global
economy.
As a member of Parliament I am aware of the crucial role that
the Canada student loans program has played in ensuring
accessibility to post-secondary education. At the same time, as
a parent I recognize the need to modernize and improve the
federal government's effort in this area.
As we consider this bill we must learn from the flaws in the
current system, for there are flaws. However, we must leave in
tact and strengthen the four key principles which have provided
the framework for the Canada student loans program over the
years; namely, access to assistance for all students in financial
need, emphasis on the responsibility of individual students to
progress in their studies and to contribute to the cost of their
education if they have the means, a balance between public and
private sector roles in financing student aid, and a client centred
approach to the delivery of student assistance programs based
on federal-provincial collaboration.
I would like to suggest a fifth principle, the need for
flexibility to adjust to the dynamic learning environment and
changing economic circumstances. As we have learned from
past experience, change is inevitable.
The student assistance program must be able to adapt to new
realities. Therefore the bill has been drafted to allow flexibility
to respond to the challenges of the future.
Provinces are aware of the need for greater flexibility and
have suggested how the federal and provincial programs may
work together more efficiently by further streamlining the
financing and administration of our activities.
4408
Far from being an intrusion into an area of provincial
jurisdiction, the Canada student loans program is a model of
federal and provincial co-operation. Under this program the
federal government has worked closely with provinces for
almost 30 years to help equalize access to post-secondary
education and training for students in need.
I would also note that the Canada student financial assistance
bill continues to provide for provinces to opt out of the federal
program and receive compensation. While Quebec and the
Northwest Territories have withdrawn from the program, other
provinces have not.
In fact, participating provinces have encouraged the federal
government to continue to occupy this field and to expand its
efforts in the area of student assistance.
Enhanced assistance for needy students is the main reason for
this bill. The maximum level of aid has been frozen for 10 years
while costs have gone up by 57 per cent. We are acting now to
restore a viable and efficient student aid program. Loan limits
will be increased to the level they would have been without the
10-year freeze. The full time loan limit will rise from $105 to
$165 per week, and the part time limit will be increased from
$2,500 to $4,000.
Debt load will be controlled through the introduction of
deferred grants. Interest relief will be expanded to include low
income borrowers, and special opportunity grants will be
established.
Under the new financing arrangements, all eligible students
will have access to loans and income sensitive terms in
repayment. In total, the amount of aid to be provided over the
next five years will be $2.5 billion more than over the last five
years.
(1620 )
Individual Canadians are willing to take responsibilities for
their own futures by investing the time and money in
post-secondary education and training to equip themselves with
the knowledge and skills for success. This is apparent from the
fact that Canadians are attending Canada's universities,
community colleges and private schools in record numbers.
The question that the government asked itself when
considering how to reform the student assistance program was
how can we help Canadians undertake the post-secondary
studies they need.
The answer came back from the students. Give them the right
tools, they said. That is why we are proposing fundamental
changes to the student loans program to provide more aid to
students and to introduce new forms of non-repayable
assistance.
The flaws in the existing student aid programs have become
increasingly evident in recent years. Every member of
Parliament in this House has encountered students and former
students who have had problems obtaining enough resources to
study, or who have had difficulties in repaying their loans.
The proposed legislation would address both of these
problems by increasing aid to students and introducing
measures to ease the repayment burden on graduates. The
reform of the student assistance program will increase
educational opportunities and accessibilities for young people
and for mature students returning to school, including single
parents on income support and unemployed older workers who
require training. Unless we can meet the needs of all of these
people we are denying them opportunities and we are denying
Canada the benefit of their skills and energies.
I would like to stress that the proposed act works for students
with disabilities whose numbers in colleges and universities do
not come close to reflecting the numbers in Canadian society.
Students with disabilities confront many obstacles to full
participation in Canada's economic mainstream. Learning
should not be one of them. It is believed that fewer than 3 per
cent of Canada's full time university and college students are
persons with disabilities. This bill will deal effectively with
those situations in which a barrier to post-secondary studies has
been a lack of resources.
In addition to the increased loans, under the new legislation
students with permanent disabilities may qualify for special
opportunity grants of up to $3,000 per year to help cover costs
relating to special transportation, interpretation services and
technical aids. As well, we will allow flexibility for students
who because of their disability must take fewer courses and who
require more time to complete their studies.
This legislation will enable Canadians with disabilities to
obtain the financing they need for the exceptional costs which
they must incur to undertake their studies. Many of the
challenges they face can be overcome with their ingenuity and
perseverance and a little financial help from government.
Similarly, this legislation will address the special needs of
women who wish to pursue doctoral studies in non-traditional
fields. Special opportunity grants of up to $3,000 per year will
be available to help women who are taking doctoral degrees in
fields of study such as the applied and physical sciences,
mathematics and engineering. There will also be special
opportunity grants of up to $1,200 annually for high need, part
time students to assist them in pursuing their studies.
The student financial assistance bill is an important step in
our social security reform process. We are moving quickly in
this area because the need is so great.
To summarize, let me put the reforms provided for in this bill
in human terms.
4409
(1625 )
Let us think about the students who are considering
post-secondary studies who come into our constituency offices.
What would the reform mean to them?
First, because of the new need assessment process, the
financial need will be determined based on up to date objective
national data which will reflect cost variations across the
country.
Second, the maximum loans that they can expect to receive
will be increased by 57 per cent to reflect current education
costs.
Third, there will be non-repayable grants assistance for
students with disabilities, high need, part time students and
women in certain doctoral studies.
Fourth, students may be eligible for a deferred grant to help
maintain manageable debt loads after graduation.
Fifth, when the time comes to pay back their student loans,
they will be dealing with a lending institution which views them
not as problems but as long term customers. Lenders will have
an incentive to keep student loans in good standing by providing
better service and income sensitive repayment. Both the lender
and the borrower will view the student loan as the first
transaction a long and mutually beneficial business
relationship.
This is what the reforms provided for in the bill will mean to
students. We are working to improve aspects of the social safety
net but this legislation will help steer thousands of Canadians
away from the safety net altogether.
Canada must look to its people for growth and prosperity in
the years ahead. The new Canada student financial assistance
program addresses that reality in a creative and fair minded way.
It will help individual Canadians meet the challenges ahead
and build their futures in an atmosphere that encourages and
supports their aspirations.
Let me conclude by saying that I am proud to be able to
support this bill and I hope it will receive early passage so that
we will be able to get on with the job at hand of helping Canadian
students look toward their futures.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the hon. member in his
presentation mentioned special funding for certain-
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think the member was here
when it was announced that we are now past five hours, and so
there are no questions or comments any more. It is strictly
10-minute speeches.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, the Canada
Student Loans Act and the activity of it has an impact on five
basic segments in our society: the students, obviously; the
parents and family members; the university or college boards;
the teaching staff and administration of those institutions; and
of course society at large, all Canadians through our economy.
I would like to speak today specifically to the issue of the
income sensitive repayment loans in this proposed legislation.
Another title for that might be an income contingent loan
repayment program.
The reason I address this specifically is that the government
has started to take a positive step and will form an element of
where we must be going in terms of reforming our institutions
for higher learning.
What is an income sensitive repayment loan or income
contingent loan repayment program? Simply put, it is a scheme
for post-secondary education and it is designed to allow
students to pay back their student loans over a period of time
based on their annual income.
Upon graduation, the student would begin to repay his or her
student loan. The repayment of the loan, however, would link
the repayment plan to a student's earnings or ability to pay.
(1630 )
Exactly how it would work has been described earlier in the
House, but in summary the income tax machinery could be used
in monitoring and collecting student loans and in the
implementation of an income contingency principle whereby
students would pay back a set percentage of their income.
I mentioned that a number of elements within society are
impacted. Let us talk briefly about students. Our students are the
future of Canada. It is their training that will be pulling our
economy forward. Indeed the strength of our economy lies in
society at large and within the education that society gains.
However in doing some research for this presentation I took
the time to contact some people at the East Kootenay
Community College in my constituency. They wrote to me and
gave an idea of some problems students are facing as they go
through the present system. Perhaps I could make a very brief
summary of some problems that faced the students on
September 17 last year.
Of the 300 loans that had been submitted to Victoria it is
estimated that 100 students had not received the loans as at
September 17, obviously the start of the calendar year. It is
estimated that 25 per cent of the students who had received loans
had the calculations of their awards done incorrectly. Many
students were in the process of appealing or reassessing their
loans because of application errors. The financial aid office of
the community college had been issuing emergency loans and
tuition and book deferrals to students who were waiting for their
loan documents to arrive or had pending applications. At the end
of the month, and they were looking forward, they expected that
emergency moneys would have to be made available to the
students. I have three children who are now in their
mid-twenties and have been through this process with them. I
know,
4410
particularly at the start of a college or a university year, this
could be very disconcerting. They had to look for emergency
moneys.
Approximately 25 per cent of those students who had not
received the loans, believe it or not, had been referred to social
services. The report says that because of uncertainties produced
by the system, that is their applications went missing or they
could not get access to information, many students were actually
in panic. The report goes on and on. Clearly this is not
acceptable to our future society and to the people who are there
for training. That is the present situation.
The second group of people currently impacted by the student
loans are the supporters, the parents and the families of the
students. Having been through the experience I can report that
some calculations occur because the existing formula is
absolutely bizarre and would create a financial drain the average
family could simply not afford.
The third would be university and college boards. They are
dealing with the reality: as there is more and more of a squeeze
on resources in Canada and our financial ability to pay, there is
more and more of a shrinking of their ability to be able to fund
these institutions. They have a strong sense of responsibility.
The fourth area is the staff, be they teaching staff or the staff
who support the functions that are happening in the college. It is
rather interesting that the vast majority of people involved in the
training and teaching of our children, our young people, are very
dedicated. There seems to me to be something of an unreal level
of expectation on the part of some staff in terms of funding; in
other words the bottomless pit or the attitude that we have the
ability in Canada to keep on digging the hole deeper and deeper.
(1635 )
I believe in the concept of an income sensitive repayment loan
because of its inherent fairness to students. First off I believe
that students should know it is society's responsibility to create
opportunity. They should know that in our society there is no
free lunch, that the money must come from somewhere, and that
the government is simply redistributing funds it has taken from
someone else. They should also know that as they gain their
education it obviously opens more jobs for life. On the other
hand it is not fair to saddle the students with an inability to be
able to repay the loans as our present Canada Student Loans Act
has done.
Under income sensitive repayment loans the second segment
is the people who are supporting these students. They would also
be freed from the responsibilities or freed from the pressure that
many of them are feeling at this time. In other words it would be
the students' responsibility to negotiate and to repay. They
would have the responsibility for these loans, thereby freeing up
the families to the greatest extent possible. As I have indicated,
in many situations as it presently stands families are saddled
with responsibilities they simply cannot follow through on.
For those people involved with the university and college
boards there would be the ability to know what is coming, in
other words to be able to deliver services. All Canadians will
end up benefiting. The entire economy will end up benefiting as
we gain a handle on the whole area of funding student loans and
the ability to be able to train all Canadians.
I believe in the income sensitive repayment loans and in the
idea the Reform Party has put forward on the education voucher
system. Basically the purpose of both these things is to
accomplish what we need to accomplish, that is to train our
young people but to lighten the necessity for further deficit
spending. It has the potential to eliminate deficit spending. The
Reform Party is noted for its commitment to reducing the deficit
and ultimately getting the deficit to zero so we can start to work
on the debt. At the same time the Reform Party is committed to
student training.
In summary I say that students do not want a handout; they
want a hand up. Income sensitive repayment loans are an
important part of the hand up process for students. Therefore I
strongly encourage the government to move quickly to expand
the proposed section in the new Canada Student Loans Act.
[Translation]
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.
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.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I
have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the
division until a later time.
4411
(1640)
[English]
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), a division
on the question now before the House stands deferred until later
this day at 5.30 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Finance)
moved that Bill C-27, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the
Income Tax Application Rules, the Canada Pension Plan, the
Canada Business Corporations Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Unemployment Insurance Act and certain related acts, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to begin
debate on second reading of Bill C-27.
The bill proposes to implement a number of amendments to
the Income Tax Act and related statutes, most of which are
technical in nature. The bill also contains draft legislation for a
measure announced in the budget of February 1994 related to
scientific research and experimental development, the SR and
ED expenditures.
With the exception of the one budget item the measures
contained in the bill were announced by the previous
government. They were included in a package of technical
amendments that were released in August 1993 but never tabled
in the House. That package consolidated a number of measures
that had been released for public consultation in December 1992
with draft legislation issued by press release during 1993. In a
December 1993 press release the Minister of Finance confirmed
the government's intention to table the legislation.
As the amendments are mostly technical I will just spend a
brief moment reviewing them and allowing the House to
proceed with its business. It is very important to note that most
of these measures are already in effect and have been so for
some time. Many were said to be effective immediately when
announced.
This is a perfectly legitimate and normal practice in the
House, especially for measures of a relieving nature that modify
an anomaly under existing tax law. When simplifying the
income tax treatment of automobile operating cost benefits, for
example, it would be unreasonable to insist that taxpayers wait
out the course of full legislative enactment for relief.
Several of the amendments relate to retirement income plans
including RRSPs and certain pensions. One set of measures, for
example, is designed to ensure that a taxpayer's RRSP limit
reflects in a fairer way the taxpayer's retirement savings under
certain types of unregistered pension plans such as foreign
pension plans.
The legislation also modifies rules for RRSPs on death and
enables the legal representative of a deceased person to pay an
RRSP premium on that person's behalf up to 60 days after the
end of the year of death.
[Translation]
This bill also proposes to simplify or clarify existing tax
rules. I have already mentioned the tax treatment of automobile
operating cost benefits. The amendments simplify the way in
which these benefits are taxed by establishing a formula for
calculating them. This is one change that is sure to please
taxpayers.
[English]
Another amendment will allow taxpayers to deduct interest on
money that is borrowed to earn business income or certain types
of investment income in situations where the property financed
by the borrowing has been disposed of at a loss or become
altogether valueless. Without this amendment such interest
expenses would not be deductible in spite of their business
nature and the hardship that could result.
The legislation also provides relief to producers of calcium
chloride and diamonds by treating these substances as minerals
for income tax purposes. This gives producers access to income
tax incentives for mining.
Not every amendment in the legislation is relieving. One is
designed to curtail a tax avoidance mechanism used by certain
corporations with non-resident shareholders. This technique,
commonly referred to as a cross-border purchase butterfly, is
used to avoid tax on the sale of business assets. Our tax laws
were not intended to provide special breaks for structuring
corporate assets sales in this way and the amendment eliminates
such undesirable tax advantages.
(1645)
There is also a measure which will give legislative force to the
special capital tax, the so-called part VI tax, that has been
payable by life insurance companies for taxation years ending
after February 25, 1992.
[Translation]
Finally, the bill contains a measure announced in the most
recent federal budget, namely draft legislation requiring
corporations claiming tax credits for scientific research and
experimental development to identify expenditures in this area
in their tax returns.
[English]
In conclusion, the amendments in this bill represent technical
improvements to our tax legislation, improvements that follow
from the ongoing process of fine tuning the tax system in
consultations with taxpayers. Most of the provisions are already
in effect and many thousands of Canadians have relied on them
in planning their affairs.
4412
In short, this bill should be viewed as a matter of routine but
important parliamentary housekeeping. Therefore I urge all
members of the House to support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, as I
remember, the very first bill I spoke to in this House have barely
two pages long and contained but five clauses.
Today, we have a bill 177 pages long containing no less than
139 clauses. Of course, we are dealing in this case with the
Income Tax Act; that makes a big difference. This goes to show
how complex this act is and how hard it is to find one's way
through.
I will tell you this is a very technical document, a very
technical bill indeed. I will spare you the details, naturally, so as
to not to bore you with technicalities, but I would like to say a
few words about the process before going any further.
You know, there is always a risk associated with these
omnibus bills where many subjects are dealt with at the same
time. One gets the impression that a tiny clause, but one with
tremendous impact could be hidden in a mass of provisions
which are, on the whole, positive. It is like looking for a needle
in a haystack and this is to some extent the viewpoint from
which I have looked at this bill, especially considering it was
initially sent almost at the last minute, leaving us very little time
to work on it.
Officials from the Department of Finance did come and
explain it to us, but just the same, I got the impression things
were going very fast. Furthermore, this is a bill originating for a
large part from the previous government, with the exception of
the last part concerning research and development and the
definition of qualified expenditure.
As for the rest of the measures, they had all been put in place
by the former government but not yet translated into legislation.
That is always somewhat of a problem of course, because the
people who were in charge of analyzing and criticizing the bill at
the time are now sitting on the government side. Often, after an
election, the members who sit on the opposition side are not the
ones who sat there when measures were introduced in the
previous Parliament. This is the case in this instance.
Some thought should be given to this process so that, when a
Parliament is dissolved and an election is held, legislation like
this is not left pending, even if, in all probability, it were to mean
rushing the department to put into legal terms the effects of
these measures or the latest budget. I think that there would be a
way to improve the work of Parliament or in any case to make it
a lot easier, to make it unnecessary for the government to pass
the former government's bills and for the opposition to criticize
measures which already apply anyway but are being made legal.
I would like to say a few words about the Tax Act in general; it
is extremely complex. Often the people whom we want to help
with changes to the Tax Act are hardly able to benefit from them
because they are unaware of their existence. Often, the effects
are weakened by other measures as well.
Over time, the Tax Act becomes more and more complex and
cumbersome. When we amend it, we should look at all the other
sections, what should be changed as a result, and we end up with
total confusion. Besides that, business people now have to deal
with an increasingly burdensome tax as well, the goods and
services tax which imposes a very heavy administrative burden
with very complex regulations. This is hardly the way to
stimulate entrepreneurship, and in fact, these measures have the
reverse effect, because they just make it harder to understand all
these mechanisms.
(1650)
Of course, the people at the Department of National Revenue
are experts in this field. The people at the Department of
Finance work with these concepts every day. However, I think
we should remember that people who are starting a business will
have to spend a lot of time promoting their product and making
their business a success. This is all very complex for these
people. Of course they do consult tax experts and accountants,
but why should it all be so complicated.
Even when they consult these accountants and tax experts,
they keep coming to our offices for clarification or for an
interpretation of the act. They end up filing an appeal with the
Tax Court of Canada, and the number of cases is increasing,
which goes to show that the process is far too complex.
Since the beginning of this Parliament and even since the Bloc
was formed, we have been asking for a thorough tax reform,
which is in everyone's interest. It would also involve
simplifying the Income Tax Act. I think that a review of our tax
system would necessarily mean simplifying the content of this
legislation. Unfortunately, what we have here is merely a set of
technical amendments, and there is an obvious reluctance to
deal with the substance of the legislation.
However, when I look at these 139 sections and 177 pages, it
would not have taken much to do a thorough review. If we have
to look at so many sections, why not look at them all? This could
be done by a group of parliamentarians through existing
committees or through a special committee. I am convinced that
all parties in this House would be willing to appoint members to
make a detailed study. It would prevent a lot of problems.
Everything in society operates on the basis of social contracts.
These are not written documents but the way we have agreed to
operate as a society. The government spends money according to
the options chosen by taxpayers and voters, and in so doing
intervenes in the economy to prevent problems that might be
4413
generated by a free economy operating without reference to a
moral authority. So the government spends certain sums of
money. It provides for individual insurance mechanisms. It
maintains a defence force and does a lot of other things.
So there are a certain number of expenditures are necessary,
but to make those expenditures, the government must first get
the money. And today, this is becoming an increasingly serious
problem. First of all, as far as spending is concerned, people are
increasingly getting the impression that governments and their
elected representatives do not necessarily spend money wisely,
and that a lot of money is wasted. Consequently, this makes
them highly suspicious about what they contribute to cover
these expenditures. They know full well that they are the ones
who are picking up the tab.
The numbers involved here are staggering. This year, the
government has brought in a budget of roughly $160 billion and
is projecting revenues of $120 billion. Despite these $120
billion, we are still $40 million short of a balanced budget. This
shortfall could be made up with additional revenues resulting
from the reduction of certain expenditures.
It is extremely difficult to raise $120 billion in revenues when
people have no confidence in the way this money is spent.
People wonder if they are paying their fair share and whether
some are paying more than others. Often, when analyses are
conducted, the figures prove that this is the case. On examining
the taxes paid by individuals and corporations from 1981 to
1991, we see a trend emerging, namely that corporations are
paying less tax while individuals are paying more.
We hear it said every day. Everyone agrees that the middle
class is being squeezed more and more. These are not merely
words, the figures bear it out. We do not have to wait 10 or 20
years for even more sophisticated analyses to tell us that the
1980s were disastrous in terms of the redistribution of wealth.
We have the figures right now to show that this was in fact the
case. We must wake up to the truth that there is a great deal
wrong with our taxation system. Instead of merely making
minor technical adjustments to the Income Tax Act, the
government should completely review the legislation. We have
said as much from the beginning and we are prepared to
co-operate in an exercise of this nature.
Obviously, there are a number of proposals that we can make
during the budget consultation process this fall. But again,
hearings will be held, many groups will give testimony on
various matters and it will be difficult to focus as much as we
would want on the Income Tax Act per se, on tax measures and
expenditures.
(1655)
When examining government expenditures, we must also
look at tax expenditures. This is often overlooked. We examine
government expenditures, we look at what is spent on defence
and other areas but very little at what we give out in terms of tax
credits, that is our tax expenditures.
Recently, I read a Department of National Revenue
publication on tax expenditures. In many cases data is said to be
unavailable and often information is aggregated or put together
in a way that makes it extremely difficult to scrutinize. But
before compiling it, information must first be gathered. For the
sake of transparency, seeing that this government promised to be
transparent during this Parliament, it would be interesting to
examine tax expenditures in greater detail, to have more
information available on the subject.
Of course, time must always be allowed for compilation. That
is understandable, but there is no reason not to carry out serious
analyses using as base year the previous year or even an earlier
one.
So, as I said earlier, the way revenues are collected and spent,
this social contract is crumbling, which causes a perception
problem with regard to these revenues.
If we look around us in our daily lives, we can see that people
feel justified, I would even say perfectly justified for the most
part, to make unrecorded transactions. Take the construction
industry for example, the home renovation sector and others as
well, the service sector in general and, more and more, the
products sector where illegal transactions are supposedly more
difficult. It is becoming more and more commonplace because
people tell themselves: ``That money is misused, wasted
anyway. I am paying more than my fair share. Why should I
make the deliberate effort of giving all that money to people who
squander it?''
Perceptions can sometimes be correct, but they can also be
false. To clarify the situation, the relevant information should be
made available. We should tell people a little more about how
we collect these revenues, how we want to proceed and how we
will correct deficiencies in the current system. But not a word on
the whole tax system has been said since the election. A few
principles are outlined in the red book but there is little else.
Because of this revenue problem, we see that we have a
growing underground economy. Of course, depending on who
does the analysis, whether at Statistics Canada, at a tax summit
or somewhere else, experts cannot agree on an exact figure, on
the percentage of the economy that is underground. But they all
agree that it is a growing phenomenon. The most optimistic
analysts say that the underground economy represents at least
2.5 per cent of our economic activity level, while the most
pessimistic put that figure at 15 to 20 per cent.
4414
Even if we take a figure in between, the lost revenues are still
enormous. That is why we should tackle this problem seriously
and with determination, of course, because it is quite an
endeavour. We cannot afford a commission on taxation that will
take five years to analyze the problems of five years ago, since
its report would already be out of date because of all the things
that happened in the meantime.
Basic principles on tax reform have been established and
analyzed in the past; they are still valid except that we would, of
course, have to improve some technicalities behind all this.
A few cases in point, Mr. Speaker. We have long said that
family trusts that shelter large amounts from the tax man must
be looked at very closely. I do not want to get into details
because we will have the opportunity to debate family trusts in
the finance committee in the fall, or we will at least look at this
issue. In the meantime, it would be interesting to have the
information. We are far from certain that the information
required for a good debate will be available. It will be, once
again, very difficult. We will argue and disagree on figures
because they will not be available or because they will not be
provided far enough in advance.
As I know that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
Finance is listening to me, I would like to ask him to supply us
with data from the family trust study. How much did they cost?
How much do they represent in lost or deferred taxes in the
future for the government? It would be interesting to know these
things.
A real minimum tax on corporations has also been talked
about for a long time. I remember asking the question to the
Minister of Finance in this House and he told me that it already
existed and that, if there was no minimum tax, he would be
happy to introduce one. Upon checking, I learned that it is not so
simple.
(1700)
The minimum tax is on capital. It can seem like a minimum
tax except that there are all sorts of ways to reduce it or cancel it
so that it is almost zero or even zero. There goes the concept of
minimum tax then. Also, it applies only to those with assets or
capital investment of $10 million or more. What happens to
those who do not have that much in assets but who do a
considerable amount of business?
We could mention medium-sized businesses in general or big
businesses with less in assets. This is an interesting problem to
explore if we want to have a minimum tax. You do not have to be
on the far left to advocate it. The Americans under Mr. Reagan
had a minimum corporate tax after a commission investigated it;
Mr. Reagan is not known as the greatest socialist in American
history, but he decided to bring in a minimum corporate tax.
Turning to the bill itself, I would like to tell you that we have
no major objections because some of the measures are already in
effect, as for registered savings plans, for example, in order to
improve what already existed or to correct deficiencies in the
law. There are some more substantial things, but they are mainly
very technical improvements to the Tax Act and measures to
protect the department from misinterpretations of tax law.
We will give our consent, we will endorse this bill, while
reminding that we would like to take a much more thorough look
at the whole tax system; tax measures should be considered
sooner and care should be taken so that legislation is not passed
from one Parliament to another or one session to another and
slow to come before Parliament. It should be possible to have
debates that are more current, in line with the new government's
concern for openness and efficiency.
I conclude by saying that we will support Bill C-27. We still
insist that the department, the minister and the government
review the whole tax system and the whole Tax Act in order to
improve substantially what already exists and restore
confidence in the way revenue is collected from taxpayers.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
support Bill C-27. However, the bill shows that the Liberal
Party still has nothing new to offer Canadians even after six
months behind the wheel of this Chevy government. In fact
many of the provisions date back to finance minister
Mazankowski and the Mulroney era.
During the election Canadians were promised change, new
directions, ideas and initiatives. What they are receiving are
rehashed housekeeping bills that have been kicked around since
the Tory days, lumped together and packaged as new and
improved.
It is bills like this that show members of the Reform Party that
the Liberals may have the people but they most certainly do not
have the plan.
The sheer size and complexity of this bill is symbolic of what
is wrong with our entire taxation system. The title reads an act to
amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules,
the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Business Corporations
Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and
certain related acts.
The explanatory notes alone almost outnumber the
amendments. Bill C-27 covers everything from the tax
treatment of automobile operating costs to minerals in the
mining industry. It is one inch thick. Once passed it will add
more rules, regulations, subsections and pages to the overall
complex, confusing and convoluting Income Tax Act.
4415
Let me read something from the Income Tax Act and see if
we can understand it after we are finished. Section 23(1)
paragraph (c) of the definition ``superficial loss''.
This is what we have to know by the time we are done:
-in section 54 of the Act is replaced by the following:
(c) was the disposition deemed by paragraph 33.1(11)(a), subsection 45(1),
Section 48 as it read in its application before 1993, section 50 or 70, subsection
104(4), section 128.1 or subsection 138(11.3), 144(4.1) or (4.2) or 149(10) to
have been made,-
24. (1) Section 55 of the Act is amended by adding the following after
subsection (3):
(3.1) Notwithstanding subsection (3), a dividend to which subsection (2)
would, but for paragraph (3)(b), otherwise apply is not excluded from the
application of subsection (2) where the dividend is received as part of a series of
transactions or events in which
(a) a person or partnership
(1705)
I might as well stop. Do we know what a superficial loss is?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would like to join with
the House in thanking the member for that clarification.
Mr. Silye: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will be here for a year.
The Income Tax Act has become nothing more than a job
security program for tax accountants like my hon. colleague, tax
lawyers and the bureaucracy.
The Income Tax Act has lost its focus as a guideline for tax
collection and governments now rely on it to dictate social
policy. Recently I was at a Standing Committee on Finance
meeting listening to witnesses on Bill C-17 which deals with the
UIC program. The leader of the National Action Committee and
the leader of the provincial Conservative Party of New
Brunswick said that UIC and CAP are becoming more
co-mingled and they reject the merging of UI and social
assistance.
In fact, one witness described UIC as an expensive social
assistance program which for many is a mainstay of their annual
income. The end result is a bureaucratic nightmare that does
little to solve the problems that many people face. Look at the
problems that have been created in the area of child support
payments. The principles of taxation that are upheld within the
act are not responsive to the changes that have occurred in our
society.
By continually amending the act, governments have buried its
usefulness to the public in a bureaucratic quagmire. However
just because the Income Tax Act has lost touch with reality does
not mean that the government has to follow suit.
I would like to try once again to bring the Chevy government
up to speed on the reality of our current economic situation.
Government overspending is the number one problem facing the
country and can no longer be put on the back burner only to be
reheated at election time.
By adding $3 billion to current spending, by relying on the
national infrastructure program solely as a means to kick start
the economy, by gambling with low rate projections for interest
rates, the government has embarked on a very dangerous,
precarious and weak game plan for Canadians because all of the
above adds to our problems, the deficit and the debt.
Operating on borrowed money is nothing more than deferred
taxation. This Chevy government, like older model cars, has
remained as a big gas guzzler continuing the trend of spending
more money than it takes in.
As interest rates and payments go up, so too will the need for
new sources of revenue. Instead of spending cuts and living
within its means, the Liberal government is using the Income
Tax Act to subtly squeeze out extra dollars from small groups in
our society without alerting the majority of Canadians.
The Department of National Revenue recently used
unenforced rules. They were in the rules but it had not enforced
them for three to four years. The department revoked the
overseas tax credit which provides incentives for Canadian
industries to go after foreign contracts. Not only were they
eliminated, but it made the decision retroactive to 1993, 1992
and for 1991. This is not fair to the businesses.
We believe that the Income Tax Act should be simplified and
used solely as a means to collect necessary revenues to fund
government programs. Government can then decide the
programs that are to be legislated and do so outside the Income
Tax Act. Enough with the 2,400-plus page act. Let us move
toward a simplified tax system that serves a simple and single
purpose, to collect revenue. A Reform income tax system, a
party that has vision and some ideas for the future, would
implement a uniform rate to replace current graduated rates and
introduce simplicity, a one page return that is understood by all
taxpayers; equality, where people feel that everyone is treated
the same; visibility, no more need for tax loopholes and
incentives; effectiveness, because it would draw people back
from the underground economy.
(1710)
The system would tax people in proportion to their income,
family situation and ability to pay. There would be no longer a
need for a federal consumption tax. No GST. I know some
members opposite appreciate that philosophy because they have
expressed it in the Standing Committee on Finance. Those are
the bright Liberals.
Here is how it could work. This is a one page system. On one
side we have personal income and on the other side the
corporate. Both sides, personal and corporate, pay the same
relative share. That has a lot of merit. Personal tax and corporate
tax
4416
would be set at a rate of 15 per cent or 20 per cent once it is
determined how many dollars the federal government needs to
pay for social and economic programs and the cost of
maintaining this upscale size of government.
If we really need 44,000 people in the Department of National
Revenue and Taxation then we have to raise the money to pay for
it. The initial rate would be revenue neutral but it is expected
that with more people and corporations paying taxes, revenues
will be higher and we could apply this surplus directly to the
deficit and debt.
I ask members of all parties to examine the idea. I know I am
not the only one who believes that the income tax system can be
simplified and that a uniform system of tax can work far more
effectively than the current system. However, if we do not
believe in the one simple philosophy that nobody likes taxes,
and they always talk about a fair tax, but the only tax that is fair
is if everybody pays the same. That is a little encouragement, a
little inducement for the government to have the political will
when it is considering the replacement for the GST. It should
look at it and make sure it does not keep it complicated,
confusing or convoluted. The only way it can do that is to tax
everybody on everything the same and solve the problems that
creates in other ways.
Rather than making the Income Tax Act thicker with Bill
C-27, I urge the government to show some initiative, make the
changes that Canadians have demanded, scrap the Income Tax
Act altogether. Just get rid of it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Silye: You like the humour, I hear, over on the other side
of the House. It is the only way I can get attention around here.
A flat system of taxation will lead to a lower overall tax rate,
shared fairly by corporations and individuals, a simplified
system, and finally create an opening for government to
legislate social programs that are more in tune with the realities
facing Canadians.
I call on the Liberal government to make the major reforms
that are needed in government spending, taxation and the
bureaucracy. No more tinkering with legislation or nibbling at
the deficit. If this Chevy government fails to make necessary
reforms and respond to the changes that have occurred in this
great country then it will meet the same fate as the previous
government which, as we all know, was downsized from a big
Cadillac to an obsolete Pinto.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, please excuse my haste. I am not
known for that usually on these measures.
I believe there is unanimous consent in the House to proceed
to committee of the whole right now for consideration of clause
by clause study of this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1715 )
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by
unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr.
Kilger in the chair)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: House in committee of the
whole on Bill C-27, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the
Income Tax Application Rules, the Canada Pension Plan, the
Canada Business Corporations Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Unemployment Insurance Act and certain related acts.
On Clause 1:
[Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I think you will see that there is
unanimous consent to call all clauses of this bill as one group.
[English]
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: The House has heard the
secretary of state. Is it the wish of the House to adopt as one
group clauses 1 through 139?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clauses 1 to 139 inclusive agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported and concurred in.)
(1720 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be
read a third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Goodale (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the
bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, while we
allowed the bill to pass through the committee stage without real
debate I would like to echo the remarks of the previous speaker
on two points. Number one, we are dealing with some
amendments that were announced by press conference as far
back as December 1992. That was a year and a half ago and the
House has only be asked to deliberate these items today.
The Reform Party would like to see some improvements in the
way this government and this House are run. I think from now on
any time we find material being brought to this House for our
consent, 18 months after it has been introduced by press
conferences no less, we would take an entirely different point of
view.
This House has the privilege of passing legislation. As far as
the Income Tax Act is concerned, as we know, many people have
made decisions based on these proposals that we are being asked
to implement into law today. To go back and have that all
changed would make it almost an impossible situation for the
people of this country to try to figure out their taxes. Therefore
4417
let us put this government on notice now that this type of long
delay will not be tolerated from now on.
The other thing the previous speaker from the Reform Party
said concerned the complexity of this document. The Income
Tax Act is far too complex, far beyond the comprehension even
of many tax experts and lawyers, far less the average Canadian
on the street. When it comes to fairness in taxation not only
should a tax be reasonable in amount but also a taxpayer should
be able to understand on what basis he is being taxed.
The way this Income Tax Act has become over the years is far
beyond the comprehension of many Canadians as to how the
government levies taxation in this country. This government
would be well advised to simplify the Income Tax Act and take
that as an ongoing project. No doubt at the speed at which it is
introducing legislation in this new government it will take many
years. We will leave that for another debate on another day.
Another point I would like to mention is regarding the
taxation of life insurance companies. I understand that their
taxation may be a little different than others. One of the points
that was made was that insurance companies pay an appropriate
level of federal tax. I was a little taken back by the words
``appropriate level of federal tax''.
It seems this government and governments today have this
idea that everybody who makes a dollar has to share it with the
government, rather than the government saying it needs to
collect revenues to pay for the services it delivers to Canadians.
We have moved away from that. The fact is we are obligated to
share a larger and larger share and now it is almost a majority
share of what a person earns. It has to be taken by government in
this country. That whole attitude I think is indicative of one of
the reasons this country is in the financial mess it is today.
(1725 )
One of the items in the bill is the simplification of income tax
treatment of automobile operating costs. It took the government
a whole year before it could rewrite the rules regarding the
simplification of automobile costs. Even today under the new
rules to ask somebody to understand the simplified rules is
complex, except for one thing; namely, you can work on a very
simple rule provided you give more than what would be your
normal share to the government.
If you are driving a company car and you use that for a small
portion of your private travel, provided you pay taxes on half the
cost of that automobile, even if you only use it for 10 per cent or
20 per cent or 30 per cent of the time for private business, they
will let you take a simple 50 per cent of the cost and pay taxes on
that amount.
It puts the onus on the taxpayer to keep the detailed method,
otherwise he is being hosed by the government. This attitude
again is endemic and goes back, as I said, to the life insurance
company; pay your appropriate level of taxes, make sure you
share your profits with us, and as far as taxpayers using
automobiles is concerned, provided you pay more than what
you would otherwise do you can use a simple method of making
your calculation.
The whole system, the whole attitude toward payment of
taxes, the collection of taxes by the government I think has to
change.
These are the concerns that we have. As I say, 12 to 18 months
is far too long for legislation to be presented in this House.
Taxpayers are expected to know the Income Tax Act, which is
now beyond their comprehension. The other thing is that if you
take a look at the Income Tax Act as published, remember it does
not have many of these things that are being proposed today and
passed into legislation today. Many of these things pertain to
last year, 1993 tax returns. How is the taxpayer expected to
know really how he is supposed to prepare his tax return for
1993, which should have been filed by April 30, a month ago,
when we are only setting the rules today? That is the type of
situation that has to change.
I will close there and hope that this government will take these
points under advisement. Then we will not have to go through
this process of 18 months after the fact approving legislation.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
_____________________________________________
4417
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from May 24 consideration of the motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately take
the required measures to authorize the construction of a high-speed train (HST)
linking the cities of Windsor and Quebec City, as well as the necessary
infrastructure.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(
a), the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion of
Mr. Laurin respecting private members' business.
Call in the members.
(1750 )
[English]
Before the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: Order. This is the first time we have voted like
this and this is how we are going to do it.
4418
Following the adoption of the 24th report of the Standing
Committee on House Management on Wednesday, April 29,
1992, the division will be taken row by row, starting with the
mover, the hon. member for Joliette, and then proceeding with
those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the
House in the first row.
[Translation]
Once we have finished on this side, row by row, we will move
to the other side, proceeding row by row.
[English]
Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of
the House will be called. So all those on my left-
[Translation]
-and, Mr. Laurin, you will go first.
[English]
-but in the first row in favour of the motion will please rise.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 41)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Caccia
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Milliken
Ménard
Nunez
O'Reilly
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Péloquin
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-48
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Crawford
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Reed
Regan
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Solberg
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Zed-147
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Bhaduria
Charest
Collenette
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
Deshaies
Discepola
Guimond
Hickey
Hopkins
Jacob
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Ouellet
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rompkey
Terrana
Venne
Wayne
Wood
Young
4419
(1755 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
_____________________________________________
4419
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-28, an act respecting the making of loans and the provision of
other forms of financial assistance to students, to amend and
provide for the repeal of the Canada Student Loans Act, and to
amend one other act in consequence thereof, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the
motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-28.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 42)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Crawford
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Reed
Regan
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Solberg
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Zed-156
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Péloquin
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-46
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Bhaduria
Charest
Collenette
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
Deshaies
Discepola
Guimond
Hickey
Hopkins
Jacob
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Ouellet
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rompkey
Terrana
Venne
Wayne
Wood
Young
4420
(1805)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the
bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.10 p.m. the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4420
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from April 18, 1994, consideration of the
motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should permit Members of
the House of Commons to fully represent their constituents' views on the
government's legislative program and spending plans by adopting the position
that the defeat of any government measure, including a spending measure, shall
not automatically mean the defeat of the government unless followed by the
adoption of a formal motion.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to give the floor at this time to the hon. member for Beaver River
and, with your permission, speak after her.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I do
appreciate this chance to speak to Motion No. 89 and I also
appreciate my colleague's good will to let me get on to another
function as soon as I am done.
I would like to take this opportunity to lend my wholehearted
support to this private member's motion, Motion No. 89, put
forward by my friend and colleague from Mission-Coquitlam.
This whole thing deals with the idea of free votes and I would
like to preface my remarks by saying something that probably
all of us in this House know, and that is that Canadians are
seeking dynamic and constructive change in their political
institutions. Canadians are asking for political representatives
who will listen to them-it would be a marvellous change to
have political people listen rather than talk all the time-who
will consult with them, who will respond to them, and then will
come to Parliament and represent their views.
We in this 35th Parliament have the opportunity as well as the
responsibility to examine the concerns expressed by Canadians.
For example, we can determine the deficiencies in the way we do
business in this institution and then seek to improve the process
to bring about constructive change.
The exercise of freer voting through relaxation of the
confidence convention would be a great first step. Freer voting
would be a progressive and constructive change in the way we
do business in this institution. Freer voting would encourage
more consultation with constituents, thus strengthening the link
between the individual representatives and their electors. Freer
voting will allow ordinary members to demonstrate
independence of thought and give them greater influence in
committees and in the House.
Members' views, particularly on the government side, will be
given greater weight by cabinet and constituents will realize that
they too have a stronger voice.
Freer voting is only one of several sensible, pragmatic,
progressive parliamentary reforms that this House should adopt
to improve the quality of representative democracy in this
country. We will serve Canadians well if we adopt this motion
by my friend from Mission-Coquitlam during this Parliament.
It is easy to say we are changing the standing orders, we are
making all kinds of things different to make sure that members
are better heard, and yet we hear stories already about the
backbench blues from the government side, realizing that the
way the system is set up right now we are not able to have
backbenchers have real, solid, significant input to the whole
political process, that cabinet makes all those decisions.
Let us look at the historical perspective of it for a moment. I
have attempted to do some modest reading on the evolution of
parliamentary government in Canada to gain a better
understanding of why ordinary members, particularly on the
government side, have become so inconsequential in the
development of legislation and have become trapped in the iron
cage of party discipline.
I was delighted to find that in the British House of Commons
in the mid-19th century members acted in a highly
individualistic way. Private bills were common, legislation
introduced by cabinet members was often amended or defeated
without the fall of the government. It would be so refreshing in
this House to see that there was a vote taken and that cabinet
members perhaps voted against something, or backbenchers
voted against a cabinet member's legislation which would not
mean the defeat of the government; it would just mean the defeat
of that particular piece of legislation.
Our Parliament is fashioned after the British parliamentary
system and in the early days of our Parliament political parties
were relatively loose associations of like minded people and it
was not uncommon for members to vote against the party line.
Party leaders spent much time seeking support for proposed
legislation and there was continued dialogue between the party
leadership and the backbench members. A political career was
possible without the backing of a political party.
4421
(1815)
If you go ahead to the present from the past you see how
different things have become in this very Chamber. It is one
thing to talk about the political institutions in Canada and about
how things were way back then, but this is the same place we are
standing in today and we realize how important it is for MPs in
this day and age to be backed by a political party. It was not
always this way.
Political parties now have become the dominant actors in the
political process. They provide the identity for candidates, the
research and policy development process and they have the
ability to raise taxpayer supported funds, necessary in large
amounts today as we all know to fight an election campaign.
Once elected an MP cannot function effectively without the
support of a political party. Maybe there are things to be learned
and gained from the past.
This growth of political parties and their importance to
aspiring or elected politicians has enabled them, the parties, to
exercise strict discipline. Those who speak out against party
policy or vote against the party line are disciplined. Witness the
last Parliament, Mr. Speaker, in which you and I sat. At least
four members were publicly disciplined or expelled by their
parties.
How well I remember the whole situation in 1990 when a
couple of members crossed the floor. They had voted against the
GST, the government line, and were banished from the caucus
within 24 hours. I laugh always and say they were given the
worst fate possible from the government: They had to sit beside
the member for Beaver River in the very back row. How times
change.
The present situation is succinctly stated by C.E.S. Franks in
his excellent work entitled The Parliament of Canada, 1989
edition, page 110:
Disciplined parties are necessary for responsible government, but it is
difficult to escape the conclusion that discipline is excessive at present. A
terribly high price is paid both in terms of bringing Parliament into disrepute
and in terms of restricting the contribution individual members can make in
Parliament.
As I have come to know some of the members, certainly not
all of them, I am impressed with the amount of individual talent
and individual skill members possess in this House. It upsets me
that we are not able to utilize that to the fullest because of the
excessive party discipline.
During the last 30 years there have been all kinds of studies,
forums and committees on parliamentary reform. Many
recommendations have been implemented concerning the use of
Parliament's time, the timetable for business of the House,
standing orders, rules of debate, et cetera. Several of them have
discussed the confidence convention and the role of members.
Rather than just tinkering with the standing orders or talking
about generalities we should look at the most significant and
specific of these. That of course is the special committee on
reform. It was an all-party committee chaired by the Hon.
James McGrath which tabled its report in this house in 1985.
The McGrath report stated that if members are to exert
influence over policy making in committees or in the House
itself, they will have to be able to demonstrate independence of
thought. Again I say how refreshing that would be to see
independence of thought in this place where individual members
were able to have real input rather than for example, a
government backbencher being told: ``That's fine, thank you.
Cabinet will discuss it and make its decision''.
They argued in the McGrath report that the only thing which
stands in the way of the exercise of independence is the need for
a change in attitude on the part of government. It was not the
need for a change in fancy rules, the laws or the constitution of
country, but just a change in the attitude of party leaders and
private members.
This change in attitude would lead to a reduction in party
discipline. It would demonstrate that unquestioned obedience to
the party line is not the only route to advancement in the party.
Let me digress by saying that unquestioned obedience is
expected in a German Shepherd, not in a member of Parliament.
We need a change in attitude that would allow members to vote
as their constituents wish which at times is against the wishes of
the leadership without fear of reprimand or punishment.
The McGrath committee made other recommendations which
called for a change in attitude by the government and all
members in this House from all sides.
An important change was with respect to the election of the
Speaker. The committee recommended that the Speaker cease to
be appointed by the Prime Minister. Rather, he or she would be
elected by secret ballot of the members. All of us in this House
have experienced the positive change which was brought about.
The Prime Minister of the day, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney,
allowed that change to take place.
(1820)
In this the 35th Parliament, we had one of the most exciting
days of this entire parliamentary term when we saw the election
of the Speaker for this House in January. Changes are possible
and we are excited about that.
My colleague's resolution is of similar scope. Modest in
concept in what it proposes, it asks only for a change in attitude
from all members in this House, all backbenchers, opposition
parties, government, cabinet and the Prime Minister. A change
in the attitude to the confidence convention and a change in
4422
attitude to the independence of members are what we
desperately need now. It is not a large request.
Also relevant of course are the 1991 speech from the throne,
and the 1991 constitutional proposals in the booklet entitled
``Shaping Canada's Future Together'', which of course was the
map work, design and the beginning of the proposals for the
Charlottetown accord. They noted even though those proposals
were defeated soundly there were good things in them. They
noted that excessive party discipline and excessive partisanship
are factors which erode the public's confidence in their
representatives.
The House management committee in its report of April 1993
suggested there be some reform of party discipline and endorsed
the idea of freeing up voting in the House: ``With few
exceptions, motions proposed by the government should be
considered as motions of confidence only when clearly
identified as such by the government''.
The issues have been identified and discussed many times.
Solutions have also been identified and discussed. Let us in this
35th Parliament take some action. Let us move ahead and adopt
the motion in front of us.
Finally, let me say that even the Liberal red book which was
campaigned on in this past election talked about freeing up
votes. It is going to be just marvellous to see the government
support this motion. Hopefully it will not just be something in
the red book, but will be something which is transferred into this
green Chamber. The government and opposition parties will be
able to say: ``We sat in that 35th Parliament of Canada where we
made real substantive changes and reforms to the way politics
are done in this country. We saw real parliamentary and
democratic reform actually happening''. We look forward to
that and we appreciate the government's support on this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this debate on the motion standing before
us which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should permit Members of
the House of Commons to fully represent their constituents' views on the
government's legislative program and spending plans by adopting the position
that the defeat of any government measure, including a spending measure, shall
not automatically mean the defeat of the government unless followed by the
adoption of a formal motion.
Mr. Speaker, the votable motion of the hon. member for
Mission-Coquitlam suggests that members will be called upon
to speak on the matter of confidence and thence, on the question
of free votes.
Moreover, I already rose to speak on the matter in conjunction
with the debate on free votes and in keeping with what I said, I
would like to make two observations at the outset. When I read
the text, two things caught my attention and left me with some
serious doubts as to the relevance of this motion.
The motion starts off by saying that the government should
permit Members of the House to fully represent their
constituents' views. One has to wonder why a member would
not now be representing the interests of his constituents. What
the motion is really saying is that a member who does not vote
according to the party line is not representing the interests of his
constituents.
If we follow this logic, we can only conclude, first, that the
election platforms of political parties do not have universal
support and, second, that constituent views vary from one riding
to the next.
This view of political reality is absurd and purely fictional.
Let us not forget that political party platforms are aimed at
getting as many voters as possible to embrace the same ideology
and to share the same social, economic and political vision of
community organization, be it municipal or regional.
(1825)
It should also be noted that this perception of reality negates
regional realities. For example, the electorate who voted for the
Bloc Quebecois represents a regional entity that shares a certain
geopolitical vision of that part of North America known as
Quebec. How can a reality such as this be denied?
The second part of the motion deals with the principle of
confidence which underlies our parliamentary system and the
concept of responsible government. In accordance with this
principle, the party forming the majority in the House of
Commons must be able to demonstrate that it enjoys the support
of the majority of the members in the House.
In a majority government situation, this is seldom a problem,
except when the majority is very slim. In a Parliament with a
government in command of a majority, the matter of confidence
has really been settled by the electorate. Consider the last
election. The province of Ontario enabled the Liberal Party of
Canada to capture an overwhelming majority of seats in the
House. Which means that the government party is strongly
represented in this province.
Why then should the scope of this principle be weakened, as
the motion seems to want to do, if in a parliamentary system, the
matter of confidence has only a minimal effect on the way in
which House business is conducted? In view of these facts, the
Bloc Quebecois has some difficulty understanding the relevance
of such a motion and supporting it.
Before touching more specifically on the Bloc's position with
respect to Motion No. 89, I would like to draw the House's
attention to a very timely observation made by the Standing
4423
Committee on House Management which appeared in the
committee's April 1993 report on parliamentary reform.
The report stated the following, and I quote: ``Each party has
to make its own decisions as to whether and when free votes are
to be allowed-it is not up to the House, or to other parties.
There is no single definition of what constitutes a `free vote':
one can see it in terms of a Member's conscience, a Member's
role in reflecting majority opinion in his or her riding, whether
the Member's party caucus has taken a position or decision on
the issue or not''.
No, there is no single definition of what a free vote is and we
cannot really have such a thing in the House of Commons. The
political environment is changing and is never really the same
from one election to the next. How could we have such a rule for
a Canada which is so divided, where the very existence of a
single nation is challenged by at least a fifth of the population?
Under these circumstances, again, it is hard for us to support this
motion.
We have said many times that the Bloc Quebecois has no
mandate at all from its constituents to reform federal
institutions; its mandate is to defend Quebec's interests in the
House of Commons according to parliamentary rules and
traditions. We do not believe that having free votes in the House
could be in Quebecers' interest, since we think that it could
diminish the opposition's ability to call the government to
account.
Nevertheless, members of the Bloc Quebecois are fully aware
of the value for democracy of having the citizens'
representatives vote freely in the nation's legislative assembly.
If anything gives backbenchers their freedom, it is free votes.
Less party discipline is undoubtedly an effective way to
increase a backbencher's autonomy. Having members vote
freely in the House on a daily basis would necessarily involve a
redistribution of political power in Canada and Quebec.
Of course, we consider free votes for members of the House of
Commons to be utopian and in the present Canadian context, we
have trouble imagining a situation where all members could
express their own political vision of their society, without any
search for consensus or any reflection of regional reality.
Nevertheless, let me say in closing that the election results of
last October 25 are in a way the expression of a free vote by
some two million Quebecers who, by electing 54 representatives
from the Bloc Quebecois, stated their dissatisfaction with the
old parties. We know that these voters have had it with the
Canada-wide politics of the Liberal and Conservative parties
and gave the Bloc Quebecois a mandate to achieve sovereignty
for Quebec.
(1830)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to participate
in this debate on Motion M-89, which reads as follows:
``That-the government should permit Members of the House of
Commons-''
I have a question to ask right away. We just had a vote in this
House 15 minutes ago. The Reform Party voted as a group, as
did the Bloc Quebecois. Which party had a free vote? It was the
government and not the opposition. So the motion should be
rephrased and say instead that the opposition should allow free
votes. The government has already done so. The government
made that promise in the last election campaign, and delivered
on it in this House no more than 15 or 20 minutes ago.
Mr. Bonin: Another promise kept!
Mr. Boudria: Another promise kept, as my hon. colleague
from Nickel Belt so eloquently said.
There is another problem. The motion goes on to say:
-including a spending measure, shall not automatically mean the defeat of the
government unless followed by the adoption of a formal motion.
I am sorry to disappoint those who tabled the motion but we
have already made this change to our rules. It did not happen
yesterday but on December 20, 1984. I realize that the Reform
Party is a little behind sometimes. Nevertheless, the date was
December 20, 1984, and this is what Beauchesne, sixth edition,
page 49, has to say on this:
[English]
The determination of issue of confidence in the government is not a question
of procedure or order, and does not involve the interpretive responsibilities of
the Speaker. Following the recommendations of the Special Committee on
Standing Orders and Procedure, as well as those of the Special Committee on the
Reform of the House of Commons (December 20, 1984), the House removed
references in the Standing Orders which described votable motions on allotted
days as questions of confidence.
I would suggest this has existed informally from time
immemorial, with the exception of opposition day motions and
even in the case of opposition day motions since December 20,
1984.
[Translation]
The members opposite know full well, I am sure, that the
defeat of any bill does not automatically mean the defeat of the
government. It is the motion of non-confidence and not the bill
itself which has that effect; the rules are clear on this. So if the
rules do not provide for such an automatic outcome, I am telling
you that, in fact, the government or even the House already
permits the kind of initiative proposed by the hon. member.
4424
[English]
This is already permitted. There is no need to permit it; it is
already there. Maybe we should say that we should continue to
permit it. Would that not be a great idea? Why do we not say
that?
Before I conclude I want to bring another proposition to the
attention of members of the House about having everything a
free vote, if that is what some people are thinking. We must
remember the history of this great country in that regard.
[Translation]
I see the hon. member for Bellechasse who is very
knowledgeable about Canadian history. I am sure he knows that
the 1837 rebellion in Upper Canada and Lower Canada was
largely motivated by a desire for responsible government. What
that means? It means that a government is defeated when it loses
the confidence of the House. Our ancestors fought for this
because it was the ultimate test of democracy when a
government fell if it no longer had the confidence of the House.
That was in 1837. Ironically, the British government had offered
to give us responsible government at the time, but here in
Canada we did not want it. It took until about 1848 for us to have
what could be called responsible government in Canada. After
1837, there was the Durham report, and then it took until 1848.
(1835 )
[English]
It is interesting that notwithstanding everything we have said
before today I hear members across saying that responsible
government with a capital r as we know it in this country seems
to be something of the past. I do not believe so.
I believe the Prime Minister and his cabinet are there as
ministers only so long as I and my colleagues around here allow
them to remain the government of the country. Surely if there is
any test of how democratic a country can be, that is it. All
members of the House could one day withdraw confidence in the
government and the government would cease to govern that very
day.
Let it never be said that backbenchers do not have power. That
is not so. That has never been so, but let us not make this system
into some sort of an institution where all of us will become
political eunuchs. That would be wrong.
Nevertheless, to conclude, I repeat that some things the
member is asking, particularly to the effect that spending
measures in a bill shall not automatically mean the defeat of
government, is not the case now. It is permitted and we should
continue to permit it. That being said, I move the following
motion:
That the motion be amended by inserting between the word ``should'' and the
word ``permit'' the words ``continue to''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The amendment is
deemed acceptable.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, I speak today
in wholehearted support of the motion put forward by the
member for Mission-Coquitlam.
The motion expresses the importance of having fewer votes in
the House of Commons considered to be votes of confidence.
This would ensure that the defeat of a government motion would
not bring down the government, unless a separate vote of
non-confidence was passed immediately following the initial
vote.
(1840)
It is important to make the distinction between free votes and
freer votes. Presently free votes occur when party leaders
release their MPs from the party line and grant them permission
to vote according to their conscience or their better judgment.
However this may not necessarily be a vote for the majority of
the constituents.
Freer votes would mean having fewer non-confidence votes.
This would enable members to vote when necessary against
their party but for the majority of their constituents without
suffering the negative consequences of party discipline.
In order to illustrate my support for the motion the following
three questions must be answered. What is the problem with the
system now? What changes are needed? How would these
changes make Parliament operate better. The problem lies with
the succession of Canadian governments which have taken the
convention of confidence motions too far, beyond other British
parliamentary democracies.
Legally and constitutionally members of Parliament have the
right to vote freely in the House now. However the minority
governments of the 1960s had to enforce tough party discipline
because voting against the party often led to or at least
threatened defeat of the government. Members towing the party
line could count on favoured status within the party. Given these
two factors there was very little incentive for government
backbenchers to vote with the majority of their constituents and
against the government position.
This move to a system of top down democracy has
marginalized the role of backbench MPs. As a result individual
members of Parliament have been denied input into the direction
and legislation brought forth by their government.
During the 1972 to 1974 Trudeau minority government the
interpretation of a confidence vote was loosened considerably.
Trudeau declared that the defeat of a government motion would
not mean the defeat of the government. As a result he was able to
remain in power despite defeat of government motions, marking
a return to the more historic interpretation of the confidence
convention. Despite this, however, Trudeau maintained iron--
4425
fist control over members of his party to ensure they voted the
party line.
With subsequent governments we have now arrived at an
interpretation of the confidence convention in which virtually
all votes are considered to be votes of confidence. Therefore
changes will be needed in the House in order to make the motion
we are proposing today work.
The tradition of tough party discipline can only be reversed
with the co-operation of members of all parties. A giant step
forward can be made, however, if the Prime Minister were to rise
in the House and state that the defeat of a government bill or
motion would not automatically defeat the government and,
unlike Trudeau, relax party discipline. If this happened we
would be well on our way to bringing about this change.
The leaders of the opposition parties must also play a part in
loosening the stranglehold of party discipline. A change in
attitude is needed to move away from the opposition mentality
of automatically opposing everything put forward by the
government.
As Reformers we have worked toward providing constructive
alternatives whenever possible. This is reflected clearly in the
process a Reform MP goes through in determining how to vote
on a particular issue.
First, Reformers believe it is the responsibility of each
member of Parliament to vote the wishes of the majority of his
or her constituents in all cases. How does an MP know what the
wishes of the majority are? On important moral issues such as
abortion, capital punishment and physician assisted suicide, the
issue should be settled by referendum held at the same time as a
federal election. Direct democracy is used to determine the
wishes of the majority and policy should reflect this.
Because present and past governments have refused to
institute referenda as a right on moral issues and on issues
presented through citizens' initiatives, Reform MPs go to their
constituents through constituency surveys and vote based on the
majority view. This is how Reformers will vote in the House on
the physician assisted suicide issue, for example.
On certain other well developed policy issues which were
presented and debated during the election campaign, MPs will
assume that a mandate was given at election time and is valid
unless there are indications to the contrary. On other issues
which were not campaigned on and in areas where there is not
well developed policy, the view of constituents can be verified
in different but appropriate ways. When specific issues require
an immediate response, like the cigarette tax proposals
presented by the government, an MP can solicit feedback from
the constituents through a telephone survey. Broader issues of
national importance, for example the GST, require more formal
mechanisms to determine the wishes of constituents.
(1845)
When various bills and motions come before the House which
are not moral issues or when there is not sufficient time to make
a survey of constituents, Reformers measure the pros and cons
of the proposed bill or motion by asking themselves how it fits in
with the party platform and principles. We ask ourselves the
following questions as well. How much does it cost? Is it
needed? Can we do it for less? The answers to all of these
questions determine how we will vote on a given issue.
MPs will vote in the House of Commons based on the outcome
of the caucus vote unless they have determined by the
appropriate mechanism that their constituents want them to vote
otherwise. In such a case the majority wishes of the constituents
always prevail.
On issues such as reducing government spending, justice
reform and making the political system more democratic there
will usually be party solidarity. On other issues opinions may
vary and a split Reform vote will occur in the House. This
process certainly helped to overcome some of the problems
caused by the current over zealous interpretation of the
confidence convention, but not all of them.
The motion we are debating today would help change the
current mindset that enforces toeing the party line because the
incentive of forming a new government as a result of a defeated
government bill or motion would no longer exist.
Once the House is rid of this burden it would enable each
member of Parliament to freely voice the views of their
constituents without fear of party discipline if they contradict
the party line.
I believe this will foster more meaningful debate. It will lead
to more informed decisions which genuinely reflect the views of
the majority of Canadians and ultimately result in better
legislation.
Therefore, when members of another party vote against their
party line it should be applauded as a sign of strength rather than
viewed as a sign of party weakness or a weak link in the party.
Canadians have become truly disillusioned with government
because members of Parliament often vote the party line against
the majority view of their constituents.
I realize that when Canadians vote for an individual they are
also supporting some of the platform the individual and the
party ran on during the election campaign. However, it is
unrealistic to believe that any one party, even the Reform Party,
can accurately reflect the opinions of a majority of people on all
issues.
My question is this. Why should members of Parliament be
penalized for representing their constituents? The answer is they
should not. MPs no longer will be penalized through party
4426
discipline and trust in government will be restored if this motion
is accepted.
In closing there are two questions all members of Parliament
might ask themselves. First, what negative consequences could
result from backing this Reform motion which would improve
the role of individual members and therefore the government as
a whole? The answer: none, no negative consequences.
Second, what negative consequences will result if members
do not support this motion? Representation will not improve.
Maybe there will be no immediate backlash from constituents
but as voters see their wishes betrayed again and again over the
next four years because members are obliged to toe the party
line, the answer will be very clear and it will come in the next
election. I believe it will be the same answer the Conservatives
received during the last election. Think about it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I speak
today in support of the motion introduced by my colleague from
Mission-Coquitlam. I believe members ought to consider three
propositions relating to the measures she has placed before the
House: first, that freer votes are needed; second, that freer votes
are coming; and third, that freer votes should be welcomed.
(1850)
I suggest freer votes together with relaxation of the
confidence convention will allow members of Parliament to
truly fulfil their responsibility to represent the interests of their
constituents in Parliament.
The strength of our party system is of the utmost importance.
That is to say party members must act as a team. They must be
able to stand united behind a clearly articulated action plan.
Parties must be a source of inspiration. They must ensure that
MPs do not vote arbitrarily or irresponsibly. That is why we
must present them with measures which would enable them to
move the system toward a more direct democracy. Indeed in a
representative democracy the paramount responsibility of
elected members is surely to truly represent not only the party's
interests but also those of their constituents.
This is the first of two reasons why I believe freer votes are
needed. Put in its simplest terms democracy means rule by the
people, not rule by a Prime Minister, not rule by a Prime
Minister and cabinet, not rule by elected members belonging to
a government party, not even rule by all 295 MPs, but rule by the
people.
Regrettably in Canada few would argue that democracy in the
full sense of government by the people does not exist. As
Professor Mortimore has written, there is only a crude veto
power at election time. In the absence of a system that translates
informed public opinion into policy decisions, manipulative
insiders will continue to make policy and govern.
I believe that democracy is not a fixed imperishable, but a
dynamic that must be reinvigorated as old conventions grow
increasingly unable to meet the needs of a changing society.
A true commitment to preserve and protect the essence of our
democratic system, to ensure that we enjoy the reality, not just
have the label of living in a democracy, is why we must now
move toward mechanisms like freer votes which will more truly
empower a better informed and technologically advanced
public.
In addition to our obligation as leaders and elected
representatives to preserve and promote truly democratic
government there is a second reason why measures like freer
votes are needed. The system must change because it has largely
lost the trust, respect and support of the people it must serve.
One need look no further than the results of the last election to
gauge the anger at the system that prevails in Canada today. It
would be a mistake to assume that by changing the players in
this institution the Canadian electorate has exhausted its
political discontent. The 1993 election was a symptom of the
disease, not the cure.
Unless we ensure that national decision-making is more truly
reflective of the judgment of Canadians they will continue to
express their disdain for the decision-making system and for
their representatives with all the resulting negative
consequences for our society.
I sincerely believe that only reforms to the system will make it
possible for Canadians to develop new confidence in the way
they are governed. That is why I believe freer votes are needed
as a small and necessary step in the process of reform. I also
believe that free votes are coming.
I am a member of a party which is advocating more open and
accountable government, subject to checks and balances
controlled by the people themselves. The implementation of
direct democracy measures such as recall, referendums and
citizens' initiatives and freer votes is a key element of the
Reform Party program.
(1855 )
This is a party that in six short years has already won enough
support from the public to elect 52 members to represent the
people of Canada in the House of Commons. However, we
should be clear that Reformers have not created some sudden
demand for direct democracy. Rather we are here because the
demand existed but no traditional political vehicle was willing
or able to respond to it.
The demand has been intense enough to energize Canadian
citizens like me to devote the enormous amount of time and
effort necessary to inject an entirely new dynamic into the
4427
political equation. Neither the demand nor the determination to
meet it is going to go away.
In addition, changes are occurring in our society which make
democratic reforms imperative and inescapable. Citizens are
focusing increasingly on their rights and demanding that those
rights be met.
In the marketplace now the consumer is boss. Canadians are
well educated, well travelled and well informed. They recognize
the increasing degree to which policy decisions do not enjoy any
broad public support. They comprehend the waste and
mismanagement in the administration of the country's economic
affairs and the burden of the huge mortgage that has been placed
on our future. They are saying: ``If anyone were listening to us
such poor decisions would never be made. Perhaps it is time we
got to make some of these decisions''. They are saying these
things louder and more insistently all the time.
Dr. David Elton of the Canada West Foundation has stated that
we can fight this move toward direct democracy until it sweeps
us aside or we can work to facilitate it through a thoughtful and
well managed process. But one way or another, measures like
freer votes are coming. It is up to us to ensure that this
irresistible force does not meet immovable MPs because we
have already seen that immovable MPs can and will be removed.
It is only fair to point out that the present Prime Minister has
shown absolutely no sympathy or understanding for this clear
desire on the part of Canadians to move toward direct
democracy. He says he finds the notion of referendums
repulsive. When presented with a petition signed by tens of
thousands of voters demanding the right to recall a
representative who has lost their confidence he says: ``You will
get your chance in four years and not before''. He says MPs
should vote as directed by the party they ran as part of and vote
as directed by their own judgment. Freedom to vote the wishes
of the constituents who elected an MP to represent them in
Parliament does not make his list.
In fact the government House leader, in proposing changes to
the rules of the House of Commons on February 7 explicitly
excluded any mention of free votes, stating that the subject
cannot be dealt with by the rules. He then spent considerable
time denying the legitimacy of free votes in Canada's
parliamentary system, including reference to our constitutional
legacy from the United Kingdom. What he failed to mention is
that the United Kingdom's Parliament has enjoyed free votes for
over 20 years now. He does not explain why this legacy has been
ignored in our Canadian Parliament.
I would like to conclude on a positive note with my third
proposition that free votes should be welcomed. Canadians, a
tolerant and forbearing people by nature, remain willing to
allow their representatives a good measure of latitude in the
exercise of their own judgment and in support for the program a
representative's party took to the voters.
Surely it is not too much to ask that when the member's own
judgment or party agenda clearly and demonstrably diverges
from the broad public consensus in the riding he or she
represents that it is the constituents' interests which will carry
the day. If we cannot countenance democracy even to that
degree, if the views and conscience of one representative must
always be able to override the interest and conscience of the
thousands of electors he or she represents, then we ought to be
honest, admit that we have abandoned the notion of being a
democratic nation where the people rule and accept that we have
instead an elected dictatorship.
(1900 )
Members of this House are glad to live in a democracy. We
value and affirm our right as citizens in this democracy to make
decisions for ourselves regarding our future and the laws within
which we will conduct ourselves.
We recognize that such freedom is meaningless unless we, the
elected representatives of Canadian citizens, stand ready,
willing and able to give effect to their rights of
self-determination by giving effect to their wishes when we
vote on their behalf.
We continue to abrogate the democratic rights of our fellow
citizens when we refuse to truly represent them for personal,
partisan or political reasons. My colleague from
Mission-Coquitlam has provided in her motion a very concrete
measure by which we can allow our fellow citizens their
legitimate role in a 21st century democracy.
It is a measure long since adopted in other respected
democracies including our role model of the United Kingdom.
Only we as members of this House of Commons, this house of
the people, can be agents of needed change. Will we have the
courage and commitment to be leaders our constituents can
count on to put their interests ahead of our party when it comes
down to a choice?
They voted for us. Will we vote for them? I urge members to
support this motion.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker,
today I rise in the House to speak in favour of Motion No. 89. I
would like to thank the member for Mission-Coquitlam for
bringing this motion to the attention of the House.
This motion goes to the very root of many of the fundamental
problems with the Canadian political system. The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should permit members of
the House of Commons to fully represent their constituents' views on the
government's legislative program-
4428
That is part of what the motion states. I believe this to be
a very important component in relation to parliamentary
reforms. There are many approaches that one can take in
discussing the full motion. I would like to perhaps focus on
what the passage of this motion would mean to MPs who are
not in government positions or shadow cabinet positions but
relegated backbenchers and what it actually means to them to
not be able to participate in government decisions or shadow
cabinet decisions, et cetera.
In other words, I am actually trying to explain to the Liberal
MPs who find themselves in the backbench row why it is in their
best interest to support this motion. One thing this motion would
do is give individual members more authority and more
responsibility.
The agenda of a government would not simply be written by
the cabinet ministers and the top bureaucrats. If this motion
were passed, cabinet would have to consult and listen to
comments from backbencher MPs when drafting legislation.
For example, when the 1994 budget was drafted, who actually
put it together? Were all the members of the Liberal Party which
is the governing party sought out for advice on what they would
like to see in the budget or was the budget put together by the
finance minister and by the people of the finance department?
The basic problem here is that the government which drafts
the legislation and sets the agenda is the ministers. Essentially
the cabinet is the government. Members of the party that is in
power which forms the government are almost in the same
position as those in opposition except that they have fewer
avenues to express their concerns or voice their opinions.
(1905 )
Many government party MPs are unfairly relegated to
obscurity because they are not in a cabinet position. They do not
have as much opportunity as opposition MPs to ask questions
during Question Period; there is a greater number of them so
they have less opportunity to give speeches or to be noticed for
their efforts. It must be frustrating for the government party
MPs to be so restricted in what they can actually do to reflect a
positive change on government. This is something that should
be changed.
Working on committees with members from other parties has
shown me that there people in all parties with much to contribute
to this country. Innovative ideas, thoughtful solutions are not
solely possessed by any party in this House. By opening up the
process to all members we add much more in terms of ideas,
proposals and solutions.
Instead of the government simply counting on unquestionable
support of all government party MPs, leaders would have to deal
with issues and problems in such a way as to achieve consensus.
The second positive aspect I want to address is that this
legislation would enable members to be more responsive to their
constituents and to the regions where the need arises. There are
certain issues that cut across party lines and form instead along
regional or provincial lines; for example, agricultural fishery
issues.
The system of voting along party lines has produced the
extreme partisanship that currently exists in Canadian politics. I
believe this partisanship to be largely negative. It creates a
situation in which the opposition must vigorously oppose
everything the government does or it is seen as not doing its job.
That is not why I entered politics, nor is it why the Reform
Party came to town. We believe that reformers came to Ottawa
intent on improving the atmosphere and the workings of
Parliament. We came here intending not to partake in partisan
bickering but to provide a constructive alternative to the
government.
By trying to follow this strategy we have been roundly
criticized, especially by the media. Most comments I read in the
media seem to think that Reform provides no opposition at all.
Our lack of opposition is seen because we are not screaming,
yelling and pounding on desks.
Certainly there exists a fundamental difference in political
philosophies between the Liberals, Reformers and all parties
and we must be aware of that. That philosophical difference
should not prevent us all from working together and putting our
ideas out in the House, or even forming non-partisan coalitions
to effect some positive change.
The more we involve individual MPs in the democratic
process, the more the people of Canada will become involved in
the process. The people of Canada understand that their political
power is essentially limited to a vote every four to five years.
They understand that the party with the majority of seats forms
the government which then has up to five years to implement an
agenda. This results in making people apathetic and cynical
about the happenings of governments between elections.
If the election of 1993 showed us anything it was that the
people of Canada desperately want their public representatives
to represent their concerns rather than simply tow party lines.
I understand that political parties are essential components of
our political system and I also understand that we are national
politicians who must have a national perspective, but our main
focus as representatives must always be the people who sent us
here, the people of our ridings. If we do not represent their
wishes, why do we call ourselves a representative democracy?
I urge all members of this House to put aside their
partisanship when regarding this bill and look at it in terms of its
attempt to enable individual members of all parties to be more
effective in representing their constituents. Let us demonstrate
to the Canadian people that we have learned from the lesson of
1993 and respond to their call for a more open and responsive
Parliament.
4429
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3), the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
[Translation]
It being 7.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m.
tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.10 p.m.)