CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 18, 1995
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 15520
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15522
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15526
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15526
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 15528
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 15528
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 15528
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 15529
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15532
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 15535
Bill C-107. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 15535
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn.) 15536
Motion for concurrence in 91st report 15536
(Motion agreed to.) 15536
Bill S-9. Motion for third reading 15538
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 15551
Bill C-275. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15552
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15554
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 15558
15519
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 18, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Prince
Albert-Churchill River and the chair of the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I extend my
congratulations to the citizens and town council of Creighton,
Saskatchewan today. They have passed an important resolution
supporting the Keep Mining in Canada campaign and the industry's
10-point plan to create a healthy investment climate for mining in
Canada.
Creighton is the 132nd community across Canada to adopt such
a resolution to demonstrate its support for a continued, thriving
mining industry in Canada. The health of these 132 local
economies depends significantly on the health of the mining sector.
The 132 resolutions show that these towns care deeply about the
future of the mining industry and I for one applaud the town of
Creighton and all Canadians who care about working together to
ensure a healthy mining sector.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
campaign ``mining, an industry to be supported'' is moving today
to Ottawa. I would like to salute the presence among us of mining
industry representatives who have come to see the government in
action. Or rather, I should say, in inaction.
The Liberal government had promised to streamline the
regulatory maze facing the mining industry. Nothing has been
done. The Liberals were committed to improving the flow through
share system, but nothing has been done in that area either.
Despite the federal government's inaction, Toronto-based
Falconbridge recently announced that $500 million would be
invested in Northern Quebec, which will create hundreds of jobs.
The proposed investment shows that the prospect of a Yes vote
does not scare investors from the rest of Canada. Better yet, it
demonstrates the potential and vitality of the mining sector in
Quebec.
Just imagine how this sector will grow once Quebec becomes
sovereign.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this past Monday I was saddened to learn of the death
of a great Canadian and a constituent of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
Eric Reilly knew this country well. He was politically wise and
his efforts are well known in my riding as a Reform pioneer, an
organizer, a man who introduced scores of new members to the
Reform Party of Canada. He did this for the love of his country and
for the future of his children, his grandchildren and their children.
Eric was a fourth generation Canadian born in Dauphin,
Manitoba, 82 years ago. He passed away peacefully on October 16,
1995. Eric Reilly is survived by his loving wife of over 50 years,
Nora, four children and eight grandchildren.
During the last months of Eric's life he wrote his autobiography
The Life of Reilly, tracing his early years. But his greatest memories
were of his family. He wrote:
The only thing you have left, regardless of how much money you have
accumulated, is your family. I will be leaving a fortune.
To Nora Reilly and the family the House offers our sincerest
condolences.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, local
libraries across the country will suffer if the proposed privatization
of the Canada Communication Group is put in place by the
government. Libraries are concerned that the depository program
operated by the Canada Communication Group may be in danger.
15520
Relaying government information to the general public has
always been a part of the public library's mandate. The partnership
between government information services and the public library
system has been successfully in place for over 100 years. It would
be most unfortunate if communications between the government
and the people of Canada should be endangered.
With the privatization of CCG, government documents will
become expensive and difficult to obtain.
For the sake of providing information to Canadians, I ask the
government to consider retaining the publishing function of CCG
while giving up the responsibility for printing.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the Canadian mining industry.
Canada is the third largest mining nation in the world and the
world's largest producer of uranium, zinc and potash. Almost 80
per cent of Canada's mineral production is exported.
Mining is the mainstay of employment in over 115 communities
in Canada. For every 10 jobs created in the mining industry, 8 more
jobs are indirectly created. For every dollar spent on mining
research and development, there is a $3 benefit to the Canadian
economy.
Over the past two years the demand for nickel has jumped 20 per
cent. Fortunately Canadians have the resource, the workforce and
the expertise to meet this anticipated demand.
It is for these reasons that we must work together in a
co-operative spirit to foster an environment in which the mining
industry may continue to flourish in this great country of ours.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada is consistently rated as one of the best nations
in the world in which to live. The United Nations ranked us number
one twice in the last three years. A recent private sector ranking of
cities around the world ranked four Canadian cities in the top
twelve.
All around the globe are people who yearn for the rights and
freedoms, not to mention the peace and personal security, we enjoy
as Canadians. We are incredibly fortunate to live in a country
founded on the principles of freedom and democracy.
As an immigrant to this great country I find it hard to believe
anyone, let alone descendants of the first Fathers of Confederation,
would ever consider leaving it.
Quebecers should take a good hard look at the state of other
countries around the world before they decide to separate from this
one.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the
opportunity to attend the annual convention of the Association
canadienne-française de l'Ontario (Rive-nord) and the 20th
anniversary of ``L'étoile d'or'' seniors' club in Elliott Lake.
(1405)
As always, the members, volunteers and directors did a good job
of representing the Franco-Ontarians in our region. As always, they
have shown that the French fact is still very strong throughout
Northern Ontario because the francophones in our region have
great love and esteem for the distinctive features and wealth of
their culture and heritage.
There is no need for Quebec to leave Canada in order to preserve
the French culture. To the contrary, we believe that the French
culture will have a better chance of surviving in a united Canada, as
my friends from the ACFO and the seniors' club have
demonstrated.
* * *
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance contends that all the evils in
the world will befall a sovereign Quebec and one million jobs will
be lost.
We will recall that the minister himself, along with his present
government colleagues, opposed the free trade agreement with the
United States because, as reported in the June 21, 1988 Hansard, it
would have ``-a negative impact on many industries and
communities and because it will jeopardize the Canadian economic
and social structure as well as Canada's political independence''.
In fact, as we know, the FTA created thousands of jobs in Canada
and gave a tremendous boost to our exports.
The no side, and the Liberal Party of Canada in particular, have
always used fear as an argument against progress. On October 30,
Quebecers will oppose them by saying yes to sovereignty.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning's headline reads: ``Probe into contracts given to
bureaucrat's relatives miffs Dingwall''. Apparently the minister is
unhap-
15521
py with the lack of action taken against bureaucrats who were
caught giving government work to friends and relatives.
The minister should know how internal probes feel by now. This
summer he asked his employees to clear him of charges of steering
lucrative contracts to a campaign contributor who just happened to
be the golfing buddy of the Prime Minister.
The internal whitewash declared the minister clean even though
a letter from the minister's office blatantly directed a government
agency to do business with this sole bidder and then asked the
agency to confirm progress.
We know how internal probes feel. Take two aspirins and call the
ethics counsellor in the morning. We know how that feels too. It is
not very satisfying over here.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, do we as
members of Parliament and does the public generally have any idea
what Bill S-9 is all about?
At a time when funding for Canadian colleges, universities and
institutes is being reduced through cuts in transfer payments, the
House is about to pass legislation today that will see Canadian
taxpayers funding United States universities and colleges.
Yes, Canadian taxpayers will be able to support American
colleges and universities. Bill S-9 will enable Canadians to donate
funds to any college or university in the United States and then be
able to deduct these contributions on their tax returns. Canadians
will now be able to donate money to Harvard, Stanford, UCLA or
Eastern Arkansas State College and then deduct these contributions
on their Canadian tax returns.
Why are Canadians being asked to subsidize U.S. colleges and
universities at the same time when support for Canadian
post-secondary institutions are being seriously underfunded?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was very
impressed by an ad placed by the francophone community of
Alberta in the Wednesday edition of
Le Soleil two weeks ago.
What it said reflected the concerns of French speaking
communities across Canada. Canada is recognized around the
world as a bilingual country where both English and French are
spoken. The future of the French language in Canada would be
seriously threatened in a divided country. It is obvious.
Francophones were among the founders of cities like Moncton,
Winnipeg, Regina and Edmonton. The voyageurs who discovered
new territories and the settlers who farmed this new land are but a
few examples of this. We must not break the ties between Quebec
and francophone communities in the other Canadian provinces.
Together, we are stronger, much stronger.
I will conclude by quoting the French Canadian Association of
Alberta and saying, on behalf of all francophone communities in
Canada, that the French language has a place in Canada, and so
does Quebec.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Yes side has a real problem refraining from excluding various
groups when it discusses who is a true Quebecer and who is not.
(1410)
The recent controversial comments made by the Bloc Quebecois
leader concerning the low birth rate among whites were echoed
once again in the separatist camp.
Mr. Emmanuel Marcotte, president of the Yes committee for the
Outaouais region, said: ``It is a fact, it is a white race. I mean it is a
fact. Let us call a spade a spade. We are white people. We are not
yellow and we are not green. We are white. You do not like the
word race, but that is the truth''.
These comments follow a long series of discriminatory and
racist statements made by the Yes side. On October 30, Quebec will
say no to intolerance and to exclusion.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the Bloc Quebecois, French speaking people outside
Quebec are all condemned to assimilation unless Quebec separates.
That reasoning is all the more insulting because it is unsound.
Today, there are seven million French speaking people in Canada,
out of a total population of 27 million, which means about 25 per
cent of all Canadians. Should the Yes side win, there would be one
million French speaking people in Canada out of a total population
of 20 million, or five per cent of Canadians.
Separatists are prepared to jeopardize the remarkable progress
that we have made over the last 30 years to protect and promote
French in Canada. Separation would result in the worst geopolitical
setback for French in North America since 1759.
French speaking people from all regions of the country,
including Quebec, know very well that there is strength in numbers
and
15522
that a French speaking community which comprises Quebec is the
best guarantee that French will blossom in this country.
* * *
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in his speech to Quebec industrial commissioners the
Minister of Finance for Canada predicted apocalyptically that
sovereignty would jeopardize a million Quebec jobs. Finding the
estimates of the leader of the no committee not catastrophic enough
for his taste, the finance minister padded them by multiplying
Daniel Johnson's estimates by ten.
It is worrisome and unacceptable to see such irresponsible
statements made by the person who manages the enormous federal
debt. We hope that the minister does not use equally farfetched
estimates for his economic and budget forecasts, something one
might well wonder about since the Minister of Finance has deferred
his economic and budget statement until after the referendum.
What is he afraid of? Is he afraid to report to Quebecers now on
his administration?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, representatives of the mining industry and mining
communities are in Ottawa as part of their Keep Mining in Canada
campaign. I bid them welcome.
Although mining contributes greatly to the economy, the sad fact
is that today the Canadian mining industry is in serious trouble.
Domestic mining exploration expenditures for 1992 valued at $385
million were at their lowest levels since 1967. Even with the
improvements in the past two years they are still only expected to
reach $675 million this year, well below the $800 million level
generally regarded as the threshold required to maintain reserves.
As a prospector and mining consultant, I want to assure the
House that it is not easy to drive prospectors out of the bush. It has
taken many years of wrong headed federal government policies to
do that. Major changes must be made.
I ask my hon. colleagues to give a sympathetic ear to Keep
Mining in Canada representatives, not just this week but all year
round.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was paradoxical, to say the least, to see the
separatist member for Rimouski-Témiscouata trying to make
political gains at the expense of francophones outside Quebec,
when she has missed no opportunity to run them down and attack
their credibility.
March 14, on the program Ontario 30, she had the following to
say about the Association des communautés francophones et
acadienne: ``To my mind, it is very clear that the federation has
been bought off''. The next day she told Le Devoir ``Our message
to francophones outside Quebec is clear. Leave us alone to make
our decision and mind your own business''.
Quebecers have the survival of French in Canada at heart and
they will not allow the separatist agenda to threaten the existence of
francophone communities outside Quebec. This coming October
30, Quebec will say no to the abandonment of francophones
elsewhere in Canada.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday certain Bloc members spoke in this House in an attempt
to have us believe that francophones outside Quebec would be
better protected by a sovereign Quebec. The hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata stated: ``The status quo is untenable for
the survival and development of the French fact in North America;
only a sovereign Quebec can enable us to work toward this''.
I feel it is appropriate to remind the official opposition, along
with the hundreds of thousands of francophones outside Quebec,
that one of the first decisions taken by the Parti Quebecois after its
election was to close Quebec's office in Edmonton. According to
the PQ minister the reason for this decision was financial. On
October 30, Quebecers will not abandon francophones outside
Quebec, and that is why they will vote no.
_____________________________________________
15522
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
in an apocalyptic speech to Quebec's industrial commissioners, the
finance minister predicted one million jobs would be lost the day
after a win by the Yes side, thus upsetting a number of people in the
audience, who obviously felt uncomfortable with these outlandish
claims. The minister added that according to him, it was a
conservative estimate and that it might even be more than one
million.
15523
My question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs. Would such farfetched statements not seriously
compromise the credibility of the finance minister and are they
not a definite indication that panic has struck the federal side?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister was right. He said there are one
million jobs in Quebec that are affected by export industries,
including those that export to the rest of Canada, and that Quebec's
separation would create considerable problems in this area.
What he said was perfectly true and is supported by the statistics.
It is an indication of the extremely negative economic
consequences of Quebec's separation.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not agree that his colleague
in the Finance Department has gone too far by taking such an
irresponsible approach, since his responsibility and first duty as
finance minister is to avoid any statements that might cause a
negative reaction on the financial markets?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister also has a duty to point out what
would really happen if Quebec separates.
In his role as finance minister, he has an obligation to point out
that separation will not only cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs,
as the leader of the No committee said, but also that many jobs
would be affected by changes occurring subsequent to separation,
and particularly by the fact that, as the finance minister pointed out,
Quebec would have to renegotiate its entry in NAFTA and the
successor organization to GATT.
These are aspects that will create substantial economic problems
in Quebec and, once again, the finance minister has a duty to point
this out to Quebecers.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not realize that the finance
minister's apocalyptic speech, which was actually received with
some scepticism by industrial development advisers, gets us
nowhere and is in fact is oddly similar to the speeches they made on
free trade a few years ago, and which subsequently turned out to be
all wrong?
(1420)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the supporters of the Yes committee, which includes the
Bloc
Quebecois, would have Quebecers believe that separation will take
place without a hitch, without any negative economic
consequences, without any impact on Quebec's relations with the
rest of Canada, the United States and Mexico.
That is not true, and it is not enough to wave a magic wand and
say ``Poof! Let the problems vanish!'' for them to vanish.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Massé: The truth is that separation will create tremendous
problems, it will affect investment in Quebec, jobs and exports.
Whatever the Bloc and the PQ say, it is important to get the truth
out and that Quebecers know on October 30 what the real
consequences will be of separation.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
In an effort to add weight to his apocalyptic speech, the Minister
of Finance claimed that business in Quebec would no longer be
able to export to the United States, as if a veritable great wall of
China was going to be built around Quebec.
Will the minister not acknowledge that, the day after a yes vote,
American and Canadian businesses will not want to lose their
privileged access to Quebec markets and that this unavoidable
reality makes the apocalyptic scenario of the Minister of Finance
completely ridiculous?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that there is no
guarantee at all of this in the event a yes vote.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister should know that the Americans will be
looking for stability in their trading with Canada and Quebec the
day after a yes vote.
Does the minister not agree that nothing will better ensure the
stability that the United States, and Canada as well, will be looking
for than Quebec's early entry into NAFTA, as a number of
American experts have already pointed out.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, only a no vote will ensure
Canada's economic and commercial stability.
Today, the figures are coming out. In the month of August,
Canada had an all time record volume of foreign trade.
[English]
In the month of August there was the highest ever increase in
real exports from Canada to countries around the world. The best
15524
way to protect the interests of Quebecers and Canadians in selling
our goods around the world is to keep Canada together.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the unavoidable reality of health care financing is that
federal financial support of health care is declining in absolute
terms. Under this government, federal funding has fallen to 22 per
cent of the overall health care bill, with $7 billion in cuts in health
care transfers projected.
The provinces are wondering, the Canadian people are
wondering, how the minister expects the provinces to replace the
health care transfers she is withdrawing. She says they cannot
charge the patients. She is against facility fees and she does not
want private capital involved.
Is the minister therefore proposing that the provinces impose
additional health care taxes to replace the federal medicare funding
she is withdrawing?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps I can explain to the hon. member what was contained in
last February's budget. We will have a combined transfer called the
Canada health and social transfer which, yes, will be cut. It
includes not only health care, but many other services.
Let us look at this in the proper context. For instance, in
education, social programs and health, expenditures amount to
about $100 billion in one year. Next year the cut will be in the
neighbourhood of 3 per cent or slightly less. While it will be a
challenge to manage this, we do believe that a less than 3 per cent
cut is manageable.
(1425 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I know when the minister took this job they told her there
would be no math, but there is.
There are only four sources of health care financing: federal
transfers, patient contributions, private capital and provincial tax
dollars. The minister is reducing the federal transfers. She is
against the patient contributions. She is against the private capital.
Therefore the only other source to replace the federal transfers is
provincial tax increases.
If the minister is against all these things, in reducing the
transfers will she not admit that she is in effect telling the provinces
to get the additional revenue through provincial tax increases? Yes
or no.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will repeat again what has been stated by all health economists
across the country: It is not more money that is needed in the
system; it is a different way of spending.
What the hon. member is suggesting is the easy way out: a U.S.
two-tier style system, one where the rich get the best treatment and
for the rest of Canadians thank you, it is too bad.
We are challenging all Canadians to work together to embrace
those values which mean that we all get the same kind of access
based on need. It is first class service that we want for everyone.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Constitution assigns responsibility for
health care to the provinces. The federal government only gets
involved through the exercise of its spending power which is now
declining. The minister is the first federal Minister of Health to
preside over annual reductions in federal transfers to the provinces
for health care which is resulting in closing beds, waiting lines and
friction with the provinces.
Will the minister acknowledge that there are now distinct limits
to the federal power over health care policy? Will she tell the
House how those limits will affect her dealings with the provinces
of Canada?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we continue to transfer considerable dollars to the provinces. As
long as we transfer dollars to the provinces, we can ask that they
respect certain principles. We say to them, yes, manage the system.
We are giving them as much leeway as possible. We are very
flexible but flexibility does not mean tearing up the Canada Health
Act.
This government stands for something which is valuable and
which all Canadians stand for. Reform Party members are the only
ones who believe in tearing up the Canada Health Act.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
After trying in vain for a reimbursement of $127 million for
fiscal year 1991-92 under the stabilization program, Quebec is
forced to appeal to the Federal Court in order to win its claim.
Unperturbed, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs responded
cynically and arrogantly that it was perfectly normal for Quebec to
apply to the courts. Are we to understand that the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs considers it normal for Quebec to have
to apply to the courts to obtain what Ottawa has owed it for the past
four years? Is this what they call flexible federalism?
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, flexible federalism in recent years has worked very well
through negotiations with the various provinces. Specifically, for
example, thanks to our action plans with nine provinces in Canada,
I have signed-and I will leave it to them to guess which province
has not signed-we have reached 64 agreements with the
provinces,
15525
including a dozen with Quebec, before the election of the Parti
Quebecois, but afterwards, zip.
(1430)
So, in terms of negotiations, clearly we resolve most of our
problems through negotiation. As for this particular problem, Ms.
Beaudoin has already come and presented her problem. In our
opinion, there is nothing owing, nothing to pay. The regulations are
clear: the Province of Quebec, in this case, is not entitled to
payment, and we have told Quebec that we were prepared to let it
go to court, that we would provide whatever assistance it needed to
go to court and that it should get a decision from a court of law.
This is the normal process.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the fact there were a number of agreements before
the arrival of the Parti Quebecois not mean that the principal
supporters of a no vote, with Mr. Johnson as a fine representative in
Quebec, accepted any old thing from the federal government? This
is why there were agreements. We, however, stand firm-that is the
difference.
How does the minister explain Quebec's receiving only 8 per
cent to date of the funds from this federal stabilization program,
when Ontario has received six times as much, that is, 44 per cent?
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, I should point out that the Province of Quebec has done
fairly well in dealings with the federal government, because, for
example, according to the study by George Mathews, one of the Le
Hir studies, Quebec pays only 21 per cent of federal and other
taxes, but receives 26 per cent of spending.
So, when we look at the whole picture, we see clearly that
Quebec receives a much larger share for valid reasons.
Stabilization payments are made when there is a shortfall. The
shortfall depends on all sorts of things that have to do with
economic conditions and that are therefore subject to them and not
to a system of sharing or of percentages between provinces.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
health minister is fond of saying health care should not depend on
the size of one's wallet. What about the size of the waiting list? For
a hip replacement in Manitoba it is 61 weeks; 1,200 Ontarians
waiting for heart bypasses; a 44-day delay in radiation for breast
cancer treatment, three times longer than the medical college says
is acceptable. People are dying on these waiting lists.
When will the minister even admit there is a serious problem
with the health care system and that she is causing the violation of
the principle of accessibility in the Canada Health Act?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest the hon. member deal directly with the provinces when it
comes to waiting lists. She used two examples in her question, one
respecting heart bypass surgery.
There has been an announcement I believe from Ontario that it
will be shortening that list. It will be transferring more money into
that area. Recently there was another announcement in Ontario of a
new centre for cancer treatment which will shorten the line for
breast cancer treatment.
That is what happens in a system that has everyone in it. Public
pressure asks governments to transfer funds to where they are most
needed. We think that is the way it has to be. That is how we have
been well served in the past and that is how we should continue to
be served.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, so yes,
she is admitting accessibility is being violated and that these lines
are getting shorter because people are going to the States, not
because the health care system is getting any better.
The health minister should open her eyes and take a good look at
the health care system. If she did she would see these massive
reductions in hospital closures and Canadians buying American
waiting list insurance to stay alive. This is ridiculous.
(1435 )
What specific action does she plan to take to reduce the waiting
lists to ensure Canadians are getting the most advanced, the most
effective and the most timely medical attention available?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
answered that question in my previous answer. I remind the hon.
member our medicare system has received applause from around
the world because it is first class.
The idea that we should move to a U.S. style two-tier system is
unacceptable to every member of my caucus. All the premiers say
they support the Canada Health Act. Ministers of health from
across the provinces support the Canada Health Act. Medical
associations, nurses associations, hospital associations and the
people of Canada support the Canada Health Act. The only
exception is the Reform Party.
15526
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
It seems that it is the minister's intention to release a national
child care strategy within a few weeks. Here again, this is a reform
that is ready but will not be made public until after the referendum.
Are we to understand that the reason for the minister's refusal to
make his strategy on child care services known before the
referendum is to avoid having to confirm his intention of imposing
national standards on Quebec in an area of provincial jurisdiction?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member
for Mercier is in a bit of a time warp in a number of respects. We
have already indicated to the provinces and to other partners that
we are prepared to cost share child care. We had a major meeting of
deputies almost a year ago at which we offered to pay 50 per cent of
the cost of new spaces.
Fortunately a very important initiative was taken up by the First
Nations people. We are almost ready to conclude an agreement
with the First Nations Assembly for 6,000 new child care spaces
sponsored by our First Nations people. We hope to have that
concluded in a couple of weeks.
Because certain provinces are now engaging in restricting child
care, I simply wrote to the Ontario minister to remind him the
federal government is willing to be a partner in sharing the cost of
child care so these spaces do not have to be closed.
I hope the hon. member will help carry that message because
child care is very important to many Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is quick with his irony, but he has not answered the
question.
Is he committed to not making Quebec's compliance with
federal standards a condition for funding of child care services?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we made it very clear that we
are prepared to provide cost sharing over a five-year period and
that it is the jurisdiction of the provinces to decide how that money
would be allocated. I am simply waiting for a response. I am not
trying to be quick witted but it takes effort when dealing with Bloc
questions.
The provinces make these decisions. I want to ensure we can
provide, as we do in many other areas, a national response so we
can share and pool our resources to ensure areas with fewer
resources are considered. That is why I took some interest today in
the minister of employment in Quebec when she talked about
totally fragmenting the national unemployment insurance service
for Quebecers. It would put at risk thousands upon thousands of
Quebec workers who would no longer have access to a national
unemployment insurance program.
* * *
(1440)
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister does not want U.S. style health care and that is good;
neither do we. However, we want what Canadians want, choice in
health care as in Sweden, Denmark, England and many other
countries. Those countries all respect choice.
Why will the health minister not offer Canadians choice beyond
medicare?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have the best choice of any country in the world. They
get the best services no matter who they are, no matter where they
live, whether or not they have money.
It is determined by the degree or the severity of their needs. That
is the way it should be. That is the way Canadians want it.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there are only
three countries in the world that do not offer choice beyond
medicare: North Korea, Cuba and now Canada, thanks to the health
minister.
Will the minister listen to the appeal of Canadians for choices
beyond cutbacks, for choices beyond waiting lists, for choices
beyond line up, shut up and check out?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member exaggerates when he tries to compare us with
Cuba and such countries when we have the best medicare system in
the world.
The hon. member would like us to give people a choice. Is it
something like the choice to buy a box seat at the SkyDome?
Having an illness is not like going to a baseball game.
We believe we need the best for people as they need it, and the
very best is what we have had in Canada. We will continue to
support that.
15527
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
According to an unsigned study referred to by chairman of the no
committee Daniel Johnson, Quebec would lose no less than a third
of its 11,000 dairy farms by voting yes. This doomsday scenario
was immediately denied by Claude Lafleur, director of the Union
des producteurs agricoles and labelled by him as ``catastrophist,
extremist and improbable''.
Will the minister admit that it is in the interest of producers and
the milk processing industry to reach an agreement with Quebec in
order to preserve the system of supply management, particularly as
protection against American competition, as all those involved in
this sector are aware?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the remarks made yesterday by Mr.
Johnson and Mr. Vallières in Quebec with respect to the earlier
studies issued by Minister Le Hir were very solid and very credible
criticism of Mr. Le Hir's reports which were a total distortion of the
true picture.
This criticism has come not only from Mr. Johnson and Mr.
Vallières. It has come from several prominent Quebec university
professors. It has come from U.S. trade policy experts like Mr.
Chip Roh and it has come most recently, quoted in today's La
Presse, from Mr. Yvon Proulx, the chief economist of the UPA.
(1445)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I the minister should read the magazine L'Actualité
because that information comes from an unsigned Quebec Liberal
party document. The authors are even ashamed to acknowledge
that they wrote it-that's Liberals for you.
An hon. member: Get some information.
Mr. Bellehumeur: This is disinformation.
Does the minister acknowledge that Canada will negotiate to
preserve the supply management system, for if the laws of the
marketplace were to apply we Quebecers would come out on top
because we in Quebec have the production and the most profitable
producers-that is the truth.
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today Quebec enjoys great strength
and stability in its dairy sector, with some 12,000 commercial dairy
farms, $1.3 billion in cash receipts from milk production, milk
quota values in excess of $2 billion, 20,000 jobs in rural Quebec,
83 dairy processing plants, 7,400 processing jobs in those plants,
and 47 per cent of the Canadian national industrial milk quota. All
that is to the advantage of Quebec because of Quebec's
participation in the Canadian supply and management system.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The Canadian mining industry is one of the key sectors of our
economy, creating over 300,000 direct jobs on which 150
communities depend.
An hon. member: Do you speak French?
[Translation]
Mr. Serré: Certainly, we are bilingual in Ontario. We speak both
languages.
Could the minister indicate to the House the principal measures
initiated by our government to support and promote the
development of a dynamic mining industry in Canada?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that the government
understands the importance of mining to the nation and to our
economy. We are committed to ensuring its ongoing prosperity and
sustainability.
Mr. Stinson: Then quit giving them the shaft.
Ms. McLellan: One of the interesting things, for anybody down
there who would like to listen, is the fact that when we talk to the
mining industry its major concern is regulatory reform.
Our government is committed to reforming regulations
applicable to the mining industry. That is why my colleague, the
Minister of Industry, has included the mining sector as one of only
six to go through substantive accelerated regulatory reform. We are
doing that so there is a prosperous mining industry all over the
country, including Quebec.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
15528
Seventy per cent of B.C. residents are already enrolled in private
insurance plans to pay for certain services, including long term
and extended care. The desire of B.C. residents is choice in
medicare.
Why will the minister not acknowledge the desire of B.C.
residents and other Canadians in allowing for genuine medicare
innovations and reforms through choice?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have the best choice of all. Without having to worry
whether or not they can afford it, they can choose which doctor and
which hospital. They can choose without undue pressures and
financial hardships.
(1450 )
The hon. member speaks of British Columbia. That province
agreed with the federal government and was the province that
moved most quickly and banned all extra billing, user charges, and
facility fees by October 1 of this year.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The minister is selective in what she will tolerate. Private
insurance plans are tolerated, yet the minister intends to stomp out
private clinics. In B.C., private cataract eye clinics have been shut
down, forcing seniors to be added to unacceptably long public
waiting lists.
Why is the minister discriminating against seniors while
permitting other private options to continue? Why the
inconsistency?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canada Health Act says that the provincial plans must cover
medically necessary services for the residents in their provinces.
That is what is happening. That is what we will ensure continues to
happen.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Information provided by the federal Department of Agriculture
confirms that this department has been particularly remiss in its
treatment of Quebec. In 1994-95, the agri-food industry in Quebec
received only 10 per cent of Agriculture Canada's budget, although
Quebec has more than 21 per cent of Canada's agri-food industry.
Does the minister agree, as confirmed by information provided
by the federal department of agriculture, that the way his
department's expenditures are budgeted is unfair to Quebec's
agri-food industry?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, I would not make that
admission. One has to take into account the entire range of federal
policies that apply to agriculture. In some cases those policies
provide for grants and contributions, either to producers directly or
to producer organizations, marketing systems, institutions and so
forth.
Another very valuable form of contribution by the Government
of Canada comes in the form of our regulatory system that creates
Canadian supply management, and 45 per cent of Quebec
agriculture falls within the jurisdiction of the Canadian supply
management system, which results in billions of dollars worth of
benefits to Quebec and Canadian consumers and producers.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
talks about sectors. My point is that the federal government gives
us 10 per cent, although the agri-food industry in Quebec
represents 21 per cent of the entire sector.
Since the Liberals came to power, the minister has done nothing
about this unfair treatment of the agri-food industry in Quebec.
Would the minister agree that closing the federal agricultural
research centre in La Pocatière will merely exacerbate the current
situation?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman
makes reference to agricultural research. If we were to apply the
hard and fast formulae he just suggested to the field of agricultural
research, it would result in a cutback with respect to the province of
Quebec.
In fact we have 18 national centres of excellence in agricultural
research and development in the country. Four of them are located
in the province of Quebec, at Ste-Foy, at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu,
at Lennoxville and at St-Hyacinthe, which is the highest number in
the country.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
the discussion goes back and forth with the Minister of Health, I
hear her saying that Canadians get the very best choice.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
15529
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): And we hear the nonsense
that goes on over there along with it. That is not very comforting
to the families who have lost people waiting in line for health care.
(1455 )
I would like a straightforward answer for a change from the
minister. Is the Minister of Health intent on banning all private
clinics in Canada? Just a yes or no, nice and simple. Can she
answer?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are intent on protecting the principles of the Canada Health Act.
The answer is yes. The answer is yes, we are going to continue to
protect the Canada Health Act. Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yes, they are banning all clinics. It is good to have an answer. It is
like the answers we get from the minister of public works and the
minister of culture.
Why is the minister not demanding that Quebec stop charging
facility fees on privately run abortion clinics?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me come back again to what the letter of January 6 was all
about. It concerns all provinces. We are now going into every
province and we are determining what is happening in each
province. That is what is happening.
If there are facility fees being charged and they are not right in
any province then we will move in that direction. Many provinces
have indicated that they are now negotiating or are addressing the
problem as British Columbia did. That is what it is all about. It is
about ensuring equitable access for everyone.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the separatists seem more interested in winning the
referendum at any cost than in dealing with the real problems of
Quebec farmers.
My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Could he
explain how being part of Canada benefits dairy farmers in
Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity in an earlier
answer to outline some very impressive statistics about how the
Canadian supply management system benefits the dairy industry in
the province of Quebec.
By the very fundamental definition of supply management, the
domestic market of a producing country is preserved primarily for
the benefit of that country's domestic producers. A separate
Quebec would obviously no longer be part of the Canadian
domestic market. As a result the dairy industry in Quebec could be
placed in very substantial jeopardy.
The clearest, best, strongest answer for preserving all these
benefits for the dairy industry in Quebec and for the dairy industry
in Canada is a clear and decisive no on October 30.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Last spring, the Bloc
Quebecois condemned the blatantly unfair treatment of Quebec by
the Department of Justice when professional and special contracts
are awarded. In his reply, the minister confirmed our statements, in
other words, Quebec is losing out on contracts awarded by the
Department of Justice.
Today, could the Minister of Justice explain why Ontario, his
own province, gets 80 per cent of the total value of his department's
professional and special contracts, while businesses and
individuals working under contract in Quebec get only 6 per cent?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed it was last spring the hon.
member put those questions. It was on that occasion that I provided
the response and the response remains the same. The Department
of Justice, like all departments of government, pursues a policy of
open and competitive bidding for all work awarded by contract.
I can tell the hon. member that no matter how the statistics might
be used for present partisan purposes, the results and the
advantages of the research and the work done at the Department of
Justice are shared equally by all Canadians.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
come back once again to the question of waiting lists.
It was a cold Friday in January 1980 when my wife was
diagnosed with breast cancer. I am very grateful that her life was
spared because of the speedy surgery which a very competent
surgeon recommended and performed three days after the
diagnosis.
15530
My wife now counsels and consoles women in the same
situation. They are waiting in line while the government is funding
boxes in domes with its infrastructure program. What is the
government going to do about that? What should my wife tell
these women who are waiting in line while their lives are being
threatened?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member's wife was well treated when she became ill,
thanks to Canada's good medicare system.
Yes, there are challenges and they are not always easy to meet.
However, we do not meet them by ripping up something that is very
good. They are met by working at protecting the very values which
have served Canadians so well.
It is very important that all Canadians continue to have access to
the services they need, not just because they can afford to pay extra
for them, but because they need them. We have to work very
closely with provincial governments, which we are doing. We are
going to continue to do that.
It is a question of equity and good access, not of having some get
ahead in the line because they can pay more. That is not what is
fair. Think of the 38 million Americans who have no insurance at
all. What kind of lines are they in?
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Prescription drugs represent 17 per cent of the total cost of health
care in the country. These prices have increased 13 per cent each
year over the past eight years due to Bill C-91, which the Liberals
opposed in opposition but seem to support in government.
The government can save Canadians nearly $1 billion yearly,
simply by doing one thing: repealing Bill C-91 or, at the very least,
abolishing the automatic injunction clause of the patented
medicines regulations.
Why will the government not stop the pharmaceutical drug
manufacturers from ripping off Canadians with usury pricing of
prescription drugs?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first let me help the hon. member with some of his statistics
because I think he would want to get them right.
First, 15.1 per cent of national health expenditures in the last
year for which we have full statistics were for pharmaceuticals.
Patented drugs only account for 40 per cent of the pharmaceuticals
purchased in those expenditures. In addition, with respect to
patented medicines, and this is determined by an independent
board, the price increase from 1987 to 1994 was 2.1 per cent per
year.
If the hon. member begins to take those statistics into account he
might phrase his question a little differently. As he knows, and I
have assured the House several times, we are reviewing Canada's
drug patent policy. In addition, under Bill C-91 there is a
parliamentary review process that will be invoked in 1997.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am happy to note that the hon.
member for Roberval is here while I raise this issue.
During question period, my colleague, the hon. member for
Timiskaming-French River decided to put a question to a
government minister. He chose to do so in English, which is
obviously his second language. While he was on his feet, a heckler
on the other side of the House asked the hon. member: ``Can't you
speak French?''
(1505 )
[English]
The Speaker: All the more reason that we have to be ever
vigilant in the words we use in the House of Commons. I did not
hear the statement. Of course this is not a point of order but I am
sure the point made by the government whip has been taken.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order concerning the auditor general's report
tabled on October 5, 1995 and referred to the Standing Committee
on Public Accounts.
I contend that the tabling and referral to the committee of this
report is out of order because the report in question contravenes the
Auditor General Act and the conventions and prerogatives of the
House.
I draw attention to section 5 of the Auditor General Act which
defines the position as the ``auditor of the accounts of Canada'' and
section 7(2) which sets out the parameters of the auditor general's
reports. This paragraph empowers the auditor general to report that
the records of the public accounts were faithfully kept, that
expenditures have been made only as authorized by Parliament and
with due regard for efficiency, and that due measures are taken to
measure the effectiveness of programs.
In his latest report the auditor general has clearly overstepped
the legal and customary boundaries of his duties as a servant of the
House and in my judgment has interfered with the rights of the
House by making politically biased statements. Let me illustrate
15531
this claim with some direct quotations from the auditor general's
report in question.
In paragraph 9.84 the report states: ``We think that Parliament
and the public need to focus on debt issues, particularly the amount
of debt we carry''. The auditor general exists to help Parliament
hold the government to account and not to hold Parliament to
account for failing to adopt a particular policy. No company of
shareholders in the private sector would accept an auditor's report
that expressed an opinion about how the shareholders conducted
themselves at meetings, rather than help the shareholders assess the
management of the company. I contend that neither can we in the
House.
The auditor general further infringes on the rights of the House
when he writes in paragraph 9.107 concerning the level of public
debt:
Determining a strategy to achieve that vision is something the government
and Parliament need to debate and develop a consensus on.
I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the House does
not necessarily exist to create a consensus around a particular
economic theory. There are different and differing political theories
and different political stances in the House. Therefore I contend
that the House exists to hold the government of the day accountable
in a way that reflects the diversity of political opinion in the
country and that this is not recognized in the auditor general's
report.
The duty of the auditor general as set out in law is to aid
Parliament in that task by providing technical information about
the state of the public accounts to assist members of the House in
their debates. It is not to preach to Parliament about what the
conclusion of that debate should be.
The same criticism can be applied to paragraph 9.52 of the report
which states:
The reality is that (interest rates) are not lower, and had it been a simple
matter of making them lower in the 1980s and 1990s as they were in the
previous 20 years, governments would have undoubtedly done so.
I would happily debate this point with anybody in the House, for
it is common knowledge that the Bank of Canada under John Crow
deliberately chose to dramatically increase interest rates in quest of
a zero inflation rate.
My procedural point is that I cannot argue this point with the
auditor general because this statement comes in the form of an ex
cathedra pronouncement of an auditor who is presumed to provide
objective assessments of the public accounts. Yet I can think of no
principle of accounting that would allow an auditor to offer such a
tendentious historical verdict on the motives of past governments,
a verdict which supports a particular political position on what
caused our fiscal problems and what should be done about them.
Because the auditor general like yourself, Mr. Speaker, is a
servant of Parliament, he should not use the authority of his
position to advance political arguments as if they were uncontested
accounting principles. His reports must demonstrate the highest
degree of political neutrality. He cannot perform the role of auditor
as set out clearly in the Auditor General Act if he uses his position
to take sides in debates that properly take place in the House. The
auditor general has therefore overstepped his legal and customary
duties in his latest report.
(1510)
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider two measures to defend the
rights of the House to have access to an objective auditing of the
public accounts. First, I ask you to rule the tabling of the October 5
report to be out of order and to have you ask that the auditor general
submit an amended report that conforms to his duties as set out in
the Auditor General Act. Second, I ask you to refer the matter of
the terms of reference for auditor general's reports to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I was not given prior notice of this point of order.
It strikes me as a rather serious challenge by the hon. member
that the auditor general should not be independent of government,
not be independent of the opinions of the House when he studies
the efficiency of the government and the spending of government.
Certainly if the auditor general does not have the independence to
make suggestions on whether or not governments have acted
prudently, we have stripped him of his power and we have stripped
him of his reason for being. Therefore I disagree with the hon.
member. I think his argument is very weak and should not even be
considered in the House.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has argued with his usual
erudition but I submit that even in his wildest dreams he could not
have imagined that the point he has raised is really a question of
privilege.
I refer Your Honour to-
Mr. Blaikie: A point of order, I said.
Mr. Milliken: A point of order. I thought he said it breached the
privileges of the House, Mr. Speaker, and that he wanted it ruled
out of order because it breached the privileges of the House,
because it interfered with our privilege to manage our financial
affairs, the financial affairs of the country.
I turn to citation 24 of Beauchesne's sixth edition where it states:
15532
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the 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.
I submit that in the tabling of this report there has been no
impedance with members' functions or their ability to discharge
their functions. We have here a situation where the hon. member
disagrees with some of the contents of the report. I have no doubt
the government disagrees with some of the contents of the report as
well. I suspect if I read it all as thoroughly as the hon. member
obviously has I would probably disagree with parts of the report.
However the place for him to take his complaints is not to the
House to have the report ruled out of order. The auditor general has
a right to submit his opinions to the House. He is an officer of the
House and that is his duty. Surely the hon. member should go to the
public accounts committee and complain about the report if he
disagrees with it. Then the public accounts committee would report
to the House saying it disagrees with the auditor general's report if
the committee agrees. Surely that is where this complaint ought to
go.
The hon. member has not raised a point of order or a question of
privilege in my submission. He has raised what I can only suggest
is a complaint. He disagrees with the report, fine. He should go to
the committee and express his disagreement. That is what the
committee is for. That is why it has been referred there.
The Speaker: I think a very important point has been raised
today. I take under advisement the opinions of the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster and the member for Kingston and the
Islands.
I would like to look at this a bit more closely in view of what has
been said today and I would like to more inform myself of the
particulars. I will reserve a decision on this point and get back to
the House when and if it is needed.
Is this on the same point of order? I do not want to get into a
debate going back and forth.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to apologize to my
colleagues for not having given more notice and for that matter any
notice. I would hope that some of the comments that have been
made might change when people have an opportunity to think
about it.
The very fact the member gets up and says that I disagree with
something in the report is the point I am trying to make. The report
should be of such a factual nature that there is nothing in it to
disagree with. It should be a report on various facts of a technical
nature. The fact that I can find something to agree with or
somebody else can find something to disagree with is the point I
am trying to make about the report.
Nobody elects the auditor general to make these kinds of
judgments. I think we have a situation here that-
(1515 )
The Speaker: I appreciate the member's intervention. I am sure
he will agree with other members of the House and with me when I
say that I would like to reserve my decision on this matter. I would
like to inform myself a little more and get back to the House.
I have a point of privilege from the hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria. Does this point of privilege arise from the
question period today?
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Yes.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is in regard to
comments that were made during today's oral question period.
When my colleague from Timiskaming-French River asked his
question, part of it was in English and part of it in French. As he
was starting to formulate his question, we heard the Bloc member
for Roberval's comments. This is a question of privilege, Mr.
Speaker, and I want to thank you for hearing me out. We heard the
hon. member for Roberval shout in this House to the hon. member
for Timiskaming-French River: ``In French, please. In French''.
My question of privilege is as follows: Canada has the charter of
rights and freedoms and the Official Languages Act.
The Speaker: One moment, please.
A point of order was raised today but I ruled that it was not a
point of order.
[English]
I have ruled on that. I was waiting for the hon. member to get to
the point of privilege. It would seem to me at least at this point that
we are engaging in debate on a decision I have already taken about
a point of order.
To this point at least I have not heard any argument that would
deem this to be a point of privilege.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Exchanges take place in the House throughout
question period, indeed throughout debate.
I did not hear the statement that was alleged to have been made.
Surely we have to be able to tolerate a certain amount of give and
take in the House. This is the point I would like to impress on the
House. There are going to be times when words may or may not
15533
have been used that hon. members say they heard. In my view this
is not a point of privilege.
Privilege is about what would impede a person from speaking,
from voting, from coming to the House. It was raised as a point of
order and I ruled on this as a point of order.
In my view this is the same point and I would like the matter to
rest there.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker-
The Speaker: You have the floor.
Mr. Gauthier: We will check up on what was said-
The Speaker: Order, please.
Dear colleague, this is neither a point of order nor a question of
privilege, and I would like to leave it at this.
Mr. Gauthier: May I ask a question, please?
The Speaker: I am prepared to hear you on another point of
order, but not on this one. I recognize the hon. member for
Roberval.
Mr. Gauthier: I rise on a point of order to ask you, Mr. Speaker,
since you are here to provide guidance, how, according to standard
procedure, I should go about setting the record straight when a
member puts words in my mouth that I never said.
I would like to know what to do, so that I can then raise my point
of order, Mr. Speaker.
(1520)
The Speaker: Dear colleague, normally, what would happen is
that you would simply rise on a point of order and state that you did
not say any such thing. At any rate, I do not want to embark on a
long discussion on this matter. So, if you wish to go on record in
Hansard, I will allow that, but nothing more.
Mr. Gauthier: Very well, Mr. Speaker, because I respect your
decision, and it is truly for that reason that I will comply. For the
record, I would just like to say that the words the hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria ascribed to me are incorrect. I never said
that, plain and simple.
[English]
The Speaker: We are entering debate and we do not want to go
down that road. I have made a ruling. The hon. member wanted
clarification. I told him how he could do this. I permitted him to
make the one statement which he made. It is on the record and it is
clear. I ruled on a point of order earlier and, colleagues, I wish you
would accept that point of order.
I have ruled on the point of privilege by saying that it was not a
point of privilege. I wish you would accept that. I would like to let
this matter rest now where it is.
15533
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as federal minister
responsible for co-operatives, I wish to take the opportunity today
to recognize and salute National Co-Operative Week and
International Credit Union Day in Canada.
Since pioneer times Canadians have found it beneficial to work
together toward common goals. The co-operative movement
springs from that community effort and involvement.
An important part of our economy, co-ops provide over 133,000
jobs and represent more than $140 billion in assets. Non-financial
co-operatives have a volume of business of $20.7 billion. Together,
caisse populaire and credit unions represent the fifth largest
financial network in Canada.
[Translation]
This year is important for the international co-operative
movement, as it marks the 100th anniversary of the International
Co-operative Alliance. The ICA represents more than 753 million
members from 90 countries. The conference held in Manchester in
September was a major event for the international co-operative
movement. Revised co-operation principles were adopted that will
propel co-ops into the 21st century. In this respect, I think that it
would be proper to pay special tribute to Ian MacPherson, from
British Columbia, who spearheaded the process.
(1525)
[English]
Co-operatives are an effective way of providing a wide range of
goods and services to their members and to consumers. While
many co-operatives operate in urban centres, they have been
especially effective in developing businesses and creating
employment in rural areas and small communities.
Through co-operation, many Canadians have established new
businesses and expanded into new or unique ventures. For
example, the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Co-operative in
eastern Ontario will produce ethanol from locally grown grains.
Involvement in co-operatives has helped many thousands of
individuals learn new business and management skills which not
only help them to manage their co-operatives but also gives them
the skills to better manage their own enterprises and allows them to
grow and expand.
15534
[Translation]
I want to mention how committed our young people are to the
co-operative approach. Students have started co-ops in their
schools to provide services in areas such as savings, housing,
school supplies and computing science and, in some instances, to
create summer jobs for themselves.
[English]
I urge all members, in our deliberations today and on every other
occasion, to consider the potential of co-operation as a tool to help
the country to continue to be a nation that is innovative, dynamic
and proud of its accomplishments.
From my home province of Saskatchewan in the west where our
people demonstrate a high level of participation in co-operative
organizations to Quebec, which also enjoys a high level of
co-operative activity, the co-op movement is one very important
bond of strength and unity.
I congratulate the Canadian co-operative movement on its
achievements and wish it much success in the years to come.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great respect for all those who have contributed to the development
of co-operatives that I want to emphasize the importance of
National Co-Operative Week and of International Credit Union
Day.
The co-op movement reflects the values of mutual help and
solidarity which are dear to Quebecers and Canadians. In many
regions, the co-op movement provided the solution to ensure an
harmonious development geared to the needs of the local
community. Agricultural co-operatives were among the first to
support the economic development of our regions. They provided
an efficient and economical tool to ensure that the required services
were available for agricultural production. Co-operatives have
played, and continue to play, an important role in job creation.
They provide over 133,000 jobs to Canadians and Quebecers.
The co-op system has fully shown its usefulness. It is an
important component of Quebec's economy. Just think of the
strength of the caisses populaires Desjardins and of the dairy
co-operatives. The co-op movement is based on a local community
taking charge; by pooling its resources and working as a team, it
can be very successful.
This year marks the one hundredth anniversary of the
International Co-operative Alliance. It is an opportunity to reflect
on the
fact that, for decades now, people all over the world have believed
in the virtues of the co-op movement and have worked hard to
make these known to others.
I congratulate these people, I encourage them to keep up the
good work, and I wish them the best of success in their future
endeavours.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of my
Reform colleagues with regard to National Co-Operative Week and
International Credit Union Day.
The co-op movement has a long and proud tradition in my
province of Saskatchewan. It has played a significant role in the
development of the province, in our nation and lands beyond our
borders.
I pause to reminisce for a minute. My father was involved in
some of the early co-operative movements. In fact his membership
number in the Western Credit and Savings Union in Swift Current,
Saskatchewan, was 152 which indicates some of the history and
grassroots nature of the movement.
(1530 )
Like most people in the prairies, and perhaps across Canada, I
belong to several co-operatives. Interestingly enough, one of the
first meetings I had as a member of Parliament was with the credit
union management, members and boards of directors in west
central Saskatchewan. It was a very profitable meeting, indeed.
They were concerned about federal issues that are dealt with by the
Parliament of Canada and they were happy to meet with their MP.
The concept is simple and sensible. A group of consumers or
producers ban together to strengthen their bargaining position in
the buying and selling of products. When members are buying they
increase their competitive edge and when they sell they lower their
marketing costs.
Co-ops have had their ups and downs, their triumphs and
failures, as do most business enterprises, but they have been most
successful when they have stayed out of the world of politics and
focused on doing business and doing it well. Co-ops are businesses,
and their job is to do business effectively for their owners, who are
the co-op members, ordinary people who buy and sell.
Today I extend my best wishes to the co-ops and credit unions of
Canada and the world. This includes their members, their boards of
directors, their employees and their millions of customers.
15535
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek
unanimous consent of the House to speak on behalf of the NDP
on this matter.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to join with other colleagues in the House who spoke on
behalf of their parties in congratulating the credit union movement
and the co-op movement on the occasion of National Co-Operative
Week and International Credit Union Day.
Needless to say, the New Democratic Party has political roots in
the co-op movement, of which all members of the House will be
aware. We are very pleased to be able to join in marking this week
and this day.
It is important at a time when the language of competition is
prevalent to remind ourselves that there is another way of looking
at the world. It is a way of looking at the world that is rooted in a
very Canadian way of doing things in the co-op movement.
Co-operation is also a good word. Whatever benefits may come
from competition, and I would be the first to debate some of them,
we ought to realize that co-operation is another way of doing things
and one that has been represented very well in the country over the
decades by the credit union movement and the co-op movement.
I call upon members of the House and the government to protect
this tradition in everything they do. Various things are under attack
from various places, whether it is the budget for co-op housing, the
attack on the wheat board or various other things, all of which
represent manifestations of this co-operative spirit in our political,
social and economic history.
I am pleased to join with other colleagues on behalf of the NDP
in marking this occasion. I hope we will keep in mind at all times
the value of this tradition and the value of advancing it in every
way we can.
The Speaker: I received a note during question period about a
point of order to be raised by the hon. member for Elk Island. With
your permission, I would like to finish the routine business and
before we get into the orders of the day I will hear the hon.
member's point of order immediately thereafter.
* * *
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the
honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the
report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association on the
fourth annual meeting of the parliamentary assembly of the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, held
in Ottawa from July 4 to July 8, 1995.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth
report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation
to its consideration of Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural
Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax
Court of Canada Act.
(1535)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 91st report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the list of
members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Library of
Parliament and associate members of standing committees. If the
House gives its consent, I intend to move that the report be
concurred in later today.
[English]
I also have the honour to present the 91st report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection
of votable items, in accordance with Standing Order 92.
This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
* * *
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-107, an
act respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty
Commission.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
seek the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw my private
member's Bill C-206, an act to provide for the protection and
relocation of witnesses.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I do so for the following brief
reasons.
Members will recall that my private member's bill was debated
and passed unanimously at second reading in the House of
15536
Commons and referred to the justice committee. Since that time
my government has brought forward Bill C-78 on exactly the same
subject.
In my judgment the bill contains virtually the same items that are
in my private member's bill. It is designed to protect and relocate
witnesses to crimes in Canada. As such, it seems a waste of time to
proceed with two bills with identical material. Accordingly I am
quite prepared, with the consent of the House, to have my private
member's bill withdrawn.
I ask for unanimous consent of the House that the order of
reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
for the consideration of Bill C-206, an act to provide for the
relocation and protection of witnesses, be discharged and the bill
withdrawn.
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move that the 91st report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this
day, be concurred in.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of information. I
wonder if the parliamentary secretary could tell the House what the
contents of the report are.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, there are name changes for various
committees, as I announced when I presented the report. There
were changes naming associate members to certain committees and
a change in the membership of the Library of Parliament
committee. All was approved by the whips of the three parties in
the House in accordance with normal practice.
(1540 )
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a
petition signed by 175 people asking Parliament to support the
people of 150 communities dependent on mining for their
livelihood.
The Government of Canada has a responsibility to encourage
investment in mineral exploration and the petitioners are asking
that Parliament take action to keep mining in Canada.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by about 50 of my
constituents who are in the teaching profession. It has been duly
certified pursuant to Standing Order 36 to be in order.
My constituents in the province of Saskatchewan object strongly
to the present status of Canada's Young Offenders Act. They feel
that the Young Offenders Act has failed to address the issue of
youth crime and has negative results in our schools, communities,
and society in general.
Therefore they petition the House to enact legislation to
significantly toughen the Young Offenders Act as quickly as
possible, with a view to making young offenders responsible for
their actions, making the names of young offenders public and
increasing the severity of consequences for repeat offences.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has
been circulating all across Canada. This portion of the petition has
been signed by a number of Canadians from my riding of
Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession, which has not been recognized for its value to our
society. They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates
against families who make the choice to provide care in the home
to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
chronically ill, the disabled or the aged.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise and present a petition of 28 names on behalf of Nola
Newitt, who, along with residents of Rockyford, Strathmore, and
Chilliwack, call upon the government to amend the Income Tax Act
to provide a child care expense deduction that is available to all
families, regardless of the income level of the parents, the amount
of the child care expenses incurred or the form of child care chosen.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions today. The first petition contains some 450
signatures from across Canada.
It prays that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced
vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law that
15537
would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active
or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition contains the signatures of approximately 150
people, primarily from the province of Ontario, praying that
Parliament act immediately to extend to the unborn child the same
protection that is extended to born human beings.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is in connection with the CRTC and signed primarily
by people from the province of Ontario. They pray and call upon
Parliament to ensure that the CRTC recognizes that Canadians do
not need to be shocked to be entertained. Foul language, excessive
violence and explicit sex are not necessary to provide quality
entertainment.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions today. Two of the petitions call on Parliament
to request the federal minister responsible for Canada Post to
consider bringing in legislation requiring all unsolicited mail and
flyers to use recyclable materials and post-consumer fibre, and
amending the Canada Postal Act so that Canada Post would have to
comply with no flyers signs at personal residences, with the
exception of material from political parties and charities. The two
petitions contain many names.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition calls upon Parliament to act quickly to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation and to adopt all necessary measures to
recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in federal law.
(1545 )
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to present three different petitions
from my constituency.
The first is signed by 33 of my constituents who pray that
Parliament enact Bill C-206 at the earliest opportunity so as to
provide a statutory foundation for a national witness relocation and
protection program.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by 40 of my constituents who
pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code,
the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and
freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate 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. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition is signed by 41 constituents who pray
that Parliament ensure the current provisions of the Criminal Code
of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and
that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction
or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order to assist in the maintenance of proper decorum in the
House. I refer to a review on September 18 in which the Acting
Speaker referring back to a ruling in June said: ``We would hope
and call upon members of both sides of the House to be mindful of
the ruling of the Speaker in June regarding exhibits, lapel pins, et
cetera''.
Mr. Speaker, I draw this to your attention and ask you to remind
members to refrain from wearing pins today. Perhaps we could all
agree to do this. The members for Winnipeg South, Kent, Algoma,
Verchères, St. John's West, and Kingston and the Islands are
wearing exhibits.
The Speaker: I take the hon. member's advice à coeur. I noticed
some members today are wearing a flower or a pink pin. I remind
members members that whatever pins or parliamentary buttons we
15538
wear, my general rule is I am guided by the House in virtually
everything I do.
As long as it does not cause a disorder and is in keeping with the
dignity of the House, I use these as general criteria for what we do.
I encourage all hon. members to look at what they are wearing in
the House. For the most part much of it is accepted and we take that
for granted.
I will keep vigilant and I hope all hon. members will keep that in
mind when in the House.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I remind
you the Chair has the right to request that certain pins or items not
be worn. On the night we voted on MP pensions certain members
of the Reform Party were asked to remove them.
The Speaker: I thank my hon. colleague for reminding me of
my decision. I always keep those decisions in mind.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I want to
come to Your Honour's assistance in this regard. I think your
decision in June was quite correct, as I am sure all hon. members
do.
(1550)
Wearing pins and ribbons in the House is a longstanding
tradition as far as I can understand, certainly since I have been here.
I do not consider that a long time ago by standards of others. With
great respect, there is a difference between pins and large buttons
with highly visible insignia constituting a demonstration.
Difficulties occur when members hold up papers, documents or
things that constitute a demonstration in the House or when they
wear substantial buttons, placards or other symbols that carry with
them words or letters transmitted by television as a message.
Your Honour's ruling last June indicated that buttons which
carry a message and were visible to the public were contrary to the
standards of dress in the House. With great respect, I think Your
Honour drew a distinction between those items and small buttons
or pins that members wear not readily visible on television and
which may convey a message but are very small and discreet.
The trick to me in dressing for the Chamber is to dress in a
decorous way that may involve wearing small pins, possibly
unusual ties from time time. I consider myself guilty sometimes on
that score. Those are the things members are allowed to do. As long
as it is tasteful I submit it is right. I think that was Your Honour's
intention. I know members opposite, in making their points, are
really supporting Your Honour's view in that regard.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the intervention by the hon. deputy House leader for the
government. It seems to me he is really saying buttons are okay but
if something embarrasses the government it is okay for the
Speaker to jump on it with both feet.
The Speaker: I thank all members for supporting my decision
last June and for their comments which I will forever keep at the
forefront of my mind when making my decisions.
Pursuant to Standing Order 33(2), because of the ministerial
statement, Government Orders will be extended by 10 minutes.
_____________________________________________
15538
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec) moved that Bill S-9, an act to amend the
Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to begin
the third reading debate on Bill S-9.
Hon. members will recall that this legislation ratifies the
recently signed revised protocol to the Canada-United States Tax
Convention.
Tax conventions are routinely modified, and this is essentially
routine legislation. It has emerged from committee without
amendments, and with good reason. By improving the operation of
the Canadian and U.S. tax systems as they apply in tandem, it will
result in fairer taxation and a better environment for cross-border
investment and trade.
A number of the amendments provided for in the bill are of a
technical or procedural nature, an arbitration mechanism,
improved exchange of tax information, and provisions for
assistance in collecting the taxes of the other country.
But there are also some substantive changes that will benefit
Canadians and enhance the fairness of the two systems for non
residents.
(1555 )
[English]
Let me begin with a provision that has been the subject of some
misunderstanding, the application of U.S. estate taxes to Canadians
with property there. Our achievement with respect to estate taxes is
twofold. First, we are ensuring Canadians with property in the
United States do not get a harsher deal at the hands of the American
government than do Americans. Second, we are doing what tax
conventions are all about, eliminating double taxation.
15539
With respect to the first point it should be borne in mind that
U.S. estate taxes do not kick in for American citizens until the
value of their estate exceeds $600,000. Under our law enacted in
1988 the threshold for Canadians with property in the United
States is only $60,000. In our opinion that is simply not fair. This
protocol changes that, ensuring that Canadians are entitled to the
same treatment as our American neighbours.
There is the matter of double taxation. For half a century tax
treaties have been combating the unfairness and financial
disincentives of double taxation. Typically each jurisdiction
provides a credit against its own taxes on revenue from the other
jurisdiction that has already been taxed in that jurisdiction. The
complicating factor in this case is that while both Canada and the
United States impose taxes upon death these taxes take two
different forms. The U.S. applies an estate tax whereas in Canada
the levy takes the form of an income tax on any appreciation of a
deceased's property over his or her lifetime.
Bill S-9 simply recognizes the situation and addresses the
anomaly that would otherwise result. Without the proposed change
combined Canada and U.S. tax on the estate of a Canadian with
U.S. property could actually exceed the property value. I do not
think anyone in the House would deny that would be patently unfair
to the taxpayers.
In other words, any suggestion this provision represents a tax
break for the wealthy rests on the confusion about tax treaties in
general and this protocol in particular. Wealthy Canadians will
continue to pay substantial taxes on property owned at death.
Another important change is the reduction or elimination of the
rate of withholding tax that each country will apply to certain types
of revenue. The rate on interest payments will be reduced to 10 per
cent from 15 per cent. The rate on direct dividends will go down to
5 per cent from 10 per cent and the rate on royalties on computer
software and on patent and technological information will be
eliminated entirely.
These changes bring the rates under the Canada-U.S. convention
into line with those provided in the OECD model tax convention
accepted by most of the OECD's 25 countries. More to the point,
the reduced rates will facilitate trade and investments between our
two countries.
For example, the elimination of the withholding tax on certain
types of information technology will make it cheaper for Canadian
companies to access technology from the United States and easier
for our high tech firms to sell to the United States.
I will mention one further beneficial change provided for in this
protocol. It concerns the treatment of social security payments such
as old age security and the Canada pension plan. Under the
existing convention these payments are not taxable in the source
country and only half the benefit it taxable in the other country.
Once the protocol is ratified, however, benefits paid from one
country will be taxable exclusively in that country.
To sum up, double taxation conventions are a vital part of the
legal infrastructure underpinning trade and investment
relationships between modern economies. The protocol the bill will
ratify will result in fair taxation while enhancing the international
environment for trade and investment.
Once again I remind hon. members the bill came out of
committee unchanged. I suggest we pass it without further delay.
(1600)
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have seen
that the purpose of Bill S-9 is to ratify a protocol to the
Canada-United States Tax Convention.
This convention regulates most tax provisions, as the hon.
member explained earlier. This means it regulates most tax
provisions between Canada and the United States. Canada has
similar conventions with many other countries throughout the
world. The purpose of these conventions is primarily to avoid
double taxation. It would be unfair for a Canadian or a Quebecer
who works a few months in the United States to be taxed first in the
United States and again in Canada or Quebec when he files his
income tax return at the end of the year.
So considering the extent of our trade relations and the proximity
of the United States, the Canada-United States Tax Convention
should be as harmonized as possible, although it is still detailed and
very complex.
The bill before the House today will make it possible for both
governments to help each other collect taxes from their taxpayers.
It is often said that one good deed deserves another. The United
States will help Canada collect taxes owed by Canadian taxpayers
abroad and in turn, Canada will help the United States collect taxes
from Americans when they are on foreign soil.
Following the free trade agreement with the United States, both
countries decided to operate even more closely to simplify fiscal
exchanges between the two countries. This enhanced co-operation
and harmonization are all part of the trend towards free trade that is
now sweeping the international community and is forcing
governments to become more efficient in the way they tax
companies and citizens of the two countries that are signatories to
this convention.
The Bloc Quebecois fully supports the trend towards free trade,
as we have done since the negotiations began and as Quebec did as
soon as the issue of international free trade was broached, since the
Province of Quebec, unlike the federal Liberal government at the
time, had come out in favour of free trade. Since we support the
free exchange of goods in the greatest possible harmony and on the
most equitable terms for Canadians and Americans, we have not
15540
changed the position we took at the time and today, we want the
government to know that we will support this bill.
We know that without the firm support of Quebec and all major
players in the province, the free trade agreement with the United
States would probably never have materialized.
As I said earlier, Jean Chrétien's Liberals and even the Province
of Ontario were strongly opposed to the agreement. Quebec was
not only in favour of this agreement between the United States and
Canada but also supported expanding the agreement to include
Mexico and still supports this grand design for a free trade zone.
With President Clinton of the United States, we would like to see
this free trade zone extend from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.
We could draw a parallel between this situation and the situation
we see now in the political context involving Canada and Quebec. I
must say that our support for the bill before the House today is
entirely consistent with the position we would take on agreements
with the rest of Canada.
(1605)
Millions of dollars are at stake in Bill S-9. Millions and even
billions of dollars will be at stake tomorrow morning before a
partnership between Quebec and Canada.
For instance, some businesspeople told me that they could not
decide on the matter because they needed both supporters and
opponents of the bill to earn a living.
Both before and after October 30, we will need clients from both
sides in order to ensure a climate of harmony, of beneficial
exchanges between the two parties. If we have no need for both, as
we are doing in this bill, why would businesspeople want to stop
dealing with those clients who voted with the other side after
October 30?
Businesspeople and companies who need both Yes and No
clients before October 30 will continue to need them after October
30. That is why we say that they can only hope for a partnership
between both countries, just as the Bloc Quebecois is now
supporting the partnership advocated by Bill S-9 to harmonize
taxes, estate tax rates.
Yet, with this bill, if Canada refused to sign a protocol with the
U.S., it would not claim to be weakened, that this would be an
obvious way to avoid co-operating with the U.S., or that the U.S.
would be the only one at a disadvantage. Canada understands that it
is in both parties' interest.
In the same way, when people from the no side tell us that
tomorrow morning, we will have Canada and a separated Quebec, I
think that what we have here is a new definition of separation.
Where I come from, when a couple separates, it is not just one
party who is separated; both the woman and the man say they are
separated.
After October 30, once Quebec has proclaimed its sovereignty,
we will not have a separated Quebec and a complete Canada. We
will have a separated Quebec and a separated Canada. Both parties
will likely be weakened in their positions if people in Quebec and
the rest of Canada refuse to conclude harmonious free trade
agreements between them so that their economic and trade
positions would be strengthened by new links. There can be
accommodations. An economic and trade partnership could
therefore be arranged not only for taxation but also for
international trade and the free flow of goods and services in
general, in the interest of this country's two founding nations.
The bill does not specify how many millions and billions of
dollars are at stake in this protocol. We do not know which
country-Canada or the U.S.-will benefit the most from this tax
liberalization protocol. We do not know, and the bill does not say.
Perhaps the party in power has done studies on this? We simply do
not know.
But we nonetheless agree because this is a principle of justice
that can only benefit Canadians and Quebecers. It would not be
normal for a Quebecer working in Florida for three or four months
a year, for example, to pay more taxes for these three or four
months than he would pay in Quebec if he had worked only in
Quebec.
(1610)
Bill S-9 will ensure that Quebec or Canada, as the case may be,
will be able to claim from the U.S. the share of withholding tax on
this person's compensation, under conditions that will be similar or
identical in both countries. Hence the advisability of supporting
this agreement.
Especially if trade and trade opportunities between two countries
are involved, considering that $1.3 billion is invested every year in
manufacturing in Ontario cars, trucks and automotive parts for sale
in Quebec, it would be sheer folly for the Ontario automotive
industry to miss out on this market. Is Ontario going to refuse to
come to an agreement with Quebec, claiming that it can no longer
sell cars and trucks in Quebec because we have decided to achieve
autonomy? That would be silly.
Also, Alberta sells us oil and natural gas worth more than $850
million. Would our Albertan suppliers decide overnight to stop
selling us oil and natural gas worth $850 million because we have
chosen to make our own decisions from now on?
For Bay Street, the heart of Toronto's financial district, Quebec
represents a $2.8 billion market for financial and insurance
services. How can one believe that these people would not find it in
their best interest to maintain harmonious business relations with
us?
15541
Integration of businesses in Quebec and Canada as well as the
need to integrate businesses in Quebec and Canada with American
businesses make it imperative that we maintain harmonious
relations among ourselves. In turn, maintaining harmonious
relations forces us to maintain the existing economic union, but
under new terms, whereby each partner has a say in problem
solving.
Where the shoe pinches right now is that one country is divided,
with one partner claiming to have all the answers and be in a better
position to manage the other one's taxes and imposes its will by
force of numbers. That is why we were never able to find a
solution: we realize that we are so terribly different.
When I was in college, we had a professor who used to say: ``My
friends, always remember that, when confronted with a problem,
unless you hold the solution or are part of the solution, you are part
of the problem''.
That is the kind of situation we are in at present in Canada and
Quebec. Over the past few decades, we have come to realize that
we were facing certain problems. We told Canada: ``Here is a
possible solution: If you agree to a redistribution of powers
between our two peoples, so as to allow greater fairness, greater
autonomy and greater respect for our two peoples, we could find a
solution for this great united Canada''.
Unfortunately, Quebec, particularly over the last 30 years, has
constantly clashed with the federal government and the rest of
Canada, which want to keep control over the province's tax system,
over its decisions and, in fact, over any major decision that a nation
has to make regarding its future.
We feel that Canada was more part of the problem than part of
the solution. This is why we initiated a referendum process, a
democratic process which will allow Quebecers to freely express
themselves and tell Canadians: ``Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow
morning we wish to offer you a new sharing of responsibilities; we
wish to offer you a new partnership whereby we will decide
together, on an equal footing, what should be done to ensure the
best possible future for us''.
(1615)
Let us not forget that soon, when Quebec becomes sovereign, the
rest of Canada will no longer be in as strong a position, relative to
other foreign countries. It is wrong and it is misleading to suggest
that the rest of Canada will still be a strong country, while Quebec
will have become a weak nation. A Canada without Quebec is a
weaker Canada and a Quebec without Canada also takes on a
different dimension. This is why we will have to find a way to pool
our skills and strengths to maintain as best as we can our trade
relations with other countries.
Should this not happen, Canada will not immediately go
bankrupt, nor will Quebec: our two new countries will have to face
international conditions different from those which currently
prevail, something which might be harder to do. Clearly, it is easier
to enter into a partnership to solve issues, rather than try to find
solutions to the same problems separately. This is obvious. But we
cannot do it right now. We are told: you are already in a
partnership, why do you want to leave? This is an illusion. We want
out because we feel that we are not in a true partnership
arrangement. We are in a minority position in a country where our
province accounts for about 25 per cent of the population, and
where half of the taxes paid by Quebecers are controlled by the
majority.
We want more than that for Quebecers. We mentioned
commercial reasons regarding free trade agreements. We could
also provide reasons related to the number of jobs. We are not
talking about the loss of one million jobs. We are not even talking
about a loss, because we know that our partners of tomorrow will
not let 250,000 jobs in Ontario disappear. Indeed, there are 250,000
jobs in that province that are directly related to goods sold in
Quebec, particularly in the automotive industry.
In western Canada, 75,000 jobs are directly related to trade
between those provinces and Quebec. We buy 50 per cent of the
beef produced in the west. Tomorrow, Quebecers will not want to
stop eating western beef, nor will western producers want to stop
selling us their beef, because 75,000 jobs are at stake. In Atlantic
Canada, we are talking about 26,000 jobs. Maritime provinces will
not risk losing 26,000 jobs by eliminating economic and trade
activity with Quebec.
In Canada, a total of 352,000 jobs depend directly on the trade
between the rest of Canada and Quebec. I imagine that on October
31, businessmen will start calling their Premiers and ministers to
tell them: Gentlemen, let us be serious. Let us get down to
business. Let us get back to basics and sound business practices.
Keep protecting our markets and our jobs. Sit down and talk to each
other and stop being so obsessed with your own policies.
I did not make up these examples. They exist today. This is the
reality of trade, whether we like it or not.
The same goes for NAFTA. They want to scare us. They say that
the next day we could no longer enter into an agreement, be part of
NAFTA. However, tomorrow morning, for instance, we can enter
into an agreement with the United States on estate taxes.
Americans who own securities or property or factories in Quebec
or who come and work here a few months every year, tomorrow
morning, these Americans will want to adopt the same bill, either
with Quebec or a united Canada. Why is this bill before the House
today? Because we realize that some Americans are penalized by
differences in legislation, just as some Canadians and Quebecers
are penalized by the law as we know it today.
15542
(1620)
If Canada is prepared to acknowledge that harmonization of the
legislation of our two countries is mutually beneficial, why should
we be more reasonable with the Americans than with a sovereign
Quebec, if it benefits our citizens? Personally, I think that the day
after a declaration of sovereignty, the United States and the rest of
Canada will sit down at the same table and will want to negotiate.
Quebec's production figures are four times those of Chile, which
is expected to be the next country to sign NAFTA. Four times.
Quebec's trade with the United States is eight times what it is with
Brazil, Argentina and Chile combined. Canada tells us: ``We are
willing to let Chile become a member tomorrow morning'', but
they are not prepared to do the same for Quebec. Yet Quebec has
eight times the trade exchanges with these three countries
combined.
The American president has already stated, as I have already
said, that he wanted to create a free trade zone from Alaska to
Tierra del Fuego, which I imagine includes Quebec. He did not say
``a free trade zone from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego excluding
Quebec''. That is not what he said. What he did say is that it is to
everyone's advantage in this great economic space in which we live
to liberalize trade. Some governors of northeastern states have
already announced their firm intention to continue trade relations
with a sovereign Quebec. Laurent Beaudoin is not the only one who
has made a statement.
The government of Canada strongly supports Chile's
application, as I have said already, and yet Chile has 148 times less
trade with English Canada than Quebec has with English Canada.
This is a key point. Another country like Chile would be accepted
yet Quebec, with 148 times more trade links than Chile, would be
rejected. That makes absolutely no sense. Nothing but bogey man
scare tactics. We will not stand for such a thing.
During a trade visit to South America, the Prime Minister of
Canada made a strong and convincing plea in favour of broadening
NAFTA to include all of the Americas. There is, however, a lack of
logic in the no side which they are not prepared to acknowledge.
Again this week, Mr. Martin has made himself the spokesman for
the no side with respect to NAFTA. Yesterday in a speech to the
Association professionnelle en développement économique du
Québec he raised three key points preventing Quebec from joining
NAFTA quickly.
First, membership in the World Trade Association. With respect
to this point, I must tell Mr. Martin that he is wrong, although I
cannot tell whether or not his error is deliberate. I do not believe so,
I think he might be acting in good faith, but it is obvious that he is
in error. True, it could take several years for a country to conform
to the World Trade Organization's rules before being accepted for
membership. But he must acknowledge at the same time that
Quebec already meets all of the World Trade Organization's
membership requirements. WTO rules contain provisions for
accelerating the process for countries that are already in
compliance with the rules.
Quebec would certainly have access to this fast track, which
takes about two to three months. In the past five years, the latest
countries to declare sovereignty or independence were all
recognized immediately by the WTO. Perhaps one or two countries
have still not yet been accepted, because they do not meet the basic
requirements, because they were not part of a free market economy.
That is why the delay. However, a sovereign Quebec, which already
satisfies all the conditions, could join the organization
quickly-within two or three months, and not two or three years, as
Mr. Martin suggests. Even the Czechs and the Slovaks have had the
advantage-
(1625)
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the member to use the
minister's title and not his surname.
Mr. Laurin: You are right, Mr. Speaker. I should have said ``the
Minister of Finance''.
Even the Czech and the Slovak republics, which have just
achieved sovereignty, have had the advantage of this accelerated
process, the process of joining the World Trade Organization,
despite the fact that their economies were far less developed that
Quebec's.
The Minister of Finance also contended that Quebec will not be
able to sign NAFTA before achieving sovereignty, which,
according to him, would take time. However, Quebec retains its
legal status, so long as it remains a province of Canada, in my
opinion and according to all the experts. As a province and so long
as it has not declared its sovereignty, Quebec remains a party to
NAFTA.
When we come to declare our sovereignty, we will have had time
to talk with people. We will continue to be a party to NAFTA as a
Canadian province, and the day after sovereignty, negotiations will
be complete, and we will become another member of NAFTA, this
time, not as a province, but as a sovereign country. His reasoning
falls short here again.
The Minister of Finance raised a third point. He ignored an
aspect of the international reality and existing practice, in stating
that the American Congress was not keen at the prospect of new
negotiations. The Americans have never behaved this way, because
state successions promote the continuity and stability of
international treaties.
If the United States ever did ignore this rule, it would be to
Canada's full advantage to sign a partnership with Quebec, without
altering the economic reality of Canada and Quebec, but permitting
15543
continued membership by Canada and Quebec in NAFTA, as
provided in article 22.04 of the treaty.
It would be advantageous to both Canada and Quebec, because
we must not forget that, if the United States wants to renegotiate
with Quebec, it will surely want to renegotiate with Canada, which
will have seven million consumers fewer than when it signed the
treaty.
A Canada with seven million fewer inhabitants is not the same
Canada. It is not the same NAFTA partner. And if Canada wants to
maintain its economic weight in NAFTA, it should sign a
partnership agreement with Quebec, because it would be to its
advantage and to Quebec's to do so.
According to another of Mr. Martin's arguments, the United
States will no longer want to allow new members to have a dispute
settlement board. This is a half baked argument and should be
quickly rejected because it is based solely on a letter written by a
candidate for the Republican Party nomination. Just a letter from a
candidate making this claim.
Furthermore, Mr. Martin has conceded that the negotiations with
Chile include the dispute settlement board. They are currently
negotiating, they have recognized the existence, the possibility of
extending the jurisdiction of a dispute settlement board, yet they
are telling us that the Americans are no longer interested. How can
the Americans want this mechanism for Chile but not for Canada?
They are consistent.
This makes it difficult to take seriously the finance minister's
statement that Quebec will lose a million jobs and endanger 90 per
cent of its exports. Just imagine. This is no laughing matter.
(1630)
This just goes to show once again that ridicule never killed
anyone, because the Minister of Finance would have died a long
time ago. We can see how exaggeration often leads to absurdities.
We are proud and happy to participate in Canada's development
by supporting Bill S-9, because it goes in the direction that we have
always advocated. We do not want to destroy Canada, we want to
build a country in Quebec, and we want Canada to remain
prosperous as well. We want to live in renewed harmony, no longer
from coast to coast but side by side. And the only way to live side
by side is to support legislation that will make for more
harmonious relations between the two countries.
Witch hunts must be stopped. They must stop telling Quebecers
that Quebec is too small, that they cannot administer themselves
without help, that they will not succeed in their endeavour. Quite
the contrary.
Quebec's history has shown that every time Quebecers have
really taken their destiny into their own hands, their endeavours
were successful. They succeeded. And when Quebecers will
decide, as they will on October 30, to become autonomous and to
make their own decisions, they will be able to collect their own
taxes and to sign their own treaties. It will enable them to make
decisions on their own and to invest in projects that better serve the
interests of Quebecers the $30 billion in tax money they will no
longer have to pay the federal government.
The Laurent Beaudoins who come and tell us that Quebec would
be too small to meet the needs of large businesses like their should
be reminded that countries smaller than Quebec have about 20 and
sometimes as many as 30 companies that are twice, three times and
even four times as large as Bombardier. Businesses larger than the
one run by Mr. Beaudoin manage to prosper in countries like
Switzerland, Norway and Denmark. The strength and vitality of a
nation is not dependent on its size, but rather on the resourcefulness
of its people, their commitment and their self-respect.
Naturally, Quebecers will want to invest mainly in research and
development because this creates jobs. The Chinese have known
this for a long time. An old Chinese proverb says: ``Instead of
handing out fish that will feed the hungry only for one day, teach
them to fish''. Teach people to fish and they will be able to feed
themselves for the rest of their lives.
That is what Canada did with Quebec. Only with respect to
unemployment insurance were we favoured. Quebecers did get
more in UI benefits than they paid into the plan. That is the fish we
were fed. Meanwhile, Ontarians were taught to fish, and teaching
fishing requires research and development grants, which we did not
get. And they thought we would go for that.
The Speaker: I recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of Industry on a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order.
I have been listening patiently to the member for the last 33
minutes. We are all very sensitive when the separatists speak in the
House these days. We do not want to upset them in any way, shape
or form. However, Mr. Speaker, at what point in time do you think
the member will speak about the bill that is on the floor of the
House?
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. member will not
be long in coming to the point of his speech.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I thought that what I was saying was
very relevant to Bill S-9, since it addresses partnership with
another country, the United States. I was therefore attempting to
demonstrate that the proposals made concerning other bills before
the House deal with exactly the same problem. There was a
15544
problem between the United States and Canada. Tax collection was
not harmonized, estate taxes were not harmonized.
(1635)
A way has been found by two sovereign countries to discuss and
to reach agreement on changing our laws in order to harmonize
them and ensure that Bill C-9 benefits the citizens of both countries
equally.
What I have attempted to demonstrate to this hon. house, with
examples, is that this would be equally possible in other areas. I am
well aware that my colleagues opposite do not like to hear anyone
telling them that it is possible for the partnership to be a success.
They cannot be hearing that word much these days. They only wish
to hear it used in connection with other countries, but when Quebec
becomes a country they will hear it more often. We think that at
that point they will be prepared to come to the table.
At any rate, whether they like to hear us talk about it or not, this
is a decision for Quebecers alone. And just as Quebecers, via their
elected representatives here in the House today, agree to support
Bill S-9, tomorrow morning Quebecers will also agree to support
their representatives in the Quebec government and ask them to
offer a partnership that is respectful of our neighbours in the rest of
Canada, a partnership that will be advantageous to both parties, a
partnership that will become the sole solution to our common
problems.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that the
question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as
follows: the hon. member for Davenport-Climate change.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in two
years in the House I have never seen a bill that all three parties
support take so long to get through. Here we are debating the bill
when all parties agree to it.
There are a couple of things I would like to say at third reading
which I believe are worth clearing up. As everyone in the House
has been informed, and for those taxpayers who have been
watching the debate and seeing how a Senate bill gets through the
House of Commons, there are some items in here that have caused
some confusion.
The NDP member for Kamloops and the Liberal member for
Gander-Grand Falls have raised some issues on specific items in
the bill that have now confused the Canadian public. Now we have
to participate in explaining why we support the bill or why some
members are against it. There are only one or two people who are
against it and it seems a shame that we have to talk about it.
The bill was done through negotiators on behalf of both
countries. It was signed on August 31, 1994, so it is already a done
deal. What we are doing is giving birth to it, endorsing it or
whatever through the House of Commons.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
indicated, it eliminates double taxation, creates a level playing
field, reduces the withholding taxes on interest and dividends,
royalties and technologies, et cetera. It keeps up with the global
need to remain and to become competitive. It is for those sound
fiscal and economic reasons that the Reform Party supports the bill.
The bill has a lot of upside to it and will generate a lot of
investment opportunities for Canadians in the United States and
vice versa with the amount of investment Americans make in
Canada. It is a reciprocity agreement. Whatever we have negotiated
is a two-way street; what happens in the United States can also
happen up here. I remind everyone that in a reciprocity agreement
sometimes we have to give to get and sometimes we get to give. It
works both ways.
I would like to try to clear up some of the confusion on behalf of
the member for Kamloops. My office received a lot of phone calls
about the bill based on the tirade over the treatment of universities
in the United States and Canadians being allowed to make
charitable donations to American universities. If they send their
children to those schools, it is an allowable deduction. In typical
NDP fashion it is a tax for the so-called rich and the rich should not
be able to do anything except look after those people who the NDP
deem need to be looked after, rather than having a system that is
fair for all at both ends of the scale.
(1640)
Based on the fact that the member for Kamloops has raised the
issue and is getting a bit of play out of it in B.C., I would like to
answer some of the questions people have been calling our offices
about. I will also address the specifics of the bill. Maybe some of
the confusion can be cleared up.
I must admit I am a bit frustrated personally that we in the House
of Commons have to enter into a debate over something we were
not a part of because. It was in the Senate where all the specifics,
details and all the justifications-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Do you like taking your
direction from the Senate?
Mr. Silye: No, it is just that the details were brought out in the
Senate. The negotiations were done by representatives of both
countries. They were not done by senators from both countries, but
that is where it was approved.
My point is that it is frustrating that we now have to dig in and
get all the details of a done deal. Nevertheless, I will make my best
15545
stab at it and if there are some areas where I am a bit off the mark
hopefully I will not be too far off. I will say so if I am not clear.
One question we are getting from B.C. constituents is: Why do
we favour reductions in the rate of withholding tax on interest and
dividends? I covered that in my opening remarks. This works both
ways and will attract investment in Canada as well as investment in
the United States. It is seen as another step in the reduction of
barriers as we shift to a global marketplace. All OECD member
countries, including Canada, the 25 member states have agreed to
try to get their tax rates in line with one another to facilitate this.
It may so happen at this time because of the immediate nature of
the deal being put into effect that the flow of capital into Canada
may be reduced. That could be a temporary measure. In the years to
come we could get it back on bigger and better deals we make with
the United States.
The second question was: How can we endorse a bill that gives
individuals with children in U.S. schools the ability to write off a
portion of their expenses? While there are those who argue that we
should not be subsidizing those who are well enough off to go to
schools in the U.S., this benefit works both ways. Americans are
allowed to make donations to Canadian universities as well. It is
not only the privileged Americans or Canadians who are crossing
the borders in pursuit of an education.
As members know, with legislation like this the good must be
weighed with the bad. The potential benefits from freer flowing
commerce between Canada and the U.S. far exceed the potential
cost of a few individuals who send their children to American
schools.
This is a reciprocity treaty and you win some and you lose some.
If the principle of encouraging donations both ways was brought up
in the House today as a separate measure from the principle of
making a deal with the United States and encouraging a two-way
deal, I would suggest that the principle of encouraging donations
both ways would probably be supported in the House by the
majority of members.
The third question which arose thanks to the member for
Kamloops was: Are American contributions to Canadian charities
given the same treatment? Yes, this is a treaty that ensures that
Canadians and Americans are treated the same. It is a reciprocity
treaty.
The fourth question was: What about the estate tax provision? Is
that not just a tax break for the rich? No, it is not a tax break just for
the rich. It tries to rectify an inequity in the current system.
In Canada we do not have an estate tax. The United States did
and Americans did not have to pay any estate taxes unless there
was an amount over $600,000. Canadians had to pay on amounts
over $60,000. This reintroduces some equity into the system and
now if a Canadian with property in the United States died and left
an estate, it would only be taxed if the value is in excess of
$600,000. The bill levels the playing field on this issue. It signifies
the intent of the bill as trying to make sure Canadians are treated
the same in Canada as they are in the United States.
(1645)
If owning property in the United States is only the purview of the
rich, then so be it. However, I do not believe that everyone who
owns property in the States all along the eastern seaboard happens
to be rich. I happen to know the NDP made a lot of mileage on
taxing the rich until suddenly everybody in Canada realized that
rich meant anybody making over $40,000 and they were hit as well.
That took care of the NDP philosophy of taxing the rich, because
they are not rich.
Regarding this attack on the rich by the NDP, even Abraham
Lincoln addressed that in his day. He said that we cannot make the
poor wealthy by making the wealthy poor. If we want to protect the
disadvantaged-we need to protect the disadvantaged-if we care
about those people who truly need the help then we make our laws
and our polices and go about doing that. At the same time there are
people throughout the economic scale who make $50,000 or more
who also deserve to have any inequities in the system addressed.
They deserve to be looked after as well.
For instance, 62 per cent of those who made up to $25,000
generated 27 per cent of total income, while their share of the total
tax paid in 1991 was 11 per cent. My source for this is the
Department of Finance. There were 19 million tax filers in 1991
and 13.7 million paid income tax and 5.3 million were not taxable.
I want to discuss the breakdown of how much tax was paid by the
various groups. People who earned $25,000 to $50,000 represented
28 per cent of the tax filers and their share of both total income and
total tax was 40 per cent. Ninety per cent of the tax filers in 1991
made $50,000 or less and they paid 51 per cent of the income taxes
that year. People in the $50,000 to $100,000 category represented 9
per cent of the tax filers, with a share of 23 per cent of the income.
They paid 31 per cent of the total tax. People who made over
$100,000 were 1 per cent of tax filers, with 10 per cent of income
and paying 18 per cent of the total tax. This means that 10 per cent
of the tax filers in 1991 paid a total of 49 per cent of the taxes.
I point this out to the member for Kamloops so he can realize
that the wealthy people in this country, the top 10 per cent, pay
their darn share of the taxes. They pay darn well, they pay high, and
they pay a lot, like 49 per cent of the total tax take. This business
about going after the rich all the time is not going to work and it
does not hold water with me, because they contribute a lot to the
economy and keep the economy going. Every now and then
15546
someone should speak out on their behalf as well. They are
suddenly becoming a small and select group as well in this country.
This brings me to another issue I would like to talk about from
this Bill S-9, which is directly related to the concerns of the Liberal
member for Gander-Grand Falls, who very eloquently raised his
objections to this bill at the Standing Committee on Finance. As I
understand, having done a little more homework, this member has
been watching this issue and this bill for a very long time. I found
out that when in opposition he basically criticized the Conservative
government for moving in this direction and moving toward this
kind of a deal. In fact he questioned the government of the day on
this quite a bit.
The history of Bill S-9 goes back prior to us getting it on our
desks and saying we should pass the bill. The bill goes back to the
Mulroney government. The member for Gander-Grand Falls had
the job and unique duty to critique this item, as he did. Based on
that and based on being in opposition to it at that time, he feels
obligated to continue that opposition to it at this time.
I bring this point out to show there is at least one Liberal who
sticks to his Liberal convictions. There is one Liberal who keeps
his promise. There is one Liberal who does not break the promises
in the red book.
(1650)
Mr. Benoit: He did not vote against this though.
Mr. Silye: I believe when it comes to the vote he will have to be
very careful how he handles himself. Perhaps he might have a cold
or something. We certainly would not want the member to be in
trouble with his party, since that whip is cracking pretty hard over
there, as evidenced by the last sitting.
Some of the issues the member for Gander-Grand Falls pointed
out are based on his personal crusade against the bill. He has taken
a lot of effort and looked into it. He does believe that because it
means less revenue for Canada it is wrong. He does believe it is a
tax system for the rich. He does point out that the Reform Party and
the Bloc Quebecois support it, as we do. Yet he never says openly,
aggressively, that the Liberal government now supports it as well.
Perhaps when he has his intervention on the bill, because I am
sure he wants to speak to it and address it as well, he would maybe
tell us on this side of the House why it is that when they were in
opposition and the Prime Minister and his group were over here
this member was attacking the bill at the time, with their blessing
obviously, with the finance minister's encouragement, with the
leader of the party's encouragement. Why when they are on the
other side of the House all of a sudden did they flip? Do they
become puppets of the bureaucracy? Do they become puppets of
the bureaucrats? Do they have to say yes to what those people tell
them to do? When they were over here they criticized it. They are
over there and now they are endorsing it.
It now takes one lone voice, one lonely voice in that huge pack of
177 members over there to remind them that when they were over
here they were not for this thing, they were not for the bill. They
did not want to do reciprocity with the States like this. They were
against stuff like that. They were against NAFTA. They were
against all these things. Now they are for all this.
I do not understand. I do not mean to be taking the member for
Gander-Grand Falls to task. In a way I am giving him a
compliment, but in another way-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): You are dangerous. You
are not fooling anybody.
Mr. Silye: I also point out that there are inconsistencies here. I
will compliment the member for being consistent. However I will
criticize his party for being inconsistent.
The rest of the items on the bill I have covered. We do support it.
I did have some time to talk about it, and I did feel it was important
that as the representative for our party on the bill and as a supporter
of the bill for our party I should set some of the record straight. I
have to sort of pre-empt the member for Gander-Grand Falls,
because I am sure he is going to say a few other words.
The intent of the bill and what it does accomplish is what the
future of the country holds. We have to negotiate with other
countries. We have to be creating a level playing field. We have to
have taxation levels that are similar. We have to have reciprocity
agreements that make the deals both ways. As the flow of capital
and human resources goes back and forth, all around the world, as
we push buttons on a computer and transfer large sums of money,
just as an entry item on a ledger sheet, we have to be able to be
competitive. First and foremost, that is what Bill S-9 does, it keeps
us competitive. It is only the small minded, the narrow minded
people in the House who want to protect themselves who would
argue that this is not a fair and good reciprocity agreement.
There is nothing for me to add to this. I know there was a lot of
confusion. I hope I have cleared up some of that confusion, why
our party supports it. I hope I have addressed those constituents of
the member for Kamloops. Also I hope I have put to rest this
business about picking on the rich all the time, because the rich do
pay their fair share. I do not believe this is a bill that satisfies the
rich, because I believe people who make between $50,000 and
$100,000 and own property down in the States are not really
wealthy in this day and age, to make $60,000 or $70,000. In that
case, with $64,000, plus the perks we get, everybody in this place
would be rich. I would say that a lot of people in the House would
not say they are rich.
15547
(1655)
That is another debate. That is another issue. I bring it up only
because of the confusion introduced into the bill by the member for
Kamloops and by the member for Gander-Grand Falls. It is
worthy of support. The sooner we get it over with, the sooner we
can get back to real issues and real bills and get on with our
economic lives.
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
unusual day in the House when all parties support a bill. The
member for Calgary Centre pointed that out at the beginning and
then spoke for almost 16 minutes even though he felt it was a waste
of time to talk about the bill, since we all agreed. What is more
interesting is that he spent most of that time complimenting a
member for the governing party, the member for Gander-Grand
Falls. It is indeed an unusual day in the House.
I also want to speak to Bill S-9 and some of the concerns raised
with respect to the bill, an act to amend the Canada-U.S. Tax
Convention Act.
First I want to say to my colleagues that there is nothing sinister
in the bill and no surprises for those who follow these issues. This
was pointed out earlier. This matter was the subject of publicity
earlier. There was a press release in April 1994 that announced that
the protocol had been signed. A copy of the protocol was available.
The fact that negotiations were taking place has been known for
several years. It has certainly been known among people who
practise taxation law and those who are concerned about cross
border investment. There are no surprises and nothing particularly
sinister. The bill follows the OECD model tax convention treaty.
Provisions of that tax convention model have been followed by as
many as 25 countries.
There has been some suggestion that the bill amounts to a huge
tax cut for corporations. I want to speak to that misconception.
What the bill really does is facilitate cross border investment. As
has been said by others, tax conventions are all about reciprocity.
What we are gaining through this tax convention and other tax
conventions is enhanced investment in our country. We have to
reciprocate for countries that are interested in that kind of
relationship with us.
What we have here in the changes in withholding tax is a great
incentive for Canadians to invest in the United States and likewise
for Americans to invest in this country. Certainly at a time when we
are concerned about jobs and growth, that is a very good outcome
and a worthwhile goal.
There has been talk, again another confusion, about impact on
the treasury, cost to Canadians. We should also focus on offsetting
investment in tax revenues that come to Canada from that
investment. That is what this treaty will accomplish.
There has also been comment about estate taxes and some sort of
opportunity that is being provided to the rich of this country. What
is being addressed in the estate tax provisions of the convention is
the matter of fair treatment. Canadians will be out from under the
burden of double taxation and unfair treatment that has existed to
date in the United States for those who have owned property there.
That will be cleared up.
There has also been much discussion about the provisions of the
convention dealing with the tax treatment of contributions to
universities outside Canada. Some have been so confused as to
think that this is something that has appeared in our law and is a
function of this convention suddenly. It has been a matter of
legislation in this country since the 1960s and has been in this
convention since the 1980s. What is the result? Certainly the result
is that Canadians may make contributions to U.S. universities, but I
want to come back to the reciprocity issue and make the following
point.
Looking into my own former university, McGill, we discover
that over the years countless Americans have attended McGill
University. Approximately 1,000 are there right now if we add full
time and part time students together.
(1700 )
Here is what is most interesting of all. Let us look at the amount
of contributions from McGill graduates in the U.S. and Americans
to McGill University over the last five years. In 1990, $2,452,000.
In 1991, over $3.7 million. In 1992, almost $2 million. These are
U.S. figures. In 1993, $3 million Canadian. In 1994, the
astronomical amount of $7 million Canadian. In 1995 it is
$3,440,000 to date from American contributors to a great Canadian
university. Those who question the wisdom of encouraging
Canadians to make contributions to U.S. schools should ask
themselves what the impact might be on contributions to Canadian
schools.
I am pleased to support the bill and pleased that it has the support
of all parties of the House. It is a sensible convention. It is updated
from time to time, as it has been most recently by these changes. I
look forward to having it passed by the House.
[Translation]
I would like to add a word on another point. The hon. member
for Joliette used the debate on Bill S-9 to discuss the effects of
separation. In response, I would like to say something very clearly.
First, if Quebec needs such a convention, it already has one as a
province of Canada. Second, it seems to me that the hon. member
does not have a strong grasp of international law, but this is always
the way with the separatists. When they get up in the morning, they
say: I want something, therefore I shall have it. But the world does
not work this way, and he knows it.
15548
International law is well written and very clear: if Quebec
separates from Canada, Canada will remain the contracting state,
not Quebec.
[English]
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in response to the questions raised by the Reform Party
and by the Bloc yesterday, the accountability of the Government of
Canada to the people of Canada is made here in the House of
Commons by the official opposition.
There are only two functions which Parliament serves: One is a
legislative function and the other is an accountability function. The
actions of the executive of government are held accountable to the
people through Parliament. If the official opposition party does not
do its job, then Parliament is not doing its job.
We have before us today a bill which came in through the back
door. It was not the servant's entrance because the back door was
the Senate. It came in through the Senate, but it involves an
incredibly large expenditure of money in the final analysis. It is a
large expenditure not in direct allocation, but in what the auditors
general call tax expenditures.
The bill also includes provisions which Bloc members keep
repeating as being wonderful. It cuts dividends by 50 per cent to
American corporations which have subsidiaries in Canada. It cuts
by one-third the taxation on interest on the money that flows back
across to the United States. It eliminates every single royalty tax in
this country which is held by Americans, except for trademarks.
Trademarks are being bifurcated. It is a very difficult accounting
procedure, but that is what is happening under the bill. There are
those three big tax cuts.
(1705 )
I just cannot understand it. I do not believe there is one
constituent of the official opposition-I keep referring to it as the
official opposition because it is supposed to be the group that
controls question period and debate in this Chamber. That is why
we have a group of MPs like myself and others on the government
side who are wondering where the accountability and debate is
here.
What I am referring to is this philosophy of the official
opposition that working Canadians should compensate people who
have property worth over $600,000 in the United States of
America. With the passage of the bill, the estate tax in the United
States only applies to property worth over $600,000.
The Bloc is saying it is going to end double taxation. It is
demanding this on behalf of Quebec. How? It says that the
Canadian government taxes in a different way. Yes, it does tax
differently on property over $600,000 because there is no double
taxation below $600,000. The estate tax in the United States will
not kick in until there is property over $600,000 in the United
States. The Bloc tells us it wants to end double taxation for people
who pay a tax on things that are valued at over $600,000 in the
United States of America.
The estate tax in the United States of America has been in
existence since the turn of the century. It was brought in at the same
time it was brought into Canada when income tax came in. Income
tax was demanded by the people of western Canada in 1916 when
they marched with their signs. They demanded that income tax be
brought in. Their cry was the same cry as that of the people in the
United States of America when they wanted income tax brought in
at the turn of the century, about 1897, because they said the rich
were not paying their fair share of taxes.
The governments of the day responded by bringing in taxes on
wealth of varying amounts. Estate taxes came in. All of a sudden,
here we are in 1995 and we are going to try to end double taxation
which has been there since 1904. Worse than that, we are going to
try to end double taxation for people who have property in the
United States worth over $600,000. I just do not understand the
Bloc's position on this as the official opposition in the Canadian
Parliament because that is where the objection should come from.
Let me repeat this again. There is no double taxation after the
passage of this bill unless one has property of over $600,000 in the
United States. The double taxation is not really double taxation
because we do not have an estate tax. Our death tax is on income.
The estate tax is on property. Everybody in this Chamber knows
that.
In the United States they take the value of one's automobile,
house and everything else, the paintings on the wall and the dishes,
the stocks and bonds, everything. In Canada we exempt the primary
residence and the things one uses. Canada does not tax the car in
the driveway; we only tax what the estate of the dead person says
was actually an increase in value of the property that is not exempt.
It is two completely different things, so how can we have
reciprocity when we do not have the same thing in effect in both the
nations?
(1710)
When the bill was introduced into the United States Senate the
Government of the United States said: ``Each country agrees to
allow an appropriate credit for the death taxes imposed in the other
country''. It is convenient for the United States because it takes
about three years to settle an estate owned by a Canadian in the
United States. A long time. You normally do not want to pay estate
taxes in the United States. This will sort of hurry it up, will it not?
If we are now going to give a tax credit, where does that tax
credit come from? It comes from the pockets of working
Canadians. It comes from the person working on a construction
job. It
15549
comes from the person who works in a store. It comes from the
person making the beds in the hotels. It comes from every working
Canadian. Until the official opposition in Parliament understands
that the government must be held accountable on tax expenditures
we will never get the finances of this country under control.
Apart from that, the other major thing in this bill is that it
reduces by 50 per cent the taxes paid by American multinationals
operating in Canada on their profits. Every single member of this
House knows that we have a special division in Revenue Canada
called the transfer pricing division. Every member in this Chamber
knows there are nine or 10 people there and there are another 17 or
18 in the field looking at all these multinationals. Everyone knows
that over 70 per cent of them do not pay any tax at all. Transfer
pricing is the major problem but there are other problems as well.
You charge $50 for a clothespin when you pass it from your
parent company to your subsidiary. The trick is that if you have a
company working in Canada at rates which are higher than in the
United States, you want to make sure there is no profit showing on
the books, so you bring down the profits by transfer pricing.
The only place we know they can pay taxes on their profits and
operations in Canada is at the border. What is the Senate doing in
this bill? The Senate is reducing that to half. How much money is
that? Let me quote the chief of corporate and international tax of
the finance department before the Senate standing committee April
25, 1995. He was asked the question: Why not reduce it to zero?
Instead of 10 per cent why not bring it down to zero? His answer is
on page 19 of the transcript: ``The principal reason is money''. Do
not forget we are reducing it by half down to five. He said: ``I have
not looked recently but I believe that our annual withholding tax
take is approximately $1.5 billion. Currently it would be difficult to
sustain completely walking away from that''. I repeat, 1.5 billion
bucks.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the agreement we are passing
here today not only reduces the withholding tax by 50 per cent but
it also commits us in writing that in three years time we will go
back to Washington and negotiate it down?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Baker: Yes, in this agreement, down to zero. That is only
one of the tax cuts in this agreement.
Let me get to the whole purpose. What is behind this? What is
behind this kind of rush? The International Business and Finance
Daily is printing news stories. I will read a portion. I can table it for
hon. members to see. It is marked: ``Washington, September 12,
1995''.
(1715)
They are interested in getting the bill passed before the end of
the month. Why? This is why. ``The protocol to the tax treaty
between the United States and Canada is expected to be ratified by
the Canadian Parliament before the end of October''. It then goes
on to talk about the other protocols that were signed and quoted a
Canadian official: ``We will try as quickly as we can for the second
reading, and the third reading will take place in the Canadian
House of Commons''. That is nice to know.
He then goes on to say: ``Although the leading party, the Bloc,
has the power to hold up the vote'', he does not expect that it will.
Then he goes on to say that one of the key features of the protocol is
this: ``The proposed treaty will be effective with respect to amounts
paid or credited on or after the first day of the second month after
the protocol enters into force''. Just imagine. Let me repeat that:
``the first day of the second month that the protocol'' is finished in
this Chamber. This is October.
The next sentence is key. ``Companies in the United States are
looking to apply the rate to their 1995 income tax. However, if the
third reading vote is delayed in the House of Commons they may
have to pay the higher rate on dividends''.
The largest multinationals in the world will be getting an
enormous tax decrease. However, if this bill does not pass third
reading before the end of October, they will not be able to claim
their reduction of 3 per cent because the protocol lowers the
existing treaty's 10 per cent tax rate to 7 per cent in 1995, 6 per cent
in 1996 and 5 per cent in 1997. Does anyone want to save the
Government of Canada a few hundred million dollars? Pass this
bill the first week in November.
Those are just a few of the reasons why I am opposed to the bill.
The big one is this. Every single business organization in the
United States that appeared before the Congress of the United
States made one point clear. Of the seven treaties that were being
passed in the U.S. Senate, only the Canadian treaty was truly a
one-sided affair with the majority of the benefits going to the
United States.
Let me quote from probably the biggest business organization,
the National Foreign Trade Council, Inc., 1914 representing 500
U.S. multinationals, Mr. Robert H. Green, vice-president, tax
policy. ``Turning to the treaties before you''-this is the
testimony-``the one that clearly is of the greatest interest to the
largest number of companies in my membership is the U.S.-Canada
protocol. The investment that flows between the two countries is
substantial and favours the United States. We have substantially
more investment there than they do here. The dividend withholding
rates which are phased into 5 per cent over three years are of
15550
tremendous benefit to the United States because of the
reduced''-this, that and the other thing. He goes on to say: ``Here
are all the cuts''.
This is from the administration of the United States. Mr.
Samuels, who appeared before the committee, stated at page 42:
``If you look at the treaties that are before the committee, with the
exception of Canada, we think that it is probably about a zero, that
it is probably a wash as far as benefits are concerned. With respect
to Canada, when you look at the relative flows, there is a greater
flow of income into the United States from Canada than there is
going from the United States to Canada and we will benefit''.
Then comes an interesting quote. This is from the assistant
secretary for tax policy of the United States. He says that in one of
these cuts it is only a one-way street because according to him and
the U.S. treasury: ``It will have a lesser effect on U.S. outgoing
flows of interest to Canada because much of the flow is already
exempt from U.S. tax under the portfolio interest provisions of the
code''.
(1720 )
What do we have here? We have an agreement that was
negotiated in 1988 by the Mulroney administration. The Reform
Party is absolutely correct. Agreements are signed between
governments sometimes and they must be honoured. However, that
is no reason to stand up in this Chamber and support them when
you are taking money out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians who
are being laid off by the government. We are cutting back programs
and here we are giving what is in effect a tax break to the very rich
in this country.
Much more could be said about this agreement. It is very
complex but it all boils down to three enormous tax cuts. It boils
down to giving a tax credit to somebody who has property worth
over $600,000 in the United States. Those poor people, my heart
goes out to them. If you have property in the United States worth
more than $600,000 you are subjected to the estate tax. If you are
under that you are not subjected to it. These political parties in the
opposition, the Bloc that is supposed to be doing its job, are saying:
``Atta boy, this is the best thing that ever happened''.
We all respect the function of the House of Commons. In order
for it to function properly that accountability must be there in the
opposition parties. That is why I take such strong exception to the
procedure and the content of the legislation.
This is the House of Commons. This is the house of commoners.
That is where that phrase comes from. This is not the house of
millionaires or the house of multimillionaires. This is the House of
Commons. In these difficult times we should not be increasing tax
cuts, tax expenditures for wealthy people and big American
corporations. If we keep doing this, Canadian corporations will not
be able to compete. Where is the cut for the Canadian corporations
here? Where is it? It is absent.
An hon. member: It's a reciprocal agreement.
Mr. Baker: He says that it is a reciprocal agreement.
Reciprocal? This is a one-way agreement. Did he not listen to what
I just read? Does he not know what the estate tax is compared with
the capital gains in Canada? You cannot have a reciprocal
agreement if it is not equal on both sides. You can have it, but why
would you want to do it?
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask the member opposite to expand on one
aspect that is very important and of which Canadians should be
much more aware. By and large Canada is a branch plant operation
of the United States. The vast majority of the industries in Canada
are branch plant operations of the United States. The real profit is
derived by American corporations in transfer pricing where the
American parent charges the American marketing arm a price and
the Canadian marketing arm a substantially higher price.
Therefore, there are very few profits relative to the amount of
business activity generated in Canada, thus very limited corporate
profit taxes paid in Canada.
Given the fact we know this to be the case, why are there just 12
auditors involved in this, as evidenced by his speaking notes? The
member opposite thinks we should be doing something. We are
stuck with this legislation as it is a treaty that we have already
signed. It is going through. Should we not put more emphasis into
that part of the audit?
Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was not actually speaking from notes,
I was speaking from my head on those subjects. Let me tell the hon.
member this. In the United States of America a term called
formulary apportionment is used rather than the arm's length
procedures of transfer pricing.
(1725 )
The present system is this. The Canadian government discovered
in the auditing branch one case where a company was selling paper
clips for $200 to a Canadian subsidiary to bring down the Canadian
subsidiary's profits and then from the Canadian subsidiary was
buying tires back for 6 cents each that were made in Canada to
bring down the Canadian profits.
The Canadian government looked at that and at all the different
systems in effect throughout the world. In the United States there is
a system called formulary apportionment promoted by the state of
California. Most states in the United States have this. They did it
with foreign multinationals but they even did it with domestic tax.
They made a judgment on the portion of the company's operations
in each state.
15551
In other words California said, we are going to make a judgment
here. We are going to decide after looking at the entire
operations-the company would have to open its books-how
much the operations are paying in each one of the states. That led
to double taxation.
The international multinational companies will not go to
California because of that. California had to drop it but it is still a
principle that is being promoted.
We should have more investigators in Canada. The hon. member
and I agree on that. A lot of money is tied up here. There is $10,
$20 billion at stake. However, what has been done in Canada,
which is probably the best system, is sign an agreement.
The investigators go after each one of the multinationals and
sign a pre-agreement, an agreement in advance. It is a secret
agreement, because one cannot go around telling everybody what
one's operations are.
An agreement is made in advance. That has cut down on a lot of
the violations in Canada. That is the reason why the office is so
small. It is a very effective and well run office.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the hon.
member for Gander-Grands Falls has decided to turn himself into
a member of the opposition, I would be delighted to invite him to
cross the floor and join us. We have several other causes to defend
against his party. We would be delighted to welcome you, Sir.
[English]
Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. No thanks.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the debating skills of the hon.
member for Gander-Grand Falls are legendary in the House. They
go back to his days in opposition.
We really had not experienced them until the debate on Bill S-9.
Now we see his passion and his fervour. I wonder if the member
would assure the House that he will back up this passion and
fervour with deeds. Does he intend to vote against the government
and against Bill S-9 when it comes forward for a third reading
vote?
In other words, will he be in the House and will he vote against
Bill S-9?
Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member puts forward an
interesting proposition. I think my friend behind me and to my left
answered quite appropriately one day when he said: ``If you vote
against the government on a finance bill, it is a vote of no
confidence in the government''.
The assumption is made under our rules, that if one has no
confidence in the government then that person must have
confidence in one of the opposition parties. Unfortunately with the
positions taken by the opposition parties, I have less confidence in
them than I have in the present Government of Canada.
(1730 )
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I too wish
to congratulate the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls on the
eloquence of his speech. He is truly a fantastic speaker. He is
interesting and fun to listen to.
The hon. member has spoken against the bill presented by his
party. I congratulate him for that, for coming out and expressing his
thoughts on the bill even though they are different from what his
party endorses.
Will he be in the House to vote against the bill at third reading?
Why did the hon. member not vote against the bill at second
reading? The hon. member was here before the vote and chose not
to be here during the vote.
How can he tolerate being a member of a party which is so
anti-democratic that it will not let its own members vote the wishes
of their constituents? The hon. member obviously believes he is
representing the wishes of his constituents on this issue.
Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's question.
It is very interesting.
The hon. member will notice that in the last couple of days I
have had a rather bad back. It is difficult sometimes to stand and to
be seated. Hopefully my back will improve as the days go on.
However, I can tell the hon. member what I intend to do
tomorrow. The only flight I can get to Newfoundland is early
tomorrow morning and so I may have to miss the vote.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
15552
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder
if the House would consent to calling it 5.40 p.m. so we could
proceed to private members' hour.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to call it 5.40
p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Since, as we decided, it is now 5.40 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members'
Business as indicated on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
15552
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 20 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-275, an act respecting the protection and rehabilitation
of endangered and threatened species, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on Bill C-275.
The fundamental goal of any endangered species legislation
must be to ensure-
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
As a member of the government I should have the privilege of
speaking first on this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will appreciate that
there is no automatic order to the government side's speaking on a
private member's bill. I understand that a government member
spoke last and therefore it is now the Reform Party's turn.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I was saying, the fundamental
goal of any endangered species legislation must be to ensure that
no further native species go extinct and that already endangered
species recover to healthy and self-sustaining levels. To do this we
need to use the most effective, efficient and fair methods possible.
The federal government has jurisdiction over the management
and preservation of wildlife on federal lands. Likewise, the
provincial governments have jurisdiction over the management and
preservation on all non-federal lands.
I understand that currently only four provinces have endangered
species legislation: Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New
Brunswick.
Farmers and ranchers in Saskatchewan are concerned this type of
legislation will prevent them from doing what they want with their
own land. They are afraid governments will annex part of their land
if an endangered species makes its habitat on their property.
Farmers and ranchers are not against the protection of endangered
species and populations. Farm owners, landowners and land leasers
are respectful of our duty to protect all species with which we share
this planet.
Any legislation must first consider the rights of the private
landowner. By considering their rights we will then be able to find
a co-operative solution to the preservation of endangered species.
My constituents who are farmers and ranchers certainly do not
want to have any legislation thrown at them telling them how they
ought to regulate their land. They must not be ignored. Farmers and
ranchers are the closest to the land and are familiar with the
animals that are endangered species and what needs to be done to
ensure their survival. It is the duty of responsible government to sit
down with those most affected by such legislation and find a
common solution.
Recently United States officials under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act shut down a portion of a west coast logging operation
in order to save the spotted owl. This was economically disastrous
for several communities. We are aware of the extreme measures
taken by the U.S. Not only were they irrational but they do not in
any way take the private citizen's concerns and rights into account.
The U.S. Endangered Species Act compliance process for single
family residential lots states that only a recent issuance of a
proclamation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services has changed
this regulation. The United States has spent approximately $825
million and has not recovered one species.
Some member from across the floor might say the U.S. measures
are draconian and that this government would never follow such a
lead. Let me remind Liberal members that the Minister of the
Environment is a follower of U.S. practices. The U.S. banned the
additive MMT in unleaded gasoline and the Minister of the
Environment followed suit. The U.S. is considering a ban on
sulphur and so watch for the minister to be trapped and only a step
behind on this one as well.
Bill C-275 is not similar to legislation currently practised in the
United States. The bill's scope is to protect only species on federal
lands. Like most legislation that comes from the government side,
it flirts with that slippery slope concept.
We are concerned, as I know landowners in my part of the
country are, that the Minister of the Environment may be using this
as a test case to bring forward some severe legislation not balanced
and not fair to landowners but protecting endangered species,
which we all share a concern about.
Clause 9(1)(a) states in part that the minister ``may make
regulations forbidding or restricting any use of, access to, activity
on, or the release of any substance on, federal lands that are public
15553
lands''. Clause 9(1)(b) states in part ``federal lands that are private
lands''.
If crown land is leased to a private rancher, which I assume
occurs in some parts of Canada, does that mean the control of the
land is under the jurisdiction of the crown or the leasee? When I
mentioned the slippery slope, this is exactly what I am referring to.
Perhaps the sponsor of the bill, the member for Davenport, might
provide me with further clarification of this section and I would
appreciate it.
Clause 3(2) of the bill states:
For greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be construed so as to abrogate
or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal
peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Endangered species legislation should apply equally to all
Canadian citizens. There can be only one set of laws applied
equally to everyone in Canada. If the government is serious about
the protection of species it cannot predetermine which federal land
will part of this jurisdiction and which will not; it is either all or
nothing.
Furthermore the Minister of the Environment has stated all
Canadians share responsibility for ensuring that species are not lost
to extinction as a result of human activities. I hope the minister
when drafting her legislation will make certain that all Canadians
will really mean all Canadians.
On August 17, 1995 the Minister of the Environment introduced
a legislative proposal dealing with endangered species. It was
called the Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act. Its intent
was for consultation purposes with a hope that legislation would be
introduced in the late fall. As of now Canada does not have any
legislation dealing with endangered species. I was recently told that
even the minister did not know that such legislation was absent in
Canada.
This causes me and some of my constituents great concern, not
the minister's lack of knowledge of her own portfolio but rather
that she will now try to bring in legislation as quickly as possible in
order to make a mark for herself. A responsible government would
not do such a thing and therefore I ask the environment minister to
make sure she not only has the environmental activists on her side
but the industrial and agricultural communities as well.
It is extremely important to find common ground between all
interested parties. Decisions on endangered species legislation
should not be made hastily.
The Western Stock Growers Association has outlined five goals
that go a long way in protecting endangered species without
unnecessary intrusive government legislation. I bring these to the
attention of the House.
First, land goals: they should be to maintain productive capacity
for producing food and feed through sustainable development;
management of habitat for both domestic livestock and wildlife;
control access to such lands to limit disturbance to all species;
empower the land holder to make appropriate management
decisions.
Second, people goals: allow local stakeholders a voice in the
process; maintain the necessities of life and maintain the quality of
life, particularly life in rural Canada.
Third, financial goals: determine all of the direct and indirect
costs of protection; determine all of the economic impacts and all
benefits; preparation of a comprehensive budget to show how and
by whom the action plan will be paid.
Fourth, government goals: create a regulatory environment that
facilitates flexible responses to endangered species management
and avoids coercion of land holders; provide integration of funding
of the foregoing processes; facilitate management by land holders.
I commend the member for Davenport on his bill. He has been a
member in the House for some time and has been a champion for
environmental causes. For this he should be applauded.
Should the bill make it to the Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development I hope the member for
Davenport, the chair of the committee, will seek witnesses from all
interested parties. I hope he will allow individual ranchers and
farmers to appear so that the committee will hear from those who
would be directly affected by his legislation.
I could spend a bit of time talking about some of the hoops
American landowners have been put through by the endangered
species legislation in the United States but I do not have time. I
hope the member for Davenport and, more important, the Minister
of the Environment become familiar with these issues.
Saskatchewan on two occasions, first under a New Democratic
government and second under a Conservative government,
attempted to introduce endangered species legislation without
properly consulting all the stakeholders involved, particularly the
landowners.
Landowners are certainly conservationists. They are
environmentalists. They have the best interest of the land they are
stewards of and the species that live on that land at heart. Coming
from an area on the South Saskatchewan River, the river valley, it
has been a joy to watch species flourish and live in harmony with
nature and with the people who are the stewards of the land both for
cultivation and for grazing of livestock.
There can be a co-operative approach to protecting endangered
species and not limiting the rights of landowners and the lessees of
crown land.
15554
(1745 )
I implore the government and the Minister of the Environment to
pursue that approach. I also encourage the member for Davenport
in his legislation, should it go farther than this point in the House,
to be willing to look at amendments to his bill that might respect
the rights and interests of land owners in this whole situation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to speak to
Bill C-275, an act respecting the protection and rehabilitation of
endangered and threatened species, standing in the name of the
hon. member for Davenport.
[English]
The paddlefish, the swift fox and the black-footed ferret have
one thing in common: They no longer exist in the wild in Canada.
[Translation]
As for the Labrador duck, the sea mink and the blue walleye, all
three have ceased to exist.
The Eastern cougar, the Salish sucker, the right whale, the white
Prairie gentian and the spotted owl are endangered in Canada.
[English]
The white-headed woodpecker, the blue ash, the western Atlantic
harbour porpoise and the spiny softshell turtle are threatened. The
polar bear, the eastern bluebird, the orange-spotted sunfish, the
pug-nose minnow, the prairie rose, the blue whale and the
trumpeter swan are vulnerable.
[Translation]
Canada now has 244 animal and plant species on the endangered
list. These species are affected by the loss of essential habitat,
excessive harvesting, introduction of exotic species, climatic
change and contamination by toxic products.
[English]
The time has clearly come for the federal government to release
a legislative proposal for a Canadian endangered species protection
act. The government has decided to ask for public comment on this
proposal before introducing a bill in Parliament because it wants as
much input as possible from as many Canadians as possible.
The document is short and straightforward. We have eliminated
as much of the legalese as we could in order to allow Canadians to
participate in constructive discussions before the final drafting of
the bill.
[Translation]
Protection of endangered species is the responsibility of all
groups in our society and each and every citizen in this country. We
need legislation that will make the Canadian public feel directly
involved.
The bill before the House today seeks to regulate the following
activities: the killing, wounding, capture, collecting or disturbing
of endangered species, including plants, birds, fish, mammals and
their embryos. The bill also seeks to establish Canadian controls
over the purchase, sale and international trade in endangered
species. To me it is quite clear that Canadians want the maximum
penalty imposed on anyone who tries to make money by unlawfully
importing or exporting endangered species.
[English]
The committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada,
an arm's length scientific body, would assess the species at risk on
an annual basis. The Minister of the Environment would be
required to establish a list of species at risk in areas of federal
jurisdiction.
Response statements outlining a plan of action would be
mandatory. Recovery plans, if required, would be prepared within
two years for endangered species and within three years for
threatened species.
The proposal would also permit emergency measures to be taken
to conserve and protect species requiring the equivalent of
emergency ward treatment.
[Translation]
The proposed legislation would authorize the Minister of the
Environment to enter into financing or conservation agreements in
partnership with other governments, agencies and property owners
for the purpose of preserving endangered species.
The bill would also provide for strict enforcement and severe
penalties.
[English]
The federal government has a responsibility to set a benchmark
for effective endangered species legislation in all of Canada's
jurisdictions, but that is not enough. We also have a responsibility
to work with the provinces and the territories to ensure a
comprehensive national approach to the protection of endangered
species in all parts of Canada. The federal government is
committed to doing its part in this shared enterprise. Acting alone
however, the federal government cannot come close to solving all
of the problems.
(1750)
[Translation]
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Manitoba,
Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick for previously adopting
15555
legislation to protect endangered species. I am convinced that in
the coming months we will be able to sign a document setting forth
a formal, national approach. And I am fully supported in this
conviction by the fact that Canadians expect us to pool our
resources for this common cause.
[English]
Over the last year of consultations leading up to this legislative
proposal, the Minister of the Environment has especially benefited
from the wisdom of the Endangered Species Conservation Task
Force, a group with representation from wildlife experts,
environmentalists, farmers, fishermen, foresters, and the mining,
pulp and paper, and petroleum industries. They are the people on
the front lines. They have acted in good faith despite their often
divergent interests.
She has asked the task force to reconvene to provide advice on
some outstanding issues, including a strategy for education
programs and the application of the legislative proposals to crown
corporations. She would also like further advice on issues of cost
and compensation. She is particularly concerned that farmers and
aboriginal peoples, the stewards of the land, are treated fairly by a
new law.
The minister asked the task force to give thought to how we can
ensure the active participation of the maximum number of
Canadians in protecting endangered species. In effect, how do we
ensure that there is a national safety net for species at risk?
[Translation]
As we prepare for new legislation on the protection of
endangered species in Canada, we should feel particularly grateful
to the young people in this country. Students across the country
have kept up the pressure on the minister. They have circulated
petitions and sent thousands of individual letters into which they
put a great deal of thought.
The minister means what she says when she wants Canada's
young people to continue to help her write this legislation. The bill
will be available on Environment Canada's green line on Internet,
and the minister urges everyone to send their comments. We want
to have the best possible legislation that will support economic
growth while protecting genetic diversity and the species and
ecosystems that constitute the biological basis of our world. We
owe it to endangered species and to future generations of
Canadians.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to participate in the debate on Bill C-275, an act respecting the
protection and rehabilitation of endangered and threatened species,
tabled in the House on September 28, 1994 by the member for
Davenport.
This bill provides for the identification, protection and
rehabilitation of flora and fauna in Canada threatened or
endangered by human activity and for the protection of habitat and
the restoration of population. It gives the Minister of the
Environment a mandate to develop and implement programs to
restore and maintain these species.
I congratulate the member for Davenport for tabling this bill and
for his devotion to the cause of ecology. The goal is a very
plausible one.
(1755)
It must be said that, despite international conventions and the
very important United Nations conference on development and the
environment held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, I note that, generally,
countries and governments do not do enough in this area.
As you know, I come from Chile, which, like other countries in
Latin America, has rich flora and fauna. However, there as well,
certain species are threatened and endangered. There is the condor,
for example, a huge and majestic bird that lives in the Andes, or the
llamas or the guanacos. These are species that inhabit the countries
of the Andes, Peru, in particular, and Chile. Fortunately, for the
first time, the Chilean government has enacted legislation on the
environment. Another example is Costa Rica, which has very
special and wonderful flora and fauna and is also doing a lot to
preserve its natural wealth.
Efforts in species preservation must be concerted. National and
international co-operation must be established. Fish, marine
mammals and migratory birds must be protected first and foremost.
This bill provides for the creation of two organizations: the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and the
Committee on the Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife.
It also authorizes any citizen to submit an application to the
Minister of the Environment to have species added to or removed
from the list of threatened or endangered species. The minister will
have six months to respond to such applications and will have to
table a full report on June 1 each year on the matter.
Canada still has a lot of work to do, despite its fine international
reputation in environmental matters. In November 1994, the
Minister of the Environment published a working document
advocating the strengthening of laws to protect species threatened
with extinction in Canada. In addition she announced new federal
legislation in this area. At the moment in Canada, 236 species of
flora and fauna are endangered, threatened or at risk.
Since the 17th century, Canada has lost at least 14 species of
bird, mammal and fish. The situation worsens each year. These
species are lost due to human activity. Over hunting is the most
serious threat. There are fewer and fewer old forests. Wildlife is
threatened by chemical pollution in the environment. Acid rain, air
pollution and global warming add to the pressures on these species.
15556
Canada should apply more firmly the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and
Fauna. It must put a stop to the over harvesting of endangered
species in the world as a whole. Illegal trade in certain wild
animals has almost led to their extinction.
I would like to take a moment to voice my criticism at the
decision by the Nova Corporation of Calgary, which was awarded
the contract to build a pipeline between Argentina and Chile, and,
to save money, will cross right through the city of Pirque and has
already started cutting through extremely rare and ancient trees in
Chile along the way. The Chilean parliament recently adopted a
resolution supporting the demands of the population of Pirque, a
city located at the foot of the Andean Cordillera, who want the gas
pipeline to be kept at a distance from their city.
(1800)
That resolution also calls for a complete study on the
environmental impact to be carried out before the pipeline is
constructed. In my opinion, Canadian companies in other countries
ought to respect the same environmental standards as those in
effect in Canada. I have taken the liberty of writing to the Minister
of the Environment deploring this situation and asking that she
intervene with the management of the Nova Corporation of Calgary
to ensure that it will comply in Chile with the standards already in
force in Canada. I would ask the same of all Canadian corporations
who invest in other countries. There is a moral duty to respect the
minimum legislation already in place in Canada.
Although this is typically a provincial responsibility, much to
our dismay only four provinces have passed legislation to protect
these species, and I am referring to Quebec, Ontario, New
Brunswick and Manitoba.
I am delighted to say that for years Quebec has had its own
legislation and its own Department of the Environment and
Wildlife, one of whose objectives is to protect threatened species.
The federal government has limited jurisdiction in this area. It is
responsible for the preservation of fauna and flora on federal lands,
for instance, parks managed by Ottawa. It is also responsible for
regulating international and interprovincial trade and for
preventing illegal trafficking in endangered species. However, it
should not encroach on provincial jurisdictions, and especially
Quebec's.
This legislation has raised many questions in this regard. The
Quebec Minister of the Environment and Wildlife, Jacques
Brassard, has already announced his own strategy for the
preservation of Quebec's biological diversity. He has asked the
federal government to remain within the sectors that are its
exclusive responsibility.
My Bloc Quebecois colleagues, the hon. members for
Laurentides and Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies, previously
commented in considerable detail on the subject during the debate
last June.
Although the bill's objectives are indeed praiseworthy, I cannot
support this legislation because it encroaches on provincial
jurisdictions, and more particularly that of Quebec.
Once again I would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Davenport on his dedication to environmental issues, which I fully
support, but I also wish to inform him that the Bloc Quebecois will
vote against this bill.
[English]
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to rise today to speak on this bill. Previous speakers
today have enunciated the fact that there has been or still is a
patchwork of legislation across the country.
There appears to be some consistency lacking. Concerns about a
lack of endangered species legislation in greater Canada has been
expressed for well over a decade.
It is my view that all Canadians have a moral responsibility to
ensure that future generations enjoy and benefit from the presence
of diverse wildlife species. The federal, provincial and territorial
governments together must provide the required leadership and
legislative tools thereto. That strategy will set the stage for action
in a number of areas, including the identification and protection of
endangered species.
The biodiversity convention calls for the development or
maintenance of necessary legislation to protect wildlife and their
habitats at risk.
(1805 )
The responsibility for protecting endangered species is shared
among the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Options
for federal endangered species legislation have been explored with
the preferred course of action being a co-operative national
approach. The federal government continues to work
co-operatively with the provinces and the territories to develop and
ensure this national approach. Because there is currently no federal
endangered species legislation in Canada and only a patchwork of
provincial legislation, we need a strengthened national effort to
ensure endangered species conservation.
In November 1994 the Minister of the Environment was
presented with a 75,000 signature petition calling for a law to
protect endangered species. This petition, the more than 5,000
subsequent letters and the comments made during public
consultations clearly indicate that Canadians, children and adults
alike, expect federal leadership on this issue.
15557
An Angus Reid poll conducted in May showed that an
overwhelming majority of Canadians, 94 per cent, support the idea
of federal legislation to protect species at risk. The support for
legislation is firm. Seventy-five per cent of Canadians strongly
support such legislation and 20 per cent somewhat support it.
Last November the Minister of the Environment released a
discussion paper on endangered species legislation in Canada,
another one on a proposed national approach to endangered species
conservation in April and a series of public workshops were held in
May.
In August 1995, with full cabinet approval, the Minister of the
Environment released for public comment a legislative proposal to
protect endangered species entitled ``The Canadian Endangered
Species Protection Act: A Legislative Proposal''. The legislative
proposal was released to ensure that the federal government is
doing its part and working co-operatively with other jurisdictions
to protect endangered species throughout the country.
The minister encouraged the public to provide comments on the
legislative proposal prior to introducing legislation in the House of
Commons in the spring. The comments received will help the
federal government finalize its plans for protecting endangered
species.
The proposed legislation would help prevent wild Canadian
species from becoming extinct as a consequence of human
activities and mandate the recovery of species where technically
and economically feasible. It would apply to species on federal
lands and waters or under federal authority.
The proposal arises from discussions with the provinces and
territories on a national approach to Canadian endangered species
protection. It also responds to the comments, suggestions and
briefings made by Canadians at the public consultation workshops
held across the country, as well as to the recommendations of a
federal endangered species conservation task force. There were
also many useful aspects of Bill C-275, which stands in the name of
hon. member for Davenport and was introduced in September
1994, which were also considered in drafting the proposed
legislation.
The proposal under consideration by the Minister of the
Environment is consistent with the commitment enunciated in the
red book which puts forward a vision of society that ``protects the
long term health and diversity of all species on the planet''. The
proposed legislation would also clearly demonstrate this
government's commitment to the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
The federal endangered species conservation task force, made up
of representatives from environmental groups, industry and
industry associations, academia and small business was established
by the Minister of the Environment to advise her on the contents of
the federal endangered species legislation. The task force
reconvened early in October to provide additional advice on a
number of key issues, including the best way to achieve the desired
safety net that will ensure that all endangered species in Canada
receive the protection they deserve. The task force is expected to
provide its report to the Minister of the Environment by
mid-November.
The legislative proposal is intended to form the federal
component of a comprehensive national safety net for the country's
most vulnerable species.
With the co-operation of federal, provincial and territorial
governments, the proposed legislation will succeed in providing a
strong national approach for the conservation of endangered
species.
(1810 )
The proposed legislation will apply to the full extent of federal
authority to federally managed species everywhere and federally
managed marine areas. The proposed legislation would establish a
national listing process for all species in Canada regardless of
where they occur.
Federal government actions will not intrude into provincial and
territorial responsibilities. The common but differentiated
responsibilities of the federal, provincial and territorial
governments with respect to endangered species are recognized.
The proposed legislation is intended to complement, not contradict,
provincial and territorial actions.
The release of the legislative proposal prior to the tabling of a
formal bill demonstrates our commitment to protecting Canada's
endangered species and our commitment to open and transparent
government. The federal government remains committed to
working co-operatively with the provinces and territories to
develop an effective national approach to endangered species
conservation. By taking action at the federal level and getting our
own house in order we are demonstrating our commitment to
making the national approach work.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-275, an
act respecting the protection and rehabilitation of endangered and
threatened species proposed by my hon. colleague, the member for
Davenport.
The protection of endangered flora and fauna must be a matter
which concerns us all. Extinction is forever. When a species
becomes extinct, it is a loss for both the world and for Canada.
Anyone who cares about maintaining healthy ecosystems for future
generations must by extension care about endangered species.
In Canada, known throughout the world for the richness of our
wilderness areas, the preservation of our animals, birds and plant
life is akin to the preservation of our national identity. We have a
tendency to think that species extinction is someone else's
problem. However, the truth is that since the arrival of Europeans,
15558
at least eight of our distinct animal species and at least one
population of caribou have become extinct.
More than 105 species, subspecies or populations of plants and
animals are listed as threatened or endangered and more than 111
are considered vulnerable. It is our problem too. We can count
ourselves very fortunate to have not only the hon. member for
Davenport working on the problem but also the Minister of the
Environment.
In the modern world, species extinction is alarming not because
it happens but because of why it happens and the rate at which it
happens. In the days of the dinosaurs species disappeared at the rate
of roughly one every thousand years. By the Middle Ages
extinction rates began to accelerate rapidly because of increasing
human intervention in the environment. Between 1600 and 1900, as
human beings learned to kill more and more efficiently, species
were lost at a rate of one every four years. In the years between
1900 and 1975 the disappearance rate climbed to about one species
per year. Today biologists estimate human beings destroy from one
to three species per day. Some predict that by the end of the century
the rate will have accelerated to one per hour and that up to 15 per
cent of all species now on earth will be gone.
Protecting the species that are threatened today entails far more
than merely restricting hunting and trapping. In our modern,
industrialized world habitat destruction and environmental
contamination are the most hazardous perils to our endangered
species.
(1815 )
Each of them is far more deadly and more subtle than the gun or
trap and far more difficult to control. Canada's wildlife habitats are
vanishing very quickly.
Millions of hectares of marshes, swamps and other wetlands
which are extremely important for waterfowl and as breeding
grounds for fish have already been destroyed.
In the interests of what we thought was progress they have been
drained or filled in for highways, airports, housing and industrial
complexes. They have been absorbed by expanding farmlands and
flooded behind large power dams. Forests have been cleared and
grasslands have been fenced off, ploughed under or paved over.
Too many of Canada's wetlands have already been lost. Up to 71
per cent of prairie wetlands have been degraded by agricultural
practices. In southern Ontario over 70 per cent of wetlands have
been lost. The problem of wetlands is particularly serious. A
dramatic decline in the waterfowl population is taking place.
Canada's modern lifestyle with its heavy dependence on
industrial, household and agricultural chemicals also poses a
serious risk to endangered species. Modern society puts species in
jeopardy in many ways. Acid rain can kill pond and other aquatic
life and has a negative effect on soils and forest growth. Unless it is
stopped it is quite possible acid precipitation will begin to take a
toll on endangered species.
Some wildlife biologists already believe that acid rain is at least
a partial culprit in the population declines of some species of
waterfowl and amphibians.
Although the environment minister has proposed draft
legislation in this field, it is important to note Canada does not yet
have a national endangered species act. Legislation is in force in
only four provinces.
Unfortunately endangered animals, birds and plants do not
recognize provincial or even international boundaries. For this
reason it is imperative that Canada have a federal presence in this
area.
In terms of our international commitments Canada must have
clear, strong legislation protecting and rehabilitating our
endangered and threatened species.
As my hon. friend said before, Canada's responsibility goes back
to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development and the
Environment in Rio in 1992. Canada was among if not the first
nation to sign the convention on biodiversity when delegates of
some 150 nations arrived at a consensus on what needs to be done.
We can be proud of this but we can be even more proud once we
have adopted strong legislation backing up our commitment.
I thank the hon. member for Davenport for his unflagging
devotion to the cause of protecting our vulnerable wildlife. I also
commend both the member and the Minister of the Environment
for joining forces to ensure that strong law protecting threatened
species and their habitats becomes a reality.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
to join in the debate on this bill.
Our colleague from Davenport has worked his whole career in
the area of environmental sustainability and environmental
support. I am pleased to support him in the efforts he brings to the
House to help us understand and continue with his striving to
support the environment and in this case endangered species in
Canada.
(1820)
One of my favourite things to do in my riding of Brant is to go
into the schools, public schools or high schools. Without a doubt in
every circumstance the issue of the environment is always raised.
15559
When I think back to my days as a young student it was never a
top of the mind subject. We truly have come a long way in terms of
appreciating and understanding the importance of our environment
and the role it plays in the lives of our young people. I am so glad to
see the changing attitudes of Canadians toward our environment,
toward the importance of sustainability.
In my riding I have the great fortune to live on a farm. My family
has been there for five generations. One of the things we enjoy
doing every Sunday if possible is walking through the fields along
the railway tracks, through the wooded areas and looking at the
wildlife. We see red foxes, racoons, deer. We look at the flora and
every spring we wait to see the blooming trilliums and the
may-apples. It has become a tradition in our family that we pass
along from generation to generation. It is one of my favourite
things to do with my two sons on a Sunday afternoon.
At the schools the children always ask me what the government
is doing about the environment. I am always very pleased to
explain to them that our Deputy Prime Minister also has the
responsibility for the environment and that she is taking very
assertive and definite approaches to making sure the things that
have become very much a part of our country remain in our
country.
I was shocked to find out as I was preparing for this discussion
that there are 244 endangered species in Canada alone; 244
endangered, threatened or vulnerable species. Knowing that, we
can understand why the hon. member for Davenport feels so
strongly about the importance of this legislation.
I am not sure this is true but as I look at information I see nine
extinct species, things in my lifetime I will never see. A further 11
species used to exist in Canada but are now extinct. The importance
of preparing to maintain and protect our fragile environment is
something that has to be critical to all of us.
I am very proud of a project undertaken by a number of groups in
my riding, the Brant Waterways Foundation, the Grand River
Conservation Authority and the Grand River Trails Association.
They came together in partnership with the federal government
through the environmental partners program to develop the
Brantford environmental education project. Along the Grand River,
now a heritage river, we have created walkways, bike paths and
trails that all can enjoy.
The thing that is so important in this regard is along the shores of
the Grand River are Carolinian forests, themselves an endangered
and rare set of flora and fauna. We are very lucky in our community
to have them as part of our surrounding environment, something
we can enjoy with ease. We are also lucky to have organizations in
Brant that are conscious of how fragile this great resource is.
Coming together and with the support of the federal government
we have protected that it in a way that people can enjoy it. It is not
for the people of Brant only. I encourage members of the House
and Canadians from across the country to come and join with us.
At our local level we have a consciousness, an awareness of the
importance of the environment. I am glad that will continue.
However, when we look at the rest of the country it is interesting to
note that only in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick is
there legislation to protect our flora and fauna. Again, another
reason why I would congratulate the member for Davenport for
bringing this legislation forward.
(1825)
The federal government can play a real role in ensuring that our
natural heritage remains with us. It will not be a role that is
interventionist or that gets in the way of what the provinces want to
do. Rather it is one that will co-ordinate activities, that will add to
that which we already have, that will make sure the Canadian
citizenry understands the importance and has access to our
environment.
We know from looking at things that have taken place in the past,
and I have to reference the Canada Health Act, that very often it is
promises that start with good pieces of legislation. However, it may
be very slow to evolve across the country. That is where a strong
federal government can play a role.
I make that relationship with this particular piece of legislation
and say there is a role for us to play at the federal level to ensure
that Canada from coast to coast to coast maintains what has
become world renowned in natural beauty, natural strength, natural
resources and natural heritage.
I am pleased to be part of the debate. I know people back in my
riding who are so sensitive and appreciative of the issues of the
environment will also be glad to know that the government is
sponsoring this kind of legislation.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill
C-275.
I congratulate the hon. member for Davenport on this bill and
also the Minister of the Environment and her parliamentary
secretary for the work they are doing on this very important topic.
It is very important to take the initiatives of these people and
work with them. We owe our children and our children's children
our prompt attention to this very important endangered species Act.
This past year I attended two open houses at the Body Shop, one
in Kingston, Ontario and one in Belleville, Ontario. This
respectable company had a great display set up with everything
from colouring contests to T-shirts and it encourages children to
take part. It has done a great job of making people aware of
endangered species around the world.
15560
I am sure if we looked at the bottom line of the Body Shop
stores across Canada and talked to the individual owners, we
would find that their number one customers are the teenagers and
the youth of today. Our daughter is one of those customers. I
commend our youth. They understand the importance of our
environment.
We are very fortunate that our children, including my daughter,
Kayla Rebecca, have developed this great love for country, love for
the environment and our wildlife. I realize that we do not have to
go to the Body Shop to be reminded on their interest.
My colleague previously mentioned visiting schools. I also want
to mention this. I was on a local school board a few years ago when
we started up a community school and we now have a day care
situated across the road from our home. I visit schools and day
cares. Posters are plastered on the walls. It does not matter what
topic is displayed, sports or the environment, we see birds and
other species depicted on the posters for any topic. Our youth are
very aware.
We all agree that the greatest asset of our country is our youth.
We are very fortunate. They are very wise in their respect of the
planet, our country, our lands and our waterways. Therefore, we
owe our children attention to this now.
My riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
extends from the Thousand Islands, which we are glad to share with
my colleague for Kingston and the Islands. Then we circle around
and go to the Bay of Quinte, the walleye capital of the world. That
is where we had the live release tournament this year, the largest
walleye tournament in North America with 7,000 to 8,000
fisherpeople, but they released all the fish and it made our children
very happy.
(1830)
I drive from my office in Napanee to Bancroft and on up to
Algonquin Park. My riding touches quite a bit of Algonquin Park.
Quite often I see wildlife. It is a real thrill.
The other day I was in Algonquin Park for the Art in the Park
show. My wife and daughter were with me. We were driving along
and a tour bus and cars were stopped. People were having the thrill
of a lifetime because there was a bear in the bush. The bear was
playing up for the public. The bear was standing there scratching
on the trees and foraging a bit. It certainly reminds us of what we
would lose and what we do lose any time we lose one species.
Someone else mentioned that when I went to school we did not
pay all this attention to the environment. No, we did not but
perhaps it was being introduced into our subconscious minds. One
of the highlights in public school was arbour day, when we went
out and planted trees. Over a few years we did plant a few thousand
trees and made a small contribution. I am sure I have driven by
some of those areas. The trees are tall now because that was a while
ago. Trees are very important; they provide a natural habitat for
birds.
When I went to school we did not have respect for the wetlands, I
admit. Today our children are more curious and more in love with
all of these endangered species.
What do we do? Where do we go from here? We have all heard
that there is no national law to protect them. Some of the provinces
have laws. I am glad to see that the federal government and
Environment Canada are going to work with the provinces on this.
They are going to work with different stakeholders, groups,
provinces, territories, aboriginal groups and wildlife management
boards.
We can learn a lot from the aboriginal groups, from the natives in
our communities. Someone listening to me is going to say: ``Yes, I
heard about some natives that went out during the fish spawning
season and speared a whole lot of fish''. Yes, there are bad apples in
every barrel, but I will tell you our native populations live in
harmony with this country. There is much we can learn from them.
They have always practised conservation.
When you tap any natural resource you leave some for seed. My
uncle was a trapper many years ago, a colourful character. He made
a lot of money some years trapping beaver. One day I was with him
and I used an axe to cut through two and a half feet of ice on the
river behind our home. He set the trap and took out a very nice
beaver, but he said that was it. I went with him the next day and he
said: ``We will not set any more traps here. We have to leave some
for the future''.
I will conclude by saying I really appreciate the opportunity for
me an other people to speak on this. I want to acknowledge that our
youth will lead the way. They remind us every day and every
weekend at home.
[Translation]
The Speaker: My colleagues, the hour provided for
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
15560
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
September 21 I asked the Minister of the Environment what
measures the government was taking to counter the human causes
15561
of climate change. In the meantime, a draft report by the United
Nations panel on climate change has been published citing human
activity as the contributing factor to climate change. In addition,
there has been an Environment Canada report citing increasing
summer temperatures in the last 10 years.
(1835)
What is the cause of climate change? Briefly, it is caused by an
envelope in the atmosphere which is created by the burning of
fossil fuels on our part as a society, beginning with the industrial
revolution 150 years ago.
What are the effects of this envelope? This envelope does not
allow solar rays deflected once they touch the earth's surface to
re-enter the atmosphere. Thus, the greenhouse effect is gradually
formed. In other words, the effect of solar rays as deflected by the
earth's surface is no longer the same as in the past. They are
contained by the greenhouse gases envelope.
What is the main problem at the base of this? In essence, it is our
dependence on fossil fuels, coal and gasoline, but also the emission
of methane gases in our dump sites and the production of other
gases that are mostly correlated to human activities or the
necessities of agriculture and the like.
Next month the international panel on climate change will meet
and likely approve a draft report which will mark a major turning
point in the climate change debate.
Until now some members of the scientific community believe
that the rising temperatures since the beginning of the industrial
revolution could be attributed to at least in good part a variability in
climate rather than the result of human activity. With this draft, the
scientific panel will likely state and confirm that climate change is
taking place as a result of human activity. Hence the adoption of
this report by the international panel on climate change would
result in an authoritative confirmation that global warming is
posing a threat.
Some have suggested that the effects of climate change may
actually be advantageous to Canada. These assumptions are now
being refuted.
The report I am referring to predicts the changes associated with
climate change are likely to have a negative impact not only on
human health but on other human activities such as agriculture,
forestry and the like.
The consequences are far reaching in economic and social terms.
These are again explored in the panel's draft report as discussed
last week in Montreal. The first attempt to assess the social and
economic impact of climate change is the one that took place in
Montreal.
I would appreciate very much a reply by the parliamentary
secretary to this issue which, although stretched into the long term,
is going to be of significant importance for the human family the
globe over.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Davenport raised an important issue when he
asked this question of the Minister of the Environment a month
ago. He of course based it on an editorial in the Globe and Mail. I
want to refer to that which was on the subject of the need to take
action on climate change. It was published shortly before the hon.
member asked his question.
The editorial makes some good points about voluntary
approaches and the need to adapt to a rapidly changing climate.
These clearly are not enough to deal with the problem. After all, the
evidence that our climate may be changing at an unprecedented
rate is rolling in on a daily basis as the hon. member has indicated.
In Canada, the summer of 1995 was the third warmest in a
century. The year 1995 was the second worst year in history for
forest fires. Record rains have hit Alberta and five early season
tropical storms hit parts of the Atlantic provinces.
This year is shaping up as the earth's warmest year on record. It
is also a preview of what we can expect in the future. Scientists are
concluding that recent data constitute growing statistical evidence
that their previous predictions of climate change are being borne
out.
Therefore, in calling for voluntary reductions of emissions of
greenhouse gases the Globe and Mail is heading in the right
direction. After all, the Globe and Mail would have us recognize
that the costs of climate change are also rapidly rising. Damages
from the Alberta floods in June exceeded $50 million. Heat and
humidity helped fuel one of Ontario's most destructive storms,
causing $20 million in property losses and firefighting costs
associated with the loss of nearly seven million hectares of forest
across Canada.
By reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases we will reduce
the threat and costs of climate change and at the same time create
jobs and become more competitive economically. I am quite sure
that as Canada's business leaders continue to respond to the
economic opportunity associated with reducing energy
consumption, thereby reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, the
Globe and Mail will take another step in the right direction and
agree that the goals contained in Canada's national action program
on climate change must be met, that we must stabilize our
emissions of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000 and
address further reductions over the longer term. Meeting such a
goal will require that we take a mix of approaches, voluntary
measures wherever possible and market-based or regulatory
measures where appropriate.
As my time has run out, I conclude my remarks.
The Speaker: Colleagues, pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.41 p.m.)