CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 3, 1995
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 12105
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 12106
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 12108
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12109
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12109
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12109
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12110
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12110
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12110
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12111
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12111
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12112
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 12114
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 12114
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12119
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12119
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12119
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12119
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 12120
Bill C-43. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 12121
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 12143
12105
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 3, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I want to pay homage to a great Canadian who became a
Nobel Laureate in 1993 and who will be awarded the Order of
Canada today.
Professor Michael Smith resides in Vancouver East and
teaches biochemistry at the University of British Columbia.
Professor Smith has an outstanding career of academic and
humanitarian achievements. He received his Nobel prize for
work dating back to 1976 centring on a program he developed
for reprogramming genes.
[Translation]
Professor Smith gave the half a million dollars in prize money
to many causes. He gave $126,000 to the Société des femmes
canadiennes en sciences et technologie; he has pledged the rest
of it to schizophrenia research and to assisting people who teach
in remote regions of British Columbia.
Professor Michael Smith's generosity and competence know
no bounds.
[English]
It is people like Professor Michael Smith who make us all
proud of being Canadian. It is on behalf of Canadians
everywhere that I want to thank and congratulate Professor
Smith for his achievements and generosity.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
proud when the Secretary of State for Veterans Affairs visited
Peterborough riding. He visited the RCAF Association, the
Navy Club, Empress Gardens and a number of other locations.
He met with ex-servicemen and women from legions
throughout the city and county of Peterborough and with
members of the Dutch Canadian community.
This visit was part of ongoing activities in connection with the
Canada Remembers year during which we take time to
remember the sacrifices and achievements of the last year of
World War II 50 years ago.
It is fortunate that this important anniversary is being
recognized this year. We need to remember Canada now as never
before. We should all take time to think about this great country,
about our history and our future, about our land and about our
people.
I thank the Peterborough Canada Remembers committee and I
urge the secretary of state to continue his vigorous efforts to
encourage us all to be proud of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once
again, taxpayers' money is going up in smoke. The federal
government has chosen the Italian Alps as the site of an
international conference on tobacco farming in third world
countries. Yes, you heard me right, the Italian Alps.
Canadian taxpayers will pay the expenses of not only six
federal representatives, but also 20 experts from various
countries. How can the Government of Canada justify such an
expenditure in the present context of austerity?
Once again, the federal government's total lack of common
sense in the way it manages the public purse has surfaced. While
the federal government's reforms are wreaking havoc on the
most needy, it is spending taxpayers' money like there is no
tomorrow.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
hundreds of law-abiding citizens in Yellowhead are attending
firearms legislation meetings across the riding.
The message they are trying to get through to this ivory tower,
out of touch government is this: They do not see how gun control
will prevent criminals from committing crimes; they do not like
the fact that this legislation will give the federal cabinet
12106
unprecedented search and seizure powers; and they do not like
the fact that their right to bequeath or inherit property is being
trampled on by Bill C-68.
Already over 800 people have attended four gun control
meetings in my riding with more meetings to come. Not one
person has spoken in favour of Bill C-68. The majority of the
people of Yellowhead want the standing committee on justice to
make changes to the gun control bill so it seeks to punish the
criminal instead of making criminals out of law-abiding gun
owners.
My constituents want the justice system to work for them, not
against them. Common sense must prevail.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the people
of Beauce are living a nightmarish week in the wake of a
horrible and incomprehensible tragedy. A disturbed father
killed his daughter and Sainte-Marie de Beauce's chief of police
before killing himself. The people of Beauce, who always stand
by each other, have extended their support and compassion to
the families directly affected.
In this ever-changing world, which causes some people to
become despondent and perturbed, we all hold great power, the
power to choose: choosing to love instead of hating; choosing to
heal others instead of hurting them; choosing to create instead of
destroying.
In Sainte-Marie de Beauce, after the initial shock and
consternation, the time for consoling and forgiveness has come.
One of the things we can learn from this tragedy and the many
others preceding it is that we must review the way we control
guns and bring in measures to manage them wisely.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to have this opportunity to stress the importance of
a national organization that is actively involved in providing
opportunities for education for women in minority language
communities.
The Réseau national d'action éducation femmes has for many
years been involved in promoting and improving the education
of francophone women.
Its role also includes making the public aware of the specific
needs of francophone women in minority language
communities, seeking out teaching tools, providing literacy
training, promoting recognition of vested rights and doing
research on employment equity.
I would also like to draw your attention to activities that are
being prepared for next fall. The Réseau national d'action
éducation femmes is gearing up for a national francophone
women's education week.
I would urge hon. members to show their support for this
outstanding initiative and to help make it a success. We all have
a stake in education.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last Saturday on behalf of the Government of
Canada, I proclaimed the month of May in Nova Scotia as
Motorcycle Awareness Month. It is a time to raise the awareness
of all motorists to the presence of the two wheeled vehicles that
share the road. It is a time to promote education and safety
among bike enthusiasts.
Since the end of World War II, motorcycles have increased in
popularity, especially among the Canadian and American
veterans who used them overseas. They were the ones who
formed the first bike club as a means of recreation and
fellowship in community service.
A motorcycle ride can be one of the most exhilarating
experiences as I found out last Saturday when I was a passenger
on a ride through Truro following the blessing of the bikes.
I congratulate the members of the organization, the
Responsible Bikers of Nova Scotia, who have not had an
accident or a death since their founding.
I urge all members of this House to participate in similar
education programs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Commissioner of Official Languages made a surprising
statement last week when he maintained that Quebec violated
the Official Languages Act by failing to offer courses in English
to immigrants through its Centres d'orientation et de formation
des immigrants.
(1405)
Yesterday, when he appeared before the joint committee on
official languages, the commissioner admitted his mistake. He
had no jurisdiction in this case and agreed that Quebec's
immigration policies did not in any way violate the Official
Languages Act.
The commissioner should concentrate on telling federally
regulated corporations to get their act together, including
regional carriers affiliated with Air Canada and the Canada Post
Corporation.
12107
The commissioner should also put more pressure on
provincial governments that continue to deprive their
francophone residents of the educational facilities to which they
are entitled.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
immediately following the disaster of the Oklahoma bombing,
the U.S. attorney general pledged she would seek the death
penalty for those responsible. This demonstrates that country's
intolerance for violent crime, something that is greatly lacking
in our own country. Here a bleeding heart mentality has reigned
for years.
In Canada last week, one of our police chiefs was shot to
death. Did the Minister of Justice display the same outrage as his
American counterpart to this senseless act of violence? Did the
minister express the growing outrage of Canadians, including
our police officers, who have repeatedly called for a return of
capital punishment in this country? No.
Our justice minister's only response to this latest act of
violence is to offer Canadians costly and useless gun
registration. That is what this minister calls getting behind our
police forces.
Criminals will not be deterred by the registration of firearms.
They will not be stopped until we have a justice minister with
sufficient backbone to take a strong stand against this senseless
kind of violence.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
government and the previous government offered deregulation
and competitiveness as the only answers to globalization. Yet
the very price of deregulation is making competitiveness almost
impossible for global traders like western Canadian farmers.
This government has removed the cost guarantees that went
with the Crow benefit and is promising to remove the price
ceilings on freight rates by 1999.
Control over farm costs has virtually disappeared. Fertilizer
and fuel prices have taken huge unwarranted price jumps lately.
Fertilizer costs are up 20 per cent or more over last year. Big fuel
price increases are well documented all across the country.
Combined with freight cost increases of 100 per cent, how can
the grains industry, which has been struggling already, continue
to be competitive?
Deregulation theory promised to cut costs, not raise them.
Was it all a big lie?
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again, total confusion prevails in the separatist camp. The
Quebec Premier has made more contradictory statements.
Last March, he told us that, since September, 58,000 jobs, or
78 per cent of all new jobs in Canada, had been created in
Quebec. However, on May Day, he boasted about the 43,000 new
jobs created in Quebec since September, a number equal to half
of all jobs created in Canada.
Either Mr. Parizeau does not know how to count or else he is
very proud to tell us that Quebec has lost 15,000 jobs in less than
two months. What good news for the 800,000 welfare recipients
in Montreal and elsewhere.
No wonder the Bloc Quebecois and the PQ are once again
looking for a scapegoat in Ottawa.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Earth Day 1995 has passed. However the Sacred Heart
graduating students of the environment and economic class have
left a lasting legacy to the community of Newmarket, Ontario. I
was pleased to attend the opening of the environmental tour of
Fairy Lake.
The students enthusiastically worked on this class project to
inventory and identify the natural and historical elements of the
parkland surrounding Fairy Lake. They have also prepared a
pamphlet and tour kit as well as a colouring book for children. In
order to complete this project the students had to solicit support
from the town of Newmarket and local businesses.
(1410 )
These enterprising students have now made it possible for
individuals and families to enjoy and learn more about the
natural and historical environment surrounding Fairy Lake.
Community involvement has always been a priority for the
students of Sacred Heart. I would like to congratulate them on
their efforts and wish them luck in their future endeavours.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, May 8 to 14 is National Nursing Week in Canada. As a
former registered nursing assistant, I am delighted to have this
12108
opportunity to salute my former colleagues in
Lambton-Middlesex and throughout Canada.
For this year's National Nursing Week, Canada's 253,000
registered nurses will be planning activities to increase
knowledge and understanding of nursing contributions to the
health of Canadians under the theme: ``Your Family's Health:
Nurses make a Difference''.
No matter where nurses work, be it in the hospital or in the
community itself, their focus has always been the family. Nurses
provide families with information to prevent them from
becoming ill, to help families through challenging times and to
make meaningful choices.
Nurses are also interpreters. They take the vast amount of
health care knowledge flooding clients and interpret what it
means for their health and that of their families.
Because they have the right combination of knowledge and
skills for promoting, maintaining and supporting health, nurses
are ideally positioned to make a real difference to the health of
Canadians and to ensure the healthy future of Canada's medicare
system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on the 75th anniversary of the House of Commons Security
Services, I wish to pay tribute to all members of the staff.
Created in 1920, a few years after the old Parliament building
was destroyed by fire, the Security Services are responsible for
the protection of members, employees and buildings on
Parliament Hill. They also welcome hundreds of thousands of
visitors from Canada and Quebec every year.
I wish to remind everyone that security staff must not only
ensure the safety of the public and the employees of the House of
Commons but also process many visitors, at a time when
vigilance is a must. They do their job effectively and
professionally.
On the 75th anniversary of the House of Commons Security
Services, I invite all my colleagues to join me in commending
the security staff for their much appreciated services.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the Sunday
Sun I read of the horrible death of a 20-year old
woman who was shot by her estranged husband. In the same
article, I read of five other women who recently died at the hands
of their estranged husbands, all in the Ottawa area. Of these five,
one was bludgeoned to death, two were strangled and two were
knifed.
When will the Minister of Justice open his eyes and realize we
have a serious problem on our hands in this country and
recognize the instrument of death is not the problem?
When will the minister recognize that the cause for fear in this
nation is from a very weak justice system which has lost its
focus on protection of the innocent and law-abiding persons and
concentrates too heavily on the criminal and his rights?
When will the minister realize Bills C-37, C-41, C-42, C-44,
C-45 and C-68 are only tinkering with the seriousness of this
problem and essentially solve nothing?
When will the justice minister take the bull by the horns, say
enough is enough and send a clear message to the would be
killers of this land. Come on, Mr. Minister, do your job and do it
now.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians of Polish descent, I rise in
the House today to commemorate the 204th anniversary of the
Democratic Constitution of Poland and to join in the celebration
of the re-emergence of democracy and liberty in that nation.
Poland has historically been blessed with citizens of
extraordinary conviction; some even call us stubborn. They
believe in an independent Poland as well as in the value of a
truly democratic government. The enduring faith of those who
recently witnessed the rebirth of democracy is an inspiration to
many.
Too often, we who have the good fortune of living in a
democratic society become complacent about our freedoms and
opportunities. This anniversary is a reminder of the courage,
commitment and vigilance which democracy requires.
Gratuluia calowa polska rodzina.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to speak today about the Newfoundland dockyard
which has been a major employer in St. John's West for 110
years. Now Marine Atlantic is negotiating to sell the assets of
the dockyard.
12109
(1415)
Last year the dockyard generated over $28 million in revenue
and employed 840 people, the highest level in well over a
decade. Today only 42 people are working at the dockyard and
tomorrow the number may well be less.
I call on the Minister of Transport to explore all possible
options to ensure the survival of the Newfoundland dockyard.
With increased offshore development now and in the future, the
potential for more work at the dockyard is strong. Discussions
with all stakeholders in this matter, particularly the employees,
must begin immediately to ensure the continued employment of
the workers.
I believe that a company with $28 million in revenue can be
maintained as a viable economic entity. I ask the minister to
work with me to try to find a solution to keep the dockyard
operating.
_____________________________________________
12109
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in announcing yesterday the amendments to
Bill-C-76, the Minister of Finance tried to play down the
motion tabled by the official opposition denouncing the federal
government's intention to impose new standards on the
provinces for social programs. I would point out that, with this
bill, Ottawa is limiting the provinces to assuming a mere
advisory role in the process of defining the national standards.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Would he acknowledge
that the most concrete way to show his government does not
intend to impose new national standards on the provinces is by
amending Bill C-76 so that these new standards are submitted to
all the provinces for their approval?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that the Minister of Finance provided a very
satisfactory explanation yesterday. This bill will come before
the House of Commons, and we will be able to discuss it. Here in
Canada, we must maintain national standards. They already
exist in all these programs.
Some need changing, and so the Minister of Human
Resources Development and the Minister of Finance will hold
the necessary discussions. Since we want to maintain an
appropriate level of support for all Canadians, we must ensure
that the standards will continue to ensure proper services for
people from one end of the country to the other.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the head of the government is even more
ambiguous than his Minister of Finance-no small feat.
Some hon. members: Ha, ha.
Mr. Bouchard: A fine competition. Yesterday, the Minister
of Finance told us that an upcoming amendment, not yet tabled,
would provide for mutual agreement in establishing the
criterion for the imposition of the standards. The expression is
very vague. I would ask the Prime Minister to tell us what he
means by mutual agreement. Does the government mean the
necessary approval of all the provinces or, as with the patriation
of the constitution in 1982, will a majority of the provinces
suffice?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have just said that standards already exist, which
must be changed. The opposition has called for their change. We
want to make changes. We want to discuss the nature of these
changes in the House and then we will talk with the provinces.
However, the standards that are in place will stay in place, and
we are prepared to change them.
If the opposition does not want us to change them, on the other
hand, we will not change them. If they do have to be changed, I
am sure the proposals of the Minister of Human Resources
Development and the Minister of Finance will be very
reasonable, as usual, and the provinces will be pleased to accept
them.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in other words: ``Trust my ministers; everything
will be fine''.
Some hon. members: Ha, ha.
An hon. member: That is not very reassuring.
Mr. Loubier: No, indeed. It is not very reassuring.
Mr. Bouchard: I am sure it comes as no surprise that we are
not reassured. If the Prime Minister believes the provinces have
nothing to fear from the new national standards, why then is he
still refusing to call a federal-provincial conference to debate
publicly, first, the distribution of the cuts to the transfer
payments announced in the budget and, second, the new national
standards he wants to put forward, particularly in health and
social assistance?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in health matters, there will be no negotiation, because,
as we said clearly during the election campaign, and as I repeat
now, the five principles incorporated in the Canada Health Act
must remain. We have no intention of changing national health
standards for any reason.
12110
(1420)
As to holding a federal-provincial conference, the Minister of
Finance regularly meets his provincial counterparts, and the
Minister of Human Resources Development will be contacting
and discussing matters with the provincial governments. I am
surprised now to see that the Bloc Quebecois wants normal
relations with the Government of Canada. Speaking for the
Government of Quebec, I suggest they consult Ms. Beaudoin;
this is another change in direction, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, at a conference on the economy held in Ottawa
yesterday, the Deputy Minister of Finance, David Dodge, stated
that Canadians earning between $75,000 and $200,000 a year
pay too much tax. He suggested that the federal government
reduce taxes for high income earners so that Canada can remain
competitive on global markets.
Does the Minister of Finance agree with his deputy minister
and should we expect a ministerial statement announcing a tax
reduction for high income earners in the near future?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that
the member opposite is so selective in his reading. I made it very
clear myself yesterday that this government's ultimate goal is to
reduce taxes in Canada. In fact, that is one of the reasons why we
are determined to put our fiscal house in order.
At the same time, I indicated that, if taxes were lowered, they
would be lowered for the middle class and the poorest in the
country because they are the ones who are paying the most.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the deputy minister referred to the wealthy
and suggested that the taxes of wealthy Canadians be reduced.
The idea would be to listen a little less to the Power
Corporation head office and, with respect to tax reform, to start
by imposing a minimum tax on corporations. That would make
sense.
How does the Minister of Finance reconcile his deputy
minister's statement with, on the one hand, his so-called
commitment to ensure that all Canadian taxpayers make an
effort to help reduce the deficit and, on the other hand, his
decisions which have consisted thus far in demanding a much
bigger effort from lower income households and attacking the
unemployed at every chance?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know this is
going to come as a great shock to the opposition finance critic
but there is a minimum tax on great big corporations already.
It should not come as a great shock that we are going to reduce
taxes, that ultimately we must reduce taxes. It is why we would
like the co-operation of the Bloc Quebecois to help clean up the
nation's balance sheet. It is why we would like the co-operation
of the Bloc Quebecois when we want to build newer
technologies and put Canadians back to work.
What I would really suggest is that we come together to work
for the betterment of the country, rather than create strawmen so
the opposition members can make fancy speeches in the House
of Commons.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the former Yugoslavia the Croatian army captures a
rebel Serb enclave, Croatian Serbs then retaliate by bombing
Zagreb, the Croatian capital, and Bosnian Serbs threaten to
resume fighting and to ignore security council peacekeeping
resolutions because they say the UN did not react strongly to the
Croatian offensive.
Peace is nowhere on the horizon and there is growing danger
that Canadian peacekeepers will become human shields in a full
blown conflict.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What implications will
this escalation of the conflict have on our peacekeepers' ability
to fulfil their mandate and to deliver humanitarian aid in the
former Yugoslavia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we deplore the activities that have resumed in that part
of the world. We hope that everybody will have the good sense to
resume the ceasefire. I am informed that at two o'clock p.m.
GMT today a ceasefire was accepted by all parties.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1425 )
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I hope everyone realizes it is
completely futile to try to resolve this problem by using arms
and fighting. Also I hope that the propositions that have been
made so far will be taken seriously.
In the meantime we are making sure that our soldiers are
being exposed as little as possible. They know they are in
extremely difficult circumstances at this time.
12111
I met those who left Valcartier two weeks ago. I am always
impressed with their courage and determination, and how
willing they are to take chances with their own lives in order to
make sure that people are protected from the misery of people
who just prefer arms to negotiations.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the Liberal red book they said they would not be
camp followers with respect to foreign policy. That is certainly
not the case in the former Yugoslavia.
Canada is contributing a disproportionate number of
peacekeepers and yet we have little say in how they are
deployed. We are not part of the UN contact group. Germany,
which does not have one soldier involved in the peacekeeping
mission, has more of a say than Canada.
How can the government justify being a major player in the
peacekeeping effort while it remains a minor player in the
decision making process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all major decisions are made by the UN. UNPROFOR
is a UN group and final decisions are made by the military
command of the United Nations. We are not a member of the
group of five for various reasons, among them the fact that some
of the neighbouring countries think they can play a better role
than we can.
We are doing what we do best. We are on the ground, making
sure we are not taking sides. That is why the Canadian position
is always appreciated by everyone. I talked with the President of
Croatia when I was in Budapest and I talked with the President
of Bosnia. They both told me they appreciate the
professionalism of our soldiers.
Our soldiers are not there for us to gain political points
internationally. They are there because they are the best.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Reformers believe that Canadian peacekeepers are the
best in the world and deserve to be supported where they are
deployed. However the situation on the ground in Croatia and
Bosnia has changed but the peacekeepers' mandate has not.
There is no peace to keep.
Given that the Minister of National Defence vowed to
withdraw our troops if their safety was threatened and if their
ability to fulfil their mandate was in question, will the Prime
Minister now order an immediate withdrawal of Canadian
peacekeepers from the war zone in Bosnia and Croatia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that would be extremely irresponsible at this moment.
For the last few years situations have arisen where fighting was
renewed. The troops were there doing their job and brought
about many ceasefires.
The situation today is no worse than it was six months or a
year ago. It is always difficult. Canadians are not afraid to take
on a difficult task. We are there to maintain the peace. We are not
there to come and go. When we make a commitment we fulfil
our commitment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
After granting a research and development investment tax
credit during four years, Revenue Canada has now changed its
mind and is asking the 15,000 Quebecers who took advantage of
that tax provision to repay amounts which are three to four times
higher than their tax savings. This retroactive about face could
force about half of those concerned to go bankrupt.
How can the Minister of National Revenue ask 15,000 middle
income taxpayers from Quebec to repay deductions, with
interest, allowed under a tax provision which they used in good
faith?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, senior officials from the department are
conducting a close review of all the files of taxpayers who
invested in these research companies. The various
representations made, as well as all the relevant information,
will receive full consideration.
(1430)
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can such a retroactive repayment be sought, considering that the
problem is the direct consequence of the negligence of the
revenue department, which, after four years, has just changed
the rules affecting thousands of taxpayers?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue is not as clear nor as simple as the
hon. member is suggesting. Again, I stress the fact that every
file will be closely reviewed by the department before a decision
is made. In some cases, we even have to look at research
conducted abroad, or with several companies that have formed a
partnership for this purpose.
It is very difficult to solve this issue quickly, but we are doing
our best.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs raised the expectations of
aboriginal people to the point where his departmental officials
are now asking him ``to bring high expectations of the aboriginal
community to manageable levels''.
12112
What will the minister do in his statements and in his
processes to reduce expectations upon which he cannot possibly
deliver?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at present we are looking at how the process of
inherent rights can be put into place in an efficient way.
We are working on it. We already have a number of very
positive results. We will announce any new policy as soon as it is
ready.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in B.C. the current treaty process has created
expectations that are forecast to cost $8 billion to $20 billion.
There is no way that governments can deliver on this. The public
is clamouring for a new approach.
What will the minister do to create an affordable process and
reduce aboriginal expectations so that B.C. can support modern
treaties?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the views of all stakeholders in this question are
being considered.
All stakeholders have to be consulted and discussions have to
take place with them. We have to be able to assess their views
and in the end to render a series of possible policies that will
satisfy all stakeholders. This is exactly what we are doing.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Solicitor General.
In our penitentiaries we have 1,200 Rastafarians, members of
a religious sect that includes smoking marijuana as a part of
Sunday services. The chaplains, torn between their
responsibility for spiritual well-being and the law, feel obliged
to give them their weekly joint of marijuana.
Does the Solicitor General think it is normal that illegal
substances like marijuana are freely available in federal
penitentiaries and are distributed with the blessing of the
penitentiary administration?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the penitentiary administration has informed me that it
does not allow the use of marijuana in religious ceremonies.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am afraid our sources contradict each other. Since there is no
indication of this in the various annual reports published by
Correctional Service Canada, I would ask the minister to
identify for the House the Government of Canada's supplier of
marijuana.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member what he was
smoking before he asked his question.
* * *
(1435 )
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Heritage's luncheon in Los Angeles continues to
leave a bad taste in the mouths of Canadians. The list of names
of people in attendance supplied by his own office shows that
Roger Mayer, president of Turner Broadcasting, was
conveniently left off the list. Mr. Mayer, however, insists that he
attended the lunch with the minister.
Why did the Minister of Heritage hide the fact that Roger
Mayer actually attended the lunch? Could it be because Turner
Broadcasting has an application before Investment Canada?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I gave a list of all the people who attended
the luncheon as it was given to me. If anybody else slipped in, I
have no notion of it.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday in question period when the minister was asked who
attended the lunch, he conveniently forgot to mention that Mr.
Mayer was there. Surely that cannot be blamed on staff. The
luncheon was not that huge that he could not remember everyone
who was there.
Guess who was coming to dinner? The president of Cineplex
Odeon and the chairman of the board of MCA, both principals in
the Seagram deal that is under review by Investment Canada
and, as I mentioned, the president of Turner Broadcasting, a
principal in another deal being reviewed right now by
Investment Canada.
These companies stand to gain hundreds of millions of dollars
if they receive this favourable review from Investment Canada.
I have a supplementary question. Why did the minister place
himself in a direct conflict of interest, given the fact that
Investment Canada is consulting his department on the ruling?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the third party is completely mistaken. The review
cannot be done by the minister because it is not hisresponsibility.
12113
Ministers are going abroad and trying to do something good
for the country. This sector is extremely important for Canada.
We are in a surplus position. We can export. The more business
we can get for the artists of Canada, the better I will feel and the
more thanks I will give to the ministers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
The minister has tried several times to attribute poor morale
in the armed forces to recent cutbacks and the negative attitude
of the media. However, according to an internal report on
military morale prepared by Colonel Oehring, the main cause is,
and I quote: ``An increasingly impotent military leadership and
uncaring system''.
How can the Minister of National Defence maintain, as he did
last week, that the morale of the military is at a low ebb because
of budget cuts and the attitude of the media and the opposition,
when an internal report by the armed forces, submitted by
Colonel Oehring, maintains that the leadership is to blame?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know where the hon. member has been. That report surfaced just
before Christmas. It was raised in the House by the critic for the
Reform Party. It raises some serious concerns that are being
acted upon, concerning the feelings of members of the armed
forces.
Some of them we are addressing in terms of pay scales. Some
we will be addressing in terms of new equipment. I believe there
has been a lot of improvement since that memo was written.
Many of the suggestions of the special joint committee on
defence, of which the hon. member was a distinguished member,
have been acted upon. All those things will contribute to better
morale in the army.
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
that was not the answer I got when I asked the Minister of
National Defence about this in committee, last week. What does
the minister intend to do to turn the situation around?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think I
have answered that many times. I answered it in the committee
last week.
There is no question the publicity over the last couple of years
flowing from the events in Somalia, and some other problems
we have had, have tended to raise some questions within the
forces. Certainly there has been some question about the number
of high officers with respect to the ordinary rank and file in the
armed forces. That is being corrected.
We have announced a reduction of about 25 per cent at the
general officer level and 20 per cent at the colonel level. The
argument that we are perhaps too top heavy is being addressed.
All these things are under review and are being improved
upon.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Some interest groups have been claiming that the tobacco tax
decrease has resulted in an increase in tobacco consumption.
Other parties have been claiming there has been a reduction in
smoking rates.
Could the Minister of Health advise the House whether or not
Canadians are consuming more tobacco?
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question because it gives us a chance to ensure that everyone
knows what the facts are in this issue.
Epidemiology is a system of ensuring that the demographics
and all things that make a disease occur are checked out. When
we set about our strategy for tobacco we ensured there were four
parts of a survey that would be done by Statistics Canada to look
at evaluating the strategy.
The third part of the survey came out recently. It has shown
that there are 150,000 fewer smokers in Canada right now. We
will continue our strategy because this is not a good enough
response. We want to be ensured that all people who currently
smoke stop and those who intend to will eventually never do so.
We are still plugging away at our strategy.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the minister of fisheries' fight to end overfishing off
the Grand Banks he has at times been prone to rhetoric and
occasional flights of fancy in the name of conservation.
But yesterday the minister went too far. He trivialized the
ultimate sacrifice made by those who died for this great country
during the second world war by evoking their memory to score
points in our dispute with the European Union.
12114
Does the minister realize that his remarks offended many
Canadians and is he prepared to apologize to those who took
offence?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, about a week and a half ago, along with
delegations from Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Turkey
and Pakistan, I represented Canada in memory of the Royal
Newfoundland Regiment. I was at Gallipoli where I had the
honour and the privilege on behalf of Canadians everywhere to
visit seven war cemeteries commemorating the loss of young
lives, in this case young Newfoundlanders and all other allied
forces that fought in the Gallipoli campaign.
Having participated in the ceremonies, yes, it was very much
on my mind yesterday. Just days before the celebrations
commemorating the 50th anniversary of V-E Day is an
appropriate time for Sir Leon Brittan to come to Canada giving
thanks and not complaints about the country's contribution to
the world.
I do not make any apologies for reminding Sir Leon of that. I
am proud of it. Canadians are proud of it. We ought to celebrate
it.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadians who died in the second world war did not
die to become bargaining chips in the dispute with the European
Union. It is my understanding that our dispute over the fishery is
built on principle, the principle that by Canada intervening we
are trying to save a fish stock which could be destroyed.
(1445)
Does the minister not believe that the principle of saving that
stock is sufficient to defend his actions?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say with the utmost seriousness that
all of us without exception on this side of the House, and I would
like to think all without exception on that side of the House,
deeply appreciate and take the time to give thanks for the
tremendous freedom we enjoy because of the contribution of
Canadian soldiers in two world wars and in other conflicts
around the world, including the contribution today.
If the member thinks it inappropriate to remind others of the
sacrifice we have made, all I can tell him is I strongly disagree
with him.
The only party in the House that condemned the deal the day it
was announced with the EU was the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
Film distributors and exporters are concerned about two
American movie and video companies, Turner and Polygram,
which want to distribute their products without dealing with
Canadian distribution companies. The Turner group's plan is
said to be currently under review by Investment Canada.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us if his
department was consulted regarding the plans of these two
American companies, Turner and Polygram, for direct
distribution of their movies in Canada, thus bypassing Canadian
film distribution companies?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows full well, the issue is now in
the hands of Investment Canada, following the government's
decision to force Polygram and Turner to make an application
before they are allowed to invest in Canada. An order in council
was issued in this regard. The process is under way. We received
an application which we will review. A decision will be made in
the best interests of that industry in Canada.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I regret having to ask a specific question to the
Minister of Canadian Heritage as to whether or not he provided
an opinion to the Minister of Industry, since we were told the
other day that the minister had to give his opinion.
Given the answer just provided, I have another question. I
hope that the minister will take this opportunity to answer my
first question.
Since the arrival of American companies would deprive
Canadian companies such as Malofilm, Astral and Alliance of
revenues in excess of $75 million, will the Minister of Canadian
Heritage undertake to ask cabinet to impose a moratorium on
any transaction involving foreign film distribution companies in
Canada?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is good to have the hon. member back in the House
after a few days of consulting her constituents. She should be
spending less time on firearms and more time on Investment
Canada.
There is a process under way. We have required the
investment to be reviewed. It is a process under review. There is
no requirement on the government in any way to give the hon.
member any information about the particulars of the review of
the application under way. We will do so at the time our decision
is announced. She will be one of the first to know the results.
* * *
(1450)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's High Commission in Sri Lanka has revealed that a
shocking one-third of all Sri Lankans travelling to Canada who
were stopped for identity checks at the airport had made refugee
claims or were refugees in Canada. They are seeking or have
12115
received refugee status by claiming persecution in Sri Lanka but
still went back there for vacations.
The minister has been told time and time again the system is
being abused. Will the minister also ignore this blatant abuse or
will he clamp down on bogus refugees who make a mockery of
the Canadian refugee policy?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the commissioner brought no
such thing to my attention.
Generally speaking it has occurred where people having made
refugee claims and were accepted have travelled. Circumstances
do change but I, like the hon. member, do not want any abuse in
the system. There are cases of people who upon receiving
refugee status immediately travel to the area in which they say
they were being persecuted. I do not agree with those
individuals for one more moment than he does.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should consult with the Canadian High Commission in
Colombo.
Our proposal for reforming the refugee determination system
to end widespread abuse was to monitor refugees' travel to
determine if they are taking trips back to the country they claim
is persecuting them. If they do they are not real refugees and
should be removed. We have solid evidence of abuse.
When will the minister implement our proposal to stop this
abuse? Will he commit today to investigate each and every
bogus claim the high commission has identified?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is
going to Washington to join the other Newts in talking about
immigration. I am sure the Americans are waiting with bated
breath. What they should be told is the proposals of Reform
Party members are quite simple. They really do not like
refugees. They do not want refugees. They do not want
immigrants.
They want to abolish the IRB. They want to break our ties
from the Geneva convention. They want to close the Canadian
doors to the world. That is good for the member but it is
certainly not good enough for the government.
* * *
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of National Resources.
Today at noon a group representing all parties in the House
met with the forest industry for a very interesting hour. The
subject of sustainable development was raised.
I would like the minister to tell the House to date how the
government has addressed the subject of sustainable
development.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say, whether it is fish, forests or
other natural resources, the government is committed to their
sustainable development.
Let me reassure the hon. member Canada is viewed around the
world as the leading nation in terms of sustainable forestry
development.
Let me highlight a few of the things we have done as a
government: the development of the national forestry accord,
the development of criteria and indicators to define sound
forestry practices. Our model forest program: there are 10
model forests in Canada that are living laboratories of research
and science.
Recently in New York my colleague, the Minister of the
Environment, on my behalf and on behalf of this nation led the
way in terms of the establishment of an intergovernmental
committee on sustainable forestry.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
After grossly mishandling the case involving an Algerian
filmmaker, Ms. Koudil, immigration officials are now denying
visitors' visas to three Algerian actors, Benguettaf, Ayad and
El-Kalaa, who were to perform in a play denouncing the rise of
fundamentalism in Algeria as part of the Theatre Festival of the
Americas in Montreal.
(1455)
Does the minister intend to move quickly to issue visitors'
visas to the three Algerian actors, so that a repeat of the Algerian
filmmaker fiasco can be avoided?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows or
should know I do not believe it is wise for ministerial
interventions ad nauseam at the visitor visa level.
There are a million applications around the world. Your leader
was the ambassador to France.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. minister to please invoke the
chair.
12116
Mr. Marchi: The Leader of the Opposition was at one point
the ambassador to France. There were a number of applications
made under his tenure. Some were refused and some were
accepted. Individuals refused have every opportunity, if the
member checks with his leader, to put in a new application.
With respect to the film maker, there was not a policy of
favouritism; there was a policy of fairness. The film maker
made a new application and convinced the visa officer her
application was justified.
If these three individuals have some complaint or there is
misinformation then the process is very transparent and very
simple. They are to come forward once again and make a new
application without political intervention, whether by this
member or this minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we to
understand from the minister's answer that he does not intend to
budge and that only a general outcry in Quebec, as occurred in
the case of the Algerian filmmaker, can spur him to action?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of game that
does a disservice to the very portfolio the member tries to
protect.
The member just said unless you change there will be pressure
mounted to make the system change. I ask the member, who
came to this country as a political refugee claimant, whether he
wants a system amenable simply by pressure and tactics of a
community, wherever they are, or does he believe there ought to
be a system in place that allows for applications to be made and
if there is a negative determination for the applicant to make
another application?
Does the member know that under the Immigration Act I do
not have the power or the authority to overturn a visitor visa
application? The member ought to know that and play by the
rules rather than create special rules for some people.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Keith Banting,
a social policy expert, said: ``This government's fiscal policies
are eroding the Canada Health Act by stealth''. These harsh
words join a chorus who agree with Reform: Tom Courchesne,
the Canadian Medical Association and others.
Will the government openly table changes to the Canada
Health Act to preserve medicare?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister said we
do not intend to present changes to the Canada Health Act as
such. There is clarification in the budget, but the principles of
the Canada Health Act are there very definitely.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
were asked last week whether they think health care is
affordable. Ninety per cent said they think health care will deal
with fewer services in the future than now. Even the Prime
Minister said medicare must return to basics.
Reformers say let us make these changes in the open with
consultation rather than by default and with stealth.
Again, will the Prime Minister open the Canada Health Act to
open review?
(1500 )
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government said in the budget
and the Minister of Finance has said repeatedly that the Canada
Health Act is not negotiable.
The hon. member is discussing funding of medicare. We know
that many reputable studies have now shown that we spend more
as a percentage of our GDP for health care than most other
nations with systems of medicare like ours. We can manage our
system better and we can make a better system, a more efficient
and a more affordable system, by looking at health care renewal
in terms of management changes, in terms of moving from acute
care to community care, in terms of looking at technology
assessment, assessing outcomes and guidelines for care. We can
save a great deal of money and provide a better system of health
care.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
An Ottawa gasoline retailer, Mr. Gas, has admitted that
communications between gasoline retailers are common in the
industry when setting prices. We have seen six increases in
gasoline prices in less than year, all uniform across Canada and
uniform from company to company, with no justification,
resulting in a 25 per cent increase to consumers and accusations
of price fixing.
The minister in the House last Friday said in response to my
question: ``When the prices are the same it is consistent with
both competition and price fixing, so how do you know which it
is?''
Given this Liberal government confusion and the admission
by the company, Mr. Gas, will the minister now roll back prices
until an inquiry can be held on gas prices to determine if price
fixing is taking place or to have oil companies justify these
increases? Failing a rollback, will he at least hold a price
inquiry?
12117
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course it would be inappropriate to comment on the
circumstances of a case that is before the courts at the present
time.
What I do make clear again to the member is that first, as he
knows, the government does not have the power to roll back
prices. Second, I believe the most effective way to ensure the
lowest possible prices is through real and sustained competition.
The purpose of the Competition Act is to achieve real
competition. The director endeavours to enforce that. But we do
live in a system of law, and it does require proof when somebody
alleges an offence.
It is easy for the hon. member to stand in the House of
Commons and say: ``Look, the prices are all the same; there is an
offence''. I suggest to him that it is somewhat more challenging
to get a conviction in the courts. I prefer to see people convicted
in the courts on the basis of evidence.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a moment
ago, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a
question concerning visitors' visas for three Algerian actors. I
feel that the minister attacked me in his answer by improperly
mentioning my status as a political refugee.
True, I came here 21 years ago and settled in Quebec but today
I have the same rights as any other citizen or any other member
of the House of Commons, and I find it unacceptable that the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-
(1505)
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I think that this is not a
question of privilege but a matter for debate. As you know,
during Question Period and during debates, we sometimes use
very strong words, but I hope that all our colleagues in the House
will choose their words wisely during debates.
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the member
and his colleagues.
When I referred to the individual having come to Canada and
been given refugee status, in the same way my family came to
this country in 1958-
An hon. member: But they knew they were coming to
Canada; there is a difference.
Mr. Marchi: -I was trying to infer that there is a process in
train that we ought to respect, and not a process that can be
changed simply like a faucet, depending on the day or on the
pressure. That is the point I was trying to make.
The Speaker: I would like to close this matter and go to
Routine Proceedings.
_____________________________________________
12117
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to seven petitions.
* * *
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the
Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the Council of
Europe committee on economic affairs and development session
on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
held in London, United Kingdom, from February 18 to February
21, 1995.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present to the House, in both official languages,
the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport,
entitled ``A National Marine Strategy''.
[English]
In February and March of this year the committee travelled to
10 cities and heard over 85 hours of testimony.
I am proud to present the fruit of these labours contained
herein, and wish to thank the members and staff of my
committee for their dedication and hard work and the over 170
individuals and organizations whose efforts and contributions
made this report possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
just want to add that the Bloc
12118
Quebecois will be appending to this report of the Standing
Committee on Transport a rather elaborate dissenting report,
which is at least one third as thick as the report presented by the
Liberal majority.
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw private member's
Bill C-236.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Bill withdrawn.)
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present today, in the name of a number of Saskatoon residents
who describe themselves as ordinary, law-abiding citizens, a
petition pointing out that some 1,400 Canadians die of gunshot
wounds each year and that both legally owned and stolen
firearms contribute to such fatalities.
The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to pass Bill
C-68 as soon as possible.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from 180 Canadians, from the provinces of Quebec and
Saskatchewan, who note that Canadian citizens are opposed to
more restrictions and prohibitions on legal firearms. They note
the 1993 auditor general's report indicated that many firearms
regulations were brought in as a matter of public policy with no
regard to future effectiveness or potential benefits.
(1510 )
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament not to enact
further firearms control legislation, regulations or orders in
council.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like
to table a petition on behalf of residents of my riding. The
petition reads: We, the undersigned residents of the Province of
Quebec, wish to call the attention of Parliament to the
following: that the government should be made aware of the
unfair treatment of seniors in implementing the elimination of
the capital gains exemption. The fictitious capital gain which
must be reported this year will count as a real gain, thereby
forcing thousands of seniors who cannot afford to do so to pay
back to the federal government their old age security benefits.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to ask the
government not to consider as real the fictitious gain made by
taxpayers who chose to protect, in 1994, the capital gains
exemption they had been entitled to until then.
[English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have several hundred names on a petition.
These Canadians note that the Canadian Emergency
Preparedness College in Arnprior, Ontario, provides training in
several aspects of emergency preparedness, including
earthquakes, hurricanes, forest fires, civil disobedience, railway
accidents, floods, et cetera.
The petitioners request that Parliament recognize that the
Canadian Emergency Preparedness College is essential to
training Canadians for emergency situations and that the facility
should stay in Arnprior, as promised by the government, in order
to provide the necessary training to Canadians past and present.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the petitioners believe that unnecessary violence and abuse in
all of their forms-be they verbal, physical, or other-in society
in general and on radio and television have become major
concerns in Canadian society. They also believe that abuse and
violence are not necessary to inform or to entertain.
The petitioners want government to ensure the CRTC
regulates abuse and violence in all of their forms in all of the
media. The petitioners also applaud some of the recent progress
made in this area.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from my constituents
from Badger's Quay, Lumsden, Templeman, Brookfield and
Wesleyville. There are 57 of them.
They note that the majority of Canadians are law-abiding
citizens who respect the law. They further note that the majority
of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life and that the
majority of Canadians believe that physicians in Canada should
be working to save lives, not to end them.
They are asking that Parliament make no change in the law
that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or
active or passive euthanasia.
12119
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
four petitions to present today on behalf of the residents of
Simcoe Centre.
The first petition deals with the subject of fiscally responsible
government. The petitioners request that Parliament reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes, since
Canadians are already overburdened with taxation due to high
government spending.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition concerns the use of a legal defence that has
become known as the drunk defence.
The petitioners believe that in committing the act of choosing
to consume alcohol the individual must accept all
responsibilities for their actions while under the influence, and I
certainly agree.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is on the subject of abortion.
The petitioners request that Parliament reconsider
amendments to the Criminal Code to extend protection to the
unborn child.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final
petition is on the subject of euthanasia.
The petitioners request that Parliament not sanction or allow
the aiding or abetting of suicide or euthanasia.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to present today.
The petitioners believe that public safety is the number one
priority of the criminal justice system. They believe the existing
firearms regulations are more than enough to ensure public
safety.
They are requesting that Parliament do three things: first,
support laws that will severely punish all violent criminals who
use weapons in the commission of crime; second, support new
Criminal Code firearm control provisions that recognize and
protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use
recreational firearms; and, third, support legislation that will
repeal and modify existing gun control laws, which have not
improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or
have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective and/or
unenforceable.
(1515 )
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have four petitions to present to the House today.
The first petition is from a group within my constituency. It
contains 25 signatures, mostly from residents of the Colony
Farm facility. The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In contrast to that, I have three more petitions, one with 2,200
signatures, one with 225 signatures and one with 400 signatures
from Canadians across the country.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion
of the phrase sexual orientation. I certainly concur with this
petition.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition from the citizens of Leeds-Grenville who
request that the current proposed federal gun control measures
be withdrawn and that they be replaced with measures which
deal directly with criminal offenders.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a second petition from the citizens of my riding who
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 societal
approval of same sex relationships.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have a number of petitions on the same subject, with thousands
of signatures. These petitions deal with the serious health issue
of breast cancer to which about 5,400 Canadian women lose
their lives each year and another 17,000 are diagnosed.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government
to work with the provinces and the territories to designate one
existing cancer research centre per region in Canada. They also
call upon Parliament to take action to establish a toll free
number for information, support and public awareness of the
disease. Finally, they call upon Parliament to urge the
government to begin consultations with the provinces and
territoriesto establish the parameters for a national registry of drugs,medical devices implanted in the body, and various forms ofbiotechnologies.
12120
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition on behalf of the Reverend Sharon Copeman
and 40 residents of North Vancouver who are members of the
United Church of Canada.
The petitioners state that in 1994 the 35th general council of
the United Church commended the federal government for
resuming aid to Cuba and urged the government to continue its
efforts to normalize relations between Cuba and its neighbours
and strongly urged the removal of U.S. blockades.
They ask members of Parliament and the government to
sponsor a joint resolution with the Senate of Canada urging the
Government of the United States to lift the blockade against
Cuba which causes undue suffering for the people of Cuba.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to
present a petition which has been signed by 48 Canadians.
Part of their request is that the government not overburden
Canadians with higher taxation. I believe this was signed prior
to the budget and it may not be relevant because taxes did
increase. However, there is a portion which is relevant, which
states that the petitioners pray and request that Parliament
reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and
implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a petition on
behalf of a number of constituents, organized by Lilly Lewis.
These petitioners request that Parliament ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be vigorously enforced and that Parliament
make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Not only am I pleased to present this petition, I endorse it as
well.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to present a petition today on behalf of residents of Blue
River, Avola, Birch Island, Clearwater, Barrière, Darfield, Little
Fort and Peneplain Lake.
The petitioners oppose Bill C-68, the bill referring to
firearms legislation, and suggest that registration will do
virtually nothing to limit the number of people who will be
killed by firearms in the future.
I support the petition.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
second petition from citizens of the same communities.
This petition indicates that Canadians are becoming
increasingly fearful of walking on the streets in their
neighbourhoods. They believe that many convicted violent and
sex offenders are being paroled prematurely. The petitioners
simply ask the House of Commons and the Minister of Justice to
take whatever steps are necessary to amend Canada's Criminal
Code and parole system to ensure safety and peace in our
neighbourhoods.
(1520 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has been
circulating across Canada. The petition comes from the Calgary,
Alberta, area.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the
House that managing the family home and caring for preschool
children is an honourable profession which has not been
recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families who make the choice to provide
care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the
chronically ill or the aged. The petitioners therefore pray and
call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax
discrimination against families who decide to provide direct
parental care for preschool children, the disabled, the
chronically ill or the aged.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Notices of
Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
12121
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed Bill S-9, an act to amend the
Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, to which the
concurrence of this House is desired.
_____________________________________________
12121
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from May 1, 1995, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-43, an Act to amend the Lobbyists
Registration Act and to make related amendments to other Acts,
be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill C-43 which concerns
the registration of lobbyists.
The recent publication of the committee report on Bill C-43
has shown once again that the Liberal Government and the Bloc
Quebecois have widely differing views of the work of lobbyists
and the framework that should regulate their activities.
My first comment, and I realize Mr. Speaker, that I cannot
show it because it is against the rules of this House, but I would
nevertheless like to say that the colour of the document does not
necessarily reflect the title, which is about restoring confidence,
since the document in question is red. I would even call it a
Liberal red.
My second comment is that although this red document comes
after a Liberal red book we saw during the election campaign, it
is pretty obvious that this version is quite different from what we
read in the initial red book.
Lately this government has shown, by its conduct, that it has
decided to govern under pressure from lobbies hired by large
corporations and financial interests instead of governing in the
best interests of the people of this country. Recent excesses in
this respect by the Liberal government occurred in the matter
involving the CRTC and Power DirecTv, a subsidiary of Power
Corporation headed by none other than the Prime Minister's
son-in-law.
Let us see how the government managed to discredit itself in
this affair. Everything started in the spring of 1993, when the
CRTC indicated that it wanted to encourage the development of
a Canadian industry involved in direct-to-home services by
satellite, the so-called DTH. Last August, the Expressvu
consortium, a competitor of Power DirecTv, obtained an
exemption from licensing, allowing it to offer DTH to future
subscribers.
(1525)
The CRTC granted this exemption because Expressvu
intended to use one or more Canadian satellites. Power
Corporation planned to use the satellites and programming used
by its American associate, DirecTv Inc. That is why Power's
subsidiary did not qualify for an exemption from licensing by
the CRTC.
Unfortunately for Expressvu, Power DirecTv had a direct line
to the Prime Minister. Recently, the Liberal government tabled
two orders obliging all DTH companies to obtain a
licence-orders that were tailored to meet the demands of Power
DirecTv. These orders had the effect of taking the advantage
away from Expressvu, a consortium that, unlike Power, had
decided to offer its subscribers Canadian content.
I may recall that Expressvu planned to begin operations on
September 1 this year. By taking this unprecedented action, the
Liberal government blithely ignored the independence of a
regulatory agency that also has quasi-judicial powers to enforce
legislation and regulations pertaining to telecommunications.
This was a serious decision. In the process the Government of
Canada adopted a measure that will take effect retroactively and
thus have a negative impact on a Canadian corporation-a
procedure that flies in the face of all the traditions of democratic
countries. Furthermore, the government is sending a message to
the entire DTH industry that it no longer intends to support the
development of a Canadian industry.
If the legislation applied by the CRTC no longer serves to
ensure the development of the Canadian communications
industry, what purpose does it serve? The government must stop
hiding and must make public its intentions-if indeed the
legislation serves no purpose.
The worst part of all this is that it occurred because the
president of Power Corporation had the good fortune-and there
is no mistake there-to marry the daughter of the Prime
Minister. The ties between Power Corporation and the Liberals
do not stop there, as I will demonstrate.
Here are a few examples. The current president of Power
DirecTv, Joel Bell, was Pierre Trudeau's economic adviser and
was designated by him to launch Investment Canada. The
president of Power Corporation, as the head of the
China-Canada business council, organized the economic part of
last November's trip by the Prime Minister and Team Canada to
Asia. Former Prime Minister Trudeau continues to sit on the
international board of Power Corporation.
12122
In addition to being the Prime Minister's son-in-law, André
Desmarais was his assistant in the early 1980s when he was
Minister of Justice. John Rae, vice-president of Power
Corporation, directed two leadership campaigns for the current
Prime Minister and the 1993 federal election campaign for the
Liberals, and so on and so forth.
The government's shady dealings do not, however, stop at
this. While some are well married, others, like the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, have, it would seem, the incredible good
fortune to find themselves at the site of one of the most
spectacular financial deals of the century, claiming all the while
that they were not involved. This story does not lack for interest
either. It could even be made into an excellent sitcom with the
film and television talents of our neighbours, the Americans.
A journalist with the Journal de Montréal even wrote last
week that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, like the hero of the
film Forrest Gump, has the ability to be involved almost
incognito in the major events of his time.
Here are the facts. Three weeks ago, Edgar Bronfman Junior,
an American citizen, and Seagram announced the acquisition of
the American cinematographic giant MCA-a multi-billion
dollar deal. This announcement was made in a hotel in Los
Angeles. Well, surprise, surprise, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage just happened to be in the room next door.
No problem up to this point, at least no apparent one. It must
be said, however, that MCA owns 20 per cent of the shares of
Cineplex, a Canadian company controlled by another branch of
the Bronfman family. And it must be said that MCA wants to
make off with Cineplex by amalgamating with Dallas-based
Cinemark USA Inc.
(1530)
Yet, the presence of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in Los
Angeles got me thinking. In fact, it appears that Edgar Bronfman
Junior's attempt to convince the federal government that MCA
is a Canadian company is working. He hopes that this will
permit him to escape Investment Canada's scrutiny.
Need I remind you that the government's official policy is that
companies dealing in cultural goods must be controlled by
Canadian interests, which explains why Mr. Bronfman is trying
to put on a Canadian identity.
After the astonishing performance of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage in California, Mr. Bronfman will certainly
gain what he set out to gain by bringing the minister to Los
Angeles in the first place. It should come as no surprise then that
the population is becoming increasingly put off, especially
young people. I would like to take this opportunity to point out
that I am the official opposition's youth critic. My meetings and
discussions with young people have made it clear to me just how
much they have lost trust in the political machine. Hardly
surprising, given the topic of discussion over the past few
weeks.
Along the same lines, there was the Pearson airport scandal
over the previous government's privatization proposal. The
Nixon report, a report regarding the privatization contract which
was signed when the election campaign was in full swing, was
handed to the Liberal government on November 29, 1993.
This report incriminated beyond a doubt the lobbyists, public
servants and political assistants involved. There are several
questions which remain to be answered regarding the identity of
unethical lobbyists and the illegal or illegitimate conduct of
public servants and political assistants in this case. Up to now,
the government has preferred to turn a blind eye and to be
closemouthed about the information contained in the report,
even though these grim events compromise the credibility of our
democratic institutions. The demands of the Bloc Quebecois to
have the government shed some light on this pitiful remnant of
the Conservative era have fallen on deaf ears, up to now.
Of course, the government will claim that it appointed an
ethics counsellor to navigate the murky waters of its contacts
with lobbyists. Unfortunately, when the heritage minister once
again tripped up by writing to the CRTC, which comes under his
authority, a letter supporting the licence application of one of
his constituents, it took the Prime Minister three weeks to
consult his ethics counsellor on this most sensitive issue.
By waiting so long, the Prime Minister himself proved how
little importance he attached to his own ethics counsellor.
Furthermore, he refused to reveal to the House the gist of the
ethics counsellor's recommendations. Such lack of transparency
can only lead people to believe that the government has
something to hide. The Bloc Quebecois reviewed Bill C-43, an
act aimed at monitoring the activities of lobbyists, in all good
faith. A strong piece of legislation is essential to help our
democratic institutions deal with the wave of public scepticism
surrounding the affairs of government.
Even if Bill C-43 brings about some improvements in the
somewhat incestuous relationship existing between elected
officials and lobbyists, they fall short of the Liberals'
commitments as stated in their own red book, the first one, the
campaign one.
According to the ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime
Minister, even if Bill C-43 had been in force at the time, it
would not have helped Canadians to learn more about the
troubling events surrounding the attempted privatization of
Pearson airport.
The Bloc Quebecois presented interesting proposals giving
more teeth to the bill in order to make the process more
transparent and to restore public confidence in the management
of the affairs of government. The issue of monitoring lobbyists
should not be the sole responsibility of a political party, a Prime
minister, or a government, because it belongs to an essential
12123
democratic institution, the House of Commons, which is made
up of representatives duly elected by the people.
(1535)
That is why the Bloc Quebecois is proposing that the ethics
counsellor be appointed for seven years by Parliament rather
than by the party in power. This ethics counsellor, whose
appointment is permanent, should be accountable to Parliament
and should also have the authority to conduct public inquiries
and report on his activities, findings, conclusions and reasons
for his conclusions to the House of Commons.
In short, the ethics counsellor should be more than a toothless
watchdog serving his political masters and therefore vulnerable
to pressure. The Bloc Quebecois also asked that all classes of
lobbyists be merged into a single one. We also asked that all
lobbyists be subject to the same information disclosure rules.
This recommendation shows the constructive, non-partisan
spirit that guided the Bloc Quebecois in its consideration of Bill
C-43. In fact, this recommendation can be found in the June
1993 Holtmann report, which is the basis for the Liberal
commitments regarding the use of lobbyists and the disclosure
of their activities. That is why we, in the Bloc Quebecois, do not
understand the Liberals' refusal to implement this
recommendation, which is included in their red book.
The strict disclosure provisions proposed in the Holtmann
report would allow the population to find out quickly about a
lobbyist's status. Since lobbyists try to influence public policy
to further private interests, their activities and identities should
be disclosed to the public.
I would now like to address the issue of lobbyists' contracts.
This bill exempts in-house corporate lobbyists from reporting
information on their contracts, although consultant lobbyists are
required to report this information. Again, legislators should
learn from the aborted attempt to privatize Pearson airport. If
the bill is adopted without changes, businesses may be tempted
to hire only in-house corporate lobbyists for megaprojects such
as the privatization of Pearson airport.
Greater transparency in that regard would certainly be to their
advantage, as it would put an end to biases against them as well
as sometimes questionable speculations about their income. I
would like to say, however, that the purpose of a lobbyists
registration act is not to regulate the profession, although
Parliament has the right, and even the duty, to supervise the
functioning of the public administration that lobbyists try to
influence.
The close ties connecting a large number of lobbyists to
public officials, politicians and their political staff in the
Pearson airport affair demonstrated the magnitude of the
problem. Yet, the press was not allowed to disclose the
troubling facts surrounding the Pearson airport deal to the
general public until the privatization process was over. This
sorry affair, which had repercussions on taxpayers, could have
been avoided had legislation been in place to prevent the kind of
uncontrolled skids that have sullied this privatization attempt.
It is therefore reasonable that those who seek to influence the
actions of an administration should also be subject to public
scrutiny. Let us be clear on one thing: in a democracy, it is
normal for organizations, businesses and lobbies to solicit
support from the elected representatives of the people. This is
totally legitimate. What is unacceptable, however, is that
individuals and businesses who can afford to do so get tax
deductions for their lobbying expenses. This has the effect of
disadvantaging even more those organizations which cannot
afford to counteract the pressure brought to bear by businesses
that can afford to hire lobbyists.
That is why we recommend that tax deductions for lobbying
fees be abolished. Also missing in Bill C-43 is a provision
forbidding lobbyists from circumventing the act. Here again,
that provision was included in the Holtmann report which the
Liberals appreciated so much when it was tabled.
(1540)
The government should, if its commitments are sincere,
include a clause to prevent avoidance of the law. Secret rules
between lobbyists and public office holders are another
problem. They contribute to the mistrust of Canadians toward
elected representatives. That is why we ask the government to
give the status of statutory instrument to the code of conduct of
public office holders.
This debate is an opportunity for the Liberal government to
demonstrate to the public that it really wants more openness in
the dealings of lobbyists with the federal government. The
recommendations of the Bloc are not meant to promote the
image of a specific political party. They would be a great service
rendered to all politicians in this House and to other public
office holders.
This whole issue is too important to be left to partisan debate.
It is the price we have to pay to restore public trust in our
democratic institutions. Another great means to restore that
trust would be to pass legislation on political party fundraising.
That would contribute to renewed confidence in the operation of
the House of Commons.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for understanding so
well the issues involved in this very important legislation, Bill
C-43.
During the election campaign, the Liberals came up with their
famous red book. We heard a lot about it, since that document
12124
included all the election promises which the Liberals were
supposedly going to implement if elected.
The Liberals are now in office. In their red book, they pledged
to implement the recommendations of the Holtmann report.
That report was drafted by a parliamentary committee which
specifically looked at the issue of lobbying. The
recommendations made in the Holtmann report went very far as
regards different tiers of lobbyists, as well as disclosure.
A number of witnesses appeared before the current
committee, the Zed committee, which tabled a report which is
another red book. Red books keep coming out, but they are not
all the same. This one contradicts the election promises made,
since it does not go as far as the Holtmann report recommended.
The government seems to be trying to create some confusion
in this regard and I would like the hon. member to tell me one
thing. The Liberal government is claiming to go farther than the
Holtmann report, for example with the appointment of an ethics
counsellor. Is that not terrific, Mr. Speaker? However, if you
take a closer look, you realize that the ethics counsellor is really
just a puppet controlled by the Prime Minister. Indeed, that
person is appointed by the Prime Minister and will first report to
the Prime Minister, behind closed doors. We, members of the
official opposition, will know little about the counsellor's work,
in terms of the analysis, research, inquiry and investigation
conducted.
The member referred to two very important issues, namely the
whole episode involving the Minister of Canadian Heritage and
his secret visit to the United States on behalf of friends of the
government, as well as the Pearson saga, which also benefited
friends of the government. Whether the government is Liberal
or Conservative, the result is invariably the same: the rich
benefit at the expense of the poor.
My question is this: If the ethics counsellor were appointed by
Parliament and accountable to it, to us elected members, would
it help reach the objective of Bill C-43, which is to promote
transparency? I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate.
(1545)
The Deputy Speaker: Before giving the floor to the hon.
member for Lévis, I should explain that, generally speaking, the
Chair seeks to recognize a member from another party to let him
or her ask a question, rather than giving the floor to another
member from the same party.
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, we cannot refer to the absence of hon.
members in this House, but you are right to point out that, since
there are no Liberal members to ask me questions, a question
was put to me by our own critic. This is a little unusual, since we
are having a debate today. To have a debate, it usually takes two
opposing sides to present the pros and cons of a bill. This is the
way it has always been since Greek Antiquity, since the
beginning of democracy. True democracy began with debates.
Today, I was able to speak to this bill a little earlier than
expected because no member of the Liberal Party wished to
speak. And now, after my speech, I have one hon. member from
our own side of the House asking me questions. This is a bit
surprising.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon.
member for Berthier-Montcalm for the really remarkable job
he has done on this issue.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Dubé: He wrote the dissenting opinion himself and his
document was very carefully thought out. I think what he did
was very important-and I am not saying that just to flatter
him-but, thanks to his work, we can condemn the Liberal
government for taking too much time, in my opinion, to fulfil a
promise it made.
Let me come back to the specific question that was put to me:
should the ethics counsellor be accountable to the House? I think
it would not set a precedent since, as you and I know, Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general reports to the House on financial
matters relating to the operation of the government. Why should
it be different when we deal with ethics, a more technical aspect
of the operation of the machinery of government? If there is one
thing that can help us restore trust, as proposed in the document,
it is the kind of proposal made by the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm, which would help to improve government
operations and especially restore trust.
You may wonder why a sovereignist who expects to take part
in a referendum on Quebec's sovereignty would make
recommendations which could apply for the next seven years.
This just shows you the non-partisan way the Bloc Quebecois is
speaking to this bill. We even said to Canada, our future
neighbours-because we do like English Canadians-that we all
ought to do a really good job in this instance, so that we can pass
on to our future neighbours a House of Commons and a
machinery of government that are truly open and honest.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill
today.
I listened carefully to the hon. member from the Bloc. When
he started talking about the non-partisan way that the Bloc was
speaking to the bill, I thought I might have to leave the room for
fear that lightning would strike through the ceiling at any time.
However we are far enough apart that perhaps it would not have
affected me.
12125
I spoke to some amendments to this bill a short time ago and
outlined some of the things I felt the bill lacked. The Liberal red
book made a promise on which all Liberals ran in the election.
That promise basically said that a Liberal government wanted
most desperately to return integrity to our political institution
and that such integrity had to be restored.
(1550 )
That is a heck of a statement and it played well with many
Canadians. Canadians had lost much confidence and trust in the
way government did business. Canada was in a very sorry state. I
know I felt apathy from the electors in my election campaign.
The most common comment I heard was: ``Listen, I hear what
you are saying, but politicians are all the same. Once you get
there it is a different world. The deals are made behind closed
doors. Going there with a noble cause like Don Quixote is not
going to do any good because there is no integrity left in that
place in Ottawa''.
At the same time the Liberals were saying: ``We are going
there and if we form the government, we are going to restore
integrity''.
When Bill C-43, an act to control the activities of lobbyists
and people that are influenced by lobbyists first became
available my first reaction was that the Liberals were to do
something. They were to put some visibility into how lobbyists
operate within the confines of ministerial and government
offices with all bureaucrats alike.
When I picked up the bill and started reading I had great
expectations. I thought that finally the Liberals would fulfil a
promise of the red book. I almost said blue book because we
have made that same promise. When we become the government
next time and address the subject of lobbyists, we will do
something far better than Bill C-43.
I looked for things like the establishment of an ethics
counsellor. This was a tremendous step. Then I started reading
about how the ethics counsellor was to be established and was
very surprised to see that the counsellor who was to look into the
activities of all members of Parliament-Liberal, Bloc, Reform
Party and Independents-was to be chosen and appointed not by
the members of Parliament, as one would expect for an
independent person, but by the Prime Minister.
I said to myself: ``This really doesn't sound right. My
understanding of an ethics counsellor, who looks after the
dealings of Parliament, the people that work in government,
should be someone who would come before the entire House of
Commons, present his or her credentials and have the approval
of Parliament as a whole''. This is not the case.
We have an ethics counsellor who is appointed by the Prime
Minister. I do not know but perhaps he is a Liberal. The Prime
Minister said it is hard to find anyone in the country who is not a
Liberal any more because so many people voted for the Liberal
Party. Therefore one has to assume this independent ethics
counsellor could possibly be a Liberal.
I also looked for comfort in the ethics counsellor. Once I
found that he would not be independent I looked for some
comfort. I thought: ``Even though he was chosen by the Prime
Minister, perhaps he may have to report to Parliament''. I read
the bill looking for these key phrases and I found that he does not
have to report to Parliament. He reports directly back to the very
person who appointed him in the first place. I thought: ``This
doesn't sound like an independent ethics counsellor''. I was
really let down from my great expectations of at least restoring
some integrity and honesty to the government and to the way
things are done in the House.
One of my colleagues put together an amendment that would
bring the ethics counsellor into a true position of independence.
The amendment said basically that the ethics counsellor would
be approved by Parliament as a whole. The ethics counsellor
would create a code of ethics under which lobbyists and
government people alike would have to operate. The ethics
counsellor would also have to report to Parliament. I thought
this was a good amendment.
(1555)
My hon. colleague spent a lot of time working on this
amendment. I was very surprised to see it defeated by the
Liberal government, the same government that in the red book
said it wanted to return some integrity to government. If its
promises could be believed why would it reject an amendment
that really created a truly independent ethics counsellor?
I read on a little further and I realized that it was almost like
when my wife sets out to make bread. If she uses all the other
ingredients but forgets to put some yeast in the dough, we do not
have much of a loaf of bread by the time it is cooked. It is very
flat. That is what has happened to this bill. It has no yeast in it. It
does not have the essential ingredients that will send a clear
message to the people of Canada and to the members of other
parties that the Liberal government is serious about returning
integrity and honesty to government.
When I spoke last week I said, and I may have surprised some
of my colleagues, that I do not have too much of a problem
personally with the job lobbyists do around here. I know what
the game is all about. They are basically marketing people who
come to Ottawa on behalf of companies or special interest
groups to try to sell their client's point of view to government. It
is a job. If they do it well they are very successful. I do not have
any problem with someone making a living in the marketing
business, lobbyist or otherwise.
I really do have a problem with people in government who are
in positions of trust, in positions of power, in positions of
influence and how they react to lobbyists. In my opinion it is not
so much the lobbyists that the ethnics counsellor should be
12126
concerned with. He or she should be concerned with the people
in government.
Without the structure in place, without the independence that
the ethics counsellor could freely operate under, basically that
person's hands are tied. There is no way that person is going to
have independence when it is a personal appointment by the
Prime Minister, where the position is not approved by the House
of Commons as a whole and where the ethics counsellor would
not have to report back to Parliament.
Some instances have come up during this Parliament, some
most recently where an independent ethics counsellor could
answer questions that are on the minds of the Canadian people. I
would like to talk about two of the most recent ones which just
came to light the other day about the grant to the port of
Belledune.
About two weeks ago the Minister of Transport said to the
press very plainly that there would be not one red cent of
government grant money going to the port of Belledune as long
as he was the Minister of Transport. He said: ``I wouldn't even
give a dime in grant money for the port of Saint John''. That was
two weeks ago.
A couple of days ago we found that in fact the Minister of
Transport from his own department is granting about $4.5
million to this port project and another $1.5 million is
apparently coming from some other department. In that
two-week period something happened to facilitate this
complete turnaround in the mind of the Minister of Transport.
What was that? I suggest someone possibly lobbied the Minister
of Transport. When a minister of his stature does a complete turn
around in two weeks, I am sure there are a lot of people in the
maritimes wondering what happened; he said one thing and then
two weeks later said another thing, totally opposite.
(1600)
That question in the minds of Canadians and in the minds of a
lot of members could be answered if we had a true ethics
counsellor who represented all members of Parliament. He
would be independent to look at that.
As a private member I could go to the ethics counsellor and
present a written inquiry: ``I am concerned about this. Why did
the Minister of Transport say two weeks ago he would give no
grant money and then two weeks later he said he would, to the
tune of $6 million?''
This is a small amount compared with some others. We can
talk about the highways project involving the minister of public
works. It appears there was some backroom dealing and now the
minister of public works is being questioned about possibly
influencing the diversion of some funds allotted to one project
over another area of the province. These are questions people of
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have. They are asking: ``What
happened here? The minister of public works said one thing and
now he does another thing''.
If we had an independent ethics counsellor then private
members from all parties in the House would have the freedom
to receive inquiries from everywhere in Canada about what
government bureaucracy is doing, what ministers are doing,
what any other representative of the government is doing with
tax dollars, why they are making these decisions. We do not have
that freedom now. If integrity, honesty and visibility are ever to
be restored to the House then we must have it.
Some parts of the bill I thought were reasonably positive; the
part which increases the disclosure requirements for lobbyists,
especially to tier two in-house lobbyist. As I have said before, I
do not have as much of a problem with lobbyists as some of my
colleagues have. I have more problem with the government, but
that is a positive.
The bill talks about lobbyists whose clients are coalitions and
will have disclose the membership of the coalition. Finally the
Canadian people should have the opportunity to see what special
interest groups are lobbying the government for special favours
or more money.
The bill will add government funding and the subject matter
of lobbying proposal to disclosure requirements. That is a good
part of the bill. It extends the statute of limitations for
investigations from six months to two years. Those are all good
things.
All of the good parts of the bill are negated because there is no
independence in any type of inquiry that could result from an
incident. I listed the positives and I used a very short part of the
page to list the negatives. Surprisingly enough it was quite a bit
longer. I am sure my colleagues came up with the same results.
I want to talk about some of the negatives. This bill classifies
lobbyists not on what they do but whom they work for. Lobbyists
should be defined by their activities, not their employers. Who
employs them is really of no consequence. The focus should be
on what they are doing on the Hill.
In our opinion all professional lobbyists should be treated the
same. The red book promises recommendations from the 1992
unanimous Holtmann report would be implemented by the
Liberal government. Removal of the tiers was an explicit
Holtmann report recommendation. This has not been done.
(1605 )
A lobbyist is defined as someone who lobbies as a significant
part of their duties. John Turner, who may only lobby two or
three times a year, can make the case that this is not a significant
part of his duties, but what he does may have a significant
12127
impact on government. He may be able to have a significant
impact on decision making.
We have many cases in which questions have arisen in the
House about the activities of government which simply cannot
be answered because we do not have a mechanism by which to
have an independent inquiry into those questions. Recently we
have talked about the direct to home satellite episode. We have
talked, as we did today in the House, about the Seagram episode.
We have talked about the Pearson episode and now we are
having a public inquiry into it. That is good, but a public inquiry
may have been averted if we had a position in the House where
an independent inquiry could have been made by someone
designated by all members of the House.
Probably one of the more questionable policies the
government has undertaken is the infamous credit card
infrastructure program. We spent day after day as Reformers
telling the Canadian people about some of the incredible
projects in the infrastructure program. My colleague from
Calgary talked about the expensive box seats at the Calgary
Saddledome. Could one suspect there was some lobbying done
in that instance? What kind of conversations went on behind
closed doors? We could even talk about the situation in the
Prime Minister's riding of the now infamous canoe hall of fame.
The list goes on and on. One could stand here for a full 20
minutes to bring up circumstances or happenings which have
raised questions in the minds of the Canadian people as to how
the government does business, why these decisions were made,
exactly who were the lobbyists who did the influencing and how
much influence they had on government officials who were
placed in a position of trust.
There are three words which sum up what Canadian people are
looking for in the House not being addressed by this bill:
accountability, legitimacy and autonomy: accountability of
MPs, ministers and people in positions of trust in government,
accountability for their decisions and how they use taxpayers'
money, and how they make decisions which influence the
society in which we live and the morality of the country;
legitimacy in the operation of Parliament. People want to see
their members representing them in a responsible and legitimate
fashion. With respect to autonomy, I speak of the autonomy of
an ethics counsellor. It is imperative to the position.
Unfortunately in Bill C-43 these three words and what they
mean are missing.
Government members stood on many soapboxes during the
campaign and promised the people they were speaking to that a
Liberal government would bring honesty, integrity and
accountability back to Parliament. If they truly believe Bill
C-43 is a step in that direction, they have sadly missed the mark.
I am very disappointed our very commonsensical
amendments to the bill were not accepted by the Liberal Party.
They were defeated. We will continue to speak about
accountability, honesty and integrity in the House until the
government gets the message. I hope it does some day.
(1610)
Reformers like to believe we have brought honesty to
Parliament. I cannot support Bill C-43 because the essential
ingredients to make it a good bill are simply not there.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I share the view expressed by the member of the third
party in this House that, to restore the integrity of our
democratic institutions, the government has to stop making
empty promises that mislead the public. I think that, as the
member mentioned, the commitments made by the Liberal Party
in its red book and what it is doing now as a government indicate
clearly that, once again, we have a government that is constantly
misleading the public with regard to certain commitments it
made in the past and to the legislation it is introducing to
supposedly honour these commitments.
It is not often that I have a chance to say this, but I agree with
some of the things that the member said concerning the
legislation itself. I understand that he was surprised to see some
things in this bill that appeared to be good at first glance. If there
is one thing that this government is to be given credit for, it is its
ability to hide almost everything it does behind a smoke screen.
It gives the impression that it is doing something, which is fairly
important for a government. We have to recognize that it is one
of this government's strengths. However, once we get through
the smoke screen, we realize immediately that there is
absolutely nothing behind it, and that is just awful.
The member mentioned this a few moments ago when he said
that he was surprised to find in this bill some elements which
seemed good at first glance but which, after a closer look, turned
out to be just terrible. One example he gave, and rightly so, is the
ethics counsellor. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing to have an
ethics counsellor. Yes, it is important. Yes, it is important to
have investigations. That is what we see in Bill C-43. Yes, it is
important to have some kind of report on these investigations.
That is what the government is saying. But when we look closely
at what is in the bill, we can see that the ethics counsellor is
appointed by the Prime Minister, that his investigations are
secret and that he will be only required to prepare a report
including his findings, his conclusions and the reasons for his
conclusions. That is all the proof we are going to have that he has
done his job.
If that is not a smoke screen, then I do not know what it is. The
Liberals say one thing and do the opposite. They want to be
transparent, but there is no transparency in Bill C-43. They want
to give credibility to their government, but Bill C-43 will
certainly not do the trick. When will they listen to the
opposition's demands? This is serious. The official opposition
and the
12128
third party moved more than 60 amendments to achieve the
desired transparency. Sixty times, the government said no to
transparency and no to integrity when we were just trying to help
it stick to the promises it made during the election campaign.
I will conclude by asking a question of the hon. member,
because I think that he has a very good understanding of the
problems with Bill C-43. I now want to get back to the ethics
counsellor. Let us suppose that that counsellor is appointed by
Parliament and that his or her inquiry report on a specific case,
for example the Pearson contract, if it were still an issue,
contained not only conclusions, but also the rationale leading to
these conclusions. Does the hon. member think that that would
give us the transparency that Bill C-43 is supposed to bring to
the system?
(1615)
[English]
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's
concurrence with my remarks.
In order to obtain the integrity of this House and the
transparency and the visibility the Canadian people are looking
for one has to have a truly independent ethics counsellor.
Perhaps I can give this example. It is almost like two baseball
teams playing a game of baseball. If the umpire is chosen by
both teams to be independent then it is a fine game. However, if
the umpire is chosen by only one team then how can the other
team have any confidence that it will be a fair game?
That is what the Canadian people are saying. How do they
have any confidence in what is happening in government when
all the rules are determined by the Liberal government and the
opposition party and the Reform Party do not have input into
some very fundamental elements of fairness and integrity in the
House?
The Liberals may say they are the government, they have a
majority, a majority of the people voted for them. That is fine,
but I would like to remind the Liberal Party that there were
several million other people in Canada who did not vote for
them, and they are looking very closely at what this government
is doing. If the Liberal government wants to try to swing their
vote the next time, they are looking for the government to give
them some message and some reason to vote for them again.
If the Liberal government carries on the way it has been, not
fulfilling its promises, even a good majority of its supporters,
those who voted for it the last time, will become disillusioned
with the fact that the Liberal government has no more intention
of delivering visibility in the way it operates than the previous
Tory government had.
I hope to remind the Liberal government of what happened to
the previous Tory government when it did all its business behind
closed doors. That should be a good lesson for this government.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased that my turn has come to speak to Bill C-43. For
those who just arrived and those who, maybe, have just tuned in,
I would like to say that Bill C-43 is a bill which the government
has tabled to regulate lobbyists on Parliament Hill.
Lobbyists are individuals or associations who represent
private interests. There are all kinds of lobbyists. Some
represent legitimate associations, such as the Canadian
Association of Firefighters, farmers, etc. But there are also more
worrisome lobbyists who try to influence the government for the
benefit of private interests. Sometimes, these interests do not
serve the general public interest, and often represent unjust
causes.
This is what the Canadian public is concerned about. We have
known for a very long time, maybe a decade or more, that the
general public wants lobbying activities to be regulated to make
them more transparent, to bring out in the open what exactly it is
that lobbyists do. The public is concerned because it knows that
the work of lobbyists often leads to abuses of authority. We saw
this very recently in a series of troubling cases.
For example, there is the case of the Pearson airport contract.
It was mentioned during debate. This was a contract prepared by
Conservative and Liberal lobbyists which amounted to hundreds
of millions of dollars. We still do not have all the facts on this
matter. However, the Conservative Senate decided, today, to
appoint a commission of inquiry into this use of lobbying.
(1620)
There was also a second case, one which clearly shows how
lobbying can vary considerably, the case of bovine somatotropin
or BST. This substance is a hormone produced by Monsanto, a
pharmaceutical company which wants to introduce BST in
Canada to increase milk production. Well, the Monsanto
lobbyists managed to influence Health Canada, they even bribed
Health Canada officials, so much so that, even though the
industry disagrees and the population disagrees, Canada will
soon have milk produced through the use of BST. This is the
result of a disturbing kind of lobbying.
There was also the case of the Minister of Canadian Heritage
who tried to exert influence on an agency under his
responsibility. He interceded directly on behalf of one of his
constituents.
12129
Really, Bill C-43 on lobbying raises questions of fairness,
justice and transparency. It has been said over and over again,
we want a bill that would really regulate lobbying because we
know there were cases of abuse of power and that colossal sums
of money can be taken out of the system for the benefit of some
special interests.
This is what Canadians are concerned about. As you know, we
have a weakened bill here. At first, what was proposed with Bill
C-43 was legislation that had teeth, that members of the
opposition could have approved.
The government could have presented a bill offering more
transparency in such cases. What happened is that lobbyists
themselves intervened in the development of this bill to water it
down and weaken it to the point that the bill we are dealing with
today is no better than the previous act. It is indeed all smoke
and mirrors. As far as control and openness with regard to
lobbyists is concerned the situation has not really changed, as
evidenced by the government's refusal to put into Bill C-43 the
provisions we recommended with regard to the ethics
counsellor.
Currently, there is an ethics counsellor appointed by the
Prime Minister and that he can consult if he wants. But as we
know very well, in the instances I just mentioned, despite abuse
of power and disturbing cases of lobbying, the Prime Minister
did not consult his ethics counsellor. We know it because he
admitted it himself.
So, we now have an ethics counsellor, but the House of
Commons cannot turn to him, because the Prime Minister has
him in his pocket, so to speak.
We would like to see in the bill a clause providing that the
ethics counsellor be appointed by the House and report directly
to the House. In that way, the ethics counsellor would be
independent enough to intervene in the issues and settle them
and would be empowered to investigate even if it means
bringing proceedings against lobbyists or people abusing their
power.
I think that in this case, the essential condition for a strong
piece of legislation that has teeth and that will be respected, is to
have an ethics counsellor appointed by the House and reporting
directly to the House, and operating sufficiently at arm's length,
like the auditor general, to settle issues.
(1625)
We make that request because there are issues we would like
the ethics counsellor to be able to decide. An example would be
the whole question of conflicts of interest which has been under
discussion for several weeks concerning direct-to-home
television broadcasting. This is a case of lobbying that is
particularly interesting and even quite disturbing.
You are familiar with that case, but, for the sake of those who
are not, let me outline the particulars of the incident we have
been dealing with for a couple of weeks. A wholly Canadian
company called Expressvu Inc. managed to get the direct
television broadcasting contract. Direct broadcasting means
programs are transmitted directly by satellite and not through
cable companies. Expressvu complied with the rules of the
CRTC and its bid got CRTC approval. The whole process had
begun several months earlier.
Just when the decision was about to be made in favour of
Expressvu, a new company called Power DirecTv came into the
picture at the last minute and managed to have the CRTC
decision overturned so as to get at least part of that market. We
all know that Power DirecTv belongs to the son-in-law of the
Prime Minister of Canada.
That is what I call patronage. It is hard to imagine that, in such
a case, a private company could act so quickly to set up a
network of influences in order to have a CRTC decision
overturned by the federal cabinet. That takes some doing. It
takes some clout to get the consensus needed in the federal
cabinet to overturn a proper decision by the CRTC. This is the
first and only time in the history of the CRTC that such a thing
has happened. It is really incredible. All this just to further the
interests of a fully private corporation chaired by the Prime
Minister's son-in-law.
It is really incredible. It takes some clout to do that. That is
some kind of lobbying. One might even say that the Liberal
government is lobbying for Power Corporation. It is a known
fact that Power Corporation has certain ties in Canada. Its
network of influences was active throughout the federal
government and even put pressure on the very top, the cabinet,
in order to have the CRTC decision overturned, a first in the
history of the CRTC, all in the interest of a private company
which wields a great deal of clout.
(1630)
In fact, as I said before, one wonders whether the Liberal
government was perhaps lobbying for Power Corporation,
because the process to promote Power DirecTv included
appointing a panel of three former deputy ministers, all friends
of Power Corporation and of Mr. Goldenberg, an adviser to the
Prime Minister. We know that Michael Pitfield, the senator and
former Clerk of the Privy Council, is also a vice-president of
Power Corporation. Many of those involved are very, very close
to the Prime Minister. They are almost part of a family. In fact,
they are family.
So all this raises a number of questions. How did they manage
to reverse a decision so quickly, to influence cabinet?
Meanwhile, and this is what I find so amazing, they managed to
give the impression that the Prime Minister himself was not
involved in this decision. That takes some doing.
They managed to give that impression, despite the fact that he
was surrounded by friends, neighbours, a son-in-law, former
colleagues, and so forth, and they managed to reverse the
CRTC's decision. They brazenly claimed that the Prime
Minister himself was not involved in this decision, but that is
inconceivable. We understand how this could happen when we
12130
realize that Mr. Desmarais, the head of Power Corporation, is a
very powerful man in this country. So powerful that he is able to
use cabinet to further his own interests and, on top of that, he
manages to control the media. That is what he did. He controlled
the media. He controlled public opinion in Canada. That is quite
a feat.
Normally, if Mr. Desmarais had not been the kind of man he
is, if this had been a normal case, once this conspiracy, this
massive lobbying on the part of the government in favour of
Power Corporation was revealed, the headlines of newspapers
across the country would have screamed ``Nepotism,
Nepotism''. The Prime Minister is giving preferential treatment
to his son-in-law's company. That is obvious.
The long and the short of it is that, Mr. Desmarais owns the
newspaper La Presse in Montreal. He is very close to Conrad
Black, who controls nearly all newspapers in Quebec. They both
have a major interest in Southam News across Canada, which
controls L'Actualité and Maclean's. Now that is power.
This man and his organization, Power Corporation, this is
more than a lobby, this goes beyond lobbying. It is a superlobby.
Not only did it reverse a CRTC decision, but it also swayed
Cabinet in favour of one of Power Corporation's subsidiaries
and used the press to influence public opinion.
Why has this case been dropped? After, all it is extremely
disquieting. In my opinion, this is reminiscent of the family
compact era, which in the 19th century was so damaging for the
interests of the state. A few families who controlled money,
power and trade were intimately linked with the politicians in
power. It caused, as we know, rebellions in both Upper and
Lower Canada.
(1635)
I do not mean to say by this that the issue will spark a rebellion
because, obviously, we have come a long way since then. We are
a very democratic country, but in essence, we have remained a
family compact. It is the family compact revisited. This incident
with Power DirecTv is a case in point that the family compact is
coming back.
And now, I come back to this doubt, to this suspicion that
Power Corporation manipulated public opinion in order to
distance the Prime Minister from a decision which has turned
out so favourably for a company held by his son-in-law. Who in
this country could doubt that the Prime Minister was unaware of
this ploy? Legitimately and reasonably we have to assume he
was involved even though in the House he has said he did not
comment in Cabinet on this matter.
However, that Saturday night, at the home of Paul Desmarais,
his daughter's father-in-law, he could have easily discussed it.
Do you not agree with me, Mr. Speaker? He could easily have
talked it over with his senior adviser, Mr. Goldenberg. Just as he
could have spoken to Michael Pitfield or his buddies, there are
so many of them. Can we for a moment think that the Prime
Minister was not familiar with this matter? Impossible.
I contend that it is definitely a question of honour for the
Prime Minister to obtain a decision in favour of Power DirecTv.
It is a question of honour, of power and of fine politicking. This
is politics at its highest and finest level. We know that all
politicians want power. Supreme power is having the ability to
do whatever one wants and to be totally above suspicion.
It is a matter of degree of corruption, in fact, because this is a
case of corruption. We must not fool ourselves. It is a sign of
extraordinary power when you can reach such a level of
corruption and be totally above suspicion. For the Prime
Minister it is a question of honour. The Prime Minister cannot
not know about this matter. He was surely aware of everything
that was happening.
He used all his power so that it would pass, because he could
not say to his daughter: ``My dear, your husband cannot have a
favourable decision. We cannot overturn the decision of the
CRTC''. He could not say such a thing to his daughter or to his
son-in-law. The honourable thing would have been for him to
say: ``My son-in-law, you will have it. Not only will you have
it, but no one will suspect that I tipped the balance in your
favour''. And this is what he did.
How could he live with himself as Prime Minister, honourable
and powerful as he is, if he had failed to grant this favour to his
son-in-law? I close by saying that this is lobbying at its finest.
This one more reason, one of many, why we need clear and very
strong legislation and why we should certainly improve Bill
C-43.
(1640)
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the
presentation of my colleague from the Bloc. I was particularly
intrigued with the examples he used of actual blatant lobbying
or presumed lobbying, but we do not for sure.
I have to underline what he said in the sense that the process
being produced as a result of Bill C-43 falls completely short of
having the ability to assure Canadians there is nothing wrong
when nothing is wrong. In other words, if there is something
wrong here we should have an ethics counsellor who would have
total freedom to investigate and so declare it. If there is nothing
wrong he should have total freedom and independence so he
would be believable. Both these elements are missing in the bill.
12131
It is so important when we talk about Bill C-43 that we also
talk about the openness and accountability provided in it and the
potential missed by the things not disclosed.
One of the elements that is a source of great annoyance and
suspicion to Canadians is lobbyists very often are trading on
previous attachments and previous connections.
I would like the member to comment on that aspect of it,
whether lobbyists if they are to be required to register should
also be required to indicate their previous political work, their
political connections, and whether they should be required to
indicate things like substantial donations to political parties.
That would increase the openness and I suppose it would do a
great deal to introduce a self-policing effect to the whole
process.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for
his question. The answer is obvious. Of course, we would like to
introduce every possible amendment to give more teeth to Bill
C-43, which has lost quite a few since it was introduced. We
want this bill to be stronger, and every bit of information
regarding lobbyists should be disclosed, including their
donations to political parties and their political affiliation. All
the information should be provided to ensure greater
transparency. I justify this disclosure requirement simply
because when lobbyists are subject to no controls, no
restrictions, obviously this leads to all sorts of abuses.
It is sure, for instance, that if we cannot have an independent
ethics counsellor, a counsellor appointed by the House rather
than by the Prime Minister, this really puts the value of this bill
and the lobbying on Parliament Hill into question. It proves that
the general public is right to be seriously concerned about
lobbying. Again, the worst of it all is that it affects us personally
as politicians because it casts doubt on us. Introducing a bill like
Bill C-43 regarding lobbyists brings our political integrity into
question because, as politicians, we know that there is
corruption and abuse of power in those circles. The fact is that
we are in a position to act and pass a bill that would have teeth,
but we are not taking advantage of this possibility.
This brings us into disrepute. The public is perfectly justified
in questioning the integrity of politicians because, no matter
what people say about politicians, I know that there are certain
things that we cannot do, like perform miracles. But in this
House we have the possibility and power to make a good bill out
of a bill like this one. We could make sure that the ethics
counsellor is appointed by the House of Commons, thereby
ensuring greater transparency in a matter of great concern to the
general public.
(1645)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
What I find appalling in this is that we have been discussing this
matter for two days, accusing the government of all sorts of
things, including a lack of openness, and saying that this bill
does not achieve the objective set by the government. We have
said that government members are reneging on their own
election promises. We have said all kinds of things in this House
but the Liberals listening to us are not saying anything. Silence
means consent. They are not saying anything because we are
right. This bill is an empty shell and does not do anything to
ensure openness.
I will read some of the clauses so that you can understand why
the average citizen thinks this bill is a crock.
With respect to the code of conduct, the bill provides that:
``The Governor in Council may designate any person as the
Ethics Counsellor for the purposes of this Act''. The term
``governor in council'' means the Prime Minister and his team.
This piece of legislation will therefore be administered by a
friend of the Prime Minister.
According to another clause, the code of conduct-to be
developed by a friend of the Prime Minister who will be
appointed to the post of ethics counsellor by the Prime
Minister-is not a statutory instrument. The government goes to
the trouble of indicating in the bill that the code is not a statutory
instrument and should not be implemented as such.
Another clause states that: ``The investigation shall be
conducted in private''. This confirms, once again, that we are
right in saying that they were not honest in drafting this bill.
According to another clause, ``After conducting an
investigation, the Ethics Counsellor shall prepare a report of the
investigation, including the findings, conclusions and reasons
for his conclusions, and submit it to the Registrar General of
Canada''. Again, this investigation will be conducted secretly
and the Prime Minister will receive a nice report, while we will
have to make do with the reasons for the conclusions they will
condescend to share with us.
I understand why they feel uncomfortable and do not wish to
rise in this House to defend this bill. I will use parliamentary
language to avoid being censured. I understand why they do not
wish to rise. What I do not understand is why, before this bill
was tabled in this House, they did not warn their caucus that they
were reneging on their election promises, that the bill did not go
far enough. They could have argued that we need transparency
because nobody wants to be a member of Parliament anymore.
Nobody trusts us any more.
I was a lawyer before I became a member of Parliament.
People used to tell me that lawyers had a bad reputation but
when I informed them that I wanted to go into politics, they told
me, ``Are you crazy? It is even worse than being a lawyer''.
12132
This bill gives us an opportunity to increase openness, to
improve the reputation of members of Parliament. What did
they come up with? A mess. Instead of restoring confidence,
they are abusing the trust of Canadian taxpayers, and that is
unacceptable.
The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. I imagine that
the hon. member does not wish to comment.
[English]
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Kamloops-Taxation; the hon. member for Thunder
Bay-Atikokan-International Trade.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-43. I thank my colleagues
for the intercession. It was amazing and perhaps amusing. I can
see that the bill generates a little emotion.
(1650 )
Before addressing the specifics of the bill and more
specifically the issue of ethics counsellor, I would like to do a
little lobbying of my own. This is completely off topic but I
know members will understand.
In the years I have sat here there has been nothing more
glorious than the stained glass windows of the Chamber in the
afternoon sun. I am lobbying on behalf of whoever wants to look
at the windows or whoever created them. They are absolutely
marvellous, gorgeous. They do not have a whole lot to do with
the bill, but they give us a sense of awe.
Those of us elected by the Canadian people have been given a
terrific amount of trust. People have entrusted us with virtually
everything in terms of laws and legislation that have to do with
federal lawmaking. We should be humble and full of awe that
somebody chose us. We were the winners of the 1993 election.
Those of us on the government benches and those of us on the
opposition benches have an incredible responsibility to the
people who elected us to try to do the best job we could.
Someone just before me got very emotional about this matter.
For the reasons I will continue to lay out, it is important that
whatever we do in this place be seen as important, as fair and as
upfront to those in the Canadian public who pay the bills for this
place such as the bill for the stained glass windows.
As I look at Bill C-43 I wonder from time to time about things
I have heard from the government benches and about things I
have seen in the red book about honesty and integrity in
government. Canadians are seeking real political change. It is
not just a matter of for whom to vote in an election, what they
should do or who should be put on the government benches.
They have sent some loud and clear signals. Certainly in the
Charlottetown accord debate in 1992 they asked loudly: ``What
part of no don't you understand? '' They said the accord was
dead, deader than dead. They wanted politicians to pay
attention and listen to what they had to say.
In 1993 they sent some pretty clear signals as well. The
governing party was obliterated because people wanted to be
able to trust their politicians. They wanted to make them more
responsive and more accountable in the entire political system.
We cannot continue to sit in Parliament and say it does not
matter, that some folk on the outside watch the parliamentary
channel but basically do not know what goes on here.
A former Tory colleague said at a public meeting on the
Charlottetown accord in Grand Centre, Alberta: ``You people
just do not understand''. As soon as political people,
government members or opposition members, say that the
people do not understand, we see a father knows best attitude in
the country. That is the first sign to beware.
If we think we have all the answers, we think we are giving the
people what they want. However it is not what they want if we
are not responsive or accountable. Surely the same fate awaits
anyone in the House who makes the assumptions the last
government did. In fact they are toast. It is a simple as that.
In all probability most of us, as well as all other Canadians,
talked about all the things we were to do. As campaigners and as
people running for office we said: ``We are going to clean up the
system. We are going to do politics differently and we are going
to do politics better''. That is a quote of someone who is no
longer here. She promised to do politics in a different way. She
did and will be forever remembered.
We in the 35th Parliament have an opportunity to make some
changes to the system. We want to make it more open,
responsive and accountable. We have put forward several
motions and private members' bills designed to improve the
political process and to open up democracy to which we should
be paying attention.
Recently we have seen government members being thrown
out on their ear from all responsibilities they have. This is not
the kind of thing the Canadian public is working toward.
As we look at the bill under lobbying we see more of the same
attitude. It is frustrating for me as someone on the opposition
side. Many government backbenchers who sat in the last
Parliament told the Tories what they were supposed to do, that
the system was supposed to be transparent, totally visible. Yet
the government is bringing in a bill which seems to be similar to
the one of the previous government under Felix Holtmann who
chaired a committee and came up with a report.
12133
(1655)
Let me tell members what it is stated in the red book: ``The
integrity of government is put into question when there is a
perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists exercising
undue influence away from public view''. That is absolutely
true. I have to agree with that paragraph of the red book.
Lobbyists are seen to be the people who are scurrying around
Parliament Hill in people's offices wheeling and dealing and
making special deals for themselves or the people whom they
represent.
Is the public perception about undue influence, cosy
relationships, conflict of interest and influence peddling part of
the traditional political process? Is it justified? Unfortunately it
is because that is the way it has been.
We have seen an incredible population explosion not just with
my generation, the baby boomers, but with the lobbyists. They
have mushroomed on Parliament Hill. All of us can look at our
daybooks to see that a lot of time is filled up by lobbyists coming
to visit. I am sure I do not have quite as many coming to see me
in my office as perhaps the minister of heritage. Who knows
whether they come to his office or whether he goes to theirs?
That is immaterial at this point.
Those who recall the pork barrelling and fervent patronage
appointments in the final year of Mr. Trudeau's government
remember the words of a certain fellow, Mr. Turner, who said:
``I had no option''. There are all kinds of options open.
What about folks who have read On the Take? That is a book I
spent some time reading while I was on sick leave. I am not sure
if it helped me recuperate or if it made me feel worse. However
people will be persuaded when they read these kinds of books.
They will wonder how in the world they trusted a person. They
put an x beside a name and pay his or her wages. We read of this
kind of stuff all the time about somebody receiving so many
million dollars and somebody else receiving more.
Those people who study and pay attention to the political
process with respect to various government pressures on the
decision of the CRTC that we have been witnessing are
suspicious and will likely be persuaded as further information
becomes available.
Public perceptions are justified. These perceptions are true.
Something needs to be done, not just to tinker with something to
come up with a new bill but really make some serious changes.
Can we do anything to remedy the situation, to foster new and
more positive perceptions about the integrity of those who
govern, about the political process, and about the lobbying
industry? Of course there is something we can do.
A thorough and sensible rewrite of the Lobbyists Registration
Act could be part of the remedy. Will Bill C-43 do the job? I do
not think it will because there are some gaping holes in it. I
would like to refer to a couple of them.
The first hole concerns the ethics counsellor and the
lobbyists' code of conduct. The most important component in
the process to regulate and control the lobbying industry will be
the ethics counsellor. The individual appointed must be highly
respected. He or she must carry the confidence of the public that
watches all that goes on and pays the bills, as well as the
confidence of the House. The ethics counsellor must be
powerful with respect to investigative and reporting powers.
Most important, the ethics counsellor must have a high degree of
independence or autonomy.
In theory that is the way it ought to be. I suspect everyone in
the House would agree and everyone watching or reading about
it in the newspapers would agree. I am sure they would say that
makes sense. In reality that is not the freedom or the autonomy
the person will actually receive.
During the last election the Liberals clearly recognized the
need to reform the practice of lobbying in Canada. We have
heard about it for a long time. Chapter 6 of the red book is the
most sensible chapter in the book. We need to see the
government act on it. Nothing in the chapter calls for more
money, which is refreshing. It was a pleasure to read it because it
did not call for a lot of extra cash. Liberals and more cash seem
to be synonymous terms. All they are really asking for and all we
are asking them to act on is responsive responsible government.
Moreover they recognized the significance of the ethics
counsellor to the reform of the practice of lobbying. Let me
quote a couple of phrases in chapter 6: ``A Liberal government
will appoint an independent ethics counsellor to advise both
public officials and lobbyists''. This is a great idea. It looks
terrific. I am sure the Bloc would agree that it is a great idea. I
am sure Liberal members, both cabinet and backbenchers,
would say: ``What a terrific idea. It is in the red book. We agree
with it, yes, but what happened? There is just that one little word
in there, independent''.
(1700)
Mr. Speaker, you and I have seen what has gone on in the last
months on TV or in the scrum outside the House. The ethics
counsellor was brought in on a couple of things and was
virtually muted. That is really unfortunate. It gives him kind of a
bad name, poor soul.
I remember when he said: ``I cannot really remember the
Prime Minister asking me about that,'' and `` I am not really sure
I was given the absolute independence to make comments on
that''. If you are going to make someone independent, then do it.
If you are going to give a teenager the right to be independent or
to use your car or whatever, then you have to hand over the reins
and let him run with it.
Someone gave me a poster which reads: There are two gifts
we can give our children; one is roots and the other is wings. If
we are going to tell our own children that we have given them the
grounding, the roots, that we have established them and it may
12134
be scary but they are on their own when they head off to
university, then that is what we have to do for them.
It is also what we have to do for the ethics counsellor. If we
have committed to him that he is going to be an independent
ethics counsellor, then we have to tell him that we are not tying
him to a chain demanding that if he says something we do not
like that we are going to yank the chain and bring him back. He
must be given that independent authority.
Further on in the red book it says that the ethics counsellor
will report directly to Parliament. That would be wonderful and
is something that is long overdue. I suspect many Liberal
backbenchers and the rat pack particularly were demanding for
years that the ethics counsellor report to Parliament so that there
would be some teeth to this autonomy.
What do they say now? The report will be to the Prime
Minister, cabinet, whomever as long as it is a very small group
and it does not come to all of Parliament or is not broadcast on
the national news.
There are two essential factors in developing the position of
the ethics counsellor. That person would be independent and
would report directly to Parliament. Unfortunately this bill does
not address those or make sure that those criteria are followed.
It leads me to the question: Why did the Liberals change their
minds when they became government? Frankly, what was said in
the red book was pretty good. What they did does not add up to
what they said in the red book. Do we call this another broken
promise? I guess so. There are probably no other options but to
call it that.
If I am campaigning and I make a promise, I had better keep it
otherwise it is called only one thing and that is a broken promise.
Nobody in this country needs any more broken promises from
politicians. That is the way it has to be. The only option left to us
is that we give people the option of saying: ``Yes, I trust you.
Yes, I voted for you and yes, you are somebody who said what
you were going to do and then did it''. We would go a long way
in making sure that this bill was going to have some teeth in it if
we made those changes.
Why does the government not wish the ethics counsellor to
report directly to Parliament? Are we that scary? I hardly think
so. We have been given a mandate from the people to be able to
scrutinize some of these things. Our being allowed to say that we
want to look at something and the ethics counsellor is going to
report directly to Parliament is what needs to happen. These
things need to be given a full and free airing here on the floor of
the House of Commons, not in the cabinet room.
What kind of backsliding is this for a party that talked about
governing with integrity? What degree of independence will this
ethics counsellor have when required to report to a cabinet
minister and held accountable to the Prime Minister? Is this
scary? I hardly think so, when he is appointed by the Prime
Minister and then has to report to the Prime Minister.
Nothing could be better and nothing could be healthier than
reporting to Parliament. If there is something the government
needs to be attacked on-I do not like to use that word-but held
accountable for, then do it. If there is a problem in a relationship,
nothing is healthier than to sit down and talk about it. That is the
best thing to do.
If the ethics counsellor were to report to all of Parliament and
held accountable to it, then government members may say:
``Whoa, we made a mistake''. There is nothing wrong with
saying: ``We have made a mistake''. Absolutely nothing. There
is no shame in anyone standing up to say: ``Hey, I screwed up
here. I made a mistake. Please understand. Please forgive me''.
(1705)
My testing ground was in front of a grade 8 classroom. It was
the best thing that could have ever prepared me for Parliament. I
learned that you better not say: ``Here is the answer,'' and then
just launch off on some course you know nothing about and
cannot defend but will pretend that you know all about it to those
kids. It simply does not work. All of us here should know that by
now. If you do not know the answer, say so.
At town hall meetings I get asked all kinds of questions and
frankly sometimes I do not have a clue about the answer. I say:
``I am really sorry. I cannot tell you the answer but I can
probably find it for you. Give me your name, address and phone
number and I will get back to you with that information''. It is
better to do that rather than to look like the quintessential
politician who just ravels on for 20 minutes not knowing what
you are saying, what you mean and having a whole crowd know
that you are simply filling in time. Frankly, you look like an
idiot.
It would be best if we said: ``Let the person have
independence. Let the person report back to Parliament and let
us not just fool our way through these kinds of things''.
There is no shame in saying: ``I made a mistake''. If we do
something wrong, people will respect us so much more if we just
say: ``Look, I messed up here. Please understand. Tell me the
right answer or give me suggestions''.
The government has said from time to time: ``Please, you on
the opposition benches, give us your suggestions''. We do give
suggestions but we are just mocked and scorned and madefun of.
12135
I think of my friend, the finance minister. I have a lot of
respect for the finance minister. Maybe we do not agree on
policy certainly. Surely to heaven if we have some of the best
economic minds in the country, like the hon. member for
Capilano-Howe Sound who is internationally renowned, why
then can we not put forward a couple of proposals? We go into
question period and somebody makes fun of them. It does not
accomplish anything. People say: ``Here they go again. It is just
the political hoop-la of question period''.
Let us work together. Surely it does not need to be this
partisan. Let us make sure that we can serve the ethics
counsellor and he can serve us. There are all kinds of things he
could be requested to look into on our behalf that would make
things better for us and for the Canadian public. They would feel
like they were getting their money's worth in that kind of
situation. Surely we can do better.
Let me summarize because I have gone on and on. This bill
could have done much to improve the political process in this
country to make it more open, responsive and accountable as I
talked about earlier.
Unfortunately, perhaps there is some pious intention here as
decreed in chapter 6 of the red book which the government
simply could not live up to. There is no shame in that. Just say:
``Hey, we said a lot in chapter 6. If we cannot live up to it, then
that is the way it is. It is a broken promise but at least we admit it
is a broken promise. We have not gone far enough to make sure
that this ethics counsellor is really accountable, that he is
independent and that he will report to Parliament''.
Let us make sure that there is no shame lost in a government
that would admit that. We know that would refresh the Canadian
public beyond the telling of it. I am sure they would applaud as
they watched this debate if some substantive changes were made
to this bill to make sure that we are not just going along with the
political process in the old style.
We are moving toward the next century. Surely we could
move our whole political process and the politicians involved in
it into a new style of politics as well. Some of us on both sides of
the House desperately want to be part of that new political style.
We are encouraging the government to say on this bill:
``Come on board. Let us get toward the 21st century. Let us make
substantive changes here so that we will be new style
politicians''.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at first I thought the
member would stand to congratulate the government on its
initiative after waiting a number of years for legislation that
deals with the whole question of lobbyists. I was somewhat
disappointed to see her turning in circles, repeating herself
about 365 times to come back to the beginning and say that she is
not happy. I do not know what will make the hon. member happy.
(1710)
I will share this with the member in case she is not aware of
what the committee has done so far. There were a number of
amendments, a number of good suggestions that were brought
forward by members of the committee and they were adopted by
the committee.
The bill, along with all of the other good things in it, will now
capture grassroots lobbying. In other words, any registered
lobbyist who is involved in grassroots lobbying such as letter
writing campaigns must disclose this as a communication
technique.
Also, the committee felt very strongly that lobbyists should
disclose when they are working on a contingency fee basis. This
is not in fact prohibited by contracting policy. As well, from now
on informational lobbying will be made easily available to
Canadians. Industry Canada will put a registry online across
Canada through a 1-800 number and on Internet.
I want also to bring to the attention of my colleague that the
committee recognized that organization lobbyists and their
goals are different. Most, if not all of them, will be subject to
semi-annual update. Also, any organization that lobbies
government will have to reveal the sources and the amount of
any government funding it receives.
I do not know what the beef is in the hon. member's whole
question. Since the government came into power the Prime
Minister has appointed an ethics counsellor.
Mr. Stinson: Has appointed.
Mr. Harb: The ethics counsellor will now develop a code of
conduct for lobbyists. The committee has ensured that lobbyists
will have a legal obligation to comply with the code.
Mr. Penson: To whom does he report?
Mr. Harb: If only our Reform colleagues would have the
decency to listen to a voice of reason, but they do not want to
listen with how they are going on.
I will finish on this. In keeping with the spirit of increased
powers for members of Parliament, the lobbyists' code of
conduct will have to be reviewed by a parliamentary committee
before it comes into effect. I want to ask the member-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Beaver River.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, when he says that I have a beef, the
question of course is: Where is the beef? Is this their only one
Big Mac in this House? Come on.
I spoke about the ethics counsellor and then I was asked by
Big Mac himself about grassroots lobbying, about disclosure,
about information lobbying, about semi-annual updates. I am
12136
talking about the half of the bill that talks about the ethics
counsellor; he is talking about the part of the bill that deals
specifically with lobbyists. That is fine.
There have been some good moves in the right direction.
However, all of this is nothing but fluff if we do not have an
ethics counsellor who can monitor this kind of stuff, who can
monitor it, who will be independent and who will report to
Parliament, not to the Prime Minister.
This is not good. He can talk about all the lobbying stuff in the
world and we might talk just briefly in my remarks about tier
one and tier two lobbyists. I thought that was kind of sweet
because we talk about two-tiered things in health care around
here and in that context it is absolutely horrifying. Yet, here we
have something where we have two tiers of lobbyists.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Three tiers.
Miss Grey: Three tiers. Well there are two with parts a and b.
Part one is that there would be consultant lobbyists; that is tier
one. Then, tier two, a and b, is that there would be in-house
lobbyists, which sounds kind of cosy. We have the in-house
lobbyists, which consists of the corporate in-house lobbyists
and then we have the in-house lobbyist organizations.
An hon. member: Two tiered pensions too.
Miss Grey: It is sort of like two tiered pensions. It is sort of
like two tiered health care. It is sort of like the government
should be shedding two tears right now about this kind of stuff.
Let us talk about lobbyists, but let us also talk about the ethics
counsellor who is not independent. He reports to the Prime
Minister which is hardly anything that has any teeth in it. He
does not report to Parliament. He goes to some back office
upstairs and says: ``Well, Prime Minister, let me tell you about
the lobbyists''. But who cares and who listens? Let us have it
here on the floor of the House of Commons.
Some of the amendments are perhaps noble, but the right
amendments were not made. That is the unfortunate part of this
bill.
(1715)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I truly appreciated the comments made by the hon. member for
Beaver River. She is right on when she raises the issue of who
the government is listening to regarding this legislation. The
government is certainly not listening to its members: it is
listening to lobbyists. The government listens to lobbyists even
in the case of Bill C-43.
Earlier, the member for Ottawa Centre said that the hon.
member for Beaver River was going around in circles. However,
at one point, that same member was laughing when she accused
the government of tabling a bill with no substance. It is as
though the government is making fun of people by not tabling
substantive legislation.
Such substance is not found in the details mentioned by the
government member earlier, but in the comments made by the
western member when she said that what we need is an
independent ethics counsellor. The fact that it is not the case
confirms that this government does not really intend to
strengthen the legislation and counteract the efforts of lobbyists.
I have a question for the hon. member. Does she not agree that
lobbyists are the only ones to whom the government is really
paying any attention?
[English]
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I suspect they are doing some
listening to the lobbyists. Perhaps they are listening to cabinet.
Perhaps they are listening to the Prime Minister as well.
I believe there is a deeper issue, a more serious malaise. The
whole lobbying industry has mushroomed in the last 20 or 30
years. Something has to be done about it and I do not see the bill
as going far enough in the direction to make sure people are not
getting away with things, that people are not getting special
deals, that they are not convincing the minister of heritage, for
instance, to go to Disneyland for lunch; making sure these
indiscreet things are not happening. That is what is frustrating
about this.
There are many parliamentary secretaries in the House, as
well as backbenchers. No matter what they do, because they did
not do exactly the right thing by giving those two criteria to the
ethics counsellor, this thing will not work. It will not work
because it is tinkering with the system. I am sure the lobbyists
watching this debate are already lobbying for changes around
and tunnels and paths through the whole workings of
government, getting themselves into ministers' offices and
through the bureaucracy so there can be more money made and
stronger ties with cabinet ministers' offices.
Lobbyists by definition are those who lobby government,
naturally. They will look at this legislation. I am sure they have
studied it already. They will be at the point at which they know
exactly what they are after.
Mr. Milliken: Have you ever been lobbied?
Miss Grey: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
asks if I have every been lobbied. If he had been here for my
speech he would have heard that of course we are all lobbied.
People will continue to be lobbied all the time. Let us have an
ethics counsellor with some teeth to get to the lobbyists who are
not doing the right thing. There are no teeth. This is a toothless
ethics counsellor. That is most unfortunate and yet that is
exactly what will happen. If lobbyists see somebody who has
12137
absolutely no teeth they will gum it all the way to the Prime
Minister.
There are things which are seriously wrong but my time is up.
I would love to go on as I love this debate but I will sit down
now.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak about Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists
Registration Act and to make related amendments to other Acts,
which the Minister of Industry tabled on June 16, 1994. The law
preceding it took effect in 1989. First of all we must keep in
mind that the population has a poor opinion of the government's
decision making process.
(1720)
People have lost a lot of their trust in the government. We
must, therefore, restore the public's trust and convince the
population that the government's decisions are fair and are made
on the basis of merit.
Lobbyists, influence peddlars, as some like to call them, have
always held a great, and at times even disproportionate, amount
of power. In March 1994, there were 944 of them on Parliament
Hill. They sometimes work in the shadows and in secrecy;
sometimes they are at the centre of influence-peddling; they do
not necessarily work in the public interest. The work carried out
on Parliament Hill must be made transparent so that the population will understand, for example, what brings the government to make a deal with a person or an organization or what motivated a regulation, a bill, etc.
This bill, although a step in the right direction, is very
disappointing for many reasons. Unfortunately, the Liberals
rejected all of the amendments that the Bloc Quebecois
proposed in committee and in the House to improve it.
The population of today's democratic societies is demanding
more and more transparency in the legislative process and in the
government's decisions.
Under Bill C-43, lobbyists will have to disclose the specific
subject-matter of their activities, the name of the government
department or institution they will be lobbying, the
communication techniques that will be used and, in certain
cases, information about the true beneficiary of the lobbying.
They will also have to disclose the names of the legislative
proposal, bill, resolution, policy, regulation, subsidy,
contribution or any other financial advantage that they are
targeting.
The second important element of this bill is that consultant
lobbyists, also known as professional lobbyists, will be required
to report this information for each new undertaking, each
mandate.
Third, the bill allows lobbyists to file their returns
electronically, sets the limitation period for enforcement
proceedings at two years and provides for a parliamentary
review of the Act in four years.
Finally, the bill provides for the designation of an ethics
counsellor who establishes a lobbyists' code of conduct and
investigates alleged breaches of it.
Over the years, parliamentarians have seen their role as
representatives of the people diminish. Lobbyists, however,
have become a powerful force. They manage to obtain direct
access to government decision-makers. Today, the main
decision-makers in government are senior officials, deputy
ministers, ministers and, of course, the Prime Minister.
The United States passed the first law on lobbying several
years ago. It was necessary to curb some of the excesses of this
profession. The emphasis was on control and disclosure, secret
lobbying and pressure behind the scenes. Before immigrating to
Canada 21 years ago, I had read and heard about the powerful
lobbies acting on behalf of large U.S. corporations.
The Parliament of Canada has reviewed the activities of this
profession several times, more specifically in the Cooper
Committee's report in 1986 and the Holtmann Committee's
report in 1993.
Today, we have paid lobbyists, professional lobbyists and
organizations.
(1725)
The bill provides for only two types: consultant lobbyists and
in-house lobbyists who work for an organization or a
corporation. Consultant lobbyists are independent and contract
their services to clients. They will have to file detailed returns
on the nature of their clients' interests.
The federal government spends $160 billion annually. That is
a lot of money. We must ensure that public funds are not used to
promote the interests of certain individuals who have a close
relationship with, or privileged access to, the government, or to
promote the interests of individuals or companies that
contributed to the campaign fund of the party in power.
The Sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Industry
examined this bill and heard many witnesses. I very carefully
read the majority and minority reports, and I fully agree with the
dissenting report submitted by the Bloc Quebecois.
The business of government must be as transparent as
possible, so that public policy reflects the common good of the
people and not the interests of powerful lobbies.
[English]
Canadians and Quebecers agree on the need to put an end to
the confidence crisis in the population regarding their institu-
12138
tions. However, after one and a half years in power the Liberal
government has not been able to increase its transparency.
In September 1994 the media showed the lobbyists
multiplying their meetings with officials before the tabling of
Bill C-43 in a last attempt to curb its influence on their
activities. Some lobbyists have even threatened to pursue the
government if the new law forced them to disclose their political
alliances.
In the case of intense lobbying regarding Bill C-43 the lack of
transparency had prevented the population and parliamentarians
to know the scope and the nature of lobbyists' actions. It was a
strange situation; the lobbyists succeeded in influencing the
very bill which was to limit their own influence. Considering
these facts, the need for transparency has never been more
evident.
[Translation]
This having been said, I acknowledge that this bill contains a
number of improvements to the system regulating lobbyists.
However, we have to recognize that the commitments in the
Liberal Party's red book are considerably watered down in this
legislative text, which could not prevent troubling events such
as those surrounding the privatization of the Pearson
International Airport in Toronto.
The government finally agreed yesterday with considerable
reticence to having a Senate committee investigate this dubious
transaction. However, I doubt that this committee controlled by
the Conservatives and the Liberals will clarify the situation
entirely, since both parties were involved in this matter. It is
interesting to note that Fred Doucet, a former executive
assistant to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, received $2 million
as a lobbyist in this transaction.
On May 16, 1994, I had occasion, during a debate on Bill
C-22, to denounce the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 of this
very profitable airport by the Conservative government, just two
weeks prior to the 1993 federal election. It was a scandalous
contract with all the appearances of the political patronage and
manipulation that characterizes the end of a government's term
of office. Even Mr. Nixon, whom Mr. Chrétien appointed to
investigate the matter, said that the public was entitled to know
all the details of the agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to continue my
speech.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow
the member five more minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Nunez: I thank all my hon. colleagues. The Bloc
Quebecois had called for a royal commission of inquiry into one
of the greatest scandals of Canadian public life; the Liberal
government refused.
Bill C-43 shows the government's considerable lack of
courage to regulate the activities of lobbyists. We should not be
shy or timid in this issue because what is a stake is the integrity
of our democratic institutions and people's trust in their leaders.
There should be no compromise. Last June, the Prime Minister
said that measures promoting transparency, including Bill
C-43, would give the federal government unprecedented
transparency. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
I would like to salute the labour movement for its excellent
contribution to this debate. The Canadian Labour Congress, on
behalf of its affiliated unions and the FTQ, representing 2.1
million members, presented a good brief on this issue to the
sub-committee on industry. It was signed by Robert White,
president, Dick Martin, secretary-treasurer, and Nancy Riche
and Jean-Claude Parrot, executive vice-presidents. They
maintain that banning lobbying, even if it was possible, is not
the solution. A way must be found to ensure that the
government's decisions are never ``bought'' and that they never
appear to be the result of lobbying.
Unions themselves lobby in favour of their membership. But
unlike professional lobbyists, the labour movement has never
hidden what it expects from the government. As a matter of fact,
instead of hiding its views, it tries to make them as well known
as possible. This has nothing to do with individuals or
corporations trying to use their connections to open doors for
others for a fee.
The CLC does not dispute the provisions in Bill C-43 which
require labour organizations to register as organizations, not as
individuals. It is willing to submit a detailed annual report
providing information on its lobbying activities: legislative
proposals, bills, resolutions, regulations, policies, programs,
grants, contributions and other fiscal privileges.
One example is unemployment insurance. The labour
movement is critically interested in this question, especially at a
time when the government is trying to dismantle the system
which is supposed to protect workers when they lose their jobs.
Bill C-43 deals mostly with the individual or the organization
which lobbies the government, but the behaviour of government
officials is also very important. We should widen the scope of
the Criminal Code provisions to prohibit the offer of money,
gifts or other advantages to a senior official or any employee,
with the intent of influencing his or her decision.
The time limits stated in the conflict of interest and post-
employment code for public office holders should be longer.
The rules applicable to lobbying should be effective and well
known. For that we have to ensure that the people have access to
information, without geographical or financial barriers.
Therefore, all the data should be available in all public libraries.
12139
To conclude, I believe that we have to restrict the activities of
lobbyists in order to bring about a greater openness in the
decision making process of the government, and in order to
avoid that the wealthiest enjoy better access to decision makers
through lobbyists.
The Deputy Speaker: If he wishes, the hon. member will be
able to speak for ten minutes next time.
Mr. Milliken: In view of the excellent co-operation, I wonder
whether it would not be possible to dispose of this bill now. I
think that the debate is over.
The Deputy Speaker: There is still a ten minute question and
comment period. Is there unanimous consent to continue with
this bill and to proceed with the division on this question? Is the
debate over?
Mr. Bellehumeur: No.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business.
_____________________________________________
12139
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider funding
cultural organizations on a multi-year basis in order to promote their stability.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion M-213 which I tabled and
which was voted on deals with the funding of government
organizations, particularly Telefilm Canada, the National Film
Board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We know the
dilemma of these organizations, which do not know what their
budget will be from year to year. For a long time, they have been
asking funding on a multi-year basis.
It is almost ridiculous to have to beg the government for this,
especially because, when it was in the opposition, it had
requested it, and, during the election campaign, it undertook to
follow through with this in its red book. It had even defended the
very existence of these organizations. Is is a known fact that the
government drafts its budget for one year and that associations
draft theirs for two or three years; it is therefore understandable
that these organizations would want to enjoy the same rights and
to have the opportunity to draft their budgets based on
multi-year funding.
Therefore, this motion asks the government to thoroughly
reflect on this today and to undertake to acquiesce to these
organizations' request, that is, multi-year funding with a
guarantee of no cuts.
Let me say that the motion tabled today was based on
misgivings. Drafted last January, even before the cuts in the last
federal budget were announced, the motion was based on the
suspicion that the finance minister intended to deeply cut the
budgets of national cultural organizations and mainly, as I said
earlier, the CBC, Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board.
On February 27, a dark day for Canadians, we learned that the
budgets of the CBC, Telefilm Canada and the National Film
Board would be cut by 4, 4 and 5 per cent respectively in the next
fiscal year.
In the case of the CBC, this means, according to various
interpretations we received during the last months, a cut of $44
million in 1995-96. According to information given by Tony
Manera, its former chairman, the CBC will lose $350 million
during the next three years. This is no longer a weight loss diet,
this is a shock treatment.
When he was appointed, Mr. Manera was promised a fixed
budget for the coming years, after the dramatic cuts the CBC had
gone through under the Conservatives.
(1740)
We can see that things have a habit of never changing. Liberal
policy is determined by the same senior officials or based on the
same principles that private interests must be served before the
national interests of Canadians. It is exactly the same policy.
Yesterday, I sat on the finance committee where I asked experts
if, not having known that there had been a change of
government, they would have guessed, simply by comparing
budget speeches concerning Bill C-76, that a new government
was in office. These experts answered no, adding that the
policies are exactly the same as those of the Conservatives.
In the end, there is no real policy change. The only difference
is that the whiners that were sitting on this side are now across
the way, behaving like a lot of sheep, as their predecessors did.
The best example is the member for Prescott-Russell.
Mr. Boudria: And Glengarry.
Mr. Plamondon: And Glengarry. I also remind my colleagues
opposite that it is precisely on this issue of the lack of funds for
the CBC that Mr. Manera resigned. An hour before the budget
was tabled, Mr. Manera was given by the deputy minister of
finance a report explaining the extent of the catastrophe. But to
conclude that Mr. Manera's resignation was tied to these cuts
was too big a step for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the
only one to be blind to the fact.
In fact, I would have a piece of advice for the heritage
minister. Judging from the way he answered our questions,
which he is apparently no longer allowed to answer-during
question period today for instance, his colleague the Minister of
Industry kept answering in his place-and from the stares he has
been getting from all his colleagues recently every time he gives
a clumsy answer, I sincerely hope that he did not get rid of his
12140
driver's licence because he will be needing it before long, when
he is a backbencher again.
As the CBC and other cultural agencies undergo drastic cuts,
the minister continues to deny the cuts and keeps on parroting
official figures. He reminds me of a bankrupt businessman who
persists in denying any financial difficulty, when the trustee is
already on the premises preparing an inventory of his assets. If I
had a piece of advice to give the heads of the CBC, it would be to
choose their friends more carefully, given that the minister
claimed to be a friend of the CBC.
I would like to remind my hon. colleagues, and the heritage
minister in particular, of the advantage, for our national
institutions, of the multi-year financing these agencies have
been crying out for many years. This kind of financing over two
or three years would allow such agencies to better plan their
production and distribution activities on a medium term basis. It
would put an end to this chronic uncertainty which undermines
the work of full time creators and freelancers as well as those
responsible for controlling costs.
In addition, multi-year financing would promote the
development of the imaginative and sound solutions required
for these agencies to be well managed. More importantly, it
would give creators a better insight into how the federal
government feels about them. Instead of seeing creators as
dreamers who are incapable of managing a budget and therefore
have to be subsidized in a piecemeal fashion, multi-year
financing would reflect the respect the federal government has
for them and for their contribution to society.
Perhaps the minister no longer has any use for these
institutions in this time of great progress in the communications
industry, as he tells the House automatically when fielding
questions from the opposition. But if there was ever a time when
high standards and a strong educational content were required
and had to be maintained, it is now. We do not need long studies
to tell us that. All we have to do is look at the Internet to
understand how important it is that new technologies be
monitored and subject to standards, which are often lacking in
the private sector.
On these networks, you can learn, for example, how to make
bombs and other scientific experiments, which means that this
knowledge is now made available to one and all.
(1745)
In closing, I would like to remind the minister and his
colleagues of their 1993 election promises, although I could go
on and on for hours without convincing this government that it
should pay attention to our artists' cries for financial help and to
the justified requests by national organization executives for
multi-year funding. In response to a Canadian Conference of the
Arts questionnaire, the Liberals had vowed to develop a national
cultural policy in consultation with the provinces during the
first few months of their mandate to enable them to face the
challenges of the 21st century. The Liberal Party of Canada
made this commitment in writing to the Canadian Conference of
the Arts and promised to include it in their famous red book,
which has now become a blue book.
These commitments were clearly spelled out in the red book,
but have now been completely forgotten. The Liberals also
promised at the time to provide stable multi-year financing for
our cultural institutions, both in the red book and in the letter
and document sent to the Canadian Conference of the Arts.
In the cultural sector as in other areas, we see how the
government can say one thing and do another. During the
election campaign, it promised artists a better future, although it
never really intended to keep its word. That is typical of both the
Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal Party in Quebec. That
was demonstrated in 1982 when the government reneged on its
referendum campaign commitment to carry out comprehensive
constitutional reforms. Promises were also broken with respect
to political party financing and unemployment insurance. After
taking office, the Liberals, who used to tear their shirts in
opposition, went ahead with UI reforms. I say reforms but I
should really use the word cuts. These cuts were much deeper
than those for which they criticized former Minister Valcourt.
The Liberals also cut health care and social programs.
This is not the Liberal Party, but a party which has two
different tunes: one which was used during the election
campaign to get elected, and one which is used now that the
Liberals are in office. The latter is very conservative; it is void
of any long term objectives; it is based on a band-aid approach
and it occasionally tries to alter the facts, whether in the context
of an international fishery dispute or a trip abroad by the Prime
Minister. But it never had a global vision for arts and culture,
social programs, Canada's foreign policy, or deficit control. No
global policy.
The government uses a piecemeal approach. It uses the
Liberals' approach, who-after 10, 12 or 15 years in office-left
the country with the worst deficit among G-7 members, with
Italy. By the time they were ousted in 1984, the Liberals had
managed to raise the deficit from 13 to 38 billion dollars. We are
now feeling the effects of that deficit and this is why we must
make cuts. But even now, the government is not using the right
approach. It does not try to ensure the survival of vital
organizations like the ones I mentioned and which I would call
national cultural organizations.
I hope that these comments and the motion will be supported
by government members, who have the opportunity, in the case
of a motion like this one, to vote freely. They are not bound by
the famous red book which their party shelved after only 12 or
18 months in office. Liberal members have an opportunity to
express their views. They have an opportunity to support
Canadian creators. They have an opportunity to show cultural
12141
organizations that they are prepared to take a look at their valid
claims. The time has come to do so.
During the hour allotted for this debate, I want to give Liberal
members an opportunity to tell us to what extent they are
prepared to co-operate with opposition members, to fulfil their
election promises as well as the commitments they made to
these groups when they were in opposition. They can do so by
ensuring multi-year funding to these organizations.
(1750)
I anxiously await their response, particularly with regard to
their commitments and respect for creators and for Canadian
cultural organizations.
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure my colleague, the member for Richelieu, will
appreciate what I have to offer. I am hoping he will pay attention
because I think he will be delighted with the message I will
present to him and to his colleagues.
He has recognized the dilemma that has long faced Canada's
guardians of our cultural identity, how to carry out long term
projects successfully when funding is awarded on an annual
basis.
Government understands this dilemma. In the interests of
finding better ways to do business, the government made its
commitments in the red book, which the member for Richelieu
has mentioned, by promising multi-year funding to cultural
organizations.
This is in accord with the government's overall plan to make
Canada more fiscally responsible and economically sound. The
government's commitment to cultural organizations is also a
reflection of the desire that all Canadians have to see that good
business practices become the norm throughout government.
The program review we referred to announced in the 1994
budget was undertaken to ensure the government's diminished
resources are directed to the highest priority requirements and to
those areas where the federal government is best placed to
deliver services.
This review was a comprehensive and rigorous examination
of all federal programs and activities, including those of a
cultural nature. Its central objective was to identify the federal
government's core roles and responsibilities and provide
modern, affordable government.
The Minister of Finance announced in the 1995 budget that
based on the program review there would be budgetary
reductions to ensure the government meets its commitment to
reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product in
1996-97.
Cultural agencies in the Canadian heritage portfolio were part
of this exercise. Agencies like the Canada Council, the four
national museums and the National Archives, to name a few, are
now working to implement these reductions and set their
courses for the future.
Across Canada there is a wide diversity of cultural
organizations operating at all levels and covering the full range
of activities that make our Canadian culture something to be
proud of. There are in great number museums, theatres,
symphony orchestras, art galleries and dance companies all
showing the face of Canada to us and to others. They are all
worried about their survival. Why? The tradition of funding on
an annual basis has greatly impeded their ability to carry out
interesting, innovative and creative projects over the long term.
It is good business sense to plan ahead but a virtual impossibility
if there is no notion of the kind of income that will be
forthcoming.
The current reductions have taken their toll on everyone but
the cultural organizations like areas of government and other
sectors of the country are doing their best to contribute to the
success of the government's fiscal strategy.
Under these circumstances it makes sense to give cultural
agencies and organizations as much assistance as possible by
enabling them to plan their futures with a greater degree of
confidence and with the added stability that comes with
multi-year funding.
In the February 1995 budget it was announced that the
government intends to implement a new expenditure
management system. Its objectives are to take responsible
spending decisions to deliver the programs and services
Canadians need and can afford and to meet the required fiscal
targets. Moreover, this system will foster a more open,
responsive and accountable budget process. This is what all
Canadian taxpayers are expecting from us, greater
accountability for the money we spend.
(1755)
In the face of fixed or declining budgets and the need to adjust
to changing circumstances through reallocation, we need a more
flexible system to manage our expenditures. With three-year
business plans federal cultural organizations can propose a more
strategic multi-year perspective to their management. Cultural
organizations can prepare departmental outlook documents that
will be available to the House standing committees. These
documents will explain any significant shifts in an
organization's priorities and initiatives over a three-year period
while remaining consistent with government wide objectives
and fiscal targets established in the previous budget. Committee
12142
members using these forecasts will be in a better position to
review and report on future expenditure priorities.
Multi-year forecasts will be based on resources allocated in
the federal budget and will set out the strategies to be pursued to
adapt to the fiscal and policy environment. The forecast will
explain significant resource shifts in terms of priorities and
associated initiatives of the organization over a three-year
period. It will describe new directions, evolving priorities and
objectives for the period.
There is no question in my mind or anyone's mind that our
scarce resources can be stretched a lot further if we choose the
method of working over the long term. This is a better use of our
cultural dollars. We would be foolish to reject it.
Our cultural organizations, whatever proportion of the
population they serve, are too important to our national identity
to be allowed to sink into oblivion. Our cultural organizations
are the caretakers of the rich treasures of our past and of our
creative efforts; the very stuff that keeps minds, hearts and souls
together. Our cultural organizations teach us about ourselves
and let others learn about Canada and Canadians.
The motion being debated today, one that affirms the
importance of our cultural organizations, is vital for all
Canadians. By recognizing the value of our cultural
organizations, by keeping them living and viable institutions we
show our belief in ourselves.
Multi-year planning is essential if our precious cultural
organizations are to continue to be a vibrant part of Canadian
society. We must help them to gain the stability they need to
continue to function well as the best reflection of Canada's
cultural identity.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Bloc motion that, in the
opinion of the House, the government should consider funding
cultural organizations on a multi-year basis in order to promote
their stability.
However, it should be noted from the outset that before we
start considering multi-year funding we should be examining
the appropriateness of our present commitment to cultural
funding.
This opportunity also permits me to set the record straight
with respect to the Reform Party's position on Canadian cultural
industries and artists. There seems to be a perception that we are
unconcerned or even disinterested in Canadian culture. That
really is a simplistic criticism of our policy.
Our policy is clear and concise. We are simply suggesting and
encouraging less government involvement in the funding and
promotion of the cultural sector. This has been our message
firmly and consistently since the early days of this Parliament.
What we want to see is less government involvement.
(1800)
We promote the idea that the cultural community be given the
tools necessary to flourish in an open, competitive, and
changing marketplace. That includes less government
intervention, less taxation, and less regulatory control, which
will ultimately permit competition, not strangulation. Our
approach recognizes that a Canadian cultural policy must be
sustainable in a world of rapid technological change, one which
fosters an environment in which individuals are free to choose.
We need to ensure that the industry can make it on its own. This
can and should be done through less regulation, less taxation.
We were elected with a mandate from our constituents to
bring to this public forum their commitments and concerns, and
we will not be intimidated by special interest groups. We do not
support the concept of stable multi-year funding to
organizations, which should be receiving the funding through
the private sector and not through the federal government.
Albertans are demonstrating that they are willing to support
the arts without massive federal assistance. So perhaps it is time
that this government start to re-evaluate the way in which it is
dealing with the cultural sector. This attitude change in Alberta
has been perpetuated by the fact that shrinking budgets in all
areas of the economy demand that we seek new innovative and
creative ways of accessing funds, including the cultural sector.
Big Rock Breweries from Alberta is leading the way as a
private sector supporter for the arts. Last year Big Rock
provided over $1,000 to over 40 different arts groups. It views
its cultural support as a wise business practice and not as a
charitable donation. Thanks to the support of Big Rock, groups
like the Alberta Theatre Project and the Muttard Public Art
Gallery are thriving. Albertans indeed are leading the way in
private sector support for the cultural sector. I applaud Big Rock
for showing just what the private sector can do if left alone by
various levels of government.
I think it is also important to illustrate at this time a few
examples of why it is essential to bring back accountability to
these cultural organizations. These examples will illustrate that
not only does the Liberal Party not have a cultural policy, but the
government's funding of these groups is indeed in need of
reform.
For example, the artist Stephen Ellwood, an American who
came to Canada because we give more money to artists than does
the U.S., threw $300 in nickels, or 6,000 nickels in total, off a
building and others were discarded in the street. This was to
make a politically artistic statement. All this money is at the
expense of the Canadian taxpayer, thanks to the Canada Council.
If that is not government spending run amok, then I do not know
what is.
12143
Do not get me wrong; I truly believe in the freedom of
expression. However, I do not believe Canadian taxpayers
should be left on the hook for every political and artistic
problem we encounter.
The Canada Council needs to be overhauled in its granting
practices to ensure greater accountability as to how funds are
distributed. It is time we looked at the current structure of the
Canada Council to ask how it can continue to exist as we know it
today.
Thanks to the Canada Council, the Liberal government is not
even addressing the promises made in this year's budget
regarding government accountability and reducing government
spending. So I would like to thank Mr. Ellwood on behalf of all
Canadians for pointing out the hypocrisy of this Liberal budget.
Another example of poor cultural policy was when the CRTC
removed the American country music television network from
Canadian airwaves. Canadian country artists used to be seen in
32 million homes around the world. But in retaliation for this
decision, CMT now refuses to play Canadian artists' videos,
restricting their airplay to Canadian homes only.
(1805)
Promoting Canadian culture by closing our borders is like
trying to mix oil and water. Canadian artists themselves
denounced this decision, yet it was allowed to continue.
How does the government expect to promote Canadian
cultural exports and allow for more consumer choice? It is
unclear. Until this type of question can be answered, we should
not be securing any multi-year funding to any cultural
organization. This government seems to be moving toward a
policy of protectionism in the cultural industry rather than one
of a free market.
In typical Liberal fashion we are now seeing a flip-flop
regarding our cultural policy. One day the government is
restricting choice and competition in the country music
industry. The next day it is opening up the doors for its Liberal
friends in Power Corporation and their American buddies to set
up satellite networks across the country.
Through the direct to home satellite debate the government
has attempted to deflect criticism by portraying the Reform
Party as anti-competition. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The government has also said that we should not criticize
the process. Wrong again. This can be clearly seen in the direct
to home process. The only thing that has been clear in all of it is
that Canadians are paying the price for the government's lack of
a coherent cultural policy that favours true competition.
If the government truly wants competition, why will it not
live up to its commitment to release a comprehensive cultural
policy? I think the answer is clear: it does not have one.
I am also quite concerned that this debate is grinding down
into a Quebec and English Canada issue. That is not the issue
today. The issue we are looking at is entrenching
multiculturalism funding and the fact that we as a nation cannot
afford it. We are looking at a nationally enforced bilingualism,
and we cannot afford it. We also cannot afford the funding of
special interest groups.
This government's cultural policy is so misdirected that the
Secretary of State for Multiculturalism in a recent interview
stated eloquently that we have no national culture. I would like
to take this opportunity to respond to that statement.
Most Canadians believe, as Reformers do, that we must
uphold the rights of citizens and private groups to preserve their
cultural heritage using their own resources but are opposed to
any taxpayer funded multicultural programs. The Reform
concept of culture is that as Canadians we believe we have
something others do not. Collectively we see ourselves as a
tolerant, peaceful and independent people.
Canadian culture is not stagnant. Rather, it is in a constant
state of metamorphosis. The difficulty is that we continue to
debate what our self-concept is. We need to stop struggling with
our self-image and accept who we are.
Visually, our culture is an array of images, finely integrated
and ever changing. Visual symbols such as the maple leaf, the
uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and hockey
connect us to one another at the deepest level of our
consciousness. This is our Canadian culture. It has nothing to do
with money or cultural groups, but has everything to do with us
as Canadians.
We should not forget that Canadian culture has been around
since our nation's conception and will certainly outlast this
Parliament and even the next Parliament. It will do so simply
because it is in our hearts and in our minds. It is what makes us
Canadians.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak today in response to private member's
Motion M-213 put forward by the hon. member for Richelieu,
which proposes changing the funding practice with respect to
cultural organizations to a multi-year schedule.
The need for multi-year planning is necessary for two very
important reasons. First, it reflects a desire on the part of all
Canadians to see the implementation of good business practices
throughout government. Second, it ensures that our cultural
organizations will remain vigorous and accountable.
(1810)
Canada has many cultural organizations, covering the full
range of all the activities that make our Canadian culture a vivid
12144
and living experience. We have museums, theatres, symphony
orchestras, art galleries, and dance companies, all there as a
reflection of Canada's heart and soul and all striving to keep
their heads above perilous waters.
Why? Because they have traditionally been funded on an
annual basis, greatly impeding their ability to carry out plans for
the long term. It is good business sense to plan ahead, but a
virtual impossibility if there is no notion of the kind of income
that will be forthcoming.
Government understands this dilemma. The government
made its commitment to better business practices in the red book
by promising multi-year funding to cultural organizations. This
is part of the government's plan to help make Canada more
fiscally responsible and economically sound.
The 1994 budget announced that a program review would be
undertaken to ``ensure that the government's diminished
resources are directed to the highest priority requirements and to
those areas where the federal government is best placed to
deliver services''.
The program review was a comprehensive and rigorous
examination of all federal programs and activities, including
those of a cultural nature. Its central objective was to identify
the federal government's core roles and responsibilities and to
provide modern, affordable government.
In the 1995 budget the government announced reductions
based on the program review exercise, reductions to ensure that
it meets its commitment to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of
gross domestic product in 1996-97. Cultural agencies in the
Canadian heritage portfolio were part of this exercise. Agencies
like the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the National Library,
and the National Arts Centre, to name only a few, are now
working to implement these reductions and set their courses for
the future.
The current reductions have been a tough bullet to bite, but the
cultural agencies, like other areas of government, are doing their
best to contribute to the success of the government's fiscal
strategy. Under these circumstances, it only makes sense to give
cultural agencies as much assistance as possible through this
difficult period by enabling them to plan their futures with a
greater degree of confidence.
In the 1995 budget it was announced that the government
intends to implement a new expenditure management system.
Its objectives are to take responsible spending decisions to
deliver the programs and services Canadians need and can
afford and to meet the required fiscal targets. Moreover, this
system will foster a more open, responsive, and accountable
budget process.
This is the criterion that Canadians are demanding we apply:
greater accountability for the money we spend. In the face of
fixed or declining budgets and the need to adjust to changing
circumstances through reallocation, we need a more flexible
system of expenditure management.
Cultural organizations, through the preparation of three-year
business plans, can take a more strategic, multi-year
perspective to their management. Cultural organizations can
prepare outlook documents that will be available to the House
standing committee. With such documents in hand, committee
members will be better informed and better able to review and
report on future expenditure priorities.
These multi-year outlooks will be based on resources
allocated in the February budget and will set out the strategies to
be pursued to adapt to the fiscal and policy environment. The
outlook will explain significant resource shifts in terms of the
priorities and associated initiatives of the organization over a
three-year period. It will describe new directions, evolving
priorities, and objectives for the period. It is good to reiterate
that this outlook document will be developed by the cultural
agency itself.
There is no question that working for the long term is a more
feasible method of making the best use of scarce resources. If
this is a better way to stretch our cultural dollars, then we should
go ahead with it.
(1815)
Our cultural organizations, whatever proportion of the
population they serve, are too important to let die for lack of
foresight. Our cultural organizations are a precious entity within
the Canadian identity. They are the caretakers of our rich past,
the caretakers of our creative efforts, the food that nourishes the
mind and the heart and the soul.
Our cultural organizations allow us to see ourselves and let
others see us and know us as Canadians. The motion we are
discussing today speaks to our belief in the necessity of cultural
organizations. It is an important one for all Canadians. By
affirming the value of our cultural organizations, by keeping
them living and viable institutions, we are affirming our belief
in ourselves.
In my view we have no option but to encourage multi-year
planning for our cultural organizations. We must ensure they can
maintain their stability in an uncertain world and have the
opportunity to become the best possible reflection of Canada's
cultural identity.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: To close the debate, I give the floor to
the hon. member for Richelieu.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you
can certainly understand my amazement at those comments by
two members of the governing party, the Liberal Party. I have no
difficulty with the position of the Reform Party, because it is
true to its platform, to its vision-which I do not share at
12145
all-on the involvement of government in the survival of the
cultural organizations mentioned in my motion.
But the contradictions in the rhetoric of the two Liberal
members are stunning. They deliver a quasi-philosophical
lecture on art, culture and the need for art in our society. They
say that these national organizations are essential because they
are our very soul, the mirror of our society, the expression of our
way of thinking, and the path to our future. In fact, our artists
will help us assert our identity.
They serve us some rhetoric and they say that yes, multi-year
funding would be better. Of course financing over two or three
years would be better. They even say that it was promised in the
electoral platform. That is the Liberal Party perspective.
However, what are they doing in fact? They are destroying those
agencies. They slash their budgets.
The former CBC president did not resign on a whim. He was
solemnly promised that there would be no cuts and then they
announced cuts of $44 million on one side and $350 million on
the other. Now the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is unable
to fulfil its important mission, particularly in French Canada.
Now we are told in a wishful kind of way: ``Oh! God, would it
not be nice to have multiyear funding. It would be better to plan
in order to insure the survival of these nobles agencies''. But
look at what your minister is doing, your government is doing,
look at the campaign promises, look at your track record after
one year in office. These agencies have been massacred; it is
worse than what the previous government did, which you
denounced when you were in the opposition.
It is hard to believe one's ears. The government is abandoning
these cultural agencies on an economic level, through its
February 27 budget, and through the policies, set puppet-like,
by the Canadian heritage minister who later on said that he is a
friend of the CBC. With friends like that, the CBC does not need
enemies. We are told that the government will continue to
respect these agencies. We are told that it would be in their best
interest to have three year budgets. For years now, they have had
only three or five year budgets.
(1820)
Every time they have to deal with a government that
demolishes their policies or makes cuts out of the blue. Now, has
this government forgotten to cut in the right places? For
instance, it has not cut the tax havens of those who finance its
party. How many billions find their way to the Bahamas every
year, to banks where they do not even declare the interests they
accrue. Yet, a single piece of legislation would be enough to
control all that money that is being drained out of the country
and all those people who pay no income tax.
Why not deal with that instead of going after our cultural
organizations? There was also mention of family trusts. We
examined organizations like the other place, which costs
taxpayers $50 million a year. What purpose does it serve? Is it a
large dormitory, a day care centre? What is it exactly? Could we
not make some cuts in there? The government is considering
giving a half a million dollar party to announce the appointment
of a new governor general. Why? Should we not instead leave
this money to the organizations that make up the identity of our
two founding nations and to the creators who are, in fact, the real
soul of a nation?
No, it is not the answer I get to a motion as direct as this one, a
motion that every organization was demanding, a motion that, in
my mind, goes without saying. Whether an organization is
economically, socially or community oriented or whether it is a
public institution, it needs to know where it is heading and how
much money will be available. That is just what we are asking
the government. We want them to tell us that, for the next three
years, we can rely on a fixed budget, a budget that will not
change according to the mood of the finance minister, or
according to the mood of the Canadian heritage minister or, with
regard to copyright, for example, according to the mood of the
industry minister.
We are asking for some planning with normal and formal
commitments, which will then be adhered to. But the reply is:
``Yes, this is fine in theory, but the fact is, we have to cut''. I will
conclude by saying that this motion, that I thought could get
unanimous approval from all the members and from all the
people who believe in planning, is getting approval only in
theory. But in fact, as far as the money granted these
organizations is concerned, the government is doing exactly the
opposite of what it committed itself to doing in its red book and
in its policy statements.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: May we call it 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the
order is dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
12145
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a few
weeks ago I raised with the Minister of Finance the question of
an inheritance tax.
I refer to that now very well quoted StatsCan report that
examined the basic causes of the accumulated debt of the
country and found that 44 per cent of the debt was the result of
the compounding effect of a record high interest rate or
monetary policy. Fifty per cent of the debt was the result of
forgone revenue due to a series of tax concessions. One could
call a number of these tax loopholes.
12146
A member of the government, when he wrote to the
Department of National Revenue recently, asked whether
someone entertaining clients as a business person, whether their
hotel expenses, a massage at a fitness club, a dinner at a posh
restaurant, the cost of an escort service, night club shows, floor
shows, dinners including $200 bottles of wine and a cruise on
the river, would be included as a legitimate tax deduction.
The report back from the revenue department said yes, they
would be, including the escort service. It was suggested the way
the escort service was described ought to be changed, that they
were essentially tour guides, body guards or interpreters. To
describe them to be for sexual purposes would not be considered
acceptable by Revenue Canada but they could be considered
under these other categories.
The point I was making was if so much of our debt is as a
result of the number of tax loopholes, why do we not close the
loophole of the inheritance aspect?
I pointed out to the Minister of Finance that virtually every
OECD country, with the exception of two, has an inheritance tax
for those people who inherit large amounts of money. I am not
talking about a home or a family farm or a family business. I am
talking about someone who receives an inheritance, let us say, in
excess of $1 million. Virtually every country in the world would
ask that a tax be paid on that vast inheritance. We could consider
a ceiling of $1 million.
The Minister of Finance spoke around the issue. In this
desperate time when we are seeking to find ways and means of
eliminating the deficit and the debt, when every other country in
the world virtually has a tax on the inheritance of large amounts
of money, why would we not?
It is fair to say that the primary benefactors of this tax
loophole are the very wealthy, people who inherit $20 million or
$50 million through their families at the time of death. We do
not have that tax.
I asked the Minister of Finance to explain why we would not
have such a tax at a time when we are cutting back on every
social program imaginable, every environmental program
imaginable, on health care, on post-secondary education, on
vocational training and so on. I have yet to receive an answer.
Perhaps when I sit down the person responding on behalf of
the government will clarify why Canada is rather unique in this
aspect and has chosen not to tax those individuals that inherit
vast amounts of money.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the introduction of an
inheritance tax would be a very complex way of raising a
relatively small amount of additional tax revenue. In fact, based
on OECD experience, an inheritance tax would contribute less
than 1 per cent of federal tax revenues.
This revenue potential is small compared to the high
administrative and compliance costs that it would entail since
another tax collection operation would have to be established.
This would require measures to obtain and verify information on
wealth transfers at death, as well as complex rules to capture tax
planning in order to avoid paying taxes.
Moreover, Canada already has a tax system which derives
considerable revenue from wealth holders through the taxation
of capital gains at death, property taxes and certain taxes on
transfers of property. Revenues from property taxes in Canada
are higher than the combined revenues from property and wealth
taxes in all other OECD countries with the exception of the
United States.
Rather than introducing a new tax that would be very complex
and add a significant tax compliance burden, the budget
introduced a number of tax measures which affect high income
Canadians. An example of such a change on the personal income
tax side is the elimination of tax advantages that flow from the
establishment of family trusts.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just recently I raised a concern I have regarding the
United States embargo on the island and the people of Cuba.
Tonight I would like to deal quickly with the Torricelli, the
Helms and the Burton bills and amendments which are affecting
drastically the trade relationships between Cuba and other parts
of the world. The United States of America through these bills is
having a direct impact on a great number of institutions and
trading practices involving a great number of countries.
We know that the United States is one of the great countries of
the world, a country that I and many people envy for its spirit
and for its energy. We know that it has corralled and harnessed
this energy and spirit and the resources to become one of the
greatest nations in the history of mankind.
These bills are also among the greatest that have been created
by the human mind, practically 99 per cent pure; so pure they
could be used for classical examples in sociology classes, social
political classes, political science classes, psychology classes,
communication classes and so on. All over the world, 99 per
cent pure propaganda.
It is mind boggling when we read what these bills contain.
These bills pose restrictions and controls not just on individuals
but on corporations, financial institutions, even the United
Nations. Through these bills the American government is so
intent on controlling its people to prevent them from trading
12147
with Cuba and also those in other countries who might be trading
partners with the United States.
That means we will suffer terribly because of our relationship
in our trading practices with Cuba. As a result that will affect our
manufactured products of sugar and so on that we trade with the
United States.
The United States is interfering through these bills with the
suspension of Cuba's membership in international organizations
plus using many more tactics. Since 1962 there has been an
embargo imposed on this island. However, even though these
people have been rationed on every single purchase since those
years, the spirit of revolution has prevailed and the people are
survivors.
If they were dissatisfied to the point where a revolution would
take place to overthrow Castro, it would have taken place many
years ago. The bill tells us the acts of the Castro government are
a threat to international peace. I do not know what that would be
called. However, it is a threat to international relationships. It
jeopardizes all relationships and all the bills we have formulated
and passed over the many decades. It is country that classifies
itself as our best friend.
I went to Cuba. It is amazing what those people have done
under unbearable conditions and how resourceful they are. It is
probably the best educated population in the world, no doubt
about it. They have sent 20,000 doctors all over the world,
chiefly to third world countries. No other country can match
that. That is a threat to peace?
Cuba has the finest genetic research centre. It has probably
the finest cardiac centre in the world. Is that a threat to peace?
When the Chernobyl incident took place the Cuban government
took in over 35,000 victims at no cost to them. It built a huge
resort to keep children and families in dozens of beautiful homes
at no cost to the victims. That is a threat to peace?
What did Canada do for these victims? What did the United
States do? What did other countries of the world do for these
people? Nothing.
As I said, the spirit of revolution prevails-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time
has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as currently drafted
these bills would clearly adversely affect Canadian trade and
economic interests if they were passed into law.
Not only do their provisions violate U.S. obligations under
NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, but they are also
inconsistent with generally recognized principles of
international law. The proposed import prohibitions on sugar
and sugar containing products are a particular concern. If
enacted, they could affect Canadian exports to the tune of $500
million a year.
The Government of Canada is strongly opposed to the
measures in these bills and we are vigorously conveying
Canadian concerns to both the administration and Congress. The
Minister for International Trade has repeatedly raised our
concerns with the U.S. trade representative, Mr. Kantor.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has also made it clear that,
while Canada and the United States may share similar long term
goals of democracy and economic reform in Cuba, Canada has
no intention of agreeing with U.S. attempts to impose its Cuban
embargo through secondary boycotts on third countries.
Ambassador Chrétien has written to members of Congress
urging them to oppose the bill. Other governments also share our
concerns and we are maintaining close contact with them in
order to co-ordinate responsive efforts.
Earlier this week, the U.S. administration's response to
Congress on this bill was released. We were pleased to see that
the administration has taken into account Canada's concerns. In
particular, the U.S. administration opposes the provisions in the
bill that would impose an import prohibition on sugar and
sugar-containing products.
Finally, we expect the administration will put strong pressure
on the U.S. Congress to ensure that the legislation is modified.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: A motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)