CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 13, 1994
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CANADIAN HERITAGE
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
CRIMINAL CODE
Bill C-297. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted - 8963
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) - 8963
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Motion for concurrence in 10th report - 8963
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) - 8963
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) - 8967
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 134; Nays, 89 - 8968
PETITIONS
CRIMINAL CODE
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) - 8969
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) - 8969
ASSISTED SUICIDE
CRIMINAL CODE
HUMAN RIGHTS
CRIMINAL CODE
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
HUMAN RIGHTS
CRIMINAL CODE
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) - 8971
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) - 8977
Ms. Blondin-Andrew - 8978
CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICE OVERSEAS
IMMIGRATION
GUN CONTROL
THE ENVIRONMENT
BANKING
CESO INTERNATIONAL SERVICES
CANADA COUNCIL
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) - 8993
WORLD JUNIOR HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) - 8993
TRANSPORT
TAXATION
DRAFT BILL ON QUEBEC SOVEREIGNTY
ECODEK
COLLÈGE MILITAIRE ROYAL DE SAINT-JEAN
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) - 8994
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) - 8994
GUN CONTROL
CENTENNIAL FLAME RESEARCH AWARD
TATSHENSHINI-ALSEK WILDERNESS AREA
Mr. Scott (Skeena) - 8995
COLLÈGE MILITAIRE ROYAL DE SAINT-JEAN
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) - 8995
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) - 8995
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) - 8996
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) - 8996
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
AIR SAFETY
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral - 8998
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral - 8998
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) - 8999
ROGERS CABLE
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) - 8999
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) - 8999
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
TAXATION
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) - 9000
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) - 9000
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) - 9000
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) - 9001
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
DUAL CITIZENSHIP
NATIONAL DEFENCE
EDUCATION
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) -9002
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) - 9003
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) - 9003
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) - 9003
CABLE TELEVISION
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
PRIVILEGE
ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS
CP RAIL
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT
Bill C-64. Consideration resumed of motion - 9007
Division on motion deferred. - 9009
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Bill C-42. Motion for concurrence in Senate amendments - 9009
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral - 9010
(Motion agreed to.) - 9013
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT
Bill C-52. Report stage (with amendments) - 9013
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) - 9013
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Division on amendment deferred - 9021
CRIMINAL CODE
Bill C-226. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading - 9024
CANADA GRAIN ACT
Bill C-51. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading - 9025
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 194; Nays, 53 - 9025
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) - 9026
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
Bill C-56. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading - 9026
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 156; Nays, 91 - 9026
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) - 9027
IMMIGRATION ACT
Bill C-44. Consideration resumed of report stage - 9027
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 53; Nays, 194 - 9027
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 53; Nays, 193 - 9028
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 45; Nays, 202 - 9030
Motion for concurrence - 9031
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 149; Nays, 98 - 9031
(Motion agreed to.) - 9032
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT
Bill C-64. Consideration resumed of motion - 9032
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 199; Nays, 46 - 9032
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) - 9033
CRIMINAL CODE
Bill C-226. Consideration resumed of motion - 9033
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 136; Nays, 103. - 9034
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) - 9034
RECOGNITION OF THE PATRIOTS OF LOWER CANADA AND THE REFORMERS OF UPPER CANADA
Consideration resumed of motion - 9035
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 133; Nays, 85 - 9035
(Motion agreed to.) - 9036
COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment. - 9036
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) - 9042
RAIL LINE ABANDONMENT
SOCIAL PROGRAM REFORM
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) - 9046
CANADA LABOUR CODE
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
BANKS
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, December 13, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
one petition.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on Bill C-53.
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
This interim report on agri-food priorities is intended to
provide assistance to the Minister of Finance as well as the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food prior to the 1995 budget.
It is based on input and views from many representatives of the
agri-food sector who took the time to come to Ottawa to appear
before the committee between August and December of this
year.
The witnesses represented all sectors. We heard from
academics, agri-food organization executives and specialists at
both producer and processor levels. Each came with an
individual point of view but from among them emerged some
common threads.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-297, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (summary conviction penalties).
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House
today to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code with
respect to summary convictions.
Earlier this year the Minister of Justice introduced sentencing
reforms but he did not go far enough. Many charges that should
not be are all too frequently plea bargained down to summary
convictions.
This bill provides for the maximum imprisonment on
summary conviction to be increased from six months to two
years. For minor offences a judge could still hand down a short
sentence but for more serious crimes he or she could give up to
two years.
Criminals need to be sent a message that the judge has the
discretion to send them up the river for a two year stay at the
Crowbar Hotel.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
move that the 10th report of the Standing Committee on
Finance, presented on Thursday, December 8, be concurred in.
I appreciate the fact that I have the opportunity this morning
to discuss the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance
and bring it before the House of Commons for discussion.
The motion states that we should concur in the report. I want
to put on the record this morning the fact that the Reform Party
agrees with some parts of the report but we do not agree with all
of it. I want to point out those areas where we do not agree and,
as well, those areas where we do agree.
It is very important that it go on the record at this point in our
discussion whether or not the government concurs in the report.
It is a majority report, and represents the Liberal members on
the finance committee. We would like to know if their position is
accepted or rejected by the government. If it is then the people of
Canada, between now and February when the 1995-96 budget is
presented, will have the opportunity of reacting and giving the
government advice before it formalizes the next budget. I would
8964
say it is the most important budget for the government and for
Canadians at the present time.
I have this to say about the process in terms of the report. The
object of the 10th annual report is to allow Canadians to have
some input into the budget prior to its being accepted by
Canadians. That was a good idea. But there were some
shortcomings that should be explained and should be referenced
so that in the next fiscal year when we go through this process
we will improve the process and more Canadians can be
involved.
D (1010)
I have observed that three types of presentations were made to
the committee. First, presentations were made by those people
who are very fiscally conservative and believe that the
government's 3 per cent target is not adequate. They believe we
should go further and balance the budget within the term of this
Parliament. I certainly support those presentations.
Second, there was a group of people who believe that we
should not move on the expenditure reduction side but move on
the tax side, that if we tax the rich, we can balance our budget.
They believe that if we allow economic growth, eventually we
will grow out of our fiscal problems. Past governments have
tried this. Tories over the past 10 years have attempted to do this.
We have only compounded the problem and made things more
difficult.
The third group of people who made presentations were the
vested interest groups. They came for one purpose and one
purpose only. They made presentations that said: Don't take my
public funding away from me. I am a special interest group and
you must protect my funding and I would like a little more. How
they could ever make those presentations in light of today's
fiscal realities, I cannot understand at all. Listening to those
groups was very disappointing.
Those were the three types of presentations we heard. Where
are the shortcomings? First of all, we did not hear from a broad
cross-section of Canadians. What we must do is change and
update the process to a more contemporary, grassroots, I would
say Reform process, whereby Canadians have access to tell their
government what to do and what their priorities should be. That
was a major shortcoming of the presentations that were made to
us. The government did not allow for that.
The other shortcoming was timing. In November we decided
we would start hearings. The various groups were given maybe a
week, at the outside 10 days' notice that they could make
presentations. People came to the committee saying they had
done their best in the few days. They did not know we were
having the hearings and would have liked to have known sooner.
There is no reason why we cannot let the Canadian people
know in July, August or September that hearings are going to
take place. Then they can prepare to make well thought out
presentations. Even in light of the short period of time they were
given some of the presentations were very well thought out.
If those two things were corrected it would improve the
process. Canadians could direct their government and tell it
what their priorities are. We would have had greater input in
terms of priorities for expenditure reduction. That is the first
point I want to make. The process is a good start by the
government but it has some weaknesses and can be improved.
My second point is with regard to the recommendation of this
report to increase taxes. As Reformers we were most
disappointed. I know many Canadians are starting to echo the
sentiment that they do not want an increase in taxes. ``Please do
not increase my taxes. I cannot afford to deal with the deficit by
paying more taxes. I have paid enough and I am at the point
where I am going to react negatively to this whole ongoing
process''. I do not blame them in the least.
As members of Parliament scatter out across the nation
following adjournment this week, we will hear from our
constituents that they have major concerns about new taxes
being imposed on them at this time.
D (1015 )
Businesses are starting to have a growth pattern. Individuals
are feeling more confident in their jobs. That is a good
circumstance. If in that environment we as a government impose
more taxes and start to squeeze them harder so that they do not
have more flexible income for personal purposes or for
expanding their businesses, we are doing those people and those
businesses a major disfavour. We cannot do that.
What about the taxes that are proposed in the 10th report by
the majority of the committee, the Liberal members? First, they
have said to Canadians and they said to us in committee that
some type of a tax must be introduced. If expenditures are
reduced and people are laid off there is a period of time in the
first year when the expenditure reductions do not take place.
There is a delay for one or two years before there is a significant
expenditure reduction. Government members have said that
some kind of interim tax must be introduced to compensate for
that period of time.
Everyone knows that whenever a government introduces a tax
it never gets to the point where it is terminated. It is there
forever after. Since the 10th report was tabled I have heard
people say over and over again that it is just like the income tax
brought in for the war and we still have that income tax. It has
8965
expanded and intervenes in people's lives more and more every
day. That is what has happened.
However the government has said it is going to put that tax in.
It is going to argue that it needs it on an interim basis to get itself
through the period before it really reduces the government
expenditures. I do not think that argument is good enough.
Alberta reduced expenditures by some 20 per cent across the
board in government both in social program areas and
non-social program areas. That was not the problem there; the
event projected by this government which is being used as an
excuse did not happen in Alberta. I do not believe it would
happen if we had effective expenditure reduction at the federal
level. I do not think it would happen the very same way.
What are those taxes that were introduced by the government?
First of all it said it wanted to collect about $1 billion by putting
a tax of one and a half cents on each litre of gas. The government
said: ``We can do that for all Canadians and it will not hurt
them''. One of my colleagues said it was a kind of carbon tax.
We cannot really say it is that because it does not focus
completely on Alberta. It affects all people right across Canada.
Last week I was listening to an Ottawa radio program. They
were discussing the cost of fuel in Ottawa versus Toronto. The
people in Ottawa were saying: ``Why do we have to pay so much
more? We are paying too much for our fuel''. A number of
people phoned in to say they needed to drive their cars to work.
Some people think if there is a tax put on fuel that the extra tax
will be coming from people who are holidaying or driving
without a specific purpose. One person said: ``Just about all I
use my car for is to drive from home to work. It is part of my
costs in my job''.
If this extra cost is added, all it does is take away the money
Canadians need for their personal use, their food, clothing,
shelter and health care and maybe something extra when they
want to buy Christmas gifts and so on. That is one part of it. That
is the individual.
D (1020)
What about the business community? What about the trucking
community out there? People are on the road every day moving
their merchandise across this nation east and west, north and
south, trading with the United States and taking advantage of the
free trade agreement we have set up. All of those people are
impacted. It takes money away from the business community
that is needed maybe to hire more people or to invest and create
more jobs. This tax is a depressing thing. It is not positive
toward building our economy, it depresses it.
I am sure if a poll were taken people when talking to us would
say very clearly that expenditures must be cut that we must
reduce expenditures. The 3 per cent target set up by the
government is not good enough. The $25 billion we will be left
with in 1996-97 is still going to add $100 billion to our deficit. It
is going to increase the debt to over $600 billion. It is going to
increase the interest payments of government from some $40
billion up to possibly $50 billion.
People would say very clearly: ``The cost of government must
be cut back, but do not increase my taxes. I am struggling to pay
the current rate. Do not take more away from me if you expect
me to be the engine of the economy''. I have heard politicians
say for years that it is the small businesses and individuals that
will make the economy move. Small businesses are the engine
of our economy, not the big corporate ones. Here we are hitting
them right on the chin with an extra gas tax. We are going to take
$1 billion out of the economy with regard to this gas tax. That is
unfair when we are trying to build the economy. We are not
trying to depress the economy, but we are doing it by this tax.
I want to ask a question of my colleagues on the finance
committee. There were nine Liberal members, three Bloc
members and three Reform members on the committee. I will
ask the question as well to this assembly: Who asked for the tax?
I never heard anybody make the presentation that gasoline
should be taxed, that a one and a half cent tax should be put on
every litre of gasoline.
It was slipped into the committee report that there would not
be a tax on diesel fuel. The government said that maybe the
farmers in Ontario, Alberta or B.C. should not be taxed on their
diesel fuel which was a rather compassionate consideration.
Maybe some of the truckers who use diesel fuel will consider it
to be a bit compassionate.
Every Canadian is being hit with this tax. I believe the Liberal
members on the committee were encouraged by the finance
department to float that as a balloon to see what would happen,
see the reaction. If over the Christmas season while Canadians
are trying to enjoy the holiday with their families, they are not
yelling at Ottawa and creating a ruckus in the media, then it will
be implemented.
It is a terrible time to fly a balloon because we are all trying to
relax and back off from some of our responsibilities. Who wants
to sit down and write a letter to their member of Parliament
about a gas tax? However they might be mad enough to do just
that and I hope they do.
My colleagues say they are already receiving letters of
concern on this issue. The government should listen before it
decides to implement a 1.5 cent a litre gas tax across the board
that will affect every Canadian whether they are working or
whether they are the poor. Whether they are mothers with
dependent children who need to drive to day care, whether they
are small business persons, whether they are trying to expand
their businesses or trying to invest, every one of them is going to
be hit by this 1.5 cent per litre gas tax.
8966
D (1025 )
We in this House had better stop that today. I would appreciate
it if government members would get up today and say: ``We
made a mistake. We are sorry. We think we should withdraw
that. We were flying a balloon''. That would be a tremendous
Christmas present for Canadians. That would be true Liberal
compassion right on top.
That is only one tax the government intends to impose on
Canadians. The next one is a corporate tax. To satisfy the left
wing socialist element of the Liberal Party it was to introduce
some kind of corporate tax. It is trying to wriggle it around so
that it is put on the capital. Rather than being up front and saying
it is the kind of tax the government is going to impose on
Canada's corporate sector, it is a way to weasel some money out
of those in the corporate sector. They will not know what hit
them until the tax bill is laid on the table before the executive
director of this country.
I know the corporate sector does not have much of a defence.
There is no political group out there to represent it. Granted the
committee heard from what I call the left wing presentations
that we should tax the rich, we should tax the corporations, that
the corporations are paying fewer taxes now than they did back
in 1986. There were graphs and presentations to show that the
corporate sector was slipping out from under the rug again.
I am not here to defend the corporate sector. However we have
to realize the situation of the corporate sector in Canada after
1984. The real recession and downturn in the economy hit
Alberta in 1982, but in 1984 real estate values for example
dropped 25 to 30 per cent in a period of about 18 months. It was
devastating for those people.
That is one reason, and there are others, the corporate sector is
paying less. It is not because it is dodging or hiding from the tax.
We should realize that. A number of groups went after the banks
which is another case in itself. I want to make two more points in
the two minutes I have remaining.
A tax on lotteries is the third tax being proposed by the Liberal
majority on the finance committee. Who wants to defend
lotteries? They are a tough thing to defend. Politically we could
say that sure some lucky guy wins and he should pay the tax.
The lotteries are already taxed four times. This would be the
fifth tax on lotteries. There is not much to squeeze out of the
lotteries. We could take it if we want but there is not much there.
Some exchanges with the provinces would have to be made.
They do have some say about the taxing of lotteries and they are
going to be very upset when they find the federal government
trying to propose this kind of a tax.
I want to make one more point. The other tax that was going to
be introduced was called the deficit reduction surtax. It is
something like the gasoline tax, only worse. It puts a tax on
every Canadian, no matter who they are. Whether it is an
individual or a business, any kind of economic activity or earned
income will be taxed by this surtax. Every Canadian will have a
government tax imposed on them for government
mismanagement. It is the wrong option. Like any other increase
in tax, it is wrong. We should reduce the government
expenditures more. That is the approach. We are totally against
increases in taxes.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We have a period of
questions and comments.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, on a point of order I move
that the debate be now adjourned in light of the fact that there
was no notice of this.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We will complete the
period of questions and comments.
D (1030 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
speaking of the deficit reduction surtax, it is referred to
specifically in the standing committee report as being a single
tax. Unfortunately, one of the members from the standing
committee from the Liberal side, the member for Vaudreuil, has
been, I am sure without any malicious intent, misinforming the
public by saying that a single tax means 1 per cent.
In other words, Canadians right now think the deficit
reduction surtax being called a single tax is only 1 per cent. A
single tax simply means that whether it is a single mother of
three children earning $1,500 a month, or somebody earning
$100,000, or a large corporation, a single tax will be applied to
their tax rate. It can be whatever per cent.
Canadians have to clearly understand that what the finance
committee did was turn over to the finance minister a blank
cheque that all Canadians will have to fill in and sign. Will this
deficit reduction surtax be 1 per cent, 2 per cent, 10 per cent?
How much is the surtax going to be? I suggest to Canadians they
should be aware of the fact that there were balloons being flown
at nearly every committee meeting asking what is the vision that
we have of our responsibility to Canadian people.
I wonder if the member might wish to comment on the
reduction or the proposed elimination of the PUITTA, which is
the public utilities tax that is going to be on private utilities in
Alberta, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador where in the
presentation that was made to us on the finance committee it was
clearly stated by the people making the presentation on behalf of
those private utilities that the people of Alberta, Nova Scotia,
and Newfoundland and Labrador may be looking at as much as a
10 per cent hike in their hydro rate.
I wonder if the member would care to make a comment about
that.
8967
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I would like to
comment on both issues raised by the hon. member. First, with
regard to the deficit reduction surtax, it says in the report that a
single rate levy would be made on all businesses and personal
income. That means all Canadians regardless of income or
circumstances would have a single levy. It does not mean 1 per
cent. It could mean 5 per cent, 4 per cent or 3 per cent.
The chairman of our committee, the hon. member for
Willowdale, indicated that a 1 per cent surtax collected across
Canada would bring in about 700 million in tax dollars. I would
think the minimum the government would charge as a surtax
would be 2 per cent to bring in about $1.4 billion, because that is
the amount of tax money it has looked at in this report.
Regarding the second question of the Public Utilities Income
Tax Transfer Act, I think it would be very unfortunate if the
government tried to take $249 million from the private utility
companies of this country. The problem is that it focuses that
source of income on two or three provinces and mainly Alberta.
Alberta has some major private resource electrical companies.
That is $249 million that would be sucked out of the industry. In
addition, it would raise the cost of utilities in those respective
provinces. That would be like a targeted tax. I do not think that is
fair as a tax principle as well.
In Alberta the farmers who now use electricity to pump for
their irrigation systems would be significantly affected by the
implementation of this tax, or changing the current
circumstances with regard to the public utilities income tax
transfer at the present time.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. He has been
spouting these scare tactics among Canadians about taxes-
Mr. Abbott: Scare tactics.
D (1035 )
Mr. Milliken: Yes, scare tactics. He is spouting scare tactics,
trying to convince Canadians that somehow the government has
an evil plan to tax them.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Speaking the truth.
Mr. Milliken: I want to have the hon. member speak the truth
all right. I want him to tell Canadians what his party's plans are
for cutting social programs to balance the budget. They have
told us they are going to balance the budget, I think in a year or
two, and are going to take $40 billion out of government
expenditure.
We have had some details on the $10 billion in cuts which they
have been specific on, but then there is an unspecified amount of
cuts to Canada's social programs. I wonder if he would come
clean with Canadians and tell them the facts. Which social
programs are going to be cut and how much? I would like to hear
the answer from the hon. member.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, one of the
things the Reform Party has done is lay out the details of our
expenditure reductions. We placed before Canadians a week ago
Thursday last $10 billion of expenditure reductions. First, we
went into the details and presented that to the committee.
Second, we made this available to the media and anybody else
who wanted the details. We went into the specifics, beyond the
presentation of the finance committee, and made those available
to show that there was credibility to any of the numbers we
presented. If one reads any of the media reports in the Financial
Post, Globe and Mail and a long list of others, there is
tremendous support for the presentation we made.
We recognize that after economic growth of some $16 billion
we still have to eliminate on average about $14 billion over a
three year period. We see $24 billion of expenditure reduction
over a three year period. On average that is about $8 billion per
year.
That is approximately 6 per cent to 8 per cent per year which
was not in the business community when there was a downturn
after 1982 and a downturn after 1984. Some of those business
people cut their business costs by anywhere from 15 per cent to
25 per cent. The expenditure reductions we are talking about
here are minor and can be accomplished.
Where are they? In the social program areas, we will be
outlining by the first week of February for Canadians specific
expenditure reductions. The focus of our expenditure reductions
will take the dollars that are left. There will be some $50 billion
to $55 billion in what we call the social program area. I could
define that but it would take a few moments so I will not do it.
However, in that $50 billion to $55 billion we will be reducing
the expenditure of that area. We have already reduced it from
$67 billion because there was $67 billion in that social program
area that I am talking about.
However, we will give specifics to the Canadian people as to
where we will do it. Nothing will be hidden. The $50 billion to
$55 billion that is left will be used for positive programs to help
those people who are in true need in Canada. We will show
compassion because we care about our responsibility to those
people in need across this nation.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, when I was
back in the constituency this weekend people were absolutely
infuriated by just the mention of this increase in tax. We are
already overtaxed. People are already taking their capital out of
this country and people are on the brink of a tax revolt. I wonder
if the government knows exactly what kind of balloons it is
floating.
8968
I would like to ask the member if he has that same feeling
from the Canadian people because I do not believe the
government is listening to the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I know I have
limited time but I would encourage Canadians to speak out and
speak against tax increases of any kind. We cannot afford them.
We are at the maximum level. If it leads to revolt and if that is
what the government wants, that is the way it will be.
I am very disappointed that the government has not stood up
at this point in time and continued this debate and put its
position on the table as to why it supports tax increases. If it does
not, why does it not speak against the report and not concur in it?
D (1040)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, in light of the complete absence of notice that this was
going to proceed this morning, the members we would like to be
here in order to continue this debate are unfortunately not here. I
know it is improper to refer to the absence of members, but it is
vague notion today because I am not referring to any specific
members.
Had we been given some notice we might have been pleased to
continue this discussion. In the absence of notice we will have to
postpone it. I therefore move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 138)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Rock
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young -134
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
8969
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-89
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bachand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Cauchon
Collenette
Crête
Dubé
Lalonde
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Minna
Ménard
Robichaud
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
adopted.
* * *
D (1125)
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this petition was signed by 300 Canadian citizens.
The undersigned residents of the province of Saskatchewan
draw the attention of the House to section 745 of the Criminal
Code of Canada wherein convicted murders sentenced to life
imprisonment without chance of parole for 25 years are able to
apply for a review after 15 years.
Whereas the murder of a Canadian citizen is a most
reprehensible crime, the petitioners request that Parliament
repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure today to rise in the House to present a petition signed by
a number of my constituents from the riding of Red Deer.
The citizens request that Parliament not amend the human
rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have a petition to present on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre.
The petitioners request that the Government of Canada not
amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual
orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could
lead to homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal
privileges as married people. I concur with the petitioners'
request.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present.
The petitioners want Parliament to ensure the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide are enforced vigorously and to make no changes in the
law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, tens of thousands of Canadians have signed petitions
requesting parliamentarians to repeal section 745 of the
Criminal Code.
Section 745 allows those convicted of first or second degree
murder to have their parole ineligibility reduced to 15 years.
There will be a vote later this day at 5.30 p.m. on a private
member's bill which would do just that, that is repeal section
745 of the Criminal Code.
I have the privilege to present to Parliament some of those
petitions today containing the names of several hundred
petitioners requesting that Parliament repeal section 745. I urge
members to be out this afternoon to vote in favour of the private
member's bill.
8970
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House from
Canadians objecting to absolute discrimination against lesbian,
gay and bisexual Canadians who are an everyday reality in all
regions of Canada. They say that is unacceptable for a country
known for its commitment to human rights equality and dignity
for all citizens.
It calls upon Parliament to act quickly to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation.
D (1130 )
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
honoured once again to rise in the House under Standing Order
36 on behalf of the hon. member for York South-Weston and
his constituents.
The undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of the
House to the fact that individuals convicted of first degree
murder are sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for
parole for 25 years. Those convicted of second degree murder
can be sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for
parole for 15 years or more.
Section 745 of the Canadian Criminal Code allows murderers
to apply for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment
notwithstanding having been tried, convicted and sentenced in a
court of law. Individuals convicted of second degree murder and
sentenced to life in prison can become eligible for parole after
serving 15 years by virtue of section 745 of the Canadian
Criminal Code.
Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament pass
legislation to remove section 745 from the Canadian Criminal
Code. I agree with the petitioners.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
petitions signed by 800 people from across the country.
These people believe that grandparents, as a consequence of
the death, separation or divorce of their children, are often
denied access to their grandchildren by their guardians. Several
provincial jurisdictions including the Quebec civil code contain
a provision to ensure the right of access of grandparents to their
grandchildren.
The petitioners request that Parliament amend the Divorce
Act to state that in no case may a father or mother, without
serious cause, place obstacles between the child and the
grandparents and failing agreement between the parties the
modalities of the relations are settled by the court.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
a second petition with 45 signatures.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament not to amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present under Standing
Order 36 that deal with section 745 of the Criminal Code. One is
from members of the RCMP and many police officers in
Saskatchewan and asks that section 745 be repealed.
I have another petition from numerous individuals in Alberta
asking that section 745 be repealed. I am privileged to support
these petitions.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the questions
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Madam Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. My Question No. 21 has been on the Order Paper
since March 8, 1994 or 280 days. It is a straightforward
question.
I wonder if I could get an indication of when I might expect a
reply.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, let me assure the hon.
member that it will be soon. I would hope we might have an
answer before the adjournment of the House this week but I do
not know.
I must say it is one question I have inquired about on
numerous occasions. I understand there has been some difficulty
with the answer. As soon as it can be provided I will be glad to
table it in the House for the hon. member.
Mr. Stinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My
Question No. 40 has been on the Order Paper since April 22,
1994 or 231 days. I am also wondering when I can expect an
answer. It seems to be taking a terribly long time.
8971
D (1135 )
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am very sympathetic to the
situation the hon. member has described. I too am disappointed
at the delay in getting some of the responses. In the last few days
I have been pressing to get answers to these questions so they
could be tabled in the House this week.
I assure the hon. member that his questions have been the
subject of intense questioning by me as to when we might get
answers in the House. I will continue to press for a quick reply.
I appreciate the member is representing many Canadians who
are very interested in these answers. I do not deny that. I fully
support his right to ask the questions. It is quite proper that he
put them on the Order Paper.
As a member who used to be able to enjoy that privilege, I
assure the hon. member that had I been in his position I would be
saying the same as he is. I sympathize fully.
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask
the same question. Having had Questions Nos. 43, 44 and 46 on
the Order Paper for 225 days, I would like to know when I might
expect replies to the questions.
Mr. Milliken: Soon, Madam Speaker.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
On the Order: Government Orders:
December 12, 1994-The Minister of Human Resources
Development-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on
Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons of Bill C-64, an act respecting
employment equity.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.) Madam Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, be referred forthwith to
the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.
He said: Madam Speaker, first let me address what I think is
an important parliamentary landmark. In this case we are taking
a bill after first reading and directing it specifically to a
committee so that it can assist in the drafting of the legislation.
It is an indication of the kind of parliamentary reform to which
our government became committed after the last election. It
would give an opportunity for members of Parliament to consult
widely with all groups affected by the proposed bill and to
ensure it reflects the broad base of concern.
I thank the House leaders for the opportunity to try a bit of a
pilot project in bringing the parliamentary system more into the
process of legislative development and blueprinting.
The bill warrants that kind of attention. It is in many ways a
very significant piece of legislation because it affects 60 per
cent of Canadians. It is something that goes to the heart of the
whole question of equality in our society, ensuring we try to
eliminate as many barriers as possible to prevent people from
going to work.
Over 10 years ago when I was in the previous Liberal
government as the minister of employment I had occasion to
establish a royal commission under Judge Rosalie Abella who
looked at the whole question of employment equity and made a
number of recommendations. Unfortunately by the time her
report was finished the voters had decided to put Liberals in the
position of a sabbatical for a period of years and the government
that followed only went forward in a partial way to meet the
recommendations of the Abella commission.
I am very pleased today, having been part of the initial start on
a new regime for employment equity, to be able now to fulfil the
recommendations that were originally presented by Judge
Abella on how we could work toward the elimination of
systemic discrimination in the workplace. By systemic we mean
practices, attitudes and developments that have occurred over
many years. It does not mean that somebody is being outright
bigoted, but it does mean that over time we have allowed the
workplace, as we have in many other parts of society, to provide
a series of barriers to various kinds of people.
In this case we have four designated groups: disabled
Canadians, women, visible minorities and aboriginal people, all
of whom feel they have not been able to secure fair, open and
equitable access to the workplace.
In the previous legislation the opportunity to enforce and
provide a strong sense of direction was not there. It was simply a
reporting information based system.
D (1140 )
We are undertaking in the legislation a series of very
important further steps to complete and to bring up to date the
kind of requirements we need to make employment equity really
work.
[Translation]
I think this bill is fair, reasonable and very progressive. For
the first time, the federal Public Service will be subject to the
Employment Equity Act. Also for the first time, the Human
Rights Commission will have the authority to ensure that
employers meet their obligations. For instance, the commission
may conduct audits of all public sector and private sector
employers covered by this legislation.
8972
[English]
Basically we are responding to the need to make sure there is
proper and fair balance among all employers under the federal
jurisdiction. For the first time the Public Service of Canada,
involving over 250,000 employees, will be brought under the
jurisdiction of this act.
It will require obligations to be met by the armed forces, the
RCMP and other areas subject to the final discussions of the
President of the Treasury Board to work out matters dealing with
operational efficiency and effectiveness.
We have also been giving to the Human Rights Commission,
an independent agency responsible to Parliament, the right to
begin to enforce these actions by giving it a power to undertake
workplace audits. Rather than simply being based on some kind
of abstract notion, the Human Rights Commission will now have
the responsibility of examining in a wide variety of workplaces
exactly in what way they are meeting their requirements under
the act to ensure that barriers are brought down, hiring practices
are fair, training is offered and facilities are reconstructed to
meet the specific requirements to ensure equitable, fair and just
treatment in the workplace.
It is our primary hope that kind of audit will be done in a fully
co-operative way. Up to this point in time we can say that most
private employers have co-operated, because they recognize
that employment equity is not purely a matter of human rights,
as important as it is. It is also good business. It is good to make
the best use of human talent and human resources of whatever
kind and in whatever place.
There was an interesting article a month or so ago in the
American business magazine, Business Week. The title was
something we do not normally see on the cover of Business
Week. It was entitled ``Inequality''. The point made in the
feature article of the magazine was that one of the major
deterrents to economic growth in the United States was the
increasing inequality in society.
We are moving into an age where the workplace requires more
and more investment in human capital, resources, talent and
ability. If we have people on the sidelines, if we marginalize
people, if we do not draw upon the best talents, we do not have
the full resources brought to bear to make a productive society.
There is no question there are barriers in the workplace that
inhibit and prevent that from happening.
A good example in Canada is how some of our major banks
which come under federal jurisdiction have begun in the last
couple of years very major programs of minority hiring. I quote
a vice-president of one of the major banks who recently noted
the benefits of employment equity practices by saying: ``It
brings into our business an infusion of new ideas, a broader
perspective, better decision making and a greater sensitivity to
all approaches''.
They are finding that employment equity has substantially
added to the productivity and the performance not only of
designated workers but all workers. By improving the operation
of human resource planning, management and development
inside the workplace, designed primarily to ensure fairness and
openness, it provides avenues and open doorways for all
workers to achieve.
That has met the test of efficiency. We know the ideologues
will not believe it but people in business understand it. The
people who understand how things work will believe it, but
those across the way who scrape their knuckles when they walk
will not understand it. Those who are in business understand
how it works. That is why it receives that kind of support.
D (1145 )
We have consulted very widely on this bill. We have talked to
business, federal employers, aboriginal groups, labour groups
and disabled Canadians; four million Canadians who have one
form of disability or another and have been one of the strongest
and most effective lobbies to bring about these kinds of changes
in employment equity. They recognize that they have enormous
talents to give.
As I have said in another context when we talked about social
reform, one of the objectives is to bring down barriers so that
people for example who are presently disabled now under many
social programs in the provinces have to declare themselves
unemployable to get a benefit. At the same time there are also
barriers in the workplace.
As the federal government we are working to eliminate those
barriers in our own workforce and in all those companies and
organizations which come under federal jurisdiction.
What we are proposing today is a major step forward that will
really have major benefits. It would clearly signal to over 60 per
cent of Canadians that we are prepared to move actively on their
behalf to secure fair, equal treatment in the workplace.
That is a message that is long overdue and one that will clearly
represent a commitment to fairness in society and a more just
treatment of all those Canadians who have felt that for reasons
which had nothing to do with their talent or ability, but to open
up for the first time the real merit principle. There is no merit
principle if there are false barriers, false discriminations and
false disincentives in the workplace. The real place we find
merit is when one is judged on one's merit not by who one is or
what one is, but what one can do.
Finally, I also believe that this will substantially aid and
enhance the basic economic position of this country. It will
mean we will be able to utilize and draw upon the full range of
incredible talent this country has in all its people and not say to
some they are second class citizens. Everyone is a first class
citizen and is a first class worker under this legislation.
8973
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker,
today we have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-64 respecting
employment equity. Madam Speaker, I shall, if I may, quote the
purpose of this legislation as it appears in the text of the bill.
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace
so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or
benefits for reasons unrelated to ability.
The bill consists of four parts. First, it sets out the obligations
of an employer and outlines reporting requirements. Part II sets
out mechanisms for enforcing employer obligations. Part III
deals with the assessment of monetary penalties, and Part IV
establishes regulation-making authority and provides for other
general matters.
The House will recall that the federal government's first
affirmative action programs were set up in 1970, following the
report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in
Canada. However, the report of the Commission on Equality in
Employment-the Abella Commission's report tabled in
1984-was to form the basis for current policies on employment
equity.
Adopted in 1986, the Employment Equity Act currently
applies to federally regulated employers and Crown
corporations that employ 100 or more employees. These are
mainly employers that conduct their operations in the banking,
transportation and communications sectors which, as you know,
are under federal jurisdiction.
Bill C-64 will completely change the 1986 legislation, by
making it apply to the federal public service, which was not
covered before. Considerations to be included in employment
equity plans are now better defined. The President of the
Treasury Board is to table an annual report. Finally, the
Canadian Human Rights Commission will be responsible for the
enforcement of the obligations imposed on employers by certain
sections.
Of course, this is nothing new.
D (1150)
You will recall that, in a report tabled on May 14 1992, a
special committee recommended that the threshold under which
the legislation does not apply be lowered from 100 to 75
employees.
The same report recommended as even more important yet
that a national employment equity strategy be developed, a
strategy that would include a public education program. And
this program, in the opinion of the committee and his chairman,
was the most important part of all.
This report was accompanied by a minority report from the
Liberal Party, presented by the hon. members for York
South-Weston and Halifax. This minority report states that:
``Maintaining the current threshold of 100 employees, or even
reducing the threshold to 75 as recommended by the Special
committee, results in legislation that, in effect, imposes a
barrier to designated groups members who prefer to be
employed in small business settings''. As you can see, the
minority report even goes further than the special committee
report.
Let me quote again from this minority report, where the hon.
member for York South-Weston and the hon. member for
Halifax tell us the following: ``It is our belief that the Federal
Contractors Program presents the government with an ideal
opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to the principle of
employment equity. The message should be clear and
unequivocal-if you want to do business with the federal
government, you must implement employment equity in the
work place''.
These two examples go to show that in those days-this was
1992-employment equity was taken seriously. In fact, this
special committee report and minority report have laid the
groundwork, I imagine, for the bill before us today.
In this context, the Bloc Quebecois believes it is essential to
ensure equitable job access to the groups affected by the
legislation. We therefore endorse the principle of employment
equity. The Bloc certainly supports the inclusion of the public
service of Canada within the scope of the act. This was long
overdue.
However, the Bloc Quebecois questions the helpfulness of a
new governmental measure. As I said earlier, the special
committee recommended that adequate resources be provided to
the Human Rights Commission, so that it could carry out
effectively its new functions. Unfortunately, the Minister of
Human Resources Development has stated in a press conference
that the commission would have to do more with less. This
leaves us somewhat sceptical or at least concerned.
Another difficulty we would like to point out is that
employment equity policies should have been adopted a long
time ago. They were not. However, the federal government is
now in a situation where it must reduce its workforce, which
makes it much more difficult to reach equity goals and will limit
the impact of this bill to a certain extent.
A bill is a statement of good intentions. However, given the
current downsizing of the federal public service, it would be not
only desirable but essential for the minister to propose a plan to
implement this bill within the public service.
We also remember-as I read a few moments ago in its
report-that the special committee had recommended a
reduction to 75 employees, while the minority report suggested
an even greater reduction. The bill, however, does not provide
for such a reduction, even though we think it should.
8974
D (1155)
In conclusion, although the Bloc Quebecois supports the
principle of employment equity, we will introduce major
amendments in committee in order to help improve the
effectiveness of this bill.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, today we gather to mourn the death of an old friend. We
lament the demise of a principle that has guarded the integrity
and quality of our public service for almost a century.
The rule of merit has produced a level of quality and
impartiality in government that has served Canadians for
generations. The merit principle directs that jobs and
promotions go to the best qualified, most competent people.
The Liberals began to inch the principle of merit into an early
grave a decade ago and Bill C-64 will bang the last few nails
into its coffin.
No other principle can withstand the scrutiny of elementary
justice. Who should the taxpayer hire? Who deserves a
promotion? It is the best and the brightest of course. All
Canadians from all groups accept this.
If the minister has his way, jobs and promotions will not
necessarily go to the best and brightest, the ones who
demonstrate these high qualifications. From the moment this
bill is passed the public service will pass over many of the best
qualified in favour of those with personal characteristics wholly
unrelated to the job.
The government will subordinate the principle of merit to the
politics of race and of gender. This is in a time of public service
downsizing. The field of opportunity will narrow even further
for those who stand outside the four designated groups.
Morale is already low. Morale will take a further blow in the
next budget but it will sink through the floor with the passage of
this act because thousands of civil servants will be denied a
fulfilling career even if they deserve it more than their
neighbour.
How do we know the members of a designated group? They
are self-identified. This bill encourages a mentality of
victimization. It encourages Canadians to view themselves as
oppressed people who can gain something by viewing
themselves as such.
At present two-thirds of Canada's workforce belong to a
designated group. The annual report on the Employment Equity
Act says that in 1991 almost 2.3 million Canadians reported
having a disability, which would be okay, but it is an increase of
30 per cent from 1986.
This government will only be satisfied when all Canadians
count themselves in as victims but not all Canadians buy into
this mentality. I want to applaud the seven hundred and sixty
some thousand Canadians who refuse to even name their ethnic
origin in Canada's last census.
Even though ``Canadian'' was not given as an ethnic option in
this census these seven hundred and some thousand refused to be
part of a designated group and pencilled in the word Canadian. I
digress.
Let us look at the purpose of the bill for a moment. Its purpose
is to mandate a representative workforce. Exactly what is a
representative workforce? The government ignores Canada's
history and its social norms. It arbitrarily demands that the
public service reflect-the word reflect means like a
mirror-precisely by occupational group the designated groups
as they occur in the larger Canadian workforce.
This is representation according to the bill. Is the workforce
so unrepresentative that people are suffering injustice? Are
Canadian employers so unfair that they would shut whole groups
of people out of the labour market? Is there really a need for
employment equity in Canada?
There is not when one looks at the numbers. Let me give
members an example of the 570,000 people now regulated under
the current Employment Equity Act. Women make up 45.6 per
cent but the larger workforce is 45.9 per cent female. There is a
.24 per cent difference there-what an injustice. Bring out the
legislative hammer. The Liberals are on their high horses, hell
bent on stamping out this perceived social evil. It is ridiculous.
How does this mentality come about? The Liberal government is
driven by special interest groups rather than public interest.
Allow me to quote from the Macdonald commission of 1985
which describes the formulation of section 15(2) of the equality
rights section of the Constitution. This section empowers the
government to deny equality to all Canadians and give
preference to women, visible minorities, aboriginals and the
disabled.
The commission said that the government incorporated
verbatim the feminist proposal for rewriting the new equality
rights section. Liberals have always been driven by political
expediency rather than what is fair and equitable. This is another
example.
D (1200)
Let us look at more numbers. What about the salaries of
visible minorities? Visible minority males make 93 per cent of
the salaries of all men in the workforce; visible minority women
make 96 per cent of what the average woman makes. Ring the
alarm bells. Roll out the legislative guns. We will blast this
problem with a massive, coercive, manipulative bureaucracy.
That is the Liberal way.
8975
The government is suffering a nauseating attack of
self-righteousness. It constantly points the finger of blame at
ordinary Canadians, accusing them of unfairness and
irresponsibility. What about the three million gun owners for
example? No matter that they are responsible and law-abiding,
they deserve tough legislation. The government assumes them
to be irresponsible, suspicious, maybe even dangerous.
If the workplace is not precisely representative down to the
last decimal point, the government aims its legislative guns.
According to the Liberal government Canadian employers
cannot be trusted to be fair to their workers. The government
must regulate them more with some heavy-handed laws.
In fact Canadian employers are fair and the numbers show it.
When situations of equal choice are compared, when we
compare apples to apples, there is no discrimination. According
to Statistics Canada, for example in 1992, single women made
99 per cent of the salaries of single men. Other salary
differences can be explained by lifestyle choices and choices
that prefer family over career. This is not a matter of injustice. It
is a matter of personal priority and social norms.
What is the Reform answer? The market, not the government,
should regulate the makeup of the workplace. Having a
representative work force simply makes good business sense.
Companies which do not hire the most productive people,
companies that do not hire people that reflect their own markets,
will be driven out of the market, and so be it. The market will
impose its own discipline on the workplace in the private sector.
What is the role of government in the public sector? The
government's role is to ensure equality of opportunity for all
Canadians, to dismantle systemic barriers, help with education
and make sure that employment information is available,
reasonably accommodate for disabilities and make employment
testing fair for everybody.
Equality of opportunity ensures that everybody has an equal
chance. It creates a level playing field, not a field that is tilted in
favour of special interest groups. No legislation is required, no
bureaucracy, minimal expense, and no coercive quotas.
I want to address quotas in the context of Bill C-64. Quotas
are requirements for hiring certain numbers of designated
people within certain time frames. The legislation specifically
disavows quotas by name in section 31, but on the other hand it
imposes all the elements of quotas in other sections.
The bill sets up quotas in disguise. Let me describe them to
you. First, the employer must audit the entire workforce, then
establish a timetable for correcting any unrepresentativeness
with so-called numerical goals for hiring, both short term and
long term, then submit a report by June 1 of every year to the
government. The employer is forced by law to consult with the
union when it makes its plan.
The plan must include steps that will make reasonable
progress toward these goals, and the word reasonable is of
course defined by the government body in charge. What is the
defining enforcement body? None other than the Canadian
Human Rights Commission, that group of new moral crusaders,
the witch hunters of political correctness. The act creates a new
big brother, compliance auditors, to go over the employers'
plans and reports.
If the compliance auditors at the commission do not like the
plan, the steps, the goals, the auditor can do a compliance audit.
He can walk into the business at any time and demand any
confidential documents. The bill even specifies that he can use
the employer's photocopier to copy them. Then the auditor gives
a summary order to the employer to change his plans.
If numerical goals are not quotas I will eat my hat. If the
employer does not like it he can go to a new creation of the act,
another one, an even bigger brother, an employment equity
review tribunal which can be made up of just one person, a
tribunal of one person, but possess all the powers of any other
quasi-judicial body in Canada. Its orders have the power of the
Federal Court and if the employer does not like what the tribunal
says he must appeal to the Appeals Court of Canada. This is
nonsense.
D (1205 )
The fines attached to this bill are absolutely punitive; $10,000
for the first offence and $50,000 for each one thereafter. All of
the elements of quotas are there: the plans, the reporting and
specific timetables, the investigations and the sanctions. Last
night the human rights commissioner said jokingly: ``We hope
to be able to get compliance without using handcuffs and billy
clubs''. That is a nice, perverse joke but Canadians will not find
it very funny.
My last point is this. What is the cost of this boondoggle? In
the United States where quotas were created in 1970 the cost of
affirmative action was estimated at 4 per cent of the GDP, $112
billion U.S. a year. In Canada there are no clear estimates but the
Ontario Chamber of Commerce estimates that a company with
500 employees will spend $100,000 just to comply with the
paperwork.
This bill is utterly offensive.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to be associated with my colleagues, the
Minister of Human Resources Development and the Secretary of
State for Training and Youth, in bringing to the House a proposal
for the new employment equity act.
8976
We are certain the parliamentary committee that will review
this bill will be very attentive to the views of interested people
and to various groups on this matter. We are looking forward to
the discussions in committee and to the debate in the House.
The Prime Minister had it right when he addressed the French
Senate a short time ago. He said that because of the sacrifices
and efforts of the women and men who have come from the four
corners of the world, we have succeeded in building in Canada a
society that is pluralistic and equitable and that is founded on
open-mindedness, tolerance, generosity and sharing.
[Translation]
As citizens of this country, we can be proud of the progress
our society has made. I do not believe that Canadians have
finished evolving. Although we have made remarkable progress
towards equity, I do not think that everyone has an equal
opportunity to contribute fully.
[English]
We all know there is room for more open-mindedness, more
tolerance, more generosity and more sharing. That is what
employment equity is all about. It is a policy of inclusion, not
exclusion; of openness, not discrimination; of sharing, not
restricting. That is what my hon. friend does not seem to get
through his head.
It was in the 1970s that greater attention began to be paid to
questions of equity and equality. One consequence was the
adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even
before that, Parliament enacted the Canadian Human Rights Act
and the first steps were taken toward a policy of affirmative
action that became in due course employment equity.
What employment equity seeks to do is to break down barriers
to equality in the workplace, that is to ensure that no person is
denied employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to
ability. At the same time it puts in place measures to assist in
creating a level playing field for aboriginal peoples, for persons
with disabilities, for persons in a visible minority and for
women.
On a wall in Ottawa that is otherwise undistinguished
someone has scrawled: ``Equal treatment does not equal
equality''. Employment equity recognizes that truth.
Differences must be recognized and accepted if there is to be
greater equality. The fact of recognizing these differences and
doing something to diminish them does not constitute
discrimination, as some may claim. On the contrary, it
contributes to the equality of opportunity of all citizens and does
not diminish any.
Some examples concerning the four designated groups may
explain how employment equity is pursued in the public service
and indeed often in the private sector as well. Although women
are entering the public service in greater numbers than in the
past, they are clustered in large measure in what are called pink
ghettos. They are heavily represented in fields such as teaching,
nursing and clerical work. Women working full time earn less
than three-quarters of what men make. In the public service
women constitute about 85 per cent of the administrative
support category, the clerical workers, but only about 18 per
cent of the executive group.
D (1210)
It was recognized some years ago that if women were to
become managers in the public service, they would need
assistance in overcoming the barriers they faced. Among the
measures put in place was a bureau within the Public Service
Commission to help women prepare themselves for tasks that
had for a long time been almost the exclusive preserve of men.
Alternative work arrangements were introduced as well.
These arrangements vary from tele-work to job sharing.
Managers are encouraged to permit all employees to take
advantage of these if possible, if it makes sense. Nevertheless,
women need these alternative arrangements more because they
still carry the major burden of family responsibilities.
Recently the pension provisions were amended so that part
time employees could contribute. Again both men and women
are eligible, but we know that 26 per cent of women work part
time as compared to 10 per cent of men.
These are the fruits of a consciousness that includes
employment equity. The progress that has been made, however,
still leaves women far from equal. Corporate culture has to
change too. There has to be a willingness to encourage the
contributions of women and of all employees. That is also a
matter of employment equity.
The accommodations made for persons with disabilities
would be applauded by all members of the House. The
Government of Canada has a policy to make its facilities
accessible to all Canadians with disabilities, whether they are
members of the public or employees.
A policy encourages departments to provide their employees
who have disabilities with the technical aids they need to
accomplish their jobs. That policy is backed up with a fund that
has been placed at the disposal of the Public Service
Commission. As an example, if a person who is visually
impaired needs a computer with a voice synthesizer, then one
will be provided.
[Translation]
In some departments, people with learning disabilities were
hired to do work that others might not have found stimulating.
The results were outstanding. That is employment equity at
work.
[English]
In another government department students with disabilities
were hired under a special program for two summers in a row.
The students acquired workplace knowledge and skills that they
might not otherwise have been able to gain. Perhaps even more
important, the project has worked to break down the
psychological barriers that persons with disabilities face. It also
served to
8977
prove that persons with disabilities can be as productive as other
employees. They too have abilities.
This was no doubt what the Governor General had in mind
when he said earlier this month on the International Day of
Disabled Persons that individuals with a disability are often
marginalized by discrimination and that their opportunities are
diminished by ignorance. Employment equity exists to open the
doors to persons with disabilities so that they too can participate
fully in the workplace.
A recent Statistics Canada study showed that among
well-educated persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and
persons of visible minority, the earning gap was closing.
Although 1990 university graduates with disabilities earn some
7 per cent less than other graduates, the more important gap is in
employment rates. Among university graduates with disabilities
the employment rate is 6 percentage points lower than for other
graduates. The gap is 12 per cent for community college
graduates. Even those with relatively minor limitations have
more difficulty in finding jobs than other graduates.
The story is about the same for aboriginal people. Aboriginal
graduates from community colleges in 1990 have an
unemployment rate that is almost 10 per cent higher than other
community college graduates. The playing field simply is not
level. There are a number of tools available to level the playing
field. One used by the Public Service Commission is to enrich
the pool of candidates. You will not have any aboriginal
employees if you do not have any aboriginal candidates. You
will not have the candidates if you do all the hiring through word
of mouth. Even then you may not have a good selection of
aboriginal candidates to consider. They may not come forward
perhaps because they believe that they would not be selected.
Therefore, you need a program of outreach not to guarantee a job
but to provide assurances that they can compete with the
principle of merit. The principle of merit is paramount in our
system in the Public Service of Canada.
D (1215)
Once an aboriginal employee has been hired the manager may
find that a certain amount of cultural adaptation is required both
in his part and on the part of the employee.
Persons in visible minorities are also under-represented in
the public service in comparison with the members in the
workforce. Like women and persons with disabilities, persons in
a visible minority are of all backgrounds. Some are recent
immigrants and some have been here for decades or hundreds of
years such as the black people from Nova Scotia.
One of the problems faced by the public service is that
although persons in a visible minority are fairly well
represented in the scientific and professional category they are
not moving up in proportional numbers into the ranks of senior
management. A part of the solution was found within the
framework of employment equity programs in the form of a
special course that we developed through the Canadian centre
for management development to help certain people to develop
their management skills.
Finally, whether these candidates succeed will depend on
their qualifications and ability. The merit principle must govern
and the person considered to be the most competent-
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to respond today to the tabling of Bill C-64, an Act
respecting employment equity. This bill is important for
federally regulated work places. It revokes the current
Employment Equity Act adopted eight years ago.
Despite the very laudable intentions behind this first Act, it
was harshly criticized by informed observers. The present
government is now trying to correct some deficiencies. We
certainly intend to help it improve its performance.
During the election campaign, the Liberal Party made three
promises on employment equity. First, it promised to extend the
scope of the law to federal boards and agencies. It also promised
to empower the Canadian Human Rights Commission to conduct
legal inquiries on issues related to employment equity. Finally,
it promised to require firms that are awarded federal
government contracts to comply with employment equity
provisions.
So what were we presented with yesterday in this House,
Madam Speaker? We were presented with a bill that in effect
extends the law to the federal public service, its boards and
agencies. It seems that this was the government's first objective.
Bravo! The Bloc Quebecois applauds any initiative to ensure
equal access to employment for all, including native people, the
disabled, women and members of visible minorities.
The Bloc Quebecois also supports the principle of legislation
forcing employers to comply with the principle of equal
opportunity. Since in our opinion the government must set an
example for the private sector, any new legislation had to extend
the application of employment equity measures to its own
departments. I might add, Madam Speaker, that it was high time.
Bill C-64 also empowers the Canadian Human Rights
Commission to determine whether the provisions of the
legislation are being complied with and to investigate the
enforcement of the law. It also establishes an employment
equity tribunal when circumstances warrant it. That is all very
good, Madam Speaker.
8978
It appears, however, that the government's third promise,
concerning the application of the law to all government
contractors, will not be kept. I will return to this point a little
later in my speech. As you might expect, we appreciate the
government's effort, but everything is not perfect either.
A committee will review the bill, but I would like to raise a
few points that struck me. First of all, as I just said, I am
disappointed with the lack of provisions concerning government
contractors. The bill in no way extends the law to this category
of employers, and this is regrettable.
D (1220)
Indeed, at the very beginning of the act, a ``private sector
employer'' is defined as ``any person who employs one hundred
or more employees''. You can understand my disappointment,
as well as that of many observers. Why does that act not apply to
other private sector employers who win contracts for which they
are paid with public money? Should we not ensure that
taxpayers' money be used in places where employment equity is
valued and respected? I believe so, but this government seems to
think otherwise. We will get back to this issue in committee.
I also wonder about the delays in tabling these legislative
amendments. Why did the government wait for more than one
year after the swearing-in of the new team to amend the act? It is
certainly not because of the deficit, since this bill, unlike others,
has virtually no financial impact on public money. This
legislation is primarily one of a moral nature; it could have been
introduced early, to emphasize the importance of the social
justice which we seek to establish.
This delay is also unfortunate because, in the current context,
the new legislation will definitely not help achieve employment
equity. Just think of the hiring freeze, of the fact that employees
cannot move on to the next salary step, and the massive
reductions in the federal public service. This is unfortunate and
we deplore this situation. In spite of its laudable objectives, the
new legislative policy will not give results before many years,
thus once again hurting the same categories of people.
Previous employment equity policies have had a very limited
impact. For example, over a period of six years, the number of
promotions for full-time employees in all private sectors of
activity improved a mere three per cent in the case of women,
0.49 per cent for aboriginal people, 1.11 per cent for
handicapped people, and 3.82 per cent for members of visible
minorities. These are, in my opinion, very poor results,
considering that the act has already been in effect for eight
years.
The figures are not much better when it comes to recruiting.
Indeed, the situation improved by 2.4 per cent for women, 1.30
per cent for aboriginal people, 0.98 per cent for handicapped
people, and 2.91 per cent for members of visible minorities.
As for the public service, in 1986, Treasury Board adopted a
policy reflecting the spirit of this legislation, but as far as
representation in management positions is concerned,
aboriginal people still represent only 1.1 per cent of the total
number of public servants; persons with disabilities, 2.1 per
cent; members of visible minorities, 2.1 per cent; and women,
15.8 per cent. The situation is clearly not any better in the
federal Public Service than it is in the private sector, hence our
conclusion that the measures that have been in place so far have
not improved the participation of members of designated
groups.
According to the statistics, very few members of these groups
are in senior management positions and women still work
mostly in office jobs, sales and services. So the situation is far
from ideal, as the minister pointed out earlier.
I think we will have to examine the available information very
carefully to determine why previous policies did not work.
In concluding, the Bloc Quebecois welcomes a bill that
broadens the application of employment equity measures to
include the entire public service. However, we believe the bill
could be significantly improved so as to obtain better results and
meet the objectives of this legislation. We will gladly make
suggestions to the government during consideration of the bill in
committee.
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity
to talk to the House today about the need for and the many
benefits of the proposed amendments to the Employment Equity
Act. Once read, once well understood, if people are familiar
with the history of how this has all come about, there is no need
for the fearmongering and the falsification of information going
on here today.
It should be stated clearly that what the employment equity
legislation does is reinforce the merit principle. It states that
very clearly. That may be a bit problematic to some because I
guess some would feel a bit more comfortable knowing that
there are flaws and gaps. Really what we have done is given
prominence to the merit principle. Not only that, we also looked
for a balanced approach of trying to integrate the four target
groups in a very enforceable way into the whole labour market
and also to express equity as it should be.
D (1225)
I do not think there is any fear with all these people
fearmongering about their jobs, including the hon. members
across the way scaring people by saying that what is going to
happen if we do hire disabled people, women, aboriginals and
visible minorities is that these people will not be hired
meritoriously.
8979
This is erroneous and this is clearly discriminatory. It is an
assumption, a false assumption. Because those four target
groups are going to be aided by this legislation, it is perfectly
acceptable that this happens considering the gross
under-representation of those groups. It is a wrong that has not
been corrected.
There have been many barriers. There have been many
obstacles and this is a step forward. It is needless for people to
put fear in the hearts of those people who have jobs out there,
particularly those people who are highly placed.
Members need not worry because these four target groups are
so under-represented as of yet. It will take such a long time. It
will still be such a big struggle. This will make it easy but it is
not going to be just the legislation that is going to make it
happen.
Unfortunately some of the greatest obstacles we will have are
attitudes of people. We can put legislation there to help but
unfortunately we cannot change the minds of all those people
who are otherwise inclined.
The equity is not simply the subject of ideological debate for
me and many other members of this House. For those of us who
are women, members of visible minorities, persons with
disabilities or aboriginal people, employment equity is
fundamentally about democracy. It is the freedom to exercise
our rights to participate fully in the political process, to make
contributions to the economic and cultural fabric of our nation.
Employment equity means ensuring that all Canadians have a
fair chance in the workplace. It ensures that no person is denied
employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability. It
involves identifying and eliminating barriers, taking special
measures and making reasonable accommodations.
As was stated by the hon. member, there are no quotas. For
instance, if 25 per cent of the population is aboriginal in a said
province and there is a thousand-person company and there is
not one aboriginal person, is it not reasonable to assume that
company or other companies like it would want to achieve that
kind of representation of that population? That is not
unreasonable. That is not discriminatory. That is perfectly
logical, perfectly acceptable and it is the way things should
evolve if we are to show the dignity and the respect of one
another as human beings.
It also talks about equality, the opportunity of equality. That
seems to fail some people. In short, employment equity means
ensuring that employment opportunities are open to those who
have historically been arbitrarily excluded. We need not go into
the figures. We all know what they are. It is a fact that is well
known to many of us, including hon. members opposite.
This bill is a fulfilment of this government's vision of our
country, one in which each of us has equal access to employment
opportunities and a chance to fully share in Canada's prosperity.
Why should some people be on the periphery of prosperity?
Why should they not be sharing in the wealth of this country in
terms of jobs, promotions and training? Why not adopt this
legislation fully? All members of the House should see the
historical isolation and marginalization of target groups in our
population and that those who need a helping hand and logical
reasoning, those who need that acceptance, should be accepted.
D (1230)
By strengthening the employment equity act we are
reconfirming the core values Canadians hold dear: fairness,
decency, and equality for every citizen in this nation. Canada is
known around the world for that. We are citizens of the world.
We are recognized for that. Why would we not enhance that
within our own country?
Equality does not come easily in Canada. It is a source of
national shame that as recently as the 1950s the first peoples of
this country were subject to laws which prevented them from
leaving reserves without a bureaucrat's permission. It is a
known fact that our people were going to war and fighting for
this country as First Nations people and they did not have the
right to vote. Women were not even considered persons in the
eyes of the law until October 1929 when women won the famous
Persons case and gained the right to become members of the
Senate.
According to the 1993 annual report on employment equity
we still have not come close to attaining our goals. According to
the most recent census aboriginal peoples continue to be
under-represented in the workforce at just 1.04 per cent
compared to 3 per cent in the Canadian workforce.
Aboriginal people continue to occupy the lowest paying jobs.
The wage gap between aboriginal men and women working full
time and other Canadians has actually increased since 1987.
Mind you it should be noted by all members of this House that
aboriginal people on average still make an annual income of
$10,000.
Aboriginal participation in the workforce has risen by less
than .5 per cent since employment equity came into effect. This
is even though the number of employable aboriginal people rose
by almost 50 per cent during the years 1986 to 1991.
The plight of persons with disabilities is not much better. The
representation of this group in the workforce has changed very
slowly. They are equally under-represented in the labour market
especially given that the number of Canadians with disabilities
increased from 5.4 to 6.5 per cent of the population over the
same five year period.
8980
It is simply unacceptable that today in Canada a woman still
earns only 70 per cent of her male counterpart's wages, or that a
person of colour is denied a promotion on the basis of his or her
skin colour.
The litmus test of Canadians' commitment to true equality is
access to employment. Jobs are the key to social and economic
integration into the community. They are a source of fulfilment
and independence for all Canadians. As the Prime Minister
would say, a job gives you self-respect and dignity. Jobs are part
of this government's agenda.
Employment equity ensures that those jobs will be available
to everyone without any barriers. By the turn of the century
two-thirds of the entrants to the workforce will be women,
aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities and persons
with disabilities. This country needs the wealth of their talents.
With this bill we want to achieve a better balance that works to
the advantage of all Canadians. This legislation does not set out
to redress the difficulties being faced by disadvantaged groups
by creating new problems for other Canadians. The amendments
are designed to clarify and strengthen existing laws, not to
increase the regulatory or financial burdens to employers.
Madam Speaker, I know I am out of time so I will skip a great
deal of what I had to say which I think was also important. I will
conclude by saying that by assuring equal access to employment
and fair treatment of all, we can and will build a better nation for
our children, for our families and for all Canadians.
Remember that 60 per cent of the Canadian population is
constituted by these four target groups but they are not
adequately represented. It should be noted that we are talking
about fair representation, not under-representation. We are
talking about equality of opportunity.
D (1235)
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address Bill C-64, an act
respecting employment equity.
Reform opposes this type of legislation and I certainly oppose
it. Affirmative action by any other name is still affirmative
action. It leads to the creation of special designation groups and
causes reverse discrimination as the process of merit hiring is
forced to take a back seat to artificially created criteria.
The annual report of employment equity for 1994 clearly
shows there is no need for this legislation. Visible minorities
represent 8 per cent of the workforce governed by the current act
compared to 9 per cent of the entire Canadian workforce. The
report also states that women represent 45 per cent of the
workforce covered by the existing act compared to 45 per cent of
the entire Canadian labour force. These two facts alone show
that a hiring process unencumbered by government regulations
is able to adequately address this issue.
In our lifetime let us admit it, we have seen terrible inequities.
Going back to the thirties and forties, there have been gross
inequities in our social system but they are being corrected over
the years. Human dignity and human will are creating the
redress.
I find it amazing that this government feels a need to interfere
with the free job market which is working well when it fails to
use the same urgency to address real issues like the debt and the
deficit. Why do I say the government is acting with urgency?
This bill was tabled in the House yesterday, shortly after 1500
hours. The ink on that official document could hardly have been
dry at the time. I did not get to read the bill until this morning.
Yet here we are less than 24 hours after its introduction being
asked to debate the bill's merit. That is acting with a sense of
urgency but I think it might be more accurately described as an
abuse of the democratic process.
I saw the converse in this House this morning when my
colleague, the member for Lethbridge, was speaking on Motion
No. 13 and wanted to continue debate on it. Those on the
government benches said: ``Oh no, we cannot do that. We did not
have enough notice''. They had 48 hours' notice to continue
debate but that was not sufficient for them.
Why the urgency on this bill? I do not know. Are the Liberals
afraid to have the complete details of the bill brought to the
attention of the Canadian public, or are they simply afraid to tell
Canadians about the bureaucratic maze which has to be created
by this bill?
One thing I do know is that the business people in my
constituency are fed up to the teeth with government
bureaucracy, with more and more taxes and more and more
regulations to adhere to and forms to fill out. Canadian
employers are already deluged with government imposed
paperwork.
That burden is increased even more through clauses 9 to 18 of
this bill which call for the collection, analysis and review of
their workforce leading to the preparation of an employment
equity plan, complete with long term and short term numerical
goals. There is also the requirement that an annual report on
employment equity be filed with the minister. Let us look at the
bill.
Clause 9 states that for the purposes of implementing
employment equity every employer shall collect information
and conduct an analysis of the employer's workforce in
accordance with the regulations in order to determine the degree
of under-representation, et cetera. It goes on about conducting a
review of the employer's employment systems, policies and
practices in accordance with the regulations. It is only those
employees who identify themselves or agree to be identified by
employers as aboriginal peoples, et cetera.
8981
D (1240)
Clause 10 indicates that employers shall prepare an
employment equity plan that does this, that and the other thing.
Let us look a bit more at this bill which will totally discourage
private enterprise. It will specify the measure to be taken by the
employer. It will establish a timetable for the implementation.
Where under-representation has been identified it will establish
short term goals. It goes on and on and on.
Clause 11: Every employer shall ensure that its employment
equity plan would, if implemented, constitute reasonable
progress.
Clause 12: Every employer shall make reasonable efforts to
monitor implementation.
Clause 13 indicates that every employer shall update
numerical goals at least once during the period.
Clause 14: Every employer shall consult with his employees
by inviting representatives to provide their views.
It goes on and on and on. Thirty pages of bureaucracy imposed
on employers around this country. Have I said that they are
already deluged? Well they certainly are. All these measures
will only serve to undermine the productivity of Canadian
business as executives are forced to spend even more of their
already limited time on needless government paperwork.
Clause 21 of the bill creates employment equity compliance
review officers, or to use a less politically correct term, an
affirmative action army. This army has the authority to enter any
business which it feels is contravening the act and demand
documents and the co-operation of the employer and staff. On
reading part II of this bill I thought George Orwell would be very
proud as big brother takes yet another step into our lives.
Clause 25 creates the headquarters or the command post for
the affirmative action army with the establishment of an
employment equity review tribunal. More bureaucracy and
more tax dollars dropped into the bottomless pit that is the
national debt. This government continues to talk fiscal restraint
yet its actions do not match its words.
I would go further into the analysis of this bill but the
government's haste to ram it through prohibits any more
thorough examination.
In my own riding, residents of the city of Nanaimo are well
aware of the adverse effects of this type of legislation. Several
years ago the city implemented pay equity which resulted in an
immediate and significant tax increase. It also has a lasting
effect on the taxpayer in that the result is that the annual salary
for an entry level employee will soon reach $30,000.
Another example of this type of policy was brought to my
attention recently by a constituent. This young man is an
exceptional student in a technical program at Malaspina
College. His high marks caused the institute to nominate him for
a federal scholarship. While his marks qualified him for the
award, his gender did not.
The scholarships are handed out on the basis of gender. Since
Malaspina did not have a female student with appropriate grades
the qualified student was refused and both scholarships were
given to another institution. This is the type of reverse
discrimination this sort of legislation will create.
I will wind up if my time is up. Hiring policies should not be
based upon race, culture or gender. They should be colour blind
and gender neutral. If ever a bill epitomizes the difference in
philosophy between the Liberals and I might even say the NDP
and the Reform Party, this is it.
Canadians are hard pressed for programs they want and they
cannot afford to pay for programs we do not need. In the
interests of the already overburdened taxpayers, I urge the
government to abandon this nonsensical legislation.
D (1245 )
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is evident that the member who has just spoken is
rather ill informed because he has just quoted provisions that
have been in legislation for over seven years, suggesting to the
public that they are new provisions, some new burden.
I think he has also failed to point out to Canadians that the
minister has taken the unusual step of giving an extra stage of
debate on this bill, not curtailing debate, by having this
discussion in the House before referring it to a committee where
it will be subject to full, open discussion and consultation and
will come back to the House for at least two more stages of
debate. I do not know how much more open a process can be.
One of my proudest accomplishments during the last
Parliament as a member was to be able to move in committee
and have accepted in this Parliament amendments to the
Financial Administration Act and the Public Service
Employment Act that required the Public Service of Canada to
live by the same rules with respect to employment equity that
the act imposes on private sector employers.
It was done in this simple way, by embarrassing the
government, by saying for over five years now you have had
regulations imposed on the private sector that you refuse to live
by. If we want to set an example as government, we have to be
prepared to say that there is one set of rules for everybody. If it is
good enough for the private sector it is good enough for the
public sector.
8982
The member should applaud what this bill does. It precisely
says that there is no longer one legislation for the private sector
and another for the public sector. We are all going to live by the
same rules with respect to employment equity.
The legislation on employment equity has been in place since
1987.
[Translation]
Despite considerable progress, most aboriginal people,
women, members of visible minorities and persons with
disabilities who do have work continue to have low paying jobs.
More specifically, employers and employees know they are not
enjoying the many benefits of employment equity. In fact,
diversity is a way to enhance the work environment and thus
increase productivity.
By expanding the application of this legislation to the federal
public service, we will provide many opportunities for persons
with disabilities, members of visible minorities, aboriginal
people and women.
[English]
Notwithstanding the howls from the Reform members who
wished to hang on to the privileges that people just like them
have enjoyed for a long time, this legislation is not about
introducing bias. This legislation is about removing bias in
hiring and retention of employees and in promotion. This is not
about abandoning the merit principle. It is about reaffirming and
fulfilling the merit principle.
For 75 years we have had in the Government of Canada the
principle that you get hired on the basis of your ability and no
other. Despite that we have a senior management category with
less than 18 per cent women. There are the lower echelons of the
lowest paid workers, 80 per cent women. Even within those
lowest paid categories, guess who rises to the top in those lowest
paid categories? It is not the 80 per cent of employees in those
categories who are women, but mostly men.
There are numerous examples. We only have to look at the
statistics of the number of referrals for employment in the
public service last year; for example, 8.2 per cent referrals for
positions. These were people who had already been screened as
qualified. There were 8.1 per cent of a visible minority, but only
2.5 per cent of hirings were of a visible minority. There is a bias
operating there and we have to take a great deal more time than
we have today to look at why that is.
D (1250)
Let me touch some highlights. There are perceptions and
attitudes: ``I have always seen a certain kind of person succeed
and fit well into management and therefore that is the kind of
person I want to hire''. These are not deliberately, consciously
biased attitudes but they are attitudes that clearly influence who
gets hired, who gets the opportunities to train, to get promoted,
to get career development opportunities.
It affects the other side in terms of who applies. We apply for
jobs where we see ourselves fitting in and succeeding.
Unfortunately most women, most aboriginal people, most
people with disabilities, most people from visible minority
groups have not seen themselves being hired and progressing to
the upper echelons in the public service.
The working environment creates an atmosphere in which one
either flourishes or does not. Our working environment has not
been conducive to people of different backgrounds being hired,
being promoted, fitting in well and moving up the ranks.
We know that in a time of downsizing it is going to be
extremely difficult to achieve some of our targets in the public
service, to really move to a public service that is more
representative of the taxpayers of Canada and of the people we
serve. We all know that understanding our clients is an
important part of being able to serve them well.
We have to make this effort notwithstanding hiring freezes,
downsizing and so on. Twenty-five hundred people were hired
in the public service last year. There were tens of thousands of
promotions, movements, development appointments, and that is
where we can certainly make some progress.
I mentioned this bill will be going to committee. We are not
here to debate even approval in principle of the bill. The
minister has chosen to forego that, to get that whole issue in
front of a committee for examination of the bill, so it can save
the time and money of duplicating effort to consider a bill and
also to conduct a review of the existing act.
I want to make some suggestions to the committee as it
receives this bill and considers it. I really have a hard time
justifying to myself why the armed forces, the RCMP and CSIS
are exempted from this legislation unless they are included later
by order in council. I am sure there are private sector employers
who have equally valid reasons to feel they should be exempted,
but we have chosen not to do that. I urge the committee to look at
that.
I urge the committee to look at defining compliance and to
ensure that compliance is not simply depositing a report. I urge
the committee to look at contracting, because we are now
developing a shadow public service through contracting that has
no obligation to pay attention to the merit principle or to
employment equity or to a number of other government policies.
Let me cite one case. I am aware of a man and a woman
employed through a government agency to do exactly the same
kind of work with exactly the same kind of qualifications.
Earning a $100 difference, guess who was earning the lesser
amount?
8983
The purpose here is improving, giving everybody the
opportunity to participate fully in the economic recovery this
country is heading into. I want to point out that we are talking
here not about privileges for minorities. We are talking about
equal treatment. Unless the Reform Party cares to make the
argument that inherently women, people of colour, people with
disabilities, aboriginal peoples are less capable, then it can only
accept the reason they have not progressed in the public service
or in the private sector is some inherent preference for a
different kind of candidate.
We are talking about the majority of Canadian workers and
giving that majority who fit in one of these categories equal
opportunity to succeed and to prosper in the Canada of the
future.
D (1255)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-64. The
purpose of this bill is to achieve equality in the workplace and to
correct conditions of disadvantage experienced by certain
groups, including women, aboriginal peoples, persons with
disabilities and members of visible minorities.
This new act will replace the existing act, which was passed in
1986. It will apply to federally regulated employers and Crown
corporations that employ one hundred or more employees.
The bill will extend the scope of the legislation to include the
public service of Canada. It is a good idea to extend the scope of
such a major piece of legislation. Perhaps it should be extended
to all employers in the private sector, all employers in the public
service of Canada and all portions of the public sector that
employ not 100, but 75 employees, including the Canadian
Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Parliament
and every federally regulated agency, commission and board.
The legislation requires the employer to implement
employment equity by either eliminating barriers against
persons in designated groups or by making such reasonable
accommodations as will ensure that these persons achieve a
degree of representation that reflects their representation in the
Canadian workforce.
However, the obligation to implement employment equity
does not require an employer to take measures that would cause
him or her undue hardship.
This means that the employer is free to comply or not. With
the help of legal counsel, the employer can easily demonstrate
that hiring a person with a disability, for example, will cause
undue hardship. The onus will rest with the employee. Who will
dare challenge an employer who does not comply with the act?
We cannot say that much progress have been made in terms of
employment equity since 1970, after the Commission of Inquiry
on the Status of Women in Canada tabled its report. In fact,
hardly any progress has been made.
Later attempts, in 1984 and 1986, were scarcely more
successful. In 1993, aboriginal people accounted for some 2 per
cent of the federal public service workforce; persons with
disabilities, 3 per cent; members of visible minorities, 3 per
cent, and women, 46 per cent, but were confined in lower-paid
and precarious jobs.
Women account for only 17 per cent of the executive group,
while the disabled, Natives and visible minorities have not yet
reached the executive level. Representation is almost nil. The
majority of them hold office, sales or service jobs.
It is too little too late, as the new legislation does not set any
specific objectives for the department. Everything is left to the
minister's discretion. This is a government panicked by
unemployment, an increasingly challenged social program
reform, phoney pre-budget consultations, casual budget
preparation, cuts in essential services instead of fat-trimming, a
caucus divided on several issues, including the Young Offenders
Act, the firearms registration legislation, the amendment to the
Canadian Charter prohibiting any form of discrimination based
on sexual orientation, whether or not Quebec members should
get involved in Quebec's referendum debate, the next Cabinet
shuffle where many are called but few are chosen, and an
anti-scab bill which is not forthcoming. I could go on and on
about the differences of opinion within the Liberal caucus only a
year after they came to office.
D (1300)
So the government tried to regain its prestige by introducing a
bill. This employment equity bill, however, still creates
dissension, the minister aiming for the status quo while other
members join the Bloc Quebecois in asking the government to
broaden the scope of the Employment Equity Act.
The guiding principle of the bill should be that anyone
working for, subsidized by or doing business with the federal
government or one of its boards, agencies or commissions is
subject to the bill. We must go further. Employment equity
policies should have been adopted a long time ago.
The minister thinks he can meet his objectives while the
federal government is cutting its workforce. He will have
trouble carrying out his plans in this era of cutbacks and hiring
freezes. The minister's pensive expression in this morning's
newspapers explains everything. In addition to the reform being
8984
challenged, he is now faced with a bill showing his intention to
maintain the status quo.
A sovereign Quebec will defend vigorously equal
opportunities for women, disabled, natives, visible minorities
and men.
These groups are still far from occupying their rightful places
and enjoying the same conditions in most areas of public life. A
higher proportion of these groups live in poverty. Their income
remains lower than that of men, in general.
A sovereign Quebec will resolutely fight poverty by going to
the root of the problem. Yes, it is possible to break the vicious
circle of poverty and dependency, provided we increase
employability without making distinctions between categories
of people.
Why do we have to implement an act to restore a natural right?
These people are victims of the current political system, with its
inconsistent tax measures affecting the groups targeted by this
bill, and duplication, because two levels of government operate
in fields such as manpower training and family support.
Through sovereignty, Quebec will be able to patriate and
restructure programs, so as to develop an efficient and
consistent policy for these groups, namely women, aboriginal
and disabled people, as well as visible minorities.
It goes without saying that the scope of the act must be
extended. The federal government must really take concrete
action regarding this depressing climate of discrimination
experienced by women and the other groups targeted in the
legislation. This part of our labour force has the right to take its
place. We must strive to achieve equality and social justice. This
is why the Bloc will introduce amendments to this bill, when it is
examined in committee.
[English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I too want an opportunity to elaborate on some features
of the legislation before us. I say to the minister that I am proud
the government has tabled such progressive amendments that I
believe will strengthen the Employment Equity Act.
D (1305)
The changes proposed will assure fair and equal treatment for
millions of disadvantaged Canadians. These amendments offer
the hope of better times for women, for persons with disabilities,
for aboriginal peoples and for members of visible minorities.
Since the adoption of the Employment Equity Act there has
been significant progress in making the workplace more
inclusive of all Canadians. It has been proven that employment
equity can promote fairness and equal opportunity in the world
of work. The present legislation was a good beginning but has
not kept pace with the times, and hence the need for the
amendments now before us.
More and more Canadians are members of designated groups,
yet the sad fact is that despite the increase in their numbers their
opportunities have actually decreased. For example, the latest
annual report on employment equity indicates that in 1993 the
number of employees covered under the Employment Equity
Act actually dropped by 4.27 per cent or by 26,000 jobs across
the country.
According to the statistics for 1994, 74 of the 348 companies
covered under the Employment Equity Act 74 or 20 per cent had
no aboriginal employees at all. There were 65 of those
companies with no provision for persons with disabilities on the
payroll and 28 of those companies had no visible minority
members working for them. There were still four employers
with no women on their staffs. This is in a country where 52 per
cent of the people are women.
Can we fathom any company of any significant size not even
bothering to address that question? Were I malicious-and you
would know, Madam Speaker, that I could never be
malicious-I would wonder aloud whether such an exclusion of
women by those four companies was not deliberate. How could
they manage in a situation where half the available workforce is
women to hire everyone but women unless they worked at it?
Hence the need for the kinds of amendments we are talking
about today.
Obviously much more remains to be done if we are to live up
to the values of fairness, decency and equality which form the
foundation of our society, our system of values in the country.
We need to bring the act into the nineties to reflect our current
reality and to prepare us for the century ahead. That is precisely
the kind of country we as a party promised Canadians when we
wrote ``Creating Opportunity''.
The amendments before us are the fulfilment of our red book
commitments. We said that we would bring the federal public
service as well as federal agencies and commissions under the
Employment Equity Act. We are doing that with this legislation.
We said that we would empower the Canadian Human Rights
Commission to initiate investigations and conduct workplace
audits to ensure enforcement of the legislation. We are doing
that. We said that we would ensure federal contractors would be
subject to mandatory compliance with the principles of the act.
D (1310)
Mr. Williams: Quota.
Mr. Simmons: The member for St. Albert is having difficulty
because he sees quotas. I say to him that he is in the House of
Commons because of a quota system. We did not just go out to
all Canadians, elect a bunch of people and send them to Ottawa.
The act which gives him the right to be here is a quota system as
such. His constituents in St. Albert get one member of Parlia-
8985
ment, not one and half, two or three. I say to him that is called
quota.
He is right. He must have been up bright and early this
morning. He recognizes this business here as a quota system and
he is absolutely dead right. I assume from his intervention that
he is so anxious to support the legislation he cannot wait for me
to finish.
Mr. Boudria: He must be. I can tell.
Mr. Simmons: He must be. With the bill we will deliver on
the promises in the red book. Does that come as any surprise?
Mr. Williams: Not a bit.
Mr. Simmons: Once again the authors of the red book are
delivering on the promises in the red book.
We used to sing in the church I am proud to be a member of:
``Every promise in the book is mine''. We are talking about
another book here. I do not want to be sacrilegious, but I am sure
members get the point. We identify with those promises because
they are promises we fabricated in opposition having listened to
the people and without any 1-900 lines. We did not have them
pay to get through to us. We listened and they told us they had
some concerns about employment equity, our subject today.
We heard them and we incorporated those concerns in
commitments. We ran on that basis. We were elected to a
majority government on that basis. We are back here this
afternoon as we have been several other mornings and
afternoons to say to the people of Canada: ``Here is another
example of how we want to honour the commitments we made to
you back in October a year or so ago''.
While today we deliver on some promises, we believe we
must go even further. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal,
constituted as the employment equity review tribunal, will hear
appeals from employers to resolve disputes and to assure
compliance with the law.
Let me remind the House that the changes to the act are in
direct response to issues raised by both the designated groups
and by businesses. Disadvantaged Canadians complained to us
there was not enough compliance with the legislation.
Accordingly we have given new authority to the Canadian
Human Rights Commission to conduct audits of employers to
verify and gain compliance with the act.
Mr. Williams: Quotas.
Mr. Simmons: For my friend from St. Albert, let me decode
that. We have given new authority to the Human Rights
Commission to enforce those terrible quotas, the very system
that sent him to the Chamber. We are going to enforce it on
behalf of some other people, many of whom are his constituents.
I venture to say there are some women in his riding who could
benefit from the legislation, women who have been excluded
effectively from employment because of some unwitting
employer. Maybe he has some aboriginal people in his riding. I
do not know it well but there are probably a few of them who
could benefit.
I see the Chair is getting impatient because I am running the
clock again. I had all these other wonderful things I wanted to
say for the edification of members of the House. More to the
point, I say to all who are watching and listening that the
legislation is a good piece of legislation. It will take us that extra
step toward assuring employment equity for the designated
groups, for the women I have mentioned and for other groups
that were mentioned during the debate. That is why I appeal to
my colleagues of whatever party to find it in their hearts and
minds to give support to this good piece of legislation.
D (1315)
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, since this is a very new piece of legislation, for the
benefit of those Canadians who watch the proceedings of the
House of Commons and I know there are a number, I would like
to go over one more time what the legislation is about.
This is Bill C-64. It is an act respecting employment equity.
The summary says that the purpose of this bill is to achieve
equality in the workplace and to correct conditions of
disadvantage experienced by certain groups. The bill applies to
the Public Service of Canada, to federally regulated employers,
and to such portions of the public sector that employs 100 or
more employees.
The bill talks about employer obligations in clauses 5 to 15;
records and reports, a rather ominous sound for a lot of
employers, in clauses 16 to 20; compliance audit in clauses 21 to
31; assessment of monetary penalties in clauses 31 to 37; and
regulations in clauses 38 to 41. It then talks about changes to
other acts that will be necessitated by this legislation should it
be passed.
This is fairly significant legislation with real impact on a
number of employers in our country.
It important to point out that the word equity which is the
feature of this legislation simply means fairness. Government
members have been playing the violin a great deal this morning
about how wonderfully fair this is and how we should all be
committed to fairness. I am sure that every single Canadian
would applaud fairness in our country. In fact something that
Canadians are noted for is a real commitment to fairness.
On behalf of the people of Canada whom we represent and
whose affairs we are supposed to be managing we need to
analyse whether this legislation delivers on the promise of
fairness.
8986
One of the real problems with this legislation is that what it
does is unfairly and to a large degree increase the interference of
government in the lives of citizens, particularly in the lives of
citizens trying to keep businesses going, and trying to deliver
jobs for Canadians.
First of all this legislation interferes with employment
choices. It suggests that for every sector of employment there
has to be proportional representation in four designated groups.
It says to employers that they have to hire certain people from
certain groups if they are to comply with these government
legislated proposals. That is a clear interference in fairness for
employers to be able to hire who they think will do the best job
for them.
Second, it interferes in the principle of equality before the
law. What it essentially says is that you do not have as equal a
chance at a job as you would if you belonged to one of four
designated groups.
I had a personal experience in my riding with a young man
who was trying to be admitted into the RCMP. His applications
were denied until in discussions with his family he discovered
that he had some aboriginal background. Because of this
suddenly he became more qualified to enter the RCMP. In fact
today he is a member of the RCMP. It is very interesting how
merit, qualifications and choices depend on certain genetic
traits rather than merit. That certainly is not consistent with the
principle of equality before the law.
D (1320)
Third, the legislation interferes with the administration of
business in the country. This legislation and all employers that
will be affected by it, which is a vastly expanded group, should
look at this very carefully. I am sure they will be. They will now
have to produce employment plans to satisfy certain criteria.
There will have to be regular reports to bureaucrats who will
be very anxiously combing them to make sure they are correct
and fulfil all the obligations. There will be compliance audits on
a regular basis of these businesses to make sure employers are
doing the correct thing.
There may be some appeals from bureaucratic decisions that
come out of these reports and audits. There will be an
ever-expanding group of regulations that will have to be
complied with. It is no wonder that businesses are fatigued and
why job creation is lagging behind the demand for it. With all
this paperwork, regulations, proposals and requirements, how
can a business get on with business? Some days you wonder.
Also this legislation sets out a great deal more bureaucracy.
This is a time when governments do a great deal of their work
with borrowed money, by mortgaging our future and here we
have yet another bureaucracy set up in the furtherance of
fairness.
Nowhere in the legislation are the cost benefits set out.
Nowhere in the legislation are Canadians told how this is all
going to be paid for. It is their money that is being spent. They
have a right to ask, is the money I am being asked to cough up for
this proposal justified by the public good that is going to be
done. That is an issue that needs to be debated.
Clearly it is going to be an interference in productivity of
business. This is another regulatory and governmental burden
being added to all the other reports that have to be made by
businesses to government. It is another government regulation,
another interference into the lives and work of business people.
If we want to provide Canadians with jobs, jobs, jobs how are
we going to do it when we have all of these social engineering
mechanisms built into our economic sector? Does this make
sense and does it really benefit Canadians?
The last thing I would like to talk about is the social
consequences of this type of legislation. Unfortunately it says to
Canadians what is important in the economic sector is not your
qualifications, it is not your merit, it is not your competence, it
is not your ability, it is not your drive, it is whether you are a
victim. It is what group you belong to. It is whether you can
show somehow that you are disadvantaged. Is this what we want
people to be thinking about?
I understand that Tommy Douglas was not very tall. I have
always felt really good about him because of that for some
obvious reasons to people in the House. Sometimes Mr. Douglas
was teased about the fact that he was not very tall. He had a good
answer to this. He used to say: ``Where I come from, we measure
people from here up'', indicating that it is what is in your mind,
what is in your head, your intelligence, ability and competence
that is important. It is not your height.
I would suggest to members that what is important to us is
what we have in our hearts and our ability and not what colour
our skin is, what our gender is or what disability we might
have-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member.
D (1325 )
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to speak to this bill before the House, an
act respecting the Employment Equity Act.
I support the bill because the principles for which it stands are
very sound. Moreover we anticipate that the provisions and the
regulations that will emanate following the study of this bill will
be sound in practice as well.
In essence, the Employment Equity Act is challenging us to
put into practice the principles that describe the core values of
Canada. The values about which we are speaking relate to the
merit principle, to excellence, to human dignity, to respect, to
the very core values that Canadians hold dear, to fairness and
equality.
8987
I heard earlier there was concern that we would only address
the victims as though the victims have no talents, as though the
victims have no competence, as though the victims have no
excellence. The very essence of the Employment Equity Act is
to hold very high the principle of excellence and merit above all
else, irrespective of colour, irrespective of gender, irrespective
of disability and irrespective of origin as a people.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Not in this bill.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Yes it is. It is about equity. It is about the
equitable representation of those with talents in the workforce
because for a generation Canada has failed. Therefore, the
Liberal government of the past and the Liberal government of
today are again trying to reinforce the fundamental principles
that govern this bill.
In the process of addressing the legislation, I would like to
reiterate that the bill can be looked on as a legislative
centrepiece of our core Canadian social values, social equity
among all of us.
I have mentioned the operative principles of the bill. What
does it achieve, we may ask. I submit that we will achieve
effective utilization of one's talents and one's skills. It will
ensure businesses will provide better client service and
therefore better and good business for the employers. By
achieving this we will create harmony among all of us. There
will be no feeling of being a second class citizen because of
one's disability, colour, gender or aboriginal origin.
Who will question, and why should we question, if we can
enhance the maximum productivity of all peoples with talents,
that we should not utilize them and get them into the workforce,
by applying the principle of fairness.
I submit that by adopting the principles of this bill we will be
able to benefit not only the designated groups as defined in the
bill, not only the visible minorities, not only the people with
disabilities, not only women, not only aboriginal people. We
will benefit everyone. Therefore, this is a bill for all Canadians
to consider.
That is why the bill has seen to it that in addition to the private
sector, the public sector will now be covered so that the
government is setting a model. To ensure that we give teeth to
what we believe, to ensure that we give enforcement to what we
would like to happen, the Canadian Human Rights Commission
will be mandated to have this authority.
However, the work of the Human Rights Commission will not
be in an adversarial fashion. It will be done within the spirit of
co-operation and collaboration.
D (1330 )
Therefore when we see our armed forces, the RCMP, our
security intelligence service agency being covered under the
act, to me this is a social blessing and the time has come. It will
ensure that we achieve the purpose for which this act was first
enacted, to ensure employers achieve a workforce that is
equitable and representative of the four designated groups.
As chair of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the
Status of Disabled Persons to which this act will be referred by
the House, I am delighted to serve on that committee. Our
committee will ensure that there will be open and inclusive
discussion and participation of all, that any matter referred to in
the bill will be addressed, utilizing a wide consultation.
We would like to hear from all groups concerned. We would
like to hear from the minister, from the department officials,
from departments of government that are involved in the
delivery of this program. We will invite the opposition to
articulate its views to us on this issue, so that together we can
shape a truly equitable Employment Equity Act.
In closing, I am delighted to support this bill because it
reinforces a core Canadian value, the principle of social justice
for all.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to speak on Bill C-64. It seems to me after having gone
through the bill the thought police are out in force again. Here
we have big government which is going to impose its will on
employers, telling them not what they shall make but who they
shall hire and in what numbers and so on, rather than allowing
the free marketplace to decide who shall qualify for the job.
Looking at the bill concerning the purpose of the act, this is
the double speak that the whole act tries to get around. It starts
off by saying:
The purpose of this act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no
person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons
unrelated to ability-
Unrelated to ability, nobody shall be denied. Then it goes on
after a while to say:
-employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but
also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.
It starts off with the great idea that merit is number one. This
country did not get to where it is today, apart from being up to its
eyes in debt, through mediocrity, quotas and minimum
standards. It got here by trying harder, working harder, reaching
for better things, hoping for the best for our children, rather than
settling down for quotas and less than the best that we can offer.
When I intervened, one of previous Liberal speakers admitted
that while this act says nothing about quotas, it is quotas they are
talking about. He actually admitted right out front and was quite
candid when he said quotas are what this bill is all about. Merit
is being compromised.
8988
When I go through the bill I again find this double speak
where it tries to be all things to all people. Let us remember that
it is talking about various groups, women, natives, visible
minorities and the handicapped. Add all of these together. We
have women making up 50 per cent of our population. Then add
on the male handicapped, male visible minorities and male
aboriginals. We are talking about a significant majority, not a
minority, covered by this bill. A small minority are going to be
asked to step aside even though they are the best qualified; step
aside although they are motivated; step aside even if they have
family responsibilities so that somebody else who is less
qualified, less able, less motivated can take over and move
ahead.
D (1335)
Going right back to the beginning where the bill says that no
person shall be denied employment opportunities for the reasons
unrelated to ability, that is exactly what we have.
We can take a look at the rather ridiculous items in the bill.
Clause 5 states every employer shall implement employment
equity by identifying and eliminating employment barriers
against persons in designated groups that result in employer's
employment systems, policies and practices that are not
authorized by law to ensure that we have this spectrum.
I think about sports. I think about the Olympics, this huge
competition recognized around the world where we go out and
find the best that we can find. There are no quotas there. It does
not say that there has to be so many of one group or another
group. We take pride in finding the best that we can find and we
match these against others around the world. If we find that
somebody else beats our Canadian competitors we say let us try
harder so that next time we may win.
Surely that is the essence of any type of employment, any type
of endeavour in this life where we say let me be the best that I
can be.
If this bill had said let us take a look at the education that
keeps back some people, be they an identifiable minority or not,
surely we have an obligation to help these people to achieve the
education and the motivational standards to allow them to
compete rather than clamping down on those who do have the
education, who do have the motivation, who do have the will and
are prepared to work harder. Why are we putting a lid on them to
elevate the others artificially? Why do we not give those who
feel that they are disadvantaged a helping hand through
education and developing that commitment and motivation so
that when they enter the workforce they can compete on an equal
basis?
Surely that is what it is about. We do not discriminate in
sports. We go out and find the best we can find. It would be
ludicrous if we thought that Canada was to apply some kind of
quota system so that we would always lose. Do not worry, the the
thought police will be happy because we ensured that all groups
were represented at the competition.
This is big government wielding a big stick on employers. It is
as if government thought that employers were incapable of
doing it themselves. I think about a newsletter that I subscribe to
out of the United States, not in Canada. We do not find these
things in Canada. There are employment equity programs in the
United States that have been forced on federally funded
organizations, as this bill is trying to do here.
There is a small college in Michigan that said it will not
comply. It may be thought these people are a bunch of bigots
because they do not want to comply, they do not want to fill out
the forms, they do not want to ask people which category they fit
into, are they on the bottom rung so they have to help them, are
they on the middle rung so they give them a little less helping up,
are they on the top rung so they keep them down. They said they
do not want to participate in that type of stuff. The government
said if they are in receipt of federal funds they must, but they
said no.
D (1340)
They were cut off federal funds. Some may think that serves
them right. That college was the first to issue a degree to a
woman in the United States in 1860 and the first college to issue
a degree to a coloured person in the 1870s. One hundred years
later when the government gets around to saying they have to in
order to get employment equity or hiring equity or education
equity going and have to fill out the forms, they say they have
been doing that for a hundred years.
They do it on merit. They do not care if you are a woman or a
man or if you are coloured or not coloured, but if you have the
motivation and the desire to succeed, regardless of who you are
or what you are they want to help you. They were doing that a
hundred years ago voluntarily, long before the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare in the United States used the big
stick of government to force it down people's throats.
It can be done to education. We do not stand here as the
Reform Party saying we want to keep people down. We do not
want to keep anybody down but we do not want to classify
people and ask which group they fit into. If you are here in this
country as a Canadian then that is all that is required and we say
let us help these people forward through education and let us not
impose penalties on the minority to help the majority.
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the House today
and to show my colleagues and all Canadians that we can trust
the government to keep its promises.
8989
The red book mentions a future when all citizens, irrespective
of race, gender or physical or intellectual capacity, will enjoy an
equal standard of living and quality of life.
The bill before the House today will help ensure this will
happen. In fact, we will reinforce the Employment Equity Act so
that it also covers the public service and federal commissions
and agencies. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will be
given the power to conduct audits and enforce this legislation.
Employers who do business with the federal government will be
required to comply with the principle of the Act. By reinforcing
the Employment Equity Act, the government is acting to
promote its concept of Canada according to which all citizens
must have an equal opportunity to share in Canada's prosperity.
The existing Employment Equity Act has been instrumental
in making Canadians aware of the need to identify and eliminate
barriers to the employment of designated groups.
[English]
For all the many milestones that have been achieved since its
inception, however, there are still millions of Canadians who
have yet to enjoy its benefits. Women, visible minorities,
aboriginal people and persons with disabilities continue to face
enormous barriers to employment which prevent them from
achieving their full potential.
As my colleagues pointed out earlier, a substantial number of
companies covered by the act fail to satisfy the legislation's
mandate, 171 of 348 firms. Almost half of the companies
reporting last year did not have women, persons with
disabilities, aboriginal peoples or visible minorities represented
in their workforce.
Too much of Canadian history has been blemished through
such inequality among Canadians. It is time to write a new
chapter in the evolution of employment equity.
In rewriting the law we are renewing our faith in the
fundamental values that shape Canadian society, fairness,
decency and justice for all. By renewing the legislation we will
clarify employer obligations and strengthen employee
opportunities. We are determined to strike a better balance that
works to the advantage of all Canadians.
[Translation]
For the first time in Canada, public and private sector
employers will be on an equal footing. The Public Service will
be subject to the same rules as the private sector. All employers
will be required to reflect the diversity of Canada's population
in their labour force. We will extend the scope of the legislation
to include the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
D (1345)
The legislation will also apply to employers who do business
with the federal government, which means that from now on
they will have to comply with the principle of the Employment
Equity Act. This legislation will also give new responsibilities
to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The commission
will have the authority to conduct audits in the workplace in
order to force employers to comply with the Act.
The commission will also be empowered to take corrective
action as needed. In cases of non compliance, the commission
may refer the case to an employment equity review tribunal,
whose decisions could be mandatory.
To balance the commission's regulatory authority, employers
who wish to challenge its decisions will have a chance to plead
their case before the tribunal.
[English]
The legislation clearly stipulates that tribunal rulings will not
cause undue hardship for employers or require them to hire or
promote unqualified individuals.
The amendments are also purposely designated not to
increase the paper burden to employers. They are meant to act as
an impetus, not an impediment to economic growth and job
creation.
Enlightened Canadian employers are rapidly discovering for
themselves that employment equity is a bonus in the workplace.
Diversity is proving to be a competitive advantage in an
increasingly complex global economy. Given demographic
trends, employers have every reason to want to capitalize on the
wealth of untapped talent in the designated groups.
By the year 2000, when Canada will experience a skill
shortage caused by an aging population, two-thirds of
newcomers to the workforce will be women, visible minorities,
aboriginal people and persons with disabilities. Canadian
employers cannot afford to overlook this vast labour pool any
longer.
[Translation]
All Canadians will benefit as a result of this legislation,
because its purpose is to ensure that all Canadians will have
equal access to employment opportunities and advancement.
The bill before the House today states that workers are to be
hired and promoted on the basis of ability. It provides that
ability and merit must be taken into account to ensure
employment equity, which can only improve the quality of our
labour force.
In fact, employment equity is closely linked to social security
reform. Social and economic progress cannot be dissociated
from job creation and the integration of disadvantaged persons
in the community.
8990
The changes proposed in this bill are necessary, reasonable
and fair.
We are convinced that an improved Employment Equity Act
will give employers an opportunity to create more efficient and
more effective workplaces.
In fact, these improvements will promote tolerance and
respect for diversity and encourage a better appreciation of the
rich diversity of our communities.
[English]
I commend the minister for his decision to send this piece of
legislation to committee. I wish to cite some of my own
experiences with the public service in Quebec where some
legislation has been adopted.
L'Office des ressources humaines was faced with a target of
12 per cent hiring for members of the cultural communities
visible minorities. The public service was unable to attain this
level. We might ask why it was unable to attain this level, even
though it was a promise made by the former Liberal government
of that province.
The reason, after years of studies and years of reports, was
that there was systemic discrimination. In other words, visible
minorities, members of cultural communities, women and the
handicapped were barred by a system that did not have the types
of measures in it that would allow access to promotions or even
to jobs within that system.
D (1350)
Many members opposite said that the merit principle has been
forgotten and used words like reverse discrimination. My
experience has led me to believe the proposals we are presenting
will require that we succeed in removing the deep rooted
systemic biases that exist in any system, especially in the public
service.
We also need to assure that the Human Rights Commission
will have the resources and the authority to ensure compliance
with the legislation presented to the House.
Finally, with respect to downsizing, cuts will be made in many
areas. I hope the groups we are discussing today will not be
unduly hardshipped by the downsizing that is taking place at the
moment, because a lot of them were newly arrived to the present
system and are on contracts.
Our public service must reflect the reality of Canada. It must
be representative of all the components of our society. We are
not talking about merit here. Are hon. members on the other side
of the House saying there are no qualified individuals in any of
these four groups? Are there no women, no visible minorities,
no handicapped people, no native people who are qualified for
these positions? I doubt that reflects the reality. In fact there are
many of them. However there is enough systemic discrimination
in the system, enough biases in the system not to allow these
qualified individuals to have access to our public service.
I would like the hon. members to take these facts into
consideration.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as a Reform member
on the standing committee on human rights to address the
government's proposed legislation to extend employment
equity.
Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity as tabled by
the human resources minister yesterday, reflects the
government's disregard for proper process in its presentation
and the government's ongoing folly of spending non-existent
public money to undermine the job creation abilities of
Canadians and to create further division and social pressure
among competing groups of otherwise talented and proud
Canadians. I am delighted to take the opportunity to expand on
these tenets.
Today much discussion has been shared in the House on the
pros and cons of such a program. The rhetoric and mixed
messages become confusing. In response I take a moment to
consider how employment equity measures up to three basic and
clear philosophies I believe the vast majority of Canadians
would welcome and support.
According at least to the red book, Liberals too would agree,
first, that deficit reduction is a major priority. They have agreed
that billions of dollars in government spending must be cut to
accomplish it. Second, Canada must have a credible place in the
global economy. To quote from the red book:
The federal government can and should support and facilitate the national
effort to prepare Canadians to compete in the world.
Third is the equality of opportunity, and again I quote:
Governments should support a framework of fundamental fairness and
decency within which Canadians are able to pursue their individual goals.
Let us hold up the existing proposals of the bill against such a
benchmark. It is not in viewing things in isolation but against a
true measure that we can separate pretence from fact.
Even the present Liberal government is finally recognizing
the debt and deficit are a major threat to Canada's present
situation and future potential. Current government policy has
finally recognized the connection between fiscal recklessness
and unemployment, between high indebtedness and the loss of
economic and fiscal sovereignty.
In a recent release from the Department of Finance entitled
``Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate'', the government now
seems to realize that the deficit problem cannot be addressed
without a clear priorization of federal spending. Budgetary
actions ``should weigh toward reductions in expenditures''.
Choices must be made between high and low priority items.
8991
Although as Reformers we believe their 3 per cent target to be
totally inadequate, it has become apparent in public debate that
even for that goal billions must be cut, which will demand cuts
to some untouchable programs.
The first question I ask is: Should the added expense of
broadening employment equity be a top priority in the mind of a
budget balancing government? We must keep in mind that
employment equity already exists as a policy across all public
service within the Public Service Act.
Bill C-64 will mandate that approach in law though the
Treasury Board now refuses to try to estimate the cost of the
existing policy.
D (1355)
Does this imply that such a policy has been immune from the
departmental review process demanded by the government in
recent months? Does this imply that the policy of employment
equity is so philosophically important it takes priority over
federal downsizing or even some social programs? Is this so
necessary as to be deemed untouchable in government
operations even before it comes before Canadians for
discussion? If so, who did the government listen to in order to
come to that conclusion.
A Gallup poll conducted last December showed that the
majority of Canadians accept the concept of equality in the
workplace. However 81 per cent of Canadians oppose numerical
hiring goals and 90 per cent oppose exclusionary job
competition. The government is also ignoring the fact that 74
per cent of those surveyed are definitely opposed to government
equity programs.
In response to the government's mantra of jobs, jobs, jobs,
how will this priority program affect Canada's long term
viability in the important world markets? The purpose of the act
is the explicit encouragement of employers to discriminate in
favour of targeted groups over all other employees, largely
white able-bodied males.
No matter how we look at it, the establishment of numerical
goals as outlined in the legislation means quotas. The rejection
of merit as the only distinguishing characteristic dictates that
the best candidate, as opposed simply to the qualifying
candidate, will not necessarily be the one chosen for any
particular position.
By treating some more equal than others the government's
mandated policy dictates that we end up with a workforce less
expert than otherwise may be possible. Canada increasingly
exists within the demands of an ever expanding and increasingly
competitive world market. Every means possible from sound
fiscal management to excellence in every sector of the economy
will be necessary for us to hold our own in the challenge of that
competitive environment.
Finally I want to spend some time on the notion of equality.
Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms claims
Canadians are equal before and under the law. True justice lies
in a process, not in the outcome.
Any competition between two individuals, whether it be a
race or a job competition, can only be deemed fair in the equal
treatment during the process. The outcome is never predictable.
The test of the race should never be in comparing the anticipated
with the actual results.
The true test of equality of opportunity is the very randomness
of the outcome. Fairness dictates only that the best man or
woman wins. This legislation is not just. It establishes
numerical goals that must be met, which affects the outcome in
favour of those covered under the goals.
As a member of a designated group I take offence at the
implications of the government's numerical goals or quotas.
There is a suggestion by their very existence that somehow the
system lacks confidence in the ability of women in general to
really compete on a level playing field.
The same Gallup poll I referred to found that 75 per cent of
women agreed with the statement that governments should not
actively hire more women or minority groups. As a group,
women are not at a disadvantage. The 1994 annual report
indicates women are actually doing better outside the act than
they are under the employment equity program.
The Speaker: The hon. member will have the floor after
question period. However, as it is two o'clock, pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements
by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
CESO is a non-profit volunteer organization that shares
Canadian knowledge with business communities and
organizations in developing nations and emerging market
economies in central and eastern Europe.
Volunteers, experienced in their profession or industry, serve
as trainers and advisers to help developing communities achieve
economic self-sufficiency.
I take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding efforts of
Mr. John Fingland, a constituent from my riding of
London-Middlesex. Mr. Fingland has provided his knowledge
and expertise in the area of forest management to the people of
Thailand.
8992
I commend the time and energy he and other CESO volunteers
give. These efforts will go a long way toward promoting human
and global development.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, contrary
to statements made by the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, the Schelew affair is not closed.
D (1400)
Many questions remain unanswered and the whole thing is
starting to look more and more like a government cover-up
operation. After the vice-chair of the Immigration and Refugee
Board resigned, not proceeding with the inquiry has saved the
minister from having to answer legitimate questions about the
serious allegations made against Mr. Schelew.
The minister can no longer dissociate himself from the
questionable, to say the least, methods used by his government
to make the problem disappear, especially since it is not known
who authorized the Treasury Board to give him $100,000 in
severance pay.
The minister no longer has a choice. It is his duty to shed light
on this issue. His credibility, as well as that of his government
and of the board, are at stake.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday a good friend of mine was laid to rest in
Mission-Coquitlam. Roger was a victim of armed robbery and
the gun used was not a handgun but a sawed-off shotgun.
This crime happened because two young men have no respect
for the law, no respect for the rights of others and probably have
never been held accountable for their actions.
What we need in this country is crime control, not gun
control. We have the laws in place. What we have to do is
enforce them. We must establish the rights of victims over the
rights of criminals, tougher sentencing and the tightening up of
the Young Offenders Act.
If we put emphasis back on the role of the family in teaching
the basic values which build character and make responsible
citizens of our young people, then we will be going in the right
direction. Responsibility begins at home. In this way we can
attack the very serious crime problem in Canada by teaching
respect for others and respect for our laws at a very early age.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations are in order for the Ontario Fibricare
Association and the Korean Dry Cleaners Association that have
taken their cleaning one step further.
Recently they signed a memorandum of understanding with
the Ontario and federal Ministers of the Environment to
establish a Green Clean project, a voluntary pollution
prevention initiative which promotes water based technologies
and processes as an alternative to the use of chemicals in the dry
cleaning industry.
The Toronto Green Clean depot is the first of seven such
cleaners to be outfitted by Environment Canada for January
1995. The depot's objectives are to educate consumers on green
cleaning and to promote wet technology to industry members.
Governments, corporations, environmental groups, industry
associations and individual Canadians must work together to
improve the environment for all of us. This initiative will work
to eliminate the paradox that getting our cleaning done means
polluting our environment.
It is another step toward achieving our goal of a green clean
Canada.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, It
has always been my concern that the five major banks make such
high profits during both downturns and upturns in the Canadian
economy.
The high amounts of profit the banks have declared this past
month are particularly incredible. Even more disturbing is the
fact that while some banks are making over $1 billion profit,
they are at the very same time putting builders and developers
out of business with a callous take it or leave it attitude.
I call on the Prime Minister to fulfil the recommendation of
the Standing Committee on Industry to implement an
independent ombudsman to oversee banking practices in this
country. The sooner small and medium size businesses get a fair
shake, the sooner they will be able to prosper again.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I offer
congratulations to volunteers with CESO International Services
who give of their time both here at home and abroad.
In particular, I would like to mention two Nepean people. Mr.
Jerry Szymanowski travelled to the Slovak Republic to advise
manufacturers of insulation material on exports to Canadian
8993
markets. He also laid the groundwork for a joint venture
partnership with a Canadian firm.
Second, Aleksandrs Sprudz. Alex came to Canada from
Latvia in 1951. He spent 18 years with Indian and northern
affairs helping establish agriculture co-operatives in Indian and
Inuit communities.
He recently returned to his homeland to share his knowledge
and experience in his field with researchers and professors from
Latvian universities. He was instrumental in working with
members of the Latvian congress of agronomists to put forward
a resolution to the Latvian government for approval of lands to
be set aside for the sole purpose of agricultural co-operatives.
Aleksandrs Sprudz passed away on December 6, 1994. I wish
to extend my heartfelt sympathy to his wife and daughter.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
learned today that Quebec artists, too, refuse to support the
phony consultation process initiated by the Canada Council.
Several organizations, including the Quebec artists' union,
the Quebec theatre council and the Quebec writers' union, have
expressed their deep concern and denounced what they see as a
lack of respect for artists.
D (1405)
This government, which has decided to slash arts financing,
has the nerve to undertake consultations to ask artists where it
should cut. Given the improvised and slapdash approach of the
Canada Council and the obvious complicity of the Canadian
heritage minister, we wonder about this government's respect
for culture and the arts community.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to inform the House that between December 26 and
January 4 the world junior hockey championships will be taking
place in my riding of Red Deer.
Everyone in Canada appreciates junior hockey. The people of
my riding are incredibly proud to host the best juniors in the
world. Red Deer has a great hockey tradition with its Western
Hockey League team. Current NHL stars such as Glen Wesley
and Mark Tinordi were born in Red Deer.
We look forward to watching all the future stars when they
come to play for the world championship. Competitions like this
will inspire the next generations to carry on Canada's proud
hockey heritage. Come on out, watch the games and enjoy the
competition. Together we will all promote Canada's great winter
sport.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with the
publication of the Transportation Safety Board report, the
Canadian public has again been made aware of the problems of
the deregulation theory that Transport Canada has been pursuing
for over a decade.
In spite of evidence to the contrary, transport ministers from
Axworthy to Mazankowski and on to the current minister have
insisted that ``safety will not be compromised''. NDP members
have always argued that without regulation and adequate
inspection staff, safety would inevitably take second place,
particularly when carriers are strapped for cash. In such cases
maintenance is reduced, accidents increase and consumers are at
risk.
Since the department's strategy is in question I suggest that
the minister take charge and ask someone like Judge
Moshansky, who reported on the Dryden crash, to do a
follow-up investigation to see if Transport Canada's inspections
are now improved enough to correct the shortcomings
previously identified.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to point out to my colleagues that the Quebec
independence movement is not a threat to national unity.
Quebecers will settle the problem concerning the Quebec
independence movement. What really threatens the well-being
and unity of our country is a fiscal and monetary system in need
of thorough reform.
The tax system is unfair and inequitable to the majority of
Canadians. The helplessness felt by Canadians has become a
source of frustration and undermines the credibility of elected
officials and democratic institutions. This threatens to break up
our country unless we tackle this major problem right away.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following statement appeared in the August 3 edition of the
Toronto Star: ``I agree with Mr. Chrétien that a pequiste
government would not be empowered to launch the negotiation
process towards independence and that, contrary to the warnings
given by provincial Liberals, the eventual election of the PQ
does not
8994
mean that Quebec will become independent. For once, I agree
with those who support federalism''.
That statement made by the Bloc Quebecois leader could not
be more explicit. The fact that the PQ was elected does not give
it any right to unilaterally declare Quebec's sovereignty in its
draft bill before consulting the population through a
referendum.
The Premier of Quebec must set aside his biased consultation
process and quickly hold a real referendum, in which Quebecers
will decide if they want to separate from Canada.
The Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but her
time is up. The hon. member for Trinity-Spadina.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday saw the opening of EcoDek, a brand new
environmental tourist attraction at Toronto's CN Tower.
D (1410 )
EcoDek is a state of the art, cost effective exhibit that
promotes the principles of environmental learning and
citizenship. Through this high tech, innovative, interactive and
entertaining exhibit, EcoDek has the potential to reach 1.5
million visitors who annually go to the CN Tower.
EcoDek's ability to raise public awareness of and encourage
involvement in environmental issues goes beyond the actual
attraction. It includes an educational package that has been
developed to help teachers maximize the educational value of
field trips to EcoDek before, during and after classes.
To this end I am happy to report that over 600 schools from
many parts of Ontario and the Great Lakes states have already
booked visits to Toronto beginning in January.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
Minister of the Environment, the CN Tower and its many
partners for advancing environmental awareness in a manner
that is commensurate with the city of Toronto as a world class
destination for foreign travellers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
once again showed that he was acting in bad faith regarding the
Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. Instead of looking after
the interests of the residents of Saint-Jean, the minister prefers
to generate controversy regarding the academic future of that
institution.
Instead of constructively discussing the proposal made by
mayor Smereka, which is supported by a large majority, the
minister keeps looking for excuses to sabotage the negotiation
process. Is that his idea of flexible federalism? The minister
should change his antagonistic attitude and look after the
well-being of the public instead of his own partisan interests, so
that, in the end, the only real winners are the residents of
Saint-Jean.
There is no need to prolong the uncertainty and controversy.
Let us settle this issue once and for all; after all, we are very
close to a happy ending.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals have done it again. Last week the minister responsible
for ACOA was such a hero for announcing that his pork barrel
agency will no longer hand out free money.
Canadians can rest easy knowing that ACOA intends on
following in western economic diversification's footsteps.
Never mind the fact that WED wrote off nearly $12 million of
taxpayers' money last year.
Then there is FORD-Q, Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, the outfit the finance minister runs. He
talks a good game and wants to cut the deficit but at the same
time he doles out money hand over fist through his own pork
barrel program.
Roughly three-quarters of FORD-Q's assistance is
repayable. Taxpayers should not worry that FORD-Q gives out
free money for amounts under $25,000 and they should not
worry that last year FORD-Q wrote off $13.7 million of their
money.
Yes, the minister of public works should be proud that he is
now in very elite company.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
February 1995 comprehensive firearms control legislation will
be introduced through amendments to the Criminal Code,
Customs Act, Customs Tariff, Export and Import Permits Act,
National Defence Act, the Young Offenders Act and other
related statutes and regulations.
The design of the program addresses different needs of the
country affecting safer homes and streets. Programs will be put
in place to control the import, export and domestic transit of
guns.
8995
Sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code include tough
new minimum sentences. A national firearms registration is a
central foundation of the coming legislation.
Many of my constituents applauded this legislation. I urge all
Canadians to obtain the information material through their own
MP to examine the scope of the coming legislation to better
understand the problems that we are trying to address and the
potential solutions.
I look forward to working on this legislation in the justice
committee when it reaches it.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as chair of the Standing Committee on Human Rights
and the Status of Disabled Persons, I announce with pride that
the recipient of the 1994 Centennial Flame Research Award is
Linda Nancoo of Toronto.
Administered by our committee, the award honours the
courage and determination of Canadians with disabilities. It
recognizes their many contributions to society.
Ms. Nancoo, a person with a vision disability, has proven that
a physical disability need not be a barrier to success as a writer.
Her project will address the relationship between culture and
disability, utilizing real life stories of Canadians with
disabilities from the ethnocultural community.
This project is designed to generate increased awareness and
sensitivity on this issue on the part of all Canadians.
D (1415 )
On behalf of the committee I congratulate Ms. Nancoo on her
achievements. By honouring her, the committee and therefore
the House of Commons itself is honouring all Canadians with
disabilities. I ask all colleagues to join me in this sentiment.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister of
cultural heritage has nominated the Tatshenshini-Alsek
wilderness area in northern British Columbia as a world heritage
site at the United Nations, with absolutely no public discussion,
input or support.
The Tatshenshini contains rich mineral deposits worth more
than $10 billion. This represents an enormous opportunity for
job creation, real job creation, not taxpayer funded handouts,
and huge revenues for governments.
A recent Decima research poll shows that 85 per cent of
British Columbians believe it is important to check for mineral
deposits when considering setting aside land for parks.
Sixty-seven per cent believe that mining and other land uses
should co-exist.
Clearly the public wants to maintain a viable mining industry
in Canada. A world heritage site designation undermines and
threatens the future of the Tatshenshini for resource use, which
is clearly against the wishes of a vast majority of British
Columbians.
I call on the minister to withdraw this undemocratic and
unsupported nomination forthwith.
_____________________________________________
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that he
intended to send some of his officials to Saint-Jean to negotiate
an agreement on the basis of the proposal put forth by the mayor
of Saint-Jean.
Yesterday, using as a pretext what Quebec's
intergovernmental affairs minister had said, the minister
reversed himself and refused to delegate his officials to resume
negotiations today, as planned.
In view of the urgency of the decisions the staff and their
families will have to make and since everyone has agreed to
resume discussions on the basis of the mayor's proposal, how
does the minister explain his latest about-face, his refusal to
send officials to Saint-Jean to resume negotiations today, as he
had promised?
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, if anyone has not flip-flopped on this issue, it is I.
For the past four months, I have been telling the opposition day
after day that this matter must be settled on the basis of the
agreement signed with the Government of Quebec on July 19.
Ms. Beaudoin, in her press conference yesterday morning,
denied the basis of our agreement. She denied that the July 19
agreement would be the basis of our negotiations, so she is the
one who has set aside what would have made it possible for us to
reach a positive conclusion for the college in Saint-Jean.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is dancing the
cha-cha-cha on the Saint-Jean college issue-and he knows it.
He is taking one step forward, and two steps back. That is what
he is doing.
I would like him to tell us exactly in what way what the
Quebec minister said changed the proposal from the mayor of
Saint-Jean, which is based on the July 19 agreement that seems
8996
to be so dear to the minister. How did that change the mayor's
proposal which Ms. Beaudoin and the people of Saint-Jean are
prepared to discuss? The minister is the only one who will not
get involved in the negotiations.
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, it is always better to dance the cha-cha-cha than
St. Vitus' dance, like the opposition.
The proposal from the mayor of Saint-Jean, Mr. Smereka,
only implements the sixth point of the July 19 agreement.
Therefore, by stating, as she did literally yesterday morning,
that she does not believe in the July 19 agreement, Ms. Beaudoin
has set aside the whole basis for negotiations.
At midday today, I wrote to Ms. Beaudoin, indicating that if
she advised that she was prepared to accept the terms of the July
19 agreement, I would gladly resume negotiations, because what
we care about is keeping the college in Saint-Jean going and the
welfare of the people of Saint-Jean.
D (1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite
the importance of this issue for the community of Saint-Jean,
the teaching staff and their families, the minister stubbornly
persists in refusing to discuss it.
The Quebec minister clearly indicated to the minister that she
was ready to discuss the proposal put forth by the mayor of
Saint-Jean and the minister himself said that this proposal was
consistent with the July 19 agreement. What more does it take,
Mr. Speaker? If the Quebec minister abides by the agreement, or
rather the proposal, from the mayor of Saint-Jean, and the
federal minister thinks that it is consistent with his proposal of
July 19, what more does he need?
I put my question to the Prime Minister so that someone in
that government will see the light.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to put his
question.
Mr. Gauthier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I always have trouble
avoiding relevant comments.
Given the importance of this issue for the community in
Saint-Jean and the teaching staff, does the Prime Minister
intend to intervene to bring his minister to his senses since his
attitude is completely incompatible with what he himself called
flexible federalism?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, flexible federalism means that when there is an
agreement, the other government respects it. That is the basis of
the good relations which should exist in Canada.
On July 19, we signed an agreement in good faith with the
Government of Quebec and it was hailed as a very good
agreement. The people of Saint-Jean were happy. But since a
new government was elected in Quebec, there is no more
agreement. If the Government of Quebec wants to abide by the
agreement we signed with the previous government, there will
be no problem. If it wants to reopen the issue, well, what can I
say? The people of Saint-Jean will suffer the consequences.
* * *
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Solicitor General. This morning, we
heard that the government had decided to remove and not release
several parts of the report of the Security Intelligence Review
Committee on the disturbing Bristow case, in which CSIS not
only infiltrated but actually contributed to the activities of the
racist Heritage Front organization.
How can the Solicitor General, who claimed that he wanted to
release all the facts on the Bristow case, justify this attempt to
conceal several parts of this report? What is he trying to hide
from Quebecers and Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we must not make any final decisions. I said that I
wanted to release as much as I could of the SIRC report, in
accordance with the appropriate legislation. We still have the
entire report under review. I hope I will be able to announce a
decision very shortly.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
the government still claims it wants to release the facts about the
disturbing allegations in the Bristow case, how can the Solicitor
General explain the fact that he has yet to submit the full report
to the parliamentary sub-committee on national security for
consideration?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, according to the legislation governing CSIS, the report
is submitted to the Solicitor General. It is therefore the Solicitor
General's responsibility to decide on the best way to release the
report. My responsibilities include making sure that when I
release the report, I am guided by the appropriate provisions of
the Privacy Act and the CSIS Act. I trust the hon. member would
want me to take seriously the legislation adopted by Parliament
in this respect.
* * *
D (1425)
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, over the past month the allegations of intimidation and
artificially inflating refugee acceptance rates have been levelled
at Michael Schelew and the Immigration and Refugee Board.
8997
On November 21, Mr. Schelew was quoted as saying that he
would not negotiate a severance package because he wanted
exoneration. A judicial inquiry was ordered. It was called off
because Mr. Schelew resigned with a $100,000 parting gift from
the federal government.
Who negotiated and authorized this severance package? Will
the minister make public the details of the negotiations which
led to this 180 degree turn by Mr. Schelew?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ultimate decision to stop
the inquiry was made by Judge Hugessen who said in his ruling
that there would have been no reason or right to proceed. The
deputy chair offered his resignation. Accordingly the
government entertained a settlement. The settlement was
conducted by government officials. The settlement in the end
was in keeping and in line with standard government
procedures. We believe it to be a fair settlement.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question was: Who negotiated the settlement with
Mr. Schelew?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer was included in
my first response: Government officials.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, can the minister tell us which government officials
negotiated the settlement with Mr. Schelew and what his own
role was in those negotiations?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the negotiations
were nothing untoward, nothing special. They were in keeping
with normal standard procedures between government and
public servants and those appointed through governor in council
and no, I was not involved.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
In a release published yesterday, the Transportation Safety
Board of Canada reported serious deficiencies in the way
Transport Canada handled the inspection of safety measures
taken by air carriers. The board mentioned in particular major
deficiencies with respect to the nature and frequency of the
inspections, as well as insufficiently thorough audits and
follow-ups.
Considering that safety must be his top priority, how can the
minister explain that such deficiencies are allowed to continue
in terms of air safety, in spite of the many recommendations put
forward by Canadian control organizations? And what positive
steps does he intend to take to remedy the situation within his
department?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question raised by my hon. colleague is a very
serious one. We have read carefully the report of the
Transportation Safety Board and taken note of its two major
recommendations. First, air carriers must be subjected to much
more minute inspections. Second, when faults of any kind are
found in the system, there has to be a follow-up to ensure that
these faults or deficiencies have been corrected.
The board's report takes into account all incidents since 1984,
the latest one dating back to December 1993. We take very
seriously every one of the recommendations made by the board
and intend to act on them.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
would you kindly remind the minister that he has been in office
for over 14 months now. How does he expect to be taken
seriously, knowing that similar recommendations were made in
the past by the Transportation Safety Board and ignored by
Transport Canada?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is not a matter that we are going to pursue in this
House on the basis of when the incidents occurred. Anything
that has to do with the safety and security of travelling
Canadians we are going to take very seriously.
The report brought in by the board yesterday identified two
major problems. The first was the depth of the audit that is
conducted. We have undertaken to make sure that situation is
corrected. The second was the follow-up. The first incident
occurred in 1984. The last one referred to by the board occurred
in December 1993.
D (1430 )
My hon. friend knows that we are doing as much as we can to
maintain a climate of confidence in the transportation system in
Canada. We understand the import of what was recommended by
the safety board. We intend to follow through on it. I can assure
my hon. friend that a hell of a lot more will be done in the next
few months than in the last 10 years.
The Speaker: Although the word hell is not necessarily
unparliamentary, perhaps we could use it a little more
judiciously in the future.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Michael Schelew might be gone from the IRB, but his presence
and the presence of other like minded IRB members continues to
be felt.
8998
Within the next couple of days in Edmonton a refugee claim
being made by an American woman claiming spousal abuse will
be heard by a full member panel of the IRB. Hundreds of other
refugee claims will be made this year by people who come from
democratic nations. Surely the minister can see how ludicrous
this is.
Will the minister agree to a full review of the way the IRB
determines refugee status and who is eligible to make a claim in
the first place?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned in this
House and outside this House many times, the government is
conducting a full review of its agencies, boards and
commissions. Within this review is also the IRB. We have every
intention of undertaking any reform or measures that would
strengthen the institution.
As well, the chairperson will be moving very quickly on the
commission that she had asked for some months back about the
Hathaway report, about how individual members react to
different situations.
I also mentioned to him during the course of question period
yesterday that I will be meeting with the chair later this week so
that I can also ascertain how she feels about a number of things
over the last number of months which has not been easy.
If the member has ways of trying to improve the institution
then count me in. If he simply wants to undercut the institution
he can count me out.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is precisely the same arm's length excuse that we have heard
from this minister all along but it does not wash.
This minister has the power under the Immigration Act to
prevent before they begin refugee claims by people from
countries like the United States, but he has chosen not to do so.
Will this minister admit that his unwillingness to stop refugee
claims from the United States and Israel makes a mockery out of
the IRB, his office and the country as a whole?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member criticizes me for
being at arm's length. Three weeks ago they were giving lectures
about how ministers have to respect independent, quasi-judicial
boards. Which one is it?
The member asks whether I would deny or allow a refugee
claim. That shows a profound ignorance of how refugee
determination works in this country. It is not the minister or
members of Parliament who adjudicate. That is why it is
semi-judicial and independent, so that those adjudications may
be done properly by members of the Immigration and Refugee
Board.
[Translation]
* * *
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The Baird report made public over a year ago recommended
banning the commercialization of human embryos. One year
later, the minister tells us that women will have to wait another
year for the government to legislate against the
commercialization of human embryos.
Does the minister still intend to wait another year before
stating her position on the new reproductive technologies, when
commercialization of human eggs is occurring at the IVF
Canada Clinic in Toronto as we speak?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. As she knows
very well, these are very complex issues. I am currently working
on a short term solution that should help until we can table a bill.
D (1435)
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Health realize that her
inability to present the Minister of Justice with the report he
needs to prepare the necessary legislation is causing
unacceptable delays favouring the growth of unregulated trade
in human eggs and embryos?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many times in this House I have spoken of the
complexity of this issue and of the many jurisdictions.
I have one comment to make. I would certainly hope that the
members of the Bloc Quebecois, when we do bring something
forward, will speak with their provincial counterparts, the Parti
Quebecois, to help us ensure that these types of practices are
regulated efficiently and quickly.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
whole Schelew affair is just the tip of the iceberg. Mr. Schelew
may be gone but the fundamental problems with the IRB remain.
The board is far too vulnerable to special interests in the
immigration industry. It remains unaccountable to the Canadian
public and its credibility has been shaken. Friends and foes of
Mr. Schelew have all been calling for a public inquiry to clear
the air surrounding the IRB.
8999
When will the minister put public interest ahead of political
damage control and call an immediate, thorough and public
inquiry into the workings of the IRB?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, public interest always comes
first. No one is suggesting for one moment that any vested
interests have any control of the Immigration and Refugee
Board. If the member has information like his leader was doing a
few weeks ago, he should come clean and give us specific
information.
I mentioned very seriously that the review of all government
agencies is something that the IRB is involved in. Proposals
have been made and will be released in the new year.
Second, the Hathaway report which I hope the hon. member
had an occasion to read points out a possible number of avenues
that the current chair independent of government is looking at.
Third, I will be meeting with the chair to discuss the issues as
well as any other possible measures that would strengthen the
board. If the Reform Party which has been in office for a year-
The Speaker: As a general rule, if you have three points that
is quite a bit.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not only
has the Immigration and Refugee Board been tainted by the
Schelew affair but the entire process for admitting immigrants
and refugees into Canada has been brought into question.
The problem is much bigger than Mr. Schelew, the IRB or this
particular minister. What is needed is a thorough investigation
into the whole immigration and refugee determination process
along with a look at alternative methods and procedures.
Will the Prime Minister get to the bottom of this mess and
order a white paper on the immigration and refugee
determination system in Canada either through this minister or
through a new minister with the skills and commitment to
reform the system?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know very well that the policy of accepting some
refugees in Canada does not please the Reform Party. Canada
has always been more able than any other country to help people
in very difficult positions around the world.
I do not want to do that, in conformity with the laws that this
Parliament has passed. If there is some need for change in the
legislation, the House of Commons will have an occasion to
study it and make recommendations.
This government in a year and one month has shown that we
have the proper balance. There are some incidents. It is not easy
to come to a conclusion in cases like that.
We have appointed members with their own convictions and
they try to do their best. In this case apparently there might have
been some error made and the person decided to resign. He has
the right to resign and somebody else will be appointed. We
want to maintain a policy that permits the people of the world,
when they are in very difficult situations, to know there are some
people who are concerned about human beings, the Canadian
government.
* * *
D (1440)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
Rogers, the cable television company, decided to change
access to its French-language channels TV5 and Météo Média,
and to cancel Musique Plus, as of Thursday of this week. These
changes will significantly reduce access to French channels for
francophones. This situation is undoubtedly the result of a bad
decision made by the CRTC regarding RDI, a decision that the
heritage minister refused to review, in spite of a request to that
effect by the opposition.
Since it is also the responsibility of the minister to support
francophone and Acadian communities, will he take action so
that Rogers maintains those three French-language channels as
part of its basic service?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to serve Canadian and
francophone communities. I have no intention of interfering
with the decisions of the CRTC, except to the extent of the
legislative powers delegated to me. The hon. member's remark
is interesting. In fact, we are examining this issue.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the minister has decided to
take our request into consideration, but can he tell us now when
he intends to provide an answer to francophone communities,
since this service will be cut on Thursday?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I already had the opportunity to express my
views on extending the RDI service to francophone
communities. Radio-Canada has a responsibility which I have
recognized, and it is precisely from that angle that I look at the
issue.
9000
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The United Nations World Health Organization has asked the
World Court for an advisory opinion whether the use of nuclear
weapons is against international law. Will the government
consider informing the court of those areas in which Canada
considers the use of nuclear weapons to be against international
law?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada supports the objective of the elimination of
nuclear weapons. However, we believe a treaty that would be
binding on all the parties would be more conducive to efficiency
than a mere reference to the international court of justice.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
in this House the Liberal government summoned members from
all over Ottawa so they could smother debate about the fact that
their government is considering tax increases. How can the
finance minister claim his government is willing to listen to
Canadians when he permits his government to smother debate
about the issue in this House?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure
what the member means by smothering debate.
The finance committee has gone across the country and has
heard from Canadians. There has been extensive discussion
within the committee in which the member participated. In this
House there have been countless questions. There have been
discussions back and forth.
I am not quite sure what further debate the Reform Party
would like to see. We have listened to the members ad nauseam
putting up strawmen like carbon taxes and everything else.
One day the leader of the Reform Party talked about what it
cost per minute to listen to this House. We have blown a billion
dollars listening to the Reform Party.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rather
get the impression that the finance minister along with the rest
of his party did not have a clue what they were voting on this
morning. What has happened to the Liberals and the finance
minister since they sat on this side of the House?
D (1445)
Perhaps I could help the finance minister remember that on
April 27, 1993 he said: ``In the real world outside Parliament
Hill political revolution is under way''. He said: ``Canadians are
demanding an end to the volleys of taxation that issue from the
nation's capital every spring''. What does he think of his own
words today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is
absolutely right. When I was in opposition I referred to the
political revolution that was taking place outside the House. It
took place and that is why we are in government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. Yesterday, I clearly demonstrated to the minister
that the Canada Employment Centre in Verdun was instrumental
in the hiring of scabs to replace workers now on strike at
Ogilvie.
Now that the minister knows what is going on, does he intend
to take steps to stop this practice in Verdun and at all Canada
Employment centres?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I took a look at the
information provided by the hon. member and had it examined.
I would like to report to him and to other members of the
House. He knows full well that under the rules of the
International Labour Organization, to which Canada is a
signatory, in the delivery of employment development services
a government cannot take sides in any industrial dispute.
Therefore they posted the notice of the job with the fact that
there was a strike or an industrial dispute taking place, which
was totally and completely within the criteria established by the
International Labour Organization.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the minister agree that this situation makes a case for the
quick adoption of amendments to the Canada Labour Code that
would prohibit the use of scabs during a labour dispute, and that
this should be done without waiting for the review announced by
the minister?
9001
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said in the House
before that we are very interested in looking at modernizing the
Canada Labour Code.
We are taking into account a number of representations. I have
met, as have other members of the caucus and the member for
Outremont, directly with the working group from the ADM
Ogilvie. We will certainly take the representations into account.
We are looking at the entire issue. When the cabinet has decided
then legislation will be presented to the House.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Justice told the press that
because ``we have had just a very busy time'' he is not going to
bring forward changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Earlier he delayed introduction of gun legislation and he failed
totally to introduce legislation to end the drug defence in justice.
My question is for the government House leader. In light of
the fact the government is so short of legislation to bring before
the House that the House is often suspended or is adjourned
early, why is the government not introducing its legislation on
schedule as promised?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a program of legislation with which we are
proceeding. I expect the legislation the hon. member mentioned
will be tabled shortly after we come back in February.
Even if the legislation had been tabled this week there would
not have been time to do anything more than open debate. That is
a fact in reality the hon. member should recognize as House
leader for his party.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this is an ongoing problem. We have had this
problem for months, ever since the Liberals took over.
Today the President of the Treasury Board announced further
delays in reform of the MPs' outrageous pension plan. Is this
delay symptomatic of a government that cannot find consensus
in its caucus, will not allow free votes, and therefore avoids
trouble by denying Canadians prompt introduction of promised
legislation?
D (1450)
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the department is going to be going for another three or
four years. Nobody is retiring or leaving. I do not think any of
the members opposite are planning on doing that. There is
plenty of time to deal with the issues.
We are continuing to review the matter and to look at the
various options. We have a number of things the government is
putting forward to meet all its obligations. We will meet our
obligations under the red book commitments with respect to
MPs' pensions, to end double dipping, and to deal with the
question of a minimum age.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
After several weeks of investigating native government on the
Maliseet reserve near Woodstock in my riding, the Telegraph
Journal has made some very serious allegations regarding the
expenditure of federal funds.
Could the minister provide the House with information
concerning the allegations over mismanagement of funds in the
first nation and any information relative to an RCMP
investigation?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, band members at Woodstock
First Nations have made allegations against their chief, Mr. Len
Tomah, who has been chief for about 10 years. The RCMP is
investigating. The file is not closed to date. Obviously it has not
obtained sufficient evidence to lay any charges.
I hesitate to discuss an ongoing case in the House because we
have a system of justice, fairness and due process based on facts,
not on allegations. Within that regard I want to assure the
member of two things. First, there will be full and complete
co-operation by ministry officials with the RCMP and, second,
there will be no interference with the RCMP investigation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Last June, the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration, supported by the Reform Party,
adopted a report on the Citizenship Act, which included a
recommendation to eliminate a long standing right in Canada to
hold dual citizenship. The Bloc Quebecois objected strenuously
to this recommendation.
Can the minister confirm that his government intends to
accept these recommendations to abolish the right to hold dual
citizenship in Canada, a right that is recognized by more and
9002
more countries, including Italy, Australia, Switzerland, Great
Britain, France and the United States?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister
confirmed a few days ago, the Canadian government and the
Parliament of Canada will ultimately decide citizenship
matters.
It is true the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration was asked to do a study and report on how we could
upgrade our Citizenship Act, which has been untouched
virtually for some 20 years. There were many recommendations
within that report and dual citizenship was one of them. The
report and those recommendations are currently before cabinet.
One would expect that those amendments would come to the
House next year.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, The
minister did not answer my question. Would the minister agree
that this recommendation is a blatant attempt at blackmail, to
scare Quebecers on the eve of the referendum on sovereignty?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hate to disappoint the
member but it is absolutely false and irresponsible to say that
about members of Parliament from all parties who worked hard
on the Citizenship Act.
They heard issues being raised by the public. They travelled.
They had representations made to them. On balance the report
made a very worthy set of recommendations.
The dual citizenship which the member outlines was only one
of many recommendations. It would be absolutely unfair if we
were simply to lift one recommendation from a generally good
report. Instead we should deal with it on balance in a
comprehensive and fair way.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, some senior officers at national defence headquarters
are drawing separation expenses, that is they are being paid an
allowance because they have chosen to retain their home
elsewhere during their tour of duty here in Ottawa.
No one would object to reimbursing out of pocket expenses
during a temporary dislocation from home and family. But when
such reimbursement becomes a permanent part of an
individual's pay package something is wrong with the system.
D (1455)
Will the Minister of National Defence advise the House how
long that is, for what period of time separation allowance is
normally paid?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am sure
it is posed within the context of his concern for Canadian forces
personnel.
In response to his question I have three points to make. The
first one is that the program he talks about is called imposed
restriction. It is related to the mobility that Canadian forces
members have compared to any other part of Canadian society.
The second point I would make is that there are 900 members
of the Canadian forces involved or less than one per cent and 65
per cent of them are non-commissioned members.
The third point is if he has any indication the regulations are
not being followed properly and there are some unauthorized
things happening, I think he owes it to the Canadian public to be
more specific to me and to the minister.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
We are talking about $12 million a year here. One individual
received separation allowance for a full year, almost $20,000.
Another received over $86,000 for a period of more than four
years. All this is in addition to their normal pay and allowances.
Why would the Department of National Defence allow these
two individuals to remain separated from their families for so
long, knowing it was costing the taxpayer well over $100,000 in
separation expenses?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the management of
personnel in the Canadian forces is a complex task with many
different dimensions.
He also knows that the military career requires a much greater
degree of mobility than any other segment of Canadian society.
This imposes stress on individuals and their families and a much
greater burden on the organization itself, considering their
families. I am quoting from a report which the hon. member
signed.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
The minister will know that for good reason criticisms have
come forward over his proposal to cut $2.5 billion from post--
9003
secondary education. The criticism is based upon the need to
ensure that Canadians are better educated, not worse educated.
Provincial education ministers have expressed concern, at the
least, and some have indicated that the proposals are disastrous.
I wonder when the minister will stop hysterically attacking
provincial cabinet ministers who disagree with him and start
listening to those ministers who want to save post-secondary
education in Canada. When will he stop this disastrous attack on
post-secondary education and Canadians in general?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon
everybody involved in looking at the whole need to restructure
our social framework, including the way to provide for higher
education, to deal with the facts. The facts are that over the next
several years the revenue going to the provinces substantially
increases, not decreases, as a result of the growth in revenue
coming from the tax points.
When certain provincial ministers refused to acknowledge
both that fact and their responsibility to ensure that those
increased revenues were in fact turned over and transferred for
investment in higher education, it does deserve some rebuttal to
show that responsibility must reside where it is clearly placed on
provincial ministers to make sure they spend the money the
federal government transfers to them for the betterment of
higher education.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wonder what world the minister lives in.
He used to be a university professor. He should understand what
post-secondary education is all about.
How can doubled tuition fees and skyrocketing student loans
possibly help Canada, Canada's students or the future of the
country?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because I
spent some time in the university system that I know there is
much room for serious reform, serious restructuring and serious
modernization of the system so that we can reach out to far more
students.
The proposal under the green paper is to provide increased
accessibility for another quarter million Canadians. That
requires reform on the financial side and begins to require
serious reform and consideration by those in the academic
community to look at how they are spending money and how
they are investing money to get full value for it.
* * *
D (1500 )
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Cable companies are now providing unordered cable service
and automatically billing consumers for a service they did not
request or may not even want. This puts the onus on the
consumer to write to the cable companies to inform them that
they do not want this service.
Can the minister please tell us what it is he is planning to do to
end this unfair marketing?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure many consumers welcome the hon.
member's question.
The marketing technique known as negative optioning is one
that comes under the jurisdiction of provincial consumer
legislation. However, the CRTC is responsible for ensuring that
cable operators provide all information available to consumers
so that they know the choices which are available.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I wish to draw your attention
to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Joseph Fignolé Jean-Louis,
member of the Haitian Parliament and chairman of the Public
Works and Communications Commission.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege today in relation to a discrepancy between
a response given to the House and myself regarding Order Paper
Question No. 82 standing in my name and the answer I received
to an access to information request. I have advised the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans of my intention to rise today on this
issue.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would first like to state
the case to demonstrate the discrepancy and then present
supporting precedents. My question was: What effect did the
late signing of the aboriginal fisheries agreement in British
Columbia have on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans-
9004
The Speaker: Order. I am sure all hon. members will want to
listen to this point of privilege. The hon. member for Delta.
Mr. Cummins: In his response on November 10, the minister
stated that while negotiations on agreements with aboriginal
groups for the management of aboriginal salmon fishing were in
many cases protracted, leading to delays in signing of
agreements, these had little impact on agreements and fisheries
regulations. I emphasize the words ``little impact''.
Access documents which I received December 7, 1994
contradicted the minister. I will bring several of these
contradictions to the attention of this House.
In a memo dated August 17, 1994 approved by D.D. Aurel,
Chief of Conservation and Protection, Fraser River Division it is
stated: ``The late signing of the aboriginal agreements has also
resulted in difficulties in respect to proper management of the
fishery and, in many cases, bands have not been able to abide by
the terms of the agreement''.
The second point states: ``The lateness in the signing of the
1994 aboriginal fishing agreement has resulted in the
breakdown of effective management of the native fishery on the
Fraser River. Again, many aspects of the agreement failed to
materialize or were simply neglected. DFO officers were unable
to perform their duties''.
The third point in the memo states: ``The late signing of the
aboriginal fishing agreements has contributed to management's
reduced capacity to adequately monitor the fishery, provide
accurate catch information and provide enforcement of the
regulations governing the fishery on the Fraser River between
Steveston and Lillooet during the period of June 25 to July 31,
1994''.
In a memo dated September 19, 1994 to Paul Sutherland,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific Region from the Director of
Conservation and Protection, Pacific Region it is stated: ``The
major aboriginal agreements were not signed until well into the
month of July 1994. As such there would have been no
designated aboriginal guardians patrolling their early fisheries
until such times as the agreements were signed. This created a
gap not only in the enforcement program but also in the
monitoring of the early portion of the fishery''.
D (1505)
The second point of the same memo: ``In addition, there were
a number of start-up problems with the guardian program once
the agreements were signed, including the lack of an
enforcement co-ordinator until mid August. There was
therefore a lack of direction for those aboriginal guardian staff
who were hired by the bands until the enforcement co-ordinator
position was filled''.
On August 22 the Fraser River fishery catch estimation was
addressed to the Chief of Conservation and Protection, Pacific
Region from the Field Supervisor, General Investigation
Services, Fraser River Division and stated: ``Agreements in the
Sto:Lo and Musqueam-Tsawwassen areas were not signed and
hence no mandatory landing program was in place until well into
the early Stuart sockeye migration in the lower river with a
potential unreported catch in this fishery''.
These documents indicate that the late signing of the AFS
agreements had a massive impact on the enforcement of the
agreements and fisheries regulations. The documents contradict
the minister. The minister knew this. In early November of this
year he met with fisheries officers of Vancouver and discussed
the shortcomings of the enforcement regime in place last
summer.
The rights of the members of this House include the right to
accurate information. Beauchesne's sixth edition states in
citation 24:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of peculiar rights enjoyed by each House
collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by
Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge
their functions.
Surely we must expect the responses to Order Paper questions
to be accurate and well-reasoned. I placed that question on the
Order Paper recognizing it was one that required detailed study
by the government because I wanted a detailed answer. After all
is that not the purpose of such questions?
In speaking to a similar discrepancy to an Order Paper answer
and access to information documents, the member for Kingston
and the Islands in 1990 stated: ``The information provided to the
House must be accurate and must not mislead the House''.
I offer for the Speaker's consideration the 1978 decision
where the member for Northumberland-Durham raised a
question of privilege in the House of Commons. The then
Solicitor General had written and provided information which
later proved to be erroneous.
On December 6, 1978 the Speaker indicated as reported at
page 1857 of Hansard: ``I therefore find a prime facie case of
contempt against the House of Commons''. If it was contempt
against the House of Commons to provide a member of
Parliament with erroneous information, then surely to provide
the House itself with erroneous information through a written
reply to a question on the Order Paper would also be a prime
facie case of privilege.
It is incumbent upon the government to provide through the
Order Paper not only the questioner, in this case myself, but the
House accurate information in order for us as parliamentarians
to discharge our functions appropriately.
9005
I have been able to get accurate information under access to
information. Both the access request and the Order Paper
question were submitted in late September. How is it that the
minister could get away with inaccurate information responding
to an Order Paper question in the House?
The response given in this House would have been illegal
under the Access to Information Act. If members want accurate
information, is it necessary to go to access to information rather
than to this House? Surely members of this House should expect
a standard of accuracy that is as high as that received under
access to information.
Mr. Speaker, should you rule that I have a prime facie case of
privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion and
send the issue to a parliamentary committee.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has raised a point that in substance at
least in its pith is correct. He says that Parliament is entitled to
accurate information. I quite agree with him.
In providing answers to questions the government makes
every effort to ensure the information provided in the answer is
accurate. If the hon. member in his question has raised points
that merit looking at, I am sure the minister of fisheries will take
the matter under complete advisement.
D (1510 )
If there is a supplementary answer or a correction to be tabled
in the House, the government will have no problem whatever in
doing that. Your Honour, I know the government is entitled to
table supplementary answers to questions that have already been
answered where it turns out that additional information comes to
light or there has been some error or some misinformation.
I know that the minister of fisheries in answering these
questions, as all ministers, has striven to make sure that the
answers are full and complete and correct. As someone who has
some role in tabling the answers in this House I work with the
ministers and their staff and with the persons who provide these
responses by the government to ensure that the answers are full,
complete and correct.
I know there has been no attempt here to mislead. I am sure
the minister of fisheries heard the hon. member's submissions
and will note them and will review them. If there are corrections
to be made, a supplementary answer will be forthcoming.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief intervention. I
submit that while the hon. member has demonstrated an interest
in the issue of the management of the Fraser River salmon it is
clear he has not demonstrated a breach of his privileges.
The member in his summation said that the information given
on September 23, 1994 is not absolutely complete and the
minister knows it is not complete because in early November,
six weeks later, he met with enforcement officers in Vancouver
who gave him additional information.
If you check the ``blues'', Mr. Speaker, because I listened very
carefully, you will find that is exactly what the member said,
that the minister should have known better on September 23 and
had a more complete answer because on November 2 the
minister met with enforcement officers and was given additional
information.
I want to confirm that as the member knows, I did meet with
enforcement officers on November 2 at DFO headquarters in
Vancouver. I was given additional information. As a
consequence of that additional information I set up a panel
which in the last week has held public hearings in British
Columbia listening to every single stakeholder group talking
about the management of salmon on the Fraser River. The
member knows that as well, even though he has called into
question the integrity of this panel which is chaired by none
other than the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the
Hon. John Fraser.
Let me say this to the member and let me say to you, Mr.
Speaker, that at the time the question was asked the answer
which was given makes reference to the fact that delays in
signing agreements have had little impact, it says, on the
enforcement of aboriginal fisheries. That is the information the
minister had. I learned subsequently in discussions with
enforcement officers over a full month later of additional
concerns.
We have acted to have a total public review to deal with those
concerns. I have a review going on internally in the department
to deal with concerns about enforcement. Nobody is attempting
to mislead anybody. The member is a month behind the process.
We were already working on the problem before he even brought
it to the House.
The Speaker: I do not in any way minimize the seriousness of
this question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Delta.
He surely has a grievance which perhaps can be corrected
without proceeding to a complete point of privilege. I would
hope that the hon. member for Delta and perhaps the member for
Kingston and the Islands and the hon. Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans might come together to resolve this particular
grievance.
I want the House to understand that I do take this very
seriously when a member feels that he or she is in any way
impeded from performing his or her duties as members of
Parliament.
9006
I would give this assurance that I will return to the member for
Delta if indeed he does not get a response to his grievance in
discussions with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
and the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I will leave it at
that for the time being.
D (1515 )
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker-
The Speaker: Order. Is this on the same question of
privilege?
Mr. Cummins: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to correct the record
on a point made by the minister.
The Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member might consider my
suggestion. We could let this sit at this point with the full
assurance of the Chair that I will return to the member if his
grievance is not responded to in a satisfactory manner. Can we
leave it there?
Mr. Cummins: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I think you might
find there is unanimous consent in the House to revert to
statements by ministers so that the Minister of Transport can
make a brief statement.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to
statements by ministers?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the House will know that on September 21, CP Rail
System tabled an unsolicited bid of $1.4 billion for the CN North
America eastern rail assets.
I am announcing today that the Government has rejected CP's
offer and is not prepared to entertain any further the sale of CN
Rail assets.
[English]
In reaching our conclusions, we reviewed the business and
policy cases beyond the financial implications of the deal.
Canadian Pacific's bid would have had a substantial impact on
employment, the rail network and the cost of rail service for
eastern shippers. The government was also concerned about the
impact that the transaction would have had on CN's remaining
western operations.
We must address the fundamental problems facing the rail
industry to ensure that the sector is viable, competitive and
continues to meet the needs of Canadian shippers. A series of
meetings have been held with shippers and other stakeholders in
all regions of the country. This phase of the consultation process
will wrap up with a national shippers' meeting in Ottawa
tomorrow.
I have also asked a committee of members of Parliament
headed by the member for Kenora-Rainy River to discuss with
Canadians the feasibility of commercializing Canadian
National. I look forward to the recommendations that the
member and his colleagues will bring forward, particularly with
regard to the possibility of employee participation in any
commercialization of Canadian National.
[Translation]
We will announce a comprehensive and workable rail policy
framework in 1995. We must put the Canadian rail sector on a
stable footing and try to maintain a healthy level of competition
within the rail industry and against other modes.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
even if we did not have the opportunity of looking at the details
of the CP offer, for lack of relevant documentation and because
the government did not deign to consult us, the opposition is
nonetheless relieved to learn today that it has decided to reject
the offer.
Indeed, we are of the opinion that CP's bid was too low, as
pointed out in a study by Morgan Stanley, and involved too
many drawbacks for the people of Canada and Quebec.
We were not unconcerned by the creation of a monopoly east
of Winnipeg and there was no indication of how local railways
would be treated under this new monopoly. We do agree with the
government: this offer of CP Rail had to be rejected on financial
and public interest grounds.
However, the question of Canadian National and the Canadian
rail system still remains unresolved. It is particularly
disappointing to see how undemocratically the Liberal
government is treating the opposition around this issue. No
opposition member, neither from the Bloc Quebecois nor the
Reform Party, was asked to sit on this committee.
D (1520)
This is above all a partisan parliamentary group studying the
privatization of CN. The eight Liberal members and the federal
senator on the committee have worked their way toward
recommendations which have no doubt already been drafted,
long before the so-called hearings are over.
On February 18, as the Official Opposition's transport critic, I
asked the Standing Committee on Transport to give priority to
the matter of rail service. I asked again when the House
reconvened on September 19, and the minister's response was
the creation on September 29 of this partisan Liberal working
committee.
9007
Last week in committee, although it had been agreed to put
aside consideration of the national airport policy to concentrate
on ports, we again asked the committee to give priority to rail
issues and travel to the regions to hear what the people have to
say.
The government is set to introduce a global rail policy in 1995
without even consulting the elected members of the opposition.
I hope that the government will reconsider its approach in this
matter, and not in cavalier fashion either, because it is totally
unacceptable. We hope that the minister will be much more open
and democratic with the democratically elected members of the
opposition.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I can go along with the minister's decision not to accept
CP's offer but not the part that states the government is not
prepared to entertain any further offers for the sale of CN Rail.
The formation of CN Rail began in 1917 when numerous
small rail companies found themselves in severe financial
trouble. The root cause of the rail industry problem even then
was an excess of trackage. Once formed, CN commenced an
aggressive program of expansion, despite evidence that there
was already excessive trackage in Canada. In order to compete
CP Rail was forced to expand as well. The results were
inevitable.
In 1937 CN's debts were a major problem so the government
of the day cancelled them. It was a Liberal government. No one
addressed excess trackage which resulted in CN again finding
itself in severe financial trouble in 1952. Once again the
government of the day entered the picture and bailed them out.
Once again the government of the day was Liberal. Still no one
addressed the problem of excess trackage.
During the next two decades CN, despite losses of
approximately $25 million a year, continued capital spending of
up to $200 million a year. The results were once again
inevitable. Enter the government in 1978 with yet another
bail-out and, yes, once again it was a Liberal government.
It appears the latest Liberal government is now prepared to be
the fourth to bail a government company out of trouble so that it
can compete with a public company using the taxpayers' money
as a subsidy. That is not acceptable.
A task force to study this, made up of only Liberal members
who have an obvious political agenda to maintain this unviable
rail company, is not acceptable.
Yesterday I made a statement in the House indicating my
expectation of the government's position based on my
observations of the task force in action. The task force had a
predetermined policy and only went forth to manipulate people
into accepting it.
The only solution to Canada's rail problem is the privatization
of CN. Whether it is sold as a whole entity or sold in part is not
the issue. After almost 80 years of problems it is time for the
government to butt out. Government interference causes rather
than resolves problems. Reduce government's role to a
regulatory position and allow the marketplace to resolve the
problem. They will do a far better job than politicians and
bureaucrats ever could.
D (1525 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33 because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
eight minutes.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to resuming debate on Bill C-64.
To sum up what I have already said, as a Reformer I stand by
and support the concept of equality for all Canadians, whether
that equality be in law or in opportunity in the marketplace. As a
Reformer I am strongly opposed to the injustice of establishing
employment goals for designated groups. I have listened to
young people who also resent the inference of inequality of such
employment equity legislation as we see today.
Visible minorities do not want this type of help as it creates
resentment not only within their own communities but also in
their efforts to be accepted as equals within the larger
community.
A young second generation Chinese Canadian journalism
student recently shared her frustration in my constituency
office. Despite her excellent qualifications, the recognition that
she had received was lessened by the question of whether her
success was in fact a token of her perceived difference rather
than reward for her unequivocal excellence. Tokenism has no
part in Canada if we truly believe in equality.
It is the government's job to provide the means for equality of
opportunity. It is not the government's job to push unjust and
unfair equality of results in the marketplace. Employment
equity is unnecessary and it is unwise as it institutionalizes the
very notion of discrimination that it purports to reject.
9008
Years ago as society's architects only mused about the notion
of legislating hiring practices, Martin Luther dreamt of a society
that was blind to race and gender. ``Judge us not by the colour of
our skin but by the content of our character'' he implored. How
sad that Canadians are being driven to adopt policies that deny
the very principles we hold dear. These are principles that are
upheld by Canadians of all abilities and backgrounds. These are
principles that will lead us to the prosperity we deserve as a
great country, principles which we have presented in this brief
discussion.
The legislation of Bill C-64 works against the principles I
have described, principles of equality, of fiscal accountability
and of the excellence of all Canadians in our society.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my brief remarks are designed to repeat some of the
basic arguments against pay and employment equity which
underlie Reform's opposition to Bill C-64.
Reform believes that government should assure equality of
opportunity in economic life, but it has no business using the
labour market to assure equality of outcome. Doing so interferes
with basic freedoms, makes false assumptions about the causes
of inequality, creates large inefficiencies and is basically unjust.
Consider the problem with freedom. Canada has developed
into a prosperous society by upholding basic personal freedoms.
One of these consists of the ability of individuals to sell their
labour services to the highest bidder and for employers to
choose freely those whom they wish to hire as long as they do
not interfere with the fundamental freedoms of others.
These freedoms are an end in themselves, but they also are the
engines which drive economic activity in a market economy that
has produced the riches our society enjoys today.
Throughout the world and history people have died for these
freedoms. We all remember the American civil war. Slavery
represents the extreme limitation on people's freedom to sell
their labour services to the highest bidder. Employment and pay
equity legislation imposes on free Canadians just a bit of such
slavery. Our society is on a slippery slope.
D (1530)
Consider the idea that existing inequalities between groups is
due to discrimination. Reform believes that this proposition is
based on false assumptions and empirical evidence. Studies by
Tom Sowell at Stanford University have shown that Americans
of Japanese origin as a group have much above average U.S.
income.
My former colleague, Don DeVoretz at Simon Fraser
University, has shown that immigrants on average have higher
incomes than people born in Canada. The recorded
extraordinary success of these two groups is indicative of the
impossible task of establishing that group disadvantages are
caused by discrimination based on race, gender or national or
ethnic origin.
Economists led by Nobel laureate Gary Becker have long
argued that free markets offer the best protection against
discrimination. Consider a firm that gets paid $1 for the
assembly of a computer component. The wage rate is $10 per
hour and the average male is able to complete 10 units per hour.
Consider that women have greater dexterity and are able to
assemble 12 units per hour. Any firm which refuses to hire
women for this task is at an obvious competitive disadvantage
with a firm that does. It will ultimately go out of business.
Students of labour markets have been able to show that
discrimination in the labour market has historically persisted
only in instances where government regulation or government
enforced monopolies like labour unions have prevented the
adjustment from taking place.
Bill C-64 and similar legislation involves serious costs.
Bureaucrats, lawyers and the police needed to enforce such
legislation are not available to produce goods and services that
determine our living standard. The private sector incurs large
administrative costs. In addition there are the costs of lost
efficiency. Goods and services will no longer be produced using
the lowest cost.
In the United States affirmative action has been estimated to
result in lost output equal to 4 per cent of national income. Since
Canada may be assumed never to want to lag behind the U.S. in
such social legislation for long, we may soon expect at least
such cost.
The ultimate cost of governmental attempting to create
perfect equality of incomes has become obvious through recent
developments in socialist and communist governments around
the world. Employment and pay equity in these systems had
been perfected. Now communism and socialism around the
world have failed or are in retreat.
What does the Liberal Government of Canada do? It pushes
state efforts to achieve equality of income by applying it to the
civil service. In addition, the recent Liberal recommendations to
the finance minister in the report of the Standing Committee on
Finance bragged about the fact that if adopted they will further
equalize income. Have the Liberals learned nothing from
history?
Let me now discuss briefly the sense in which the proposed
legislation is basically unjust. Using the course of power of the
state to help one group of disadvantaged individuals
automatically discriminates against others and deprives them of
their rights and freedoms without due process.
These groups are paying a discriminatory tax and are
implicitly declared guilty of discrimination. Reform sees no
justice in forcing young people belonging to one group to pay
today for discrimination that may or may not have taken place in
the past.
9009
By the same token, where is the justice in giving members of
minority groups alive today benefits in return for injustices real
or imagined suffered by past members of this group?
Let me close by reminding members of the slippery slope on
which we find ourselves. In one of his novels, Kurt Vonnegut
describes a world in which state created equality of outcome was
perfected.
D (1535)
It had moved from assuring pay equity to equity in looks and
sports. In Vonnegut's brave new world, good looking people had
to wear glasses and other devices to assure equality of looks
with those disadvantaged by nature.
Gifted athletes were made to wear heavy weights to assure
that they were able to jump no higher and run no faster than the
rest. In the end, the hero of the story discards the starting post
equalization devices and enjoyed his life to the fullest for a short
time until he entered jail for the rest of his life.
Whenever it is impossible to make a strong intellectual case
against the government policy like pay employment equity the
question arises why governments persist with such policy.
Public choice theory of government provides the answer.
Such legislation serves the interests of politicians and parties.
Identifiable groups are given benefits and they are expected to
reward the donors at the ballot box and with financial support.
The cost of the legislation in terms of lost freedoms,
discrimination against the innocent and reduced output are
difficult to measure.
As a result the victims of the policy have little or no
incentives and knowledge to punish the politicians who have
imposed those costs on them. Such special interest group
legislation slowly and exorbitantly lowers the income of
Canadians and most tragically deprives them of their freedom.
Bill C-64 and similar legislated pay and employment equity
reduce the welfare of Canadians. That is why Reform opposes it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
During the ringing of the bells:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, I have been requested by the chief government whip to
defer the division until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division on
the question now before the House stands deferred until later
this day at 5.30 p.m. at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved that the amendments made by
the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Criminal Code and
other acts (miscellaneous matters) be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like say a few words about Bill
C-42.
[English]
The other place has now amended the bill in two respects but
has otherwise passed it. I should add it has also made minor
changes to certain parts of the French language version.
D (1540)
The two important changes which arise from the work of the
other place should be mentioned briefly. Clauses 61 and 62 have
been deleted. Clause 61 would have replaced section 604 of the
Criminal Code. It would have prohibited the defence from
publicizing information received from the prosecution in the
fulfilment of the crown's disclosure obligations.
The limited purpose of the amendment was to ensure that this
information would only be used to prepare the answer and
defence in the courtroom.
The committee of the Senate felt that a number of related
issues should be dealt with at the same time. I am able to tell the
House that is going to be possible because the government is
now looking at the prospect of codifying disclosure
requirements arising from the Supreme Court of Canada
judgment in Finchcomb as part of our work toward the reform of
the preliminary inquiry and criminal procedure generally.
We agree with having clause 61 removed from the bill. Now it
can be dealt with in the context of the broader treatment of
9010
disclosure and we accept that change for the very good reasons
given by our colleagues in the other place.
The second clause deleted is clause 62. That would have
amended section 648 of the Criminal Code to restrict publicity
about certain jury trial proceedings that occur before the jury is
empanelled.
It was the intention of the government in putting this clause in
the bill to fill a gap which has existed for some time and to
provide for orders banning publication in those cases in which
pretrial motions concerning the admissibility of certain
evidence were heard in courtrooms before the jury was actually
sworn in.
The publication of such pretrial motions, particularly as they
relate to evidence that might eventually be heard, might
contaminate members of a prospective jury panel, might give
them impressions or information about the evidence which
would make it more difficult or impossible for them to serve
impartially.
It was pointed out by the committee of the Senate which
considered this clause that the language which the government
used to achieve that purpose might be overbroad. It might be
mandatory where permissive language might be preferable. In
any event the provision, however worded, should permit the
publication of matters other than those which might sway a jury
if they were made public before the panel was sworn in.
We are happy to have that clause removed as well. We will
consider it and try to meet the legitimate concerns that have
been expressed. We will try to improve it and bring it forward at
another time.
The government is indebted to the other place for its
characteristically careful work, particularly the detailed
analysis done in a very constructive way by the committee of the
Senate. We are grateful if its work will result in an improved
bill, a better law for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I will be the only member to speak on behalf of the
Official Opposition on Senate amendments to Bill C-42, an act
to amend the Criminal Code and other acts. As far as we are
concerned, we, the voice of democracy, have already made
ourselves heard when the bill was read the third time and passed
in this House, on October 4, 1994.
If I rise today, it is to denounce the amendment process used
by the other chamber of this Parliament. The Standing
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of that
institution tabled its recommendations on December 12. The
committee suggested that some amendments be made. The
spokesperson of this committee of the other place complained
about the Criminal Code review process as well as that used for
Bill C-42.
D (1545)
In his view, it would be highly desirable in the future that such
bills be submitted to the other place first. He says that the other
place has proven itself in that area.
The Bloc Quebecois has always been openly opposed to the
existence of an institution like the other chamber of this
Parliament. Let me tell you why.
The primary function of the other chamber of this Parliament
should be akin to a consideration and review process to put the
brakes on the House of Commons. The role of this institution is
supposed to be to counterbalance the parliamentary executive.
The Fathers of Confederation gave the other place the means to
act as a federal chamber looking after the rights of the
provinces, the rights of the regions, and to guarantee their
participation in the federal legislative process.
We are forced to recognize that such is not the case however.
The inherent goals of this institution of the Parliament of
Canada have been replaced with less noble and less democratic
goals, such as thanking friends of the regime and representing a
handful of groups with interests often less than compatible with
those of a true democracy. The elitism prevailing in this
obsolete institution is not reconcilable with democratic activity.
We, the Official Opposition, think that it is up to the elected
representatives of the people of Quebec and Canada in this
House to pass or reject the legislation introduced by the
government.
Therefore, we are not interested in giving consideration to the
amendments suggested by the members of the other place. The
amendments proposed by the house of partisan appointments in
regard to this bill clearly demonstrate the uselessness and the
waste of time, energy and money generated by the activities of
the members of the other place.
Notwithstanding the respect we may have for some members
of the other place, the fact remains that their work can often
amount to mere stylistic or cosmetic changes. We see the
legislative role of the other chamber as unacceptable overlap,
especially in these times when we have to put public finances in
order.
Is it justifiable to spend $26,952,000 a year so that the other
place can tell us that a bill we have just passed, on which all
democratically elected members of this House voted, needs
cosmetic or stylistic changes?
Allow me to quote a short passage from a speech delivered on
June 8 by my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe: ``The Bloc has
always spoken out against the existence of a Senate, and I would
like to demonstrate that this institution is, in our opinion, as
archaic as it is useless. This institution is nothing more than an
excuse for the government to reward its friends, be they Liberal
or Tory, who will then work-in true partisan fashion-for the
government or for the interests they represent''.
9011
No, we do not need the other chamber. Given the current lack
of constitutional progress, I understand how some members of
the other place, with pensions and perhaps a passion for passive
political life, would want to justify their salaries. But all this
only adds to a system which is already too heavy and costly.
Furthermore, this does not enhance in any way the process to
consult on and pass a bill already approved by all members of
this House.
Let us have a quick look at the proposed changes. There are
six amendments, including two technical changes and two
somewhat questionable stylistic changes. The last two
amendments suggest that the members of the other place did not
understand the purpose of Bill C-42, since their amendments
deal with protecting the right to a fair and equitable trial and
with the obsolescence of a current provision in the Criminal
Code.
D (1550)
As you can understand, we refuse to give any consideration to
the amendments proposed by the other place, since it does not
represent anyone, has no mandate from the population and is to
all intents and purposes a mere patronage nest or, if you prefer, a
haven of recognition, pure and simple.
We will therefore vote against the amendments proposed by
the other place, since they are, in our opinion, cosmetic in nature
and questionable and come from an institution without
legitimacy in the eyes of the Bloc Quebecois, the official
opposition. I am sure that the vast majority of Quebecers will
support our position on this.
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak again on Bill C-42,
although I did not expect to be doing so when I last spoke on this
legislation on October 4. At that time the Reform Party agreed
with the majority of the bill the way it stood and therefore
proceeded to committee of the whole and quick passage through
the House of Commons. We had one clear objection at that time
but it now appears the House of sober second thought has had
some other ideas about the bill.
The amendments deal with the French version of the text and
are apparently only housekeeping items that I am sure better
clarify the meaning of the text. The amendments of concern are
those to clauses 61 and 62. Clippings of newspapers were filled
with editorials and columns urging the Senate to reject these two
clauses of the bill. Apparently the Senate listened well and
proceeded to send the bill back to the House with those two
deletions. Here we see the power of the media at work.
I am not going to criticize the Senate for sending the bill back
with amendments. That is what it is supposed to do. However, I
am sure the Senate could have made other more important
amendments that would have strengthened the legislation.
Clause 28(3) of the bill states: ``Everyone who commits
mischief in relation to property that is a testamentary instrument
or the value of which exceeds five thousand dollars''. The bill
would replace the word ``one'' with the word ``five''. Why did
the Senate not bring forward an amendment to this part of the
bill? The reason is clear. The bleeding hearts think this would be
too cruel, too onerous. They did not think twice on this one.
In 1954 the dollar indicator for theft over, theft under was
$50. The next time this clause was changed was in 1975 when it
became $200. The law as we know it today was amended in 1985
to $1,000. The punishment for theft over is an indictable offence
and liable for imprisonment up to 10 years. For anything under
$1,000 the punishment is usually a summary conviction with
minor consequences available.
The government must realize that when it brings forth
amendments it will set a precedent on amendments in the future.
This government does not think logically. Neither does it
consider the past nor the future.
Property crimes in Canada historically account for
approximately two-thirds of all Criminal Code offences. In fact
in 1990 thefts over and under $1,000 comprised over two-thirds
of all property crimes reported to police.
The area of concern is theft over. From 1986, one year
following the dollar cut off being raised to $1,000 until 1992,
theft over had increased by 9 per cent. I am sure the government
at the time felt that raising the rate from $200 to $1,000 would
help curb the property crime rates.
Now today with Bill C-42 the government hopes that by
raising the limit from $1,000 to $5,000 this increase will help
curb property crime rates in 1995 and beyond. The government
should take a careful look back at history and see how things
failed before charging ahead with an idea that it only hopes will
work for the best. In my opinion the government should keep the
dollar amount at $1,000. Getting softer with criminals is not
going to reduce the crime rate. It will perhaps only increase it.
Bill C-42 was first read on June 15, 1994. The member for
London West spoke on October 4, with a speech that perhaps
could have been prepared by one of the minister's staff. In that
speech she said: ``It is important that the rights of accused
persons to a fair trial before an impartial jury not be
compromised by premature publicity of information which may
or may not be relevant in admissible evidence''.
The hon. member went on to say: ``The rights of witnesses and
victims also require protection from the needless public
disclosure of personal information. A prohibition would be
created to ensure that sensitive material disclosed to the accused
for the purposes of making a full answer in defence is not made
public for that purpose. This will serve to maintain the balance
of interests between the right of the accused to a full answer in a
9012
defence and the confidence the public needs to encourage
co-operation in criminal investigations and prosecutions''.
D (1555)
The member in her speech stressed that this provision would
protect the rights of the witnesses and the victims from needless
public disclosure of personal information.
If the member for London West agrees with the justice
minister that these two amendments are necessary, that would
mean she believes that without this provision in Bill C-42 the
rights of witnesses and victims will not be protected because
this is exactly what she implied in her speech. Will she come
forward and back up the words she spoke in this House on
October 4? Not in a million years.
The minister clearly liked the bill or he would not have
endorsed it. Now he is endorsing a major change to the bill. Was
he influenced by the Supreme Court, his colleagues in the
Senate, or was it the backbenchers of the Liberal caucus? Will
these groups be factors in other bills, say perhaps in Bill C-41
which is also raising its fair share of controversy?
We are in support of the amendments that have come back
from the Senate. However, we are simply frustrated that there
were not more changes to other important parts of the bill,
namely the theft over clause. Reformers want a more open
system of the courts and of government. Do the Liberals?
The public and the media have been screaming to open the
courts for all to see and know. Perhaps it is for inquiring minds
and perhaps it is for future safety. Reformers look at it for safety
and the principle of general deterrence. That is why we
recommended for the disclosure of names of young offenders,
simply for the good of public safety.
Canadians apparently have been calling for a lift on
publication bans and the Liberals listened for now. Good for
them for listening. Canadians have definitely called in a louder
voice for the names of young offenders to be released, but the
Liberals' ears all of a sudden go deaf. Something is definitely
wrong.
The minister can stand before this House today and say he is
in support of the amendments which come from the Senate but
look for future alterations to this same section of the Criminal
Code. The minister has said he will try again with these limits.
The Liberal member for London West clearly spelled it out in
her speech: ``Historically this bill and ones like it were
introduced on a regular basis. However the last such bill was
introduced in 1985. The Minister of Justice intends to return to
the previous pattern. He anticipates bringing forward a second
bill of this nature once Parliament has dealt with this one''. Need
I say more?
The chamber of sober second thought did not have enough
second thought about what the public wants in view of the
demarcation of theft over and theft under. Alternately, deleting
clauses 61 and 62 leans toward more openness and disclosure in
the courtroom. The top court of the land has said that freedom of
the press and the public's right to know what goes on in court
should be accorded equal weight with the constitutional right to
a fair trial. The public must be vigilant for systems and
bureaucracies have a tendency over time to become insular and
self-serving, thereby more closed to its operations to not submit
to public scrutiny.
We have heard from the other place. They apparently are
awake over there. If however the system or this government has
failed in respect to the measure of theft over and theft under in
the definition, then I call on the government not to proclaim this
specific section until broader public support can be
demonstrated for it. It is my reading of the public mood that the
theft over line is going in the wrong direction.
We are in support of the amendments that are before this
House today dealing with Bill C-42. I think I have clearly gone
on record to state the dissatisfaction we have with the
performance of the Senate and the lack of amendments it
produced.
Bill C-42 is a housekeeping bill. The minister is accepting a
change from the other place. May he also heed what I am saying
today for the Canadian public is also listening.
Mr. Rock: I am grateful for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker. I
just want to comment on one aspect of the hon. member's
statement concerning these amendments to the bill.
As I understood the hon. member he referred to the change in
the value of property involved in crime in an effort to influence
the incidence of crime reporting or the crime rates. Perhaps I did
not understand the hon. member's point. I apologize if I have it
imprecisely but let me just tell the House lest there be any doubt
what our rationale was as a government for proposing that
change.
D (1600)
The dollar amount of property involved in such crime is the
demarcation point for determining where the trial of such
charges occurs. At and below that amount the trial of such
charges occurs in the provincial court and within the jurisdiction
of a provincial court judge. By increasing the amount we have
increased the number of cases that will be tried in that court,
without the necessity for the more elaborate procedures of
preliminary inquiry and the prospect of a trial by judge and jury.
The change is intended to reflect agreement on the part of
participants in the criminal justice system-the provinces that
administer the system, the prosecutors, the defence lawyers and
government federally that writes the criminal law-that we
should encourage the disposition of as many of these cases as
9013
possible in the least expensive and most summary locale, which
is the provincial court.
It has nothing to do with crime rates, nothing to do with
percentages, but everything to do with the more efficient
administration of justice and always in keeping with the right to
a fair trial and disposition. I am grateful for the opportunity to
clarify the matter.
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, the change for theft under or over
also is a significant change to the available consequences. On
the principle of stare decisis the justice minister knows that
there is a going tariff for theft under. This is certainly going to
change. For the public to get hold of the idea that the common
tariff or consequence for theft under is now going to include
property up to $5,000 is quite a considerable shock. When I
mentioned this recently to some policemen on the street as I was
riding with them on their shift they could not believe what
Parliament was doing.
I ask the minister to perhaps consult further with the people at
the line level and delay the proclamation of this amount.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-52, an act
to establish the Department of Public Works and Government
Services and to amend and repeal certain acts, as reported by the
Standing Committee on Government Operations (with
amendments) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is a ruling by the
Speaker on Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of
Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal
certain acts.
[Translation]
There are 11 motions in amendment on the Order Paper for the
report stage of Bill C-52, an Act to establish the Department of
Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal
certain Acts.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate but voted on
as follows: an affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 obviates the
necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 3. However, a
negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates the question being
put on Motion No. 3.
[English]
Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 will be grouped for debate but
voted on as follows. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 4
obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos.
5, 6 and 7. On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 4
necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 5.
D (1605)
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 obviates the necessity of
the question being put on Motions Nos. 6 and 7. On the other
hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 5 necessitates the question
being put on Motion No. 6.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 6 obviates the necessity of
the question being put on Motion No. 7. On the other hand, a
negative vote on Motion No. 6 necessitates the question being
put on Motion No. 7.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 8 and 9 will be grouped for debate but voted on
separately.
[English]
Motions Nos. 10 and 11 will be grouped for debate. A vote on
Motion No. 10 applies to Motion No. 11.
[Translation]
I will now call Motion No. 1.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-52, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 20, on page 3,
the following:
9014
``(a) refrain, where possible, from engaging in activities for or on behalf of any
government, body or person in Canada or elsewhere that are in direct competition
with private corporations, firms or organizations;
(b) ensure, where possible, that public disclosure of decisions and other
information is complete and easily accessible;
(c) ensure that the Queen's Printer for Canada is operated efficiently and
competently, maintaining as a priority the effective use of tax dollars;
(d) ensure that the reduction of all costs remains a high priority in the
operations of the Department;''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I begin my little speech about the
motion to amend by saying that it has been a very frustrating
experience to go through Bill C-52.
We are told it is a routine bill, one that has as its purpose to
simply bring together a few departments into one. Actually it is
an action that was done by the previous government and is now
being rubber stamped by this one.
While we were told in committee to hurry, hurry, hurry and
were not even allowed to listen to witnesses in some cases
because we were in such a hurry, the message was obviously
hurry up and wait. That was over a month ago. The bill has been
on the Order Paper four times and now finally we are here.
I want to speak to the motion in amendment. First, this motion
to amend standing alone is not very meaningful. We have to start
by listening to the first part of clause 7 which states:
In exercising the powers or performing the duties or functions assigned to the
Minister under this or any other Act of Parliament, the Minister shall
We are now suggesting that some four clauses be inserted on
things the minister shall do. I must speak briefly about the
process. In my little more than one year as a member of
Parliament I have discovered that as government backbenchers
or opposition members the only way we have any hope of
changing anything is to persuade the minister to give the
instruction that it should be changed.
However it is very difficult to persuade the minister if the
minister will not hear. The only way to get the minister to hear is
perhaps if we could ask Liberal members who are listening to
hear the quality of the argument, to assess it and then to decide
that perhaps these are well founded amendments that should be
supported. If those members will then twist the arm of the
minister so that he will give instructions on how the party will
vote, the amendment will pass. If he does not do that then I speak
here in vain.
D (1610)
Here are the arguments. The first paragraph states: ``refrain,
where possible, from engaging in activities in direct
competition with private corporations''. I want members of the
House to know that my party and I have received a number of
representations from individuals, groups and small businesses
with grave concerns about the government entering into
competition.
There is one kind of competition we welcome in terms of
government. If an arm of the government has to compete with
private enterprise where private enterprise has shown that it can
do things more efficiently, we think the taxpayer gets the best
break if the private organization will do the work at a lower cost
to taxpayers. Very often when government gets into a position of
competing with private enterprise it has a totally unfair
monopolistic advantage.
The reason we are supporting this group of four amendments
is that we want to ensure that business thrives and indeed
survives. At least 80 per cent of the economic activity of the
country is derived from small business. To ask these businesses
to pay taxes that are used to provide financial backing to the
government firm or the government agency to compete and
undercut prices is a violation of a fundamental principle of
justice and the principle of what is right.
Some may wonder about the wording because we have said:
``refrain, where possible''. It is because I am a bit of a realist and
somewhat pragmatic. I realize the probability of the motion
being passed would essentially disappear totally if we made the
motion hard and effective the way it ought to be.
We want at least to insert into the bill the requirement that the
minister ``refrain, where possible''. I do not know how he could
determine this. There would be times when he would say it is not
possible. I suppose that would be subject to debate and perhaps
even a court investigation to see whether he was living up to the
terms of this clause in the bill. The important point is that the
minister would be given the directive to stay out of competing
with private enterprise.
The second paragraph indicates that the minister is to
``ensure, where possible, that public disclosure of decisions and
other information is complete and easily accessible''. One
problem with the way government does business is in the area of
questioning backroom deals. If we accept the integrity of the
Liberal government, it has said in its campaign literature and
has kept on saying that it wants honesty, openness and integrity.
It would provide the minister with the ability to provide
openness according to the standards of the governing party,
according to its words. We are saying ``ensure, where possible''
so that it does not come in so hard that they say they are going to
throw out the amendment of this renegade third party guy.
D (1615 )
We want them to consider it seriously. That is why it has this
little softening phrase.
The third motion is that the minister shall ensure that the
Queen's Printer for Canada is operated efficiently and compe-
9015
tently, maintaining as a priority the effective use of tax dollars.
This is the missing ingredient in Bill C-52.
The overriding concern of Canadians from sea to sea is that
we are not being responsible with their tax dollars. We need to
build into legislation the necessity of being frugal, of saving
money, of cutting expenses, of balancing the budget, getting rid
of the deficit.
Canadians are demanding this. One way of achieving it is to
require the ministers to actually maintain as a priority the
efficient use of taxpayers' dollars in performing these services.
In the last several days we have received the report of the
committee that was studying the Canada Communication
Group. I am intrigued in reading that report to find that this
independent review committee has suggested very strongly that
Canada Communication Group, which as most people know
does all the printing for the government, among other things,
should be privatized. It should be sold to private interests so that
when government has a contract to let, everybody out there is on
an equal playing field. It is critical that we listen to that report.
This motion aids that.
The fourth subgroup in Motion No. 1 is that the minister shall
ensure that the reduction of all costs remains a high priority in
the operations of the department.
In other words, this amendment would require that the
minister pay some attention to the reduction of costs. We in the
public works and government operations committee could then
ask him to be accountable when he comes before the committee.
We could say to the minister: Mr. Minister, how did you
express cost cutting efficiency as a high priority? From minister
to minister we can insist that there be measures taken to be
totally efficient.
In conclusion, the four points in the motion, if given careful
thought, are very reasonable. I urge all members to support these
amendments, not because I have asked them to, although
obviously I agree or I would not have proposed the motion. I do
not urge them to support them because the Reform Party
supports them. If they did so, partisanship would enter and they
would automatically oppose the motion. I urge those members
to consider supporting this motion strictly and totally because it
best represents the needs and the aspirations of Canadians who
are footing the bill.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like for a few moments to add a few thoughts to
the debate.
Much of what I would add has been said in the previous
readings of the bill. However I would like to illustrate
something that has been brought to my attention by a number of
very interested parties and that is the desire of the federal
government to begin to compete with private enterprise at the
very time it is ostensibly getting out of business or privatizing.
The illustrations that I would use today will probably deal
most directly with the post office but I would also like to bring in
the example of Canada Mortgage and Housing and its appraisal
process. I would also like to speak briefly about the impact of
the bill and the ability that it gives the minister to compete in the
private sector with the engineering fraternity.
D (1620 )
Ostensibly the bill is a routine housekeeping bill that has the
effect of consolidating the department. When we are
considering the intrusion of the federal government into private
enterprise or into areas that could be better served by private
enterprise, we have to keep in mind that the government brings
an enormous weight and an enormous amount of sway to the
table whenever it decides it is going to get into a business.
Before I entered the political realm I was in the photo
finishing business. I can remember being absolutely appalled
when some years ago the post office was trying desperately to
recoup some of its losses. The thought perhaps never occurred to
the post office that one of the ways it could increase the use of its
product was to provide a faster, better and more efficient
service. It decided it was going to expand its product line. I
believe it was Consumers Distributing products that were going
to become available in post offices.
There I was, a small businessman, paying taxes to support the
post office and finding myself in a position where I would be
competing with the post office. Fortunately this did not come to
pass.
Recently it was brought to my attention, and I am sure to the
attention of other hon. members present, that the post office
once again, as it was privatizing and becoming a crown
corporation, was trying to increase its revenue rather than trying
to decrease its expenses. It had announced a 2 cent price increase
in the cost of a stamp. The post office had made, I think, a $26
million profit that year.
The post office was increasing the price of a stamp because it
had to have more money. However, there were many sceptics
who thought that perhaps the reason it was going to increase the
first class postage rate was because it wanted to cross-subsidize
and get into other businesses.
The post office started with a tremendous advantage as a
crown corporation. It had a distribution network coast to coast.
Imagine the situation, if you will, of someone being in the
instant printing business, as has happened right here in Ottawa.
They wake up one day, open their mail delivered to them through
the post office, because of course the post office has a monopoly
on the delivery of first class mail, and it is a survey from Canada
9016
Post saying that it wants to be in a position to better serve its
customers.
What is it going to do, folks? It is going to offer services such
as typesetting, small run instant printing, the kinds of things that
as one comes to the post office it would be kind of convenient to
have right there. The trouble is the world does not need another
instant printer. Instant printers are all over the place and they
have, by and large, got themselves into business at their own
expense.
Now they find themselves in a situation where they are
competing directly with a crown corporation that has a
monopoly on first class postage and can raise prices so it can
compete with the private sector.
Another instance that has come to my attention concerning
the post office has to do with it purchasing a courier company, I
believe it was Purolator, and then going into competition with
other people in the courier business. If the post office feels that
it has the right, the purview and the privilege of going into
competition with existing businesses, then should not existing
businesses and other courier companies have the same right to
go into competition with Canada Post? If Canada Post can
compete with small business why then can business not compete
with Canada Post?
It would be absolutely reasonable and fair that if Canada Post
intends to continue down this path, it should find itself
competing for the first class postage delivery.
D (1625 )
If the post office finds itself in competition when delivering
first class mail, what will happen? I bet the mail will be
delivered faster. I bet it will be delivered on Saturday and I
wager it will be delivered for less. Usually when there is
competition the consumer benefits.
Now we have the reverse situation where a crown corporation
with a monopoly on the delivery of first class mail is able to use
the profit generated by the monopoly situation to
cross-subsidize its ambit into other areas of business.
I submit to hon. members this is not right. It is not fair and it is
counterproductive to the notion of free enterprise and
privatization which is absolutely essential as our country moves
down the path toward becoming self-sufficient and not
becoming a sinkhole for taxpayers' money.
The third example I would like to raise is the question-this is
part of the broader, more general intrusion of government into
business-of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and
the practice of agents who work for Canada Mortgage and
Housing to do appraisals on real estate in competition with the
many competent people in private business who are licensed to
provide that service.
Does this not have the potential for conflict of interest? An
employee of Canada Mortgage and Housing is going out and
doing an appraisal on a property that would be financed by
Canada Mortgage and Housing. Is that not the same kind of one
hand feeding the other dealsmanship that got us into a problem
in some of the other financial institutions? Would it not be better
if Canada Mortgage and Housing were required to have third
party appraisals?
I suggest this kind of creeping intrusion of crown
corporations into the sphere of private enterprise is not only
counterproductive, but it is unhealthy for our economy because
it does not bring in the discipline of the marketplace.
The last and final example I would like to bring to the
attention of the House is that Bill C-52, at least according to the
Canadian Association of Professional Engineers, would give the
public service the mandate, the free rein, to set up in
competition with professional engineers. As a matter of fact
``the bill's loose wording gives complete power to bureaucrats.
The sections read that the minister may incur expenditures or
perform or have performed services or work in relation to any
federal real property, or any other non-crown property with the
consent of its owners''.
As the government devolves from the sphere of private
enterprise as we are wont and forced to do, in my opinion it
would be a very good precedent for this Parliament to set to say
that if private enterprise has the ability and the desire to compete
in any sphere, then the government through a crown corporation
or directly will not compete as a matter of principle.
I would ask that hon. members present give thought to these
concerns and whenever the opportunity arises, to give private
enterprise the advantage over public enterprise.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak on Bill C-52 and to support the Reform
Party's motion because it is an improvement on the bill tabled by
the government.
Unfortunately, Bill C-52 lacks vision and backbone. This bill
in no way improves the government's regulations. It is so bad
that some clauses and provisions in this bill are regressive. It is
going backwards-the Liberals and this government are going
backwards.
D (1630)
This bill makes changes which are bad for private enterprise
or do not improve openness or access to information. You know
as well as I do that if there is a department where patronage,
favoritism and unfairness are rampant, that is wasteful and
contributes to the government's deficit, it is Public Works.
9017
I admit, anyone who reviews Bill C-52 will know the impact
it can have on the operation of the Department of Public Works
and Government Services. Anyone can see how important it is to
improve the operation of this department. It would have been
easy for the minister to suggest changes to the acts governing
these departments, Public Works and Government Services, for
instance, to introduce as a code of ethics to regulate contracting
out, which is increasing and almost out of control in the federal
government.
The minister could also have given officials the power to
disclose information, he could have empowered officials in his
department and given them the chance to blow the whistle on
mismanagement and government waste. Or the minister could
have suggested amendments that would have given the public
and members of this House better and easier access to
information so that this department and this government avoid
waste, thus reducing the deficit.
But no. This is a very lacklustre bill that contains nothing new
and was introduced by a minister who seems near-sighted, and
that is very worrisome. I wonder if this reflects the spirit of the
government. The minister introduced a bill that does not
improve in any way an old act containing provisions which
hinder its efficiency. It is worrisome to have someone at the
helm who is near-sighted.
As the Reform Party member mentioned earlier, the debate in
committee on Bill C-52 was illogical, if not insane. We made
very good suggestions to improve this legislation, but the
Liberal members refused to listen, or else they were unable to
grasp the underlying logic. Perhaps they have less brains than
their own minister, who is already pretty blind. We got the
distinct impression that they were only interested in having this
legislation passed as quickly as possible, without any
amendment.
They refused to let the committee hear witnesses on
amendments to some clauses of the bill which have a very
serious impact on the operations of the department, and which
involve the right of the government to interfere in the private
sector, particularly in the consulting-engineer sector.
D (1635)
This legislation is very poor; it contains nothing new and it
reflects a total lack of imagination. This is why we will support
the Reform Party motion, not because it is the best possible one.
Paragraph (c) reads: ``ensure that the Queen's Printer for Canada
is operated efficiently and competently-'', while paragraph (d)
says: ``ensure that the reduction of all costs remains a high
priority-''. These are pious wishes which carry no legal
weight. Nevertheless, we are prepared to support this motion,
although it has no real impact on the Department of Public
Works.
However, paragraphs (a) and (b) are a definite improvement
over the existing bill. In the case of (b), the Department of
Public Works is encouraged to open the door to information, to
reveal more information to the private sector or the general
public on the way contracts are awarded, and to improve access
to information, which is now extremely difficult to obtain. As I
said before, it is an improvement. The department and the
Liberal government must provide access to information,
especially on the process of awarding contracts.
I think the Reform Party's motion is an improvement, but it is
flawed because of the words: ``where possible''. There is no
legal obligation on the government to disclose information if the
motion is worded this way. My point is that the words ``where
possible'' open the door to all kinds of abuse and arguments
preventing access to information, preventing the government
from disclosing information on contracts or even members of
Parliament from having access to such information when
contracts are awarded in their own riding. This is not
satisfactory.
We run into the same problem in paragraph (a) of the motion,
which deals with a matter that is even more serious, coming
from the Department of Public Works. A Reform Party member
already mentioned the problem about opening the door to
competition between the federal government and the private
sector. Paragraph (a) of motion No. 1 tries to prevent the
government from competing with the private sector. But again,
``where possible''. These words open the door to all kinds of
abuse. The fact is that basically, the Department of Public Works
should not have the right to compete with the private sector.
We are talking about a substantial part of this bill. This is a
new power the Minister of Public Works has acquired. It is very
skilfully done, by the way, because clause 5 is already an
introduction to this new power and clause 10 as well, and of
course clause 16, which we will have a chance to discuss later
on.
For the first time in the history of the Government of Canada,
we have a proposal that the federal government should compete
directly with private businesses, especially engineering firms
which, incidentally, are well established in Quebec. Several
members in this House, including Liberal members, I am sure,
have received representations from SNC Lavalin, HBA, Tecsult,
and more than 100 companies altogether that are concerned
about the unfair competition in which the federal government is
about to engage through Bill C-52. So although this Reform
Party motion does not go far enough, we on the Bloc side still
think it is a definite improvement over the bill as it stands.
D (1640)
In concluding, the Bloc will try to amend this good motion
from the Reform Party. I therefore move, seconded by the hon.
member for Charlevoix:
9018
That Motion No. 1, in paragraphs (a) and (b), be amended by deleting the words ``,
where possible,''
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The amendment is in
order.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
make a few comments on what has been said, and then I will
highlight the key points with respect to this motion.
[English]
The first colleague who addressed this bill called it a routine
bill, which it is. It is an important bill but a routine bill.
Members have complicated it. Either they have not
understood it and therefore by virtue of that it has been
complicated for them or they have understood it and by virtue of
that they have tried to take advantage of it for political reasons.
We talk about not having been able to get witnesses. Of course
we had witnesses but there comes a time when we have to stop
meeting. Are we going to wait for the whole of Canada to come
forward? We know that many of the witnesses had absolutely
nothing to do, the witnesses they wanted, with clarifying the
elements.
[Translation]
And the only reason was petty politics, an attempt to embarrass
the government, pure and simple.
[English]
My colleague refers to backroom deals. What backroom
deals? If he knows of a backroom deal put it on the table. He
should not suggest that members of government have been
dishonest. Either put up or be quiet. It is inappropriate behaviour
for any member to be suggesting that someone else has been
dishonest. Either he has proof or he does not. Do not slur the
reputation of colleagues. That is not the way a parliamentarian is
supposed to act.
He refers to the question of desire to compete. I have any
number of quotes I can bring forward by reputable Canadian
organizations, some of them from the province of Quebec, that
indicate quite clearly that they do not see this as the
government's intent to try to compete.
We are trying to get the best deal when we are dealing with
other governments for Canadians. That is what we are trying to
do. We are trying to respond to the private sector if it asks us to
respond to assist it. I would be delighted to share some of those
in the process of this particular debate.
The second speaker referred to Canada Post and CMHC, I
guess the point being that government is becoming increasingly
involved with the private sector. I hope it was not suggested that
Canada Post and CMHC are somehow involved with this
legislation. I want to make it perfectly clear they are not. I would
dispute the claims being made with respect to government
competing with the private sector in those instances as well.
I want to point out very quickly that one of the weaknesses of
the particular motion, and it has been addressed in part, is where
possible what would happen if this were to go through?
D (1645)
The opposition would always say it was possible and we did
not do it. All of us thought we would be debating in the House of
Commons the interpretation of where possible is. On that very
basis it has to be set aside.
[Translation]
As I said earlier, I do not wish to accuse all the members of the
Bloc of engaging in petty politics. But the one who just spoke
made accusations of patronage, without any proof, of
favouritism, without proof, and waste, also without proof. It is
very easy to make such accusations in the House of Commons
and not back them up. This is unfortunate, most unfortunate.
He said that the minister lacks vision. This is insulting!
Because he does not understand the bill, he blames the minister.
Because the bill has limited scope, he accuses the minister of
lacking vision. This is too bad. He says that the Liberal members
are deaf and blind. How insulting to those people who are so
afflicted! That is what he said, Mr. Speaker. Now, I suppose he
will deny it. In the House of Commons, he can say anything he
wants, without proof. He likes to hear himself speak. How very
unfortunate!
To top off everything he has done and said, he criticized the
motion and then went on to say that he will support it. What a
contradiction!
[English]
I simply wanted to mention that I have been very patient in
this first round. Not all of the comments have been terribly
relevant but in the second round I shall try to make awfully
certain that I bring to members' collective attention any
comments that are off topic.
I have a few more comments to make and I shall be brief. I
know that my colleagues are anxious to get on to other
palpitating clauses and motions as I am. With regard to the
motion that was made, the amendments proposed by my
colleague from Elk Island are already addressed in clause
7(1)(a) as amended by the committee.
I want to read that clause and make awfully sure that I do not
mislead anyone. Clause 7 has already been amended at
committee and the words ``and for enhancing the integrity and
efficiency and the contrasting process'' were added to the
clause.
9019
With respect to competition, one of the issues, we have
already addressed this at great length in committee and we will
be talking about it some more. This is the debate. This is it. We
are in disagreement.
[Translation]
We are not in agreement. That is fine, no problem. Do you
want me to produce my 1,000 witnesses? You will produce a
thousand more, and then we will decide who makes the most
sense. Well, I think that sometimes you have to pause and start
afresh.
[English]
On public disclosure, members know as well as I that the
minister has offered to the members of this House the open
bidding system, the government business opportunities
publication. He has provided guidelines for advertising and
public research by the government.
This minister and this government have been open and
transparent. Those members have not been able to get the
figures when they wanted them in terms of what they wanted
even though those have not been available, and so they choose to
attack the government and pretend that it was less than up front.
With regard to the Queen's Printer we want what the member
wants but we want it for all of the government's operations, that
is, being efficient and cost effective. The Queen's Printer has
had a long and proud history providing government and
advancing the printing industry. When there was a problem in
that sector, the minister moved forward boldly and corrected the
situation.
With respect to efficiency and savings they suggest 4,000
people, a billion dollars saved by the year 2005. I guess when
you say that you really do not care very much about the 4,000
families that are going to be affected or you do not understand
how much a billion dollars is-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I hesitate to interrupt any
member at any time but occasionally the Chair tries to remind
all of us to come through the Chair and not be direct to one
another across the floor of the House. I ask the member to keep
that in mind.
D (1650 )
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reminder. My
enthusiasm is a result of being upset at my colleague being so
unfair and having exaggerated so much. In the spirit of
Christmas I thought there would have been some gentleness.
[Translation]
I thought there would have been a little kindness, a little
open-mindedness, but obviously they are not yet aware of the
approaching festive season.
[English]
I think I have made the major points. The way it is worded, as I
have indicated, the debate would be whenever it is possible. We
simply cannot do this. We believe it has already been covered.
We believe this government has been open and transparent and
we believe we are going forward in the right direction.
I will limit my remarks at this time. I assure my colleagues
that I am ready for a lot more.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before proceeding on the
debate of Motion No. 1, 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
Saint John-Rail Line Abandonment; the hon. member for
Quebec-Social Program Reform; the hon. member for
Manicouagan-Canada Labour Code; the hon. member for
Vegreville-the Canadian Wheat Board; the hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden-Banks.
Resuming debate on Motion No. 1, keep in mind that
members who have already spoken must wait until we proceed
to the next motion. Members have 10-minute interventions
without questions or comments.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am sure you will
correct me if I am wrong, but do I not have an opportunity now to
speak since there has been an amendment to my motion?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the member for
Elk Island. He has learned very quickly. He is ahead of me. I do
not mind telling the member that yes there has been an
amendment and he can speak again.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have some
statements which are relevant to the amendment. I do not know
if you noticed, but I think I was very close to being on topic
speaking about the four points of my amendment one by one. I
was very careful to do that.
I would like to say a few things partially in rebuttal to the hon.
member from the Liberal Party who just spoke. He indicated
how patient he has been. I suppose if we were to blow up our
chests a little those of us on the other side would say that we too
have tried to exercise patience in trying to work together and I
shall continue to do that. It is not my objective here to merely
fight for the sake of fighting. I want to do what is right and what
is best for the Canadian people.
The member said that there was a time to a stop in these
discussions. I think the record ought to show that we probably
discussed Bill C-52 in committee for 10 hours maximum. That
is my estimate. We heard one witness. That is my recollection of
it. I stand to be corrected if that is wrong.
Second, the member made some statement about backroom
deals. I did not accuse anybody about backroom deals. I said the
perception out there among the people is that governments
engage in backroom deals. Because the Liberal government has
said it wants more openness and honesty and integrity, and
Reformers are also saying this, surely we can agree that we will
9020
do away with any reality of that which may have occurred in the
past. Let me be really charitable in the spirit of Christmas and
say it happened before the Liberals were elected, some of them,
at least to the government side.
We need to do away with not only the reality of it but the
perception of it. The only way to guarantee that the perception is
removed is by actually putting into legislation that there is this
openness.
With respect to the amendment to my motion that says ``where
possible'', I do not know how to say this in such a way that it
does not come out wrong. I am going to try very hard to do that.
The only reason that we inserted these two words in sections (a)
and (b) was the government side. Observing the way discussions
went in our committee and recognizing that if we were to come
with an amendment which would be very hard and which would
say the minister must engage or make sure, refrain from
engaging in activities and so on, we were quite certain that the
Liberal side would have just said nix to it. We softened it
deliberately for them, to give them an opportunity to vote for
this so that the minister has greater flexibility. That is why the
words are there, to say ``where possible''.
D (1655)
I know the hon. member from the Bloc is most sincere and
actually made an amendment to my motion to remove those
words which would have been my first choice. I know they do
not have a chance of getting it passed. Instead of not going
anywhere, I would like to at least move the government a little in
the right direction, and that is why we said ``where possible'.
That is my comment with respect to the amendment that has
been made.
In the spirit of Christmas, if I may quote the hon. member for
St. Boniface, in the spirit of gentleness let us get together on this
and let us vote in favour of the motion but let us leave those
words in so that the Liberals can feel comfortable voting for it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate on the
amendment to Motion No. 1.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
support the amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 1
moved by the hon. member for Québec-Est, to delete the words
``where possible'' and here is why.
First, Bill C-52 provides the government with the opportunity
to amalgamate Public Works Canada, Supply and Services
Canada and the Translation Service. It appears to us that, in the
context of a bill, ``where possible'' is little more than idle talk,
as the hon. member for Québec-Est indicated. Such words also
leave room for interpretation and favouritism.
At the same time, we could expect -I hope it will not be the
case under this government as it was under the previous one-
that this will encourage the granting of contracts to friends of
the regime and leave the door wide open for lobbyists. It is only
natural for lobbyists who attend luncheons at $1,000 a plate
organized by the federal government to be tempted to come and
knock on the doors of Liberal members to get contracts. It has
been done before the Liberals came to power and I would hope
that, in a spirit of openness and transparency, the member will
not object to seeing things change.
Quoting the red book, the Liberal government talked about
transparency during the campaign. There have been several
books and papers since, of course. We have gone from red book
to green paper, from green to purple, from purple to orange,
from orange to grey and we certainly hope that all these will not
result in a black paper.
So, in a spirit of transparency and goodwill in administering
public assets, you, the Liberal government, hold a majority of
seats. If ridicule kills, that is why the Conservative government
no longer exists. And if you continue to be wasteful with respect
to contracting-out and privatization, your days are numbered,
gentlemen.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order! As I said a moment
ago, you are encouraged not to address one another directly
across the floor, but rather through the Chair. It may be more
useful someday.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Speaker, you scared me. I was sure you were
about to say that one day I, the member for Charlevoix, might
occupy the Speaker's chair.
D (1700)
In close co-operation, the member for Québec-Est, the
member for Laurentides, when she was parliamentary critic for
public works and governmental affairs, and myself have shown
that the Bloc Quebecois was very serious when we were hearing
testimony. We took the time to listen to the witnesses and asked
appropriate questions.
In closing, I hope to be able to speak, if time permits, on
clause 16 of this bill, which allows the government to compete
with private engineering firms.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment of the hon. member for Québec-Est. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
9021
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76, a recorded division on the amendment stands
deferred.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate but voted on
as follows: an affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 obviates the
necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 3. On the
other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates the
question being put on Motion No. 3.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-52, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 39 to 45, on page
5, and line 1, on page 6, with the following:
``16. The Minister may do any thing for or on behalf of
(a) any department, board or agency of the Government of Canada or Crown
corporation, or
(b) with the approval of the Governor in Council, any government, body or person in
Canada or elsewhere that requests the Minister to do that thing, where the Minister is
authorized to do that thing under this''.
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-52 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
[
English]
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the
opportunity to put forward an amendment to clause 16. With this
amendment, the requirement for governor in council approval
under clause 16(b) is being proposed. This will allay some of the
concerns that the members in our particular task group on
government operations had. I hope they are going to support this
amendment.
Concerns have been expressed by some members of the
private sector also. For example, the Association of Consulting
Engineers of Canada, which represents 14 per cent of the
consulting engineering community, has expressed reservations
about 16(b) opening the door for public works and government
services to compete with the private sector.
I want to be very clear on this point. The bill does not permit
the department to compete with the private sector. It cannot even
respond to requests for proposals. That is very clear in this.
D (1705 )
The authorities contained in clause 16 are not new. They are
contained in section 13 of the current Department of Supply and
Services Act. This section enables the department to; first, work
with the other levels of government to reduce overlap and
duplication; second, to partner with the private sector when
requested. The introduction of a requirement for an order in
council, as I propose, guarantees a higher level of authority and
accountability. It will ensure that the department only partners
or engages in reduction of duplication with provinces with the
direction from the cabinet. We cannot get a greater safeguard
than that. This is pure accountability.
Currently PWGSC has over 120 active bilateral initiatives for
areas of discussion with provinces and territories in services
ranging from translation, bulk purchasing and co-operative
procurement practices, real property management and shared
accommodation. These are aimed at reducing overlap and
duplication. Hence, savings for taxpayers. This is something
that we promised to do. It is something we all promised to do.
Every single party in the Chamber promised savings for
taxpayers.
If other levels of government approach PWGSC with a view to
co-operating in the provision of cost-effective services related
to any of its 21 service lines, the department should be and must
be in a position to consider such requests in the interest of the
taxpayer. This is consistent with the government's election
commitment to work closely with provincial governments to
reduce duplication and improve service delivery in all areas
where governments are involved.
Mr. Speaker, if you think you have heard that quote before,
well you have. You will find it in the red book at page 23. We
cannot forget that there is only one taxpayer in Canada. We have
a responsibility to work co-operatively to ensure the most
efficient and cost effective delivery of services possible for
Canadian tax dollars.
This is what clause 16 guarantees to all of us as Canadian
taxpayers. Clause 16 of Bill C-52 assists in fostering the spirit
of co-operation and partnership between the government and
the private sector. This is especially important for the small and
medium sized businesses that are currently requesting
partnerships with the government.
As we stated in the red book, the crucial role of the
government is to work with the private sector to identify
strategic opportunities for the future and then to redirect its
existing
9022
resources toward the fulfilment of these opportunities; again, a
quote from the red book, page 44.
We are moving on our campaign goals and our promises. The
government is committed to working with the private sector to
identify strategic opportunities and to redirect our existing
resources toward the fulfilment of all these opportunities when
requested.
The opportunities clause 16 offers for partnerships with the
PWGSC, businesses, particularly small and medium sized
businesses, can lever the federal government, use its experience
and expertise to create and expand new markets, particularly
foreign markets and to create jobs. Private sector jobs, is this not
what we are all about? Is this not why we are here today?
This Liberal government recognizes that when Canadian
businesses prosper abroad Canadians prosper at home. The
government has heard the concerns of the private sector,
including the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada. It
rightly feels that it should not have to compete with government.
At the same time it supports public-private partnership as long
as it is industry led.
I quote the association's president who appeared before us in
committee. He said he is ``not against private-public
partnerships where the private sector is in the lead role and not
the other way around''.
PWGSC has received many letters indicating support for
industry led government partnership initiatives including letters
from members of the Association of Consulting Engineers of
Canada. I have many quotes from letters that we have received
in support of Bill C-52.
D (1710 )
The government recognizes that no legitimate purpose would
be served by allowing the department to compete with the
private sector. I would not support that. In fact, when there has
been actual or perceived competition with the private sector, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services has moved
swiftly to rectify the situation.
For example, he took action to address the concerns of the
printing industry with the Canada Communication Group. With
clause 16, Bill C-52 moves the government down a path of
reducing the tax burden for Canadians while assisting business
in partnership, on request. The proposed amendment put
forward ensures greater accountability in this process. For these
reasons I encourage all members of the House to support this
amendment.
To do less is not doing what our taxpayers want us to do. They
want us to reduce duplication. They want us to see where we can
help firms in public practices when requested. When we can
with tax dollars help them, they want us to do that. To do any less
is irresponsible. I call on all members to support this
amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
once again, government members confuse and mislead the
public with their arguments that do not hold water. For instance,
they say that the president of the association of consulting
engineers of Canada agrees with this motion. I can tell you that I
was on the phone with him this morning, as I have been
repeatedly these past few weeks, and he keeps telling me that he
is against this motion and this clause in Bill C-52.
I want to tell the government that the association has
demonstrated its opposition by issuing countless press releases
stating that the government is not listening, that ``The
government is not listening, it is encroaching on our markets''.
The association, which is concentrated in Quebec, represents
800 consulting engineering firms whose 35,000 members
question this bill.
The government member would have us believe that the
government is creating jobs. This is pure nonsense. What this
clause does is threaten high-quality jobs that have evolved over
several years, perhaps mostly in Quebec, jobs that are not
created overnight. What is at stake here is top expertise that our
consulting engineering firms have demonstrated around the
world. It is mainly this sector which is being targeted.
The government cannot mislead the population by saying, as
my colleague did earlier, that it does not intend to compete with
the private sector.
The minister himself said in a letter that ``in response to your
question, the primary purpose of Bill C-52 is''-imagine
that-``to authorize Public Works and Government Services
Canada to provide common services to the departments, boards
and agencies of the Canadian government''. Clause 16 increases
this power by allowing the minister to provide common
services, similar to those offered by federal Crown corporations,
to other governments and to the private sector in Canada and
abroad.
A few paragraphs further, the minister goes on to say:
``Clause 16 is not intended to make the Department of Public
Works and Government Services into a fierce competitor of the
private sector''. Certainly not a fierce competitor, but a
competitor nonetheless under the monstrous guise of trying to
compete and reduce this government's deficit through
economies of scale.
D (1715)
Let me give you an example. What is proposed is that the
government would provide all the supplies, as well as all other
goods and services, not only to itself but maybe also to the
provinces, the territories and the municipalities across the
country. This is a concentration of purchases. If we had a warped
mind like some government members, we might think that there
are economies of scale or savings to be made. But we know very
well that this is not the case. This would only create a monster
like the former U.S.S.R. That country enjoyed a government
9023
monopoly and had economies of scale in every sector. But look
at what happened to the U.S.S.R.: it no longer exists.
The basic problem is that the government does not understand
that the public and private sectors each have a specific role to
play. When you mix the two together, particularly if the federal
government starts to compete with the private sector, the whole
system becomes skewed, because the federal government can
hide all sorts of costs. It can change numbers to make it look as
though a particular item or service costs less or money is saved
here or there. In this way, the government can compete with
certain companies and put them out of business, while favouring
friends of the party. This is wonderful-
Mr. Asselin: This is what you call progressive federalism.
Mr. Marchand: Precisely. In Quebec, we want to avoid this at
all costs, because clause 16 shows a blatant lack of
understanding on the part of this government. It seems that the
government does not even understand the strongest tendencies
in the economy and in modern politics. The government should
not go for concentration and centralization. Centralizing all
federal, provincial, municipal and other purchases and sales in
the country will not result in savings.
Such a move goes against the most elementary and basic rules
of economy. This government proposes a bill, clause 16 in
particular, which goes against basic economic rules. This is why
the government and the people of Quebec are anxious to leave a
regime which is headed the wrong way, as confirmed
unequivocally by clause 16.
Despite all the representations made by the private sector and
all the issues raised with members and the Minister of Public
Works, there seems to have been no realization that perhaps this
clause should have been deleted or even the previous legislation
reinstated.
The consulting engineering sector suggested it preferred the
previous act, because Bill C-52 which we are considering today
gives the minister additional powers, powers that did not exist
before. It is the only really new element in this bill. The rest is
not new, just a bunch of provisions that have been revamped.
However, this new element is almost an insult to the intelligence
of people who understand the workings of our economy. It is a
threat to an industrial sector that is thriving and highly
specialized, and it opens the door to unfair competition and,
once again, to even more patronage.
D (1720)
Clause 16 certainly does not encourage people who are the
slightest bit familiar with the operation of the Department of
Public Works to support this provision. In fact, Mr. Speaker,
suggestions by the government that perhaps these overtures to
the private sector should be made in consultation with the
business community would actually make no difference at all.
This clause gives the government complete latitude to operate
on the turf of the private sector, where it has no business to be,
because, I repeat, this opens the door to patronage and is a threat
to industries that, over the years, have developed an expertise
that is appreciated and an expertise they want to maintain. The
government has no business in this sector. And that is why we in
the Bloc are opposed to this clause and to the government's
amendment.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am a little
frustrated in getting up here. This amendment comes from the
Liberal side. I know the way things work around here with the
majority over there and the less than majority over here that it
will pass and what we say probably will not.
I will not miss this opportunity to go on record as powerfully
and as strongly as I can to say that this is not the answer to the
problems we have in this country, specifically on this one issue.
When I first saw this amendment I thought of a television
show I watched for about 10 minutes one day. This lady was put
into a box; the box was closed; the magician sawed her right in
half. It was incredible. Her body was cut in two. Then he opened
the box and she was fine again, there was no severance. That is
what this particular amendment does. It gives the illusion of
accomplishing something but really nothing is accomplished at
all.
It is important for us in considering what we are talking about
to really know what this motion says. Originally it said the
minister may do anything for or on behalf of any department,
board, or agency of the Government of Canada or a crown
corporation or any government body or person in Canada or
elsewhere.
It was mentioned earlier here that this was already in the
previous act, the one this bill replaces. Not quite right. The two
words ``or elsewhere'' were added. In other words the ability of
the government to perform these functions now goes even
outside of our country according to what it first proposed.
We now have this amendment. It still has exactly the same
words except the one little word ``a'' has been taken out. Other
than that the words are all there. The only difference is that for
the minister to do anything for or on behalf of any government
body or person in Canada or elsewhere, he or she must now
obtain the approval of cabinet. In other words there is no
restriction at all on whether or not government can still do
anything for anybody.
The other day I was giving a little speech to a few people. I
said the rough paraphrase of clause 16 of Bill C-52 was simply
that the minister may do anything for anyone and the taxpayers
pick up the bill. It was then said to me that that was not quite fair
and that I was overstating it. Yet, it is very difficult to read
anything else into this when it says that the minister may do
anything for or on behalf of, and then everything listed includes
anybody because finally it gets down to that every entity is
9024
either a government, a government agency, a body, or a person.
There is no exclusion.
D (1725 )
I would also like to make reference to a quotation. It is from a
letter written by no other than the minister himself. These are his
words: ``I have already decided that Public Works and
Government Services Canada will not be competing with the
private sector by offering services outside the federal
government''. That quotation is from a letter signed by the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
I am at a loss to understand if that is his intention why he
would hesitate for a second to state that in the legislation. The
legislation says one thing and the minister says exactly the
opposite. He is trying to assure us and the critics of this bill that
we ought not to worry because it is not his intention to do this.
Yet the bill clearly says that the government may do it. I do not
see where the logic lies there; it misses me completely and I
think it would miss anybody who stopped to think about it.
We have had a number of very strong presentations on the
intrusion of government into private enterprise. I have a whole
stack of them here. I know I cannot refer to them so I will not,
Mr. Speaker, but they are here. Most of them are from small
business firms and notably among them are consulting
engineers. I will not quote it but I remember one of them said
that this legislation cuts right to the very core of small
engineering firms whose lifeblood is bidding on and providing
services for provinces and municipalities.
This legislation now says that the taxpayer is going to be
subsidizing the competition because government agencies are
also going to be bidding. That introduces such a large unfairness
into the free enterprise process.
I would also like to read a statement from a very well-known
organization which does things along the lines of analysing our
economic problems and difficulties and solutions to those
problems. This is that organization's assessment of this bill, not
mine: ``It is clear that if the implication of the bill is that the
federal government intends in any way to engage in the
undertaking of work for private purposes in competition with
contractors in the private sector, this would be entirely wrong
and the bill ought to specifically preclude the federal
government from doing this''.
There are other references. As I said I have many of them here
from individuals, groups and businesses. They all give the
message that the government should not be in the business of
competing with private enterprise, period. Why it is in this
legislation at all is a total mystery to me.
Now there is an amendment that clause 16 ought to be
amended by dividing the two parts. One part says to let the
minister go ahead, but in the other part he has to get a nod from
the other cabinet ministers, behind closed doors, no openness,
no accountability and no restriction on what he can do for
anyone anywhere on planet earth.
I object. On behalf of all of those people who wrote to me and
my colleagues, I object. I object on behalf of all of those small
businesses, those engineering firms, the printers, the small
newspapers who wrote. They said they do not like having
government taxation subsidy driving them out of business. For
all of them I say as strongly as I can, please, members of this
House, reconsider this. Do not pass this legislation and then
regret it later because I know you will.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is one minute, if the
parliamentary secretary wishes, or I could see the clock as 5.30
p.m.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am not losing my place in the
order of speaking.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member will have an
opportunity to speak when the matter comes back to the House.
_____________________________________________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from December 8 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to order made
Thursday, December 8, 1994, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on the motion of Mr. Nunziata at
second reading stage of Bill C-226, an act to amend the
Criminal Code.
Call in the members.
D (1750 )
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think
you would find unanimous consent that the House proceed first
with the vote on Bill C-51, then proceed with the other votes on
government business, and Bill C-226 and Motion No. 257
would be the last items to be voted on this afternoon.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
suggestion of the chief government whip that I call the vote on
9025
Bill C-51 and at the very end we come back to Bill C-226 and
Motion No. 257. I would start with Bill C-51, the Canada Grain
Act. Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from December 9 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-51, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and
respecting certain regulations made pursuant to that act, be read
the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to the order
made on December 9, 1994, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on the motion for third reading of
Bill C-51.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 139)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-194
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
9026
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-53
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bachand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Cauchon
Collenette
Crête
Dubé
Lalonde
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Minna
Ménard
Robichaud
D (1800)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed from December 12 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, be read the third time and
passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the motion for third reading of
Bill C-56.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think you
would find unanimous consent that the members who have voted
on the previous vote be recorded as having voted on the vote now
before the House in the following manner, Liberal MPs voting
yes, along with the member for Beauce.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members are
opposed to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: The Reform Party members today vote nay, except
for those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party
members in the House today vote yes on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, as party whip for the PC Party, the
members of the PC Party tonight will vote in favour.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting with the
government.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 140)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Rock
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-156
9027
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-91
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bachand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Cauchon
Collenette
Crête
Dubé
Lalonde
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Minna
Ménard
Robichaud
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed from December 12 consideration of Bill
C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship
Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs
Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing
Committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded
division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-44.
The first question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to apply the results of the last vote to this one, as
follows: the Liberal members vote no.
D (1805)
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois support this motion.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members vote nay,
except for those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party
members who are here vote in favour of the motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to you that the
name of the riding is Saint John and not St. John's as you said a
little earlier. The members of the Conservative Party will vote
against the motion.
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting with the
government.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 141)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
9028
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-194
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bachand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Cauchon
Collenette
Crête
Dubé
Lalonde
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Minna
Ménard
Robichaud
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motions No. 1
lost. Consequently, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18,
19 and 23 are also lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 13, standing in the name
of the hon. member for Bourassa.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to apply the results of the vote on the previous motion to
this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 141.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion lost.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to apply the results of the vote in the same way to
Motions Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to vote against
Motion No. 14.
The Acting Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 14.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
9029
(Division No. 142)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-53
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-193
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bachand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Cauchon
Collenette
Crête
Dubé
Lalonde
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Minna
Ménard
Robichaud
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 15.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 141.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
Motion No. 16.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 141.]
9030
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
Motion No. 17.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 141.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
Motion No. 20.
D (1810)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find there is
unanimous consent to having all members who voted on the
previous motion recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House as follows: Liberals against the motion.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
support this motion.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party vote
against it, unless some members choose to vote differently.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party now in the House vote nay.
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I vote against it.
Mrs. Wayne: The hon. member for Saint John votes against
the motion, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bhaduria: I vote nay, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 143)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-45
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
9031
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-202
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bachand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Cauchon
Collenette
Crête
Dubé
Lalonde
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Minna
Ménard
Robichaud
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 21, standing in the name
of the member for Bourassa.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to apply the vote taken on Motion No. 1 at report stage
of Bill C-44 to the motion which is now being voted on, and also
to Motion No. 22.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 141.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 21
lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 22.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 141.]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.) moved that Bill C-44, as amended, be
concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to have the members who voted on the previous motion
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House as
follows: Liberal MPs voting yes.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
vote against the motion.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party vote
against the motion, unless some members want to vote
differently.
Mr. Solomon: Members of the NDP present in the House vote
against the motion, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I vote for the motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I vote for the motion.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I vote for the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 144)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
9032
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Rock
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-149
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-98
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bachand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Cauchon
Collenette
Crête
Dubé
Lalonde
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Minna
Ménard
Robichaud
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-64,
an act respecting employment equity.
D (1815)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to having members who voted on the previous motion
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House as
follows: Liberals will be voting yea, except the hon. member for
Saint-Maurice and the hon. member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel, who, unfortunately, had to leave.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting
nay on this motion.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party will vote nay,
unless some wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the NDP members who are in the
House will vote yea.
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Wayne: This Progressive Conservative member votes
yea, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bhaduria: I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 145)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
9033
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-199
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-46
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bachand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Cauchon
Collenette
Crête
Dubé
Lalonde
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Minna
Ménard
Robichaud
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the recorded division on the motion that
Bill C-226 be read a second time.
As is the custom, the vote will be taken row by row, beginning
with the mover, and moving on to those in favour of the motion
who are on the same side of the House as the mover.
9034
Those in favour of the motion and seated on the other side of
the House will be called on next. Those who oppose the motion
will then be asked to vote in the same order.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 146)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Althouse
Anawak
Arseneault
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing )
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Cannis
Chamberlain
Chatters
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Easter
English
Epp
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jennings
Keyes
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Parrish
Payne
Penson
Peric
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Terrana
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-136
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blondin-Andrew
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Hickey
Irwin
Jacob
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mercier
Milliken
Murphy
Nunez
Paré
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Shepherd
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Tobin
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bachand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Cauchon
Collenette
Crête
Dubé
Lalonde
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Minna
Ménard
Robichaud
D (1825)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
9035
The House resumed from December 9 consideration of the
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to the order
made on Friday, December 9, 1994, the House will now proceed
to the taking of the recorded deferred division on the motion, as
amended, by the hon. member for Verchères under Private
Members' Business.
As is customary we will proceed with the recorded division
row by row, as we did for the previous division.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 147)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Arseneault
Assad
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peric
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Shepherd
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
Taylor
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Volpe
Wappel
Wood-133
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Baker
Benoit
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Chatters
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
Dhaliwal
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Keyes
MacAulay
Manning
Marleau
Mayfield
Meredith
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
Payne
Penson
Peters
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Ramsay
Richardson
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Wayne
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Young -85
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bachand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Cauchon
Collenette
Crête
Dubé
Lalonde
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Minna
Ménard
Robichaud
9036
D (1835)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Serré: Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that I
was present during the vote, but that I deliberately abstained
from voting.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.40 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
[English]
* * *
The House resumed from November 15 consideration of the
motion and of the amendment.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to have an opportunity to rise and speak on this motion
of the member for Scarborough-Rouge River to deal with an
issue which I am sure does not capture the hearts and minds of a
whole lot of people.
I had the opportunity to work on a parliamentary committee in
the previous government. We were responsible for a five-year
review of CSIS. This motion really emanates from the lack of
courage as I would put it of the previous government to deal with
this issue of oversight over agencies that can collect data and
information on individual Canadians.
In that sense I welcome the opportunity to be here this evening
and talk about the proposal that would see the Communications
Security Establishment, CSE, fall within the oversight
provisions of SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review
Committee.
This recommendation really flows from our committee
recommendation which was unanimously adopted by all parties
in the previous Parliament. I congratulate the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River for keeping the issue in front of
Parliament and in front of Canadians and bringing forward a
motion that I hope all members of the House will see their way
clear to support.
The effects of the motion quite frankly would see that CSE
would fall under oversight. People will ask what is oversight and
what does it mean. It is a protection for individual Canadians
and it is really Parliament overseeing agencies that can collect
data and information and even conversations of individual
Canadians as they go about their daily lives.
I think the issue was put quite nicely by the Library of
Parliament in its paper on CSE. I would like to read one section
of it because it does put the issues fairly succinctly. I am quoting
page 14:
Ward Alcock told the House of Commons subcommittee on national security
in June 1993 that CSE is a foreign intelligence collection agency. The very nature
of its work depends upon a degree of secrecy. To the extent to which it works is not
secret, it loses its capacity to function and to collect information that is of use and
value to the Government of Canada.
This statement puts the key issue into its most basic terms: how can a
government institution that functions most effectively in the shadows be held
publicly accountable without compromising its efficacy? This question is
especially important when it relates to an agency with the capacity to violate the
rights and freedoms of Canadians.
The opinion that was given by the Library of Parliament was
also buttressed by a well known author, Richard Cleroux, who
recently wrote a book, ``Official Secrets'', a look at the spy
agencies and other agencies that were involved in collecting
data on Canadians and to protect Canadians from untoward
activities by foreign governments and foreign agencies.
While I hate to read a rather lengthy quote, I think Mr.
Cleroux in his book captures the spirit of what is involved and
what this motion is trying to do. I quote pages 77 and 78:
The CSE, which is considered the only government agency more secret than
CSIS, employs more than 1,700 people, and uses highly sophisticated radio and
telecommunications equipment to listen in simultaneously to thousands of
embassy, ship and airline telephone and telecommunications transmissions and
voice conversations across Canada and around the world.
The CSE functions as a funnel. Everything that is telecommunications in
Canada is sucked into it. It needs no judicial warrants because it is part of the
military, not part of CSIS.
D (1845 )
Later on the same page:
Most of the information picked up by CSE is in the form of electronic data
rather than voice conversation. Ninety-nine per cent is shipped wholesale,
without ever being analysed here, to the U.S. National Security Agency in Fort
Meade, Virginia. The Americans in turn tell the Canadians what they think the
Canadians should know.
That is a very clear and concise statement of what is
happening with CSE as noted by the author Mr. Cleroux. It
points to why we need some oversight, be it parliamentary or
otherwise.
9037
This motion says it should be SIRC that carries out that
particular function.
We had the privilege of having Stuart Farson advise us and do
research for us as we looked at the five-year review of CSIS. He
was concerned that CSE was without any parliamentary
oversight and that the question of Canadian rights being
possibly trampled was very important. In effect he made
recommendations to us as a committee that we should look at
including CSE in the oversight function.
As we look at what some of the authors have to say, both Mr.
Cleroux and Stuart Farson in his paper ``Canadian Security
Intelligence in the Eighties'', it becomes clear that we have a
number of agencies. CSE is well-known and clearly defined,
being discussed in Parliament and elsewhere. There are also
other agencies within the RCMP and other departments of
government that have no oversight. That circumstance only
exists in Canada. The United States Congress has an oversight
committee as well as do other countries in the world.
It is important that we protect Canadian rights. We can still
protect secrecy. It is the beauty of the circumstance with the
Security Intelligence Review Committee that only those things
that should be made public are in fact made public. It is an
independent committee of independent people who are the eyes
and ears of Parliament.
I go further and support the member for Scarborough-Rouge
River in his efforts to have some parliamentary oversight. While
there is some duplication, in the long run it is beneficial that we
have that oversight in order to protect the rights of Canadians.
When one thinks somebody could be listening into a telephone
conversation or the electric transmission on a fax machine
without having a warrant, something is fundamentally wrong
with the circumstance. It requires parliamentary or in this case
SIRC oversight. That is what the motion will hopefully
accomplish.
I would refer members to our report on CSIS and
recommendation 87. It says:
The Committee recommends that Parliament 1) formally establish the CSE
by statute-
This is not the case presently.
and 2) establish SIRC as the body responsible for monitoring, reviewing and
reporting to Parliament on the activities of the CSE concerning its compliance
with the laws of Canada.
As it says in the write-up:
The Committee sees no reason in principle, however, why the security and
intelligence arms of the Department of National Defence should not be
reviewed by SIRC.
Personally I support the position. I voted in favour of it when
the committee looked at it and I support it now. All Canadians
need to be protected. These are important rights that should not
be easily trampled on. We do not need some big funnel in the sky
scooping up all of the information and transporting it to the
United States for analysis.
I would recommend the motion to all members of this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let me
first of all commend the member for Scarborough-Rouge
River for his concern for making the debate on the CSE more
transparent than the answers given during Question Period by
the minister responsible, the Minister of National Defence.
Indeed, the member who also chairs the sub-committee on
national security, has moved: ``That, in the opinion of this
House, the government should amend the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service Act to authorize the Security Intelligence
Review Committee to review the operations of the
Communications Security Establishment (CSE)''.
D (1850)
As you can see, this augurs much better than the minister's
various statements on the subject. This motion is based on a
principle which the Bloc Quebecois has stated many times: the
ability to account to our taxpayers for the activities of federal
institutions, including the Communications Security
Establishment.
If this motion is adopted and implemented by the Liberal
government, the Communications Security Establishment will
be accountable to the Security Intelligence Review Committee,
better known as SIRC. It is estimated that the CSE spends
between $200 and $300 million a year without being held
accountable for it. It is also estimated that the CSE employs
between 800 and 1,000 employees, but other sources put the
number as high as 1,850.
However, it is impossible to obtain confirmation of these
figures at this time. Furthermore, recent allegations from a
former spy who worked in the CSE for several years indicate
that agents used electronic eavesdropping to intercept the
telephone calls of Quebec politicians. When questioned on this
subject, however, the Minister of National Defence hides behind
the sacrosanct national interest and refuses to answer.
The motion of the member for Scarborough-Rouge River
does not set a world precedent, far from it. The Australian
Security Intelligence Organization, MI-6, the Government
Communications Headquarters in Great Britain, and the CIA in
the United States are already monitored in their respective
countries by an outside committee, which operates in a way
similar to what is proposed in Motion M-38.
Belgium and some countries which belonged to the former
Warsaw Pact are now considering the possibility of doing
exactly what the member for Scarborough-Rouge River is
proposing for Canada. Unfortunately, our Minister of National
Defence tells us that it is not in the national interest to reveal the
operational methods or the administrative standards which
9038
apply to the CSE's activities, and I refer to an article in Le
Devoir of October 25, 1994.
Where is the respect for democracy when the minister, always
in the so-called national interest, refuses to tell us how many
people work for the Communications Security Establishment?
After all, the Agence France Presse reported, on November 8,
1994, that the British defence minister was downsizing the
secret service, and that about 100 of the 6,000 positions related
to these operations at the Government Communications
Headquarters would be eliminated.
The British can evaluate how their secret service is managed,
as well as appreciate the fact that it is affected by the budgetary
cuts announced by their government. They also know how many
employees work for that service, and they are informed of the
cuts affecting this organization responsible for analysis of
so-called sensitive information, or intelligence.
This is where democratic transparency starts. By now, you
will have guessed that I am in favour of having an external body
monitor CSE's operations, as proposed in the motion now before
us.
However, I have some reservations regarding the Security
Intelligence Review Committee. First, I wish to point out to the
hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River that the current
membership of that committee, SIRC, must be reviewed.
Indeed, the members of the committee were essentially
appointed on the recommendations of the main political parties
in the previous Parliament. These appointments were made on
the basis of recommendations by the Liberals, the Conservatives
and the New Democrats.
D (1855)
I agree with my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who feel that
some SIRC members no longer have a legitimate right to sit on
the committee, since their presence does not reflect the will of
Canadians, as expressed during the last federal election. Indeed,
these members essentially represent political parties which
were democratically rejected by voters.
The membership of this committee should take into account
the wishes of Canadians, and it should reflect the political
reality of this Parliament. It is time members of SIRC did the
honourable thing and promptly resigned so that Parliament
could then appoint new members to represent them on this
committee.
I should add that in the near future we will have to take steps
to take politics out of the process of appointing members to this
committee. Furthermore, the legislation governing SIRC should
concentrate on reviewing certain mechanisms that raise a
number of questions. For instance, does the process of reporting
to Parliament really give members a chance to establish that the
rights and freedoms of Canadians and Quebecers have been
respected? Should this mechanism be more transparent? Should
SIRC be allowed to submit its annual report uncensored to the
Speaker of the House?
Under section 54 of the CSIS Act, SIRC is also required to
submit to the Solicitor General, on a regular basis, special
reports concerning specific events. Should we provide that the
nature and subject of these regular reports be routinely
communicated to the House?
Section 30 of the CSIS Act defines the functions of an
inspector general, which include monitoring compliance with
operational policies and reviewing the operational activities of
CSIS. Before including the CSE in this legislation, we should
consider the relevance and effectiveness of having both an
inspector general and the SIRC for monitoring purposes. Is this
duplication that could be avoided?
Should the mandate of the director of the CSE be seven years,
like his counterpart at CSIS? Or should tenure be during
pleasure? Should SIRC have access to cabinet documents which
are not legally accessible at the present time? And finally,
should a member of the Auditor General's office audit CSE's
accounts and report his findings to this House?
Many questions remain to be answered. I think that in the
public interest, the government should answer them as soon as
possible to prevent further erosion of the public's trust in federal
institutions.
In concluding, I seriously hope that the government will react
favourably to the motion presented by its member for
Scarborough-Rouge River and that it will give careful
consideration to my questions and recommendations.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to
debate on motion M-38 introduced by the hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River.
It is also a pleasure to support this motion. It is not only timely
but essential to accountability. It is essential to amend the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to authorize the
Security Intelligence Review Committee to review the
operations of the Communications Security Establishment, or
CSE.
This motion brings to light concerns expressed as early as
1990 in the book Spy Wars and more recently in the new book
Spyworld written by Michael Frost, a former CSE employee,
where it is alleged that this organization routinely snoops on
law-abiding citizens. It compiles dossiers on everything and
9039
everybody from Margaret Trudeau to Quebec separatists. It is
open season on any unsuspecting Canadian citizen.
CSE is a unique entity in government. It normally comes
under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence as its
budget is hidden in the communications budget of the military.
However, in reality it is a separate entity that receives its
operational tasking from the deputy clerk for security and
intelligence of the Privy Council. The political tasking comes
from the cabinet committee on security and intelligence.
D (1900)
As we witnessed as a result of recent questioning in the
House, the mandate of the CSE is questionable. There is no
political accountability except to a group of cabinet ministers
which is the most secret cabinet committee of government. Here
we have an agency with a budget of hundreds of millions of
dollars listening to overseas phone calls and accountable to no
one person. This is not ham radio and catching the BBC Sunday
night opera. This is serious business. It requires serious
attention.
We are told all this snooping is done to protect national
security. Well the Diefenbunker is no longer a secret and we are
about to mothball some CF-18s. There is no obvious external
threat, so why so much resistance from the government to
outside scrutiny?
While I am no big fan of SIRC, it is as good as anything we
have for this purpose. SIRC has managed to keep an eye on our
spies without exposing them to danger. We can work on the
patronage elements of SIRC at a different occasion.
Why not let SIRC have a review capacity in CSE? Why should
CSE be above the law? Why should its budget, mandate and
methods not be scrutinized? The operative question is: Does
CSE spy on Canadians? The Deputy Prime Minister says it has
no mandate to do so, but the Deputy Prime Minister recently
refused to answer direct questions regarding if in fact it had.
In September 1990 a report entitled: ``In Flux But Not in
Crisis'' was tabled. This report was the work of a special
parliamentary committee on the review of the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service Act. On page 153 it reported:
``This organization clearly has the capacity to invade the
privacy of Canadians in a variety of ways. It was established by
order in council, not by statute and to all intents and purposes is
unaccountable.''
The passage goes on: ``While the committee understands that
this agency must be shrouded in secrecy to some degree, it
believes that Canadians should be in a position to understand
what the organization does and should not have to wonder
whether their rights and freedoms have been infringed. The
committee has evidence that both the RCMP and CSIS have
asked the CSE for assistance and as such the committee believes
that the Communications Security Establishment should have a
statutory mandate that provides for review''.
My congratulations to a member of that special committee,
the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, the member
responsible for the motion before us today. He at least
recognizes the gravity of the previous passage I just read from
the report.
The Minister of National Defence unfortunately believes
there is already sufficient review. To me, he is another of those
do nothing, say nothing, status quo ministers who would rather
stonewall than change. Things are just fine the way they are
because they do not impact on his personal and private life.
The fact is this minister really does not have control of the
CSE. What he controls is financial and administrative matters.
The chief of the CSE reports to the Clerk of the Privy Council for
policy and operations. This is not what I consider a fully
constituted part of DND like the minister says it is.
The minister need only take a look at the government's
response to the ``In Flux But Not in Crisis'' report entitled: ``On
Course: National Security for the 1990s'' to see what it has to
say about control of CSE and what is and what is not a fully
constituted part of the Department of National Defence. The
Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office are the real power
and the issue. The Minister of National Defence is the filler in
the sandwich.
D (1905)
I am not as naive as to believe that Canada does not need to
intercept communications for intelligence purposes. It is part of
the electronic information highway. There has to be some form
of review and accountability, otherwise abuses can take place.
As the book Spyworld states: ``Employees of the CSE
routinely listened to the conversations of Canadians as they
tuned and tested their equipment''. I also believe there is
nothing wrong with sweeping offices or encrypting phones. This
is normal in today's age but I want to know what the CSE is
doing besides this. I want to know that it is not abusing its
powers. An external review agency seems the only way we can
lift this veil of uncertainty, assure accountability and free the
CSE from suspicion. That does not sound like such a bad thing to
me.
I understand that the CSE is good at what it does. Let us make
it even better. Let us support this motion for the good of all
Canadians.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to support the motion of the
member for Scarborough-Rouge River.
Let me begin by first making an observation about the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We recognize that the
role of CSIS is one of counterespionage and counterterrorism in
Canada. Its role is to ensure that foreign governments do not
9040
have an improper influence on the lives of Canadians in the
sense that it would compromise Canada's security.
That is a very important function in Canada because we are a
multicultural society. We value very greatly immigration from
all lands. We value our tremendous ethnic and cultural diversity.
The fear is that this ethnic melting pot, as it were, may be
influenced by some of the foreign nations from which
immigrants come and the traditional ethnic hatreds that some
countries have.
To that end CSIS protects our interests by doing intelligence
work in the ethnic communities in Canada in order to prevent
terrorists or foreign governments getting a hold. In doing that
we as Canadians have to be concerned that while CSIS fills that
very important function that it does not go too far and that the
rights of Canadian citizens are protected, including ethnic
Canadians.
To cover off that problem we have built into the CSIS act a
very excellent control, the Security and Intelligence Review
Committee. It is basically a committee of Canadians of
conscience who are appointed. They have sweeping powers to
doublecheck what CSIS does to make sure that while it does
operate in secrecy it operates in a way that has the interests of all
Canadians at heart.
Now we come to the Communications Security
Establishment. This organization springs from the second world
war and Canada's involvement in code and cipher breaking. It is
well known what it does now. It is an agency whose role is to
intercept communications and to process them. Its direction is
toward the collection of foreign intelligence.
I should say it has quite an interesting history. It arose from an
organization called the examination unit and specialized in the
second world war in breaking Vichy French codes and some
Japanese and then went on to break the codes of the free French.
Indeed we will find when the book is written on the subject
that the Communications Security Establishment during the
early part of the cold war undoubtedly specialized in analysing
the diplomatic codes and ciphers of France. I think we will find
that this was one of the reasons for the vive le Quebec libre
speech of Charles de Gaulle. I think he was very annoyed to
discover that Canada had France as a target.
D (1910)
There is nothing unusual in that as all nations monitor the
telecommunications of other nations, be they friends or
enemies. It is a way of determining whether contracts are kept, if
governments are interfering in the diplomatic and commercial
affairs of one's own nation.
This type of study takes two shapes. It is code and cipher
breaking where you actually attempt to break the codes and
ciphers of another nation, be they diplomatic or commercial
ciphers. It also takes the form of traffic analysis. When you
cannot break the codes and ciphers of another nation you
examine where messages are being sent and the volume of
messages. That gives an indication of what that country is doing
in terms of its diplomatic or commercial activities.
Over the last 15 years code and cipher breaking has lessened
in importance in the field of communications intelligence,
primarily because code and ciphers have become increasingly
hard to break. More than that, it is because communications
satellites particularly have enabled governments to monitor the
affairs of other nations in a much more efficient manner than
could be done hitherto.
I believe the collapse of the Soviet Union had much to do with
the fact that satellites were monitoring its lack of economic
progress more than with any other cause. The Soviet Union
could not hide from the satellites that trains were not running,
that there was pollution everywhere and that the Soviet Union
was in an economic mess. It worked the other way as well. The
Soviet Union was monitoring Canada and the United States and
the western world. It could see that it was losing the economic
war.
In the world of intelligence the agency that looks after
domestic counterespionage and the foreign intelligence
gathering agency like the Communications Security
Establishment are complementary. They always work together.
In the case of foreign and diplomatic intelligence it is important
for CSIS to monitor what is happening to foreign nationals on
Canadian soil who may be engaged in espionage. The parallel
activity is the Communications Security Establishment which
monitors the actual traffic in diplomatic and commercial
communications. These things always go together.
There is the same situation in Canada with its ethnic makeup.
While we have CSIS looking after anti-terrorism shall we say, it
inevitably has to probe into the affairs and activities of various
ethnic communities in Canada. Similarly the CSE has to be in
tune with what may be happening in terms of communications,
whatever it can derive either from telecommunications or other
communications sources what is happening to the nations that
may not have Canada's interests at heart or may be attempting to
influence ethnic communities in Canada. The two are
complementary and very necessarily so.
This type of activity overlaps in subtle ways. I would like to
go back for a second to World War II and tell a very brief story
which illustrates this point. It was a great triumph for Canadians
during World War II and was not reported very well at all.
In 1940 in North Africa the British were facing the Italians in
great numbers. Britain had very few troops on the ground in
Egypt and the Italians had an enormous army in the western
desert. Britain had its back to the wall with the fall of France and
9041
was very fearful with Italian entry into the war about what would
happen in North Africa.
The Canadian army intelligence had the advantage of being
able to monitor the telegraph lines that left Canada from
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and went to Britain, the Canary
Islands, Spain and ultimately to Italy. Telegraph traffic coming
out of the United States had to pass momentarily through
Canada before it went on to Italy.
D (1915)
Even before Mussolini declared war on the allies after the fall
of France, or as France fell, Canadians were monitoring the
traffic of Italian Americans communicating with relatives in
Italy. Mussolini, in an attempt to raise money to buy weapons,
had asked Italian Americans to remit U.S. dollars to Italy so
relatives would be paid a bonus in lira in Italy. Italian Americans
were constantly sending remittances to their relatives in Italy.
This was just before the Italians declared war and just after.
Canadians were monitoring all this. As the banks in the
United States required that the remittances give names and
addresses, it was found that many remittances were being sent to
Italians in the military. They were being sent to the actual bases
where the Italian military personnel were located. This enabled
Canadians to construct the entire Italian order of battle before
Mussolini declared war. Wavell, the famous British general who
defeated the Italians in the western desert, knew exactly where
every division or every unit in the Italian army was in the desert.
We can see how in the intelligence field, communications
intelligence, foreign intelligence gathering can be mixed with
something that is essentially a domestic phenomenon. In this
case it is out of country; it is the Italians but it is a
communications phenomenon.
I told the story for the basic reason that we should have a
situation in the intelligence world where one arm of secret
intelligence gathering, which is CSIS, is responsible and
answerable to some review committee which, shall we say, has
an oversight role. We cannot have half a loaf; we need the entire
loaf. I submit that no matter how competent the
Communications Security Establishment inevitably there is
some overlap. Both arms of secret intelligence should make this
independent review, and for that reason I entirely support the
motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me as well to speak on the motion put forth by the
hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River and the
amendment of the hon. member for Bellechasse.
The motion per se is to amend the Canadian Security
Intelligence Act to authorize the Security Intelligence Review
Committee to review the activities of the Communications
Security Establishment. As for the amendment, it is designed to
force the review committee to table each year before this House
a report on the activities of the CSE.
First of all, I would like to say that I agree entirely with the
motion with amendment, as I think it is essential for the elected
representatives to retain a minimum of control on agencies and
institutions related to the world of espionage and intelligence
that CSIS, the CSE and the SIRC are.
It also appears necessary, in the light of recent events, to
remind the individuals who are part of such organizations that
their duty is first and foremost to serve the public and that we
have been elected to represent the public.
Concerns expressed by members from both sides of this
House are born out by disconcerting revelations concerning
alleged unlawful activities of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service and the Communications Security
Establishment.
How does a country that prides itself on being one of the most
democratic in the world explain having agencies that account for
their activities only when and to whom they please? One can
also wonder what the current Liberal government is doing to
give a feeling of security and restore confidence to all
Canadians, but Quebecers in particular, who may have been
targeted more often than they should by unlawful investigations.
Why did the government not react when it found out that
serious allegations had been made and that the relevant standing
committee of this House had been unable to obtain satisfactory
answers? Why did a private member have to take the initiative?
How will this be perceived by the public?
D (1920)
Although the member's initiative is eminently positive, we
have a right to wonder what kind of image this passive
government is sending to the population whose suspicions and
concerns are quite justified.
There is no doubt that the Security Intelligence Review
Committee is essential to ensure at least a minimum of
accountability on the part of CSIS and eventually the CSE.
Only yesterday, we learned from a Canadian Press article
published in La Presse that CSIS may have overstepped its
mandate and inadvertently revealed secrets in trying to fight
industrial espionage. The national agency may have collected
with complete impunity information having nothing to do with
any threat to national security.
It is certainly not the first time, and probably not the last, that
such a thing has occurred. In this case, the review committee
produced in 1993 a secret report that was obtained under the
Access to Information Act. This should not be seen as a model of
openness but it is an acceptable minimum. Unfortunately, this
9042
acceptable minimum does not currently apply to the CSE which,
as we have seen recently, enjoys an unusual level of freedom.
The Deputy Prime Minister said loud and clear in this House
that the CSE's mandate was not to spy on Canadians. But no one
was fooled, especially since the question that was put to her did
not deal with the CSE's mandate but with its actual operations.
In fact, the CSE has no mandate defined in legislation and is
accountable only to the Privy Council. Clearly, it is not in the
Privy Council's interest to make the CSE's blunders public,
which makes it a very poor watchdog, we must admit.
The motion being debated today would considerably improve
the situation, since it would make the CSE subject to monitoring
by SIRC. Unfortunately, I must express some reservations about
SIRC's effectiveness. I am thinking, for example, of SIRC's
serious credibility problems, which are due to the fact that it is
now made up of people who have not understood that they are
answerable to Parliament and to the public, and who hide behind
a narrow interpretation of some legal provisions to justify their
silence.
The testimony given by members of SIRC before the House
Committee on National Security on September 13 was a
disgrace and Canadians and Quebecers were certainly not well
served. At least four of these individuals, whose sense of ethics
seems to be quite underdeveloped, were appointed by the
previous government, which, need we remind you, was rejected
by the voters in the most summary fashion. We are entitled to
question the legitimacy of these well-known Conservatives who
sit on SIRC.
That is why I join my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois to
demand the immediate resignation of these individuals, and I
urge the Liberal government to act on this.
A significant renewal of SIRC's staff would reflect the new
make-up of this House and bring new blood to an organization
which really needs it.
Hopefully, with a minimum of four new members, the
Security Intelligence Review Committee could regain some of
its lost credibility. These changes are essential, but they are still
cosmetic.
Only this government, through the Solicitor General, can
make the required changes to the legislation on the Security
Intelligence Review Committee.
We can have motions to force the SIRC chairman to provide
real answers to parliamentarians, instead of just saying
``maybe'' or ``maybe not'', but he will not do so as long as the
government does not make significant changes to the act
establishing the SIRC.
Although the Official Opposition can only agree with the
underlying principle of this legislation, it questions the process
for appointing SIRC members, as well as the ambiguous
relations of that committee with Parliament.
In conclusion, the issue debated today was in fact the relation
of confidence between Canadians and their institutions. When
they were in opposition, the Liberals kept asking for greater
transparency, as well as better control by Parliament over spy
agencies.
The Communications Security Establishment spends over
$250 million annually.
D (1925)
What does it do with that money? How does it spend it and for
what purposes? We hope that the proposed motion will shed
some light on CSE's operations. However, we are very aware
that it is up to the federal government to ensure greater
transparency regarding intelligence activity in Canada.
Unfortunately, this government seems totally paralysed over
this issue, as with several other strategic issues.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River, and the hon. member for
Bellechasse for their initiative which, I hope, will be supported
by the government and approved by the majority of members in
this House.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we should bear in mind
several aspects of the world situation, in other words, the
geopolitical, strategic situation of Canada. As a nation with a
population of 30 million and a member of the G-7, as a country
with a fairly important position in the world, we have to
consider not only Canadian industry but also the security of this
country today and in the next century.
It would perhaps be useful, in a discussion about the
Communications Security Establishment, better known as the
CSE, to consider briefly Canada's foreign intelligence activities
and the role of the CSE in this respect. First of all, I would like to
explain what is meant by foreign intelligence. The term foreign
intelligence refers to information on the resources, intentions
and activities of foreign states, moral entities or individuals as
they concern Canada's defence or the conduct of Canada's
international affairs.
This may include information of a political, economic,
military or scientific nature or indeed information related to the
country's national security. We should also realize that, unlike
many of its allies, Canada has no active foreign intelligence
service. However, like most countries, Canada has set up a
number of limited mechanisms for collecting and analysing
information from other countries.
Earlier I mentioned the political context. Since the demise of
the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, there has been an
increasing sense of instability. This is no longer the world we
9043
used to know, where we had the Communists on one side, and
the free world on the other, and when we knew who our enemies
were. The world has changed considerably since the fall of the
Berlin wall in 1989.
I think that today we live in a world that is far more insecure,
unstable and uncertain-when we look, for instance, at Eastern
Europe-a world where there is a certain lack of cohesion. We
have all these small republics, the conflict between Russia and
Chechenya, the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the problems of
reconstruction in Eastern Europe. There are very real threats,
not only locally, but internationally.
We no longer have the kind of control over nuclear arms that
we had at one time, and unfortunately, this uncertainty has
caused some nations to cast envious looks at Canada and the
West. That is why Canada is not necessarily immune to the
changes that have been taking place during the past five years,
and especially as a result of the events and disruptions in Eastern
Europe. That is, as you know, the political reality we are all
faced with.
D (1930)
There are economic challenges as well. More and more, a
number of countries, some of which we may have thought of as
friends, are showing a great deal of interest in Canadian
industries. I would say that, these past few years, allegations of
industrial spying in the pharmaceutical industry have been
increasing. In Quebec, there have been blatant cases of Quebec
interests being targeted. They were spied on because they had
knowledge and technologies that some of our allies, who will
remain nameless, wanted for themselves. It makes us realize
that we have knowledge that the whole world is interested in
having. Why not use it?
The same with the airspace industry. Many countries have
shown an interest for Canadian companies such as Bombardier
and de Havilland. I also hear that we have companies specialized
in high technology and biotechnology. There is no doubt that an
increasing number of foreign countries are interested.
So, we are not immune to change, nor to other countries
wanting to obtain information from Canada unlawfully, if not
illegally.
I think that Canada has prospered because of the security we
enjoy in this country, good understanding and economic and
political stability between provinces, co-operation between the
industry and the Government of Canada. But this security must
be maintained and that is why I think that a communications
security establishment meets that need not only to look after our
interests, but also to ensure that military changes or upheaval
outside Canada do interfere with scientific and technological
progress on the home front.
There is no question that the world we live in is not an easy
one. Personally, I would rather live an a world where there
would be no CSE, no CIA, no M-5, no KGB, and no foreign
interest.
I believe some people, and this is often the case for the Bloc,
have concerns, whether they are founded or not, about the
existence of the CSE and other such organizations we have
known in the past. But we have a role, an obligation to protect
our industries. That is why the CSE is more interested in helping
protect Canadian industries trying to develop in an increasingly
competitive world.
There is Eastern Europe and then, there are emerging Asian
countries. Again, there is interest in the new Canadian
technologies, the aluminum and paper industries in particular,
where Canada has held on to a certain tradition of supremacy. In
an increasingly competitive international environment, we need
an intelligence service like the CSE to make sure that
information stays in Canada and that such countries do not
disrupt the operation of our businesses.
Canada is also a multicultural country. More and more of our
people come from other countries.
D (1935)
Since Canada is a welcoming country, we have people coming
from various countries in Latin America, Asia, Central and
Eastern Europe. Sometimes, people return to Canada and settle
here to destabilize the country.
There are even well-known and not so well-known ethnic
groups facing internal conflicts that have unfortunate
repercussions at the national level.
I think that my time is up, but I would like to say, in
conclusion, that we need an intelligence service like the CSE,
whose main concern is protecting Canadians in the international
community and, unfortunately, because of the geopolitical
realities prevailing here as the century draws to a close.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I give the floor to
the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, being as we are
getting close to a period of recess, I wonder if there might be
unanimous consent to allow the member for Saanich-Gulf
Islands, instead of taking five minutes now and having the
remaining five minutes of his ten minute maximum to be taken
up at the third hour debate at another time when we return, if the
House would give unanimous consent to allow the member to
make his intervention complete. At that time we would go to the
late show. The member would have five minutes and we would
go with no later than ten minutes from the time he would start. Is
there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
9044
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in speaking to Motion M-38 today, I am convinced that
important Canadian issues are involved. That there are problems
with the Communications Security Establishment, CSE, is
emphasized by the fact that the hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River who chairs the subcommittee on
national security feels obliged to call for the government to
authorize a regular ongoing review of CSE operations.
Concerns over the mandate of CSE and other Canadian
intelligence agencies have been reported in the media, and the
release of Spyworld has caused indignation in many quarters.
CSE is not directly accountable to the public purse, to
Parliament or to any other independent body. The 1990 review
by the special committee of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service Act acknowledged that it is now time to examine the
wider dimensions of Canadian security and intelligence
community and to impose statutory mandates and review
mechanisms where necessary.
However, government took no action. Ten years ago
Parliament passed legislation holding CSIS operations
accountable to an independent body, the Security Intelligence
Review Committee, SIRC, which is made up of five political
appointees.
SIRC would not rank anywhere near being the best check and
balance on the operations of CSIS but it is certainly better than
having no review or accountability mechanism. To paraphrase
an old saying, if halitosis is better than no breath at all then SIRC
is better than no supervision at all.
Thus, while SIRC may not be the best answer, one wonders
why the review committee did not also invoke the same
requirement for CSE operations. Therefore, Motion M-38 is
timely and important.
When the special committee called for a regular review of
security and intelligence agencies it also recommended that this
agency should have statutory mandate to provide for review and
monitor mechanisms. At the time government was considering
providing the Minister of National Defence with additional
capacity for review of the CSE. To this day government has
dragged its heels and has failed to initiate the means for review.
It has failed to hold the agency accountable to an independent
body for its expenditures or even direct legislation to protect
private citizens from the prospect of CSE intruding into and
invading our privacy.
There is cause for great concern. Today high tech,
computerized world is much different from that which prevailed
at the time of CSE's inception during the second world war. It
was then set up to intercept signals and break enemy codes,
referred to as ciphers and codes.
Today CSE is responsible for communications or information
technology security, COMSEC or INFOSEC, and signals
intelligence, SIGINT. It sounds not unlike Goldfinger in James
Bond or Captain Kirk in ``Star Trek''or ``Star Wars'' all rolled
into one.
D (1940 )
Unquestionably there is a need to know the state of the art so
that CSE can ensure federal government telecommunications or
electronic data processing systems are known to be secure.
It must ensure that government personnel are given security
training or education and that Canadian industry has access to
appropriate security advice, although this aspect might better be
left in the hands of the private sector.
The darker side, of which little is known, is that CSE monitors
the communications of foreign countries to provide intelligence
to government. It listens in on radio and telephone
communications between embassies and home countries or
consulates. It follows all national and international telephone
calls. It records foreign radio communications and reads
electromagnetic transmissions from embassy typewriters,
processors, and so on.
We understand that 80 per cent of its operational budget is
directed to the signals intercept program for communications
intelligence which uses radio waves or radar to spy and protect
national security; for example, telemetry intelligence,
interception of signals relaying information from sensors on
board a test vehicle to test engineers, revealing the vehicle's
flight and performance characteristics.
Parliament has no statutes or laws to direct the CSE because it
was established by order in council, by a cabinet directive. Thus
one can speculate on the obvious CSE operations but only the
depth of our imagination limits the breadth of its capability and
potential involvement. By and large it seems that CSE is
accountable to no one. It has virtual carte blanche to write its
own terms and exercise full discretionary powers.
Little is known of its operations and even less about how it
spends the public's funds it is given. During House of Commons
debate hon. members have quoted from the Globe and Mail that
expenditures in the order of $100 million to $125 million were
budgeted for 1991. Another hon. member ventured to guess that
$250 million would be a conservative estimate. Who knows how
much is spent, how it is spent or why it is spent-perhaps some
cabinet ministers, but certainly no independent regulatory
agency exercising control.
When one considers Canada's massive deficit-debt it
becomes obvious that government has an obligation to seek
ways to trim fat, ensure accountability and avoid duplication of
efforts. This motion provides government with an excellent
opportunity to do just that.
Two special joint committees of this Parliament have only
recently concluded reviews of Canadian foreign policy and
defence policy. As a result Canada's role in foreign affairs and
our military will be adjusted to better reflect today's needs. It
would be logical to follow with a review of Canada's security
and intelligence agencies. There has been no such review since
9045
their inception in the 1940s and operational control has become
lax because their accountability is not adequately enforced.
Obviously a certain amount of secrecy and restricted
knowledge of activities is required for CSE. Everyone
understands that an intelligence agency cannot adequately
perform its duties unless it is to some extent clothed in a veil of
secrecy. However, there must still be a mechanism to ensure that
activity control limits are in place and enforced and that the
taxpayer's dollar is being appropriately and efficiently
employed in service to Canada and Canadians.
In 1975 an order in council transferred responsibility for CSE
from the National Research Council to the Department of
National Defence, but only administrative responsibility was
transferred, not its mandate, powers, control or accountability.
Thus, I strongly endorse Motion M-38 calling for the
government to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service Act to authorize the Security Intelligence Review
Committee to review CSE's operation and budget.
Government could and should go even further by transferring
CSE from the Department of National Defence to CSIS. Such
action would make CSE subject to the same control and
accountability that CSIS now is.
There is urgency required in implementing some statutory
directive because of CSE's capacity to invade and intrude into
our privacy. Southam News has already reported that the Privy
Council Office has asked the RCMP's legal branch to examine
legislation that would make it easier for police to intercept
digital or computer communications.
D (1945)
In the United States similar laws are under study and the
Digital Telephony and Communications Privacy Improvement
Act giving telecommunications companies funds to develop
software technology allowing full access to telecommunication
systems has been debated in the U.S. Congress.
If enacted, this U.S. law would permit monitoring of a wide
range of personal data. Are we in Canada also to have our own
big brother tracking our every move? Electronic eavesdropping
is surreptitious, easily used, and has the capacity to intrude into
our most private lives with no search warrants required.
Despite the minister's assurance that CSE has no mandate to
spy on Canadians, we do not know what its mandate is. Without
checks and balances CSE has no limits to its operations and can
be used against anyone without their having any knowledge that
it is happening. To have the legal ability to so infringe on our
right to privacy is simply unacceptable.
In conclusion, while I have concerns about SIRC being as
responsive and appropriate a monitoring agency as I would like,
it is certainly better than having no monitoring agency at all.
Perhaps an improvement in answer to this dilemma would be for
the monitoring agency, for both CSIS and SIRC, to be
constituted as a separate cell under the aegis of the Auditor
General who reports to Parliament. Unless there is some
technical reason why this cannot be, it would seem to provide
the arm's length monitor required to do the job without political
bias or interference.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired,
but I want to put on record that by unanimous consent we
extended the time of debate on Motion No. 38 by an extra five
minutes so that the next time the motion is before the House
there will be 55 minutes left of debate.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
November 2, I asked the Prime Minister to ensure that Saint
John, New Brunswick, was given a dayliner after VIA's final run
through Saint John which takes place on December 15.
The Minister of Transport responded to my question by saying
what he needs to hear are proposals that make sense and not what
was being done by the former PC government, the party that I
now represent.
I find irony in what the minister has said because what the
minister has done to Saint John does not make any sense. A new
train station was built just last year by the former government.
The Liberal government closed it, took away the VIA service
and offered a bus to take passengers to Moncton.
The former government built a new air traffic control tower in
Saint John. The Liberal government has now closed it and has
taken the air traffic controllers away. The decisions are a waste
of taxpayers' dollars.
I understand the present fiscal constraints the government is
facing. The government has decided to cut non-profitable
operations. One of these operations was the VIA Atlantic train
9046
from Sherbrooke to Saint John, the first mainline ever to be
abandoned.
In the Gaspé area the NTA recommended that the Gaspé rail
line be abandoned, but the government of the day, the previous
government, decided that the abandonment decision should be
overturned because the loss of the rail service would negatively
affect the quality of life in that region.
The same thing is happening in New Brunswick and in Saint
John with this decision. The quality of life in my area is severely
negatively affected with the removal of VIA passenger service.
Why did the hon. member's government not do the same for
the eastern line as the PC government did with the Gaspé
abandonment? Where is the rat pack that was there in the
opposition? The minister of fisheries, the Deputy Prime
Minister and others formed what was known as the rat pack.
They fought hard with myself as mayor of the city of Saint John
to make sure the people of Saint John had a rail service.
I cannot accept that the government has cut off the total
passenger service to my riding and replaced it with a bus. In
light of the savings to the federal treasury that the cut of the
Atlantic service will provide, I do not feel that a dayliner would
be cost excessive. Since we have a brand new railway station I
feel we should get some use out of it and not waste the
taxpayers' money that was spent on it. The government looks
very irresponsible as does the commission for VIA when they
close down a railway station that has just been built.
D (1950)
A dayliner service to Moncton would be more appropriate,
given the state of highways in New Brunswick. As well it seems
to me that a dayliner link if scheduled and priced properly could
make money, given that the highest population density in the
province resides in the area of Saint John. The decision by the
minister to offer a bus instead of a dayliner is really an insult to
the people of Saint John.
We were told by the previous government: ``You use it or you
lose it''. The citizens have used it. It is a way of life for our
people. There are many people who have no other way to travel
except by that train.
The closure of the VIA Rail Atlantic will not save taxpayers
much money and comes at a time when the Amtrak network is
expanding in Maine. All these cuts and closures come at a time
when in Europe and the U.S. they are building high speed and
very efficient trains.
I am asking the government to ensure VIA service to Saint
John by providing a dayliner to Moncton instead of a bus. In this
time of giving I ask the government to give a little back to the
citizens of Saint John that it has taken away.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, owing to the impending sale of
CP's operating assets between Sherbrooke and Saint John, there
is no assurance of continued access for the Atlantic train. The
member knows that VIA does not own tracks. It operates on
running rights from CN and CP. Therefore with CP selling the
assets there is no track available for VIA.
VIA will discontinue its Atlantic train over the CP route on
December 17 and will increase train frequency to six round trips
per week over the ocean route. VIA has done a first rate job in
arranging for bus service between Saint John and Moncton to
connect VIA passengers with the ocean service. This is the most
economical way to provide connections within the VIA network.
In addition, the interline ticketing and tariff agreement VIA
has made with SMT will provide for ease of ticketing and
baggage handling. SMT will also be modifying schedules on its
Fredericton to Newcastle route, providing a direct connection at
Newcastle to the ocean for passengers from Fredericton.
It is evident that a connecting bus service is the less costly
option by far. The annual cost of a dayliner service would be in
the order of $1.2 million per year. The bus service is much less
than that by half.
We have been asked why VIA's newly constructed station in
Saint John will no longer be used. Perhaps the member should
ask her former Conservative government. When the station was
constructed CP was already negotiating the sale of the entire
Sherbrooke to Saint John line. The member might want to
respond on why her colleagues spent the money on the basis of
speculation.
The commitment of Minister of Transport to Saint John and
New Brunswick is unquestionable. His actions with respect to
the CAA at Saint John, his action with respect to the port of Saint
John and with respect to highways in Saint John and New
Brunswick are sure testimony of the minister's commitment to
good transportation systems in Saint John and New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
exactly eight days ago, I asked the Minister of Human Resources
Development when he would table the five missing technical
papers that were to clarify, if possible, the direction that his plan
to reform social programs would take.
At that time, the minister answered that he thought the
remaining documents would be made public in ten days. I want
to tell the minister that he has only two days left to keep his
promise, but that is not the main purpose of my statement today.
9047
On this point, I first want to speak out against how the
minister is proceeding. In a few days, the Standing Committee
on Human Resources Development will complete a
Canada-wide tour of consultations in which thousands of
citizens will have participated. What a mockery has been made
of the consultation process!
An incredible amount of energy has been mobilized but the
people whom they said they wanted to consult were not provided
with the proper information. They were consulted on an
indefinite subject, but I suspect that the chosen direction has
already been decided and they are being very careful to keep it
from the public. All this remains to be confirmed, of course, but
the confirmation should come soon.
D (1955)
In the House, on December 5, I also asked the minister to
confirm that he had in fact gone blindly into a reform guided
only by the cuts imposed by the finance minister. Instead of
answering my question, the minister replied that I was
completely ignorant, and said: ``A large-scale national survey
showed that 96 per cent of Canadians believe major changes
have to be made in social policy. It may be that the hon. member
does not understand but 96 per cent of Canadians are in favour of
what we are doing''.
The minister was quite right. I do not understand, but not
necessarily what he thinks I do not understand. I cannot
understand how a minister can interpret in such a shameful
demagogic way the results of a poll. Here are the facts. The
Decima poll, to which the minister was referring, revealed that
96 per cent of Canadians feel that the time has come to reform
social security programs. Some 53 per cent support major
changes, while 26 per cent are in favour of a comprehensive
reform.
How can the minister distort the facts in such a way and
accuse me of not understanding anything? This is a mystery
which, I am sure, only the minister can penetrate.
Let me repeat again the results of that poll, just to make sure
the minister understands: 96 per cent of Canadians feel that a
reform of social programs is necessary. This is not at all the
same as saying that 96 per cent of Canadians support the
government's approach, far from it!
I also want to tell the minister something he surely knows
already: Canadians do not agree at all with the proposal, as
introduced by the government. The same poll indicated that 19
per cent of Quebecers strongly supported the idea of a
two-tiered UI system, while 56 per cent somewhat agreed with
it. This is a far cry from the 96 per cent degree of support of
Quebecers that the minister claims.
Finally, I want to take this opportunity to remind the minister
that women's groups, including the National Action Committee
on the Status of Women, which alone represents over 80 groups,
condemn the proposed changes to the UI system, because they
feel these changes are discriminatory. Would the Minister of
Human Resources Development go so far as to claim that all
these women did not understand anything either?
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as of today the government has
released four background papers: ``Income Security for
Children'', ``Persons with Disabilities'',``Child Care and
Development '' and ``From Unemployment Insurance to
Employment Insurance''. The remaining four papers will be
released in the next few days. I can assure the member there is
still time for public debate and for the standing committee to
analyse these papers as it prepares its final report early in the
new year.
Social security reform is an ongoing process. We will
continue to make information available to the public throughout
the process. Let me emphasize again that our programs are
outdated, costly, and no longer meet the needs of today's labour
market.
As recent polls have shown, the Canadian people believe there
are problems with our social programs and that changes are
required: 96 per cent of the people believe there are at least some
problems with social programs requiring either minor changes,
17 per cent; major changes, 53 per cent; or a complete overhaul,
26 per cent. Slightly fewer Canadians, 89 per cent, believe the
UI system should be changed. The majority, 55 per cent, believe
change is required because the system is antiquated, while
one-third believe the expense associated with the program is the
main reason the UI system should be changed. There is
overwhelming support, 80 per cent, for our two-tier system of
UI.
I am convinced the government has the support of the
Canadian people as we work to reform an antiquated social
security system. The release of the remaining technical papers
in the next few days will further inform and allow us to make the
important decisions required to ensure the survival of Canada's
social security system.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to speak about the anti-scab bill and the minister's
commitment to table such legislation, which was supposed to be
done some time in December.
In March 1994, in my riding near Sept-Îles, at the QNS & L
Company, 300 employees were in a legal strike position and
were locked out. The strike or labour dispute was to go on for
three months. As soon as the dispute started, the employer
rushed to hire scabs.
9048
D (2000)
So, as you can imagine, this led to violence and did not
creative a climate conducive to bargaining with respect and
dignity by the workers and the employer. The emphasis was on
confrontation throughout the process, and there was no attempt
to reach an agreement because scabs had been hired.
Last week, I travelled to Decatur, Illinois, with Ogilvie Mills
workers belonging to the CSN, who joined fellow workers who
are also on strike, sympathized a little, and tried to meet the head
of the business in Decatur, where Ogilvie has its headquarters.
To all intents and purposes, I have never seen anything like
Decatur in my life, although I have witnessed many labour
disputes. I was involved in the union movement for a while
before being elected to the House of Commons, so I knew what
to expect, but it was the first time I saw anything like that.
Decatur could be called Dictature City or Scab City, as the
people over there call it. It is the same thing.
If you want to work, all you have to do is show up at Decatur.
ADM owners hire, on the spot, workers they then send to one of
the many places where there is a labour dispute, to work as
scabs, because at Decatur, it is normal to work as a scab. So, this
creates a climate of incredible violence. Bargaining is the
establishment of a power relationship between two groups and
in turn, this power relationship creates respect, which ensures
that everything will be done in a dignified manner. Then, once
this is established, you can talk about a clean, decent labour
contract. But as long as there is no anti-scab legislation in place,
this cannot be achieved.
In front of the Ogilvie Mills workers here on Parliament Hill
on September 19, the minister promised to amend the Canada
Labour Code to ban strike-breaking. He was to bring in a bill
making the required changes to the code. This sounded rather
interesting. But more recently, on December 4 to be exact, the
minister backed away, claiming that his department was
preparing another bill, a bill on pay equity, which really has
nothing to do with anti-scab legislation.
So, based on that, I wonder, and I repeat the question I asked
earlier: how can the minister justify his about-face on the need
to incorporate anti-scab amendments into the Canada Labour
Code? How does he explain this about-face, as I asked him
before, except as an act of obvious lack of political courage?
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, part I of the Canada Labour
Code establishes the framework for industrial relations and
regulates the conduct of collective bargaining in the federal
private sector.
This jurisdiction covers the operations of enterprises which
fall within the definition of federal work, undertaking or
business and includes interprovincial and international rail,
road and pipeline transportation, air transportation, shipping,
longshoring, grain handling, telecommunications,
broadcasting, banking and certain crown corporations.
As the Minister of Human Resources Development indicated
on December 5 in responding to an inquiry raised by the hon.
member for Manicouagan, part I of the Canada Labour Code,
including the issue of replacement workers, is currently being
reviewed with the view to modernizing and improving it so that
it can better reflect today's realities. Creating a legislative
framework which is free of barriers to co-operative labour
management relationships also supports the initiative of the
Minister of Industry in building a more innovative economy.
The minister has asked a senior assistant deputy minister to
undertake the review process. This involves a consultative
process with business, labour unions and other affected parties
to seek their views. The views expressed during the consultative
process will be carefully considered prior to introducing
amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code.
D (2005)
The hon. member for Manicouagan also made reference to a
dispute involving Archer Daniels Midland Company, formerly
Ogilvie Flour Mills, and the Syndicat national des employés des
Minoteries Ogilvie Ltée.
The company and the union are currently negotiating the
renewal of their collective agreement which expired on January
31, 1992, and which covers approximately 150 flour mill
employees. When the parties were to conclude an agreement
with the assistance of a conciliation officer appointed by the
minister they were placed in a strike-lockout position. The
union membership began a strike on June 6, 1994, following the
rejection of a company offer on the previous day.
A federal mediator met with the parties in July and October of
1994 but little progress was made. Meanwhile the union filed a
request with the minister for consent to file a complaint with the
Canada Labour Relations Board alleging that the company had
failed to bargain in good faith.
Ministerial consent was granted and the CLRB held a hearing
on November 4, 1994, at which time the parties agreed to resume
mediation meetings in an effort to settle their differences. The
mediator met with the parties November 30 and December 1 and
talks resumed today, December 13, 1994.
A federal mediator resumed meetings with the parties today
and mediation talks are scheduled to continue December 14 and
15. It is encouraging that the parties are continuing to meet and I
am advised some progress is being made. Both sides have been
urged to take advantage of this opportunity to arrive at a
settlement of their long and difficult dispute.
9049
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 37(3) I rise to get a more detailed answer to
questions I raised on December 5 and 6.
As a person who is concerned about the future of the Canadian
Wheat Board I feel it is imperative to point out some of the
activities of its government appointed commissioners during the
advisory committee elections. I believe these activities point
out problems with the board which could, if not immediately
dealt with, lead to its demise over the next few years.
The real threat to the Canadian Wheat Board is not from
outside but rather from within and result from its lack of
accountability and its lack of willingness to change. The main
issue to be dealt with is the complete lack of accountability of
these appointed commissioners to western Canadian farmers.
This is a concern I have heard from farmers over the past
several years. After all, farmers pay all of the operating costs of
the Canadian Wheat Board out of their pockets. Why does it
seem too much to ask for the commissioners that run the board to
be directly accountable to farmers? The only way to ensure that
the board of directors is accountable to farmers is by allowing
farmers to elect them. There is no other way.
On Monday, December 5, I asked the minister of agriculture
about the results of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory
committee elections. I mentioned it was no surprise that less
than 40 per cent of farmers eligible to vote turned out to elect
these largely symbolic positions.
What was a surprise, however, was that leading up to the
election, Lorne Hehn, the chief commissioner campaigned for a
group of candidates that had a specific political agenda. In
addition Richard Klassen wrote an ``open letter to prairie wheat
and barley growers''. Their articles appeared in the Western
Producer, Grainews, and many local papers.
Section 17(4) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act strictly
prohibits these actions. It states: ``It is the duty of the board to
exercise direction and supervision over the administrative
conduct of an election of members of the advisory committee''.
Therefore, the role of commissioners parallels that of Elections
Canada in a federal election.
By promoting the point of view of one group of candidates the
commissioners, I believe, violated the Wheat Board Act and the
trust given to the people who hold these positions. On this basis I
asked for the resignation of those who knowingly violated
politically neutral positions.
In his response the agriculture minister said he would not ask
for their resignations because he had no proof to justify these
allegations. He also stated it was not unusual for a chief
commissioner, from time to time, to defend the policies and
practices of the wheat board.
The proof can be found in the chief commissioner's words and
in the words of other commissioners. Not only did the chief
commissioner openly offer his opinion in the November 17 issue
of the Western Producer but he also stated that during the
board's 60-year history it is entirely unusual for commissioners
to defend the actions of the board.
D (2010 )
Hehn states: ``The events of recent weeks compel me to
violate the long tradition of silence on controversial grain policy
issues. I do so at the risk of being accused of meddling''.
Therefore, Mr. Hehn knowingly violated section 17(4) of the
Canadian Wheat Board Act. This is a very serious offence and I
am sure the chief commissioner was aware of the consequences.
Clearly, the politically neutral stance of the wheat board was
violated by the chief commissioner and other commissioners. It
is also clear that the actions of these individuals should be
reviewed. Furthermore, it is clear to everyone that farmers must
review and make decisions about how their marketing agency
should be run.
I have three specific questions for the minister. With this
evidence before him, will the minister acknowledge that the
commissioners have violated the Canadian Wheat Board Act
and the trust given to them? Will the minister ask for the
resignation of all commissioners who campaigned during the
period leading up to the advisory committee elections? Will the
minister replace those political appointed commissioners with
an elected board of directors? If yes, when? If not, why on earth
not?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
point out that section 17(4) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act
referred to by the member for Vegreville addresses the
administrative requirements for an election of a Canadian
Wheat Board advisory committee.
The recent speeches and articles by the Canadian Wheat
Board commissioners are a response to producer requests for
more information on the board and how it markets wheat and
barley on behalf of the producers.
The Canadian Wheat Board commissioners did not campaign
on behalf of any candidates. They were responding to those
producers who want more information. It is only logical that the
wheat board commissioners who are charged with the
responsibility of marketing wheat and barley on behalf of the
western Canadian producers would be in the best position to
describe how they are fulfilling their responsibilities.
9050
As the hon. member well knows, the debate on the issue of
grain marketing has been ongoing. It was not initiated with the
particular Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee election
and it will not end with this election.
As we have stated on numerous occasions, producers need the
opportunity to discuss the grain marketing issue in a logical,
structured form with all the facts available to them. The
producers will be provided with a forum to discuss and debate
the issue over the coming months.
Any decision on how we market grains and oilseeds should be
made in the context of where we want our grain industry to be in
five to ten years from now. As a result, the federal government
has initiated discussions with the industry to develop a longer
term vision.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
when inflation is high in Canada, bank profits are high. When
inflation is low in Canada, bank profits are high. When the
economy is in recession, bank profits are high. When the
economy is in a growth mode, bank profits are high. When
interest rates are high in this country, bank profits are high.
When interest rates are low, bank profits are high. They are high
in every circumstance when it comes to economic indicators.
The fact is that bank profits continue to be high in this
country. In view of the fact that the chartered banks donated to
the Liberal Party over $700,000 to the last campaign in Canada
and the financial institutions as a whole donated over a million
dollars to the Liberal Party slush fund in the last campaign, I am
curious to know why the banks continue to get a free ride when it
comes to contributing their fair share to building Canada.
In the last year alone the six major chartered banks in Canada
reported profits of $4.3 billion. The chartered banks have an
important role in our country's economy due largely to the
regulations that are in place under the Bank Act. With the
privilege of banking should come the responsibility of assisting
in the development of our economy.
The Minister of Finance agrees that Canada's deficit is a
serious problem. He, in consultation with the Minister of Human
Resources Development, has made it clear that they will be
making cuts and reductions to Canada's social security
programs. Many Canadians have experienced the hardship of
the recession and also faced cutbacks to their unemployment
insurance coverage.
The Minister of Finance has made it clear that we will all be
tightening our belts to help pay down Canada's debt. Meanwhile
we have the banks in Canada that have made huge profits during
hard economic times. They have made their profits on the backs
of Canadians. It is money that is made on the spread of interest
rates, financial transactions and on the government debt.
Another reason is bank service charges. Service charges are
one of the fastest growth areas for banks. They allow the banks
to continue making money in hard times and in good times.
I believe the government should ask the banks to justify their
banking practices and their actions. As responsible corporate
citizens the banks have a moral responsibility to pay their fair
share of taxes and to reinvest their wealth in Canada and create
jobs.
The Minister of Finance has a responsibility to regulate the
banks and ensure that they participate in our country's economic
recovery.
Bank customers receive interest rates of 2 per cent or 3 per
cent on their savings accounts while being charged up to 11 per
cent on their loans. The interest rate spread is wide and the banks
are the winners on the spread.
After 127 years of Liberal and Conservative governments in
Canada we are approaching $550 billion in debt. There has been
no job creation as a result of this latest bank manoeuvre. The
banks have made profit by cutting back on staff as a matter of
fact. A year go the Royal Bank announced the need to slash
3,000 jobs from its payroll as well as another 1,100 jobs from its
newly acquired Royal Trust, because of the recession its said.
Is the Royal Bank now willing to create 4,000 new jobs or is it
going to continue to make profit at the expense of its former
employees? The answer to that is not likely.
The Royal Bank in 1993 year end made profits of $324 million
and paid absolutely no taxes. As a matter of fact, it received
from the federal government and the revenue department $5
million in tax credits.
Two years ago the CIBC announced cutbacks of 2,500 jobs. In
fact, 14,000 banking jobs have been eliminated in the past four
years. Banks reasoned that cutbacks were necessary but now we
see their profit margins. The banks lost money on bad real estate
loans primarily over ambitious commercial projects in foreign
countries. As well, they have lost money loaning money to other
countries without providing the same equity backup and
guarantees that individuals in Canada must provide.
I am asking in summary that the government provide
leadership on this issue and ensure that the banks make a
stronger contribution by paying their fair share of taxes back to
this country and to institute a fair interest rate policy and to
justify some of their monopolistic practices so that Canadians
do benefit from banks when they make a profit.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks six major
banks have reported their profits for the year ending October 31,
1994. The six largest banks reported profits of over $4.2 billion,
a 47 per cent increase over last year. This has prompted some
9051
observers to ask whether the banks are paying their fair share of
tax.
Banks do pay considerable amounts of tax. Banks pay income
taxes and are subject to two federal capital taxes, the large
corporations tax which applies to all corporations with more
than $10 million of capital, and the financial institutions capital
tax. This latter tax is paid annually at an average rate of 1.25 per
cent of capital. This tax is designed as a minimum tax for banks
and other large financial institutions.
Over the past five years the six largest banks and their
mortgage subsidiaries paid on average $850 million per year in
federal income and capital taxes. In 1991 and 1992 they paid
around $1 billion per year in federal income and capital taxes.
Banks also paid income, capital, property and other taxes to
provincial and municipal governments.
The hon. member is no doubt aware that further measures
were introduced in the 1994 budget to ensure that banks and
other financial institutions continue to pay their fair share of
tax. These changes will improve the measurement of income on
securities and loans held as part of their ordinary course of
business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 8.19 p.m.)