CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 25, 1995
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 15801
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 15802
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 15804
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15804
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15806
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15806
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15807
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 15807
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 15808
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 15810
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15810
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 15810
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15810
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15812
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15812
Bill C-354. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted. 15813
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 15813
Motions for concurrence in 94th and 95th reports 15814
(Motions agreed to.) 15814
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 15814
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 15814
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 15815
Bill C-99. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15816
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15816
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 15818
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15819
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 15820
Bill C-93. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading. 15828
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 132; Nays, 39 15829
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 15829
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 15833
(Motion agreed to.) 15833
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 15834
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 15835
15801
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 25, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
October 25 marks the second anniversary of our government's
election. Two years ago, Canadians across the country decided to
elect a government that reflected them, one they trusted.
The popular support our government has enjoyed in these past 24
months demonstrates clearly our ability to identify the public's real
needs. The challenges are considerable. We are working tirelessly
to put the economy back on track and we are confident we will
make good all of our campaign commitments by the end of our
mandate.
Canadians want the changes we support, and we are sure that, if
we continue to work together, Canada will long remain the best
country in the world.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two years
ago today, on October 25, 1993, the people of Canada sent 52
Reform MPs to Ottawa. They did so because we as a party
promised to put their interests as constituents first. Today my
Reform colleagues and I thank our constituents for helping us to
keep that promise.
A special thanks goes out to the people of Lethbridge
constituency for participating in the first leg of my annual fall tour.
In places like Diamond City, Picture Butte, Nobleford and Milk
River they talked about issues that were important to them, things
like jobs, pensions, agriculture and certainly the referendum.
They told me about their hopes and their fears. They reminded
me what it meant to be their representative in Ottawa. The main
streets and the coffee shops of southern Alberta are a long way
from Parliament Hill.
Many of my constituents will never have the opportunity to visit
the nation's capital, but the Reform Party believes that by
effectively representing their interests in this House of Commons
we will be able to bridge that distance.
The Speaker: I have not been able to say this for a long time but
thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to appeal to all my fellow Canadians in Quebec who
may be thinking of voting yes on October 30 as a way of protesting
against the policies of this federal Liberal government, against this
Prime Minister, against the corporate agenda, against the current
constitutional impasse, whatever, to think again.
Governments and prime ministers come and go. What is in the
interests of all of us and the world is that Canada remain and that
progressive Canadians stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of
social justice in the Canada we built together in the last 50 years.
We have been an example to the world. Let us not commit the sin
of sowing despair when we should be sowing hope, for what hope
is there for others who are not so richly blessed if Canadians cannot
find a way to live together.
I have always believed that Canada has a mission to be a light to
the nations and that Quebec in Canada was integral to that mission.
The rest of Canada has not always nurtured that light but that light
for the next few days is in the care and keeping of Quebecers alone.
I appeal to them not to snuff it out.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, MMT is the
only available gasoline additive in Canada that can reduce nitrogen
oxide emissions by as much as 20 per cent. These emissions cause
urban smog.
A ban on MMT would have the effect of adding one million cars
to Canadian roads by the year 2000. MMT lets Canadian refiners
15802
use less intensive refining which also cuts down on other types of
emissions that hurt the environment. In Saint John which has the
biggest oil refinery in Canada this is important.
The environment minister with Bill C-94 wants to remove MMT
from Canadian gas because she says it will harmonize Canada's
standards with the U.S. where MMT is not used. She has also stated
that automakers claim that MMT harms their onboard diagnostic
systems. Independent studies and American courts have said that
there is no such link. Within weeks MMT will be used in U.S.
refineries.
I ask the minister to stop Bill C-94 as Canada's gasoline
standards would no longer be-
The Speaker: The hon. member for York-Simcoe.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to commend the efforts of the no side during the
referendum campaign.
The federalists have been responsible. We have presented a
dream to Canadians. Our dream is of pluralism and tolerance. We
want a Canada where our children learn to work together rather
than build walls and become isolationists.
As of today we are witnessing a massive outpouring of love and
support for the people of Quebec for a united Canada. People from
all over Canada, including my riding of York-Simcoe, will be
flocking by the thousands to Montreal on Friday to show their
support for unity.
David Ducharm and Andrew Douris along with many other
school children presented me with a petition calling for Quebec to
remain part of Canada.
Better opportunity for our children and for the greater good of
humanity is what federalism offers. For the sake of our children,
for the love of our children, let us keep Canada together.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
number of Canadians learning French has increased enormously in
the past fifteen years. Thanks to the policy on bilingualism,
thousands of young people across Canada are learning French. At
first, the debate was fierce, but, little by little, Canadians learned
the importance of bilingualism and of the French language.
And so, immersion classes started throughout Canada, and, in
British Columbia, 3,000 kilometres from Quebec, many
anglophone parents decided their children would learn the second
language of their country and join with francophones outside
Quebec, who speak both English and French. We have come a long
way. The policy on bilingualism has served our country well, and I
would like to join the many Canadians who believe in a bilingual
Canada and who continue to live together in harmony despite their
race, colour and beliefs, and believe in a united Canada.
``Mon Canada inclut le Québec''. My Canada includes Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 30, Quebecers will make a very important choice: saying
Yes to separation and to Canada's break-up or saying No to
separation and to Canada's break-up. Canadians from all the other
provinces hope that when the people of Quebec make their
democratic decision, they will choose to remain in Canada.
The people in my riding of London-Middlesex feel that a
majority of Quebecers will want to remain an integral part of this
country we have built together. We think that they will vote No.
* * *
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the No
side rally in Verdun last night, the Prime Minister of Canada
confirmed that he had nothing to offer Quebecers who are calling
for change.
(1405)
The Prime Minister of Canada is asking the people to trust him
and says that he will never agree to any constitutional change
without Quebec's consent. But how can we trust this man who, in
1982, agreed to the unilateral patriation of the constitution without
Quebec's consent?
As Lysiane Gagnon wrote in today's La Presse: ``It is too little,
too late. Weeks and years too late''.
In the past few days, the No side has begged Canada to help it
out, but its appeals have been in vain. At the very last minute, a
panicky Prime Minister of Canada has entered the referendum
campaign with empty hands. It is too little, too late. Quebecers will
not be fooled; they will vote Yes next Monday.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
historian Desmond Morton maintains that a nation is a people who
15803
have done things together in the past. It is not bound by language
or by a common culture but by a shared experience.
We are a prosperous, peaceful and tolerant society. Most
significantly in the words of Jacques Hébert: ``Quebec and its
differences have been accepted since 1867 within a federation that
is the most decentralized in the world, precisely to accommodate
Quebec's differences, its distinctive language and education
systems, its civil code''.
Nevertheless, the separatists would diminish what our
forefathers have built, a nation which is the envy of the world, a
nation which because it is what it is, continues to be a country of
choice for many of the world's less fortunate.
Last June, the leader of the Reform Party cautioned that we
cannot stand by passively and allow Quebec voters to make a
decision without a vigorous defence of Canada, including a
positive federalist alternative to the status quo.
It is time we trumpeted the virtues of this land in which we have
been blessed to live.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 30 the people of Quebec will be called upon to
make the most important decision in the history of their province
and this country, that being should Quebec separate, yes or no?
[Translation]
Canadians from coast to coast want Quebec to remain an integral
part of Canada.
[English]
The last thing francophones across this great country want is for
their nation to disintegrate. Many francophones from my riding of
Thunder Bay-Atikokan have communicated to me the sadness
they would feel should Quebec separate.
The constituents of my riding plead to all Quebecers to reflect on
the virtues of Canada and to preserve our national unity. I am
confident that as Quebecers look back on their lives as Canadians,
they will see mostly benefits and positive experiences.
[Translation]
Our country was born of two cultures who share a sense of
family. We may all be different from one another but, at the end of
the day, we are still one big family.
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to acknowledge and commend the hard work of two
young men from my riding of Beaches-Woodbine.
Sean Lee Popham and Jesse Moore, two students from Malvern
Collegiate, have circulated a petition to over 100 schools across
Canada. This petition supports a united Canada and rejects any
attempt to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. Sean and
Jesse's petition now has over 3,000 signatures from student leaders
in both territories and all of Canada's 10 provinces, including
Quebec.
Student Councils for a United Canada was created at the
Canadian Student Leadership Conference in Bathurst, New
Brunswick in 1995. Now more than ever it is important that their
message be heard.
The young people of Canada do not want to see this country
broken up. They want a secure and prosperous future for
themselves and for the young people of tomorrow. Their message
to Quebec is this: Say no to the break up of our nation and say yes
to a strong, united Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec is at a crossroads. To ensure their future, the people of
Quebec must take their destiny back into their own hands. In this
context, the mandate for sovereignty that Quebecers will be giving
their government next Monday must not be construed as a rejection
of Canada, but rather as the will to assume responsibility for
themselves. Over the years, the people of Quebec and Canada have
developed strong bonds of friendship, and they have many interests
in common.
A partnership would be in everyone's best interests, since more
than 300,000 jobs on each side are at stake. Partnerships are clearly
the way of the future.
On October 30, Quebecers will not only take their destiny into
their own hands but also hold out a friendly hand to their Canadian
partners.
* * *
(1410)
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after being insulted last week, when the Bloc member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata said: ``The francophones-poof!'', we,
Franco-Ontarians, have decided to speak up. After countless press
15804
conferences and all kinds of protests, the French speaking
community of Ontario is now mobilizing and organizing a rally to
be held tomorrow at La Cité collégiale, in Ottawa. This rally will
be an opportunity to proudly show that the French language is alive
and well in Ontario and that La Francophonie wants Quebec to
remain in Canada.
Tomorrow, it will be our turn, as francophones living in Ontario,
to say ``Poof!'' to everyone who wants us gone for the sake of
justifying Quebec's separation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in a speech to thousands of supporters of the no
side, the Prime Minister told Quebecers that he is not opposed to
future change in Canada if they vote no.
The Reform Party has long called for renewed federalism
without constitutional change. To this end it has put forward a
20-point plan to modernize and decentralize Canada.
By adopting the Reform Party policy paper on a new
confederation, all of the provinces of Canada would benefit from a
decentralization of powers. Furthermore, the 20-point plan would
allow for reform of our institutions and could be made, bringing
greater representation to the people and the regions of Canada.
Most important, by adopting the plan, the changes could be
made without comprehensive federal-provincial negotiations, such
as the Meech Lake or the Charlottetown accords.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians, I want to point out that
voting No does not mean voting for the status quo.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Prime Minister said: ``Voting No means rejecting
separation. It does not mean that we give up anything regarding the
Canadian constitution. We will keep open all the other paths for
change, including the administrative and constitutional ones''.
On Monday, Quebecers will decide not only the future of
Quebec, but also, indirectly, the future of Canada.
Quebec's claims are increasingly echoed by a number of other
provinces.
The changes that many of our fellow citizens have been hoping
for can only be achieved by voting No. We are confident that, on
October 30, Quebecers will say no to the breakup of Canada and
that they will choose to continue to work to improve our great
country.
* * *
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this week, the Prime Minister's cynicism has reached new
heights. After claiming that he always supported the distinct
society concept, when in fact he fought against its inclusion in the
Meech Lake accord, the Prime Minister said yesterday, in a speech
in Verdun, that any constitutional change affecting Quebec would
only be made with the consent of Quebecers.
This absurd statement from the very person who imposed the
Canadian constitution on Quebecers, when the Quebec Liberal
Party and the Parti Quebecois were jointly opposed to it, shows that
the No side is panic stricken.
Quebecers will no longer be taken in by such equivocation. On
October 30, they will vote Yes to denounce the patriation of the
constitution imposed to them in 1982 by the current Prime Minister
of Canada. Quebecers will vote Yes to be on an equal footing to
negotiate from a unified platform. On October 30, they will vote
Yes to give themselves a country.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the No side held a very important
rally in Verdun. A large number of people came to hear the leaders
of the No side talk about Canada's future after the referendum.
These thousands of Quebecers were elated to hear their leaders
reaffirm their profound attachment to Canada, as well as their
confidence regarding our country's future.
Canada is in constant evolution. Voting No in the referendum
will allow that evolution to continue in light of what Quebec and
the other provinces are calling for. However, voting Yes would
mean the breakup and the end of Canada. But Quebecers do not
want that and they will vote No.
_____________________________________________
15804
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
in a speech to his supporters in the referendum campaign, the
15805
Prime Minister made an about-face and promised Quebecers
change as an incentive to vote No in the upcoming referendum.
My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Would she
agree that these last minute promises, made in a panic by the Prime
Minister a week from the referendum, sound very familiar to
Quebecers who remember the referendum in 1980?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada explained his
point of view to all those who believe in the No side, saying how
serious the situation and the choice made on October 30 were for
the future of our country, and that this was a choice Quebecers had
never had to make before in their entire history, because just one
vote would mean the break up of Canada.
So the Prime Minister urged all Quebecers to think carefully
before they voted, to think carefully about what Canada is today,
what Quebecers are today, before they go and vote. That was
basically the Prime Minister's message last night.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
discussing the complete about-face made by the Prime Minister.
I therefore want to ask the Minister of Labour why Quebecers
should trust someone who made promises to them last night, when
only last Sunday in New York, he bluntly rejected the demands of
Daniel Johnson, the chair of the No committee? Why should we
trust the man who betrayed Quebec in 1982?
The Speaker: Once again, my dear colleagues, I would ask you
to be very careful about your choice of words used in both
questions and answers.
This is a question and answer period, so I hope we can keep
reasonably calm.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unlike the hon. member for Roberval, the Prime Minister
of Canada is aware of the gravity of the situation and does not take
the destruction of this country lightly.
This country is not just any country. It is the best country in the
world. And the Prime Minister of Canada has always been a proud
francophone, a proud Quebecer and a proud Canadian. In this, he is
like the majority of Quebecers who are proud to be Quebecers but
are also attached to their country, Canada. That is where the Bloc
Quebecois is wrong.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
editorial writer for the Daily Gleaner in Fredericton wrote the
following on Monday, and this is a translation: ``At the beginning
of the referendum, the rest of Canada was asked to remain silent''.
In return for that silence, assurances were given that there would be
no promise of constitutional change for Quebec.
(1420)
Does the Minister of Labour agree that this revelation of an
agreement between the Prime Minister of Canada and people in the
other provinces outside Quebec is strangely similar to what
happened that night in 1980, when Quebec was betrayed by the
same man, the same-
The Speaker: I want to ask the hon. member for Roberval to
please change the word he used. I would appreciate it if this word
were not used in the House of Commons.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, to conform to your instructions, I
will change the word I used. So is this not strangely similar to what
happened at a time Quebecers remember with sadness in their
hearts, when they had problems with the same man, in the same
way, with the same players and for the same reasons?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, oddly enough, in this referendum campaign, the three
leaders who want the break up of this country had to sign an
agreement among themselves. It is the only written agreement in
this referendum campaign. On the other side, we have Quebecers
who do not want the break up of this country, and to share the same
goal, we do not need an agreement in writing.
If there is anyone today who could not care less about the distinct
society concept that we as Quebecers support, it is the leader of the
Yes side who said in no uncertain terms: ``To hell with a distinct
society. We want a country''. That is what the choice is about on
October 30. It is about the break up of Canada as we know it today,
and that is why it is such a serious matter.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister made the following
statement, and I quote: ``Any changes in constitutional jurisdiction
will only be made with the consent of Quebecers''. This somewhat
ambiguous statement is devoid of any meaning; moreover, the
Prime Minister took great care not to pronounce the words ``right
of veto'', but rather allowed the idea to circulate without ever
stating it.
Will the Minister of Labour confirm that the Prime Minister's
statement does not in any way constitute a right of veto as Quebec
has always understood and demanded it, but is instead a vague
promise that is more or less devoid of meaning?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think this is evidence of a lack of desire to properly
understand what the Prime Minister of Canada said yesterday. The
Prime Minister of Canada was very clear about the distinct society
and said that he accepted it.
He was very clear in stating that the constitutional changes
affecting Quebec will be made after consultation with Quebecers.
He was very clear in stating that this country is undergoing a very
great transformation in preparation for the 21st century and that it
15806
was his heartfelt wish that Quebecers participate fully in these
changes for the 21st century. That was the Prime Minister's
message.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister is not being very clear. What she was asked
involved the right to veto, changes with the consent of Quebecers,
these being the words of the Prime Minister, but as usual she is not
answering the question. I shall attempt another.
Can the Minister of Labour tell us what reassurance there is for
Quebecers in such a statement by the Prime Minister, when in 1992
he overrode the virtually unanimous opposition of the parties
represented in the Quebec National Assembly, including the
Liberal Party of Quebec, of which she was not so very long ago a
member, and the leader of the present Liberal Party had voted
against unilateral patriation of the Constitution? This Prime
Minister was therefore identifying himself as a Quebecer at the
time, and Quebecers were represented at that time by 74 Liberal
members in the House of Commons. How can there be any
confidence in a person who has reneged on his commitment to
Quebec?
(1425)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the present Prime Minister of Canada is very aware of the
whole constitutional history of this country. He is also well aware
of what has happened in Quebec. He understands very well, too, the
disappointment some Quebecers may have felt at certain points in
the history of this country. For the past two years, however, this
Prime Minister has been leading this country; let us look at what he
has done in those two years to respond to the needs of all
Canadians, to respond to their concerns, their needs.
When the Prime Minister of Canada speaks, I feel that we can
judge him very well by the actions he has undertaken in the past
two years as the Prime Minister of this country. He did not govern
by ``referendum'' for the past two years; he has acted, and he has
governed this country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the separatists say that Canada cannot change and will not
change but Reformers insist Canada is going to change, and
without the help of constitutional lawyers and the
federal-provincial wrangling they bring.
One of the real changes Quebec and every other province wants
is a limit on federal spending. It is unchecked federal spending that
has led to federal encroachment in areas of provincial jurisdiction,
huge deficits and debt and a staggering tax burden for all
Canadians. Legislation is required to limit federal spending power.
My question is for the finance minister. Is the federal
government open to that kind of change, simply limiting federal
spending power, a practical change that can be accomplished
without constitutional wrangling?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been very
clear on this side of the House and have agreed with the position
put forward by the hon. member and his party as to the need for
fundamental change.
We have also said in two successive budgets that what we were
doing was not simply cutting spending but redefining the role of
government because that must happen in the modern age.
In that area there are items on which we may or may not agree.
We have said that as far as we are concerned the best controls on
spending we can have are short term targets on which the
government's feet are held to the fire. That is what has enabled us
to hit our targets consistently and that is what we intend to continue
with.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the biggest problem with our current Constitution is not so
much its content but its application. The federal government has
used its spending power to encroach on provincial areas of
jurisdiction such as natural resources, manpower training, social
services, language, culture and so forth.
The answer to the separatists is a more balanced federation
which can be done by re-examining and reducing the federal role in
areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Is the federal government open to this type of change, a simple
withdrawal from provincial areas of jurisdiction, again changes
that can be made without constitutional wrangling?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only is the federal
government open to that kind of change but in looking at what has
happened over the course of the last two years, we have done this in
a number of areas.
The hon. member should look at the great openness displayed by
the Minister of Human Resources Development concerning ways
he would work with the provinces. He should look at what the
Minister of Natural Resources has done. Look at regional agencies.
Within Quebec we have taken 43 programs down to one to
concentrate on small and medium size business and the delivery of
15807
federal government programs. In department after department we
have effected that kind of change and we have done it without any
constitutional discussion.
(1430)
The federal government is concentrating on those areas where it
can make the maximum impact and is allowing the provincial
governments and municipal governments to do the same thing.
The kind of change the leader of the Reform Party calls for is in
the process of happening, but it is happening without the kind of
rupture and dismantlement the PQ or the Bloc would advocate. It is
happening for the betterment of all Canadians.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are offering Quebecers change, real change;
not superficial, symbolic constitutional change.
People cannot eat the Constitution. They cannot pay their
mortgages with the Constitution. They cannot build their dreams
on constitutional clauses.
What is needed today is a changed federal government that
respects provincial powers, stops reckless spending and taxation,
and gives all provinces the tools they need to develop the strengths
of their own communities and economies. That is possible with a
no vote.
Is the federal government open to these kinds of changes? Is the
Prime Minister open to these kinds of changes? If the government
is, how does it propose to demonstrate that openness in practical
ways before October 30?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the proof is in the
pudding. If we look at what the government has done over the last
two years, we see that the fundamental process of change is under
way. There is only one thing that can stop the process of change and
that is a yes vote, which would make the country go back to square
one.
The fact is that a no vote means that the evolution of the country,
along with the evolution of the nations around the world, is
something that is proceeding apace.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, if you want proof that the federal government is
open to change, just look at the remarkable speech the Prime
Minister made last night in Verdun.
* * *
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
When the Prime Minister talks about distinct society, he keeps
referring to a concept that is meaningless and subordinate to the
principle of equality for all the provinces, a concept that was
rejected by Quebecers in the referendum on Charlottetown.
Yesterday, it was impossible to get a specific answer from the
Minister of Labour, so we will ask her the same question today.
Could the Minister of Labour tell us what kind of distinct society
the Prime Minister wants for Quebec, the Charlottetown one,
which is meaningless because it is subordinate to the equality of the
provinces or the Meech Lake one, which the Prime Minister
opposed so strenuously?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite simple. I will repeat in this House what the
Prime Minister had to say about the meaning of distinct society.
``A Quebec recognized in Canada as a distinct society by virtue
of its language, culture and institutions. I have said it before and I
say it again: I agree'', the Prime Minister said.
Does the Bloc Quebecois agree with a distinct society?
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the minister said in this House that Clyde Wells was in
favour of a distinct society. Are we to understand that when the
minister and her Prime Minister talk about distinct society, they are
referring to the same definition as Clyde Wells, in other words, a
definition that is completely meaningless and without any of the
powers demanded by Quebec for more than 30 years?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is such a surprise to see the Bloc Quebecois anxious to
defend the concept of distinct society, while their present leader,
the leader of the Yes side, Mr. Parizeau, says he does not want to
hear about distinct society; he says to hell with distinct society. He
is just not interested. He is interested in destroying Canada, to
make a new country. That is the big difference between the Prime
Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec.
We want to keep this country called Canada, and we want to
remain proud and distinct in Quebec.
(1435 )
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question relates to the Prime Minister's speech last night and other
discussion of possible constitutional changes.
Before the Charlottetown accord the Reform Party and the
Liberal Party had made commitments that all major constitutional
amendments should be done only through national referendum. Is
it still the commitment of the Liberal Party that any constitutional
changes being planned must be submitted and approved by the
people in a national referendum?
15808
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the Prime Minister said yesterday, very clearly, is
that any changes in constitutional jurisdictions will only be made
with the consent of Quebecers. It seems to me that, as a statement
of position by the government, this is very clear.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think that is a wise commitment and I hope the Prime Minister is
prepared to make it to all Canadians.
After the last referendum in 1980 we entered into constitutional
discussions with a PQ government in Quebec. That proved to be
very problematic for the country as a whole and particularly
problematic for Quebec.
Does the government believe that the PQ government would be a
willing, open and constructive participant in constitutional
negotiations?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very clear that after this referendum, in which we
hope with all of our hearts that this country will remain united, the
premier of Quebec will still be Mr. Parizeau. Since Mr. Parizeau's
sole dream and sole obsession has always been to create a separate
country, it would perhaps be a little surprising if he were to sit
down at a constitutional conference table. May I express the hope
that the premier of Quebec will bow to the democratic vote of
Quebecers?
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour.
Clearly, English Canada categorically rejects any possibility of
constitutional change in Quebec's favour. This is why the leader of
the Reform Party said there was no market for a distinct society,
that it was old hat.
Will the Minister of Labour acknowledge that, although the
Prime Minister has been saying he wants to enshrine the principle
of a distinct society in the constitution, he will be unable to because
of the steadfast opposition of English Canada as expressed
yesterday by the premiers of British Columbia, Newfoundland and
Manitoba?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the words of the Canada's principal leaders are
once again being twisted.
What a number of premiers said is that they recognize the
principle of a distinct society for Quebec, but wonder whether it
was a priority here in Canada at the moment to sit down and change
the country's constitution.
This is what the premiers of the other provinces said. Quebecers
are saying exactly the same thing. When asked what the priority
should be for their provincial government, how do they respond?
Over 80 per cent say it should be the economy, employment, health
services or education. Only 8 per cent mention Quebec's political
status. So, if we are going to respond to the priorities expressed by
our fellow citizens, we must look to the problems before us first
and foremost. This is what the premiers confirmed in the other
provinces.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we
to understand the reason the premiers of English Canada are so
steadfastly blocking constitutional change is once again because of
the bargaining that went on before the start of the referendum
campaign between them and the Prime Minister of Canada in
which they promised there would be no constitutional change for
Quebec, as the editorial in the Daily Gleaner indicates?
Mr. Robichaud: That is disgusting, what she is saying.
(1440)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, probably the member for the Bloc Quebecois made a
mistake when she spoke of our Prime Minister as the prime
minister of English Canada. As far as I know, our Prime Minister, a
francophone from Shawinigan, is the Prime Minister of all
Canadians.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Robillard: And as the Prime Minister of all Canadians,
including Quebecers, it is his responsibility to make clear the
seriousness of the choice awaiting us on October 30-the
destruction of our country, Canada.
I repeat that this is not just any country in the world, it is a
country which we are proud of and which we have grown and
developed in. I can tell you that everyone who believes in this
country will do everything they can so that everybody says no to
separation on October 30.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Reformers in the
provinces want the federal government to respect their jurisdiction
in health. The minister has resisted this approach until now.
Will the health minister today commit to respect the provincial
jurisdiction in health?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the reasons that Canada is the best country in the world is
our medicare system.
15809
The Canada Health Act respects the jurisdictions of the
provinces and allows the provinces every flexibility in managing
the system but does insist that they adhere to five principles to
protect equal access for all Canadians in order that they receive
the funds transferred from the federal government to the
provinces. That has ensured that we are the best country in the
world and that we have the best medicare system in the world.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the constructive
changes the provinces want would be easy to achieve: stable,
predictable funding along with legislation that puts the needs of
patients ahead of the needs of bureaucrats.
Will the health minister today agree to meet with provinces that
desperately want to have those constructive changes?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have met with provinces and will continue to meet with provinces.
I will work with provinces in any way I can to ensure we have a
system that meets the needs of Canadians that is not a two-tier
system.
We know the agenda of the Reform Party. It wants a U.S. style
two-tier system, one for the better off Canadians and one for the
rest of Canadians. That is not the way we built our country and that
is not what made the country great.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour.
In his speech yesterday, the Prime Minister indicated that he still
favoured administrative agreements as a way to meet Quebec's
demand that the federal government withdraw from Quebec's areas
of jurisdiction.
Can the Minister of Labour tell us how Quebecers can trust the
Prime Minister when he proposes administrative agreements, since
the only time he proposed such an agreement-it was, may I
remind you, in the area of manpower-, the minister, in solidarity
with her former boss, Daniel Johnson, rejected it, calling it a
third-rate agreement?
(1445)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again, I will have to quote the Prime Minister's
statement in extenso, since the member of the Bloc Quebecois
omitted part of the sentence. He said, and I quote: ``We will keep
open all the other roads to change, including administrative and
constitutional means''.
I think the intent is quite clear: to keep open both administrative
and constitutional roads to change. Throughout this country's
history, we have found various ways to make changes, without
necessarily reopening the constitution. At this time, we only have
to look at the whole issue of immigration in Quebec and all the
powers granted to Quebec to choose its immigrants and welcome
them into Quebec society. All this was done by administrative
means. So we should certainly not set aside this way of effecting
changes.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
response to Liza Frulla, who, last Monday, called for the federal
government's withdrawal from the area of culture, how can the
Minister of Labour answer that a mere administrative agreement
could be enough to solve the problem, and will she dare give the
same answer to stakeholders in the cultural industry?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister stated very clearly that this country is
on the road to change and that, in order to meet the challenges of
the 21st century, Canada as a whole has no choice but to change
because we now face international competitors that were not even
on the scene 10 years ago.
We must question our ways of doing things. We must review the
role of the various levels of government and this is what we in the
federal government will work on after a No vote in the referendum.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the
recent women's conference in Beijing, Canada was awarded the
global award by the International Federation of Business and
Professional Women.
Can the hon. Secretary of State for the Status of Women explain
to us what this award means and on what basis Canada was selected
to receive this prestigious prize?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada was indeed
honoured with this prestigious prize, and this goes to show that
Canada is a great place to live for everyone. This is something we
should all be proud of. This government has furthered the cause of
women: their equality, prosperity and safety throughout the
country, including Quebec. Remarkable progress has been made,
and the Quebec minister herself agreed with this and congratulated
Canada for it.
The men and women who attended the rally in Verdun last night
recognized the benefits of living in Canada, the standard of living
we enjoy in this country, and stated that they wanted to live a strong
Quebec within a united Canada. They said No to separation.
15810
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
night the Prime Minister admitted he is open to all paths for change
to the administration of government. One area in which the
provinces have long been seeking jurisdiction is training, which
Reformers also have long advocated.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development follow suit
and commit to giving the provinces exclusive control over
manpower training?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the commitment the Prime
Minister made last night about change is something on which we
invited Canadians to join with us a year ago in an honest and
forthright way to engage in a look at the social systems and the
training systems of Canada.
(1450)
We have had the largest participation of any initiative of that
kind. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians participated and the
message was clear. They want change. They want more flexibility.
They want more collaboration and they want more
decentralization.
I have sat down on several occasions with my provincial
counterparts to talk about how we can achieve that collaboration.
For example, we offered specifically to all provinces the right to
take over responsibility for institutional training, all the training
that takes place in the community college system.
We have had very positive responses. Unfortunately the minister
of employment in the Government of Quebec refused to have a
discussion. He refused to hear our plans for collaboration and
would not engage in that important dialogue.
The most important way we can give real voice and real life to
the aspirations Canadians expressed over the past year about the
change they need is to have a vote of no on Monday and get on with
the business with the provinces of making good changes to get
people back to work.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the answer from the minister of human resources. I will
take this one step further, responding to the opening of the door last
night by the Prime Minister to change the status quo.
I ask the minister now to commit to a time and a place he will get
the provincial ministers together so they can negotiate the
decentralization of manpower training.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the last two or three
months I have held at least eight or nine different meetings with
provincial ministers to
the point of discussing how we might come together and get
agreement.
In the member's province of Alberta we now have an agreement
with the Government of Alberta to set up single delivery systems
for young people to help them get back to work, particularly people
who have long been out of work. We have in Lethbridge, Red Deer
and Edmonton trial projects with the Government of Alberta.
Even in the province of Quebec we have come to an agreement
in the city of Alma, the home of the Leader of the Opposition, to
have a co-operative joint initiative by the federal and the provincial
governments to help unemployed workers in Alma in a
co-operative way.
The best way to ensure a speedy timetable of agreement so we
can develop a job system relative to the 21st century is a no vote on
Monday so we can get back to work as federal and provincial
governments and design the best system possible for all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Revenue. The Council for Canadian
Unity is very active these days, since its mission is to promote
Canadian unity.
How can the minister justify that, when making donations to the
council, large Canadian corporations, including Alcan, Proctor and
Gamble, Dow Chemical and Maclean Hunter, can obtain receipts
for charitable donations and thus lower their tax liability?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, several months ago, I answered a similar question
from the Bloc Quebecois. Canadian charities are only allowed to
deliver receipts if 90 per cent of their activities are not of a political
nature. In other words, only a small part of their activities can be of
a political nature. The Council for Canadian Unity has been in
existence for 29 years, and it may be that these large corporations
received tax receipts. We will see if the 10 per cent limit was
exceeded.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the
minister justify that the council is enjoying the status of a charity,
considering that, in order to obtain this status, an organization must
help alleviate the problem of poverty, or promote education or
religion?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is forgetting the other criteria related
to that status. Education is one of them. Moreover, the Council for
15811
Canadian Unity, which was granted the right to deliver tax
receipts, is 29 years old. It was established 29 years ago.
(1455)
During those 29 years, the council has conducted educational
campaigns in Canada. If there is a problem now, I ask the member
to provide me with the facts. I will then conduct a review of that
charity, and any other charity, if there are reasons to suspect
wrongful conduct. If such review is conclusive, the charity will
lose the right to deliver tax receipts. However, I need some specific
information and details from the member.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Counsel from the justice department on Monday circulated a
letter which sends a message of intimidation to all witnesses and
potential witnesses of the Somalia inquiry. Justice department rules
and Treasury Board regulations circumvent the openness of the
Somalia inquiry and the protection of those giving evidence.
Serving officers fear for their careers if they have to come forward.
Will the minister take some action to put a halt to this form of
intimidation?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter
under the purview of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, who
was just called from the Chamber.
However, the letter to which the hon. member referred, written
by a Department of Justice official, reflects the longstanding
practice reflective of professional conduct with respect to lawyers
in that they do not deal with other people's clients without
counsel's being informed. That is a basic principle which the
Minister of Justice will address.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, minutes ago Justice Létourneau called this a matter of
real concern.
The minister in March said in the House: ``There would be no
impediment to anyone coming forward with evidence''. Monday's
intimidating justice letter is a serious impediment.
What will the minister do to salvage the inquiry?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not have
to salvage the inquiry. The inquiry is doing extremely well under
the leadership of three very prominent commissioners.
I am informed by the Minister of Justice that his officials have
been discussing this matter with all concerned, including the
commission, and perhaps more will be said on this tomorrow when
my colleague returns to the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade.
Can the minister explain to this House why the members of the
Canadian Exporters Association, through their president, Mark
Drake, have expressed such concern about the possible
consequences a victory for the Yes side might have on their future?
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not only pleased but
proud to announce that Canada's 1995 exports are 20.3 per cent
higher than the same period last year.
Our trade surplus with the United States is nearly $5.4 billion
higher than for the same period last year. To date our trade surplus
with the world is more than $7.1 billion from 1994. This is
testimony to the dynamic nature of the business women and men
working together across the country.
Canada's membership in OPEC, the World Trade Organization
and NAFTA places it in a position to do business in the
international markets, unlike individual provinces.
This is testimony that on Monday if we want this prosperity to
continue through trade, if we want jobs to increase through exports,
we will vote no.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development
concerning the role a company called Jobs Incorporated Canada of
Campbellton, New Brunswick seems to be playing in the Canada
employment department. I am referring to the fact that this
company advertised at the CEC office in Winnipeg for a position
that would have had the successful applicant greeting clients and
explaining programs at the Canada employment office in Selkirk,
Manitoba.
15812
(1500)
I ask the minister: Who is this company? How much
privatization is going on in the Canada Employment Centres? And
why is this going on without any consultation with the union?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple.
Jobs Canada as an organization has established a coast to coast job
bank, which takes application forms from prospective employers
and résumés from prospective employees. It provides a nationwide
service to enable job seekers to find the best possible jobs.
What we are testing out on a pilot project basis in three locations
across the country is how we can take advantage of that vast
network of job applications and openings at Jobs Canada and build
them into our own job bank so we can substantially expand the job
offerings for people who come to the CECs. It is simply one way of
using new technology and developing a partnership with a private
sector firm to help get Canadians better, higher paying jobs.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): I ask the
minister: Why was this done apparently without any consultation
with the union in Manitoba? Will he undertake to consult with them
and hear their concerns on this matter?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes I will.
The Speaker: Colleagues, this concludes question period.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of my point of order is to correct
Hansard to bring it in line
with reality.
During question period, the Minister of Labour no doubt
misunderstood what the hon. member for Saint-Hubert said and
attributed words to her that she never spoke. She never described
the Prime Minister as the ``prime minister of English Canada''. She
did say, and I have her text in front of me: ``Are we to understand
that the premiers of English Canada-'' This was therefore not a
reference to the Prime Minister of Canada, which led to a
correction and to applause from our friends across the way. Sorry,
but this was not the case.
The Speaker: This is perhaps a point of clarification, but it is
not a point of order.
[English]
Colleagues, I do not see any other points to be raised at this time.
The Speaker: I would like to make a statement regarding the
point of order raised last week by the hon. member for Winnipeg
Transcona. I would also like at this time to thank the hon. member
for Kindersley-Lloydminster and the parliamentary secretary to
the government House leader for their contributions to the
discussion.
On October 18 the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona rose to
question the admissibility of the auditor general's report tabled in
the House on October 5. The report, which was sent to the public
accounts committee for examination, contained what in the opinion
of the member were ``politically biased statements''.
(1505 )
The hon. member contended that the auditor general had
``overstepped the legal and customary boundaries of his duties as a
servant of the House''. He requested that I rule the tabling of the
auditor general's report out of order, ask that the auditor general
submit an amended report, and refer the terms of reference for
auditor generals' reports to the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs.
[Translation]
The auditor general's importance to Parliament is indisputable.
This House relies on the auditor general to help it ensure that
taxpayers' dollars are spent for the purposes approved by
Parliament and to assist it in holding the government to account for
its actions. Under the terms of the Auditor General Act, the auditor
general is empowered to report to Parliament. Under the provisions
of Standing Order 108(3)(d), these reports are then deemed
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
[English]
With all respect, my colleagues, any ruling that is made here in
this House affects all hon. members. If any business is to be
conducted other than the hearing of my decision, I respectfully ask
that it be done outside.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has long taken an
interest in the form and content of auditor generals' reports. I recall
that he made a member's statement in the House on this very
subject on November 23, 1994. It is clear that his view of the
appropriate role of the auditor general is not necessarily shared by
the auditor general.
15813
Those who follow the proceedings of the public accounts
committee know that this is an issue that is regularly the object of
some discussion in the committee.
The hon. member is absolutely correct in his assertion that the
auditor general is an officer of Parliament. As a servant of
parliamentarians and especially of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts, the auditor general must pay particular attention
to whatever difficulties members encounter with his reports in the
exercise of their parliamentary responsibilities.
Like any officer of the House, the auditor general should be
diligent in responding to the views expressed by members,
especially when there is a pattern to their complaints, lest there
result an erosion of a very special relationship.
That being said, I must point out that the auditor general's
co-operation with the House of Commons and the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts is well known.
[Translation]
As the Chair has ruled on a number of occasions, it is not my role
as Speaker to interpret the laws of Canada. The Auditor General
Act lists a number of matters to be treated by the auditor general in
his reports to the House of Commons. I do not feel, however, that it
is up to me to interpret whether or not what is contained in the
auditor general's report meets the criteria of the law. Therefore, I
can neither rule the tabling of the report out of order nor demand
that the auditor general submit another report, as the hon. member
requested.
[English]
Finally, I must stress the fact that the auditor general is not an
agent of the government. If there is to be a review of his
performance, I must agree with the parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader that the proper place to do so is in the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The estimates and the
reports of the auditor general are dealt with in this committee on a
regular basis. It is within the committee's mandate to bring to the
attention of the House, by way of report, any aspect of the auditor
general's report and the conduct of the affairs of his office the
committee feels the House should be apprised of and should act on.
(1510 )
Should the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona still wish to
pursue this matter, he has every opportunity to bring it to the
attention of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I thank all hon. members for their contributions to this
discussion.
15813
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's responses to eight
petitions.
* * *
[
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 94th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to the list of
members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this
report later today.
[English]
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 95th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to the
business of supply. In this report the committee respectfully
requests that its deadline for reporting to the House be extended to
March 29, 1996.
Also, if the House gives its consent I intend to move the adoption
of this report later today.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health, which is on
Bill C-7, an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their
precursors, and other substances, and to amend certain other acts
and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, with
amendments.
I acknowledge the excellent work done by my colleague, the
hon. member for Mississauga South, and his subcommittee in
dealing with this legislation.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-354, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(transmission of HIV).
15814
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my second
private member's bill today, seconded by the hon. member for
Crowfoot and co-sponsored by a number of my colleagues.
If passed by Parliament, my bill will improve the possibility of
obtaining a criminal conviction of anyone who knowingly infects
another person with HIV, thereby exposing the victim to the fear
and risk of contracting AIDS and certain death if he or she does.
If enacted, my bill will create two new offences related to wilful
or reckless acts by a person infected with HIV or a person who has
AIDS. If the act results in infection with HIV, the offence is
criminal infection, with a maximum sentence of imprisonment for
life, the same maximum penalty now imposed for manslaughter.
The rationale is that victims infected with HIV face a life of fear of
contracting AIDS and certain death if they do. In the event the
infection with HIV is not proven, the offence is reckless infective
behaviour, punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years.
Consent is often an issue in prosecutions under other provisions
of the Criminal Code, and this creates problems for the courts. For
example, the question of whether a victim consents-
The Speaker: I think we have the general idea. I thank the hon.
member very much for his explanation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1515 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the House gives its consent, I move that the 94th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in. This is the membership
change report, in case members are confused.
Also, if the House gives its consent, and I believe there is
consent forthcoming, I move that the 95th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the
House earlier this day, be concurred in. This report is the one that
deals with the extension of the deadline for the report of the
committee on the business of supply.
(Motions agreed to.)
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
an honour and a privilege for me to present a petition from my
constituents stating the importance of young people and how their
voices must be heard when we make decisions that will inherently
affect their future.
A healthy and safe environment, meaningful employment and
education are issues that affect all of us but they have a more
profound effect on our country's youth, as does a united Canada, a
country which includes Quebec.
[Translation]
These petitioners want to make sure that, when making decisions
that affect young people, whether these decisions concern
employment, learning, retraining or training, the constitution or
this country in general, we take into consideration our young
people in Quebec and the rest of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two separate petitions to present.
The first one is signed by constituents of the Yorkton-Melville
riding concerned about the port of Churchill. They feel that the full
utilization of the port of Churchill will improve the economy not
only of the province of Saskatchewan but of Canada as well. There
is a need to develop a strategy to utilize this important seaport to
ship other exports as well as grain.
Therefore they urge that the upcoming shipping season usage of
the port of Churchill be maximized at the very least to 5 per cent of
Canada's annual grain shipment.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I should like to present a second petition on behalf of 796
concerned citizens from my riding of Yorkton-Melville regarding
S-241 of the Criminal Code of Canada which was enacted to
protect all individuals. If S-241 were struck down or amended,
protection to the disabled, the terminally ill, the depressed, the
chronically ill and the elderly would no longer exist and our most
vulnerable members of society would feel an implied pressure to
end their lives.
Therefore, the House is urged not to repeal or amend S-241 of
the Criminal Code and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada
decision of September 30 to disallow assisted suicide or
euthanasia.
15815
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting
two petitions today.
The first contains 25 signatures and calls on the government to
amend the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains 175 signatures and
calls on the government to remove impediments to the mining
industry such as overlapping regulations.
The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to improve the
investment climate to stimulate the industry and to keep mining in
Canada.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to
Parliament a petition from the professional teaching staff of Martin
Collegiate Institute in the constituency of Regina-Lumsden.
The teaching staff strongly object to the present status of
Canada's Young Offenders Act. They feel the Young Offenders Act
has failed to address the issue of youth crime and its negative
results in our schools, communities and society in general.
(1520)
They call on Parliament 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 names of young offenders public and increasing 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. It has been signed by a number
of Canadians from Surrey and Delta, British Columbia.
The petitioners should like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession that has not been recognized for its value
to 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 or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to present a petition signed by constituents of
Yellowhead who are strongly opposed to the universal registration
provision in Bill C-68. They want protected the right of
law-abiding citizens to own and use recreation firearms.
They also are concerned that with Canada's serious deficit and
debt problem such costly and unproven legislation should not
proceed.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from the citizens of Peterborough and elsewhere in Ontario
concerned about the massive spill of cyanide in the Essequibo
River in Guyana, South America. They point out that the spill was
the direct responsibility of a Montreal based Canadian gold mining
firm called Canbior. They also point out that the safety, livelihood
and well-being of some 18,000 Guyanese citizens are affected.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to direct an
independent inquiry into the incident in order that the Canadian
residents and citizens who have a humanitarian and an
environmental responsibility in this matter are informed of the
steps being taken to arrange for the adequate compensation of
people affected and have steps taken to ensure that necessary
measures are being taken to correct this environmental disaster.
I have a second petition on the same topic, in which the signers
point out that the river in question is the largest in Guyana; that it
passes through the rice producing belt of Guyana, rice constituting
one of the country's main exports; and that this is one of the worst
environmental disasters since the incident in Bhopal.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to intervene on
behalf of the Guyanese people affected by sending a trained team
of environmentalists to determine the nature and extent of the
danger to residents and the environment, and to aid the Guyanese
government.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two sets of petitions to present.
The first set contains somewhat over 500 signatures from all
over Canada including my riding. It requests that Parliament not
amend the charter of rights and freedoms or the Canadian Human
Rights Act in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval
of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending
the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
15816
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a second group of petitions, again from all across Canada
including my riding, numbering some 800 signatures, which prays
that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn
child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if question No. 215 could be made an order for return, that return
would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 215-Mr. Abbott:
What are the names of all the Department of Justice Standing Legal Agents
(including civil and criminal legal agents) as of September 1993 and as of June
1995?
Return tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
(1525)
[English]
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.
15816
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration from October 24, 1995, of the
motion that Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the House today
regarding Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act.
This is a very important bill, because the program administered
under the Small Business Loans Act has an impact on the Canadian
economy. The amendments before the House today, which are part
of an ongoing process aimed at reinforcing the Small Business
Loans Program and making it sustainable, will help improve the
climate in a sector that today generates the strongest economic
growth and increase in employment in Canada, and I am referring
to small business.
It is common knowledge that small businesses have become a
major moving force in the Canadian economy. During the past 20
years, we have seen a remarkable increase in the number of new
small businesses in Canada. That small businesses are so important
is borne out by the fact that in 1991 Canada had, if we include
self-employed workers, more than two million small businesses
with fewer than 100 employees, an increase of 50 per cent over
1981.
Small businesses today, many of which are dynamic innovators,
will help to define the future development of the Canadian
economy. In fact, according to the statistics, Canada increasingly
relies on the growth of small businesses to create jobs, diversify
economic activities and compete effectively on global markets.
Small business has a profound impact on the Canadian economy
and will remain the main source of economic growth and job
creation.
That is why the present government's main priorities include
ensuring that the small business sector is healthy and prosperous.
Take, for instance, the issue of access to adequate financing. As
the government was told repeatedly by members of the industry
committee, the ability to obtain financing by contracting loans is
extremely important for small businesses. Lack of adequate
financing will restrict the growth of small businesses and
jeopardize the future prosperity of this country. That is why the
government passed a bill that will enable the Federal Business
Development Bank, once it has been restructured, to improve its
response to the needs of small businesses. As a result of changes
introduced by the government, the bank will be in a better position
to finance innovative small businesses in the new economy.
The amendments to the Small Business Loans Act before us
today were drafted in the same spirit as the changes giving a new
impetus to the Business Development Bank of Canada. In both
15817
cases, the underlying motive is the same: providing an appropriate
policy framework that supports the development and prosperity of
Canadian small businesses from coast to coast.
Given its broad scope for action and implementation under the
act, the small business loan guarantee program plays a large role in
the launching of small businesses and in other aspects of their
operations across Canada. It also has an impact on similar
Canadian programs.
(1530)
The difficulties experienced by small businesses in securing
loans on reasonable terms have been described in great detail in
recent years. The extensive consultations held with representatives
of both borrowers and lenders during the drafting of Bill C-99
showed that most stakeholders are concerned mainly about access
to financing and not so much about its cost. As far as access to
financing is concerned, both borrowers and lenders confirmed the
usefulness of the small business loan program as administered
under the act.
They recognized that the program was especially helpful in
times of economic slowdown. With the exception of farms,
religious businesses and charities, Canadian based businesses with
annual revenues of $5 million or less may apply for loans under
this act.
Almost every small business operating in Canada can now get a
loan under the program. Loans made under the act are approved by
private sector lenders and guaranteed by the Government of
Canada. Loans can be as high as $250,000 but in the past most
loans were for less than $50,000.
The small business loans program is an important tool to
encourage lenders to provide access to debt financing for high risk
small businesses, including those which find themselves in one of
the following situations: they wish to borrow a small amount or
obtain a start up loan; the goods that they must provide as collateral
are inadequate or insufficient; they wish to obtain funds to buy new
technologies or specialized material; they are active in sectors
which are generally considered more risky, such as tourism, retail
sales or services; they are not located in urban centres, or they are
in regions which are not major economic activity centres.
Clearly, the small business loans program is important to small
businesses. Since 1961, when the act came into effect, over
420,000 loans amounting to more than $15.5 billion were extended
to small businesses.
Given the importance of the loan program run under the act, it
was a real concern when its annual deficit increased to the point
where it might have exceeded $100 billion per year. Some
measures had to be taken, and they were taken. Again, this shows
how the program has constantly evolved, thanks to the Canadian
government's ability to implement the necessary changes.
Two major changes were made to the program on April 1, 1995.
An annual fee of 1.25 per cent is now collected from each lender,
on the average outstanding balance of loans granted after March
31, 1995. The maximum yearly rate which a lender can set under
the program was increased by 1.25 per cent, making it equivalent
to the prime rate plus 3 per cent for floating rate loans, and
equivalent to the residential mortgage rate plus 3 per cent for fixed
rate loans. Thanks to these changes, which will be followed by
those proposed in the bill before the House, the program will be
completely self financing and can therefore be maintained.
(1535)
Future access to the loan program by small businesses is now
basically guaranteed, but the changes included in Bill C-99 are
necessary to complete the process. The bill will make it possible to
complete the transition to full cost recovery and to improve the
mechanisms of the program relating to borrowers and institutions
making small loans.
Among other things, the bill will accelerate the coming into
force of the reduction from 90 per cent to 85 per cent in the amount
of the state's loan guarantee under the act; authorize the making of
regulations for setting processing fees; authorize the making of a
regulation on the release of securities and personal guarantees
accepted by lenders against repayment of small business loans
under the act.
It will also serve to improve the situation of institutions making
small loans, from the point of view of applications involving
guarantees; to ensure that the small businesses loans program can
be adapted more promptly to changes in the program and in the
economy, by allowing readjustments in the proportions of the
guarantee via regulation rather than legislation.
The government is clear in its intent to support small business,
which it considers the motor of Canada's economic growth. It has
been pointed out to the government on numerous occasions that the
best way of helping business, whether small or big, was to control
the deficit. The modifications to the Small Business Loans Act are
obviously proposed with this in mind.
Thanks to the introduction of a mechanism for users' fees, this
program will no longer add to the federal deficit. I would like to
take this opportunity to again point out the particularly pleasing
fact that transition to full cost recovery has received unanimous
support from all interested parties consulted during the drafting of
Bill C-99, lenders and borrowers alike.
Bill C-99 will be the end point in a process which will allow a
program that is already a nationwide success to continue that
success. The amendments will ensure that the Small Business
Loans Act remains an important mechanism for implementing
government policy in order to foster the growth of small business
across this great land of Canada. These amendments merit the full
assent of the House of Commons.
15818
(1540)
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the member for Madawaska-Victoria's speech on Bill C-99 which
of course was a Liberal point of view. It was just a reiteration of
what she has been told to say by the government frontbench. The
things she was saying do not seem to make a lot of sense to me.
The hon. member talked about how the government supports
small business. Then she went on to say that the new user fee
mechanism will no longer contribute to the deficit because the
program is going to be on a full cost recovery basis. The reason the
government was putting it on a full cost recovery basis was its
concern and desire to try to balance the budget.
I agree with the government's desire to balance the budget but
typically, here we are again; the government is going to do it on the
backs of private enterprise. The Liberals are going to charge the
businesses that borrow money under this act an excess premium on
the interest rate. This money will be put into the government
coffers and will be channelled through a bureaucratic system to
reimburse the lenders that make the bad decisions and lend to small
businesses that cannot under whatever circumstances repay the
loan. If the Liberals are concerned about supporting small business,
why are they doing that?
Some private sector businesses are going to reimburse the losses
of other businesses. It will not cost the government one single
nickel under this process, yet the hon. member says that the
government supports small business. There are two contrary
situations here. I would like to hear what the member has to say.
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the
question put forward by the hon. member. Notice that the question
is consistent with the third party policy of double talk. I have been
here for the last two years and I have listened to the hon. member
and his colleagues from the third party in this House talk about the
fact that businesses in Atlantic Canada were receiving grants here,
there and everywhere.
I am talking today about the federal government taking its
responsibility toward the small and medium size businesses
throughout this country. We are making sure that as responsible
politicians, as a responsible government, we can provide the right
environment and opportunities from coast to coast to coast for
small businesses to create jobs, to look forward to competition and
to make sure they can get ahead and increase exports. The member
is saying that we do not know what we are doing.
On the one hand Reform Party members are saying to cut grants,
cut everything, to even cut health care. Now they rise in this House
to say it is not proper for us to make sure there is security for small
businesses to have access to capital and on the same wavelength to
have access to exporting their technology.
For nine years I have heard political questions in the New
Brunswick legislature and in the House of Commons, but I have
never heard double talk to this measure from an hon. member.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for
Madawaska-Victoria for her intervention today on behalf of small
business. She has shown great leadership in the last two years for
small business in her community.
No one in this House will ever forget the member for
Madawaska-Victoria's very first intervention on this floor two
years ago when she said: ``We will be a government that is lean but
not mean''. Reform Party members obviously heard her say that
but they do not understand where she was coming from.
(1545)
Reformers forget about some of the great wins Canadians have
experienced from Atlantic Canada in terms of business enterprise.
I want to talk specifically about a very small business which
received a bit of help in 1979-80 from a Liberal government. I was
there. It received about a $4.2 million grant.
Mr. Williams: Sounds like patronage to me.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): It was not patronage. I
remember the principles of the country tended to be more Liberal
than anything else.
It was the McCain organization. That very small business has
grown to be one of the absolute jewels of industry not just in
Canada but throughout the world. It has expanded its business not
just in Canada but all around the world. It has created jobs and
developed technology.
The Government of Canada got its $4 million back within the
first year. Since 1980 we have probably received 100 times that
amount in taxes and job creation.
Reform members really irk me from time to time. They talk
about the importance of entrepreneurship. They talk about the
importance of enterprise having a proper environment to get the job
done. Most of them come from western Canada. Companies in
western Canada receive the biggest grants of all, especially in the
oil and gas sector. They are given grants which are buried in the tax
act. Those tax grants are no different than direct cash grants.
I support the thrust of Reform Party members when they talk
about cleaning up, simplifying and developing a fairer tax system.
15819
However, they cannot take a cheap shot at an act of Parliament that
is trying to help small business without realizing they are giving
tens of millions of dollars worth of grants to businesses in their
ridings through the tax act.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. Bill C-99
is obviously another example of the way our country is constantly
changing. The government cannot create employment as such, but
we have a responsibility to create a suitable environment for the
development of small and medium size business in Canada, right
across the country, from Atlantic to Pacific.
I consider the bill to be a responsible way to meet our obligations
to the people of Canada, including the people of Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak on Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans
Act.
I believe it is the responsibility of governments to create an
environment in which businesses can flourish. This is where most
of our jobs will be created. On the history of job creation in Canada
in the last year, 90 per cent of all new jobs have been created by
small and medium size business. It is interesting to focus on this
because this is small business week. Of these 200,000 jobs,
one-quarter were created in the province of Quebec; 48,000 new
jobs were created by small and medium size businesses.
(1550)
I talked about creating an environment in which these businesses
can flourish. There are two aspects that create a stable environment
in which small and medium size businesses can flourish and be
effective in their operations of creating new and challenging jobs
for a new generation of Canadians.
These two areas are access to capital and access to stable
markets. The area of access to capital deals pretty much with the
meat of this bill. We have been told time and time again by some of
our critics that we must make government more efficient, that we
must find ways of cutting costs.
The bill recognizes the federal government was in the position of
picking up bad debt losses created by lending practices, loaning to
some of these businesses which obviously failed.
There is nothing unusual about that. It is not a calamity. It is not
a disaster. The loan loss rate within that program was somewhere
between 2 per cent and 4 per cent. This is quite normal in the
banking industry.
Basically the Small Business Loans Act attempts to create a
federal government guarantee which encourages financial
institutions to loan to small and medium size businesses.
Some may ask why these institutions do not do it without the
guarantee. Most of these loans were for capital projects. Our
financial institutions for a variety of reasons have become very
much short term lenders. They lend on the strength of things like
accounts receivable and inventory, things they believe they can
quickly liquidate.
When a small business is setting up it needs manufacturing
equipment, possibly delivery vehicles, whatever the case may be,
equipment that has a long and useful life, but it also clearly takes a
long time to pay off a loan based on the income flow from that.
Banks have not always been as active as perhaps they should.
Small or medium size businesses, which are sometimes emerging
businesses, also have instability to some degree in their financial
records.
Quite often banks, being very conservative lenders, are looking
for a long track record. Our emerging industries today do not
necessarily have a long track record. Consequently they may have
one or two-year financial statements and so forth but the banks are
very cautious. They would rather loan to governments than to
businesses.
It has been necessary for the government to recognize there are
inequities within our capital markets and create a program that will
attract financial institutions to loan to small businesses to get them
established and create jobs.
It is no small miracle that the government can claim some
responsibility for these 200,000 new jobs created in Canada in just
the last year because at the same time we have witnessed the
increase in the small business loans program. This program loaned
$500 million prior to 1993. That moved up to $2.5 billion in
1993-94 and to over $4 billion in 1994-95. That kind of tremendous
growth shows the demand in the small business sector for this kind
of lending.
(1555)
If we take our loan loss provisions of 2.5 per cent roughly and
move them through that increase in volume we will see it is
possible the government could be facing loan losses of $100
million.
What has the government done? It has recognized it should do,
not unlike what any financial institution would do, and build that
cost into the lending provisions. Essentially it has created a fund as
part of the application fee, a new 1.5 per cent fee added to the cost
of borrowing this money and then it is spread out over the term of
the loan in order to provide for as much as $100 million of loan
losses.
15820
All banks do this. All financial institutions carry on this way.
It is not unusual. I am surprised the third party takes some
exception to this. Small business people understand it. We realize
even when we go to our local supermarkets to buy consumer goods
that within the cost of purchasing are things like theft. There are
other provisions for products that go bad and so on. That is the
normal course of business.
I commend the government for getting its economic house in
order by recognizing, as small business people do, that it cannot be
responsible for all small business ills. The government has created
a situation in which small business can get access to capital. That is
really the whole point of the Small Business Loans Act, to provide
access.
I served on the industry committee which produced the report
``Taking Care of Small Business''. Over and over we heard from
small and medium size businesses that their major concern and
problem was access to capital; not so much the cost of the capital
but the access.
In some of the provisions we talk about increasing the lending
interest rate from prime plus one to prime plus three. Emerging
businesses do not like to pay more interest than they have to but
realize that a 1 per cent or 1.5 per cent increase in interest rates is
still well worth it to them to get this seed money to get themselves
established.
When I talk about access to capital it is interesting also to note
capital markets. What has happened with our debt and deficit
situation is many governments are competing in the marketplace
with small and medium size businesses for capital. This is why we
have to get our debt and deficit under control and why I am happy
the government is very much on that course and on a target to effect
that.
In Quebec a referendum is due next week. Quebec borrows
something over $70 billion. That is the size of its debt right now.
Interestingly, 54 per cent of it is financed outside of Canada. It
seems odd that we are going through the process of a referendum in
Quebec which costs $66 million, as stated in La Presse recently. By
extrapolation almost $35 million of the cost of the referendum will
have to be borrowed from people outside of Canada to ask the
people of Quebec whether they want to be an independent country.
It seems ludicrous.
That is the problem of the capital markets. I would like to
address the issue of markets. Clearly, the small business man or
woman is not just looking for capital for machinery. He or she
needs a market to serve.
(1600)
There has been much talk about the globalization of our
economy and the need to have easy access to markets. Indeed,
agreements like the North America Free Trade Agreement and the
GATT address that cause.
A recent study by the OECD on the whole aspect of small and
medium sized business is very interesting. The European Union
and other members of the OECD are very interested because all
these countries recognize that small and medium sized businesses
are going to be the employers of the future. In a recent report, I
believe from October 1995, they said: ``Sudden national economic
growth will be enhanced if government policies are co-ordinated
and targeted so that they strengthen and reinforce regional and
local systems. This should improve the conditions that encourage
new and small firms.''
While we are talking about these markets, once again we are
talking about a debate that is going on in the province of Quebec
that would basically balkanize those markets, would create barriers
to markets, would make the markets much smaller for these 48,000
people who are employed in small business in Quebec, because a
nation defines its markets within its political boundaries and
operates within those political boundaries to its own best interests.
I am trying to say that the bill is very much a necessity and
should be supported. More importantly, some of the debates that
are going on within our country today are simply ludicrous. I am
talking specifically about the referendum in Quebec. It will create
more barriers for small and medium sized businesses. The ability
to create new and challenging jobs within Quebec and to some
extent in the rest of Canada is going to be adversely affected by that
process.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I am very supportive of the
bill. I am certain that the small business community is also very
supportive, understanding, and respectful that the government has
taken the initiative to continue this program to increase the volume
that is available to small businesses. I am sure we will see creation
of more new jobs within our economy in the near future because of
it.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member
for Durham on his remarks. I especially want to thank the member
for Durham for all his work in committee during the last two years
since his coming to the Parliament of Canada.
One reason we have had such success and why I believe small
business is heading in the right direction is because our team of
Reform Party members, the Bloc, and Liberals all worked together
on the committee to try to make sure we had a fist when we went to
the banks and other financial institutions as we were pleading for
help in accessing capital for small businesses.
My question for the member has to do with start-up. In his
experience as an accountant helping small businesses deal with
banks, does he not think that one area we are going to have to do a
lot more work on is making sure that the attitude and culture of
15821
bank mangers changes dramatically toward people who are
starting businesses, versus people who have been in business for a
long time?
(1605 )
With all of the downsizing going on in both large businesses and
governments right now, we have many people who are starting a
business for the very first time. In order to really achieve success
they are going to need help from financial institutions in this
country. I believe that banks are going to have to change their
attitudes dramatically for start-ups.
I wonder if the member for Durham, who is also an
accomplished accountant in his field, could comment on that.
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member
for Broadview-Greenwood. I have always been interested in what
he says. We do not always agree 100 per cent of the time, but
basically our orientations are in the right area, which is to increase
capital for small and medium sized businesses.
The member is absolutely right. Banks in this country have
forgotten just what they were doing. Banks originally started off
many centuries ago investing in ideas. They invested in people's
grey matter. They invested in their ideas about making life better
and increasing people's standards of living. I have noticed that
banks now invest in financial transactions. Our banks in North
America are very oriented toward paper currency transactions.
Indeed, I think if we were to study the balance sheets of most of our
banks we would see a high percentage of their assets being held in
government securities, et cetera. This has become a linkage in the
global environment.
The reality is that these debts and financial instruments do not do
anything. They do not create any more jobs. They do not create or
take a piece of technological science and turn it into something
useful.
What do we see in North America? We see people like Bill
Gates, who had to work out of his garage to get his ideas going.
People have to go and find others who will give $50 to buy so many
shares and maybe later on some of that will come back. The banks
say that sounds pretty wild.
I have a specific example of this in my own riding. I had the
pleasure only last week of congratulating an entrepreneur for
winning the Canadian woman entrepreneur of the year award in the
area of export. This woman many years ago was my client. She was
making strips of fur and putting them on strings. I must admit that
even to me it sounded ridiculous at the time. What she did with that
was to create a reversible fur coat. I went to various banks for her,
and they said: ``What are you going to give us as security, strips of
fur? Get out of here.'' Do you know who finally picked up this
account? It was a bank from England, not a Canadian bank.
That woman today employs hundreds of people. It is a small
business in my riding that has given jobs in basically a rural area.
Her product is shipped all over the world, mainly to Japan and
Southeast Asia. She is creating jobs and hard currency exchange
for our government and our country without the support of banks.
Yes, the member is absolutely right. This whole attitude in our
banking system has to change. We have to get on board and support
our small and medium business sector.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have one
simple question I have asked of other members. It is on the full cost
recovery being put forward by this particular legislation.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood talked about the
fact that small businesses needed the impetus available under the
Small Business Loans Act. But here they are being asked to pay for
something they think they are getting from the government. Small
business people who borrow under the Small Business Loans Act
are being asked to pay for absolutely everything, every benefit that
is being provided under the Small Business Loans Act, which
seems to me a big circle of laundering the money through the
government. I would like the member's response as to what benefit
this will really provide to people who are borrowing under the
Small Business Loans Act.
(1610)
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Albert keeps
going over this. Repetition is a great educator, so hopefully he will
listen a little bit more this time.
First of all, there is nothing terribly unusual. This program has
been set up in the best interests of small and medium sized
businesses.
Let us look at the other side of it. What will we do if in fact the
government did not try to recover this bad debt loss? What does it
mean? Does it mean that we do not have a program, period? We
know it has been very successful. We know that using this system
has assisted many and has probably created thousands and
thousands of jobs in Canada.
Maybe the member wants the government to fork out $100
million a year in loan losses. Is it the responsibility of Reform
Party members to tell the Government of Canada to cut spending,
get its act together, and if it wants to give away $100 million on
loan losses that is fine by them?
There is nothing unusual about cost recovery programs. They
happen in the business world every day. Here we have the
government acting like a business, creating opportunities for small
business but at no cost to the taxpayer.
15822
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this latest
exchange between the member for Durham and the member for
St. Albert reminds me of the similarity between a computer and
an accountant: we have to punch the information into both of
them.
Given that the banks these days have the reputation of giving you
an umbrella on a sunny day and taking it away on a rainy day, and
given that banks today have the reputation of tightening up their
credit, I would like the member for Durham to tell us how this will
force banks to increase their loan portfolio to small businesses.
Mr. Shepherd I thank the hon. member very much for the
question.
First, the whole concept of a guarantee creates the opportunity
for the bank to loan money that clearly it would not loan on its own
accord. I note in the legislation that in fact we have actually
lowered the loan guarantee from 90 per cent to 85 per cent. If we
simply look at the growth and the volume within the small business
loans program in the last three years, there is no question that there
has been a demand, and a demand that has been satiated, if you
will, by financial institutions.
Clearly, the program is on a success course and it continues to be
on a success course. In fact it was the government's orientation to
say this was very successful and we want it to expand, we want it to
grow more, we want to make sure there is more money available
for small and medium sized businesses; but at the same time, we
also want to make sure we are not going to be on the hook for it.
One of the complaints of this program has been that a lot of the
money was getting out to businesses that could have possibly
financed loans without the Small Business Loans Act; in other
words, possibly banks were misusing the program or possibly
larger companies were getting the benefits of the program and they
did not really need it. By lowering the guarantee aspect of this loan,
we will also be ensuring that we direct it at the very new and
emerging small and medium sized businesses.
(1615 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to say a
few words in the debate pertaining to small business.
It is not all that often we get a chance to talk about small
business in the House, and we really should. With the indulgence of
the Chair and with the indulgence of colleagues present I hope to
stray a little from the direct confines of the bill. I know it is most
unusual in the House to stray away from the subject matter at hand.
I hope to talk about small business in general, to talk about how
important small business and entrepreneurship are to our country,
and to provide a few words of encouragement for small businesses
out there that are struggling today.
Can we imagine what it must be like for an entrepreneur in
Quebec even as we speak? We have a situation of systemically high
unemployment in Quebec. It has been that way for years, ever since
the last separation crisis in 1980 when the people of Quebec chose
to elect a separatist government. All that did was give U-Haul
one-way traffic to Toronto a bonanza. Ever since the election of the
first Parti Quebecois, the first separatist government in Quebec,
what has happened? Toronto has prospered largely at the expense
of the self-inflicted wounds of the people of Quebec.
All the country has profited because the separatist government in
Quebec insists on shooting itself in the foot with separation every
15 years or so. I am sure that is what is ongoing in the province of
Quebec.
If the people of Quebec want to do something really worthwhile
for their futures, they will resoundingly reject the separatist option.
They will resoundingly reject any notion of getting out of the
country and will work together to make the country stronger. If
they do that it will get entrepreneurs investing in in small
businesses in Quebec.
It is about the willingness of people. It is not banks or
governments that get businesses going. It is individual people who
are prepared to put up everything they have in the world, including
their homes and borrowing money from their friends and their
families, because they have a dream or an idea to see through to
fruition. We should be celebrating the fact that we have these
people. These are the people we should be asking in Quebec,
because there is systemically high unemployment, how we can go
about reversing it.
Let us provide stability. Let us make sure that when people start
businesses, particularly in Quebec, they do not have to go through
never ending navel gazing, gnashing and worrying about tribalism
and nationalism in Quebec. Why would anybody put up with that if
they could invest their money in a jurisdiction that does not have
such problems?
We have these wonderful people who has invested of
themselves. They have put their hopes, dreams and aspirations on
the line. What happens when they go into a bank? I can speak from
personal experience because I have gone through it, as have other
members of the House, many people watching on television today
and perhaps a few others who might read the debate.
It is not like going into K-Mart or some other store where they
shake hands and say: ``We are glad to see you. What can we do for
you?'' The first thing they say is: ``Are you going to do that? We
already have a few of these. Didn't you know that somebody just
went broke doing this a while ago? If you are to do this, if you are
to set up this service, if you are do that, you had better make sure
that you can guarantee the borrowing of $1,000 with $2,000''.
15823
Instead of the entrepreneur being encouraged, the first remark
that comes through is: ``We have to protect our depositors' money.
Therefore we have to make sure that we do not take any risk at
all because you want to borrow $75,000 or $100,000''. That is
what got the Government of Canada into small business loans in
the first place. We ended up as a nation guaranteeing loans that
rightly should have been the purview of the banks.
(1620)
The banks have a licence to print money in Canada. When is the
last time we have seen a small, humble bank building? In every city
in Canada the four pillars on the four corners of shiny office
buildings are bank buildings. That is the way it is. Meanwhile the
people of Canada through the tax base are subsidizing the banks.
That is what this is all about.
When they went into banks to get loans, the loan officers said
that they could not have them because they did not have enough
money. The banks had their houses, first born, bicycles and cars.
The banks had everything they had in the world but they still did
not have enough money for them to feel safe and secure about
lending money. If they can lend money to another country and
write it off that is okay, but they did not have anything for the small
business person, the entrepreneur, the dreamer.
What happens then? The government has to step in and through
the Small Business Loans Act guarantee the bank about 95 per cent
of the loan at a rate of about 1.5 per cent above prime. Generally
speaking any other business paid prime plus two, so there was an
obvious magnetic pull to write all small business loan transactions
that could possibly be written by the banks and have them
guaranteed by the people of Canada, which did not make any sense
at all.
The previous legislation raised it so at least the interest rate
charged was on par or a little more than the interest rate charged to
people who did not have a government guarantee. The amount that
would be guaranteed by the government was to be reduced
somewhat as well.
As earlier speakers have said, the problem with financing small
businesses is not how much people have to pay for the money,
within reason. The problem is how to go about getting money in the
first place. No matter how good the business plan, if the business
person does not have a track record, does not have money and
cannot guarantee at least 200 per cent, the chances of getting the
loan are somewhat remote. This is why the Government of Canada
and the people of Canada, through the Small Business Loans Act,
are in the business of protecting the banks. The banks will not do it
unless we hold them harmless through the Small Business Loans
Act.
In a perfect world we should not be in this business at all. That is
what banks should be doing. However we are not in a perfect
world. We need to ensure we nurture and help small business
people or entrepreneurs. That is why the legislation is so worth
while and necessary.
However our job as members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
is to oppose bills not just because we want to oppose them but
because we in opposition in Parliament can cause the government
to rethink some aspects of its bills and make them better. If all we
did every time the government brought forward a bill was to say it
was great, roll over and not pay any attention, we would not be
fulfilling our function as opposition in the Parliament of Canada.
While it is basically a very good bill it has a flaw I would like to
point out to members opposite. I hope the government sees the
error of its ways and changes it. The amount of money involved in
a guarantee could be changed by order in council. It would not have
to come back to the House to be debated. That sets a fairly bad
precedent. We are talking about the financial responsibility of the
Government of Canada and a change to the financial responsibility
of the Government of Canada. These decisions should not be
decided in a backroom somewhere, even if the backroom has a
cabinet table. They absolutely must see the light of day. They must
have sunshine, that being the best disinfectant of all. These
decisions should come back to the House. In a majority situation it
is not likely they will be changed anyway. The government will
have its day no matter what the opposition might have to say about
it. The bill would be improved somewhat if the provision in it,
which allows the government by order in council to change the
ratios, was amended so that it had to come back to the House.
(1625)
I should like to spend a few minutes talking about small business
people and where we are going a bit off the rails. The people of
Canada who are prepared to give of themselves as entrepreneurs to
create wealth and employment across the country are very often at
great risk to themselves and to the capital they have built up. They
should in some way be honoured. It seems passing strange that the
people most revered and honoured in society are hockey players,
for instance, who might earn a couple of million dollars a year
playing hockey but have never created a job or actually put their
lives on the line.
Some accounting firms and chambers of commerce are
beginning to recognize that as a nation we need to applaud and
encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. To be an entrepreneur
or an innovator who creates wealth is a necessary and
fundamentally important function any citizen can provide.
I recall attending a meeting sponsored by the Edmonton
Chamber of Commerce. The person who appeared at the meeting
came from a small town in Colorado. He had won a prestigious
international award. His company had gone from nothing to
worldwide sales of approximately $500 million a year. His
company manufactured tapes used on computers to back up the
memory.
15824
They cannot make mistakes with these tapes; they have to be highly
precise.
The town in Colorado had an IBM manufacturing facility. IBM
wanted to move it to Florida or some such place. Many key people
in the business did not want to leave their town because of the life
they could lead there; they loved living there. Rather than moving
they left the company. They thought to themselves that they were
smart, innovative people and wondered what they could do. They
decided they would make the world's best recording device,
magnetic tapes for computers. They did it by innovation.
He drew to our attention that the town had since become the hub
of innovation and entrepreneurship. The people in that town have a
week in which to celebrate the leadership derived from small
business people. The innovators and entrepreneurs are part of the
social fabric of the town. They have star status because the people
understand the value of entrepreneurship and innovation.
All across the land thousands of men and women, young and old,
have put everything they own on the line with the bank to support
their small businesses. They are truly the stars of our economic
system. They are the people we should be celebrating, not the big
business people who have grants, handouts and loans from the
government. It just makes one sick. The bigger the business is, the
bigger the hand is into the banking system and into the government
system. This is what we must put a stop to. It is wrong to have our
priorities so misplaced that we do not recognize what small
business people and entrepreneurs contribute to our society when
all we can look at are the big mega stars.
(1630)
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and my colleagues for the opportunity
to make the case for small business in our country. I applaud
anything we can do to build and strengthen that sector of our
economy.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
took note especially of the part of the hon. member's speech which
dealt with the question that has been on the minds of most
Canadians over the past few months. It is the question of Quebec
separation and its impact on the small business community in
Quebec. I thank the hon. member for his comments on that. They
made a lot of sense.
The fact remains that in an independent Quebec it would be a lot
more difficult for small business people. Certainly the surveys that
have been conducted throughout the referendum bring this to light.
In a survey that was conducted by the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce of people who create the jobs in Quebec, the small
business people, almost two-thirds, 64 per cent, of Quebec
businesses believe that Quebec's economic prosperity would be
diminished under separation. A strong majority, 55 per cent,
believe that the business relations and trade with the rest of Canada
would worsen under separation. More than a majority, 53 per cent,
of Quebec businesses believe that their benefits and profitability
would diminish if Quebec voted yes.
In another public opinion survey almost all the respondents, 93
per cent, expect long and difficult negotiations with the rest of
Canada in the event of a yes vote. More than four out of five
people, 83 per cent, think that Quebec's separation from Canada
would have a negative impact on Quebec's economic development.
There is another survey of small business owners. Almost
two-thirds of the small business owners in this survey chose
Canada. They felt that the best route, the best way for their own
economic prosperity would be through staying in Canada.
I think back to my own experience in a rural part of our country. I
know the hon. member is from a big city and talked about the banks
in the big city. In terms of small business people in rural Canada,
obviously farming and farmers are a critical component to the
small businesses in rural Canada and rural Quebec also. The whole
question of supply management and where that goes in a separate
Quebec is a major question.
These people should not be fooled. We brought in supply
management a number of years ago with the support of Quebec
farmers who were a major part in getting that. The whole concept
behind supply management is that we are able to protect the local
market, our current market under GATT and international rules. If
Quebec becomes a separate country that will not be the case. They
will not be able to protect that market.
Today in the industrial milk area Quebec holds about 47 per cent
of the Canadian market. It is a very important aspect of it. The hon.
member knows that. It would be folly to say to Quebec dairy and
supply managed farmers that they would be any better off in a
separate Quebec. In fact the whole nature of it would fall down.
Granted, it would not only hurt Quebec dairy farmers, it would also
hurt Canadians.
I ask the hon. member if he is aware of these statistics and these
polls. Is he aware of the fact that the majority of Quebec's small
business people feel that they would be much better off in Canada?
(1635 )
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raises a
valid point. As a matter of fact even as we speak the tariff on milk
is 350 per cent.
It just absolutely boggles the mind how members of the yes
group are able to go through Quebec like Johnny Appleseed
spreading these little bits of misinformation all over the place. This
15825
debate is on a level that has no intellectual veracity or honesty in it
whatsoever. The debate is purely cosmetic. People who scratch
below the surface of the debate will understand very quickly just
how devastating the result of a yes vote will be to the people of
Quebec. It will hurt everybody in Canada, but it will hurt the people
in Quebec far more.
The tragedy is that nothing the Quebec nationalists want to
achieve can be achieved outside of Canada that cannot be achieved
within Canada. In my view, the very protection of the language and
culture they profess to be so concerned about is better protected
within Canada. Anyone can bet that on a wide open North
American market the French of Quebec will very soon be like the
French of Louisiana. They just will not have the bulwark of Canada
to protect them.
Lest anyone in Quebec who is watching this thinks that my
words are hollow and empty, they should be aware of trade by
Quebec with the rest of the country. The hon. member's question
has given me the opportunity to put this on record. Lest anyone
thinks that a free ride will be achieved by the people of Quebec in
terms of their economic future, they should keep in mind that in
1989, the last year for which accurate figures are available,
interprovincial trade in Quebec had a balance per year of $1.8
billion dollars in favour of Quebec. If they think that would happen
after a yes victory, they can think again. The bulk of that was in
protected industries.
That brings us to the free trade agreement, internal trade barriers
and how ludicrous it was for us to get involved and the hypocrisy of
government members opposite supporting the free trade agreement
now when they did not in opposition. I supported it wholeheartedly
as a private business person. I certainly did not support the method
by which the Conservative government took us down the road to
free trade. This is apropos in my view to what is likely going to
happen to the people of Quebec if they were to be irrational and
vote yes.
We went into the free trade agreement and got clobbered as a
country. We did so because we went into the agreement with the
highest interest rates we had historically, the highest dollar we had
historically and industries across the country which had been
protected by tariff barriers for many years. Our industries were not
competitive with those in the United States. Is it any wonder we got
clobbered. Imagine the Monty Python movie ``In Search of the
Holy Grail''. We were the knight at the bridge and when we
finished we had the knife in our teeth and no arms or legs. All we
could say was: ``Fight fair''.
I saw our chief negotiator, Simon Reisman, on the Sparks Street
Mall the other day. I wanted to ask him: ``Did you not think about
this?'' I have really wondered about this. Surely the government of
the day must have been aware of the situation we were getting
ourselves into. Maybe it was not, but it certainly should have been.
If that happened to us as a country, what is going to happen to
Quebec as a country in a free trade arrangement with Canada and
the United States? Will Quebec have a high dollar? Probably not.
Will it have high interest rates? Very likely. Will Quebec have
industries that are capable of competing efficiently in the North
American market? Probably not. Are they going to have an easy
ride of it? Probably not.
(1640)
It would seem to me to be very prudent for those people in
Quebec who are wondering whether or not they should vote yes or
no, if they choose to vote yes, the one thing they can be absolutely
assured of is they will be paying a financial premium for many
years for voting yes. They will have many years to think about it
because it is not something that will cure itself overnight.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the comments made by the hon. member for Edmonton-South
West come very close to being a threat, when he says that Quebec
better not think that the day after a Yes vote it will be just as easy to
negotiate from province to province, and so forth, but in a way that
is distinctly ominous.
However, I agreed with what he said when he commended the
business community on its initiative, courage, determination and
vision of the future. The Bloc Quebecois and, in fact, all Quebecers
could not agree more. These people are driving 85 per cent of our
economy, at present.
However, I fail to understand why, in the same breath, he attacks
the people of Quebec who had the initiative, the courage and the
vision to choose a country for themselves. That he does not like.
So I want to ask the hon. member this: When he says Quebec had
better not think it will be easier, should we take this as a threat or
simply as the way people talk who cannot tolerate the fact that
others decide to simply make a decision?
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not a threat. It is a
statement of the reality of the situation that faces all of Canada, but
will face the people of Quebec to a greater degree for a longer
period of time than it will everybody else. It is not a threat. It is a
statement of the obvious. It is a statement of fact.
In the democratic process people are elected and there is a
fiduciary trust responsibility we are prepared to accept the moment
we stand for election. That is in everything we do, we will do it not
for the betterment or enrichment of ourselves or for
self-aggrandizement but we will work for the people who have
entrusted their lives to us as their members of Parliament, their
elected representatives.
15826
When a person is elected to high office, which is a member of
Parliament, there is a trust responsibility to do the very best one
can in the interests of the people being served. It then follows that
it should be to protect their economic, cultural and ideological
interests. It should not be to take them down a treacherous path
when they are standing above a precipice. That is not the fiduciary
trust responsibility of a person elected to high public office in
Quebec or anywhere else in Canada.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Before we continue the debate, it is my
duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at
the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden-pharmaceutical products; the hon. member
for Davenport-the environment.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to speak on the subject of Bill C-99, the act to amend
the Small Business Loans Act.
(1645 )
I will make some comments a little later on entrepreneurs
because they are really the heroes of Canada. I echo the comments
made by an earlier speaker that entrepreneurs are really the basis of
what makes up the country. We need to create the climate to
encourage entrepreneurship.
My colleagues have spoken at length about the specifics of this
bill but I will talk about how the amendments to the Small Business
Loans Act fit into the federal government's plan to create a climate
for business growth in Canada.
It is often said a business plan is only as good as the economic
foundations on which it is built. The federal government has
targeted the national debt as the number one impediment to
business growth. That is why last February the Minister of Finance
introduced a budget that will cut $29 billion over the next three
years, the largest set of budget cuts since Canada demobilized after
the second world war.
We also undertook at the same time a thorough review of federal
government administration and spending in the non-social program
area. The objectives were to get government right, to ensure
taxpayers were getting value for money and to encourage
Canadians toward building a more innovative economy.
The result of this has been a major change in our approach to
sector development in industry and in the role and function of the
industry department. It is obvious old style industrial development
strategies are no longer workable. Some might argue they never
were, but our goal as a government is not to affix blame for the past
but to set a course for the future.
The challenges for government, for Industry Canada in
particular, are to help small business compete and to promote a
business environment that will lead to job creation, a competitive
economy that is a thriving economy, one that will take Canada to its
rightful place in the global economy.
Small and medium size businesses are leading the way in terms
of innovation and job creation, there is no question. I meet with
constituents regularly, small business people and entrepreneurs
who come to the constituency office and share their ideas and their
enthusiasm to create employment and make Canada a better place
to live.
During the 1980s in Canada small and medium size businesses
were responsible for 87 per cent of all new jobs created. Since the
last recession they have accounted for over 90 per cent of the net
new jobs created. On average about 300,000 firms or
self-employed entrepreneurs have started a business every year for
the past 10 years. SMEs account for almost two-thirds of the
private sector employment.
The main thrust of government support in industry must be small
business, I think we are all in agreement in the House. Small
business has a major role to play in reducing unemployment.
Despite the fact that small business is clearly the way of the future
in Canada, there are still too many impediments to SMEs truly
coming into their own. One of our priorities is to reduce or
eliminate those impediments wherever possible.
A fundamental impediment is the access to adequate financing.
The banks explained to us on the industry committee the
improvements they are making in this area. Entrepreneurs and
small business owners stated the difficulties they are having
accessing capital. It is crucial for us to deal with this issue. The
availability of capital has been a source of frustration, no question.
SBLA loans have played an integral part in helping small
businesses gain access to capital needed for start-ups, expansion
and growth. The program's success both as an economic
development tool and as an example of public sector-private sector
co-operation has inspired similar government programs at both the
federal and provincial levels.
Since 1961 more than 420,000 SBLA loans, totalling over $15.5
billion, have been made to small business. Virtually every small
business in Canada is now eligible to borrow under the SBLA
program providing that its annual gross revenues do not exceed $5
million. We are targeting the small business sector.
(1650)
In recent years the SBLA program has been running at an annual
government cost of $20 million to $30 million. However, following
a significant program change effective April 1, 1993 the annual
15827
lending activity increased from $500 million to $2.5 billion in
1993-94 and to over $4 billion in 1994-95.
Assuming a continuation of the historical loss rate, this meant
the annual program costs would increase by over $100 million.
Clearly this was a threat to the sustainability of the program.
The potential cost of the program and the government's overall
need for deficit control required that the program be brought to full
cost recovery. With respect to full cost recovery, it is interesting to
note that the users of this program both on the small business side
and the lenders side, the parties that have been consulted, support
the move to cost recovery.
Through the consultation period the government has asked for
input on the changes to the program and it is reflected in what we
are seeing here today.
Recommendations of the industry committee and the small
business working committee were also taken into account. All
stakeholders supported the move to full cost recovery. Two major
changes were made through regulatory amendments with an
effective implementation date of April 1, 1995.
First, a new 1.25 per cent annual administration fee is being
charged on each lender's average outstanding balance of SBLA
loans made after March 31, 1995. Second, the maximum interest
rate that a lender can charge under the program has been increased
by 1.25 per cent to prime plus 3 per cent for floating rate loans and
to the residential mortgage rate plus 3 per cent for fixed rate loans.
To complete the move to full cost recovery and improve the
administration of the program, other changes are now being made
by Bill C-99. These proposed changes will allow the release of
security, including personal guarantees, improve the government
guarantee coverage for small lenders, and provide for the
introduction of a government processing fee on lenders' claims.
To add flexibility to the program and permit the easier fine
tuning, parliamentary approval is being sought so that future
changes to the level of government guarantee can be implemented
through the regulatory rather than the legislative process.
It was stated earlier that the one change the third party would
recommend is an amendment to this part of the bill. In the
consultations I have had with small business, one of the criticisms
it has had of government policy is that government is often unable
to react quickly when a situation changes.
Business groups have often asked for greater flexibility to deal
with these issues and it is exactly that which this part of the bill is
reacting to, adding the flexibility to the program and permitting the
easier fine tuning.
These changes also mean that the SBLA will be better targeted
toward small businesses that really need its help. An estimated 30
per cent to 40 per cent of SBLA loans go to businesses able to
access normal commercial financing.
After the changes financially strong businesses will switch to
lower cost commercial financing. During the consultations small
businesses told us repeatedly that the primary issue is access to
capital and not the cost of financing.
When I meet with entrepreneurs in my community, as we all do
as members of Parliament, they are looking the opportunity, the
chance to make their idea work. They appeared before the industry
committee. They have met with their members of Parliament. The
message is getting through. By making this change we will be
targeting the SBLA program at start-up companies and companies
in the expansion mode that need capital.
(1655)
During the consultations small businesses told us that making
the SBLA self-sustaining will ensure continued access. We agree
with that.
We have been told repeatedly, I am sure the third party would
agree, that the best thing government can do for business, large and
small, is to get the deficit under control. The proposed changes to
the SBLA are a step in that direction. The proposed changes will
ensure it remains an effective and viable instrument of support for
small business in Canada. It will certainly remain an integral
element of our comprehensive plan to create a business climate
which will enable Canadian small business to grow and create jobs
in the global economy.
The objective of the bill is to continue the process of the
modernization and improvement of small business. The proposed
changes relieve Canadian taxpayers of the financial burden of the
program. We have been asked to do that.
Small business created 90 per cent of new jobs in 1994. The
government has placed support for small business at the top of its
agenda for jobs and growth.
It is crucial that we continue to bring forward bills which will
help to create a climate that will encourage entrepreneurs to
continue to dream and create their own companies. They will help
Canada by creating employment. That is the thrust of the bill. We
must convince the banks that small business people and
entrepreneurs are the cornerstone of our economy; they are our
future.
This and the other bills the government has brought forward are
the end result of the consultation process. We have gone to the
stakeholders and we have asked for their input. They have given us
direction. This bill reflects that direction. It is also the result of
what we have been doing in the standing committee.
15828
We are moving in the right direction as we continue to improve
access to capital for small business and encourage entrepreneurs
to go forward and do what they do best, create their own small
businesses, improve the economic climate and encourage other
individuals to do the same. I ask all members of the House to
support the bill.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from October 24, 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.
The Deputy Speaker: It being five o'clock, the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred division at third reading 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.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 355)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gauthier
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Wood
Zed-132
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Solomon
Stinson
Thompson
Williams -39
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bouchard
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
Copps
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Discepola
Dubé
Duceppe
Dupuy
Fillion
Finlay
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Godin
Graham
Guay
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Jordan
Lalonde
Langlois
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
15829
Loubier
MacDonald
Maclaren
Maheu
Marchand
Massé
McGuire
Ménard
Mercier
Mitchell
Murphy
Ouellet
Paradis
Patry
Regan
Robillard
Sauvageau
Skoke
Thalheimer
Tobin
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
Young
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
15829
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider
designating the second Sunday in September of each year as grandparents day
in order to acknowledge their importance to the structure of the family in the
nurturing, upbringing and education of children.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to speak on
Motion No. 273. This motion flows from Bill C-274, a private
member's bill I introduced on September 27, 1994, an act
respecting a national grandparents day in Canada.
I am pleased to have the support of my own party and that of the
opposition parties with regard to this very important issue. It is
important that the House recognize the contribution of
grandparents and the critical role they play in strengthening the
family.
Grandparents have always been important to society. One step
removed from the parenting process, they can share with their
children the experience and wisdom they have gained. They
provide a link to the treasures of family history and can provide an
objective second opinion on a wide variety of important issues
facing the family today.
Many of my fellow members have addressed this issue and have
gone on record as supporting the creation of a national
grandparents day. In so doing, many have expressed personal
memories of their grandparents and the role played by these most
important relatives. Thoughtful, caring and loving, these role
models cannot be underestimated in their importance in the
development of young people who themselves will most likely be
parents someday.
Grandparents have always been important to the vitality of the
extended family but never more so than in today's society. With the
increase in family breakdowns the relationship between
grandparents and grandchildren has taken on even greater
importance.
As we see more and more single parent families, the need for
additional support and nurturing becomes more important today
than ever. By officially recognizing the role grandparents play we
emphasize the importance of this role in society and honour those
grandparents who rise to the challenge and continue to provide
love, that most important of commodities, to the most vulnerable
victims, the children.
If this motion is adopted, as I hope it will be, grandparents day
would give national recognition to the growing number of
grandparents in Canada. Many provinces and municipalities have
already recognized that grandparents contribute greatly to the
family and that they are the basic and fundamental element of our
society. It is time the federal government and the House recognize
this fact as well.
Often when a family breakdown occurs one parent assumes
custody and the children no longer have the opportunity to visit
with both sets of grandparents. While this motion does not address
this issue directly, it is my hope that the official recognition of
grandparents day will provide a focal point to the very important
issue of grandparents' rights. If a society acknowledges the
importance of grandparents, a certain amount of moral force will
come with that recognition. Hopefully, parents in a broken family
will realize the importance of the contribution that both sets of
grandparents make to the nurturing and well-being of their
grandchildren.
We need to express recognition of those elements within our
society that are fundamental building blocks of healthy, productive
individuals. Other than that of parenting itself, I can think of no
more important role than that of a grandparent in fulfilling that
responsibility.
As members make their decision whether or not to support
Motion No. 273, I ask them to consider the comments of fellow
members who are speaking in support of the motion. I am sure their
comments will lend force to the argument to officially recognize
the contributions grandparents make in the lives of their
grandchildren and to society in general.
In closing, I ask members for their support of this very
worthwhile effort to create the much needed recognition of the role
that grandparents have made in all of our lives. I urge my fellow
members to support Motion No. 273 and allow grandparents of the
country to celebrate the second Sunday in September every year as
national grandparents day.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this House to speak in support of Motion M-273
put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley
15830
North, to designate the second Sunday in September of each year as
``Grandparent's Day'' in order to acknowledge their importance to
the structure of the family in the nurturing, upbringing and
education of children.
As the official opposition's critic for seniors organizations, I
have always supported similar initiatives to designate a national
grandparents' day, because seniors' organizations across the
country, and in my riding of Argenteuil-Papineau in particular,
are in favour of this kind of acknowledgement.
Grandparents play a crucial role for their grandchildren,
providing a degree of stability and continuity that is so essential to
them. Unfortunately, the situation is sometimes complicated by
mariage breakdown and remarriage, with values often being
disrupted in the process. But grandparents can help insofar as they
are able and available during the transition period.
Seniors and grandparents can be instrumental in improving
cohesion within the family. Grandparents act as the thread
connecting the past, the present and the future. Many teenagers feel
they stand alone against the problems of daily living. In 1993, in
Quebec, seniors from Le Pélican seniors club, in co-operation with
the Villeray local community service center, in Montreal, and the
Regroupement inter-organismes pour une politique familiale au
Québec, founded La Maison des grands-parents, or grandparents'
house.
Grandparents welcome their children and grandchildren in this
house, which is a co-ordination centre for family action. The
house's goals are to foster social involvement, help prevent
problems inherent to disadvantaged and isolated families, and
promote reconciliation and co-operation within and between
families.
Then, other seniors from various golden age clubs in Quebec
founded centres with similar goals. In my riding of
Argenteuil-Papineau, teenagers from the Vert-Pré drop in centre
in Huberdeau and seniors from the gold age association in
Saint-Adolphe-d' Howard worked together on a self-help project.
In June 1993, the general meeting of the Quebec Federation of
Senior Citizens came out in support of bringing grandparents and
their grandchildren closer together. It was the federation's
contribution to the International Year of the Family. There are also
groups of caring grandparents in various regions of Quebec. The
purpose of these organizations is to put grandparents or seniors,
both singles and couples, in touch with families with young
children.
(1735)
Their goal is to promote intergenerational contact, to help and
support young families, to recognize the experience of
grandparents and allow them to play an active role in society. This
description of some projects is not restrictive, and I urge all seniors
to take the steps required to create similar projects.
As a representative of seniors' organizations, I have always
sought to ensure that the government does not penalize seniors. I
took part in the debate on Bill C-54, which has a special impact on
seniors' pensions through the Canada pension plan and old age
security. We in the Bloc Quebecois proposed a series of
amendments to protect seniors, who would otherwise be penalized
by Bill C-54. Unfortunately, these amendments were rejected by
the government.
I also spoke to Bill C-232, an act to amend the Divorce Act. The
purpose of this bill is to exempt grandparents from having to obtain
special leave of the court to apply for an interim, standing or
variation order with respect to custody of or access to their
grandchildren.
I am personally very concerned about the old age pension reform
announced by the government, which will take effect in 1997 and
possibly earlier.
In 1994, the government announced the production of a
document to be tabled. It delayed the release of that document,
preferring to wait until after the Quebec referendum. Thanks to the
hearings held by the Commission des aînés sur l'avenir du Québec,
our seniors had an opportunity to express their views regarding
their future. That consultation process showed that the concerns of
seniors are similar everywhere in the country, and have to do with
their social and economic situation.
We are all convinced of the major influence that grandparents
and seniors have on the development of children and on the
well-being of families. We must give grandparents the place that
should be theirs in the family context, and we must make all
Canadians aware of the importance of their role.
Grandparents are an essential source of affection, understanding
and experience which strengthens the family. They must be
integrated to the family life.
In conclusion, the official opposition supports the motion of the
member for Don Valley North asking the government to designate
the second Sunday in September of each year as Grandparents Day,
in order to acknowledge their importance to the structure of the
family in the nurturing, upbringing and education of children.
I thank the hon. member on behalf of all the organizations
representing the elderly, and also on behalf of all grandparents,
young and not so young, for emphasizing their contribution to our
society.
Finally, I want to point out that, should Quebecers vote in favour
of sovereignty on October 30, Quebec might also recognize the
15831
contribution of its elderly and designate the second Sunday in
September of each year as Grandparents Day.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Don Valley
North for having his Motion No. 273 selected and deemed votable.
In this motion the government is being asked to consider
designating the second Sunday in September of each year as
grandparents day. I am very familiar with this issue as I also
presented before this House on June 22, 1995, Bill C-259 asking
for a national grandparents day on the second Sunday in
September. I am aware that the member for Don Valley North also
presented a bill asking for a grandparents day. Unfortunately,
neither of our bills were votable.
It is fitting and proper that this 35th Parliament finally corrects a
wrong against our senior citizens. It does not cost taxpayers any
money for the government to recognize our seniors, the oldest
group in our society which is becoming more plentiful as
Canadians live healthier and longer lives. I would like to draw
members' attention right now to the gallery where grandparents are
waiting to hear the verdict of today's motion.
(1740)
1994 was the Year of the Family. As I have stated many times,
the family is our basic unit in society. We need to keep our families
strong. There is a natural progression here: from strong families
come strong communities; from strong communities come strong
provinces and states; and from strong provinces and states come
strong countries.
Again, if a country is to remain strong, its people must be strong,
for a country reflects the value of its people. Who teaches the
values to children? The parents. Who taught them? Their parents,
the elders in each of our families, the grandparents and the great
grandparents, those who have experience and are wise in the ways
of the world. We all realize that the best way to be wise is through
personal experience and hardships.
Many of today's seniors and grandparents are very active. Many
are still in the workforce. Many are in volunteer organizations. My
point is that these grandparents and great grandparents have given
their fair share to society and many are still giving. If we are wise,
all Canadians will show our seniors how much we appreciate them.
In times of restraint there is no money for new programs,
especially programs for children. Patience, caring, knowledge,
experience, time and love are what are needed to work with
children. Our seniors have all of these requirements. Many are
already giving countless volunteer hours to children.
Recognition of grandparents day is really recognition of
grandchildren and their relationship to the future of our country.
When we talk about respecting our grandparents, we are
reinforcing the rights of our grandchildren.
Lifting the role of grandparents gives recognition to the interests
of our grandchildren. It provides a bridge between the age gaps of
young and old. When we see seniors working with young children,
we realize there really are no age gaps. They converse very well
together and understand each other very well. What better way for
children and parents to say thank you than by having a nationally
recognized day to visit grandparents and pay respect to these
seniors?
At present I am honoured to be representing Canadian
grandparents in their fight to see their grandchildren after a
divorce. Too often, many are cut out of their grandchildren's lives
just because the custodial parent does not think the children should
continue to see their grandparents. Often it is the grandparents who
in difficult times can reinforce the stability and love in a
grandchild's life through a difficult divorce. In the United States
where the rights of grandparents to see their grandchildren are
recognized, over five million grandparents are raising their
grandchildren.
So many seniors want to be grandparents that there is even an
organization called Volunteer Grandparents. A very good friend of
mine who has never married became a volunteer grandparent about
15 years ago. It is a very special part of her life.
We have an opportunity here to recognize all grandparents. Let
us be positive and agree to this motion.
Many in the House may wonder if the rest of Canada feels that
the recognition of grandparents is wanted within our country.
Nancy Wooldridge, president of the Canadian Grandparents
Association in British Columbia and her membership wrote to all
the municipalities in British Columbia asking for their assistance in
proclaiming the second Sunday in September 1995 past, which was
September 10, to be declared grandparents day. The response was
incredible. I have only some replies with me today but in
recognition of what those communities have done, I think I should
share them.
Quesnel city council proclaimed September 10 as grandparents
day. Mayor Robert Bowes declared the week of September 10 to 16
as volunteer grandparents week in Surrey. September 10, 1995 was
proclaimed as grandparents day in the district of Metchosin. Ralph
Drew, mayor of the village of Belcarra proclaimed September 10,
1995 as grandparents day.
Ted Nebbeling, mayor of the resort municipality of Whistler,
proclaimed September 10, 1995 as grandparents day in the resort of
Whistler. Mayor Robert G. McMinn proclaimed September 10,
1995 as grandparents day in the district of Highlands. On behalf of
15832
the village council and the citizens of Keremeos, Mayor Robert
White declared September 10 as grandparents day.
Mayor Ernie Palfrey was pleased to proclaim September 10,
1995 as grandparents day in the district of Coldstream. On behalf
of the city council and the citizens of Fort St. John, Stephen
Thorlakson, mayor of Fort St. John, proclaimed September 10,
1995 as grandparents day. Mayor Mike Patterson proclaimed
September 10, 1995 as grandparents day in the city of Cranbrook.
(1745 )
Kevin Mitchell, acting mayor of the city of Fernie, proclaimed
September 10, 1995 grandparents day. The Trail council has
considered my letter dated August 17 requesting council proclaim
September 10 grandparents day. It has agreed to issue the
proclamation.
Bob Cross, mayor of Victoria, British Columbia, proclaims
September 10, 1995 grandparents day. Mayor Don Lockstead of
Powell River at the regular council meeting proclaimed September
10 grandparents day. Marlene Grinnell, mayor of city of Langley,
proclaims September 10 grandparents day.
John Bergbusch, mayor of city of Callwood, declares September
10 grandparents day. Oak Bay proclaims September 10
grandparents day. James Lomie, mayor of the district of Campbell
River, proclaims September 10 grandparents day.
The Kitimat municipal council proclaimes September 10
grandparents day. Ross Imrie, mayor of the district of North
Saanich, proclaims September 10 grandparents day. Louis Sekora,
mayor of the city of Coquitlam, proclaims September 10
grandparents day.
Parksville declares September 10 grandparents day. At Sechelt's
regular council meeting mayor Duncan Fraser was pleased to
proclaim September 10 grandparents day.
Osoyoos's meeting of council on September 5 resolved that
September 10 be proclaimed grandparents day. Gary Korpan,
mayor of the city of Nanaimo, proclaims September 10
grandparents day.
James Stuart, mayor of the city of Kelowna, proclaims
September 10 grandparents day. John Les, mayor of the district of
Chilliwack, proclaims September 10 grandparents day. Greg
Halsey-Brant, mayor of Richmond, proclaims September 10
grandparents day.
John Backhouse, mayor of city of Prince George, proclaims
September 10 grandparents day. Philip Owen, mayor of the city of
Vancouver, proclaims September 10 grandparents day.
I do not know how this got in here. It is from Calgary: ``On
behalf of the city council and the citizens of Calgary, I hereby
proclaim September 10 grandparents day''.
These are only some of the responses received by the B.C.
chapter of the Canadian Grandparents Association to honour our
grandparents in 1995.
I cannot speak for all of Canada but I can surely speak for the
cities and communities in British Columbia. British Columbians
already recognize the contributions made by our grandparents, our
seniors in Canadian society.
I respectfully request that we as members of Parliament
recognize the tremendous ongoing contributions by our
grandparents on behalf of all Canadians by recognizing from now
on the second Sunday in September as official grandparents day.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion of
my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley North, to designate
the second Sunday in September grandparents day.
I have spoken out on the significance of grandparents in the
House on a number of occasions. Grandparents play an
irreplaceable role in the life of Canadian families. They form a
stable link in a rapidly changing world. Where there is
fragmentation because of divorce or separation they bring
continuity. Today many families are headed by single parents and
where there are two parents they are often found both working
outside the home.
The significance and value of grandparents have increased
beyond belief. I do not hold grandparents to be glorified babysitters
but rather as parents' surrogates who bring love, a continuance of
generational values and a sense of the child's worth to the integrity
of the family.
I speak from personal knowledge and with emotion about the
importance of grandparents because I was brought up by a
grandparent. My parents both worked outside the home for most of
my life with them. They needed to for economic reasons. It was my
grandmother who nurtured me, gave me a sense of worth and
moulded in many ways the course my life was to take.
(1750 )
My grandmother was my role model, my mentor and my
confidant. As a strong feminist woman long before the term was
invented, she taught me to be bold and confident, to stand up for
my beliefs, to change things when I did not like them, to be an
active participant in changing my society and my world.
Mr. Speaker, I would be so bold as to say I stand before you
today because of my grandmother. Yet I have never been able to
15833
celebrate her contribution to my life. We all celebrate Mother's
Day, Father's Day, Remembrance Day. We have dedicated weeks to
promote breast cancer awareness, AIDS, violence against women,
but we have never celebrated the worth of our grandparents to the
family, to society and to future generations.
Grandparents have enriched our lives by their presence. They
represent the past, our history to us in their stories, in their
lifestyles and in their values. Through them we gain a sense of the
continuity of humankind and through us they live forever.
I once remarked that if grandparents did not exist in nature we
would have invented them because they are the embodiment of the
concept of family. Because of the reverence and love I feel for my
grandmother I cannot wait to be a grandparent so I can completely
emulate her as my role model. Unfortunately my sons do not seem
willing to comply at this time.
You do not need children of your own to be a grandparent. In
British Columbia there is a volunteer grandparent's association
whose members adopt, figuratively speaking, children who are not
fortunate enough to know or who do not have a biological
grandparent close at hand. As we all know, in this vast land of ours
families can live far away from each other and many families do
not have an extended family or a grandparent close by. My children
did not. These volunteer grandparents bridge that gap and bring to
hundreds of B.C. children the warmth and experience of having a
grandparent.
Grandparents bring a sense of trust. They help us to feel safe
because no matter what happens they are our refuge against often
cranky parents.
In many cultures grandparents are historians. In others they are
the heads of households. They bring wisdom and warmth, joy and
stability, and the list of their worth goes on and on.
I will finish today by quoting the words of one young constituent
who has expressed so simply the importance of her grandmother:
The first day I was brought into this world I met my grandmother. I have
come to know her very well. These past 17 years she has been there for me
almost as much as my parents. My grandmother is a very special part of my life.
She was the one who took care of me when I was sick or cheered me up when I
was down. I get to see her almost once a week.
My grandmother is the most interesting lady I know. She is an artist, a chef
and a seamstress. This lady has a good eye for fashion and style and she always
knows just what to buy me. I heard all grandmothers are good cooks but my
grandmother is one of the finest. She supplies the birthday dinners and cakes for
the whole family. No matter how much her grandchildren whine and complain
she always keeps her cool and has great patience with us all. I am extremely
lucky to have such a wonderful grandmother. Not everyone is so fortunate.
She is the type of lady who is always doing special things for you and is
always trying to please. My grandmother means the world to me. I hope she
remains with me for many years to come.
By passing this bill we will make that wish come true.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted to have seconded this motion put forward by my
colleague, the member for Don Valley North, on the selection of
grandparents day in Canada, Motion No. 273.
I believe the motion will be a model for the world by showing
that Canada pays respect to grandparents, to seniors, whose love,
wisdom and caring for their daughters and sons, for their
grandchildren, are truly recognized.
It is my honour to support this motion.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I support for this motion which
would designate the second Sunday in September as grandparents
day.
It is appropriate to recognize the members for Don Valley North
and Mission-Coquitlam. It must bring a tremendous amount of
satisfaction for these members to come to the House in their first
term to present a bill that receives the support of all parties and
eventually goes through the whole House. I congratulate my
colleague.
(1755)
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.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you
would find unanimous consent to call it 6.30 p.m. and proceed with
the adjournment debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to call it6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government is cutting costs and reducing services in our
medicare system. In the last budget it drastically cut transfer
payments to the provinces and will continue to do so each year over
the next three years, reducing health care services further.
15834
Why will the Liberals not enact cost cutting measures that would
not reduce services to Canadians yet save taxpayers a billion
dollars a year or more? This could be done by repealing Bill C-91,
the Drug Patent Act, passed in the last Parliament. Bill C-91
catered to foreign drug companies that wanted to make more
money by extending drug patents to 20 years for prescription drugs,
in essence a 20-year monopoly to charge whatever price they want
for certain prescription drugs.
In opposition Liberal members of Parliament, such as the current
Minister of Health and the Minister of Industry, were present in the
House on December 10, 1992 to vote against Bill C-91. Now that
they are in government they support the legislation, which is a very
major flip-flop.
Bill C-91 has had the effect of costing Canadians billions of
dollars in their prescription drug costs. In the past eight years drug
prices have increased 13 per cent every year for an accumulated
total of 220 per cent. For example, the cost of Tagamet, a drug to
treat ulcers, is 78 per cent cheaper when a Canadian generic drug is
used instead of the brand name product. This is why our
prescription drug costs are skyrocketing. Bill C-91 prevents the
generic drug companies from producing cheaper cost copies of
prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies have a 20-year
monopoly on their patents and a monopoly pricing situation exists
to the detriment of the health of Canadians.
Prescription drugs represent over 15 per cent of the total cost of
health care in Canada. This amounts to over $11 billion every year.
It is a fact that drugs are the fastest growing cost to medicare. It is
also one of the most controllable costs to our medicare system
because Parliament has the power to put forth legislation that will
control the cost of drugs and end price gouging by pharmaceutical
drug companies.
Pharmaceutical drug companies employ roughly one sales
representative for every three doctors in Canada and spend $10,000
per doctor on promotions. Canadian taxpayers are paying for these
promotions while hundreds of millions of dollars of profits are
leaving the country and jobs are being cut by the drug companies.
These prices have increased 13 per cent each year over the past
eight years due to Bill C-91.
While in opposition the Liberals opposed the bill. While in
government they are now supporting it. The government must
immediately abolish the automatic injunction clause of the
patented medicines regulations. The automatic injunction clause
adds two more years on top of the twenty years that a drug
pharmaceutical company can charge rates and prevent the generic
industry from competing. This clause, if abolished, would save
Canadians $750 million right off the top.
By repealing Bill C-91 in its entirety Canadians could save $3
billion to $5 billion each year on health care costs through
reduction in prescription drugs, equivalent by the way to the
Liberal government's cut to medicare funding over the three years
proposed in its budget.
Why will the government not do this? Why is the Liberal Party
allowing pharmaceutical drug manufacturers to set the agenda? It
is a fact that the Liberal Party receives thousands of dollars in
donations from foreign drug companies. Is this the reason?
(1800)
The Liberal Party's inaction to rein in the outrageous brand name
price increases is costing Canadians and threatening our health care
system. It is time for action. The Liberal government must act
immediately to abolish the automatic injunction on prescription
drugs and make a commitment to abolish Bill C-91.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the member is
absolutely right. In opposition we opposed Bill C-91. I not only
opposed it in the House, I set up a display in my office on the
Danforth pointing out the difficulties with Bill C-91.
We lost that vote, and the mechanism for Bill C-91 was put in
place by the previous government. In many respects it is not unlike
the GST. We campaigned vigorously against the GST and we lost in
opposition, but the entire infrastructure and the mechanisms for the
GST were put in place. When we were given the trust two years ago
today, one of the things we had to face was the challenge of doing
something about the GST. This bill is in many respects similar to
that challenge.
The minister has said that we are currently evaluating the impact
of Bill C-91. There is a parliamentary review process that will be
invoked in 1997. The challenge presented by the drug patent policy
is to ensure that it conforms with all the international trade
obligations and supports the development of our pharmaceutical
industry while making patented drugs available to Canadian
consumers at non-excessive prices.
I want to reassure the member that we are not running away from
our concern about what takes place with Bill C-91. He should know
that not only the government but many members in the House share
many of his views. We are very wise to the marketing in this
industry. He will just have to be patient a little longer so that when
we attack this issue we will do it in a rational and totally
constructive way so that we will not upset the infrastructure that
has been put in place and the investment that has already been
started.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
members will probably recall, in June the Standing Committee on
the Environment and Sustainable Development issued a report on
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act entitled ``It is about
our Health''. It is a parliamentary study that aims at pollution
prevention in the interest of public health. It was made possible
because of extensive hearings with over 100 witnesses from all
walks of life in all parts of the country. As a result of that, the
committee recommended major changes to the existing act,
commonly known as CEPA, the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act.
15835
The changes to the act, which in essence deals with toxic
substances, are necessary because at the present time the
legislation is too slow in protecting the public from toxic
substances. For instance, the complete toxicity assessments for 13
out of the 44 substances placed on the priority list in 1988 have not
yet been done. In addition to that, of the 26 substances found to be
toxic, only three, those related to chlorofluorocarbons, chlorinated
pulp effluents, and PCBs, have been subjected to regulation.
(1805)
In addition, problems related to enforcement, problems related
to biotechnology products, problems related to the role and
lifestyle of our aboriginal people, in particular in relation to
environmental protection, and problems related to the management
of Canada's coastal zones have not been resolved by the act as it
exists at the present time. To address these problems, the
committee called expert witnesses, scientists and native people,
industry, professional organizations, et cetera, to ensure their
recommendations would have sound expert support.
The committee's recommendations reflect the principle of
sustainable development as set out in the red book, Creating
Opportunity, which was produced in 1993 during the federal
election. In addition to that, the committee's report builds on three
cabinet documents; namely, the government's toxic substances
management policy, the strategic framework for pollution
prevention, and the guide to green government. The last one was
signed and endorsed by all members of cabinet. Therefore, the
report of the committee has as its foundation three substantial
documents produced by the present government, and quite rightly
so, in support of sustainable development objectives.
To conclude, the report is based on the concept of pollution
prevention. The accepted norm for environmental protection policy
in industry and governments in the western world is therefore in
that report. Every witness before the committee urged that the
government adopt pollution prevention, shifting away from the
costly approach of reacting and curing to the more efficient
approach of anticipating and preventing.
I see that my time is up. I thank you for your indulgence.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to say through you to my
colleague from Davenport, who has led the way for so many of us
on environmental issues in this House, that as a government we
must pay attention to his words right away.
When I was working on the Hill as a young assistant back in the
early 1980s and the member for Davenport was Minister of the
Environment, he helped put us on the international map with his
campaign on acid rain. I have experienced his passion and his
commitment. I have been exposed to his knowledge on this issue
on a thousand different occasions.
I can only say to the member for Davenport that his words will
be communicated directly to the minister and to the cabinet. With
the trust that we as a government have in his advice, I am sure we
will be moving on his recommendations in the near future.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38, the
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly,
this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.)