CONTENTS
Monday, November 27, 1995
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 16803
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 16810
Bill C-108 Report stage 16810
Motion for concurrence 16810
Division on motion deferred 16811
Bill C-100. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16811
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16816
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16821
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 16826
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 16832
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 16832
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16833
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16833
Bill C-359. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 16838
Motions for concurrence in 103rd report 16839
(Motion agreed to.) 16839
Bill C-100 Consideration resumed of motion 16839
Division on motion deferred 16843
Bill C-52. Consideration resumed of report stageand Motions Nos.
2 and 3 16843
Bill C-52. Report stage 16845
Division on motion deferred 16846
Division on motion deferred 16851
Motions Nos. 8 and 9 16851
Vote on the motion deferred 16856
Division on Motion No. 9 deferred 16856
Division on motion deferred 16856
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 16856
Division on amendment deferred 16864
16803
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 27, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately take
the required measures to privatize all operations and services of the Canada Post
Corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for
seconding the motion.
My speech will be about 10 minutes long to allow my colleagues
to also speak to private members' motion 312. I preface my
remarks by stating that Canadians need and deserve an efficient
postal service.
The Reform Party supports placing the ownership and control of
corporations in the sector that can perform their function most cost
effectively, with greatest accountability to owners and the least
likelihood of incurring public debt. We believe there is
overwhelming evidence that this would be the private sector in the
vast majority of cases.
As far as Canada Post Corporation is concerned, the Reform
Party supports free competition for the post office. There should be
no restrictions on private competition in the delivery of mail,
which brings me to my private members' motion. It calls for the
government to take measures to privatize the operations and
services of the Canada Post Corporation.
There are at least two essential considerations. First, is there any
reason at all to involve government in mail delivery? Should it be
completely privatized or totally deregulated? Second, if there is
reason for government involvement in mail services, is the current
system the best and the right way to do it?
As far as the first consideration is concerned, if our goal is
simply to maximize efficiency, there is no role for government
operations or subsidies here or anywhere else. If people who live in
remote places find that mail is hard to send or hard to get, that is a
consequence of their home being somewhere remote. If they do
not like it, they should move closer to a city or area where mail
service is better. Of course, I am not advocating that option.
(1105)
It is normally argued that the purpose of a national mail service
is to contribute to national unity by allowing everyone from sea to
sea to sea to send and receive letters at a reasonable price. If this is
true, there has to be some sort of government role.
The bulk of the mail is between businesses and their customers,
in and around large towns and cities where deliveries can be made
cheaply because the volume is so high. In a truly private world, the
more remote you are the more your mail will cost. It is true that
people in remote places generally are among the less wealthy and
less able to afford high postal rates.
Most people, except possibly a few federal cabinet ministers,
understand that free citizens do things better, cheaper and more
nicely than government. Therefore we should assume that
government should not become involved in any particular area and
put the burden of proof on those who say it should stay involved
and to explain why.
In the case of mail delivery the reason for involving government
is to make sure that all Canadians from coast to coast to coast have
access to mail in the interests of the national community and
national unity. It is not because people think the government would
do a good job of delivering the mail, even by the normal standards
of bureaucracy.
However, people who think the government should ensure that
everyone can get and send mail cheaply should still not want a
postal monopoly. The right way to manage the mail would be to
promise that anyone, anywhere can mail a letter for a certain rate,
say 45 cents. The entire field of delivery would then be thrown
wide open and deregulated totally, except that the government
would pay for but contract out the job of making mail deliveries at
45 cents per letter to places like Inuvik, that private carriers just
could not and would not service cheaply.
This would be paid for out of general revenues. Since the goal of
promoting national unity is one that benefits all Canadians equally,
it makes sense to ask them all to pay for it. The argument will be
16804
made that the government would lose money on this even if it is
compared with the present system. What the present system does is
penalize all users of mail and all potential mail delivery servers
quite heavily. It allows every Canadian to get mail, but imposes the
cost disproportionately on one group and in the process damages to
the Canadian economy. I suggest the damage to the Canadian
economy at the hands of Canada Post is not small.
CPC is a perennial money loser, having lost money in three of
the last five years, ending its most recent fiscal year with a $68.8
million loss. That amount is only a fraction of the cost to the
Canadian economy by the mail monopoly. Slow delivery, private
opportunities denied and lost, excessive charges for mail in big
towns and cities that could be delivered for less than 45 cents and
burdensome bureaucracies are some of the inefficiencies.
The real cost of Canada Post is higher than its on-book losses.
Here are a few losses to consider; the $68.8 million loss which I
just mentioned for 1993-94. It was $22 million higher than the
company executives predicted just a year before. Some prediction
and, I suppose, some executives. The books also showed a $270
million deficit even though last year CPC showed a profit in its first
class mail delivery; a $282 million entry attributed to internal
restructuring of some kind. That is more than five times higher than
the previous year's entry. No explanation was given for what type
of restructuring.
(1110 )
Here is another interesting phenomenon: 41.7 per cent of CPC'S
volume of delivered mail is in the form of unaddressed advertising,
or as Canadians so affectionately refer to it, junk mail. Here is the
kicker. Junk mail generates only 5.2 per cent of CPC's total
revenues, which means that nearly half of CPC's volume produces
a paltry 5.2 per cent of its revenues.
To the viewers watching, I hope they are sitting down for this. It
is illegal for private mail carriers to charge less than $1.29 a piece
for the delivery of first class mail, which is nearly three times as
high as the already exorbitant price of 45 cents a stamp charged by
CPC. It is a monopoly and it is still losing money.
The government is planning to review the operations of CPC.
That is really what our country needs, and the people are just dying
for it, another study by this do nothing government. CPC should be
privatized using the contracting out model of reform on the least
subsidy basis; that is, ask for bids to deliver the mail, charge
customers 45 cents and take the bid from the company that delivers
to remote places as efficiently as possible. The extra cost would be
taken out of general revenues as I stated earlier.
One thing is certain. CPC is pricing itself out of the business of
delivering mail, especially with more and more businesses turning
to faxes and E-mail. CPC is a top down, inefficient monopoly that
has no place in the emerging global economy. I urge the
government to take action to allow private carriers the opportunity
to be involved in mail delivery. Not only would it help to fix our
ailing economy, but the Canadian people would be much better
served.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the motion before the House states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately take
the required measures to privatize all operations and services of the Canada Post
Corporation.
I cannot support this motion. To support it is to support an end to
universal access. My riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants is
primarily a rural riding, a riding where people recognize the
important role of the post office in strengthening the economic and
social infrastructure of our communities.
Much like myself, the hon. member for Yellowhead lives in and
represents a predominantly rural riding, an area where a private
corporation might not choose to provide a service. Does the hon.
member realize that if this motion were adopted, the postal services
in his riding and in rural ridings across Canada could be seriously
affected or become non-existent?
As government we believe in the importance of providing easy
access for all Canadians regardless of where they live. I cannot
understand why the member for Yellowhead would introduce a
motion that could deny postal services to his own constituents.
Canada Post is improving services to Canadians. In the past five
years Canada Post Corporation has increased by nearly 30 per cent
the number of locations where stamps, postal products and postal
services can be purchased. The crown corporation has a network of
over 2,500 franchise outlets across the country. When we walk into
our local drug store or convenience store, chances are we can
purchase postal products at one of these outlets. These outlets
attract customers to these locations which means increased
commerce. It is good for business and good business helps our
economy.
By building on these partnerships with local businesses, Canada
Post is expanding the accessibility of postal services without
incurring large expenditures. This is part of Canada Post's drive to
ensure convenient access to postal services for Canadians.
(1115 )
I also point out to the hon. member that independent surveys
done by Decima and Anderson Strategic Research show that
customer satisfaction with these outlets is well over 90 per cent.
Canada Post's diversity is evident and it is demonstrated in how
it operates throughout the country. Take for example Atlantic
16805
Canada. In Atlantic Canada, Canada Post is a 200-year old federal
institution which has helped to build and maintain the region.
Atlantic Canada is predominantly rural and has the largest number
of small post offices in the country. Among them is Canada Post's
first post office which is located in Halifax. Throughout the region
there are approximately 2,300 locations to buy postal products.
The post office is not just a place to buy stamps. It is a place to
interact with other people, to establish the links which make a
community and build a country. I live across the street from the
post office in Canning, Nova Scotia and I see the traffic. I hear the
conversations. I see the relationships which are made. I see the
transactions people make. I talk to those people. It is the hub of our
community.
For millions of Canadians the post office has been connection
point and an important part of our culture. Hon. members will
remember that in February 1994 there was talk of further closures
of rural and small town post offices. During that debate I talked and
met with postal officials and many concerned citizens in my riding
of Annapolis Valley-Hants and the message was clear: ``Do not
close down the post offices''. I brought that message back to
Ottawa.
On February 17, 1994 in the House I urged the government to
demonstrate its commitment to rural Canadians to ensure that these
post offices remained open. The minister listened to these concerns
and to the concerns expressed by Canadians from coast to coast to
coast. As we know, he placed a moratorium on closures and
conversions of rural and small town post offices. In announcing the
moratorium the minister said: ``As long as this government is in
power, no rural or small town post office will be closed''.
I remind the hon. member that in his riding the towns of
Whitecourt, Grande Cache, Hinton, Edson and Jasper are all
covered by the Liberal moratorium on post office closures.
If Canada Post were to be privatized, would the private company
keep all of these small post offices open? Even courier companies
are closing down shop in small towns. If these companies close
down, who is left? Who will deliver the parcels to rural areas once
the hon. member has privatized Canada Post? That is why Canada
Post is a necessary national institution.
The hon. member must take into account that 20 per cent of
Alberta and 23 per cent of Canada is rural. With privatization there
is a real danger that rural Canadians will be forgotten.
People in the town of Evansburg in the hon. member's riding
held a meeting and asked the government not to close down their
postal outlet. The government is listening. Canada Post under this
government will not abandon rural Canadians.
While the motion talks of privatization, I wonder what kind of
service Canadians living in the northern regions would receive
under this scenario. In all likelihood the answer is nil.
Canada Post has had a profound impact on the north. Since its
formation in 1989 the northern services division has been
responsible for maintenance and improvements to postal
operations in northern Canada.
(1120 )
Ongoing training programs have allowed northern services to
work toward the gradual turnover of operations and management to
indigenous residents of the area. The area administered includes
Yukon, Northwest Territories, communities in northern Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and all of Labrador.
This division represents 72 per cent of Canada's land mass and a
diverse population of 221,000 people.
The geographic location, the climate conditions, the low
population density and the remoteness of population centres create
operational challenges and some difficulties in mail delivery and
communication with residents. To overcome these difficulties, the
corporation has adopted its network policies and procedures to
meet the specific needs of the north.
It is clearly evident that Canada Post helps to promote and
maintain this region of our vast country. Canada Post must remain
a crown corporation because there is a need to provide consistent
services to Canadians while being fiscally responsible. This means
servicing all areas of the country, even those which are less
profitable, and serving them well.
That is why the Canada Post Corporation was established as a
crown corporation on October 16, 1981 out of what was then a
government department. I remind all members of the House that
the Canada Post Corporation Act was supported by all three parties
in the House of Commons. It was welcomed by organized labour,
business and consumer groups.
The Canada Post Corporation was established as a crown
corporation to provide purpose and direction and to bring business
values to the operation of postal services in Canada. Why should
this government now take a successful corporation and privatize it?
I believe that over the years Canada Post has made progress.
However, I also believe we still have a lot of work to do.
I am pleased to see that our government is conducting a mandate
review of Canada Post. It has been 15 years since the corporation
was established and 10 years since the Marchment report, the last
major review of Canada Post's mandate. It is therefore necessary to
examine the current situation against the original intent. It provides
a valuable opportunity to revisit corporate direction.
16806
Canada Post is a national institution and we are proud of it.
Canada Post has achieved many accomplishments. Canada Post
is a viable crown corporation and it provides an essential public
service.
I cannot support the motion before the House because I believe it
would bring an end to universal access to postal services. This in
turn would negatively affect the very communities I have been
elected to serve.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this private
member's motion this morning.
As we know, the role of Canada Post will be reviewed by a
committee recently set up by the minister; my remarks are
therefore subject to this committee's proceedings and subsequent
report.
If I understand correctly, today's motion calls for privatizing
Canada Post. In principle, since this is a private member's motion,
I will speak first on my own behalf and not on behalf of the Bloc.
Of course, I myself am not opposed in principle to privatizing
government controlled businesses. In principle, one should not be
against this. Even the present federal government cannot come out
against any kind of privatization, since it has just privatized CN. It
is easy to see that this privatization may eliminate some rural
services and that this is not necessarily a good thing for people
across Canada.
(1125)
But they may have done the right thing by privatizing CN,
especially because of the competition with CP. As for Canada Post,
it is indeed a monopoly, which raises questions on the risks of
privatizing such a large monopoly.
We already know about the numerous problems with Canada
Post. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has exposed many
cases of waste and inefficiency, accusing Canada Post of misusing
its money and running considerable deficits from one year to the
next because of this. There have also been complaints from private
firms, including courier service and mail advertising companies,
which deliver information packages from door to door.
I have reviewed this matter quite thoroughly, since industry
representatives have complained to me personally that Canada Post
unfairly competes with private sector companies. This is
something of an outrage because, if I understand correctly, Canada
Post can make a profit from its monopoly in first class mail
delivery by charging 48 cents for every stamp. If we look only at
the revenue from stamp sales and first class mail delivery, Canada
Post makes a profit, but uses it to compete with businesses such as
home delivery, courier service and mail advertising firms.
This is unfair and I am totally opposed to this kind of
competition from the government, whether we are dealing with the
postal service or the engineering sector. Canada Post comes under
the responsibility of the public works minister, and we will soon
have an opportunity, perhaps even this afternoon, to debate Bill
C-52, which testifies once again to the government's tendency to
compete unfairly with the private sector.
For a government that wants to encourage private enterprise and
put in place legislation to promote job creation, this is totally
unacceptable. In the case of Canada Post, this is blatant. It is
inevitable. Last year, Canada Post's deficit was approximately $70
million, if I am not mistaken, and, before that, I think it was $280
million. But these deficits can be attributed, to some extent, to the
fact that Canada Post is spending money it makes as a monopoly to
compete with the private sector for courier services and direct mail
advertising.
Canada Post's services are not competitive. It is in fact digging
in the public purse, because, as a crown corporation, Canada Post
belongs to all of us. It belongs to all Canadians and uses its
revenues from mail delivery to compete with the private sector. It
is obviously unacceptable and, at the very least, Canada Post's
should be reviewed to ensure that, if Canada Post maintains its
monopoly on first class mail delivery, it should not compete with
the private sector, at least not any more.
(1130)
That is for sure.
But I am not sure how effective it would be to privatize Canada
Post and limit, say, its role to first class mail delivery. I wonder
because, as I said earlier, Canada Post only turns a profit on first
class mail delivery. So, why do that if the service is there and is
adequate, or at least cost effective, although there may still be room
for improvement within the organization. As I said earlier,
according to labour, postal workers, inside staff and others, service
delivery could be improved, but there does not seem to be any net
benefit in privatizing Canada Post.
But again, it all depends on how Canada Post's mandate review
will be conducted. Perhaps, over the next few months, moving
away from a monopoly, service delivery could be broadened, in the
sense that several private companies could provide the service.
However, there are many instances where, when we try too hard
to liberalize certain sectors, ordinary people end up footing the bill.
For example, the government's decision to end Bell Canada's
monopoly resulted in a significant increase in the costs of
telephone services. The same thing also happened in the transport
sector and in several other ones.
Sometimes, the liberalization process is taken too far and is
detrimental to public interest. Since consumers have to pay more,
we must ask ourselves this question: If we privatize Canada Post
so that a number of companies can offer services currently
provided exclusively by the corporation, does it mean that, instead
of paying 48 cents for the delivery of a first class letter, consumers
16807
will have to shell out 75 cents? If this is the case, I do not see how
such a change would be beneficial. It would create an excess in the
other way.
So far, the government has not used adequate judgment to
restrict the mandate of Canada Post and ensure that the corporation
does not compete unfairly with private businesses in the delivery of
mailings, or even as regards courier services. This an abuse of
power and an aberration. It is unacceptable. It may even be
immoral. However, it would be just as bad to go to the other
extreme, liberalize all the services provided by Canada Post, and
trigger a substantial cost increase in the delivery of a first class
letter for ordinary Canadians. That could be an excess of another
kind.
As a matter of principle, we cannot oppose the privatization of
crown corporations. The government has already shown that it was
open to privatization. However, a balance must be sought regarding
the mandate of Canada Post. Hopefully, once that mandate is
reviewed by the minister's committee, balanced recommendations
can be made and take into account the interests of all Canadians.
(1135)
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the motion now before the House proposing the privatization of the
post office can be based on myth only, and we on this side of the
House prefer to deal with the facts.
The mover of the motion presumes that Canada Post is an
inefficient, money losing organization and a drain on the Canadian
taxpayer. In fact, Canada Post has achieved a considerable
turnaround in its operations and finances. It is self-sufficient and
since 1988 no longer receives appropriations from government.
The mover of the motion presumes that Canada Post is an
inefficient organization that did not adapt to the realities of the
marketplace. Wrong again. In fact, Canada Post has been
improving continuously since becoming a crown corporation, with
efficiency gains in all aspects of its operations.
It is most important to note the current mandate review, which
the minister responsible for Canada Post announced on November
6 of this year. It has been ten years since the last major review of
Canada Post. This review will give Canadians a chance to express
their concerns about the corporation.
The review committee will also be analysing the current
competitive environment of the corporation. The communications
market has changed dramatically since the Marchment report, and
it is time to review the effects on the corporation.
The mandate review will also review the functions that Canada
Post currently carries out and those that should be provided in the
future. In this regard, I want to deal with the allegations of
cross-subsidization, which we have heard from couriers and others
and most recently from the hon. member for Quebec East.
Let me emphasize that Canada Post Corporation competes fairly.
It does not subsidize its services. These allegations have been
reviewed by both the Bureau of Competition Policy and the
National Transportation Agency. The Bureau of Competition
Policy examined concerns with regard to cross-subsidization of
Canada Post ad mail services with profits from letter mail and
alleged predatory pricing. The bureau cleared Canada Post of the
allegations in 1994.
The year before that, in 1993, along with the National
Transportation Agency the bureau also reviewed the corporation's
acquisition of 75 per cent of Purolator courier and the issues of
unfair competition and cross-subsidization as they would relate to
that purchase. The bureau found: ``No grounds to believe that
cross-subsidization would occur post-merger''.
The hon. member putting forward the motion is not aware of the
many other changes taking place at Canada Post. Canada Post
knows technological innovation. In a world economy driven by
ever changing business partnerships and alliances, technological
innovation and convergence, there remains the crucial need for a
reliable, efficient, dedicated postal administration.
Canadians want a faster, more reliable, and lower cost postal
administration. Throughout its history Canada has always been
quick to embrace these demands. Canada Post has worked hard to
meet its mandate to provide service to every Canadian.
Between 1992 and 1994, pieces of mail processed per hour
increased by 64 per cent. Delivery points per hour increased by 30
per cent. All this was accomplished with a workforce that was
reduced by 24 per cent. These are the facts, something the Reform
Party does not seem to be acquainted with.
Since incorporation there have been many innovations Canada
Post can be very proud of, such as the national control centre,
which allows end to end monitoring of performance. The first
system for tracking and tracing also has been developed. This
system accurately pinpoints the progress of your mail. The
corporation has also developed a new technology for hybrid
services, which can electronically send your document, print it, and
have it mailed. This is available to all Canadians.
Would a private corporation offer this accessible service to
all-I underline all-Canadians? This is something the opposition
has not considered.
16808
Good service means accessibility to retail services. In the
mid-1980s Canada Post decided to experiment with franchising
of postal outlets. This partnership with the private sector has
resulted in an increased network of outlets where Canada Post
products and services are available.
(1140)
The Canada Post retail network currently consists of nearly
8,000 full service outlets, 4,150 corporate outlets, and more than
3,400 private sector outlets, supplemented by 11,000 stamp shops
and agencies. Hours of access to postal products has increased
substantially, while the cost of operations has been reduced. These
outlets had a combined earned retail revenue in 1994-95 of $1.8
billion.
The franchising of retail postal services provides key solutions
to four critical problems that were faced by Canada Post: how to
obtain necessary capital; how to restructure and expand the retail
customer service network; how to move quickly to a customer
focused workforce; and how to reduce the high cost of a corporate
retail network.
The franchising of postal service brought benefits to not only
Canada Post but, more important, to Canadians, rural and urban.
Franchising has nearly doubled the size of the postal network,
offering consumers over 3,000 additional service centres across
Canada. Canada Post's franchising and retail postal service has
been a success. It is evident that Canada Post is constantly
improving and adapting. Why should that be changed?
Canada has entered a new electronic era. Should Canada Post be
involved in this electronic era? In the government's upcoming
mandate review one of the terms of reference is whether CPC
should be free to react to advances in technological alternatives to
mail. If so, what would be the implications for the users, namely
the government, the public and CPC competitors? This should
make the opposition happy. We look forward to hearing the results.
The future contribution of postal administration in the new
electronic environment will be contingent on the answers to some
very basic questions. What is and will be the role for a postal
administration as a public service? Is there a role for a postal
administration as an electronics intermediary and as a provider of
security services in electronic messaging? Can letter mail be
delivered still faster and more cheaply? How much commercial
freedom should a postal administration have?
The volume of physical mail in Canada is still marginally
increasing from year to year. However, it will significantly
decrease as electronic messaging takes hold. Over time, the labour
intensive infrastructure required to process physical mail will be
transformed to handle more electronic messaging. The
transformation from hard copy to electronic will take time,
however, more than most people predict, and for good reason.
There is a multi-million dollar investment in the interlink physical
mail infrastructures of Canada Post and its customers, and it will
take an enormous investment to go completely electronic.
The immediate future is a bridge the corporation calls hybrid,
which allows messages to be submitted to CPC electronically,
travel electronically to the closest point of delivery, then be printed
and delivered in hard copy. It is in this area that CPC's new
electronic services are concentrated. It is the belief of many that a
hybrid environment will be with us for a very long time.
Canada Post's concentration on hybrid services is allowing it to
greatly increase its efficiency. Expansion of these services is vital
to its customers, not only to contain or reduce costs but to allow the
transaction of business effectively in a global marketplace using
electronic data interchange, EDI, and hybrid data interchange,
HDI. This obvious change in the face of technology has allowed
Canada Post to remain competitive. Canada Post is doing much
more than perhaps the hon. member is aware.
Business and governments need to share information with their
clients in the form of documents or reports. Maintaining physical
copies of documents and distributing them is costly,
environmentally damaging and does not add value to the economy.
Working further to reduce costs and speed up delivery, CPC has
developed a service that stores documents and delivers them
through a 1-800 telephone line. The documents can be delivered by
fax, E-mail or regular mail. This service reduces business costs,
speeds delivery of information and avoids environmental impacts
of printing and storing an abundance of physical documents.
(1145)
Canada Post presently has a physical directory of all addresses in
Canada which it must maintain to deliver mail, including postal
codes for efficient mail sortation. It is extending this directory to
include electronic addresses and other information which Canadian
businesses and governments can access for effective
communication in the medium of the receiver's choice.
This will take the form of hard copy, telephone, fax, computer,
E-mail, telex and even interactive television in the future. The
directory will reduce the cost of doing business, improve the speed
of messaging and enable a sender to reach the receiver regardless
of technological-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt but the member's
time has expired.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise to speak today on Motion No. 312 tabled by
the member for Yellowhead which states:
16809
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately take the
required measures to privatize all operations and services of the Canada Post
Corporation.
The finance minister stated in the last budget speech: ``Our view
is straightforward. If the government doesn't need to run
something it shouldn't and in the future it won't''.
Motion No. 312 allows the government the opportunity to make
good on this straightforward point of view. When it comes right
down to analysing where the government should be involved,
Canada Post does not rank as a priority.
This is an organization that in the view of Professor Robert
Campbell of Trent University has been ``given a considerable
amount of space in which to function like a private commercial
operation and has acted very much like a private sector
corporation''. Canada Post has therefore illustrated that it is
capable of providing its existing services as a private sector
corporation.
Traditionally the main argument against the privatization of
Canada Post is that people see it as the communications link for
rural areas. This claim is now false. If Canada Post is so committed
to rural service, why has it either closed or amalgamated 1,700 of
its rural post offices? The simple answer to the question is that
Canada Post is behaving like a private corporation. If it were
privatized and industry as a whole were permitted more market
freedom, people in rural areas would have greater access to more
and more delivery companies. Many companies would jump at the
opportunity to provide full postal services in rural areas.
Another weak argument offered against privatization is that
Canada Post does not receive any federal money for its operations.
This claim has an element of truth in it. Every year Canada Post
aims to balance its books and it has been successful in three of the
last five years in doing so. However the two years that losses were
recorded added up to just under $400 million in losses and these
losses were absorbed by the taxpayers.
I find the idea of privatizing Canada Post a compelling one.
Canadians should no longer be asked to bear the burden of
subsidizing an organization that could operate just as effectively or
more efficiently if it were in the private sector. Best of all, if this
were the case, taxpayers would not be shouldering the costs when
Canada Post records financial losses. These financial losses
continue despite the fact that Canada Post has invested enormously
in becoming more efficient and more diverse.
I was surprised when I learned that Canada Post owns 75 per cent
of the courier company Purolator. I was even more surprised when
I read repeated claims by competitors in the courier industry about
Canada Post. The competitors claim that Canada Post is using
revenue generated from ordinary mail to subsidize its courier
company. It is claimed that this allows Purolator Courier to offer
rates that are lower than private sector rates and gives the Canada
Post-Purolator team an unfair advantage.
(1150)
The president of the Canadian Courier Association recently
claimed: ``There is not a courier in the world who would offer that
kind of service at that price. Who is paying for that cost? You are if
you bought a stamp''.
Canada Post's competitors claim that if Canada Post is to have
an unfair advantage then its entire financial record should be made
public. This would mean that Canada Post should present not only
its budgetary figures but also how much money is being transferred
to Purolator? I find the request to be entirely reasonable. If
taxpayers are subsidizing Purolator they have a right to know the
exact nature of the financial arrangement these two companies
share.
Canada Post is an enigma, especially to the corporate world. On
one hand it operates as a crown corporation with a mandate to
provide universal postal service to all Canadians. On the other hand
it operates as a ruthless competitor expanding into the courier
industry while possessing a legislative monopoly on first class
mail. In other words Canada Post enjoys all the benefits and
security of a crown corporation with government protection and
government backing while it conducts itself as though it were a
private sector organization.
Canada Post should no longer enjoy this advantage. It should
have it one way or the other. A spokesman for the United Parcel
Service, UPS, recently said: ``We are not seeking the abolishment
of the post office. Our goal is that the playing field should be
levelled''.
Another area that competitors claim is not on a level playing
field is the business of delivering unaddressed mail, advertising
flyers or junk mail. When Canada Post created its so-called ad mail
program to distribute third class mail, it knocked many small
distributors right out of the industry. The ones that are left face an
unfair advantage.
By Canada Post's own estimates, the number of delivered flyers
jumped from 1.8 billion pieces in 1987 to 4.4 billion in 1994. This
represents an increase of 144 per cent. This would not be all bad
except Canada Post only reported a 63 per cent increase in revenue
from this service.
Ottawa Citizen columnist Peter Hadekel recently commented:
``Canada's Post's own numbers show that its cost per thousand
flyers delivered fell 33 per cent, a clear indication it has been
cutting prices to build volume''. Once again Canada Post is using
this diversity within the protection of a crown corporation to create
a monopoly in another area. Taxpayers have the right to know how
the financial structure of Canada Post works and how it is using this
advantage unfairly.
16810
Despite the closure of over 1,000 rural area post offices Canada
Post is the largest franchise chain in Canada. It is the 28th largest
corporation in the nation. It has the potential to grow even
stronger. Canada Post would have no problem finding investors
and would, if privatized, be able to provide the same service it
does now, and perhaps more efficiently in the competition of the
open market.
In many ways Canada Post already operates as a private
organization. It rented a $200,000 private sky box in Toronto's
SkyDome. It may be an acceptable practice in the corporate world,
but during a time when the government is trying to reduce
expenditures and debt it is absolutely unreasonable for a crown
corporation. I do not feel comfortable telling the people of my
riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin that we must make sacrifices to
reduce the debt while Canada Post executives have this kind of
government guaranteed luxury at all Blue Jay games.
If privatized Canada Post would do fine on its own and
Canadians would still enjoy good postal service by whoever
provides it.
(1155 )
Next August Parliament will see the results of a major review
that has recently been ordered. It is my hope that it will not be just a
cosmetic review to appease the concerns of Canada Post
competitors. The editor of the St. Albert Gazette near Edmonton
recently stated: ``Are they going to be able to dig into Canada
Post's affairs or will they be stonewalled like everyone else before
them? Canada Post likes to keep business to itself''.
The time has come for Parliament to recognize that Canada Post
can do well as a private corporation and that it needs a more level
playing field in the postal industry for the benefit of all Canadians.
As I have said, Canada Post likes to keep business to itself. As a
private corporation Canada Post can still freely keep to itself but
only if it can beat the competition.
I ask members to support the motion and to realize this is a start
in the most logical direction.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
know we are in trouble when we see Liberals defending Canada
Post. In the few minutes remaining I should like to deal with the
mandate of Canada Post. Its mandate should be to deliver letters
efficiently and cost effectively. That is the bottom line. Why it is in
the courier business is a bit of a conundrum because it is using the
postal rates to justify and undercut private courier businesses.
I must commend the government for its timely and upcoming
review of Canada Post. However once we have the review I would
then hold the government accountable to looking into the review
and making some major changes such as changes in access to
information.
Crown corporations are presently exempt from access to
information requests. As such Canada Post is exempt. We cannot
get an access to information request from Canada Post because it is
exempt, as are other crown corporations. This is basically wrong.
How are Canadians supposed to find out and figure out what is
wrong with their crown corporations including Canada Post when
they cannot get the basic information?
An hon. member: It is taxpayers' money.
Mr. Gilmour: ``It is taxpayers' money'', as my colleague says.
Why can we not see the records?
I support my colleague's move to privatize Canada Post. I look
forward to the review to see which direction the country will go
with its postal system and hold the government accountable for
listening to what Canadians say.
The Deputy Speaker: There are a few minutes remaining in the
debate. If the proposer of the motion, the hon member for
Yellowhead, wishes to summarize he is allowed to do so under our
standing orders.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my colleagues for supporting the motion. I urge the government to
look carefully at it and in its review come forward with some of its
suggestions and recommendations.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall we call it twelve o'clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing
Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
16810
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1200)
[Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-108, an act
to amend the National Housing Act, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (for the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in
at the report stage.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
16811
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I
have been requested by the chief government whip and the chief
opposition whip to defer the division until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division
on the question now before the House stands deferred until
tomorrow after government orders, at which time the bells to call in
the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from November 24, 1995 consideration of
the motion that Bill C-100, an act to amend, enact and repeal
certain laws relating to financial institutions, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspend the House for
10 minutes.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent. The hon.
member for Erie has the floor from the last time. He has 15 minutes
remaining for debate, if he wishes to take advantage of having the
floor.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a few
remarks to wind up my address to the House.
Bill C-100 takes important steps to ensure that Canada's
financial institutions enjoy effective, independent corporate
government yet allows OSFI to intervene in the composition of
senior management and boards when the institution is experiencing
financial difficulty. Clearly it is often when institutions encounter
financial trouble that management and boards need to be carefully
scrutinized.
The current minimum one-third of unaffiliated or independent
directors sitting on the board of a financial institution will no
longer be permitted to hold a seat on the board of their unregulated
parent. This will help ensure that there are directors of institutions
who will focus on the institutions' interests alone. This measure
will be particularly important for ensuring independence and
objectivity in the management of institutions in trouble.
For institutions that are in trouble, the legislation will empower
the superintendent to veto the appointment of directors and senior
officers of that institution. This is a very limited provision as it
applies only at the appointment stage and only when the institution
is in financial trouble.
Incidentally, a similar authority exists in the United States. It is
an important power since the institution in trouble needs to rely on
its board to make important decisions about the future of the
company.
My remarks so far have focused on the measures to give OSFI
further power to enhance the quality of corporate governance. It is
also important to note that this legislation recognizes that effective
corporate governance is not just one-sided.
We should appreciate that Bill C-100 includes measures that will
help boards perform the all important function of overseeing
management. An example is the guidelines for supervisory
interventions that are being set out. These guidelines identify four
stages of increasing intervention available to the superintendent,
culminating in the power to close an institution.
By knowing what stage their company is in and the penalties
involved, directors will have both a tracking measure and a set-up
to guide their dealings with management.
As well, the legislation includes providing the Canadian Deposit
Insurance Corporation, CDIC, with the authority to apply varying
deposit insurance premiums based on risk factors. This too will act
as a source of information for directors who will be free to inquire
why their institution may be paying more than the base rate.
(1205 )
I have covered a fair amount of ground. I will close by putting
the legislation into context as I see it.
Bill C-100 is being put forward for the continuing success of a
supervisory and regulatory system which must evolve with market
trends and respond to current experience both here and in the rest of
the world. The thrust of the legislation clearly is safety and
soundness. These improvements in safety and soundness build on
the recent Canadian experience with financial institutions that have
failed.
16812
By giving our approval to Bill C-100, we will be honouring a
responsibility to help maintain what is truly a world class financial
system. This is a goal we can all support irrespective of partisan
politics. I urge all members of the House of Commons to support
Bill C-100.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-100. This bill is
designed to bring about certain changes and make some
amendments to the Trust Companies Act, the Interest Act and so
on. I want to address this in the context of what is happening in the
financial world in Canada today.
About 10 years ago legislation was passed in the House which
actually eliminated the four pillars of Canada's financial
institutions. I will review briefly what that was all about. We know
that the four pillars which existed were the banks, the trust
companies, the insurance companies and the investment
companies, or investment dealers as they are more commonly
known today.
The provisions in the past were that the banks took deposits,
made loans and had financial interaction with their customers. The
ownership of the banks was restricted to 10 per cent. No one person
or group could own more than 10 per cent of a bank.
The trust companies were another pillar. They were allowed to
hold property in trust for others. They could hold shares, bonds and
real estate. Often they exercised the prerogative and in fact did take
the fiduciary responsibility to manage the portfolios of individuals,
particularly widows, children, orphans, and other people who did
not want to look after their own portfolios. It restricted very much
the kinds of things the trust companies could do. For example, the
trust companies could not lend out more money than they actually
had on deposit. They also were limited in the kinds of loans they
could give. For instance, they were excluded for many years from
lending out under the Small Business Loans Act.
The insurance companies, the third pillar, were divided into two
sections: the life insurance section, and the property and casualty
section. The life insurance companies were there to provide life
insurance policies and annuities for people who wanted payment in
perpetuity. The property and casualty insurance companies dealt
with the liabilities that might be incurred toward individuals. They
also insured the physical properties, buildings in most cases and
vehicles and other equipment.
The fourth pillar was the investment companies. The investment
companies were the underwriters of equity shares. They also
helped to distribute those particular shares once they were issued.
They also underwrote debentures and limited partnerships and
made a market for these particular securities. They acted nationally
and internationally so that individuals who wanted to sell shares
internationally could do that.
In 1987 these pillars came apart. They were changed. The
legislation allowed the banks to own trust companies, the banks to
own insurance companies and the banks to own investment dealers.
The independence which was guaranteed before was now
amalgamated under one piece of legislation. The insurance
companies also took advantage of those changes. They bought trust
companies and in some cases the established banks. They also got
into the mutual fund distribution business.
(1210)
Why did it happen? It happened because the insurance
companies and banks are the two big giants in the financial
institutions. They command the largest proportion of the money
that is managed in our financial world. The banks wanted access to
the huge funds of money the insurance companies had and of
course the insurance companies wanted to keep them out.
There was a real conflict going on at that time. The insurance
companies finally agreed to let the banks buy insurance companies.
That made it possible for the banks to actually own an insurance
company, but they could not distribute the insurance through their
branches.
Actually, the very thing the insurance companies wanted to
prevent they ended up not preventing. Now the only difference is
the bank cannot really distribute it through their branch network. I
will talk about that in more detail later.
I will briefly focus on the concentration of the financial interests
that has come into an increasingly small group. Fewer and fewer
companies actually manage more and more of the financial assets
in Canada. That is really what has happened here. I want to bring
this into a more detailed focus as I get toward the end of my speech.
The policy paper was presented by the Secretary of State for
Financial Institutions when he appeared before the Senate
committee in August. He said he intended to release a policy paper
sometime early in 1996 which would deal with these four financial
institutions under the Trust Companies Act, the Loans Act, the
Investment Companies Act and the Bank Act.
The secretary of state wants to release that in the early part of
1996. That policy paper would then be followed by further
consultation before we table legislation for passage early in 1997
which has to do with a total review of the Financial Institutions
Act. He said: ``I want to act now on the issues included in Bill
C-100 because the legislation enhances the safety and soundness of
the system. When steps can be taken to improve on it to diminish
risk, I believe it is important to get on with those changes right
away''.
It is pretty hard to argue against that, except that we are now at
the end of November. This statement was made in August. The bill
is before the House. In the early part of 1996 there is to be this
16813
policy paper, yet we have something that is supposed to be acted on
right now.
I warn the secretary of state and the government that to make the
kinds of changes that are being proposed in this legislation will
affect other legislation. I am convinced it will affect the overall
review that will take place in 1997.
What is the big hurry now? We are not even seven weeks away
from 1996 and we are faced with supposedly some kind of an
emergency. I submit there is no emergency. There is no urgency to
get this done right now.
Some people will say that this is actually to come to grips with a
big problem we had last year when Confederation Life went down.
What is really involved here is that this is a very subtle way to get
us ready for that continued erosion of the distinction between the
financial pillars. It will have the effect of drawing more and more
power into the hands of fewer and fewer financial institutions,
namely the banks.
I will get into the Confederation Life matter in greater detail
because it is this concentration of power that creates some
difficulties. For example, the Confederation Life people bought
trust companies and through that trust company they developed
what would easily be characterized as an imprudent portfolio. It
was imprudent from the point of view that it was overextended in a
particular sector.
My understanding is that the former Superintendent of Financial
Institutions did tell the Standing Committee on Industry that he had
warned that particular institution that it was over extended in the
real estate market. But what did he do? Nothing. What did the
company do? Nothing.
(1215)
Some people would argue it is more poor management than an
imprudent portfolio. Imprudent portfolio, poor management,
whatever the case, the issue is there was legislative provision that
allowed a concentration and overextension that was never the
intention of the original legislation but nevertheless was the effect
of it. That is precisely the danger we are running into here.
Suppose one of our chartered banks today were to go down.
Imagine the implications that would have across the country.
Within that context let us now look at the provisions in Bill C-100.
In particular, I want to look at the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions.
In this context I would refer to exactly what the purpose of the
bill is. It is to amend the Bank Act, the Co-operative Credit
Associations Act, the Insurance Act, and the Trust and Loan
Companies Act, dealing with the disclosure of information, the
elimination of appeals in relation to certain matters, the
disqualification of persons from becoming office holders of an
institution, the taking of control of an institution by the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and changes to the duties
of the superintendent.
Then there are amendments to the Winding-up Act respecting
the circumstances and procedures for winding up an institution and
the revised part III dealing with the restructuring of insurance
companies and amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance
Corporations Act concerning the business affairs of the
corporation, the restructuring of the institutions by means of
divesting of shares and the corporation becoming a receiver, the
assessment and collection of deposit insurance premiums, and the
enforcement of the act.
What are some of these details? I refer to clause 81:
(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations and the Superintendent
may make guidelines respecting the maintenance by life companies and
societies of adequate capital-
Okay, let us keep that in mind.
(3) Notwithstanding that a life company or society is complying with
regulations or guidelines made under subsection (2), the Superintendent may,
by order, direct the company or society
(a) to increase its capital; or
(b) to provide additional liquidity in such forms and amounts as the
Superintendent may require.
Does anybody need any more authority than that to run a
company? The whole company could be run with those two
phrases.
Then the bill goes on to state:
The Governor in Council may make regulations and the Superintendent may
make guidelines respecting the maintenance by property and casualty
companies of assets of a particular value.
This is again a direct imposition. In fact the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions can get into the exact management now of the
company itself:
Notwithstanding that a property and casualty company is complying with
regulations or guidelines made under subsection (2), the Superintendent may,
by order, direct the company to increase its assets.
Furthermore:
A company may then enter into a transaction with a related party of a
company if the Superintendent, by order, has exempted the transaction from the
provisions of section 521.
We want to put this into the context of clause 93, because we
recognize how significant the powers of the superintendent are in
determining the assets of a company, to increase its financial
situation, to look at the ownership of property of the company. Now
let us get a good view of what else happens here:
The Superintendent shall disclose, at such times and in such manner as the Minister
may determine, such information obtained by the Superintendent under this Act as the
16814
Minister considers ought to be disclosed for the purposes of the analysis of the
financial condition of a company, society, foreign company or provincial
company-
Good, we will say, that is fine; there is nothing wrong with that. I
agree. It goes on:
-and that
(a) is contained in returns filed pursuant to the Superintendent's financial
regulatory reporting requirements in respect of companies, societies, foreign
companies or provincial companies; or
(b) has been obtained as a result of an industry-wide or sectoral survey
conducted by the Superintendent in relation to an issue or circumstances that
could have an impact on the financial condition of companies, societies,
foreign companies or provincial companies.
(1220)
Now comes the key part. We notice that the superintendent can
do these things but subject to the minister's approval. The second
clause states:
The Minister shall consult with the Superintendent before making any
determination under subsection (1).
What has happened here? We have the minister deciding in the
first instance what the superintendent should do and what kinds of
information can be collected, and then before he can have any
discussions or make any public pronouncements he has to go back
and consult with the superintendent before he can do that. Who is
in charge here?
The person in charge here is the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions. The Minister of Finance, who is to be looking after the
financial affairs of this country on behalf of the people and who the
Prime Minister has entrusted with this particular portfolio, is now
having his hands virtually tied by the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions, a bureaucrat who has been appointed by the minister.
These kinds of provisions are not for the health of this country.
I draw the attention of the House to the exact powers and objects
of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The
objects are to supervise financial institutions in order to determine
whether they are in a sound financial condition and are complying
with their governing statute law and supervisory requirements
under that law; to promptly advise the management and board of
directors of a financial institution in the event that the institution is
not in sound financial condition or is not complying with its
governing statute law or supervisory requirements under that law
and in such a case to take or require the management or board to
take the necessary corrective measures or series of measures to
deal with the situation in an expeditious manner; and to promote
the adoption of management and boards of directors of financial
institutions of policies and procedures designed to control and
manage risk.
That is good. A further object is to monitor and evaluate
system-wide or electoral events and issues that may have a
negative impact on the financial condition of financial institutions.
That is good. Further, in pursuing its objectives the office shall
strive to protect the rights and interests of depositors, policy
holders, and creditors of financial institutions, having due regard to
the need to allow financial institutions to compete effectively and
take reasonable risks. We would say that is just great, and I agree.
Notwithstanding that the regulations and supervision of financial
institutions by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions can reduce the risk that financial institutions will fail,
regulation and supervision must be carried out having regard for
the fact that boards of directors are responsible for the management
of financial institutions. Financial institutions carry on business in
a competitive environment that necessitates the management of
risk, and financial institutions can experience financial difficulties
that can lead to their failure.
He is supposed to do all these wonderful things and then in the
final analysis he is given the power to intervene, to get involved in
the actual management of a company. Then in the final section it
says that if things go wrong it is not his fault. I think the bureaucrat
wrote this, because he is totally absolved on these things.
We are dealing with the trust and the faith that individuals have
in financial institutions. I have no difficulty in recognizing that the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is a very
important office. It has been given extensive powers. But in the
final analysis, who is accountable?
(1225 )
We have to come to grips with this. We need to know all the
secrets. In all the texts I read there is no obligation to make those
kinds of things public. I want to get into the Canada Deposit
Insurance Corporation, because it is here that it becomes even more
significant.
The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation guarantees the first
$60,000 deposited in a financial institution that is covered under
that particular act. This is a great provision, but I want to take a
look at some of the experiences.
This particular corporation was set up in 1967. There were no
bank failures prior to 1967. Since 1967 there have been 30 failures
of financial institutions, 20 of them in the last 10 years. The CDIC
has now paid out a total of about $5 billion and owes the federal
treasury $1.7 billion as of March 1994. It may be a little more than
that, about $1.745 billion if my memory serves me correctly.
The provisions of this act are very noble. People want to know
that their deposits are insured. However, it has had some very
interesting effects. Financial institutions did not fail before but
have failed since. Why? There are pretty obvious things, but
16815
nobody can prove them. It reduces the incentive of a financial
institution to look after the deposits up to $60,000. They can be
reckless or risky because that money is not going to come out of
their pockets. The first $60,000 will be paid by the Canada Deposit
Insurance Corporation.
There is also no incentive on the part of the depositor to look
around to find which of the financial institutions is the soundest.
They look to see which institution is to pay the best return on their
money after it is deposited. That becomes the issue, and not the
soundness of the financial institution.
There are some interesting things that can be looked at here. The
insurance premium the institution pays to the Canada Deposit
Insurance Company should be commensurate with the risk incurred
by placing these deposits in certain kinds of ways. The act does go
that way up to a point. It states, for instance, that financial
institutions will pay $5,000 as a base and after that I believe it is a
fraction of a percentage, based on the total of the money that is on
deposit. That is great, except that the minister, without telling
anyone, has the right to reduce that rate.
The other part of this is that the rate the institution has to pay for
its premium to be insured by this company is secret. This means
that on the one hand we have the financial institution paying a
premium that is somewhat commensurate with the risk involved,
but the person who deposits does not know what it is. So he has no
way of telling whether this financial institution is a sounder one
than the other one.
I believe there are some very serious shortcomings in this act. If
we really wanted to get serious about this act we should think about
such a thing as a co-insurance plan of some kind. An individual
who is depositing his money into a particular institution knows it is
insured up to $60,000 but with a deductible. The individual will
have the responsibility to put it with an institution that will insure
his or her deposit for the full $60,000. If the Canada Deposit
Insurance Corporation insures it for up to $58,000, the financial
institution will give the other $2,000 with no penalty.
An institution could also state it is going to be paying 12 per cent
on your deposit, CDIC covers a major part of it and it will cover
part of it, but because this is going to be a high return you are
eligible for $1,000 or $2,000 deduction. So there is a co-insurance
plan here, which will provide the incentive to the financial
institution to manage the money well or to at least let the individual
know where the risk is in that particular deposit.
(1230)
Second, that individual will say: ``If I am to get a higher rate of
return from this institution, I also need to carry some of the risk''.
There has to be responsibility in those particular areas. There are
major concerns about the proposed amendments to this legislation.
I want to move now to another part of the review of financial
institutions which has to do with the concentration of power to
which I alluded before. The four pillars have, to a large degree,
been eroded. It is my suspicion that the review in 1997 will erode
them even more.
I draw attention in particular to the big fight now being displayed
in the newspapers, financial papers and other media between the
insurance companies and the banks. The insurance companies are
saying: ``You are not going to sell our product through your
network''. The banks are saying: ``If we can own the insurance
company, we want the authority and the power to do that''. The
fight is on.
A lot of problems are associated with the concentration of power,
one of which I want to detail. That has to do with conflict of
interest. I am going to take my example not from the insurance area
but from the investment business. The investment companies have
the opportunity to underwrite shares for an issue. I will use as an
example the privatization of CN Rail. This share issue is
underwritten by a number of investment dealers. Who owns the
investment dealers? The banks, with a few exceptions. They
underwrite the issue. However, some people are going to borrow
money to buy those shares. Who will lend them the money to buy
those shares? The banks.
There is a projection that the investment dealers of Canada are
going to have an extraordinary year. They will have great profits
this year. Guess what the main contributing factor was on ``Canada
AM'' report this morning. The privatization of CN Rail.
This is very interesting. It is a very cosy arrangement. A crown
corporation is in the process of privatizing. The underwriters are
investment dealers who are, to a large degree, owned by the
banking community. The banking community will, through its
subsidiaries, show a tremendous profit. The banks will earn
approximately $5 billion this year and, as well, the investment
dealers will realize a terrific return.
The banks are also saying they want to sell the insurance product
because it will give them more money. Associated with that money
comes a far more significant issue, of which I am most fearful,
which is the concentration of power. When a few people can decide
where the money is going to be applied and how it is going to be
invested, that is too much power in the hands of too few people.
That is my big concern.
Every effort should be made to balance this situation very
carefully. We must not run into this situation without being very
clear about the implications.
16816
Comparisons will inevitably be made by the banking
community. The banks will argue that they should have the service
because to be competitive globally they have to be able to sell
insurance. Let us look at this situation.
Approximately 2,000 banks operate in France, while in Germany
there are 4,600 licensed banks. With such intense competition it is
difficult for a European bank to cross-subsidize its entry into the
insurance business. That situation cannot be compared to the one
that exists in Canada. To use that argument is not only specious but
misleading. We have to be very very careful not to get sucked into
that kind of situation.
(1235)
To suggest the banks are going to take control is rather easy to
understand. In 1992 reforms gave the chartered banks unrestricted
powers to own trust companies. A few years later, what portion of
the trust business is now in the banks? Almost all of it. Less than
three years after the 1992 financial institution reforms came into
effect only two independent trust companies of any size remained
in the business. The danger of banks cross-subsidizing their entry
into other financial services is that it is provoking a reduction in
competition for consumers.
Probably the most vicious argument is that all this entry into the
marketing of insurance through the branch network is in the
consumers' interests because they will have one stop shopping.
That may be convenient, but will the consumer get the best advice?
Will the consumer get the best price? Will the best interests of the
consumer be served? That ought to be the consideration, not
whether the consumer can do it all in one place. If the customer
gets a bum deal in one place, it is a bum deal regardless of the fact
that it was very convenient to do it in that place. That becomes our
concern.
We need to make sure the power is balanced, that we have a
separation so the people's best interests not only now, but in the
long term, are looked after as well.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
contribution on a very important issue.
It is important for members of the House and the public to know
that the critic for industry from the Reform Party has been working
very hard in committee over the last two years on the whole issue
of access to capital for small businessmen and women. The issue
we are debating today is very important for that whole small
business market.
We have been trying to the best of our ability in a non-partisan
way to try to change the thought processes of the banks in their
attitudes toward small business. Frankly, after two years despite a
bunch of PR from the banks we have not accomplished a lot.
Does the member not fear or have concern that those million
small businessmen and women out there who depend by and large
on that relationship with their branch managers will once again lose
leverage with their financial institution because once they take on
the insurance component of a business relationship, that small
business will have no other place to deal than with the bank? If that
relationship is not solid then that small businessman's or
businesswoman's whole equation is in jeopardy.
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would
like to divide my answer into three parts.
The first part has to do with whether the businessman is going to
feel coerced into buying the product the banker is shoving down his
throat. The question then becomes is the bank in this instance
acting as a broker for a variety of insurance companies or is it
going to be presenting its own insurance company which it owns?
Talk about a conflict of interest; there it is.
The second part concerns whether the individual gets the best
possible premium rate. The individual, in order to get the loan
through, will buy the insurance as well at the same time.
(1240)
The third point is that recently the banking community had a
study done on its branch network. It seems to me that both in the
United States and here in Canada the conclusion was and the
recommendation was to reduce the number of branches. That
network, which is supposed to be this great fanning out, is actually
going to go the other way.
I do not think that businessmen or individuals are going to be
served as well as they are today.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in debate on Bill C-100. I am going
to bring something a little different to this debate. I take my hon.
colleague's comments very much to heart. This debate has been
well motivated by the very best spirit of Parliament to try to bring
all kinds of light to a very important piece of legislation before the
House.
I have listened very carefully to the debate. We are dealing with
the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the
Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation. I will confine my
remarks primarily to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions because this legislation is designed to enhance the
protection of the assets of ordinary people. This is the kind of
legislation that Parliament and the government should be all about.
I believe it is exactly that.
Small people put their life savings into financial institutions
which are regulated by the Government of Canada. We must at all
costs ensure that their deposits are safe. This legislation builds on
earlier legislation, primarily because we have seen some
unfortunate incidents in the financial marketplace of late. I am
thinking of the collapse of Confederation Life and the earlier
difficulties with other institutions. Certainly the depositors and the
investors in these organizations were paid back. Nevertheless, a
question of confidence arose from these eventualities.
16817
Bill C-100 is an effort to address this problem of confidence. In a
nutshell the legislation gives a mandate to the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions to investigate, along with
various other things.
I am very interested in this legislation because it is a model for
what can be done in other sectors. It is a model for what can be
done in the not for profit sector.
It is well known that I am an MP who has shown a great deal of
interest in the regulation of charities and non-profit organizations,
which currently are, basically, very poorly regulated now. They are
controlled by a hodge-podge of legislation here and there, court
precedents and that kind of thing. Yet the not for profit sector
represents about $120 billion of revenue a year going in and out of
these organizations.
On the other hand, deposits of around $600 million are covered
by Bill C-100. We have comparable huge industries, one that is
subject to very fine regulation now, one that does not have very
much regulation.
I would like to go through Bill C-100 and put it up against what I
would like to see happen with the not for profit sector.
First, Bill C-100 gives a mandate to the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions. In effect, it lays out the
rules. It says this organization can investigate and monitor all
institutions that are in the business of taking deposits from ordinary
citizens. We would like to see with the not for profit sector a charity
commissioner with a similar mandate, which incidentally does not
exist at this time.
(1245)
Bill C-100 also adds something that is vitally important and very
near and dear to my heart. It enhances disclosure. The public
throughout Canada is demanding that institutions be more
transparent than they have been hitherto. To give the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions the ability to track what is
happening in deposit organizations Bill C-100 requires a higher
level of disclosure.
For example, it requires all deposit institutions to disclose their
balance sheets in much more enhanced detail than is defined by
regulation. It requires the disclosure of executive salaries. That is a
favourite issue with me because executive compensation is not a
matter of privacy when dealing with the public trust. It is a way of
determining whether the executives of an organization who have
the public trust are acting in the public's best interest. In other
words one of the most instant signals of trouble with an institution
is a very high executive salary and very low results on the balance
sheets.
Bill C-100 requires an enhanced level of disclosure of the assets
and liabilities of deposit taking institutions. Some of my colleagues
feel that is an invasion of the central government into the affairs of
an organization. Indeed it may be a provincial organization such as
the caisses populaires in Quebec.
Nevertheless if we are to know what is happening we need the
details. It requires an enhanced monitoring of assets and liabilities.
I can compare that with non-profit organizations and say that it
would be an enormous step forward if the public had access to the
details of how non-profit organizations are spending their money
and what are their assets. Presently no such regime exists for
non-profit organizations. As such, for charities it is very restrictive
in its level of public disclosure.
Bill C-100, however, would give all this to the public so that
everyone could see what is happening, including the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions. This is the most
important.
Bill C-100 defines the role of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions as his office monitors deposit taking organizations.
There is a whole schedule of warning bells. Certain things happen.
Certain things appear on the books. The Superintendent of
Financial Institutions will ask questions. If further problems occur
the questions will be more probing. They will go deeper and
deeper. There is a whole schedule of early warning levels for the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
The organization knows the benchmarks at each level, the
benchmarks going down as it gets into trouble. It knows what to
expect, what it has to give, and what is expected of it by the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Bill C-100 lays out very
clearly what will happen when there is a crisis and what are the
steps if an organization is deemed to be in significant trouble, for
example if its liabilities exceed its assets or that kind of thing.
I can compare with charities and non-profit organizations and
say that is precisely what we want with charities and non-profit
organizations that also have the public trust and are in effect
chartered by the government. They ought to be able to convince the
public that they are using the money wisely and well.
When it is determined that a deposit taking organization is in a
sorry state financially, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions can move in to take over. Basically it will dismember
the organization or sell it.
(1250 )
We need the same for the not for profit sector. Right now if a
charity is deemed to be in trouble it is a painful and difficult
16818
process to take it out of action no matter how extraordinary its
failure is. In the case of not for profit organizations there is no real
legislation to take them out of the picture at all if they have
problems. We only find out about the problems when they get into
such difficulty that it hits the news or if there is a criminal or
extraordinary charge. Otherwise secrecy is the order of the day
with respect to charities and non-profit organizations.
Bill C-100 applies transparency and a whole regime of what to
do when organizations that have the public trust get into trouble.
There is a series of regulations to look after the problem. I wish the
revenue minister and the finance minister would take note of the
structure and effectiveness of Bill C-100.
One problem of the not for profit sector is that it has been
unregulated for many years. The problem of bringing in legislation
to control it seems insuperable. However Bill C-100 is the model
that could be used to set up a charity commissioner or a not for
profit commissioner who would bring the entire $120 billion sector
under regulation and into transparency so that public confidence in
charities and not for profit organizations could be restored.
My comments will be in another direction temporarily. I listened
with great attention to the debate on the bill in the House last
Friday. I was struck by the comments of Bloc Quebecois and
Reform Party members who tend to be opposed to the bill. At one
point the Liberal member for Willowdale stood and with great
passion complained that the opposition to the bill of the Bloc
Quebecois, and to some degree the Reform Party, was as a result of
their separatist leanings.
I listened with great attention to what I heard from the Bloc and
the Reform Party and I did not hear separatism so much as I heard
provincialism. I heard from the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform
Party about the fundamental problem with Confederation. There is
always a tension between the federal government in the central
power and the provincial powers. The provinces are always looking
for more power and saying: ``You are intruding into our affairs''.
This is natural and normal aspect of Canada as we know it today. It
is a pity that the Bloc Quebecois translates provincialism into
separatism. Bill C-100 clearly illustrates why federalism works and
why provincialism in this case should not be the order of the day.
I will explain myself. Certain aspects of our political life occur
at a provincial or municipal level. At that level politicians are
normally taken up by local needs, almost selfish needs. It is very
difficult sometimes for local politicians to look at the grand scheme
of things when they have local community and provincial concerns
to look at. This was illustrated last week by a Reform Party motion
dealing with the suggestion that the federal government should
force municipalities to provide better sewage treatment rather than
dumping effluent into the seas. It was a classic case of where it was
easier for the municipality to use its taxes on things that matter to
its people locally rather than to worry about the environmental
aspects of a problem being caused to the country at large or the
world at large.
(1255)
So it is with financial institutions, with charities and non-profit
organizations. The need for central regulation of charities and
non-profit organizations is amply illustrated by the example of the
Nanaimo Holding Society in British Columbia that is under
investigation for suspicion of having diverted charity funds to the
provincial NDP of British Columbia. Without commenting on
where that investigation will go, it is the kind of reason we need
arm's length regulation of public institutions with the public trust.
At the provincial level or the municipal level these organizations
may be subject to undue political influence. If there is something
like the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions that
can look from afar at an organization and be out of reach of local
politicians we are better guaranteed that the public trust is being
served by the organization. The warning will be sounded by an
organization that has no axe to grind or has no involvement in the
institution.
The classic example was during the recent referendum when it
was claimed that the caisse populaire was supporting the Canadian
dollar. We learned from the caisse subsequently that it was not
doing any such thing. Nor should it. It is a classic reason for
needing an organization like the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions. If undue influence were exerted by the local
political power, be it the province or the municipality, control
would be in an arm's length organization that exists outside the
zone of political interference.
Quebec and the caisse benefit from federalism because of an
organization like the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions. The benefit is even greater because all deposit taking
organizations are dependent on the rest of the country for the
confidence the public has in them.
Let us just suppose that every banking institution, every deposit
taking institution were separately administered in each province, as
I suspect has been suggested by the Reform Party. We would not
have the level of confidence in the institutions that we have when
people in Quebec or British Columbia, for example, know that the
institution is subject to the same rules of transparency, openness
and honesty across the country from sea to sea. It does not matter
whether the organization is in Quebec or in Nova Scotia. Because
we have organizations like the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions, Canadians from sea to sea can have
confidence in their institutions.
16819
Bill C-100 deserves the support of the entire House regardless
of our individual viewpoints on centralized government or
decentralized government. This legislation serves us all regardless
of our political viewpoints. It serves the ordinary person.
I should like to discuss the bill at great length but I know my
time is up. It is the kind of legislation which makes federalism
work and of which I am proud as a member of the government.
(1300)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will take
advantage of the opportunity afforded by the debate on Bill C-100
to draw the attention of this House to the inconsistencies and poor
decision-making that undermine the very foundation of the
federation.
I have had an opportunity during the past thirty years to observe,
as many of us have, the evolution of Canadian federalism. A
system based on certain relations between the federal government
and the provinces, federalism has never been able to settle the issue
of Quebec, Quebec which has the largest national minority in
Canada. The Fathers of Confederation designed a system of
government in which the provinces maintained a large measure of
autonomy. In the twentieth century, two world wars, the emergence
of the welfare state and the modernization of institutions as part of
today's worldwide trend towards globalization gave the central
government a chance to intervene increasingly in the
administration of the provinces.
This normal development in a country whose geography was
continental in size was never well received by the Quebec
government which, for most French Canadians and later
Quebecers, had always come first. Any attempt or decision made
by the government in Ottawa to improve the way this country was
governed has always been perceived by successive governments in
Quebec as an encroachment on the prerogatives of the Quebec
National Assembly.
The sovereignty plus partnership proposal of Quebec
sovereignists constitutes the only concrete and realistic initiative to
get out of the vicious circle that has poisoned the existence of this
beautiful and great country that is Canada. Yes, Canada is an
exceptional country. Although the current state of its public
finances has prevented it from developing its full potential, this is
due to the legacy left by former Prime Minister Trudeau and to the
inept financial management of the present Prime Minister who was
then Minister of Finance.
Under his stewardship, the deficit rose to $10.4 billion in
1977-78 and to $12.6 billion in 1978-79. For the first time, the
annual deficit exceeded the 10 billion dollar mark, before spiralling
completely out of control during the years that followed. In power
for far too long and instructed by English Canada to deal with the
Quebec problem, Pierre Trudeau believed he could unite the
country by wooing voters with wall to wall social programs. He
temporarily reduced certain disparities which today reappear with a
vengeance as a result of the debt left us by the former Prime
Minister.
Yes, Canada is an exceptional country, and the only way to deal
with the crisis in our public finances, with useless administrative
overlap and internal constitutional bickering, is to create a new
economic and political partnership between Quebec and Canada,
with a sovereign Quebec engaging in continuing negotiations
between two sovereign and equal states. Yes, Canada is an
exceptional country, but as Quebecers, we want our own country.
We know Quebec will also be an exceptional country and will be
Canada's first global partner. Canada will be an even better
country, once it has stopped the bickering and useless power
struggles with a sovereign Quebec that will maintain special ties
with Canada, based on equality and friendship.
Instead of supporting this view of relations between modern
states, instead of supporting the proposals for renewal and change
which the Prime Minister promised us during the last days of the
referendum campaign in Quebec, the government proposes Bill
C-100 on financial institutions, after tabling C-76 in which Ottawa
assumed the power to impose national standards on social
programs. Ottawa made another attempt at centralization with Bill
C-88, to implement the agreement on internal trade, an agreement
that would allow the government to act as the ultimate arbiter in
interprovincial disputes.
(1305)
The federal government and Quebec are going to be at each
other's throat over regional development. Under Bill C-91, Ottawa
will also be able to sign agreements with local authorities directly,
without regard for provincial governments or existing regional
structures.
All these legislative efforts aimed at centralization and at
building a modern country could be meaningful and have some
implication, if Quebec's situation were settled once and for all.
Canada could blithely carry on with its efforts at economic
modernization and streamlining the administration of its structures,
if Quebec's situation were settled through the
sovereignty-partnership arrangement we sovereignists are
proposing to Quebecers. Ottawa will always be too centralizing for
most Quebecers, whereas the majority of Canadians believe, quite
legitimately, honestly and proudly in a strong central government.
In the meantime, no attempt can really reform Canadian
federalism without the resolution of the Quebec-Canada issue,
through the emergence of a sovereign Quebec that would keep
close ties with its Canadian partner.
16820
Instead, the Liberal government is proposing Bill C-100, which
simply fuels the flames of federal-provincial relations. Let us have
a closer look at the implications of this bill for Quebec's financial
institutions.
Bill C-100 is very clear. It enables the federal government to
take action faster when a financial institution is in difficulty. It also
aims to reduce the risks inherent in Canada's financial system.
Under clause 6 of Schedule I, which establishes a Canadian
clearing system, the Governor of the Bank of Canada reserves the
right to issue directives, not only to clearing houses but to financial
institutions as well, regardless of their charter. So, for example,
Bill C-100 would allow the Governor of the Bank of Canada to
issue directives and orders to institutions that are institutions of
Quebec essentially, such as: Fiducie Desjardins, the Fonds de
solidarité des travailleurs du Québec or the Lévesque Beaubien
Geoffrion brokerage firm, to name but a few.
The Superintendent of Financial Institutions and of the
Winding-up Act will be given more powers and will be able to
intervene directly with provincial charter institutions.
The increased options available to the federal Superintendent of
Financial Institutions will mean costly duplication and inefficient
management of savings. The Inspecteur général des institutions
financières du Québec already monitors the situation in this regard
so that the federal superintendent's new powers will simply
duplicate those that already exist.
The federal superintendent's broader powers may prompt
Ottawa and Quebec City to issue court challenges that will leave
struggling financial institutions and their depositors in the lurch.
Bill C-100 shows that the federal government is more concerned
about assuming new powers than about ensuring the viability of
financial institutions and protecting savings.
Bill C-100 will make major changes to the deposit insurance
system in Canada. To become members, financial institutions now
pay premiums based on deposit liabilities. The bill provides that
the premiums will no longer be based on the financial institution's
deposit liabilities but on its level or degree of risk. This raises
many questions. For example, what criteria will be used to
determine a financial institution's risk rating? The federal
government now refuses to make public the regulations that will set
risk ratings.
What will be the impact of federal risk ratings on financial
institutions? No one knows.
Basing premium amounts on risk levels may penalize Quebec
financial institutions particularly because they are relatively small.
Since large corporations are generally seen as less risky and since
Quebec has its own deposit insurance scheme, in which premiums
are not based on risk levels as such, we will end up with two
systems: one based on risk and the other on deposit liabilities, with
all the inconsistencies and contradictions that this entails.
(1310)
Bill C-100 shows once again Ottawa's determination to
centralize activities. By establishing Canada-wide clearing and
settlement systems, this bill encroaches on powers exercised by the
Quebec securities commission and the Quebec inspector general of
financial institutions.
All this results in costly overlap. Financial institutions will be
subject to two levels of control, a situation which will result in
unnecessary administrative duplication.
As I already mentioned, in addition to Bill C-100, the
government has tabled three other centralizing pieces of legislation
since the last federal budget, namely Bill C-76, Bill C-88 and Bill
C-91. The centralization exercise is continuing as strongly as ever.
A 1991 Treasury Board study showed that 67 per cent of federal
programs overlap provincial ones. With Bill C-100, Ottawa keeps
heading in the same direction, towards a dead end. According to
Julien and Proulx, from the University of Montreal, close to 1,000
meetings take place every year between Ottawa and Quebec public
servants, simply to harmonize program objectives, or to ensure that
provincial and federal programs are not incompatible with one
another. Bill C-100 will give all these public servants another
opportunity to meet, simply to try to harmonize the criteria used to
determine premiums paid by financial institutions.
Pierre Fortin, who is an economist, estimates that three billion
dollars is wasted annually because of overlapping Quebec and
federal programs. Such overlap results in unnecessary costs for
taxpayers, businesses and citizens. These costs have an impact on
the debt and, in the end, jeopardize institutions which were set up
to support our country's blueprint for society. From that
perspective, Bill C-100 is nothing but an ill-considered attempt by
this government to centralize, under the pretence of protecting
investors, when the system in Quebec works very well.
This bill is also an unacceptable intrusion into the securities
industry, when the private sector and major business associations
already complain about excessive government involvement. Such
abusive interference always results in lower productivity and in a
shortfall, this at a time when there is an urgent need to improve the
sad state of public finances. Instead of withdrawing and
concentrating on the essential, as it should, given its chronic state
of indebtedness, the federal government is increasingly interfering
in fields of provincial jurisdiction, as well as in the activities of our
businesses.
In Quebec, the various governments which have been in office
over the last 30 years have all strongly defended Quebec's
jurisdiction over the securities industry. Even Daniel Johnson
reaffirmed that position in February 1994, when he was Quebec's
16821
premier. The authority given to the Governor of the Bank of
Canada to issue directives or orders to participants goes squarely
against that traditional Quebec position, which was upheld even by
provincial Liberals, which is quite something. As in the case of
manpower training, there is a strong consensus in Quebec
regarding this issue.
Consequently, the official opposition cannot support Bill C-100
on financial institutions, because it maintains a situation which, for
more than 25 years now, has led to disputes which have drained the
country and put it into debt. In order to end the current financial
crisis, the federal government must stop getting involved in the
activities of businesses. Similarly, in order to end the current
constitutional crisis, Ottawa must stop getting involved in fields of
provincial jurisdiction and let Quebec take charge of its own
destiny. Unfortunately, this is just the opposite of what is proposed
in Bill C-100, which is yet another stage in the exercise conducted
by a centralizing government which is out of step with current
events.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
how would the hon. member explain the increased riskiness that
apparently is to be expected by the financial institutions in Quebec
relative to the financial institutions in other parts of Canada? In
particular, I would like him to address the failure of Confederation
Life, which was not exactly a small financial institution. I would
like him to compare the risks Confederation Life had vis-à-vis
some of the institutions which exist in Quebec.
(1315)
I would like the hon. member to relate the small institutions that
operate in Quebec vis-à-vis those that operate in other provinces,
for example the Atlantic provinces, British Columbia, Alberta and
Saskatchewan and some very small institutions that are covered by
the CDIC. Is it the same kind of problem he is alluding to in
Quebec, that in fact there are riskier situations? Exactly what point
is the hon. member trying to make?
[Translation]
Mr. Bélisle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member
that we already have a deposit insurance corporation in Quebec.
Savers and investors' savings are already protected under the law,
and I agree with him. A government majority member who spoke
previously mentioned that the attitude displayed by both Bloc and
Reform members could be described as a provincialist attitude or,
in the case of the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist attitude.
I would like to tell these hon. members that all we, Quebecers,
want is to be able to manage our own affairs. We certainly have
nothing against any streamlining effort, any legislation or measure
that Canada may want to make, pass or take to better protect
people's savings. But as Quebecers and members representing the
single largest minority in Canada, we must point out that we have a
unique culture, a unique language, and have always defined
ourselves as a distinct nation. All we want is to manage our own
affairs. Whether in finance or in any other area, we want to be
regulated and protected by our own laws.
We have absolutely nothing against any legislation being
introduced before this Parliament to improve the way financial
markets operate, or the way Canada operates. As I said earlier in
my remarks, Canada is indeed an exceptional country. And I think
it is destined for further growth in the future. But as Quebecers, that
is not our goal as a society. It is not our goal as a country. All we
want is just to manage our own affairs. And in a future referendum,
in two, three or four years from now, I think that the majority of
Quebecers will vote yes, and then, as I indicated earlier, we will
have the opportunity to keep working together, hand in hand, not as
one of nine or one of ten, but with all nine English provinces and
the federal government. We will have the opportunity to keep
working together on an equal footing, one on one, with Quebec on
one side of the table and Ottawa on the other side.
That is all I wanted to say on this subject today. That is the
context in which we want to continue to co-operate with you: as
two peoples on equal footing.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity
to stand and support Bill C-100, an act to amend, enact and repeal
certain laws relating to financial institutions.
This bill, which is essentially a housekeeping bill, has many
good features in it. We are giving the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions, an organization within the Government of Canada, the
power and the capacity to have a much more specific
accountability. This is not just in terms of protecting depositors'
funds, but also in terms of making sure that the financial
institutions are following all of those rules and regulations they are
responsible for following which is the reason they got their
franchise.
(1320 )
A bank is really not any different from a McDonald's franchise.
The person who applies for a McDonald's franchise has to live by
the rules and regulations of the administration granting the
franchise. If that McDonald's franchiser is not following the rules,
then as I am sure members have heard from people who have
owned a franchise other than McDonald's such as Budget or Swiss
Chalet, the management will say: ``There are rules and regulations
attached to the franchise that you have been allowed to operate.
You are not following them and if you do not clean up your act, we
16822
are going to pull the franchise. We will pull our agreement. We will
take the franchise away from you''.
Very few Canadians realize that the people of Canada through
their trustees and agents in this House of Commons are the ones
that grant the banking franchises which exist in Canada. The men
and women in this room are the ones who design the rules and
regulations that allow the banks to operate. The basic thrust behind
that banking franchise is to protect depositors' funds but they are
also to be in the business of lending money.
The banks, the franchisees, have done a pretty good job of those
7,000 little franchise operations across Canada, whether they be the
Royal Bank or the Bank of Nova Scotia. They have done a pretty
good job of protecting depositors' funds.
Where I have a problem is the way they have been handling their
relationship with small business men and women. If I had my
druthers and if I had had an opportunity, I would have added a
couple of amendments to the bill. I would have liked a very specific
responsibility given to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions
on behalf of small business.
As the Superintendent of Financial Institutions goes through all
the lists of responsibilities he has to maintain in his relationship
with banks there is special mention for small business. I do not see
it in here anywhere. On that score, I am disappointed. It does not
take away of course from supporting the bill because there are a lot
of good things in this bill.
Today I have the opportunity to stand on my feet in the House
two years into our mandate. I have to say that our effort to sensitize
this country's banks to become much more supportive of small
business has not grown. That attitude change has not grown the
way it should have grown.
I see my colleague, the industry critic from the Reform Party,
who sits on the committee with me. He is nodding his head in
approval that we really have not done as much as we should have
done in committee.
(1325)
I do not want to say that our efforts and the efforts of the banks
have been a total failure. Two weeks ago there was a meeting of the
industry committee. It was reported in a document that at the end of
the second year there was an increase in the small business loan
float. We were all very excited about getting that document. We
saw that the loan float for all small business men and women in
Canada was approximately $28 billion. That is the total of
outstanding loans being utilized by small business men and
women. That is a 1 per cent increase in the small business loan float
over the last year.
Granted some people would argue that we are lucky it was not a
decrease. However, when we consider the government's Small
Business Loan Act guarantee, which is also included in that and the
fact that the float increased, the real risk the banks have taken on
behalf of small business men and women has not increased that
much in the last two years. We are going to have to continue to
press forward.
We hope eventually the banking culture, the men and women
who operate the 7,000 bank franchises across Canada, in the not too
distant future will be fully converted. We hope they will realize that
the only way the economy is going to get back on the right track
and men and women will get back to work is by making sure the
small business community is given the maximum opportunity and
the best environment in which to grow.
The Superintendent of Financial Institutions can play a major
role in helping members of Parliament accomplish that policy
directive. I am not talking about my policy directive here today; it
is a policy directive of the Prime Minister of Canada. Make no
mistake about it. Two months before the last national election
campaign began the Prime Minister of Canada sat in the press
gallery across the street from Parliament and said on coast to coast
television that we were going to be the government that would
really work to change the attitude of financial institutions toward
small business men and women.
When I stand in the House today and support this bill and talk
about access to capital for small business men and women, I am
speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Industry. In the last budget even the Minister of Finance said that
we have to create new benchmarks for the banks in relation to the
small business sector.
Those in the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions who will take this bill after it has passed here today and
later through the Senate are responsible for monitoring, reviewing
and auditing small business activities. I plead with them to assist us
in sensitizing those 7,000 branch managers, those franchise holders
that small business must be very much a part of the language of the
review, et cetera.
I want to move on to another aspect of the bill which I am
pleased to see is addressed. It is on page 29 and deals with the
whole business of derivatives.
(1330 )
It is no secret to anyone in the House that I have always been
concerned about the private casinos the financial institutions in this
country operate, the derivative sections in the banks. I see that this
bill gives the Superintendent of Financial Institutions enhanced
16823
authority to go into those derivative sections within the financial
institutions and do thorough and complete audits.
I will be honest. I do not understand the complexity of the
derivative game the banks are playing. I notice other members are
nodding likewise. However, I trust that the expertise exists within
the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Some
members are noting they are not convinced of that. I hope they are
wrong. I will tell them why I hope they are wrong. I know of one
financial institution in this country that in its derivative section,
which I call the private casino, trades close to $30 billion a day. In
one 24-hour period it trades $30 billion. This is an amazing amount
of paper pushing, going back and forth. There are very small
margins but with very big exposure.
If the essence of this bill, as my colleague from Dundas said
earlier, is to make sure those depositors' funds are protected, then
the Superintendent of Financial Institutions should start by making
sure there is a good solid handle on all those private casinos, all
those derivative sections in all the financial institutions.
Do members not wonder sometime how one bank can find $30
billion to play the derivative game in one day yet cannot seem to
find the resources for the small business men and women who
really require a small loan of $10,000 or $15,000 or $50,000? Am I
losing it? Does anyone wonder about that sometimes? It is a totally
different issue, but it has to do with will and attitude, which is the
point I am trying to make.
If the board of directors or the senior management of a bank
decides it is going to be in the derivative business and play with
$30 billion a day, it happens. These guys work 24 hours a day, 7
days a week in these derivative sections of the bank. So if the
management of a bank puts forward a policy that allows $30 billion
a day to be pushed around the world by these unelected,
unaccountable people who can affect the way our dollar goes and
affect our interest rates, then why can we not get the same kind of
will from the management of the banks to increase the float to
small business by a little better than one per cent a year?
I noticed my colleague from the Reform Party, the industry
critic, is saying that we can do it. We on this side of the House
appreciate his consistent support as we deal with this issue.
This is a good bill because it gives the authority to the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions to make sure that not only
are depositors' funds protected in a more thorough way, but the
whole administration of the bank franchises is followed according
to the basic framework of the Bank Act. Alongside that
responsibility, I would also ask them, as they go through their
check list of responsibilities, to add another one: check and make
sure that those 7,000 franchise holders of bank licences or bank
charters across Canada are doing what they should be doing for
small business.
(1335 )
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry
for raising the issue of what is happening to small business. I do not
believe he is taking enough credit for some of the things that have
happened and have changed the attitude of the banks.
On the one hand, it seems to me that the committee succeeded in
saying we have to get more numbers together to ensure that we
know for a fact they are not giving money to small business. That is
important. The committee was sensitive not only to small business,
but to the banks and to the House.
The banks will never be able to escape from the investigation
that took place. Each of the chartered banks has appointed an
ombudsman and they are now looking for a national ombudsman.
I know that the parliamentary secretary feels the national
ombudsman will probably not be very effective because he will be
appointed by a board of directors that is made up of representatives
from the banks. We will see whether that is the case.
With all of this, the parliamentary secretary has demonstrated
one word, although he has never said it: transparency. It is about
transparency, being open, telling the story the way it is and making
sure the banks come up with their numbers.
I ask the parliamentary secretary whether he agrees with the
provision that the premiums paid by the financial institutions to the
CDIC should be left secret. Should that not become transparent?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, before I
deal with the specific answer to the question I will deal with the
first part of my colleague's remarks.
I do not believe it is appropriate for us to stand in the House and
defend the chartered banks of Canada until they have really
delivered on the objectives the hon. member helped to form in our
``Taking Care of Small Business'' document.
Yes, the banks have agreed to create an ombudsman, which they
essentially appoint, because they control the board of directors.
However, I am nervous about our effectiveness as a committee.
Yes, they will report more numbers, but let us face it, the banks will
not give us what we wanted in recommendation number two, where
we wanted a much greater regional breakdown. When I only see a
one per cent increase, which is what I call real action, not
words-they are fantastic. Remember that campaign of the Bank of
Montreal: ``We want to share your pain''. When I see only a one per
cent increase in the small business float, are they getting to us? Are
they pushing us off the mark? Are they pushing us off our focus?
Are they distracting us?
16824
This is not bank bashing. There are a million small business
men and women out there, and there are as many in the hon.
member's riding as there are in mine. If his small business men
and women are saying to him that the banks are doing a great job,
then his small business men and women are different from mine.
They are saying we have not made much of a difference yet.
I plead with all members, if we get one thing done in this session
for small business, let us make sure that we get the banks into the
business of loaning to small business in a serious way.
(1340 )
In answer to the member's specific question about CDIC fees
being disclosed, for me it is a slam dunk: I think they should be.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I share the zeal with which the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood campaigns on behalf of small businesses.
I know exactly what he is talking about. I have spent my entire life
in small business and I know the problems small businesses have
had with banks. Quite often the small business people I talk to feel
like third class citizens when they go to these big banks to try to get
some financial help.
I agree that it must be demanded of the banks that they get
serious about dealing with small business in a substantial manner.
As far as I am concerned, one per cent is a bit low. I would like to
see it higher.
I believe there is an inherent and traditional conflict of interest
when it comes to the relationships that governments, whether they
be Tories, Liberals, or whatever, have had with the banks over the
last several years. The major contributors to the federal parties,
both the Tories and the Liberals, have been these very powerful
banking institutions themselves. The banks are the most powerful
financial institutions, but they are also probably the most
influential institutions as far as political direction.
I hope this government has the guts to stand up to the banks and
hold a hammer to their heads and say the way they have done things
in the past with the Liberal Party and with the Tory Party does not
go any more and that the government wants to see them make a
profound effort toward helping small business to thrive and prosper
in this country. Until a government is prepared to do that, mean it
and stick to it, nothing is going to change in the attitude of banks
toward small business. That is the key to all this.
We can talk all day long about legislation, and we are going to
put this in and we are going to make this amendment, but the
government has to be prepared to back it up. I hope this is the
government that does it.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I presume
the hon. member was talking about the campaign donations made
to the parties. I do not think political donations made by the banks
really have any effect on whether a government would deal with an
issue such as this. I do not see it. I could be wrong.
Where we have a problem as a government, and this is all
governments, has to do with the bonds, the government coupons
that are being clipped by banks; in other words, buying our debt.
That is where bank decision makers can have a tremendous
influence on the executive of a government. We are so dependent
on the marketing and the purchasing of those bonds.
That goes back to what the member from Okanagan said earlier
in his remarks, which has to do with transparency. When we have a
bill like this today, Bill C-100, where we are dealing with the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions and all the major financial
institutions in Canada, I find it absolutely stunning that there is not
a list of speakers the length of this room who want to speak on this
bill. It gives us an opportunity not only to exchange with each other
but also to send a message to the implementers of this bill where
we, as a collective group, are coming from.
(1345)
In my judgment, as MPs, we are blowing a gift to debate one of
the most fundamental issues facing Canadians today, which is the
ability of small business to gain access to capital. The
Superintendent of Financial Institutions is one of the key players in
making sure that happens and happens properly.
What are we doing? We have just half a dozen speakers, then the
bill will go through the House. It is not that the bill would not go
through the House, but this is a good reason to have a good,
exciting debate to provide some hope for the only sector in the
economy that is creating jobs.
Where are we today on this issue? I am not being critical of the
House. I am just saying that every now and then we get a gift
handed to us. This is one of the bills that affects the lives of most of
our constituents. I wish we could create a little more excitement
around it so the superintendent would understand where all of us
are coming from on this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill C-100.
I feel obliged to say that this is yet another unfortunate federal
initiative which, despite some slight impression that they are
willing to help small business and create employment, is only
intended, when it comes right down to it-at least in the eyes of a
member from Quebec-to increase the powers of control and
centralization over certain of the country's financial institutions.
16825
The truth at the heart of the matter is that assigning powers to
a superintendent of financial institutions under Bill C-100
increases his powers. It also allows Ottawa to take action more
promptly when financial institutions are in difficulty, and here
again, in the eyes of a member from Quebec, this is merely a move
to increase the power in the hands of the federal government, since
we in Quebec already have institutions in place which do the job
and, what is more, do it very efficiently.
The Commission québécoise des valeurs mobilières is already in
place and working very well. We have an inspector general of
financial institutions who carries out the same duties Bill C-100
now wants to give to a superintendent at the federal level.
The game is therefore, of course, once again to beef up the
federal government's power, the power of centralization,
unfortunately at great cost, since once again there is overlap and
duplication. Duplication is part and parcel of the history of Canada,
the waste of having a federal department doing something, and a
provincial department doing the same thing. There is a virtually
endless list of examples of this fundamental problem of Canadian
federalism, which essentially seems to me to want to monopolize
powers in Ottawa, although there are already competent
institutions on the provincial level.
This bill is, I repeat, not the sole example of this logic, or
political attitude, within the federal government.
(1350)
I could easily recall from memory some six or seven other bills
brought before this House recently, since the election of the Liberal
government. Without going into them in great detail, I could
mention Bill C-52, which once attempts to add to federal power in
areas that are not only under provincial jurisdiction but also
concern the private sector. Then there is Bill C-95, which attempts
to establish national health standards, often contrary to the interests
and powers of the provincial governments.
We have C-96, which addresses human resources and also gives
increased powers to the minister in applying the department's
legislation. We have Bill C-91, which grants broader powers to the
Federal Business Development Bank, we have Bill C-88 on
interprovincial trade, which quite openly gives the federal
government residual powers, including the power to intervene in
agreements between the provinces. And there are many more
examples. I could go on all day about this.
This government is quite simply intent on increasing its powers
to guarantee a certain level of centralization and to keep the
provinces well under control. We have this enormous deficit in
Canada because the federal government in Ottawa has far too much
power and, as a result, is wasting money left and right. It is the
same old sad story of this country. As a system, Canadian
federalism has been wasteful, and the federal government has
failed to learn from its past mistakes. Even today, government
members tell us, in speeches that are hypocritical and make no
sense at all, that they are helping small business and will find ways
to give them more money.
We are already doing the job in Quebec. We have agencies that
are perfectly capable of meeting the requirements of small
businesses. In Quebec, we have set up a number of creative
initiatives to meet these requirements, in large municipalities and
also in the regions. Our financial institutions work very well. We
have all the resources and agencies we need to supervise these
institutions. And it works.
So why bother today with Bill C-100, which would establish at
the federal level a series of activities and institutions that already
exist at the provincial level? Again, and we keep repeating this all
the time, this is what is fundamentally wrong with the federal
system. I could go on and on about the disease, as it were, that
exists here in Ottawa, which is-perhaps unfortunately-not only
due to a lack of political will on the part of the government but is
reflected in the very survival of the whole bureaucracy established
in Ottawa for so many years, which is very invasive and whose
resistance to decentralizing powers to the provinces is ingrained,
although across the country, people keep asking for
decentralization.
The federal government has now tabled a bill that is a complete
contradiction of these repeated requests for decentralization. The
government cannot or will not listen. This is irresponsible,
especially considering the deficit, which is cause for serious
concern. It is extremely disturbing when a government tables bills
like the one before the House today.
(1355)
Bill C-100 is purely and simply another tiresome and costly
duplication gimmick. In Quebec, we know what this means. We
have problems with this, and perhaps this is one major reason for
Quebec's wanting to leave and its wanting to change the way
negotiations are conducted with the federal government. We want
to negotiate as equals, because, it would seem that English Canada
is unable to give the federal government a wake up call.
It will take Quebec's sovereignty to wake up the other provinces,
and it will be in their best interests, because they will be able to
reorganize themselves in more effective terms. When I talk of
duplication and the costs of the waste it entails, we know what that
means in Quebec. We have done a lot of studies on this. There have
been commissions and studies, including the Bélanger-Campeau
study in 1990, which gathered a lot of information. There was also
the study by Mr. Fortin, a Quebec economist, who said that, in all,
some $3 billion had been wasted due to federal and provincial
duplication-and this was only as far as Quebec was concerned.
16826
In other words, Quebec as a province could save some $3 billion
if there were not this duplication. Three billion dollars; that is a
lot of money. You will agree that $3 billion a year is a substantial
amount. If the Government of Quebec had this money to create
jobs, to lend it to small and medium businesses, jobs would be
created.
It is time the government stopped kidding us about wanting to be
more efficient and to create jobs, when, in fact, the only thing it
wants to do is increase its power. There are examples of
duplication. I tell you: all the latest studies show that Quebec alone
is losing $3 billion. If we were to look only at the matters essential
to Quebec's development, we could point, in the case of manpower
training for example, to another study showing that, because of
duplication between the federal and the provincial governments,
Quebec loses $250 million a year. There is no training and the
reason is that the federal government is trying to do the same job as
the province. Often the federal government implements initiatives
that run contrary to Quebec's interests.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, you will be able to continue
the debate after question period. It being two o'clock p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 31, we will now proceed to statements
by members.
_____________________________________________
16826
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
summer I attended Civic Pride Day in the village of Lakefield,
Ontario. This was the home of Margaret Laurence and before her of
two other famous authors, Catherine Parr Trail and Susannah
Mordy.
On this day, the village was celebrating no less than four
anniversaries. It was the 75th anniversary of the Lakefield
Hydroelectric Commission and Memorial Hall. It was the 100th
anniversary of the library and it was the 120th anniversary of the
first village council meeting.
The celebrations were organized by the LACAC, Lakefield
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee, with the support
of council and many volunteers and sponsors. Past and present
reeves and councillors were present. A historical booklet was
produced.
We do not take enough time to celebrate our rich and diverse
heritage. We need to think more about Canada as it really is today.
My thanks to the village of Lakefield for setting such a fine
example.
* * *
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the town
of Barrhead started off with an idea and watched it produce fame
and fortune. The idea, producing its own version of the $2 coin.
The fortune, raising enough money to beautify the downtown core.
How does it work? The Pride in Barrhead Association
representing over 100 local businesses minted the Barrhead
two-buck. The coin features two deer on one side and on the other
side the town's mascot, the blue heron. The two-buck is local
tender in Barrhead until the end of 1996.
Collectors from all parts of Canada are clamouring to get their
hands on this gold coin. The demand is so high that thousands more
had to be minted.
If members want more information on this unique fundraising
idea they could call my office. Better yet, they could purchase the
two-buck. They had better hurry; they are going like hotcakes.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, this morning I had the pleasure of participating in a
presentation to the Governor General at Rideau Hall.
Our small group presented the Governor General with a
Christmas tree, a white spruce, the provincial tree of
Saskatchewan, on behalf of the town of Meadow Lake which was
Canada's forestry capital in 1995 and on behalf of the Canadian
Forestry Association of which the Governor General is the
honorary patron.
I take the opportunity to thank the people of Meadow Lake and
the Meadow Lake Forestry Capital Society represented today by
Donna and Barry Aldous for the fine job that they have done on
behalf of forestry communities throughout Canada in 1995.
Meadow Lake's efforts during the past year will be fondly
remembered for many years to come.
I congratulate the people of Meadow Lake, their representatives
and the members of the Canadian Forestry Association for making
the forestry capital program such a success.
I wish the Governor General, his wife and staff an enjoyable
Christmas season with that fine white spruce in their lobby.
16827
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this past weekend in my riding of Annapolis
Valley-Hants I met with a group of young people involved with
Katimivik.
Katimivik is an Inuit word meaning meeting place. The project
being funded under Youth Services Canada brings youth between
the ages of 17 and 21 together to acquire work experience, become
involved in their communities and discover Canada.
Through exchange programs such as Katimivik, Canada's young
people have an excellent opportunity to travel and learn about all
regions of our great country. By promoting this wonderful program
the government is helping to bring young people together to
achieve common goals, build lifelong friendships and to help break
down regional barriers that often divide us.
I urge the government to continue to promote Katimivik and
other similar exchange programs as a valuable means of building
stronger ties among all parts of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Monday, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd. announced that it had
purchased a 12-acre site in Waterloo. Construction will begin
immediately on the new plant that will be occupied by the Panacom
automation division. The 75,000 square foot facility will be ready
by September 1996. Panacom designs, develops, markets and
manufactures network terminal devices for the worldwide market.
Since Panacom began in 1984 it has been a leader in its field.
Panacom is the number one supplier worldwide of X-stations,
which are network display devices that allow users to access
simultaneously multiple applications running on work stations.
Panacom is a genuine Canadian success story.
The people of my riding are delighted that Hewlett-Packard has
decided to invest in Waterloo. The new plant adds to the growing,
vibrant information technology sector in Waterloo riding. The new
plant will mean more research and development in my riding and
more jobs for the people of Waterloo.
To Hewlett-Packard and to the Panacom automation division we
send our congratulations and best wishes for continued success.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Gala des Masques, a moving event underlining the
richness of Quebec theatre was held last night. Today, we in the
Bloc Quebecois wish to pay tribute to the Quebec theatre actors,
producers, directors and technicians, whose art lights up the stages
of Quebec, Canada and the world.
As Jean-Louis Millette, one of the most talented theatre actors in
Quebec, pointed out, we can be very proud of Quebec theatre. We
have no cause to be jealous of any other country in the world.
We are all honoured by the creativity, talent, artistic research,
and mastery of both classical and modern plays shown by these
artists from every region of Quebec.
(1405)
All Quebec plays performed around the world are a source of
pride in and recognition of our cultural strength and vitality.
Congratulations to all our artists and creators.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the holiday season is a busy time for shoppers and
criminals alike.
The Peel regional police and police all across Canada have
compiled lists of suggestions to help people reduce the risk of
becoming a victim of crime. Among other things they suggest that
shoppers avoid carrying large amounts of cash and lock their
purchases in the trunks of their cars.
They remind people that empty cartons from high value products
such as televisions, computers and stereo equipment may cause a
thief to add their home to his post-Christmas shopping list. They
suggest that gifts and valuables be kept away from windows to
keep criminals from window shopping.
These crime prevention tips may keep thieves from stealing the
joy from our holidays. I am sure all members will join me in
commending the police on their fine work.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Liberal and Tory senators put a lump of coal in the
Christmas stockings of legitimate gun owners when they passed a
flawed gun bill last week.
16828
Again it is obvious that the concerns of law-abiding gun owners
do not count in the House or in the Senate. The Liberal
government ignored these concerns and rammed through
legislation which will do nothing to reduce crime but will establish
an extensive bureaucracy and give the justice minister
unprecedented powers.
When Liberal backbenchers voted with the wishes of their
constituents, the government gave them a swift kick to keep them
in line. It is the front benches that need a swift kick in their egos,
one that will propel them to the back and out the door.
Liberal, Tory, same old story. Tories out in 93. Liberals next, just
wait and see.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, A. K. Wigg
Elementary School of Fonthill in my riding of Erie took the first
place award out of approximately 80 entrants in the Niagara
Environmental Technology Exposition.
The parents, students, staff and members of the community have
embarked on a unique environmental project to transform the
school property of six acres into an environmentally friendly green
space.
The environmental nature area will include trails, wildlife,
habitat facilities including a butterfly garden, plantings of
Carolinian forest trees and shrubs, as well as woodland wildflowers
and ground cover, thereby returning the area to its natural habitat.
The outdoor educational classroom and amphitheatre will have
weather station features, compass, sundial, sculptures of cloud
formations and windmills. Environmental education will be taught
from the natural habitat right outside the classroom window.
I know, Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate A. K. Wigg's plan for
enhancing the environment, increasing environmental stewardship,
augmenting environmental education and positively involving the
community in an excellent project. It is innovative and
demonstrates the proactive approach that all Canadians should take
to the environment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
constitutional changes contemplated by the Prime Minister during
the referendum campaign are stirring up feelings of déjà vu.
We are still waiting for government proposals, and what is
emerging is not very encouraging: a recognition of distinct society
through a meaningless resolution of the Canadian Parliament that
falls far short of the Meech Lake agreement, and a right of veto
over any constitutional change that will be contingent on the
federal government's goodwill.
The Prime Minister has clearly taken the path recommended by
the Globe and Mail by giving Quebecers the impression that
changes will be made when, in fact, there will be nothing
meaningful for Quebec. The Prime Minister's proposal is
meaningless, period.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during
this period leading up to December 6 when Canadians are focusing
on the issues of violence in our communities it would serve all of
us well to review last June's Josephson report on ``Television
Violence: A Review of the Effects on Children of Different Ages''.
Dr. Wendy Josephson's research produced a useful reference
guide for broadcasters, producers and parents to help determine age
appropriate programming for Canada's children.
All the research from Canada, Japan, Europe and the United
States clearly demonstrates a correlation between television
violence and aggression at very young ages. Our children are
subject to positive and negative role models in the media.
(1410 )
We must ensure that television companies serve all Canadians
well, particularly our youngest Canadians. For safe communities,
safe streets and safe homes this is a critical issue.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, December 12 is the grand opening of Windsor's second
casino location, the Northern Belle Riverboat. With this event the
total number of casino jobs created in Windsor will rise by 950 to a
total of 3,000. Ninety per cent of these jobs are from the
Windsor-Essex county area.
The Northern Belle will entertain 2 million patrons on top of the
5.5 million that already visit the existing site. Eighty per cent of
those visitors are U.S. residents. That means 80 per cent of the
dollars spent are foreign dollars.
One of the major competitive advantages to Casino Windsor
over its American counterparts has been the safety factor which
will be further strengthened by the recent successful passage of the
government's gun control legislation. The legislation will not only
increase the safety of Canadians in Windsor. It also means good
16829
economic sense in Windsor because it leads to an environment in
which job creation thrives.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
address some comments to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition,
currently the Bloc Quebecois supported by the Liberals, with
specific reference to the words loyal and opposition.
According to the Oxford dictionary loyal means faithful,
trustworthy, true, steadfast in allegiance and devoted to the
sovereign or government of one's country. In the House the Bloc is
certainly not loyal to Her Majesty or to Canada and is openly
plotting against the government to set up a separate Quebec.
Turning to the word opposition, according to Beauchesne's the
official opposition is the largest minority group which is prepared
in the event of the resignation of government to assume office.
How can we have an opposition party that has no intention of
becoming government, at least not in Canada, and is attempting to
set up a separate independent state?
Clearly Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this 35th Parliament
is neither loyal to Canada nor is prepared to fulfil the role of
official opposition. It is time for the Bloc to step aside to make
room for the real opposition to the Liberals, the Reform Party of
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
time of the referendum, the Prime Minister of Canada promised
Quebecers change. All solutions had to be considered, including,
and I quote: ``administrative and constitutional''. As of October 31,
the Prime Minister's reassuring words gave way to chaotic ones.
Today, the Prime Minister says the Constitution must not be
changed: ``I said we were going to make changes to the federation,
constitutional changes, if necessary, but I never said they were
going to be constitutional''. The Prime Minister who said he
wanted to act quickly has nothing more to offer and is now saying
that he will act in due course-heaven knows when.
As Alain Dubuc put it so well in his commentary on Saturday,
the moral of the story is: ``Please, Mr. Prime Minister, say no
more''.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party has been calling for a much weaker federal
government. Once again Reformers are listening only to the small
percentage of Canadians who are their supporters. They are not
listening to Atlantic Canadians.
They want decentralization in the most decentralized federation
in the western world. When Reformers want federal government to
withdraw from health care they are not listening. When they talk
about privatizing UI they are not listening. When they want a
looser federation they are not listening to Atlantic Canadians.
Atlantic Canadians believe in a strong federal government.
Atlantic Canadians believe in Canada.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 25 years
ago when the Royal Commission on the Status of Women tabled its
report in the House women formed roughly one-third of the labour
force and on average earned 64 cents on every dollar that a man
earned.
In the last 25 years we have eliminated the most blatant forms of
discrimination against women through labour and employment
equity initiatives. Women now represent 45 per cent of all workers.
Nonetheless challenges do remain. Today, on average, women earn
72 cents for every dollar a man earns. Most women continue to
work in traditionally female dominated fields.
(1415)
We need to support job creation and training programs that will
prepare women and girls for the jobs of today and tomorrow. We
must help Canadian women prepare so they too can have good jobs
and earn good incomes.
_____________________________________________
16829
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the special
general council of the Quebec Liberal Party revealed last week in
Montreal that Daniel Johnson, the president of the No committee,
not only heard the Prime Minister's promises of change, he
believed them. As Ottawa has been reluctant to deliver the goods,
the Quebec Liberal Party went so far as to adopt four resolutions on
the promised constitutional changes.
My question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs or to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will they acknowledge
that the Prime Minister has no intention at all of acting on the
recommendations of the Quebec Liberal Party and reopening the
Canadian Constitution, as requested, to insert a provision
recognizing Quebec as a distinct society?
16830
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my first answer is that the Prime Minister is a man who
keeps his promises. He promised he would act on the issue of
distinct society and the veto. I remain convinced, absolutely
convinced, that he will act on those two promises very quickly and
that Quebecers will see the Prime Minister is a man of integrity, a
man of his word and a man who keeps his promises.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs acknowledge that what the
government plans to do about recognizing Quebec as a distinct
society and about the veto has no connection at all with the request
made by Quebec Liberals on the weekend to include these two
concepts in the Canadian Constitution, and that the government
certainly has no intention of reopening the Constitution to do so?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps we should rephrase the question as follows: What
is the position of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Leader of the
Official Opposition? Because if I remember correctly, last week the
Leader of the Official Opposition, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois
and aspirant leader of the Parti Quebecois, said in no uncertain
terms that he would not consider any constitutional offers before
sovereignty.
Clearly, the Leader of the Official Opposition is the one who is
obstructing any translation into constitutional terms of the Prime
Minister's promises.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's inept excuses are not backed up by Daniel Johnson,
president of the No committee in Quebec City. I have the following
question for the minister. Now that even his federalist allies in
Quebec are asking the Prime Minister to deliver the goods, will the
government remember his pre-referendum commitments to
Quebecers or will it do what the minister just did and hide behind
the fact that there is a sovereignist government in Quebec City?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat, the Prime Minister made promises he intends to
keep and he will keep them. The only obstacle to our proceeding
immediately is the members of the official opposition, because
their leader made it very clear he is not prepared to proceed on any
constitutional offers.
It is time the official opposition stopped trying to evade the issue
and admitted that with the Parti Quebecois, it is preventing
Quebecers from having the full benefit of the Prime Minister's
promises.
(1420)
After all, 73 per cent of Quebecers said they wanted the Quebec
government to negotiate offers with the federal government, and
we have the Leader of the Official Opposition who objects, who
said no and who prevents us from taking a constitutional approach.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, according to a Gallup poll released today, fewer than 40
per cent of people living in English Canada are in favour of
recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, and barely 10 per cent are
in favour of reopening the Constitution to add the right of veto.
In light of these results, will the Deputy Prime Minister admit
that, when the Prime Minister promised changes to Quebecers on
October 24, it was only to sweeten the pot during the referendum
campaign and he was well aware that these changes would be
unacceptable to English Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all there is not one
English Canada, as the future leader of the Bloc Quebecois claims.
Second, if he wants to look at surveys, I would recommend the one
that shows 73 per cent of Quebecers want the government of
Quebec to assume its responsibilities and negotiate in good faith
with the federal government, which it refuses to do, despite the
support of the majority of people in Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): There is
no English Canada, Mr. Speaker; everybody knows that. That is
why all the newspapers are in English.
At the special general assembly of the Quebec Liberal Party, the
leader of the No committee and of the Liberal Party stated as
follows, with reference to the resolutions on constitutional changes
adopted yesterday: ``These demands represent a starting point only,
and are most definitely not the last word''.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the major problem of
the Canadian federation is that what constitutes a starting point for
the federalists of Quebec represents something unacceptable for
the federalists of English Canada, even with the majority they have
here in this House?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what bothers the member is
to see that there are sixteen francophone members representing
ridings across this country which are not in Quebec but are
francophone.
It bothers the member to hear that a poll by L'Actualité shows
that 86 per cent of Quebecers state that they belong to Canada. If
the hon. member wants to carry out an analysis of Quebecers' sense
of belonging to Canada, I am sure that the Quebecers, along with
other Canadians, are aware that Canada has need of improvement,
that Canada has need of change, that Canada has need of open
minds, yet Canada is still the best place in the world to live.
16831
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec's premier in waiting has said that he will not hold another
referendum until 1997. That seems to be good news for this do
nothing government.
A recent poll found that if a Quebec referendum were held today
the yes side would win with almost 55 per cent. This is an outright
condemnation of the Liberals' post-referendum strategy. What is
more, 55 per cent of Quebecers reject the symbolic changes which
the Prime Minister is offering, while a strong majority, as high as
85 per cent, want to see a transfer of powers to the provinces.
Since constitutional change is not an option and since Quebecers
will reject the symbolic changes, when will the Prime Minister
introduce concrete measures to transfer real power to the
provinces?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are
probably as disturbed as we are to hear the underlying tone of glee
in the member's voice when she talks about the possibility of a
future referendum.
I point out to her that just as Quebecers do not want a
referendum, Canadians do not want a referendum. They want the
Canadian government to work together in a constructive way with
the provinces, municipalities and Canadians to make a better
Canada.
(1425 )
Canadians want better health care. They want a national health
care plan that is respected by the province of Alberta. We will
continue to fight for a better Canada for every Canadian.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
wanted the referendum to be over and done with through a strong
no vote. It did not happen because of who was in charge over there.
Let me remind the Prime Minister that on October 25, in a
speech broadcast to the entire nation, he said:
All governments, federal and provincial, must respond to the desire of
Canadians everywhere for greater decentralization.
That was a promise, not just to Quebecers, but to all Canadians.
Since the referendum, however, the government has done nothing
but backpedal on its promises.
When will the Prime Minister keep his promise to introduce
concrete measures to transfer many powers to the provinces, which
is their normal jurisdiction anyway?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore how
sad we are that the Reform Party missed a real opportunity to work
for Canada during the referendum.
I also remind the hon. member that despite the backroom
manipulations of her party, we actually won the referendum. As a
government we intend to govern for the betterment of all
Canadians.
The Prime Minister made promises in Verdun. He has every
intention of keeping those promises. He will not be able to count on
the support of the leader of the third party because when the time
came, in a private meeting when the Prime Minister asked the
leader of the third party to fight for Canada in the way that the
leader of the Conservative Party did, the leader of the third party
was not there to fight for Canada.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have been and will continue to fight for a new Canada, not this old
rehash, out of date Canada that they keeping talking about.
I seem to hear from the other side decentralization, if necessary,
but not necessarily decentralization. Mackenzie King's dog would
have been proud of that line. He could not have said it any better.
Canadians inside and outside of Quebec want real change. They
do not want just cosmetic changes and the ivory tower thinking that
we are going to hear on Wednesday from the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Is that it? Is that all this bankrupt Liberal government has to
offer, recycled centralist policies again and again and botched unity
strategies? Does the government have any clue whatsoever, or is
the Prime Minister just making it up as he goes along?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the saddest thing about the
configuration of the current Parliament is the fact that in the
opposition every day basically we see two sides of the same coin.
We see a Bloc Quebecois that is fighting to separate Quebec from
Canada and a Reform Party that is fighting to separate Canada from
Quebec.
The member talks about the rehash of Canada. I remind her that
despite our differences and despite our flaws, we have been chosen
for several years in a row as the best country in the world in which
to live. Yes, there is room for improvement, but if the Reform Party
suggests that Canada is a rehash, it should call itself the regress
party.
16832
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to either the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs or the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, Daniel Johnson repeated what he, his party and all
other Quebecers had heard and understood, namely that the Prime
Minister had undertaken to make constitutional changes in line
with Quebec's aspirations. That is why Mr. Johnson urged Ottawa
to act quickly on its referendum promises.
Will the Prime Minister, his deputy or the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs admit that setting up a phoney
committee to save Canada is only a tactic to water down the Prime
Minister's commitments, but a tactic that fools no one, not even
former allies of the no side like Daniel Johnson and Liza Frulla,
who are now asking him to deliver the goods quickly?
(1430)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, I think that the official opposition is hard of
hearing. The Prime Minister made promises and he will honour
them.
This past week-end, the special convention of the Liberal Party
passed a number of resolutions, which we will do our best to help
implement. The unity committee that was struck and that I chair is
to look not only at how the Prime Minister's promises can be
fulfilled, but also at possible corrective measures to make Canada
an even better place.
I wish that the official opposition would do its job, which is to
help make Canada a better place, instead of systematically
attempting to destroy the country.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): In this regard, Mr.
Speaker, are we to understand that the Prime Minister intends to
take the advice of the Globe and Mail, which was suggesting that,
to save face, all he would have to do is to offer Quebecers a
symbolic recognition of the distinct society and a so-called right of
veto?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, we must bear in mind that the Prime Minister made
promises concerning the distinct society and the right of veto and
that he will keep his promises.
But at the same time we must not forget that the Leader of the
Official Opposition very clearly stated that he would reject any
constitutional proposal and refuse to consider any offer made by
the federal government. So, in this instance, the Prime Minister is
the one who is trying to go ahead and give something to Quebecers,
but his efforts are being thwarted by the inflexible and hard line
approach taken by the official opposition and its leader.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, every time this
government holds a debate on peacekeeping it is a total sham. The
decisions are already made and there is no free vote.
Last week I sent a letter to the Prime Minister requesting that he
respect the will of Parliament and allow a free vote on a clear
peacekeeping proposal. Now that the government has had time to
think about it, I would like an answer. Does Parliament get a free
vote, yes or no?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
As he knows, while the peace accord was signed, from the
Dayton, Ohio discussions it appears it will be some time before the
accord is actually ratified. He would be aware that there are a lot of
perturbations going on in Bosnia with respect to the details of the
accord itself, such things as the width of the corridor in
northeastern Bosnia, the disposition of war criminals potential and
also the difficulty with the management of the Sarajevo situation.
On behalf of the Prime Minister and the ministers of defence and
foreign affairs, I can guarantee the hon. member that there will be a
debate. The opposition parties will have their input. But I cannot
say when this debate will take place. I hope it will be soon, but it
cannot take place until the accord is actually agreed to.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I guess I missed
the yes or no in that answer. I am sure it was there somewhere.
In my letter to the Prime Minister I asked him for a genuine
debate on peacekeeping. In order to have that debate, we require
details. We need to know the budget, the maximum duration, the
mandate. The government has not even told us the size or the role
of the Canadian contingent.
When is the government going to provide these details? Is it just
planning to keep Parliament in the dark as usual?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in response to the hon. member's questions, they are very
valid.
The standing committee on defence, with the input of the third
party, has agreed to a set of criteria in the white paper. I can assure
him that these criteria will be looked at. They were developed
basically by all parties in the House. We will try to provide
16833
reasonable and responsible answers to these questions when the
debate takes place.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the president of the no committee, Daniel Johnson,
asked this government to decentralize federal powers, starting with
those in the manpower training sector.
(1435)
Can the Deputy Prime Minister pledge that the social security
reform, which her party intends to table in the House this week,
will be an example of decentralization and that, consequently,
Quebec will have sole authority over manpower training?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the hon. member knows, we will shortly be tabling a new
Unemployment Insurance Act here in Canada in response to what
we heard from hundreds of thousands of Canadians who want
basically a modern system, a system that is sustainable, and a
system that will provide Canadians with a set of tools to get back to
work quickly.
Part and parcel of what Canadians are calling for is greater
decentralization and empowerment of local communities to make
the decisions that best suit their local realities. The objectives that
Canadians have set will be of course honoured in the new
employment bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the Deputy Prime Minister. This week, we
will discuss a concrete issue, namely vocational training, and we
are anxious to see how the government will decentralize powers.
Are we to understand that, by refusing to make the social
security reform an example of decentralization, the government is
clearly showing that the commitments made by the Prime Minister
in Verdun were just a smoke screen?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not know where the hon. member gets the impression that we
are not willing to reform Canada's social security system. Just as a
reminder, it was the federal government that embarked on this very
important legislative process to modernize Canada's social security
system.
I want to tell the hon. member, who is extremely concerned
about the role of the provinces in this particular case, that the
provinces will be brought in as very effective partners, along with
local stakeholders, to make sure that the type of training Canadians
need is in tune with the times and will get Canadians back to work
very quickly.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was
recently reported that the 1994-95 cable TV bill for providing cable
services to prisoners at the Mountain and Kent institutions totalled
nearly $60,000. That is for one year.
Criminals should be punished for their crimes. Yet we have
murderers, thieves, rapists, and drug dealers being treated to such
luxury as cable TV, compliments of the taxpayer.
My question is for the solicitor general. Why is he wasting
taxpayers' money to provide prisoners with cable TV when many
of our law-abiding citizens and seniors cannot even afford to keep
it?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think my hon. friend is mistaken in his allegations. If my
recollection is correct, the system is being switched so that the cost
of cable TV is being paid for by the prisoners themselves. I think
that is something he should be happy to support.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Solicitor General should get his facts straight. The salaries the
prisoners make in prison are paid for by the taxpayers. It is still
taxpayers' money.
Federal prisoners in federal institutions are sitting on their duffs
watching cable TV to the tune of $1 million a year. Whatever
happened to hard time?
Will the minister show some strength of character and announce
immediately that all TVs will be removed from federal prisons, yes
or no?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when prisoners get paid it is basically for work they do or
programming they are involved with in prisons. It is part of the
process so that when they get out they do not offend again, which I
hope is something the hon. member will support.
I repeat, the cost of TV in prisons is being borne by prisoners
themselves. I do not understand why the hon. member is more
concerned about this than matters of jobs or Canadian unity, but if
he wants to be, I am happy to answer his questions.
16834
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of the Environment surely knows that her colleague, the
Minister of Natural Resources will, as early as mid-December, fob
off on the private sector a site located in Quebec which could be
contaminated by nuclear waste. Indeed, a public servant involved
in the sale wrote that: ``If the site is contaminated, we may be
forced to decontaminate it, even after the sale''.
(1440)
Is that the kind of practice to which the minister was alluding
when she recently said, with great pomp: ``We do our best to turn
environmental challenges into economic opportunities''?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I am not sure I understand the hon.
member's question. If she is referring to the sale of part of some
2,500 acres owned by AECL in the province of Quebec, AECL will
be selling 250 acres of that site. The contractual negotiations are
ongoing at this time.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister, who prides herself on implementing the principle
whereby the polluter must pay, give the example by pledging to
decontaminate that potentially contaminated site before its final
sale? I think my question is clear, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, environmental assessment of the land is a matter for
discussion and negotiation between the seller and the prospective
buyer. Those discussions are going on now as part of the
negotiations for the sale. I do not understand what the hon.
member's concern is.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Now that the report of the special commission on restructuring
of the reserves has been tabled, can the minister advise the House
and my Carleton-Charlotte constituents the timeframe that can be
expected for the new review and possible implementation of the
commission's recommendations and the result of same?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, which I believe
is of importance to all members of the House.
I have to tell the hon. member, and I believe the House is aware,
that this spring a special commission was struck on the
restructuring of Canada's reserves. The commission was chaired by
a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Two
acknowledged experts in the field were his compatriots on the
study. The study was completed at the end of last month and was
reported to the minister and indeed to the parliamentary committee.
The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs is now in its third week of hearing witnesses with respect to
the recommendations that were made on the report, which was
tabled in the House about three weeks ago. The hon. member
should also be aware that the other place has recently struck a
committee and it too will be studying the contents of this very
important report.
Regarding the timeframe, both committees are to make a report
to the minister by mid-January.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, victims
groups, the police, the Reform Party and a majority of the Liberal
caucus want the elimination of section 745 of the Criminal Code,
which allows first degree murderers to appeal their sentence after
serving only 15 years of a life term.
I ask the Minister of Justice, will he support the removal of this
unacceptable provision by ensuring that Bill C-226 is brought
before the standing committee before this session of Parliament
ends?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I first observe how welcome it
is to hear the hon. member asking about a new and important
subject.
Last spring, when the private member's bill was before the
House, there was in effect a free vote on the question of whether it
should go to committee. It went to committee. Shortly afterwards I
wrote to the chair of the committee and asked that the committee
arrange to have hearings on the bill early on. Those hearings were
started just after the House resumed in September.
I have urged the committee to look at the question of section 745
in the broader context of penalties for murder. I hope it does that. I
also hope to have something to say to the committee before it
completes that deliberation on the whole subject so that we can see
the issue in context.
16835
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
motivates, at least in part, my question to the justice minister is
my knowledge of his stand on Bill C-226 when it came before
the House.
I say to the justice minister that Darrel Crook, the convicted
murderer of RCMP Constable Brian King, is appealing his parole
ineligibility for first degree murder this February.
(1445 )
Will the minister put a stop to the further torment of Brian
King's widow or will he subject her to reliving the brutal death of
her husband one more time? Will he support the elimination of
section 745 from the Criminal Code? Will he tell us of his intention
today?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I met last June in my office with
Marie King Forest, the widow of Constable King. I had an
opportunity to discuss with her firsthand the effect that the
application has had on her and her family.
More than anything else, it was my perception that her exclusion
from the process was enormously hurtful. That in large part
motivated the change in section 745 which I brought before the
House in Bill C-41, which guarantees the role for the victim in the
section 745 hearing. This change was brought about largely due to
my meeting with Marie King Forest.
I do not believe the issue is so simple that it can be dealt with
solely by the repeal of section 745. I have made every effort to
encourage the hon. member, the House and the committee to see
that question in the broader context of penalties for the crime of
murder.
As the committee examines that broader question, I shall have
something to say by way of what I hope are constructive
suggestions as to how it might improve the regime for murder
penalties in Canada. This will include the question of the
application provided for in section 745.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the heritage minister.
In response to a question put to him last June about the fact that
the Canadian sports guide was published in English only, the
heritage minister promised to have the Official Languages Act
enforced in organizations that his department awards funding to. I
wanted to remind him of that promise.
How can the minister explain that several sports associations
that his department is responsible for, such as Badminton Canada,
Water Ski Canada and a dozen other associations, are still
publishing their annual reports in English only?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since that time, we have taken steps to negotiate an
accountability framework for the various federations receiving
financial assistance from the federal government.
If our hon. colleague has additional information, I will be
pleased to look at it, but the policy I outlined has not changed: we
expect these documents to be published in both official languages.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
never heard of legislation being open to negotiation in this House
before.
Here is my supplementary question: How can the minister
explain that, this year, for the first time, Football Canada's report
was published in English only, if not by the fact that francophones
are the first ones to bear the brunt of budget cuts?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will remind our hon. colleague that the funding of
sports governing bodies does not come under any statute of the
Parliament of Canada nor directly under the Official Languages
Act. Arrangements are made by my department to make sure that
French is used as it should be in Canada. But the law was not
broken in this case.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
United States has initiated a trade action against Canada's tariffs on
supply managed farm products.
Will the Minister of International Trade use this dispute as an
opportunity to negotiate a reduction in American subsidies,
subsidies which restrict Canada's ability to export dairy and
poultry products south of the border?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, working groups are now
considering this issue. Discussions are taking place. We believe
that a proper approach to trade and trade remedies will deal with
the issue.
(1450)
I will take the issue under advisement and bring it to the
attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who is in
the best position to answer the question.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary should realize that this is a winner take all
dispute. It is a very important question for Canada's supply
managed farmers.
16836
Why is the government playing Russian roulette with our
farmers? If Canada loses the dispute, our supply managed sector
will see open borders almost overnight. Thousands of farmers will
go broke. Why is the minister not offering partial tariff reduction
in exchange for fair access to the U.S. market?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
knows very well that a number of trade discussions are going on
with the United States on a number of fronts. The challenge
through the NAFTA panel process on supply management is only
one of them.
We have said very clearly that we will continue to handle each
concern which the United States has with us and which we have
with it one at a time. We have also said very clearly that we will
defend Canada's supply management system very fervently. We are
confident the process will work in our favour.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many of our fellow citizens in the Outaouais are very concerned
about the public service cuts. The government has expressed its
desire to provide quality services.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury
Board tell the House what measures have been taken to boost
morale in the public service?
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
President of the Treasury Board has taken a special interest in the
public service. He has outlined, both here in the House of
Commons and in public, his vision of the public service and has
been involved in a number of initiatives to raise morale, to try to
work with these people. The President of the Treasury Board has
also attended special events of all kinds.
[English]
The President of the Treasury Board has set up a secretariat to
look at renewal in a profound way. He has set up an advisory
council for change in order to do just that. He has hosted a series of
meetings and has been involved in them in a hands on way. He has
opened dialogue with everybody in the public service, including
the frontline workers. He has sent a letter to his colleagues
encouraging them to do the same.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general. Some time ago, the RCMP
suspended Sergeant Gaétan Délisle for running in a municipal
election and being elected Mayor of Saint-Blaise-sur-Richelieu.
This individual has been campaigning for years to defend the right
of RCMP officers to form a professional association.
How can the solicitor general justify Sergeant Délisle's
suspension, when other RCMP officers elected to public office in
their communities have never been suspended from their jobs?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the information I have, the other officers the hon.
member is referring to were elected as school board trustees and
not as mayors. The regulations prohibit any officer from running
for mayor, for member of a provincial legislature, or for member of
Parliament. It is also a matter of internal discipline. This whole
matter will be reviewed thoroughly.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
remind the solicitor general that the rules that now apply to the
RCMP used to also apply to the Public Service Act, and that this act
was ruled unconstitutional and obsolete. I therefore ask the
solicitor general if he intends to intercede with the Commissioner
of the RCMP to defend Sergeant Délisle's democratic rights and
stop the RCMP management's harassment campaign against him?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again, according to my information, the Supreme Court ruling
has no direct bearing on Staff Sergeant Délisle's case. In any event,
the matter is under review as part of the RCMP's internal discipline
process, and I will gladly take steps so that this process will in time
provide a response to this very important matter for Staff Sergeant
Délisle.
* * *
(1455)
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, due to
popular demand the federal government's cash buyout program
aimed at reducing the public service is expected to cost an extra
$500 million in addition to the original cost of $1 billion. These
expensive buyout programs are costing the taxpayers millions of
dollars and are giving some lucky public servants a golden
handshake similar to winning the lottery.
16837
Will the President of the Treasury Board confirm that the
government's buyout plans are far too generous and that it has
been a long time since so much has been given by so many to
so few?
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the
government initiated these programs it obviously went to the
private sector to see what was being done there. Certainly what we
are doing is very comparable to the private sector.
My colleague fails to understand there has been an initial rush on
that program. There have been more people than expected. Yes, it
may reach $2.3 billion, but during that same period of time $4.2
billion will be saved and $2.2 billion per year thereafter. That is a
clear saving.
I am really quite surprised that my colleague would make such a
charge. It is unfounded and completely incorrect.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, talking
about the private sector, the National Capital Commission is
cutting 400 jobs by contracting work out to employee takeover
companies. Spokesperson Diane Dupuis said that the project works
because employees will receive less pay and benefits in the private
sector than they would as public servants.
Would the parliamentary secretary please tell us why civil
servants are paid more than private sector employees, have better
job security than private sector employees and have far more
generous buyout packages than what one could have in the private
sector?
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
already indicated that the first question was totally erroneous, that
there is going to be savings over time.
With respect to the second question that if one privatizes or
commercializes there would be a particular savings because people
would earn less, we all know that sometimes it works that way but
other times it is completely the opposite. In this case we are
keeping those programs we need to keep. We are keeping those
civil servants we need in order to give the best service to
Canadians. In certain cases we are looking at alternatives which is a
wise, sensible and sensitive way to proceed.
I am surprised that my colleague is not jumping up and down
applauding the government for this wisdom.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Louisiana-Pacific's OSB plant and harvest plan in Manitoba is
under review by the province. There have been claims of errors
and omissions in the entire existing process. There have been calls
for an environmental impact for the entire escarpment area. There
appear to be federal triggers in place including aboriginal land
interests and fish habitat.
Does the Minister of the Environment have the opinion that the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is applicable in this case?
Is she prepared to take the steps necessary to see that a joint
federal-provincial assessment is done?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government recently released figures about Canada's international
trade.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
International Trade tell the House what these figures show about
Canada's export performance and how it contributes to our
economic growth and jobs for Canadians?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
colleagues I would like to pay tribute to the finest ever minister of
trade and his staff on a job very well done.
Here are the facts. In 1995 to date Canadian exports were 20 per
cent higher than for the same period in 1994. Our trade
merchandise surplus for September alone was $2.9 billion. By
September, Canada's year to date trade surplus with the United
States was $5.7 billion, higher than for the same period in 1994.
For every $1 billion, 10,000 jobs are being created in our economy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
On November 3, American Airlines and Canadian International
filed an application for antitrust immunity with the U.S.
department of transport. Such immunity would allow the two
companies to merge their operations and act as a single carrier for
transborder flights.
(1500)
Will the minister clearly tell the two carriers that merging their
transborder operations is not acceptable to the Canadian
government, because it violates the Open Skies Agreement by
giving American Airlines privileged access to the three largest
Canadian airports, thus jeopardizing the activities of Canadian
carriers?
16838
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the application that the hon. member refers to is one that
is being considered by the appropriate authorities in the United
States.
The National Transportation Agency has the responsibility as it
relates to any activities by the two airlines in Canada. It would be
our intention that whichever direction those two airlines desire to
take in terms of merging their operations, they will have to respect
both the letter and the spirit of the law in Canada.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Nisga'a land claims negotiations in northwest British
Columbia apparently include a Nass River aboriginal commercial
fishery allocation.
This flies in the face of the five aboriginal fisheries cases
currently being argued before the Supreme Court. The provincial
aboriginal affairs minister in B.C. has stated that whatever the
results of these cases, commercial fishing must not be entrenched
in B.C. treaties.
What continues to motivate the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
to promote inclusion of a racially based commercial fishery in B.C.
treaties?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the only thing that is racially
based is the nature of the questions being asked in the House of
Commons.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Both in the questions and in the answers
sometimes we abut on what is parliamentarily acceptable. I would
encourage all hon. members when asking questions and responding
to be quite judicious in their questions and in their answers.
This concludes question period.
_____________________________________________
16838
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the
Standing Committee on Transport on Bill C-101, the Canada
Transportation Act.
The primary aim of the bill is to encourage the revitalization of
the rail industry by reducing the regulatory burden facing that
sector.
The bill was referred to the committee after first reading,
pursuant to Standing Order 73(1). This new procedure allowed
members to participate more fully in the legislative process and
make important and constructive amendments to the bill.
The committee acknowledges with gratitude the co-operation
and support of all those who contributed to our study of Bill C-101.
We extend our thanks to all the witnesses who appeared, as well as
those who made written submissions and shared their knowledge
and insight with us.
(1505)
In the process of reviewing this bill, the committee heard 55
hours of testimony from 154 witnesses, representing 85
stakeholder groups and organizations.
I would like to give special thanks to the clerk of the committee,
the researchers, interpreters and the support staff of the committees
and parliamentary association's directorate. I would also like to
thank my fellow committee members for patiently proceeding
through hours of testimony in order to ensure the effective
evaluation of Bill C-101.
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 103rd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership and associate membership of standing committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 103rd report later this day.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-359, an act to require the withdrawal of Canada
from the North American Free Trade Agreement.
16839
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a mirror bill to legislation
introduced in the United States congress by Peter De Fazio, a
Democrat from Oregon and Senator Byron Dorgan from North
Dakota.
It has support in the United States of 23 members of the house of
representatives and a number of senators representing both
political parties. Basically, it says that not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this act, the Government of Canada shall,
pursuant to article 2205 of the agreement, notify the Government
of the United States of America and the Government of the United
Mexican States of the withdrawal of Canada from the North
American Free Trade Agreement.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That the 103rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating all across Canada. This petition has been
signed by a number of Canadians from Etobicoke, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families that 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 that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to deposit a petition signed by some of my constituents,
pursuant to Standing Order 36.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions to present today. One is asking that the
current prohibitions against euthanasia or assisted suicide of any
kind be upheld.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
another petition requests that Parliament enact provisions to
protect human life before birth.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
third petition asks that recognition by the crown of same sex
relationships be withheld.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
another petition prays for better recognition for witnesses in any
witness protection program.
* * *
(1510)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
question No. 244 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 244-Mr. Caccia:
Since its inception 19 years ago, what has been the total cost of constructing,
maintaining and repairing the Bruce II reactor at the Bruce nuclear generating
station?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Natural Resources Canada and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
have not provided funding for the construction, maintenance and
repair of the Bruce II reactor at the Bruce nuclear station. Ontario
Hydro is responsible for the Bruce II reactor.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
16839
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Québec-Est has the floor.
He has another 6 minutes approximately.
16840
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
I was saying before question period in connection with Bill C-100,
I find this bill unfortunate for Quebec, because it is an attempt
to set up institutions that already exist in Quebec and work very
well there.
I said that the great misfortune of the Canadian federal system is
this business of duplication and that a policy of decentralization
had to be implemented as quickly as possible. The people of
Quebec, like elsewhere across the country, have spoken in favour
of more decentralization.
Here is the government introducing Bill C-100, which goes
against the trend and the wish expressed by so many people.
Common sense itself dictates the need for more decentralization in
Canada. Quebec has already suffered considerably from the
wastage caused by departmental duplication. I was saying that,
according to certain studies submitted to the Bélanger-Campeau
commission, including the one done by Pierre Fortin, duplication
cost Quebec alone some $3 billion a year. This money is wasted.
This is pure and simple loss. Not only is it money lost, but it means
departments and governments are unable to function and to provide
people with quality services.
It seems to me that, if I were in government, and I wanted to save
this great and fine country of Canada, I would undertake to
decentralize. It seems that it is just good common sense for the
government to decentralize; it is obvious. If only the people in
government would listen, it could be done. They would understand
that, in fact, decentralization is the only way to save the country. I
repeat: centralization, the federal government's tendency to take
over powers and to duplicate services already available
provincially, is costing the Government of Quebec $3 billion.
Studies have proven this; these are not groundless allegations.
Just in the area of transport and communications, there has been
much talk-call it dispute if you want-much debate about the
distribution of powers between the federal and provincial
governments. It is estimated that, in the area of transport and
communications alone, the shortfall is about $233 million. If the
responsibility for transport and communications came under only
one level of government instead of being shared by two
governments, hence duplication, the Government of Quebec would
end up with $233 million more in its pocket. So, there is a shortfall
in that regard.
(1515)
It is the same thing with taxes. If there were only one
government collecting taxes in Quebec, this would generate $299
million in savings. In other words, this much, $299 million, is lost,
squandered, because of duplication and overlap between our
respective departments.
I could give you more examples, with respect to regional
development and business assistance for instance. In fact, Bill
C-100 is brought forward under the pretext of providing assistance
to businesses, when there are well established new business
start-up services in Quebec to assist small business. Why more
duplication? Why establish more agencies and institutions that we
already have at the provincial level?
Same thing with health and culture. The worst of all, of course, is
manpower training, an area where the federal government is
essentially copying the services provided by the province,
duplicating programs. This duplication is apparently responsible
for a $250 million shortfall in Quebec and, again, not only is
money being lost, squandered, but manpower training is not being
conducted.
We are told that, in Quebec, thousands of jobs may have
remained vacant because this training was not provided. In many
cases, these jobs require special technological training. Since this
training was not provided because of intergovernmental
duplication, the people who should be holding these jobs end up
either on unemployment or on welfare because of the government,
again, because of this duplication.
This creates not only deplorable waste but also a great deal of
poverty. In fact, this keeps a number of people unemployed and on
social assistance. Of course, the federal government does not have
a good reputation in this area so far. You know as well as I do, Mr.
Speaker, that since the last budget the federal government has
introduced a whole series of measures to make cuts in
unemployment insurance, in the health sector, in education, and
even in old age pensions, which all amount to rather virulent
attacks against the most vulnerable in our society.
Allow me to quote from an article by Jean-Robert Sansfaçon that
appeared in the May 2 edition of Le Devoir: ``To this day, the only
result of the federal government's social reforms has been to move
people from unemployment to welfare rolls. Yet, one does not have
to be a separatist to know that the provinces are in a better position
than the central government to find the solutions that can best meet
the needs of their people''.
In fact, we should all learn this lesson, which is constantly
repeated in this House. The lesson is that the provincial
government is often in a better position to fulfil certain functions,
as in the case of financial institutions. Unfortunately, Bill C-100
would put in place institutions that already exist at the provincial
level. What a waste.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Bill C-100, an act to amend OSFI and CDIC
and related acts.
16841
(1520 )
Looking back in history, some years ago we had what were then
known as the four pillars of our financial industry, which were the
banks, the trust companies, the insurance companies, and the
brokers. At that time, the government of the day saw fit to allow the
banks to break down these barriers among the four pillars of the
financial industry. So the banks started to take over the trust
companies and the brokerage houses. Today, as we know, the banks
virtually control the other two pillars of the industry, which only
leaves the insurance companies, which by and large are removed
from the banks. At this point we still have a clear separation of
what banks can do in the insurance industry, and insurance
companies are kept out of the banking industry.
We know there is serious lobbying and serious pressure by the
banking industry to get into the insurance business, which is going
to take away the pillars of our financial industry that kept us four
square on the ground and leave us standing on one leg. I am not
exactly sure that we are going to find that standing on one leg
interminably is actually going to be good for our health. It might
get a little cramped and painful after a while.
I have some serious concerns about the wisdom in the long term
about decisions such as allowing the conglomeration of all the
financial services in this country to come into the realm of the
banks. Without being derogatory to the banks, there are not that
many of them left. We have a very serious concentration of power
in the hands of a very small number of elite people in this country,
all of whom are unknown, unelected, and responsible to no one,
hardly even to their shareholders.
The banks are such a complex business that those people
involved in the senior management of the banks would have great
problems, I am sure, trying to explain the intricacies of their jobs to
the shareholders who own their business and to the depositors who
participate or create the business to the benefit of the country and to
the government at large.
As I have said, I have serious concerns about the wisdom of
taking the four pillars of the financial institutions and making them
into one.
I know the banks have always put forth the argument that
competition requires that they get bigger. When we look around the
world we see some behemoths as far as the financial world is
concerned. I understand the merger of the Chase Manhattan Bank
and the Chemical Bank in the United States will create an
organization of $300 billion in size. That is truly a behemoth under
any rule we wish to use.
However, here in Canada we are a small country. If we are to
agree that big is beautiful in the world of international finance, we
cannot have it both ways. We can either have competition with a
large number of competing companies or we can meet the desire to
be large and compete on an international scale by using the same
measures as the huge banks around the world. Therefore we may
end up having a choice between big banks and no competition or
small banks and much competition, or we may have to have an
arrangement or a comprise in between.
I say that competition surely is the way to go. When we look
around the world we always find that competition brings out the
best in business. It brings out the best service, the best products,
and the best prices. I am sure that rule applies to the financial
industry every bit as much as it applies to every other industry that
serves our Canadian public.
The other argument for competition is these huge banks that are
being created around the world. It was earlier this year when the
first surprise was sprung upon the world with the Barings Bank
disappearing overnight with a $1 billion loss, all because of one
rogue trader in one office who was on the opposite side of the world
from the head office. The entire organization was destroyed
overnight.
(1525)
A couple of months ago one of the Japanese banks in New York
admitted to losing $1 billion. Again it was the fault of one rogue
trader, who perhaps was in collusion with others within the
organization. That overnight loss was revealed to the general
public.
In the last decade there was a $500 billion loss in the savings and
trust loans fiasco in the United States. Now we are facing a
situation in Japan, where the largest of the world banks have been
based for some time, in which losses may be as high as $1 trillion.
That is a tremendous vote of non-confidence in people's ability to
manage institutions that big.
That is why competition is vitally important. Bigger is not
necessarily better.
Bill C-101 deals primarily with two things: the Canadian
Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions. I would like to talk about
the CDIC.
The CDIC is sponsored by government to insure deposits within
the federally regulated banking system up to $60,000. We thought
it was working well for many years because there was never a
claim. However, in the last few years we have seen quite a number
of institutions that have been claiming on a regular basis, from the
vast sums of money claimed by Confederation Life to other trust
companies that have failed over the years. They have cost the
Canadian taxpayer large sums of money.
It is time for us to take a new look at the situation. This bill
unfortunately goes a short way by proposing rated premiums for
the CDIC, which will be based on its assessment of the risk. It will
vary the premiums according to the risk. The bad thing is that the
CDIC intends to do this behind closed doors. That I cannot accept.
If they think they are going to tell a financial institution that the
risk is high and therefore the premium on the deposits is high, the
16842
Canadian public must be made aware that there is a potential risk
involved in the financial institution and be governed accordingly.
About a decade ago in my home province of Alberta we had a
fiasco called Principal Trust. I know that was a provincially
regulated institution, but the principle is still the same. If an
institution that is being fraudulently managed wants to work behind
the veil of secrecy, it can do so, making the Canadian public
vulnerable to loss.
It is absolutely vital that the information be provided upfront. I
cannot see any harm in that. I do not see how an institution can
prevent it from becoming public knowledge.
We all know that once the bill is adopted the premium ratings
will be applied. All it requires is someone at the annual meeting of
the financial institution to ask what is the rating of the premium
paid to the CDIC. They will either find out or management will lie
to the shareholders. I hope they will not lie to the shareholders. The
information should become public very quickly. I see no real
reason for the information to be kept private.
Another thing regarding the CDIC, which perhaps has more of a
bearing on the government than the CDIC, is the fact that if it needs
money it will be given the opportunity to borrow the money on the
open market rather than dipping into the consolidated revenue
fund. While it may seem a fairly innocuous change, if we look
more closely we see it is another way to slide borrowings off the
balance sheet of the Government of Canada and on to the private
sector so that they will not show up in the public accounts of
Canada.
(1530)
It is shameful and disgraceful the government would even
propose such a move. If the government is to stand behind the
deposits of investors, let it show in its records what it is costing
taxpayers. It is shameful the government would even propose the
amendment to which I am totally and absolutely opposed.
The money markets of the country are not the place in which to
subsidize the losses of financial institutions that create the money
markets in the first place. We could go around and around in ever
increasing circles and accomplish absolutely nothing.
The government should be prepared to stand up to its
obligations, have the information in front of the public, tell people
what is happening and let the people decide while the government
still enjoys their confidence. If they do not we know the
consequences. To hide behind the barriers and the veils of secrecy
cannot be tolerated in this day and age. On OSFI the veil is being
drawn even more tightly than on CDIC, perhaps with even more
disastrous results.
We can look at some of the items in the white paper released by
the government back in February 1995 prior to the tabling of the
legislation. OSFI's role is to monitor and supervise financial
institutions to ensure that they are safe for the general public to
invest in. The government has come up with the phrase that it is a
privilege rather than a right to own a financial institution. I tend to
agree with the statement that no one has the right to own a financial
institution if it allows them to rip off the public and hence the
Canadian taxpayer.
There are four steps that OSFI envisages if an institution were to
decline financial help. In stage one, the early warning stage, the
management and the board of directors of financial institutions are
formally notified by OSFI of concerns and requested to take
measures to rectify the situation. Perhaps it is not as strong as we
would like it to be. Therefore some directives are being issued.
In stage two the financial health of the institution has continued
to deteriorate in the opinion of OSFI. At that point senior OSFI
officers meet with the management and board of directors of the
financial institution and with the external auditor of the institution
to outline concerns and discuss remedial actions. The management
and board of directors are formerly notified that the institution is
being placed on the regulatory watch list. That is more involvement
by OSFI which perhaps at that stage is not bad. OSFI is getting
more and more involved in the daily administration of the
institution.
If it continues to slide it gets into stage three where the
management and the board of directors and external auditor of the
institution are informed of the problems. Depending on
circumstances, pressures may be exerted on the management and
the board of directors to restructure the institution or to seek an
appropriate prospective purchaser.
That brings us to stage four. The organization is continuing to
deteriorate. The government's says that pressure to rectify the
situation is exerted on the management and the board of directors
of the financial institution with frequent meetings with senior
officers. If statutory conditions for taking control of the assets exist
and if circumstances are such that there is an immediate threat to
the safety of depositors and other creditors, OSFI may take control
of the assets of the institution for a short period.
(1535)
While the financial institution is still solvent everything in steps
one, two, three and four have taken place behind closed doors, in
secrecy. They have watched the institution deteriorate. They have
become more and more closely involved with the management of
the institution on a daily basis. It may be that their management
16843
has caused the institution to deteriorate. While the institution is
still solvent they took upon themselves the authority to seize it and
manage it.
I hope this is a democratic country. If it is, that cannot be
tolerated. We cannot have an agency of government getting
intimately involved in the daily management of the affairs of a
financial institution, participating in the decline of the financial
health of the institution and seizing control of the institution prior
to it becoming insolvent. That is not democratic and that has to be
opposed.
I stand fully behind the idea that we have solid, sound financial
institutions, but I do not stand behind the idea that the government
shall get into bed behind closed doors, dictate to the management
of a financial institution and seize it if it does not like the proposals
coming from management. Also I do not like the idea that we have
rated premiums which are supposed to be kept secret from CDIC.
It is time to rethink the entire bill and talk about such things as
co-insurance. The government could perhaps ensure 90 or 95 per
cent of deposits up to a certain limit. At that time investors would
know they have a potential exposure. Perhaps it is small but
nonetheless it is exposure. In that way they would take more of an
interest in their money and more of an interest in financial
institutions. It is the same as the bond rating system in place for
governments, for institutions and for money markets. They are
rated according to financial strength, soundness, liquidity and so
on. They have a rating which people know when they put up their
money. The same could quite easily apply up front, above board, in
the open so Canadian depositors know how well financial
institutions are being run.
As far as the supervision of institutions that are falling short is
concerned, Canadians need to be assured that the government is
looking over their shoulders. We saw in the Financial Post over the
weekend that the managers of a brokerage house a number of years
ago are off to prison because they helped themselves to several
million dollars of the company's money and mismanaged the
company to the point of losing quite a number of millions of
dollars.
I hope that is not the type of supervision we are looking at. I hope
we will be able to monitor rather than get into daily management of
the organization. We will be asking them to ensure they meet the
margins they require and that the risks are not being totally
ignored.
As I said earlier, Japan is now looking at $1 trillion in bad debts
because they all jumped on the same bandwagon and inflated real
estate to such an astronomical or exorbitant price that people were
getting 100-year mortgages to try to pay for the property they were
buying. The banks caused the problem. They are the ones that now
have to suffer the problem. The taxpayers in Japan will be left
holding the bag as they did in the United States under the
Resolution Trust situation.
Let us get the situation out in the open now while it is sound and
while we can see it. If warts are to grow on our financial
institutions, let us watch them grow rather than wait until the
cancerous growth will kill us.
(1540 )
The government could have done much more in conjunction
with financial institutions to make it an open system, an
accountable system, a system that would work. Then Canadians
would know what is going on and would have some faith in it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, a division on the question now before the House stands deferred
until Tuesday, November 28, at the end of government business, at
which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not
more than 15 minutes.
* * *
The House resumed from December 13 consideration of Bill
C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and
Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts, as
reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of Motions
Nos. 2 and 3.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When Bill C-52 was last
before the House the hon. member for Elk Island had
approximately two minutes remaining on debate.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I realized there
were some hazards when I got into the political business, but I did
not realize I would be interrupted for 349 days, almost a year, on an
16844
important statement that I was making. Because I have so little
time left I want to get right to the statement.
Bill C-52 would put into action a decision made by the previous
government to establish the department and we are dealing with
some amendments to the bill. I go on record as reviewing what I
said almost a year ago and emphasizing as strongly as I can that I
think we would make a gross error in approving some of the items
in the bill unless we accept the amendment proposed by the Bloc to
delete clause 16.
We run the risk of actually losing the very foundation of the
economic system of the country, namely free enterprise or the
private initiative to go out and get it. The government has taken it
upon itself to tax everyone to death and use that money to subsidize
activities that should properly take place in the private sector and,
most important, to compete unfairly with it.
It is unjustifiable to force businesses to pay taxes and then use
that money to provide the services the companies are in the
business of providing. It is a contradiction that will destroy the
economic basis of the country if we proceed. I emphasize as
strongly as possible that we should not do what the bill proposes,
which is to give the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services carte blanche to do anything for anyone as the bill
proposes, just anything that he decides, using government
departments to provide engineering services, printing services,
advertising services, all the services which many businesses
depend on in order to provide for their employees for their very
survival.
(1545)
Instead, we have this move by the government to give the
minister unbridled ability to do whatever he or she wants in terms
of competing with private enterprise. That is a wrong principle.
Let us ask for some careful thought on the part of the
government. Let us not wait until the other place has to be the
Chamber of sober second thought. Let us do some sober thinking in
this Chamber and defeat this bill unless we can get the amendments
for which we asked.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me commend the hon.
member for Elk Island for being so patient and waiting all those
number of days to close his intervention. It seems just like
yesterday that he spoke on this very important matter.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to resume the debate.
When I heard my hon. colleague say this bill will somehow
shake up or destroy the economic system of the nation, I think there
is some exaggeration.
I heard my colleague say we are forcing businesses to pay taxes.
My goodness, I think most businesses pay taxes rather willingly.
Some have questioned some sections of the bill, but they have also
acknowledged some of the meaningful changes that have been
made.
When he suggests there ought to sober thinking here, I hope
there is thinking and that the people who are doing the thinking are
sober. If that is so, it would be sober thinking.
It has been almost a year since we debated this bill, as my
colleague has pointed out. With Bill C-52, an act to establish the
Department of Public Works and Government Services, four
common service agencies are being integrated into one: Supply and
Services Canada; Public Works Canada; the Translation Bureau
and the Government Telecommunications Agency. The bill has a
single and simple purpose, integration. The government is setting
out a solid legislative process for integrating virtually all common
service agencies within one organization. The result will be
increased savings, efficiency and improvement in services for
government, business and, most important, the Canadian taxpayer.
Through overlap and duplication reduction, system streamlining
and expertise pooling, the cumulative savings for the Canadian
taxpayer will be approximately $180 million by 1997-98.
[Translation]
We are talking here about integrating four former departments.
We are talking about efficiency and about improving services to all
Canadians. We are also talking about saving taxpayers' money.
[English]
Under this bill, the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services will have the authority to provide services in several
areas, including acquisition of material and services for other
departments, printing and publishing, communications and
translation, real property services, including the administering of
federal real estate, realty services and architectural and engineering
services, acting as a receiver general, providing administrative
services such as management consulting, information services
audit, accounting and financial management.
The authorities contained in Bill C-52 essentially reflect those
contained in the legislation of the four components of government
that are being amalgamated. However, changes were made to
modernize the legislative responsibilities of the department and to
ensure consistency across the newly amalgamated organizations.
The Public Works Act dates back to 1867 and the Supply and
Services Act back to 1969.
16845
[Translation]
We are merging four former departments. We take into account
the legislation of these departments, of course, but we also
modernize.
(1550)
[English]
Bill C-52 is about savings, efficiency, improved services. The
integration of virtually all common service agencies into one
department is achieving savings, increasing efficiency and
improving services by reducing overlap and duplication,
streamlining systems and pooling expertise. This will ensure the
most efficient and cost effective delivery of our services and
generate significant savings for Canadians, savings I have
indicated previously in the magnitude of $180 million annually.
As a result of budget and program review decisions, the
department will reduce the workforce in five years by 5,263 full
time equivalent positions, or by about 30 per cent of its current
population. About 85 per cent of these reductions will occur by the
end of 1997-1998 fiscal year.
This is about competition. The minister recognizes that more
than ever the government has to be sensitive to the needs of the
private sector and the real and legitimate concerns about unfair
competition from the public sector. That is why the minister has
moved swiftly to rectify the situation when specific examples of
unfair competition have been brought to his attention.
In the case of architectural and engineering services, the minister
has directed a review take place to determine the most cost
effective means to deliver these types of services for the
government as a whole.
A consultative committee has been established to guide this
review, with representatives from industry associations and firms
as well as union and government officials participating, including
members of the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada.
The minister has stated on several occasions that the department
will not be allowed to compete against the private sector. This
legislation will only be used by the department to support Canadian
businesses to expand successfully, I might add, and to obtain a
greater share of global markets, as well as to reduce overlapping
duplication in all levels of government.
This bill has now the inclusion of a requirement for an order in
council. The inclusion of a requirement for an order in council in
section 16, proposed by the member for Guelph-Wellington, will
ensure that the government obtain full direction from cabinet
before the authority contained in this section is exercised and,
therefore, ensuring accountability.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that
Tuesday, November 28 and Thursday, November 30 are hereby not
allotted and shall not be opposition days.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-52, an act to
establish the Department of Public Works and Government
Services and to amend and repeal certain acts, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a further safeguard to
ensure that the government is committed to govern with integrity
and will take every measure necessary to restore confidence in the
institutions of government.
This bill is about public-private partnering. The Minister of
Public Works and Government Services is committed to further
investigation and development of a potential for partnering. He is
working at building the kinds of partnerships and working
arrangements which will be beneficial to the government, the
business community and the people of Canada. This commitment
is shared by the Prime Minister.
Bill C-52 is needed to allow the minister to fulfil his
commitment to further investigate and develop the potential for
beneficial public-private partnering and working arrangements as
well. This bill is about the efficiency of the federation.
PWGSC is contributing to the efficiency of the federation
initiatives in the area of shared government support services.
Priority areas identified include infomatics, procurement and realty
services. PWGSC is in the process of negotiating with the
provinces and territories on shared government support services.
Bill C-52 will enhance efficiency of the federation initiatives in
that it will simplify administrative processes, leading to sharing
arrangements with other levels of government.
Bill C-52 is about good government and improving services. It is
essential that we get on with this bill. I look forward to the support
of my colleagues.
This bill is about responsible and responsive government. We
have consulted extensively with the Association of Consulting
Engineers of Canada, the ACEC, and have made every effort to
accommodate the concerns of this special interest group.
16846
(1555)
[Translation]
We recognize that the issue raised is a very important one.
[English]
First, we have put forward two separate amendments to section
16 of the bill, one at committee stage clarifying that the department
would only provide services outside the federal government at the
request of another level of government or private sector firm.
The member for Guelph-Wellington has now also introduced
an amendment stating that this will be done only after receiving
governor in council approval.
Second, the minister has directed his department to undertake a
comprehensive review of the levels of out-sourcing of the
government's architectural and engineering requirements. For this
review, a consultative committee comprised of industry, union and
government representatives has been established to provide advice
throughout all phases.
This study is now under way with a report expected in the spring.
[Translation]
As I just pointed out, we are merging departments. We are
integrating, if you will, four former departments, and we are
modernizing. We are responsive to the issues raised by a number of
people and we are trying to be sensitive to their concerns. I believe
this bill does just that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I recognize the hon.
member, I must inform the House that the hon. member, who
wishes to take the floor, has already spoken on the same group of
Motions, that is group No. 2, which we are debating. So, do we
continue the debate?
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will now proceed with
consideration of group of motions No. 3.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill c-52, in Clause 17, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 5, on page 6, with the following:
``17.(1) The Minister may, subject to any regu-''; and
(b) by adding after line 16, on page 6, the following:
``(2) Before any fees or charges are fixed under subsection (1) or increased,
the Minister shall cause to be published in the Canada Gazette and in no fewer
than two leading newspapers in each province a notice clearly indicating
(a) the products, services, rights, privileges, regulatory processes, approvals or
use of facilities provided under subsection (1); and
(b) the fees or charges that have been fixed or increased pursuant to paragraph
(1)(a).''
(1600)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With respect to MotionNo. 5, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River has
indicated he will not be present and will not be moving the motion.
I might add while I am on that subject that Motion No. 7 by the
same member also will be struck.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-52, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 16, on page
6, with the following:
``17. The Minister may, subject to any regulations that the Treasury Board
may make for the purposes of this section, charge for services provided by the
Department pursuant to this Act or any other Act in force at the time this section
comes into force.''
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
motion is proposed essentially to allow the government to be more
open in its method of setting the price of goods and services. Our
suggestion, basically, is that all changes involving the price of
supplies, the awarding of contracts or almost anything else be
published in the Gazette and even in daily newspapers.
Clause 17 in fact gives the government or the minister the right
to change the charges for passports, for example, or for any other
service the government supplies at the present time. The minister
would be entitled under this section to change the set charges
without notifying the House or the public in advance. All we want
16847
is for all changes to be published in the Canada Gazette and in
newspapers, so that people are informed and the government is
transparent.
The non-transparency of government can be seen in a number of
areas. Moreover, the government does not even listen to the
suggestions made by the general public. For example, the
preceeding clause, 16, contains the same problem as 17: lack of
transparency or not being attuned to the concerns of the general
public.
Where clause 16 is concerned, it is even more flagrant. It is not
solely a question of publication, but is really a question of
respecting private enterprise. The committee even heard
representations from the Canadian Association of Professional
Engineers. Engineering representatives joined with more than 12
other Canadian organizations to oppose clause 16. In fact, that
group of associations was a coalition of 12 of the most important
organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Association of
Professional Engineers, the architects' association, boards of trade,
the federation of independent business, the Conseil du patronat du
Québec, and so forth. These 12 associations represent 280,000
Canadian companies opposed to clause 16. They were violently
opposed to clause 16 because, with it, the minister assigns himself
the power to compete with the private business sector, particularly
in the areas of engineering and architecture.
In my opinion, this is an abuse of power. The hon. member for
St. Boniface said that the minister had no intention of competing
with the private sector.
(1605)
However, in a letter sent to committee members, the minister
himself stressed they did not intend to bid the private sector out of
the market, but he did say they intended to compete. This is in fact
abuse of power, because not only does the government not respect
the opinion of those concerned, as in the case of clause 17, but it
acts as though nothing was wrong.
After all the representations made in committee, the government
fails to act on this request by the coalition of Canadian
associations. The hon. member for St. Boniface said that they set
up a committee to review this sector, at least as far as competition
between the government and the private sector on engineering and
architecture projects was concerned, but this is just another phoney
committee. The federal government is very good at setting up
committees that do nothing, know nothing, hear nothing and see
nothing.
The committee was set up nearly a year ago. Can you believe it?
In fact, the president of the coalition, Pierre Franche, told me they
had yet to meet. Imagine, they have not discussed the problem. In
fact, he said there was absolutely no hope for any changes,
especially in clause 16. That is pretty obvious, because today in the
House, the government wants to adopt the same clause tabled a
year ago, without any changes.
This is not openness, and this is not necessarily listening to the
general public. We can hardly say this is a government that is
working very hard to meet the needs and deal with the concerns of
Canadian citizens or associations. They are doing nothing. Zilch.
Not one word changed.
In fact, the government's proposal concerning clause 16 is to
maintain all the elements that have raised the concern of these 12
Canadian associations which represent 280,000 companies in
Canada. That is a lot of people. The government did not budge and
insists on maintaining this clause, while saying, of course, that no,
this will not necessarily increase the minister's powers: no, the
minister will not act in such a way as to establish competition with
private businesses; and no, we will be on our best behaviour. This
power, accorded the minister under this clause in the bill would not
be abused.
Well, if government members are honest, candid, and really up
front, as we hope they are, if indeed the minister would not abuse
this increased power, if indeed he would not use it and if 200,000
companies in Canada oppose this clause, let the government
abolish it. It should abolish it. Why are they keeping it saying they
will not use it, despite the opposition to it? If they keep it, it is
because, hypocritically, they want to use it.
Obviously, the government would not hang onto increased power
knowing that it would not use it, despite the opposition expressed
by so many responsible companies and organizations across
Canada. It wants this power. And this, basically, is why the
government is keeping the clause intact. What also concerns me is
that any engineering industry and architectural expertise we may
have in Canada is mostly concentrated in Quebec.
Engineering firms have developed admirably in Quebec. The
industry is very important to Quebec. It is one of the most
important ones given all the hydroelectric projects and the
consultation development done.
(1610)
Is the federal government positioning itself to set up coalitions
with certain private corporations in these sectors? Does it want to
set up coalitions that may compete with and even destroy other
engineering firms? Could this lead to patronage? Is there a
possibility of collusion to support certain policies rather than
others?
This provision opens the door to abuse, to competition between
the government and the private sector. I find this extremely
dangerous. We have seen, across Canada and around the world,
several cases in which competition between government and
private enterprise is never good. This morning, we talked about
Canada Post, a crown corporation that competes with the private
sector in the area of courier services and mail advertising delivery,
for example. This is costing Canadian taxpayers a lot of money. Do
16848
you know why the federal government is running such a huge debt
and deficit? It is because it is not really dealing with this.
I basically think that clauses 16 and 17 are unfortunate. Again,
the main purpose of our motion is to ensure maximum openness, so
that the general public will know exactly what the government is
doing, because between you and me, Mr. Speaker, this government
does not always act honestly and in a straightforward manner.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member who has just spoken really was discussing section
16 of the act rather than the amendment he has put before the
House regarding advertising in newspapers.
While there may be some relevance and I am not arguing that, I
think he has misunderstood the thrust of the amendment that has
already been proposed and which is subject to a vote. Also, I think
he will be well satisfied with this bill and the Canadian public will
be well satisfied when we have completed the amendments that
have been proposed in the House today. I think the hon. member for
Québec-Est knows that perfectly well.
I would like to speak in support of the amendment I proposed to
clause 17 of this bill. Clause 17 deals with the powers of the
minister to fix certain charges that may apply to the various
services provided by the minister's department.
The government's original intent was that the legislation dealing
with the departments of public works and government services,
industry, and heritage would all include an identical clause dealing
with fees for the sake of consistency and uniformity. However it is
recognized that public works and government services differs from
the other two departments in that the focus of its mandate is
internal to government as opposed to delivering government
programs to the Canadian public which is the case in the other
departments I listed.
[Translation]
The vast majority of contractual arrangements that the minister
signs and that involve charging for goods or services are made with
other federal agencies. Generally speaking, the department delivers
common services to some 150 federal departments and agencies.
These services cover a wide range of activities.
[English]
They include: providing office furnishings and supplies; consulting
services; real property and realty services; architectural and
engineering services; communications and telecommunications
services; and many more. The important point is that these are
essentially intergovernmental arrangements that do not impinge
directly on the department's relations with outside interests.
As a result and subsequent to debate on this clause, I put forward
an amendment to its wording. Under the proposed amendment, the
full wording of the clause would be as follows:
17. The minister may, subject to any regulations that the Treasury Board may
make for the purposes of this section, charge for services provided by the
department pursuant to this act or any other act in force at the time this section
comes into force.
(1615 )
Not only does this revised wording simplify the description of
the minister's power in this area, it also more accurately describes
the nature of the department and its functions. The use of the words
``charging for services'' rather than the original wording ``fixing
fees and charges'' reflects the reality of the service nature of the
department. It is in line with the wording found in the existing
Supply and Services Act. For this reason I ask hon. members to
support this amendment.
Clause 17 of this bill as amended establishes a clear, relatively
simple and unbureaucratic regime for establishing charges for
services made by the department. It is in line with the general thrust
of the bill, which is to streamline government operations, reduce
red tape and make the delivery of common services more cost
effective.
However, the minister's powers in this area are by no means
unlimited. One of the major constraints is that many of the services
his department provides to the government are optional; that is, the
client may accept them or look elsewhere for better value. This in
itself is a powerful incentive to make sure the department's
schedule of charges is well thought out and competitive with
outside sources. Of course in establishing charges the minister
must take into account the rules and guidelines of his own
department, the Treasury Board, and other government bodies.
By giving the power to set charges to the minister rather than the
department, clause 17 ensures the minister will be ultimately
responsible to Parliament to answer any questions that may arise
with regard to charges.
Mr. Keyes: As it should be.
Mr. Milliken: As my hon. friend from Hamilton West says, that
is as it should be. I agree.
This being the case, members can rest assured that these powers
vested in the minister under clause 17 with the amendment I have
proposed will not be abused. Passage of Bill C-52 with this
amendment will give the minister the legislative authority he needs
to continue working for more efficiency and cost effectiveness in
government operations.
16849
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the proposed
amendments to Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of
Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal
certain acts.
The four proposed amendments-now two, as two have been
dropped-have been grouped together for debate. All address
clause 17 of the bill. Clause 17 proposes to allow the minister of
public works, subject to any regulations the Treasury Board may
make for the purposes of this clause, the authority to ``fix fees and
charges that the minister considers appropriate to be applied to
products, services, rights, privileges, regulatory processes or
approvals and the use of facilities provided by the minister, the
department or any other board or agencies of the Government of
Canada for which the minister has responsibility, including public
works and federal real property under the administration of the
minister''.
That is a very longwinded way of saying that the minister would
be free to set fees and charges for any department services under
his portfolio completely at his discretion. This amount of
ministerial discretion and power goes too far and is clearly
unnecessary.
This clause moves in exactly the opposite direction to where we
feel we should be heading. Canadians want a bottom up system of
decision making. However, proposals such as clause 17, with
decisions concentrated in the hands of the minister, support a top
down system of policy and decision making. Somehow the Liberals
must have their signals crossed, because this is definitely a move in
the wrong direction. Either they are not listening, which happens
quite often, or they are hoping to slip one by the public when it is
not looking. This may explain why the government has sat on this
bill for so long, nearly a year, because such controversial proposals
simply will not be accepted by the Canadian public.
It is not surprising that a number of amendments have been
proposed to address this clause. What is surprising is that these
changes are being proposed in the first place.
The first proposed amendment by the member for Québec-Est is
to change clause 17 so the minister would have to publish any fee
or charge increases in the Canada Gazette and in no fewer than two
leading newspapers in each province. This notice must clearly
indicate the product, services, rights, privileges, regulatory
processes, approvals or use of facilities provided under subsection
(1), and the fees or charges that have been fixed or increased.
(1620)
However, this proposal would do nothing to change the intent of
the clause as it stands. The only benefit, and it is a benefit, is that
the public will be made aware of the changes. But the minister still
retains complete discretion in the setting of fees. For this reason,
this amendment is redundant and I see little cause to support it.
The member for Scarborough-Rouge River proposed an
amendment and then withdrew it. The amendment had the effect
that the fees and charges for government services did not exceed
the cost of providing the service. The motion would have restricted
the minister in how much he or she could raise fees for services. I
could not have supported that in the long run, so I am pleased to see
the amendment withdrawn.
The parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government also
proposes an amendment to clause 17. However, I fail to see why
this amendment was proposed in the first place, because it changes
nothing, except perhaps the wording of a particular clause. The
intent of clause 17 is the same. Fees would be set by the Minister of
Public Works and Government Services at his discretion or whim,
giving the minister far too much discretion, which I am not
confident he can handle. I cannot in good judgment support this
amendment either.
Motion 7 was proposed by the member for Scarborough-Rouge
River and is the only amendment to clause 17 that makes any sense.
Perhaps that was why he withdrew it today. Motion 7 would have
proposed to delete clause 17 altogether. That made good sense.
This amendment clearly would have had our support, because
Canadians are demanding a more open and transparent system of
government. They want honesty and integrity restored to our
government.
Canadians are simply tired of governments that do not consult
them, disregard their views, and especially governments that
conduct key parts of public business behind closed doors. Yet
closed door politics that allow government ministers to make
random changes to fees and service charges, with no system to
scrutinize and oversee changes, can hardly be considered a step in
the right direction.
The Liberal government has made a lot of promises regarding
open government. We often hear the term open government, but we
see little action. On the contrary, we have seen quite the reverse.
This is just one example of the government grasping at more power
and control. When this government proposes decision making to be
concentrated in one person, the minister, and conducted behind
closed doors with no accountability, this is not open government.
This is a step toward a more autocratic, not democratic, system of
government.
The Liberals promised in the red book that ``open government
will be the watchword of the Liberal government''. Right. It is
obvious that the Liberals need to reread their book of promises.
When put to the test on this government's commitment to open
government, it has failed miserably again and again.
16850
It is unfortunate to note that with the problems the government
has had regarding patronage and abuses of privilege, clause 17 is
certainly not appropriate. Clause 17 has no criteria in place to
guide decisions to raise or lower fees. It is completely lacking in
any system of checks or procedure for making fee changes known
to the public.
In addition, who will scrutinize the minister's decision when
fees and charges are raised or lowered at his whim? Will it be the
ethics commissioner, who has been notably absent in a number of
allegations of impropriety? I rather doubt it.
The government is proposing a system that will be left wide open
to the possibility of abuse. That is what concerns me most with this
portion of the bill. Unless the government will impose a system of
checks and balances to ensure accountability, it is best not to leave
the entire Department of Public Works and Government Services
and all its operations open to the possibility of abuse.
Let me remind the House and Canadians who are watching that
this is the same government that allowed one of its backbenchers to
take money from two different government departments for one
piece of equipment. In this case there was no system of checks and
balances to assure that the money was used appropriately. This is
just one example of the government's irresponsibility in the
managing of taxpayers' money. And now we are looking at a
proposal to give the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services complete discretion over rates for his department. Give us
a break.
This is the same government that promised to scrap the GST.
Where is it now? Right back where it was.
(1625 )
There is a definite lack of accountability. This makes it very
difficult to consider giving unlimited ministerial discretion. Time
and again this government has made a mockery of open
government. Last session closure was invoked on several bills in an
effort to hide the bills from public scrutiny.
In conclusion, Canadians will not tolerate this abuse of privilege
again and again. Canadians must be allowed to participate in debate
and decisions. It is time for this government to take a step in the
right direction, and that is to strike clause 17 from this bill
altogether.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
general thrust of Bill C-52 is to allow the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services the opportunity within existing laws and
regulations to develop the most efficient possible system for
delivering common services to the government.
An amendment has been put forward by the member for
Kingston and the Islands to clause 17 of the bill, which will allow
the minister, subject to Treasury Board regulations, to charge for
services provided by his department.
[Translation]
This is a simple and direct approach to price and fee setting and
determination.
[English]
This approach reduces to a minimum the administrative time and
costs involved, both to the department and to its client departments.
[Translation]
Another amendment to clause 17 proposed by the hon. member
for Québec-Est would have exactly the opposite effect. Adopting
this motion would result in substantial additional costs, a heavier
bureaucratic structure and considerable delay in the price setting
process for the department's services.
[English]
This goes directly against the grain of what the government and
most members want to see; namely, more efficiency and economy
in government operations and less red tape.
There is already a framework within government that ensures
that any authorities granted are being executed to safeguard the
interests of Canadian taxpayers. It should also be noted that the
services provided by the Department of Public Works and
Government Services are offered to other departments on an
optional basis and not to the general public.
[Translation]
This means that client departments and interested agencies may
either accept the department's rates or look for other ways of
satisfying their requirements.
[English]
This in itself is a very strong incentive to the minister and the
department to ensure that the rates they charge are fair and
competitive with others in the marketplace.
[Translation]
The wording proposed by the hon. member for Kingston and the
Islands is better suited to the realities of Public Works and
Government Services Canada. The amendment proposed by the
hon. member for Québec-Est would just create a heavier
bureaucratic structure, result in higher costs and not protect the
public interest any better.
[English]
The motion being put forward by the member for Kingston and
the Islands more appropriately reflects the approach to be taken in
this instance. I ask all members of the House to support it.
16851
[Translation]
We must show the taxpayers that we can operate more
effectively and serve them better with fewer people and less
money.
[English]
This is essentially what Bill C-52 is all about. The new
department has already demonstrated its value in cutting costs and
eliminating duplication.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The vote is on Motion No. 4.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1630)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House
that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for Chicoutimi-the Constitution.
We now move on to consideration of group 4.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-52, in Clause 20, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 38, on page 6, with the following:
``20. (1) Subject to any regulations that; and''; and
(b) by adding after line 4, on page 7, the following:
``(2) Within the first five days of every month or, if the House of Commons is
not then sitting, within the first three days next thereafter that the House is
sitting, the Minister shall cause to be laid before the House copies of all
contracts entered into under subsection (1) since copies of contracts entered
into under subsection (1) were last laid before the House.
(3) The copies of contracts laid before the House of Commons pursuant to
subsection (2) shall stand permanently referred to the committee established to
consider matters relating to government operations.''
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-52, in Clause 20, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 38, on page 6, with the following:
``20. (1) Subject to any regulations that; and''; and
(b) by adding after line 4, on page 7, the following:
``(2) Within the first five days of every month, the Minister shall cause to be
sent to every member of the House of Commons a list of the contracts entered
into under subsection (1) in the preceding month that relate to a corporation or a
firm
(a) having a place of business in the member's constitutency; or
(b) providing products or services pursuant to the contract in the member's
constituency.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment to clause 20 is once again
an attempt by the official opposition to provide greater
transparency in the activities of the Department of Public Works
and Government Services.
We certainly understand that the Department of Public Works
and Government Services has an important mandate, which is to
award contracts. However, we also know that there is a lot of
patronage related to that process, and that is something that can be
very costly. As you know, the federal government contracts out
almost $10 billion worth of services every year. The committee
which reviewed this bill was told at one point by Treasury Board
that these contracts amounted to only $5 billion. Then we learned
that it might closer to $7 billion. Now we know that, for all intents
and purposes, these contracts amount to some $10 billion, and not
all of them are necessarily justified.
Again, we were told by Treasury Board officials that, while the
government is in favour of relying more on the contracting out
process, as confirmed from year to year, particularly since the
Liberals took office, and while that practice has indeed increased,
Treasury Board has not set up any written assessment system to
effectively show that this process was good for the government, in
terms of money saved and increased efficiency.
Just recently, the committee heard some Treasury Board officials
who showed us, through their studies, that the total value of
non-competitive contracts was greater than that of competitive
contracts. Just think. Contracts under $30,000 awarded by the
government are not subject to a bidding process, nor is any
assessment done by any independent agency or department.
In other words, all contracts worth less than $30,000 can be
awarded to anyone, without any bidding. These are non-competi-
16852
tive contracts and, as I said, their total value is greater than that of
all the contracts which are subject to the competitive bidding
process.
(1635)
I think this is outrageous, because we know perfectly well that
the present government has monstrous debts. It seems to me that a
responsible government would want to use every means at its
disposal to ensure that these contracts with agencies that do
business with the government are honest and efficient.
However, there seems to be no desire to take any initiative in this
respect. The motion on clause 20 is quite straightforward. Its
purpose is to ensure that all contracts entered into by the
government with outside firms are published. It is certainly not too
much to ask the government to publish contracts, if only to inform
members of contracts entered into in their ridings. This is
elementary.
It is not a matter of cost either, although the government keeps
saying it would be extremely costly for the Department of Public
Works and Government Services to table in the House copies of
contracts entered into with outside firms. It is certainly not too
costly, since the Quebec government already does this.
This mechanism already exists. Clearly, if contracts awarded by
the government were published, this would be one more way to
monitor the system, so there would be less patronage involved in
awarding these contracts. Members of Parliament and others with
access to this information would be able to draw attention to the
many cases of abuse that would be easy to detect.
However, the government will not budge, it continues its policy
of concealment and shows no desire to be transparent. As far as we
are concerned, the kind of information we want is elementary. We
want to know. This is nothing out of the ordinary. We would have
this information if the government had the political will to inform
the general public, but we are not even asking that. We just want
members of Parliament to be informed, as is the case in Quebec.
The government has rejected our request. In fact, in the past two
years we have filed several requests with the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services for access to this information, and
we were turned down many times.
In my opinion, this refusal on the part of government to make
contracts entered into with outside firms public seems to be a
desire to conceal information. It seems to me that it is not a desire
for transparency, and the fact that waste and patronage may be at a
very high level in this government perhaps explains why access to
this information is being refused. Not only does this denote a denial
of transparency and information, but it is also an obvious reflection
of the desire, or lack of concern, on the part of the Government to
try to really reduce waste and misspending when it comes to
contracts with companies outside the government.
(1640)
Where subcontracting is concerned, in connection with contracts
of under $30,000 with no tendering process, I can personally tell
you that I have met a number of people who are familiar with all
the tricks used within the public service, all those readily
implemented tricks that can be used to get impressive amounts out
of the government, under the pretext that they are non-tendered,
non-competitive contracts. Shockingly high amounts have been
wasted once again by these departments.
All that we in the official opposition want is to be responsible, to
set up an initiative which will ensure greater transparency by
enabling us to obtain the necessary information to denounce abuses
and waste. This, I feel, is elementary. These are things to which one
ought to be entitled.
It seems to me that the government itself, if it were really
concerned about transparency and reducing waste, would have
brought in modifications to ensure that those involved were better
informed. It seems to me that the government is refusing things
which are self-evident.
To my eyes, this is an extremely worrisome action. We can
understand why the government is not reducing its deficit. We can
understand that the debt is going to continue to increase. The
economists are even predicting that the debt will exceed $800
billion by the year 2000. This situation is cause for alarm.
With this, the government would have the opportunity to
implement measures to limit these abuses. It could even go so far
as to adopt an act, as my colleague from Portneuf has said, to
protect public servants reporting waste within government, or to
propose bills to protect private businesses who have dealings with
the government, so that they too may report wastage, rigged
contracts, abuses and so on. But the government does not do so.
In closing, I would like to express my wish that the government
adopt this motion so as to guarantee greater transparency in
contracts outside government, thus reducing waste in Department
of Public Works and Government Services contracts.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address the Group No. 4 amendments to
Bill C-52, particularly the motions put forward by the hon. member
for Québec-Est.
I know what the hon. member is thinking in proposing these
amendments. They would allow government contracts to be placed
before committees and before members of Parliament. The
committees would look at them and either approve or disapprove of
them. Quite naturally, this is an unworkable and unrealistic
concept. It simply does not work.
16853
We must take into consideration when considering MotionNo. 8 the fact that the government enters into literally thousands
of contracts over the course of a year with thousands of individuals
and hundreds and hundreds of companies. To suggest that these
contracts could be effectively analyzed by the government
operations committee is unrealistic. Considering the sheer number
of contracts in no time the committee would be simply choked
with paperwork. Ultimately this would achieve nothing.
(1645)
While I do not support the amendment I share the opinions of the
member for Québec-Est, particularly those on non-competitive
contracts. I share his concern in all contracts laid out by the
government. It is a well known fact that Liberal governments past
and present and Tory governments past and hopefully not in the
future have built their party fortunes on the practice of patronage.
We can look at the who's who of business in the country and find
Liberal and Tory friends, big time. We have seen time after time
where Canadian companies that are well known supporters of the
Liberals or the Tories end up with a multitude of contracts.
One that comes to mind since I spoke about it a couple of weeks
ago is in the area of Canada Post, a crown corporation, and
SNC-Lavalin. I know it is a little removed from what we are talking
about. However SNC-Lavalin is a huge consortium, a huge
company, a well known friend of the Liberal Party. In the last three
years hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts have been let out
by Canada Post. They have been uncompetitive and given with no
public tender to SNC-Lavalin.
It does not take a rocket scientist to go through the political
contributions over the last 10 or 15 years. Almost on an annual
basis SNC-Lavalin and friend companies come up right at the top
of the list as contributors to the Liberal Party. We wonder why.
I share the concerns, but to put thousands of contracts before the
government operations committee, before members of Parliament,
is simply unworkable and unreasonable. Let us talk about whether,
if they did go before committee, the matter of committee
examination raises larger issues with respect to how committees
operate anyway.
The Liberals promised that committees would play a greater role
in Parliament and that members would have input into the
legislative process by way of their roles on the committees. What a
joke.
Let us start with some of the more notable initiatives of the
government when it comes to committees. One of the vice-chairs
of committees is automatically given by tradition to a member of
an opposition party in the House. There are two recognized
opposition parties in the House. One is a federalist party that
believes in Canada, that loves the country. Its power base in the last
election just happened to have been in the western provinces, from
Manitoba west. It was a good result for our first time out. We will
wait until the next election. We will let the people of Ontario,
Quebec, the maritimes and the rest of Canada determine our future.
We are a federalist party. We put forward a member's name from
our party to sit as a vice-chair. The separatist party, the Bloc
Quebecois, put forward a member. It is a party determined to break
up the country. The Liberals had two options. One was a separatist
who wants to destroy Canada and the other was a federalist who
wants to keep Canada together and make some changes so that it
will stay together. Who did the Liberals vote for en masse? They
voted for the separatist member. In every vice-chair position the
separatist member was supported by the Liberal Party.
(1650 )
The chairman of the public accounts committee is always an
opposition member. The Reform Party, a federalist party, put
forward the name of the member for St. Albert and the Bloc
Quebecois put forward the name of a member of its party for the
chairmanship of the committee. One would think the government
would want someone in that position who has the interests of the
future of Canada at heart. I would think that. Most Canadians
would think that, but not the Liberals.
The Liberal whips were there to make sure all their committee
members did exactly what they were told. They promptly voted in a
member of the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party whose goal is to
break up the country, to be chairman of the public accounts
committee. What a joke.
We can talk about the effectiveness of committees. Given the
fact that government members dominate the committees in
number, and they are the government so let us give them that credit,
the effectiveness of the committee is nullified. If there was
patronage going on, and I am sure there is, it would quite likely
continue because the committee members would simply rubber
stamp everything their party whips and powers that be told them.
We should look at how effective opposition members have been
in committees and the way Liberals have bulldozed bills through
committees. We need only look to Bill C-45, Bill C-64, Bill C-89
and Bill C-91 to find that the Liberals had no intention of listening
to what the Reform Party or the Bloc party had to say.
When Bill C-64, the employment equity bill, was before the
committee the Liberals allowed four witnesses from the Reform
list to appear before the committee and debate on each clause was
limited to five minutes. We are talking about a major piece of
legislation the Liberals wanted to push through the House. What
did they do? They sent the whip down to the committee examining
16854
the bill to give Liberal members their instructions and the bill was
rammed through.
Motion No. 8 has some merit in so far as the intent of the hon.
member for Québec-Est. I agree with his intent but unfortunately it
is simply not workable.
Motion No. 9 would cause a list of all government contracts in
each constituency to be distributed to the appropriate MP every
month. This would incur a tremendous amount of cost. The Reform
Party is a fiscally conscious party. It wants to see government
operations decreased rather than increased. Although we agree with
the intent of the motions we have to oppose them and that we will.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House today to address Bill C-52, more
particularly the proposed amendments to clause 20 put forward by
the Bloc Quebecois member.
[Translation]
Before doing so, I would like to make a few comments. When
my colleague from the Bloc referred to contracts, he forgot to
mention that the number of contracts awarded in the past few years
has remained essentially unchanged. True, their value has
increased, but he is well aware that this is because of a number of
major contracts that skewed the information. He knew this, but he
did not say it.
What is interesting, is that one of the government committees,
the Standing Committee on Government Operations, decided to
take a look at the matter. When it called witnesses, do you know
what was interesting? It was that people in the public service were
already looking at this question. They were studying it because
they were concerned as well. There you have it. It is quite
interesting, but he neglected to mention it.
I also find it interesting that my colleague has made all sorts of
unfounded accusations. He claims it is rotten, claims there is
patronage everywhere and claims that we are handing out money
here and there as if it grew on trees. Frankly, I find this exaggerated
and unfortunate. And what about my colleague from the Reform
Party?
(1655 )
[English]
He makes accusations too. He can make any kind of accusation.
He does not have any proof. It does not really matter. The Reform
Party has a lusting for power. It is lusting so terribly that it is saying
some terribly silly things. It is so silly that Reformers are trailing
the Tories in the polls. That is how silly it is and Canadians know it
is silly. I invite them to continue to make comments. Every time
they do it helps the Liberal Party. Would you stand and continue?
You are doing a fine job to help us.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. It is not for
me to slow anyone down, but I remind the member to make his
intervention through the Chair.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I was trying to speak
through you to them. I shall make sure that I do so from here on in.
I will make a couple of comments as well with respect to
contracts and sole sourcing. The preferred approach of the
Department of Public Works and Government Services is always
the competitive one. My colleagues know that. Why would they not
have mentioned that?
They also know that there are good occasions and good reasons
when we need to sole source. They know that. They also know that
if we sole source, any supplier who feels qualified to meet the
requirement can challenge the sole source award. They forgot to
mention that. That is openness. That is transparency. Is it that they
do not know or are they being mischievous?
It is interesting to note as well that advance contract award
notices can be challenged. They are rarely challenged. What does
that mean? That means that it is being done transparently. It is
being done above board. I am really surprised that it would not
have been mentioned.
I add as well that the House should also be reminded of other
measures the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
has taken to ensure integrity in the process. For example, all
members of the House have been invited to subscribe to the open
bidding system. I wonder if those who have been rather loquacious,
vociferous and noisy today have done that.
The minister introduced the lobbyist certification clause. Do
they know that? Do they know what it does? Probably not. An
effective bid challenge process has been implemented in the
department. Do they understand that? No, probably not.
Contracting operations are subject to regular internal audits. That is
another precaution. I cannot believe they would not share the
positive as well as the questions they feel need to be addressed.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services
holds supplier seminars across the country almost every day to
make sure people are aware of what is happening. In this
department small contracts are competed, contrary to the
impression that was given, even contracts below the dollar
threshold required by Treasury Board for competition. That was
not said.
They did not talk about the transparency of the open bidding
system. They have not said that for low dollar value procurements
not advertised on the OBS the department uses an automated
vendor rotation system which ensures equitable access to all
suppliers of local commodity specific source lists of qualified
16855
suppliers, another precaution. They did not mention that 75 per
cent of suppliers subscribing to the OBS have 50 or fewer
employees, which points out that small businesses take advantage
of it.
We have no evidence of a trend for contract splitting in the
department. The department statistics indicate a reduction in both
the number of contracts under $30,000 and the number of contract
amendments.
I thought we needed to set the record straight because either my
colleagues have not done their work or they have done their work
and choose to ignore the facts. Either one is unacceptable.
I get back to the specifics. It is my view that the amendment
aims to address two issues related to the department's procurement
activities: access to information on contracts and ensuring integrity
in the procurement process. No one would argue that these are not
worthy goals. Right now the department has mechanisms in place
which address the same issues.
[Translation]
I am sure the members in opposition are familiar with Public
Works and Government Services' efficient and rapid contract
opportunity information dissemination system.
(1700)
I am talking, obviously, about the Open Bidding System, the
OBS. It is an electronic display panel providing information not
only on opportunities for contracts over $25,000 for goods and over
$60,000 for services, but on contracts already awarded. It provides
details on the bid selected along with the name of the contractor
and the amount of the contract.
[English]
The OBS gives its users, be they small or medium size
businesses or members of Parliament, instant access to valuable
information on procurement opportunities past and present.
If the goal of the member is to ensure that the system is fair, let
me assure the House that many steps have already been taken by
the minister and the department toward that goal. For instance, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services has taken
positive steps to tighten up the manner in which the government
awards contracts for advertising and public opinion research. This
is a sensitive area, one in which the actions of the previous
government have come under serious criticism. The minister has
also moved to curb the potential influence that lobbyists could
bring to bear on the contracting process.
[Translation]
All contracts awarded by Public Works and Government
Services now include a clause requiring all firms to state that
payment, in full or in part, of services rendered by all lobbyists
hired to obtain the contract depends neither directly nor indirectly
on the client's being awarded the contract.
In other words, conditional payment of honoraria to lobbyists is
prohibited. As the result of these amendments, Treasury Board now
requires all departments to prohibit contractors from paying their
lobbyists conditionally.
[English]
If it is accountability that the member is concerned about, the
function of procurement or contracting out is almost certainly the
most closely scrutinized responsibility of the minister and
Department of Public Works and Government Services. The
contracting process is subject to the department's own rules and
procedures; to Treasury Board regulations and guidelines; to
scrutiny by cabinet and the auditor general; and of course, by the
media and the Canadian public.
An emphasis on fair and open competition goes to the very heart
of the drive for economic growth and renewal in this country. Fair
competition encourages firms to strive for greater efficiency and to
look for innovative ways of producing and delivering their goods
and services.
[Translation]
These qualities are vital to the development of a strong and
creative economy for Canada. It is therefore particularly important
for the federal government to practice what it preaches in its own
business operations.
[English]
By stressing competition, fairness, and openness in contracting,
the government can help build a culture of excellence in this
country and ensure the Canadian taxpayers get full value for their
money. Passage of Bill C-52 and the creation of the Department of
Public Works and Government Services will be a positive step in
meeting this goal.
[Translation]
I will close by saying that I deplore this tendency we have of
making unfounded accusations. I also deplore the tendency of
exaggerating problems we have in government and I deplore the
tendency of members not doing their homework before rising in the
House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on motion
No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
16856
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1705)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
76, the recorded division on the motion is deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 10 and 11 in Group No. 5 will not be moved by the
hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River and are therefore
withdrawn.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
[Translation]
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the chief government whip, with the agreement of the whips of
all the recognized parties, has asked that the recorded division on
the question now before the House be deferred until Tuesday,
November 28, after government orders, at which time the bells to
call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, from indications given by my
colleague, the House leader and his staff earlier, the House would
normally proceed to the debate on Bill C-93. However, since report
stage motions were filed on Friday, the 48-hour notice rule is not
satisfied. We will then have to proceed with the next bill on the
Order Paper which is Bill C-94.
* * *
The House resumed from November 21 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and
the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese
based substances, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): On this bill we are now at
the five hour stage of debate which has entitlements for members to
speak for 20 minutes subject to 10 minutes of questions or
comments. Slightly over two hours are left at this stage of the
debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to address the issue in Bill C-94 concerning
the removal of MMT from gasoline in Canada.
We have been told that this was a debate between, on the one
hand, the automobile industry and, on the other hand, the industry
that is making MMT, that is, the Esso company.
For us, on this side of the House, it is not in any way one or the
other; it is purely a debate on an environmental issue, on a
sustainable development issue resulting from automobile
emissions that are the greatest sources of noxious gases that change
the climate and against which we are fighting vigorously under the
convention on climate change.
For us, the intent and the objective are to reduce as much as
possible noxious automobile emissions so that we can reduce
greenhouse gases.
[English]
The whole debate revolves around what are known as catalytic
converters in automobiles. Twenty-five years ago, before catalysts
were installed in automobiles, automobile emissions were far more
severe than they are today. With the advent of very adverse
conditions especially in the heavy automobile states such as
California, New York and Pennsylvania, catalytic converters were
born. To appreciate the essence of the debate on MMT, we have to
appreciate what is the true function of a catalyst in an automobile.
16857
(1710)
A catalyst in an automobile has two main functions. One is to
filter and to deter the emissions of hydrocarbons and deleterious
gases. The other is to store oxygen within the converter. In modern
automobiles we are now installing onboard detection systems with
very sensitive equipment such as computerized sensors which
permit the catalytic converters to function at their maximum
efficiency.
What happens with the use of the heavy metal MMT in gasoline?
It compounds the problems of catalysts in that it produces
manganese oxide deposits inside the various elements of the
converters. The effect of MMT over time on a catalyst today is to
impair its function of providing the maximum input in reducing
hydrocarbon emissions and other noxious gases. This happens
gradually and increasingly as the catalyst ages.
More oxygen is accumulated inside the converter with the effect
that the sensor is completely fooled by MMT in its application.
Today's sensors in the onboard detection systems are prevented
from working properly. The automobile manufacturers have rightly
said that where there is MMT it is impossible for the new type of
onboard detection systems to function properly.
Further, a big cold battle has been raging in the United States as
to whether MMT should or should not be included. It will follow
that even if MMT is permitted in the United States, in several states
representing at least one-third of the gasoline purchases in the
United States, all the heavy automobile states such as California,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New York and so forth, it will still be
impossible to use MMT because the clean air act provides that
these states must use reformulated gasoline.
This means MMT or additives containing heavy metals will not
be able to be used, except under very special circumstances. It
means that even if MMT were allowed in the United States
tomorrow, in the several states which provide for the use of
reformulated gasoline, for example, California, Connecticut,
Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas
and Wisconsin, it will be impossible to use MMT because heavy
metals cannot be used in reformulated gasoline.
The reason is very simple. When heavy metals are introduced
into gasoline it is impossible to gradually change to other formulas
which enable other octanes such as ethanol to be used. The quicker
we ban MMT in Canada, the faster we can move into the use of
alternative fuels such as ethanol and others as additives to produce
a more environmentally friendly gasoline. It has been said that this
debate is the auto industry against MMT, that this side has relied on
the automobile industry for its input. I have gone to the trouble of
speaking to scientists very far removed from the automobile
industry, who have told me that unless we remove MMT from our
gasoline it will not be possible for us to move toward reformulated
gasoline using additives, such as environmentally friendly ethanol
produced from wood and other substances; ethanol which will
produce far fewer emissions, which go toward the warming of our
climate.
(1715)
For me this whole question is an environmental issue. It is very
much an environmental issue. If tomorrow I have a choice to use a
heavy metal, such as manganese as an additive in gasoline, and on
the other side to gradually move toward environmentally friendly
additives, such as ethanol and others, then for me there is no
choice. Unless we take the first step, the second will never happen.
I know it has been said that the Ministry of Health has not
banned MMT, has not found it noxious to health. Yet there are very
severe warnings. In the last debate in this House at second reading,
I quoted some very severe warnings by leading health specialists
and scientists. I will not return to all the quotes I have already read,
except to put the accent on one of them.
During the hearings before the United States house of
representatives committee on health and environment regarding the
EPA, there was one quote: ``that like lead, manganese is not new or
toxic. It is an element and thus does not degrade or lose its potency
with the passage of time. As a result, the manganese released into
the environment through the use of MMT in a given year
accumulates over time with all the MMT released in the next year
and all the subsequent years''.
I have recently received a health report written by three
scientists. It is a report headed ``Developmental Toxicity of
Mangafodipir Trisodium and Manganese Chloride in
Sprague-Dawley Rats''. It is by three scientists, Kimberley Treinen
of the Sanofi Research Division of Collegeville, Pennsylvania; Mr.
Tim Gray of the Alnwick Research Centre in Alnwick,
Northumberland in England and William Blazak of Nycomed,
Collegeville, Pennsylvania.
They studied MnDPDP, which is a manganese chelate being
developed as a contrast agent for magnet resonance. They say:
A third study, in which 15 rats/group were dosed intravenously with 0, 5, 20
or40 mmol/kg MnCl2 on days 6-17 of gestation, produced identical skeletal
malformations to those seen with MnDPDP, indicating that manganese is the
active moiety responsible for these specific malformations.
Their summary says:
In summary, the data presented here indicate that a specific syndrome of
skeletal malformations in rats was induced by MnDPDP, which occurred in the
absence of maternal toxicity at four times the intended clinical dose. The same
specific malformations were also seen with intravenous administration of
equivalent or lower doses of manganese. Since manganese has been shown to
cross the placenta (Jarvinen and Ahlstrom, '75; Koshida et al, '63; Rojas et al.,
'67), it appears that manganese is the active tertogenic moiety in MnDPDP.
(1720 )
It appears that manganese is the active teratogenic moiety in
MnDPDP.
16858
Our health ministry has not accepted and proven conclusively
that manganese is a toxic agent that should be banned. At the same
time, the whole question is, if we have two alternatives, it is
always a question of choice. We have two alternatives, MMT on
one side, a heavy metal that is known to affect, to gum up catalytic
converters. It is not used in California, which is trying to clean
up its air. It is not used in New York state. It is not used in
Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.
If by any chance we move to cleaner additives, to ethanol and
others, then the choice is very simple for us. Let us ban MMT so
that eventually we are going to produce and use much cleaner fuels.
The world is moving very fast. I am told by various scientists
from the automobile side and others that the day is coming very
fast when automobile catalysts will be so precise that they will be
able to monitor any noxious fumes. There will be far more effective
filtering agents that will be used much more effectively with
reformulated gasoline, such as is the case in the states that have led
the fight on this, California and others.
If MMT continues to be used, then the potential for an improved
catalytic converter will not happen. The choice for us is to say let
us move on, let us go along, pass Bill C-94 very fast so that Canada
joins not only the United States, not only California, not only
Pennsylvania but Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, France,
England and all the states of the world that do not use MMT. Why
should we be the exception?
For me, this is the vote for the environment. We will vote with
much conviction for Bill C-94.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member present his case. I
want to make a point and ask a question.
The member speaks as if there is absolute, conclusive opinion
regarding the detrimental effects of MMT. I listened to the member
speak. I believe that he believes that.
The fact is that there are conflicting reports on the effects of
MMT. I would like to ask the member if he has read the reports that
say that MMT is not the bad additive that the report says. Has the
member read both reports? Could he comment on what is his
opinion of the report that supports the continued use of MMT and
the effectiveness of it as a product that helps the gasoline to burn
more clean and effectively? Has he read both reports?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have read on both sides of the
question. Yes, I know it is not a question that is totally black and
white. Yes, I know that the makers of MMT can genuinely say that
in some sectors it has advantages.
(1725 )
However, in all the decisions we make here nothing is exactly
black or white. We have a choice. Of the two choices, one is the
choice of a heavy metal with very serious potential health questions
attached to it which many scientists have been flagging, as they did
about lead. The same debate took place on lead. Should it be taken
out of gasoline? Should it be left in because it is a very good octane
enhancer? Today we would never go back. If we looked at the
debates which took place I am sure there were two sides to the
issue.
Eventually a choice has to be made. With me the choice is clear.
On one side is a heavy metal which has potential health problems.
It has been clearly demonstrated to gum up catalytic converters,
which are the salvation of tomorrow with respect to the car of the
future. I would like to find a way to move much faster in Canada
toward other additives. It may be a bit more expensive in the
beginning, but eventually we should look to other additives, just as
the rest of the world is doing.
If MMT is so beneficial, why do not Scandinavia, a leader in the
environmental field, the Netherlands, Germany or Japan use it?
For me the choice is very clear. In the balance of choices I have
chosen to go with Bill C-94. It is the fastest way for us to use
environmentally friendly fuels in Canada.
Mr. Harris: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the answer of the hon.
member.
I want to key in on a phrase which he used and that was the
phrase ``potential health hazards''. Either we have a health hazard
with the use of MMT or we do not. Surely, with the science which
is available to us to study the effects of a fuel product using MMT,
we can determine beyond a shadow of a doubt whether there is or is
not a health hazard.
The hon. member said that he has read studies which indicate
that MMT is fine and that no conclusion has ever been reached that
there are health risks involved with it. On the other hand, the
reports and studies which came from the auto industry said that
there is a health hazard with MMT and that we must stop this
devastating product immediately.
I am surprised that the government is ready to jump to a decision
to ban MMT without having a conclusive scientific finding. When
there are two reports on the product which are at absolute
opposites, I wonder what is behind the government's enthusiasm to
jump in and ban MMT. It is all right to say that the sky is going to
fall, but that might only be opinion. The sky may never fall.
I believe that the Liberals are playing ``Chicken Little'' with this
bill. The sky is falling and MMT is going to pollute the earth. In
16859
fact, the sky has never fallen and there is no scientific evidence
that MMT is a health hazard.
Mr. Lincoln: Madam Speaker, first of all, the auto industry has
never made its case on the health issues. The automobile industry
made its case on catalysts and sensors and the onboard detection
systems in vehicles. That was its case.
With respect to the case on health, I produced several quotations
during second reading and I have them here. I did not obtain them
from the automobile industry.
(1730 )
The fact is that several very learned and respected scientists have
said beware, there is a potential problem with manganese. To say
that it does not exist is to negate some very important opinions that
have been expressed.
Following the Earth Summit in Rio, which my friends on the
environment committee will know, sanction is now one of the basic
principles of any environmental law as a precautionary principle.
Do not wait until everything has been proven conclusively before
we act.
When Rachel Carson wrote a book about DDT she was thought
to be crazy. And look at what DDT has done while we waited for
conclusive proof.
At one time we were using PCBs and we thought they were good
for the environment and for equipment in transformers. We found
out too late how deleterious it is to the environment. We used lead
as well, and thought it was great until too late we found out what
happened.
As I said to the member, if there is a choice to be made, do we
choose a heavy metal that can produce problems or do we use a
clean additive? The choice is very clear to me. On the basis of the
precautionary principle and on the basis of all I have read, I am
voting very convincingly for Bill C-94.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois has decided to propose an amendment to Bill C-94
at third reading, because we know that the American agency EPA
will table a report on the issue shortly. As my colleague of the
Reform Party said earlier, we believe that it is important for us to
also look at studies that will be published at the international level,
because our friends opposite enjoy saying in committee that the
environment knows no boundaries. This is why I move the
following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``That''
and substituting the following:
``Bill C-94, An Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation
for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, be not now
read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.''
[
English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We are verifying the
validity of the amendment.
The hon. member has taken debate time. We now have a
10-minute period of questions and comments.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-94, which is now before the House.
In the bill the government is taking a decisive step toward
protecting the environment, jobs, consumers, and keeping our
country at the leading edge of automobile technology. All are very
important goals.
Bill C-94 will prohibit the import and interprovincial trade of
MMT, a manganese based fuel additive manufactured in the U.S.
The proposed bill, to be known as the manganese based fuel
additives act, will come into effect 60 days after it gains assent.
Canada is one of the only countries in the world that use MMT. It
is very rare in the world these days. The U.S., for example, banned
it from use in unleaded gasoline in 1978. It is remarkable that it did
it so long ago and we still have it in Canada.
(1735 )
Some members opposite have cited a recent U.S. court decision
in favour of MMT as a reason to stop this legislation. But MMT
will still be banned in California and in those states that require
federal reformulated gasoline to be used. What is more, we have
yet to see whether the U.S. government will repeal this decision.
We are taking this action because we need to protect the latest
onboard diagnostic systems that Canada's car makers are installing
in their new vehicles. These systems are extremely important for
the environment. They are responsible for monitoring the vehicle
emission controls and for alerting the driver of malfunctions.
Without that kind of technology one cannot be aware of how well
the car is working or if it is not functioning at all in terms of its
emission control processes. They ensure that the cleaner burning
engines of today and tomorrow operate as designed. They ensure
that automobiles are properly maintained, resulting in decreased
tailpipe emissions and improved fuel economy. In other words, this
is one more important tool to help us address air pollution,
including smog and climate change.
This government will not allow MMT to get in the way of the
automobile industry's effort to make cars cleaner and more
efficient and less polluting. Canada's environment and Canadian
consumers have the right to the best anti-pollution technology
possible. Yet Ethyl Corporation, the manufacturer of MMT through
its subsidiary Ethyl Canada, denies the vehicle industry allegation
about the ill effects of MMT on the vehicle emissions control
16860
systems. In fact it makes a counter claim that MMT is
environmentally beneficial.
All this is somewhat fuzzy. What is certain is that efforts to
reduce motor vehicle pollution can no longer be addressed by just
the petroleum industry, the auto industry, or the federal
government. Progress at reducing vehicle pollution requires
simultaneous action by all. The petroleum industry needs to keep
making improvements in the composition and properties of the
fuels engines burn. The auto industry needs to keep making
improvements in the vehicle emissions control systems and
technologies, such as those offered through onboard diagnostic
systems. The government needs to take decisive action in Bill
C-94, which removes a major obstacle to the introduction of these
technologies. That obstacle is MMT.
Our strategy to reduce vehicle pollution goes beyond just taking
action on MMT. The government is doing its part because we know
that automobiles are a major contributor to climate change and
urban smog as well as some toxic pollutants like benzene. In fact in
a recently released task force report done by Canada's deputy
ministers of environment it is noted that even with the
improvements in emissions technology, vehicles are still the largest
contributors to air pollution.
I must say that troubles me. I as a member of Parliament, and I
am sure many of my colleagues, have to travel a great deal
throughout my riding and often I am the only person in the vehicle.
There are times when I feel uncomfortable about that. I know that it
is important that I get around my riding, get around to different
events, be seen and hear people's concerns. Yet I also know that I
am driving a vehicle a lot more than I would like to be driving it.
Unfortunately, my riding is too big to go by bicycle. It would take
me forever, but it would certainly be great for my health. This issue
does trouble me. We should be concerned about the impact of
automobile emissions as they impact on the environment and air
pollution.
On a national basis, gasoline and diesel powered vehicles still
contribute some 60 per cent of carbon monoxide emissions, 35 per
cent of nitrous oxide emissions or smog, 25 per cent of our
hydrocarbon emissions, and 20 per cent of carbon dioxide
emissions. These vehicles, gasoline and diesel powered, are very
big contributors to our smog and pollution problems.
This report I just referred to stresses the need to proceed on all
fronts at the same time in all of these areas. It states the following:
``Vehicle technology and fuel composition, although two separate
industry sectors, must be treated as an integrated system in the
development of policies and programs in order to successfully
reduce emissions from motor vehicles''. This is good advice. It
should complement our work in preparing our comprehensive
motor vehicle exhaust emission standards.
(1740)
To meet these standards, we are counting on integrating
improvements achieved in emission control technologies and fuels.
However, clearly we cannot hope to meet these standards without
the kind of action we are taking against MMT in Bill C-94. And it
is not simply an act of impatience. Since 1985 the federal
government has waited for the automotive and petroleum
industries to resolve this situation without legislation. It was not
resolved. The time for waiting is over. It is now time for the
government to act.
Last October the Minister of the Environment urged both the
petroleum and automotive industries to voluntarily resolve the
issue of MMT in Canada by the end of 1994; otherwise, the
government would take action. This deadline was subsequently
extended in February of this year to review automobile and
petroleum industry proposals. The MMT issue is no longer an
industry dispute. Its outcome can affect the vehicle emissions
programs we are putting into place. In the long term it could also
negatively impact on the automotive sector. Successful resolution
of the MMT issue will ensure that environmental benefits are
realized through the use of the most advanced emission control
technologies. We have to move in this direction.
Members opposite have claimed that this legislation will have an
enormous financial impact on the petroleum sector. However, let us
be prudent and realistic. The economic impact of removing MMT
will be small, not enormous. Estimates for the industry, an industry
that involves many billions of dollars, range from $50 million to
$83 million per year, which means an additional cost to consumers
of 0.1 cents to 0.24 cents per litre at the pump. This is less than
one-quarter of a cent per litre at the pump.
Some have said that taking MMT out of our fuel will increase
benzene. That is not so. It is nonsense. Gasoline can be refined
without MMT and without increasing levels of benzene. Any effort
to increase benzene levels or benzene precursors will not be
tolerated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In fact
this past summer the Minister of the Environment announced that
benzene levels would be regulated at a maximum of one per cent
per volume. So there is nothing to fear. Let us move ahead. Let us
do it, because we need new emission control technologies like the
onboard diagnostic systems. We need them to help achieve
reductions in smog, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. We need
to reduce these kinds of emissions because they have an influence
on climate change and urban air quality.
This is good legislation. It is good for consumers and good for
the environment. All 18 automobile companies in Canada agree,
even if the Reform Party does not, that we are moving in the right
direction.
I urge all members to give their support and swift passage to this
bill.
16861
(1745)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, as
we said in the motion, we are not asking for the bill to be
withdrawn altogether but to be postponed for six months. The
environment is of course a very important matter, and we support
any measures that have a positive impact on the environment and
that are environmentally viable.
However, as far as Bill C-94 on the abolition of MMT is
concerned, we are not convinced it is a good bill. If we consider
what has been done with respect to manganese, including tests by
the automotive industry, the tests now being done by independent
laboratories were ordered strictly by Ethyl Corporation which, on
the basis of its tests, has demonstrated that MMT does not in any
way affect the components of the antipollution system in
automobiles.
I also wonder what the automotive industry is doing in this
respect. If studies have already found that MMT causes pollution in
the components of the antipollution system, why have these tests
not been published? Did they actually do any tests? Do they intend
to or did they never do any at all?
When I look at the government's position in this respect, is it
possible that the government was pressured by the automotive
industry lobby to the extent that it felt obliged to table this bill? It is
quite possible. I do not want to accuse anybody, but we all know
that there are two major lobbies here in Canada. The oil company
lobby and the automotive lobby. As it happens, all the automotive
industries are in Ontario, not far from the environment minister's
riding. Maybe that should give rise to some questions.
However, the U.S. automotive industry is only beginning to test
this product. The purpose of our amendment is for us to wait until
they get the results of those tests before we make a final and
definitive decision, because legislation is definitive. We must have
some kind of proof and nobody has proven anything yet, not even
Health Canada. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment said earlier-he read it, by the way, because it is in
Hansard-that as far as health is concerned, tests have shown that
there is no threat whatsoever to health.
I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment made a mistake a while ago when he mentioned that
manganese was a toxin. I am sorry, but if it were considered a toxic
product, we would not be here considering a special piece of
legislation such as Bill C-94 to ban it, because it would be covered
under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This
means that any product considered toxic is automatically included
under CEPA. This is not the case here. Manganese is not a toxic
product since we have to enact a specific legislation to ban it.
There has been a slight error which I wanted to point out and
correct.
We have heard about a recent ruling in the United States, which I
believe to be very important. The Ethyl corporation has been
working for years to keep on manufacturing and marketing its
product. Very recently, a few weeks ago, a ruling ordered the EPA,
the Environmental Protection Agency, the American equivalent of
our Department of the Environment, to lift the ban on MMT.
(1750)
In the United States, even the Environmental Protection Agency
tells us when we call that it does not know if it is going to appeal,
that it does not think so. We are told that this product could be
reintroduced in the United States as early as the beginning of
December. So what is the rationale behind Bill C-94?
We are also told that 50 per cent of American refineries are ready
to use this product and cannot wait to do so. So if 50 per cent of
these industries are ready to use MMT, again what is the rationale
behind Bill C-94?
In the environment committee, we are always talking about
harmonization, about trying to make the environment an
international concern. I totally agree with that. Yes, I said many
times that we have to avoid duplication and conflict and yet, with
Bill C-94, we are creating a conflict with our neighbours, the
Americans, who are a bit more powerful than we are.
So we are going to eliminate MMT from the market and ask all
our refineries to transform their system, at a cost of several million
dollars, because they will not be able to use MMT any more, and
we may well have to reintroduce it in six months. It makes
absolutely no sense at all.
What we are asking is not that the bill be withdrawn, but that we
wait and see what happens in the United States. We are also asking
to see the tests being done right now by the U.S. automotive
industry, and I have the feeling that these tests will be performed a
little bit faster than the ones scheduled to be done in Canada,
because we will not be able to watch them. Once we have these
results, we will have a complete, concrete and logical overview of
the issue, and in six months' time, we can revisit the bill and make
a decision based on logical arguments.
We are going through tough a period, in our economy, where we
cannot afford to make mistakes. We are out of money. We are going
through some hard times. Are we going to ask refineries to
completely modify their process simply to achieve what we set to
do as far as MMT is concerned? I know that MMT is an additive.
But we are also talking about other additives now available on the
market, such as ethanol. As you know, we have yet to see complete
and concrete evidence that ethanol is neither toxic nor hazardous.
16862
We may realize one day that ethanol is not that good for the
environment.
I am not against the introduction of products like ethanol, but
why should we replace manganese, MMT, which has been
thoroughly analyzed for 15 years and has not been proven to be
dangerous? On the contrary, it even helps to reduce the greenhouse
effect by 20 per cent.
I am not saying that we should keep this product forever or that
the bill is not good. What I am saying is that the product is now
being reintroduced on the American market and that we should
wait six months to see what the EPA will do or what studies the
U.S. automotive industry will produce on this product before we
make a logical and reasonable decision on this issue.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, if the minister is lucky, her Bill C-94 banning gas
additives will stall before it backfires.
An innocuous-sounding piece of federal legislation supposedly aimed at
reducing auto emissions has left critics wondering whether the Liberal
government hasn't inhaled one noxious substance too many.
The bill we are debating, the manganese based fuel additive bill,
would ban a gasoline additive called MMT.
Environment Minister Sheila Copps has made the rather dramatic claims that
the move will make auto emissions 600 percent cleaner, while saving car buyers
an average of $3,000 on the next family clunker. Unfortunately for all, there is
considerable evidence that the issue is made up of equal parts of clean air and
the hot variety.
A growing number of critics of the legislation-including provincial
environment ministers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick-fear a ban on MMT may actually cause a dramatic increase in
choking tailpipe filth, while causing higher gas prices.
MMT has been added to Canadian gasoline since 1977, primarily to increase
octane levels.
(1755)
It was mentioned that it was banned in the United States. That is
not particularly the case. It was never really approved because of
some early concerns and then it got involved in extensive court
battles. Specifically, it was never banned because it was seen as a
dangerous substance; it just never received approval.
The alternative is enhanced oil-refining, at greater cost to the petroleum
companies and, inevitably, consumers.
Of course that would involve other additives, which may also
prove eventually much more harmful than MMT was ever
contemplated to be. There is also evidence that MMT may
significantly cut smog-producing nitrogen oxide emissions, or
what we commonly call NOx.
But the automobile companies claim MMT gums up their emission-control
warning systems, possibly causing the malfunction indicator lights on the
dashboard to malfunction. If drivers don't know they have a problem with
emission control, the industry argues, they will unwittingly be poisoning the air
even more than usual.
The alternative of fixing the cars instead of the fuel, according to the federal
environment minister, would increase the average car price by $3,000.
One official spokesman for the minister said that ``On this
particular issue, the evidence she has seen-has provided her with
enough to get this bill through cabinet and the House''. The cabinet
dealt with this in a far too cursory manner.
That so-called ``evidence'' is contained in four separate reports-three
written by various automobile lobby organizations, the fourth at the request of
General Motors. No surprise; all concluded MMT was pretty terrible stuff.
As it happens, there are a few other studies floating around. Health Canada,
for instance, concluded MMT poses no particular health risk.
I recall looking at my vitamin bottle, and manganese is on the
vitamin pill list. It is a matter of trace amounts or whatever. The
studies that were quoted by the parliamentary secretary talk about
giving rats an unusual amount of the concentrated substance. I
would think that any vitamin given in a disproportionate amount is
going to cause some deleterious effects to a living organism.
Another mega-study was conducted over a five-year period for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, which, until recently, had placed a total ban
on MMT additives in gasoline. It was not permitted. The results of the study, in
part, last month led the U.S. Court of Appeals to order the environmental agency
to approve the use of MMT in unleaded gas.
We are waiting for December 5, which is the cut-off date for any
filing of appeals. Certainly the motion before the House today
would accommodate that wait and see approach to see how the
world is generally going to move on this item.
The U.S. court ruling also blew the engine on the minister's argument that, as
a trade issue, it was vital to harmonize Canadian and U.S. standards on MMT.
One effect of the U.S. court ruling is that it compelled the American
automakers and petroleum industry to launch a new joint study into MMT and
the whacky warning lights.
Given the amount of conflicting evidence presented by both sides, the five
provincial environment ministers have suggested Copps put the brakes on her
pet legislation, at least until the U.S. joint study has been completed.
Even within the Liberal cabinet, we are told, some ministers seem concerned
that Copps' determination to ram the MMT legislation through has more to do
with her personal political agenda (e.g., saving face) than practical
environmental considerations.
Copps's rhetoric on this issue has been so forceful, retreating from the
legislation now would produce more political egg than she has face to wear.
Fortunately for her, there is a graceful way out. The Commons is expected to
prorogue some time next month, meaning this session of Parliament will be
officially declared dead, along with all unpassed bills. In the meantime, the bill still has
to go to the Senate, which, if Copps is really lucky, will tie up the bill till
prorogation do it part.
16863
(1800 )
This anti free trade bill should die. I think MMT is about to be
used around the world. Many countries are not using it now
because it is not being used in the United States. They are watching
what will happen in the United States. If the American industry
begins to use it, many countries are ready to follow suit.
The EPA will be completely out of the picture on December 5.
The government should be embarrassed about this bill. It knows it
and we know it. Let common sense prevail.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to rectify a few things that have been said by
previous speakers.
I think reading from a newspaper article to show that the
minister is only pushing Bill C-94 forward as a project to save face
is nonsense. The minister believes, as I and the Liberal government
do, after much thinking and cogitation and the several weeks of
discussion the bill has undergone, that for us it is the best choice.
There are two choices. MMT could be left in, riding on the back
of the Ethyl Corporation which both the Bloc Quebecois and the
Reform Party quote very extensively. The Ethyl Corporation has
done a great lobbying job with the members. I am happy for the
Ethyl Corporation that some members are convinced. At the same
time, there is an issue of choice, an issue of whether we keep a
heavy metal, which is what MMT is, in our future gasolines and
cars, or whether we try to move toward more environmentally
sound fuels.
I heard the Bloc Quebecois member question whether ethanol
will one day be found to be just as bad for the environment as lead
or something else is today. I would suggest that she read the
testimony made before many committees of the House on ethanol
and that she consult with people involved in the ethanol industry.
Perhaps she should consult with those who crafted the clean air act
in the United States. It was amended so that in the future more and
more ethanol would be used because of its cleaner properties. The
scientists are very clear that ethanol is a cleaner fuel because it is
derived from natural, biological properties. Obviously, it is not a
heavy metal.
When I referred to manganese as a toxin I was quoting from
studies of scientists who referred to it. A statement was made by
the United States House of Representatives Committee on Health
and Environment at the EPA hearing on June 22, 1990. Reference
was made that like lead, manganese is not only neurotoxic, it is an
element, et cetera. We are talking about neurotoxic in the generic
sense, not in the sense of the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act. We are talking in a generic sense.
I will quote other scientists from the University of Pittsburgh,
Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic at the same hearings: ``The
page 15 appendix to their waiver application''-talking about
Ethyl Corporation-``that deals with health nowhere mentions the
neurotoxic properties of manganese''.
The Department of Health and Human Services in the United
States stated: ``MMT can be absorbed through the skin and
probably readily by the nose and lungs''. Obviously they are
talking in a generic sense about a heavy metal.
Perhaps the Bloc Quebecois critic should check with the deputy
minister of the Department of the Environment who in a letter to
our deputy minister in the Department of the Environment said:
(1805)
[Translation]
In a letter dated July 7, 1995, the minister said that they were
thinking of supporting the Canadian position on MMT in order to
maintain the uniformity of car fleets and to take advantage of the
environmental gains that will be made possible by the new motor
vehicle emission control technologies.
The Quebec Deputy Minister of the Environment wrote to his
federal counterpart that they were thinking of supporting the
Canadian position on MMT in order to maintain the uniformity of
car fleets and to take advantage of the environmental gains that will
be made possible by the new motor vehicle emission control
technologies.
This, of course, was denied in a November 2, 1995 letter from
the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources, who disagrees. In any
case, it is interesting to note that they agreed from an
environmental point of view. It is clear that this issue has two
components. We could argue, like the Reform critic, that once
MMT is accepted in the U.S., the rest of the world will follow.
[English]
There is no evidence of that. There is no evidence that the
Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark or
Japan, environmentally conscious countries, would join in because
a court case was won by the Ethyl corporation in the United States.
Certainly the EPA opposed the court case all the way along. The
Environmental Protection Agency of the United States also pointed
out that several states of the United States would not be able to use
MMT because they were using reformulated gasoline so that they
could clean up their own air emissions faster.
It is a stalling tactic to try to kill the bill, to produce another
amendment that is exactly the same as the amendment we defeated
very fairly the other day. There was a similar amendment on second
reading to defer it for six months and we defeated it. That is the
democratic process. I am sure the same result will greet this
amendment.
16864
Mr. Forseth: Madam Speaker, certainly stalling has been
basically our position all along because of the appeal situation in
the United States. Our position, which was purported to support the
MMT bill, has been well pointed out in the House and at
committee.
When I began to cross-examine some of the evidence at
committee, for instance the sparkplug evidence, it turned out to be
fake. I demolished the testimony of the person who had the nerve to
come to the table and put forward evidence that turned out to be
completely erroneous.
That is why the government has been very reluctant to agree to
independent third party testing. It has rejected that down the line.
However I understand some groups are getting together in the
United States to have independent third party testing to be able to
remove the pressure of lobby groups.
Certainly our party has not been siding with any particular lobby
group. Right from the beginning we have been asking for
independent third party tests. My colleague asks who stands up for
science. We wonder about the government and what lobby groups it
is supporting.
The delay is to see what will happen in the United States and
certainly this is an ill advised bill that should die.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(1810 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, a division on the question now before the House stands
deferred until November 28 at the end of government business, at
which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not
more than 15 minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, in view of the time of the day
which leaves very little time to commence a new order I suggest
that we call it 6.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
16864
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, on
November 7, the Prime Minister announced that a ministerial
committee had been set up to review the whole question of
constitutional and administrative changes to the Canadian
federation. It is strange though to set up such a committee, whose
mandate and schedule remains unknown, even as we speak.
It is strange also that this committee is made up only of federal
ministers, when everyone knows full well that the real decision
makers in that regard are the provincial premiers. I for one believe
that this committee was struck just for the Prime Minister's
satisfaction, to give him something to say, or else to distract
momentarily from the poor performance during the referendum.
How can this committee have any credibility when some of its
members have gone out of their way to trample on Quebec. What
can be said about the Minister of Justice, who was looking for legal
means to prevent Quebecers from voting again on their future? And
what about the fisheries minister who invited thousands of
Canadians to act in violation of the Referendum Act? What about
the Minister of Canadian Heritage who will not recognize that
Quebecers are a nation? What about the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration who, when he was a member of the opposition in
this House, voted against a government proposal which recognized,
among other things, the distinct society in the Meech Lake Accord?
And what about the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who,
when answering the question I put to him on November 8 about the
mandate of the committee, simply said, and I quote: ``Our
committee will also look at non constitutional measures, so as to
not overlook any means to make our federation more effective''?
16865
Yet, by giving such an answer, the minister admits his
helplessness. The measures which will be considered are non
constitutional measures. How can such measures come up to the
expectations of the Quebecers? Again, it is a committee established
to do away with the legitimate expectations of the Quebecers.
[English]
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, on November
8 the member for Chicoutimi asked the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs about the mandate of the cabinet
committee on unity.
The minister replied that the committee was going to look at all
the possibilities for constitutional and administrative changes in
the federation.
The member further asked if the minister could inform the
House whether the committee would look at options, such as a
resolution to recognize Quebec's distinct character, as well as a bill
on regional referendums.
The minister responded that the commitments made by the
Prime Minister during the campaign concerning a distinct society
and constitutional veto for Quebec will be fulfilled.
[Translation]
The initiatives announced today by the Prime Minister represent
a ground breaking and effective way of achieving a major
constitutional objective without reopening the Constitution, since
Lucien Bouchard and the PQ government have stated clearly and
repeatedly that they were not interested in constitutional change.
Our legislation on the right of veto ensures that we will not make
any constitutional change Quebec does not want. We must not let
the intransigence of Lucien Bouchard and of the Quebec
government impede the adoption of non-constitutional changes,
changes the people of Quebec and of other Canadian regions are
looking forward to.
[English]
The results of the October 30 referendum have shown the clear
desire of Quebecers to remain within Canada, a country that they
have helped to build into the tolerant, compassionate society we
know today.
At the same time, the referendum has signalled that Quebecers
and many other Canadians are looking for changes within the
federation that will make the government more responsive to the
needs of Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.17 p.m.)