CONTENTS
Monday, March 17, 1997
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 9059
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.15 a.m.) 9060
The House resumed at 12 p.m. 9060
Bill C-70. Motion for second reading of and concurrencein Senate amendment 9060
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9080
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9080
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9080
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9081
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9081
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9082
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9083
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9083
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9086
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9086
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9086
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9087
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9087
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9088
Bill C-386. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 9088
Bill C-387. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 9088
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 9089
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 9089
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 9090
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9091
Bill C-82. Motion for second reading 9091
Consideration resumed of motion 9116
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 105; Nays, 58 9116
Bill C-32. Consideration resumed of report stage 9117
Motion No. 1 agreed to on division: Yeas, 142;Nays, 23 9118
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 23; Nays, 142 9119
(Motions Nos. 5, 44, 25, 28, 31, 35, 38, 40, 41, 55, 2,3, 50, 51, 52 negatived) 9120
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 142; Nays, 23 9120
(Motions Nos. 6 and 17 agreed to) 9120
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 36; Nays, 129 9120
Motion No. 7 negatived on division: Yeas, 35;Nays, 130 9121
Motion No. 60 agreed to on division: Yeas, 1652Nays, 0 9122
Motion No. 13 agreed to on division: Yeas, 112;Nays, 53 9123
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 8; Nays, 156 9124
Motions Nos. 29 and 34 negatived 9125
Motion No. 26 negatived on division: Yeas, 29;Nays, 135 9125
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 28; Nays, 136 9126
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 3; Nays, 161 9127
Motion No. 37 negatived on division: Yeas, 3;Nays, 161 9128
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 58; Nays, 104 9128
Motion for concurrence 9129
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 134; Nays, 28 9129
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9130
9059
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 17, 1997
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: I have notice of a question of privilege.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
inform you that I have decided to resign from the caucus of the
Bloc Quebecois and to sit from now on as an independent
sovereignist member.
I entered politics in 1984 to promote decentralization, personal
responsibility, sound public finances and national reconciliation. I
was re-elected in 1988 for the same reasons and to finalize the
North American Free Trade Agreement and the Meech Lake
accord.
I resigned from the Progressive Conservative Party on June 26,
1990, when English Canada refused to ratify the Meech Lake
accord. On the 29th of the same month, I invited other former
Conservative members to my office in Longueuil to discuss our
future and our contribution to sovereignty plan for Quebec.
At that meeting, we chose Lucien Bouchard as the leader of our
parliamentary group. In the fall, we set up our caucus so as to be
more effective in the House. On September 20, I was given the
position of president of the caucus and became the group's main
organizer.
When it was decided to establish the Bloc Quebecois party in
early February 1991, I agreed to be interim director general and to
be responsible for the party's organizing activities in the
Montérégie.
In Tracy on June 15, 1991, the Bloc Quebecois became a party,
and I had the honour of being the signatory vice-president.
Subsequently, I was on the winning team in the 1993 election. Our
party's platform was twofold: to defend the interests of Quebec and
to promote sovereignty until a majority voted in favour of this
concept in a referendum.
Unfortunately, after the 1993 election, decision making within
the Bloc Quebecois became rigid and authoritarian. Opportunities
to promote my own ideals and those of the business community,
especially those of Quebec's small businesses, which is my
background, were steadily dwindling.
During the recent leadership campaign, the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie, who was a candidate, confirmed that he
would maintain the same rigid policies. As we all know, the hon.
member was elected leader and will continue to promote his
political vision, which is diametrically opposed to my own.
But that is not all. In fact, some fairly reliable rumours lead me
to believe that the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie headed
the group of members which brought about the departure of the
former leader, the hon. member for Roberval. We have never had a
satisfactory explanation of this situation.
For all of these reasons, you will understand that I can neither
come to terms with nor support the leadership of the hon. member
for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. After spending so much time and
energy on the party and our cause, I sincerely regret that I must
resign from the caucus of the Bloc Quebecois.
Several colleagues and party members very sincerely insisted
that I should let bygones be bygones and continue to sit with the
Bloc Quebecois, even if this meant staying home, so as to avoid
tarnishing the image of the party and our cause just before a major
election.
Keep silent, me? Me, a member of Parliament from Quebec for
nearly 13 years, and in a party I founded? Certainly not. Never.
Others accused me more openly of putting my own insignificant
self before the cause. I say to them: does the greatness or
insignificance of an individual depend on the person's ability to be
a sacrificial lamb or on moral and ethical integrity?
Can they not understand that the rules of morality and ethics are
not so many obstacles that we can circumvent at will?
I cannot remain in the caucus of the Bloc Quebecois. This would
only lead to tension and conflict that would be just as bad.
My constituents in Longueuil, who have known and supported
me since 1984, know that to me, honesty and frankness are sacred.
9060
I am sure they will realize, although they may not like it, that this
decision was inevitable and is in the best interests of all concerned.
I would like to say to my colleagues who honoured me with their
trust and friendship that I appreciate their co-operation and wish to
express my sincere thanks.
As for the future, I will continue to work where I feel I will be
most useful to defend the interests of Quebec.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, this is my ruling: this is not a
question of privilege but most certainly a personal statement.
Since this is a personal statement and not a question of privilege,
no other members will be recognized to speak to this matter. I wish
to thank you for your personal statement.
[English]
The hon. member for North Vancouver is not present to move the
order under Private Members' Business as listed in today's Notice
Paper. Accordingly, the motion is dropped to the bottom of the
order of precedence on the Order Paper.
The Speaker: The sitting will be suspended until twelve
o'clock.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.15 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
9060
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. David Dingwall (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved:
That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-70, an act to amend the Excise
Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the
Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act and related acts be now read the second
time and concurred in; but
That this House, while disapproving of any infraction of its privileges or rights by
the other House, in this case waives its claim to insist upon such rights and privileges,
but the waiver of said rights and privileges is not to be drawn into a precedent; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I was listening to
your point about the government asking us to waive certain rights
and privileges. I wonder if we could get an explanation of what
these rights and privileges are before we get into debate.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not the wording of the Chair. That
is a matter of debate.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in support of Bill
C-70. My remarks today will focus on an amendment that was
adopted in the other place last week.
As hon. members will recall from earlier debates in the House,
the purpose of Bill C-70 is to implement the harmonized sales tax
in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland
and Labrador. As of April 1, 1997 the harmonized tax will replace
the GST and provincial retail sales taxes in those provinces.
This legislation also proposes over 100 technical amendments to
the Excise Tax Act. These technical improvements will apply not
only to the harmonized sales tax, but also to the GST in the rest of
Canada.
A key element of the legislation that was debated by the House a
few weeks ago is tax included pricing. This is the feature of Bill
C-70 that the hon. senators propose to amend. Specifically, the
proposal is to delay tax included pricing until such time as
provinces with sales taxes that comprise at least 51 per cent of
Canada's population have harmonized or otherwise adopted tax
included pricing.
To repeat, the proposal is to delay tax included pricing until such
time as provinces with sales taxes and that comprise at least 51 per
cent of Canada's population have harmonized or have otherwise
adopted tax included pricing.
I would like to make two points concerning this development.
First, in every other respect the proposed legislation that is the
subject of today's debate is identical to the legislation that was
passed by the House on February 11. The postponement of tax
included pricing is the only change on which the hon. members will
be asked to vote.
Second, the government continues to recognize the importance
of tax included pricing. As I have said many times, consumers want
tax included pricing. This is a policy to which the government
remains committed. As more provinces harmonize in the future, we
will welcome tax included pricing as the solution to the annoyance,
the inconvenience and the frustration that consumers now
experience at the cash checkout every day.
I would now like to explain the practical considerations that
govern our approach today.
Essentially, opposition senators on the banking, trade and
commerce committee gave us a choice: either postpone tax
included pricing or delay passage of the bill beyond the April 1
implementation date.
Speaking for the Progressive Conservative Party, Senator Angus
stated emphatically that if the pricing requirements remained in the
9061
bill, it would not see the light of day by April. He said in no
uncertain terms that his party would delay the bill regardless of the
chaos and confusion that such a delay would entail for businesses
and everyone else that are gearing up for harmonization to come
into effect 15 days from now.
Given the potential for chaos, and given the fundamental
economic benefits that harmonization will bring to the Atlantic
economy, the risk of missing the April 1 deadline is a risk the
government is not prepared to take.
In the course of the banking, trade and commerce committee's
recent hearings on the legislation, witness after witness spoke of
the real and immediate advantages of the HST. The Atlantic
Provinces Economic Council argued that the harmonized sales tax
will make Atlantic Canada more competitive by ridding their
economy of embedded sales taxes and by bringing the relatively
high sales tax rates into line with those of other provinces. They see
it as a way to reduce costs for businesses and stimulate consumer
spending.
(1210 )
The government and its provincial counterparts also see
harmonization as a way to reduce administrative costs. These and
many other points were eloquently endorsed by the finance
ministers of the participating provinces. All three ministers took
the time to appear before the Senate committee.
No matter how it is looked at, this is legislation that will work to
the benefit of Newfoundlanders, Nova Scotians and New
Brunswickers. That is a point these ministers came to Ottawa to
make in the face of criticism from opposition parties that think they
know better and that want to tell that region of the country what it
should or should not do.
On balance, the gains in this legislation outweigh the
postponement of tax included pricing. We accept Bill C-70 in its
amended form because of the long term economic benefits it will
bring to the Atlantic region.
A more immediate consideration is that April 1 is fast
approaching and we must ensure the transition to a harmonized
sales tax does not cause disruption and confusion for businesses
and consumers.
From the time the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Finance began studying options for replacing the GST three years
ago, the goal of an orderly transition has been a guiding principle in
developing the harmonization model that is before us today.
In its current form, Bill C-70 contains several features that will
contribute to a smooth transition. The harmonized tax will have the
same tax base and same basic operating rules as the GST. There
will be no requirement for GST registrants to obtain new
registration numbers. Most businesses already know and
understand the rules for applying the GST and for claiming input
tax credits. These rules will continue to apply under the
harmonized sales tax.
The Atlantic business community needs certainty, a smooth and
orderly transition to the harmonized system. The importance of a
smooth transition is not lost on lawmakers in those provinces or on
us in the House, for they have given their respective harmonization
bills swift passage, something we are anxious to do as well. It is
now time for hon. members to do likewise by supporting the
proposed amendment to Bill C-70.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we are faced with a monumental farce. If being ridiculous
were fatal, all of the members of the government would be dead.
Why?
I would like to begin by reminding my listeners what our debate
is about at this time. Bill C-70, which sets out the mechanisms for
harmonizing the GST with the provincial sales taxes in three
maritime provinces, was reviewed by the other House.
The other House proposes, contrary to what is set out in the bill,
which provides for the inclusion of the new harmonized 15 per cent
tax in the price in three maritime provinces, to postpone
implementation of this provision, or in other words to continue the
status quo. This means that a consumer's receipt, and the price
label on the item, will show the price, with the new tax rate beside
it. The senators are asking that tax-inclusive pricing be postponed
until 51 per cent of Canadians, and therefore a certain number of
provinces, accept this inclusion in the price.
How does the government respond to this proposed amendment
by the Senate? As follows:
That this House, while disapproving of any infraction of its privileges or rights by
the other House, in this case waives its claim to insist upon such rights and privileges,
but the waiver of such rights and privileges is not be drawn into a precedent; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.
What this means is that the government is bowing to the other
House, whose members are unelected, and part of an archaic,
outmoded system that absolutely must be abolished. They accept
the arguments of the other House, provided that this does not create
a precedent.
It is shameful to see them bowing to an unelected House with an
archaic system, and moreover to arguments which were presented
by elected members throughout the entire debate on Bill C-70.
(1215)
Allow me to explain. One of the major points made throughout
the entire debate-three readings and the report stage as well-by
the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, which is made up of
elected members, was precisely the fact that the new harmonized
tax was being included in the price.
9062
In January, the finance committee heard witnesses representing
maritime businesses and consumers tell us that including the new
harmonized tax in the price made no sense, and would create
chaos, total turmoil in the maritimes, particularly for companies
doing business across Canada.
We in the Bloc and the Reform Party as well-both of which are
made up of duly elected members-hit the nail on the head. Yet,
every time, the response was: ``You are wrong, the new harmonized
tax must be included in the price right away, otherwise there will be
total chaos in the maritimes, the system will be inefficient, and
there will be chaos at the fiscal level''.
Now, when the other House, which is made up of unelected,
illegitimate members, proposes a similar amendment to the one we
debated, the one to which the government turned a deaf ear, it gets
presented and accepted, of course. We trust this will not serve as a
precedent, that it will not reduce the rights and privileges of the
House of Commons, of the duly elected members of the House of
Commons. It makes no sense whatsoever to present things in this
way.
It does not make any sense either to make us debate and work for
weeks on the finance committee to try to come up with something
worthwhile, to try to listen to criticism and opinions from people
from the maritimes even, to end up wasting time and taxpayers'
money in this exercise, when we arrived at the very same
conclusion as is being proposed today by the outmoded and
outdated other House. We went through the entire process: lost
time, wasted energy, overspent taxpayers' money so that the
government could accept today, for purely partisan and election
purposes, the amendment of the other House.
Democracy has never been so badly served. The rights and
privileges of the elected members of the House of Commons have
never been so badly served as in this matter, which has been a
disaster since the start.
If that were the only issue, but there is also the one of 104
individuals, whose appointments were totally partisan, who were
appointed by the office of the Prime Minister. There is worse yet.
The entire bill should be dumped.
It is still around and it should be dumped, because it is not right,
after the government's capitulation before unelected officials on
the point of not including the new harmonized sales tax in the cost
price, that we find ourselves back at the start- in other words, with
the GST not harmonized with the provincial sales taxes. What is
this situation? The GST remains, the problem remains in its
entirety, politically. This government lied about its intentions and it
is presenting this legislation to us as the bill of the century.
Democracy is being very badly served, when, even before we
passed Bill C-70, a few weeks ago, $961 million was paid out to
the maritimes. Even before the bill was passed, even before
democratic process was applied to this bill, the government had
decided that democracy was of no importance.
(1220)
They do not care about the rights and privileges of members of
the House. They released the funds they are already paying out to
the maritimes. Under what pretext? Under the pretext of avoiding
chaos, a chaos they created in the first place with this flawed and
partisan bill to buy the maritimes with nearly $1 billion in
compensation. This chaos is their doing. They would not listen to
us, in the official opposition, when we told them that including the
new harmonized sales tax in the price made no sense. Now, the
same suggestion, coming from the 104 dinosaurs in the other place,
is looked upon favourably.
Sometimes, there is no logic in politics. What we have before us
is a motion totally devoid of logic. Indeed, after going through the
democratic process of debating a bill, where is the logic in the
government going along with whatever nonsense the other place
may have come up with? The government is overlooking the
privileges of members of Parliament and forgetting the importance
of the House of Commons. It has reached a point where the
sovereignists have more respect for this institution, its rights and
privileges, than the federalists, who claim to be 100 per cent behind
the federal system, including its greatest manifestation: the House
of Commons.
It is a sad day for democracy when funds are released before the
appropriate legislation is passed. At this rate, what will be the use
of the House of Commons, of elected representatives, of debates on
issues as fundamental as this one? One billion dollars is taken out
of the pockets of taxpayers and literally thrown out the window.
The GST problem remains unresolved. Nothing has been resolved.
Even innovations like tax included pricing were no use, since the
other place rejected the idea. Where does that leave us?
We are back to square one. It is the provincial sales tax in three
maritime provinces, three Atlantic provinces, that is being
harmonized with the GST. The GST remains, but the new
harmonized tax rate will drop to 15 per cent, at a cost of $1 billion
to Canadian taxpayers. The initial situation was strangely similar to
that prevailing in Quebec in 1993.
We in Quebec harmonized our provincial sales tax with the GST,
and not the other way around as provided for in the initial plan. We
did not include the tax in the price. The situation in the maritimes is
exactly the same as Quebec's situation since 1991. If that is the
case, it means the people across the way owe us $2 billion. That
amount was calculated based on specific criteria, on readily
identifiable costs incurred in harmonizing Quebec's sales tax with
the GST. The federal government owes us $2 billion.
9063
This morning, we have an opportunity to demand that the
government treat Quebec fairly. If our province were the only one
making that claim, if it had no ally in this great federation, one
might say ``Quebec is always complaining'', but three Canadian
premiers support Quebec's claim. The British Columbia premier
even said that if, based on the calculation method and the
transition costs used, the maritimes were entitled to $961 million
in compensation, then Quebec also deserved a compensation,
estimated at $2 billion. There is basically a Canada-wide
consensus that Quebec must be compensated for its harmonization
efforts.
If there is a matter in which the government is acting like a
clown, in which government members, including the finance
minister, are acting like clowns, it is definitely the GST. The
Liberals made an issue of the GST during the last election
campaign. Promises were made by the Prime Minister and the
Deputy Prime Minister. These commitments were not fulfilled. Not
only did the Liberals not fulfil their commitments, they also
created total chaos in the maritimes.
Earlier, the hon. member talked about uncertainty. He said that
business people need certainty.
(1225)
Business people need certainty. Big deal. The Liberals
themselves created situations filled with uncertainty. So much so in
fact that, just a few weeks ago, eminent representatives of business
people from the maritimes no longer knew what to expect. They
were told all sorts of things, such as: ``You could, perhaps, in the
first three months, not include the new harmonized sales tax in the
price. However, after three months, you should include that tax''.
People no longer knew what to do. National companies no longer
knew what to do, because they were now required to have a dual
labelling system. They were now required to have a dual storage
system for the goods they sell in the maritimes and those they sell
elsewhere.
Then the Senate came up with an amendment saying: ``Until
such time as 51 per cent of Canadians agree to include the new
harmonized sales tax in the price, we will not force them to do so''.
What do business people think now? They are saying to
themselves: ``We set up a system that allowed us to implement the
main provisions of Bill C-70. Now the government is changing its
mind because of the 104 anachronisms in the other place''. If that is
not uncertainty, if that does leave businesses wondering where to
head next, I do not know what it is.
It was such an unsatisfactory bill that, the very day it was
introduced in the House, the government decided it had better table
over a dozen amendments along with it, right at the outset. For a
government that knows where it is headed, when you introduce a
bill and a dozen amendments to it at the same time, it is pretty hard
to take. And then, at the end of the line, they accept to set aside one
of its a provisions.
So I continue to say that this bill makes no sense. It solves
nothing. It is costing us almost $1 billion, outside the maritimes, in
Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta. The taxpayers in these provinces are the ones who will be
footing the bill for this compensation that is still unjustified and
unjustifiable when we look at the treatment received by Quebec
with respect to the harmonization process.
And now, on top of that, the members opposite now say that they
do not care about the rights and privileges of elected members.
They are handing over part of the rights and privileges of the House
of Commons to the 104 anachronisms in the other place, in a
completely outdated institution which most Quebecers and
Canadians would like to see abolished at the earliest opportunity.
Therefore, in light of all this, and we will have some explaining
to do during the upcoming election, we can only reject this motion
because it comes from an institution we condemn, an institution
that is costing taxpayers $43 million annually and does nothing
more than add additional layers of uncertainty that the government
bows to in agreeing to waive the rights and privileges of this
House.
We will also oppose this motion because overall this bill makes
no sense to us. It is a bill that is costing Canadian taxpayers $1
billion, and $1 billion in compensation to the maritimes should in
the normal course of events lead to $2 billion in compensation to
Quebec. But the government is turning a deaf ear to that.
We are not about to congratulate this government, nor am I about
to congratulate my colleague, because caving in like this in the face
of a real process to reform overall taxation-something it defended
when in opposition-and caving in as well before such an
outmoded institution is unbelievable. We reject this motion, as we
rejected Bill C-70.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, once
again I rise to speak to Bill C-70. It seems to pursue us like a bad
dream, having returned with amendments from the other place.
I want to talk a bit about some general principles which most
people would hold to be extremely important. They are ones people
would normally expect the government to adhere to. Most people
believe very strongly in the principles of honesty, equality and
accountability. The government has ignored those principles in
bringing about Bill 70 again, and in bringing it about in the first
place. I want to elaborate a little on that.
9064
(1230 )
During the last election campaign a great fraud was perpetrated
in this country. The opposition at the time, the Liberals, criticized
the government for years on end over the goods and services tax. It
had gone on and on.
The rhetoric was extreme. The Liberals said over and over again
that they would get rid of the GST when they came into power. I
have all kinds of quotes. I will not run through them again but I
have stacks of quotes from prominent members across the way who
now sit in cabinet who said that the GST would be gone when they
came into power.
The current defence minister was involved in this, the current
finance minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and of course the
Prime Minister. There were many other backbench members as
well. In their campaign literature many said they would get rid of
the GST. That was the tone of the debate.
Hon. friends opposite will say that in the red book on page 22
they said they would replace the GST. Indeed that is true. I
acknowledge that. However, what is important to point out is while
they were saying that and distributing it in the red book, which
went to about 70,000 people with about three weeks left in the
campaign, they were saying something quite different on national
television. They were using the mass media to communicate a very
different message.
It is convenient that they could have both messages out there.
They thought it would allow them to escape from a tight spot. In
fact they did not escape. In the last few months we have seen this
whole issue come back to bite them once again. I will touch on that
in a moment.
The point I want to make is that the end can never justify the
means. My hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary for finance, is
arguing that there are some positive changes in this legislation that
will aid business. I acknowledge that tax simplification is a good
idea. To the degree that business can work together with
government at all levels and with consumers to simplify things so
that it is easier for everyone, we should all support that. However,
the ends do not justify the means.
We have a situation here where the government set out quite
deliberately in my judgment to take people down a course where
they believe they were going to get rid of the GST. If we pass this
amendment and legislation we are sending completely the wrong
message. We are sending the message that they can dupe
Canadians, that they can draw them in with what is nothing more
than a huge mistruth and get them to vote for them, then turn
around, do something completely different and it is okay. That is
what the government is essentially saying.
I cannot go along with that. There is a greater principle at stake
here than just simplifying the tax system. We have a problem in
this country where we actually have the public so cynical about
what governments say they will do in election campaigns that we
have a lawsuit going on in British Columbia. Some people in that
beautiful province have decided that they will not put up with it any
more. They are actually suing their provincial government because
they are tired of being mislead during election campaigns.
That is precisely what has happened to this point where we are
now talking about passing legislation that would change the GST.
There is a huge principle in that. There is far more at stake here. It
is far more important than the one that has been talked about by the
parliamentary secretary.
Simplification of the tax system is an important issue. No one
really disagrees with that. However, the big issue is does one allow
governments to go ahead and do things that they said they would
not do simply to get elected. That is the big issue.
That is the issue that is more important to a great majority of
Canadians. The government has, frankly, mislead Canadians over
the last three and a half years.
I want to talk a bit more about that. Some hon. friends across the
way are saying that is not the case. However, I would remind the
chairman of the finance committee and other hon. friends across
the way that the Prime Minister himself was caught in a trap on the
GST at a town hall meeting on CBC just a few short months ago
when he denied that he had said he would scrap the GST, get rid of
it. When he was challenged by a young waitress from Montreal on
this issue, he said ``I did not say any of those things''.
(1235 )
What happened? The CBC just happened to have all kinds of
footage of the Prime Minister saying precisely those things. Again
the trust of the public was undermined.
This is a far more important principle than whether we should go
about simplifying the tax system. It was not just that. We had a
byelection because the Deputy Prime Minister said on national
television two weeks before the last election campaign that if the
GST were not scrapped she would resign. She did indeed resign,
and we were glad about that, but she took a poll first to find out
whether it was okay to resign so she could run again.
The issue here is whether politicians should be allowed to go
ahead and make those kinds of promises only to turn around and
completely refute them and then expect to get re-elected and expect
to have people jump up and down about legislation that they are
bringing through to simply cover up what it was they were trying to
hide in the first place.
I think people today are very cynical. It is interesting that this
bill would come down on the eve of an election. To me this is the
9065
poster child for the GST, for the broken promises that the
government has been unable to fulfil since the last election. Of all
the different promises that the government has broken, on things
ranging from NAFTA, to the CBC, to day care spaces, to
unemployment, this has to be one of the biggest broken promises.
I would certainly encourage Canadians who are watching to hold
the government accountable to the greatest degree that they can on
this issue in the upcoming election.
I also want to say a few words about equality. Equality is
something most Canadians believe in very strongly. They believe
that we should treat all the provinces equally. However, I would
argue that by paying the Atlantic provinces, with the exception of
Prince Edward Island, a billion dollars to go along with this deal,
the government has done something that just flies in the face of
what most Canadians believe to be fair and right, which is to treat
all the provinces differently. It decided that it was going to pay a
billion dollars to Atlantic Canada because that was the only way it
could get it to go along with the deal.
If members remember the atmosphere leading up to the
agreement with Atlantic Canada, Atlantic Canadian provinces
simply were not coming forward to the government saying ``boy, I
wish you would offer us a harmonization deal''. They did not say
that. In fact, the government was caught at that time because it was
facing tremendous heat from the Canadian public because it had
broken its GST promise so it needed a way out. Therefore it went to
the Atlantic provinces and told them it would give them a billion
dollars if they would go along with the harmonization deal.
Because the Atlantic provinces are of course strapped for cash they
said they would take the deal. That is how it happened.
When the other provinces said they would be interested in
talking about this too if there was that kind of money involved, all
of a sudden there was no money left. The government could only
provide for Atlantic Canada. The people of Quebec were asking for
$2 billion in compensation. Ontario wanted over $3 billion. The
government of course said it just could not do it. It points to how
the government thinks differently about what the notion of equality
is.
Most Canadians feel that equality should be equal opportunity. If
it is offered to one then it should be offered to everybody. The
government has a different notion. It thinks that equality means
equality of outcome. It thinks that equality means that we take from
some provinces and give to other provinces and that makes
everyone happy. It really does not work that way. In fact, all it does
is divide Canadians. That is precisely what this legislation has
done. It has divided Canadians on the notion that somehow some
provinces are more equal than others.
(1240 )
I want to say a few words on the whole issue of accountability. I
have talked about honesty, I have talked about equality and I want
to say just a couple of words about accountability. Accountability
is a common theme through the whole sorry tale of this legislation,
going back to 1993 when the Liberals raised this as an issue during
the election campaign. At that point they said they were going to
scrap the GST.
Unfortunately now Canadians would like to hold them
accountable on that issue and they cannot, at least not until the next
election campaign. In the meantime other things have happened
that really raised the issue of whether or not we can properly hold
our politicians accountable in this country, not just at the federal
level but also at the provincial level.
We had a situation, as I mentioned a minute ago, where the
Atlantic provinces took $1 billion to introduce harmonization in
those three provinces. But when that happened there were no
hearings between the provincial governments and their own people.
We all know that was a huge mistake because the province of New
Brunswick for instance had to back down from the tax inclusive
pricing portion of the legislation. It saw that the public simply did
not support it there. Those people would have known better if they
had talked to their people beforehand when they were accepting the
money from the federal government.
It does not just end there. There are all kinds of problems with
the lack of accountability with respect to this legislation. It was not
very long ago when other members of the finance committee and I
sat here in Ottawa during the January break and we voted on an
amendment that my party moved that we go to Atlantic Canada to
have hearings on this issue. The Liberals voted against that. They
denied the people of Atlantic Canada the chance to have a say on
whether they wanted this legislation in Atlantic Canada.
In the United States people fought a war over taxation without
representation. In Canada I guess we look at things a little
differently. Newfoundland is going to be celebrating 500 years of
history this year. We would think the government would say to the
people of Newfoundland ``after 500 years we think it is probably
okay for you to have a little say in how your taxation system should
be structured''.
The Liberal government denied them that opportunity. It took
the unelected, patronage filled Senate to do it. It took the Senate to
show the government what it means to go and talk to people, to
consult with people. To me, that is absolutely ridiculous that they
would be denied the chance to do that before their elected
representatives in the House of Commons, but that is precisely
what happened. That is so fundamentally wrong. It is completely
wrong.
9066
The accountability issue again is notable by the fact that very
few Atlantic MPs have risen to speak to this issue, even though
we know it was a major issue in Atlantic Canada. It fact, 16,000
people signed a petition on the tax inclusive pricing issue alone.
There were hearings before the provincial legislatures because
there was such a public outcry.
Where were the Atlantic MPs? Why did they not stand up for
their constituents? There were stores closing down in many of their
ridings. Did they stand to protest before the finance minister,
before the government to say that there are problems? They were
silent because they were afraid of what would happen if the party
whip was put in place. We have seen how the government has dealt
with dissenters in the past.
There were a number of different occasions where the issue of
accountability was raised and it was proven in this legislation that
the government has no intention of being held accountable on an
issue that is of vital importance to the people of Atlantic Canada.
I want to speak about some of the specifics now. During the
hearings we had back in January my party raised over and over
again the issue of tax in pricing.
(1245)
At the time hon. members said that everybody in Atlantic
Canada was on board. Now we know that was false. The
government of New Brunswick said that it did not want tax in
pricing after it had rethought it. Many businesses, almost entirely
to the person, said that they did not want tax in pricing in one part
of the country at one time, that it made no sense. We also know that
consumers spoke out against it. Provincial politicians came
forward to say that it would be a nightmare.
What did the government do? It did nothing. Again it took the
unelected patronage filled Senate to push the issue. That is a sad
commentary. It does not say much for the government. They are the
ones who have to take the pulse of the public along with my party
to get the government to change its mind. Nevertheless it happened
and people can judge for themselves what it says about the
government.
A concern with the legislation is how the government has over
the years led physicians and providers of ambulance services on to
believe that perhaps someday it would actually change the GST
legislation to allow them to pass on the GST just like many small
businesses pass it on, or at least to have it zero rated. Unfortunately
the government has led these people on for a long time. It has
basically slammed the door in their face over the last several
months saying it was not on.
We have a situation where doctors cannot pass on GST costs. It
is one of the aggravating factors that causes physicians to flee the
country to other places like the United States, which leaves us with
a shortage of physicians in rural areas. Again the government has
misplaced priorities. It has lots of money when it comes to
providing funds for its friends at Bombardier but not when it comes
to providing funds to ensure health care across the country and that
all people are treated equally in the taxation system. All of a
sudden it cannot find the money. It should be criticized very
strongly for that.
The final point I will make is with respect to the notional input
tax credit. Over the last several days it has been interesting to
watch the papers. There has been considerable discussion about
how the government has been hiding millions of dollars of revenue.
We need to point to one of the most least understood tax grabs the
government has yet to bring about, one of the biggest tax grabs it is
to bring about, that is the removal of the notional input tax credit on
many different items.
It will mean the government will bring in hundreds of millions of
dollars. Some people estimate that it will $1 billion year more in
revenue for the government. The people it hits are low income
people because the notional input tax credit applies primarily to
used goods. People who buy used goods are paying tax on tax on
tax. The beneficiary of that is the federal government. It brings in
hundreds of millions of dollars more a year in tax.
For some reason the government has ignored this message and
will push ahead with it anyway. The people who will pay the price
are the people who can least afford it.
I will wrap up by simply saying that the government has broken
some very big principles: the principles of honesty, equality and
accountability. Therefore I move:
That motion be amended in the first paragraph by deleting all the words after the
word ``That'' and substituting the following:
``this House agrees with the principle set out in the amendment made by the Senate
to Bill C-70, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account
Act and related Acts, but would propose that the following amendment be amended
to read as follows: pages 334 and 335, clause 242: replace lines 40 to 45 on page 334
and lines 1 to 4 on page 335 with the following: `Subsection (1) comes into force on a
day fixed by order of the governor in council, which day shall not be before the first
day on which all provinces have enacted laws requiring that suppliers include the tax
under part IX of the act in indications of the prices of property and services
supplied'''.
(1250 )
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will reserve judgment on the
matter for the time being but will as quickly as possible indicate
whether or not the amendment is acceptable.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
amendment proposed by the member for Medicine Hat includes
provisions for all provinces and the necessity for the agreement of
all provinces if we are to proceed with the sections and subsections
mentioned in the amendment.
9067
I would be interested in hearing from him what impact that
would have, especially in Alberta. What will we do with Alberta?
Will it continue to be the lowest taxed province? Will it continue
to have the highest rate of growth? Will it continue to have the
best job creation program with lower taxes? Does he believe the
idea that lower taxes equal more jobs would continue with the
amendment?
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his most
excellent question.
The question of what would happen with Alberta would
ultimately be answered by Alberta. The whole amendment is
contingent upon the province and the people of Alberta agreeing
with what the federal government is proposing. It would ultimately
be up to the people of Alberta to make that decision.
The people of Alberta believe that taxes are a cancer on job
creation, to use a phrase the finance minister has used in the past. I
would argue that high taxes are ultimately the reason for the
country failing to meet its job creation targets. It is the reason the
Liberal government has failed to make any real progress on the
issue of jobs, jobs, jobs.
I spoke a minute ago about the Liberal promise on the GST. One
of the biggest promises the government has broken for reasons that
are worthy of our attention is that it would create jobs, jobs, jobs.
There is such a tremendous tax burden on Canadians overall and
particularly in payroll taxes that job creators, the small business
people who create about 85 per cent of all jobs, simply do not have
the incentive to create jobs. The federal government is proposing to
increase premiums on CPP by 73 per cent, which will make it even
more difficult for job creators to create jobs.
In Alberta we have very low taxes relative to the rest of the
country. The people in my province have a tremendous incentive to
make money. When they do that they know they will be able to
keep most of it. That gives them the incentive to keep working
harder and harder and harder.
In high tax jurisdictions, which I would regard Canada as a
whole as being-and certainly relative to our G-7 neighbours that
is true-it is difficult for people to get excited about creating jobs,
knowing they will have to pay more and more in taxes the more
money they make.
I hope that adequately answers my friend's question.
(1255 )
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the end
of the speech by the member for Medicine Hat he spoke about
notional tax credits being eliminated not only in Atlantic Canada.
We thought the harmonized sales tax was applicable to only
Atlantic Canada but we found that it was applicable right across the
country.
For example, every time a car changes hands, and cars get traded
quite frequently, the government will take 7 per cent tax. It will be
on new goods and on used goods. The government will be there
with its hand out saying: ``7 per cent, please''.
I recall some years ago when the Liberals were on this side of the
House and they adamantly forced the Tory government of the day
to make an absolute guarantee that used goods would never be
taxed.
Does the member for Medicine Hat feel this is another broken
promise of the Liberal government? Is taxation which is usurious
and ongoing beneficial to the economy, or does it kill more jobs?
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tough question. It is a
broken promise which we could add to the long list of broken
promises on taxation.
My friend mentioned the notional input credit. The removal of
the notional input tax credit would mean that people would have to
pay more for used books. Another broken promise is that the
government was to get rid of the GST on reading material. It did
not do that even though it promised to in a letter from the Prime
Minister to the Don't Tax Reading Coalition and in a number of
policy conventions. In many respects the government is penalizing
people who read, which is flying completely in the face of what it
said it would do.
My hon. friend has it right. The government has broken promises
on the taxation issue and to people it thought would support it on
the basis of its promise not to tax reading materials.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to follow my friend and colleague from Medicine Hat.
Let me clear up a few misunderstandings. Are Reform Party
members advocating that no used goods should be subject to the
GST? Are they saying that people who sell used goods should be
favoured as opposed to people who sell new goods? Is this what
they are trying to prejudice?
Mr. Williams: You are the guys who are trying to change the
policies.
Mr. Peterson: Are they advocating that no used goods should be
subject to the GST? Are they saying that services should not be
subject to the GST? Do they want a level playing field or do they
not? They cannot have it both ways.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat made great issue about
compensation being paid to the three Atlantic provinces over a
three-year period. He said it was a breach of equal treatment for
provinces.
Let us take a look at it. Every province that wants to harmonize
the GST at a lower rate and loses money will be entitled to
compensation. That is what we call equality of opportunity for all
provinces.
9068
We must remember the combined sales tax rates in
Newfoundland were about 20 per cent. In the other two provinces,
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, they were about 19 per cent.
These are punitive rates. Why should these provinces have to pay
outlandish rates of taxes just because they are the poorest
provinces? We are pleased they were able to benefit consumers
by getting their combined rates of tax down to about 15 per cent.
I am proud of that.
If the provincial governments lose money because of it, I am not
upset at all if some compensation is to be paid over a three-year
period to help those provincial coffers adjust to that temporary loss
of revenue.
Members will say it was not fair. Have we not in other
circumstances helped other provinces?
(1300 )
The member talked about Alberta, which has the lowest rate of
tax. There is no provincial sales tax in Alberta. Why is that?
An hon. member: We do not need it.
Mr. Peterson: Why is that? Because it has a tax other provinces
do not have. It has a tax on its energy royalties. It gets a tremendous
tax revenue out of its energy which no other province does.
In spite of that, what did the federal government do recently? It
gave tax incentives which would allow the tarsands to develop. It
amounted to millions upon million of dollars. Did they complain
about that type of grant not being offered to other provinces? No.
They cannot have it both ways.
I do not apologize for one minute that this government is in the
position of making loans to enterprises which are employing
Canadians, creating exports, building planes and putting us at the
leading edge of the global economy.
This is a responsible use of federal power. Let us not shrink for
one minute from the fact that in these areas we do have leading
edge technology. Our companies are world leaders because we
have a partnership, not through grants but through loans.
Let me return to the issue of the harmonized sales tax. We have
looked as a finance committee and as a Parliament at this issue for
a long period of time. Our committee had the privilege in 1993-94
of looking at alternatives to the goods and services tax. The thing
that we found most compelling was that Canada is the only country
in the world that had not just one retail sales tax but ten different
retail sales taxes. Canada was the only country in the world that had
more than one retail sales tax.
What did that mean to Canadians? It meant that we were
supporting as taxpayers ten bureaucracies instead of one. It meant
that businesses had to assume the incredible cost of complying with
not just one sales tax regime but ten different regimes. Some
European countries have a value added tax. Canadian consumers
did not have the benefit of tax included pricing. The price they saw
advertised on the item was not what they had to pay when they
went to the cash register.
One witness appeared before us, among many, who put on the
table $40,000 in cancelled receipts from irate customers who, when
they got to the checkout counter and found they had to pay more
than the price shown, decided not to buy the item. That is the
phenomenon of sticker shock or counter shock.
We have found through extensive surveying and working with
consumer groups that consumers want to know what they have to
pay when they get to the cash register and take the money out of
their wallets. Overwhelmingly, 86 per cent of Canadians surveyed
on the issue of tax inclusive pricing for the three Atlantic provinces
involved wanted tax inclusive pricing. Why should they not? Why
should merchants not want to give it to them? After all, the price
they see is the price they should have to pay.
Another advantage of the harmonized tax system goes to our
business competitiveness and our capacity to create jobs. Today in
Canada businesses are paying about $6 billion in provincial sales
taxes on their business inputs. These are things which they must
purchase in order to carry on business, such as a car, a computer,
furniture and so on.
Why should Canadian businesses have to pay this type of tax
burden when their American counterparts do not?
(1305)
This is why businesses in the three provinces of Atlantic Canada
were paying $580 million in provincial taxes on their business
inputs. This made them non-competitive in many cases with their
American counterparts. They should not have to pay provincial
sales taxes on their business inputs. It is against all good tax policy.
Therefore this was one of the great advantages of this
harmonized sales tax. No longer would Atlantic provinces have
their businesses at this competitive disadvantage when it came to
creating jobs.
Through the harmonization process they have gone through, they
will have these tax savings. They will be able to pass much of those
savings, if not all of them, on to consumers in Atlantic Canada.
Those businesses will have a competitive advantage over
businesses in Ontario and other provinces where the provinces still
tax their business inputs in terms of creating jobs and being
competitive.
These are some of the compelling reasons why we need
harmonization and why no one in this House has spoken against
harmonization. Not one witness before our finance committee
spoke against the harmonized regime.
9069
The member for Medicine Hat was quite right in suggesting that
tax inclusive pricing was a bit of a problem. If a national retailer
based outside Atlantic Canada had to publish another catalogue
showing the real price people would have to pay, or if someone
had to retag the price of goods, that would be an added cost.
Let us be very clear. There were some added costs to businesses
that were going to be doing business in Atlantic Canada but were
not getting the benefit of the input tax credits because they did not
purchase any of their business inputs in Atlantic Canada.
If someone had a business based outside the three harmonized
provinces and they were not spending money in that area, or very
little money, because what they were doing was running a retail
operation, bringing the goods in, selling them and not making a lot
of purchases there, they were not going to get the benefits. All
witnesses realize this. They would not participate in that $580
some million of tax savings per year. It is quite understandable that
businesses that were going to have the added costs from tax
inclusive pricing that were not offset by the tax savings on their
business inputs were going to complain.
I have no problem with that. They were quite right in doing it.
However, for the hon. member for Medicine Hat to say that what
the Senate did was create a victory against tax inclusive pricing is
wrong. We were not going to take the chance that we could not get
this bill through on time.
The Senate threatened to hold it up beyond the implementation
date of April 1 if we were not capable of doing something about tax
inclusive pricing. Therefore, we said maybe we have to go along
with that because what is really critical to Atlantic Canada is that
we get the harmonized tax in place, even without tax inclusive
pricing.
The Senate did not reject tax inclusive pricing as a fundamental
concept of this tax. It said that as soon as provinces with 51 per cent
of the Canadian population are on board, it will then insist on tax
inclusive pricing for all provinces.
This is an acceptance, even by the Conservative majority in the
Senate, of this concept of tax inclusive pricing. It recognize it is
good for consumers. We have held all along that it is important to
consumers to know exactly what they will pay.
This is supported by not only the polls of consumers but by the
Consumers' Association of Canada. It has has argued very strongly
in front of our committee and Parliament that we need the concept
of tax inclusive pricing. Telling people in advance how much it is
going to cost them out of their wallet is just fairness.
(1310 )
I regret that we are not able to proceed with the tax inclusive
pricing. However, let me be clear. We were not dogmatic about how
it went into effect. We in the finance committee, along with the
government, suggested many compromises that would have
softened the burden of tax inclusive pricing for most businesses.
For example, we told businesses they only needed to have one
catalogue, not two, if they were a national advertiser. We told them
they could advertise at one price throughout the whole country but
to put a little disclaimer somewhere in the catalogue stating that
provincial sales taxes are not included.
We suggested to businesses that they did not have to reticket
every item that was in inventory. They could go to other things
such as rack pricing, bin pricing and dual ticketing on items that
were there. For certain items they could even have certain types of
signage which would indicate what the prices were. In other words,
we suggested that there were many ways we could achieve benefits
for consumers of tax inclusive pricing and reduce the cost from
those which were originally contemplated and would apply under a
fully harmonized, hardline, tax inclusive pricing regime.
We were working with business groups. We worked with the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It was working with
its members to come back to us in order to find ways to implement
the tax in such a way that the burdens were reduced and the benefits
for consumers were still there.
I am pleased that we have proceeded with the harmonization in
these three provinces. I think this is just a step on the journey to
achieving a fully harmonized sales tax system throughout Canada.
It is inevitable that it will come. Taxpayers do not want to support
the duplication and overlap of now eight different systems as
opposed to ten. It is just stupid. The Canadian Federation of
Independent Business castigated us and asked us when we were
finally going to get our act together as politicians, federal and
provincial, and do what was right for the people to help make
businesses competitive and help get rid of the unnecessary costs.
We are on that road and we will do it.
When we brought in the concept of the Canada Health Act there
were only two provinces that initially signed on. It took some years
before all the other provinces agreed to go along with it. This is
what I envisage in terms of the future of it. No one is arguing
against that concept and the inevitability that we should have one
sales tax system throughout Canada based on the GST model, and
this is what we will achieve.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, first I
would like to point out that he was talking about the inevitability of
a universal sales tax right across this country when three and a half
years ago they were talking absolutely and categorically that there
would be no sales tax courtesy of the federal government. So this
is an absolute, complete turnaround on behalf of the member for
Willowdale.
9070
While the member talks about a universal sales tax right across
the country, it seems to me he is talking in the same model that they
have proposed for Atlantic Canada of 15 per cent right across the
board. What does he intend to do for the province of Alberta which
has no provincial sales tax at all at this point in time and the people
of Alberta have no intention of having any provincial sales tax of
any kind? Is it the intention of the member that the government
would compensate the province of Alberta by reducing its rate,
according to what kind of vision he has, so that it would only pay
the federal rate so that Albertans would recognize that they are not
subsidizing the rest of Canada as they have done in many other
issues?
We think back to the national energy policy of 1983 where
Albertans basically carried the federal government and the rest of
the country on their backs. They felt that they were being hard done
by as billions of dollars flowed from the province of Alberta to the
rest of the country.
(1315 )
I would like to ask the member when he envisions this universal
sales tax right across the country, whether or not Alberta is going to
pay more than its share again and how inevitable is this tax when
three and a half years ago the Liberals were telling us there would
be no tax at all?
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for St.
Albert for his question.
It is very simple. Canada is a difficult country to govern, as we
all know, with its various jurisdictions. When the members of the
finance committee recommended that the 10 different sales taxes
be replaced by a single national value added tax we contemplated
two things. We did a lot of work on this.
We contemplated and recommended a tax that could be brought
in one province or two provinces at a time. In other words, not all
provinces had to accede to the new regime at the same time.
Second, although it makes a more complicated tax, provinces did
not have to come in all at the same rate.
Over time I can see provinces coming in at different rates. For
example, Premier Harris had promised before the last Ontario
election that Ontario recognized the incredible advantages to that
province of having a harmonized sales tax system. Ontario could
probably harmonize at about 13 to 14 per cent instead of 15 per
cent and be revenue neutral. Why would it come in at a higher rate?
The tax system in place, as the member for St. Albert well knows
because he has a strong accounting background, envisages the
possibility of different rates. It would be easier to administer if the
rate is the same in every province and maybe over years, after all
the provinces have acceded to the tax, the rates will come together.
That will be a further step in the process of simplification.
When the member goes back to the perceived injustices of the
national energy program of the 1980s, why does he not talk about
the billions of dollars of tax grants that were given to make the tar
sands available just recently? Is he ashamed of that? Why does he
not talk about the millions on millions of dollars that we are giving
to the farmers in western Canada, the western diversification fund,
in helping them transport their goods to market or to diversify and
get away from their dependence on some of the funds they have
had?
What bothers me most about this debate is that we can differ as
parliamentarians about the HST. But when members deliberately
set out to create a balance sheet where they do not put in all the
figures on what provinces are receiving from Confederation, they
are trying to be divisive and set provinces against provinces, rather
than recognizing that we are so fortunate to be in this country.
This country is diverse, with different economic circumstances
from coast to coast. But part of being a nation is to help those
regions from time to time with things like equalization and perhaps
special breaks that will help them with their resources, with their
transportation needs or whatever. That is the essence to me of being
a country.
I do not shy away from these programs which are entered into in
the spirit of helping those regions that need it most. This, to me, is
what this nation is about.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Spea-ker, I just wanted to make one quick comment.
In the finance committee report on the harmonized sales tax, I
had the privilege of drafting, and later getting approved by my
colleagues, the idea that perhaps the tax in pricing should be
suspended for the provinces. If the government had followed my
recommendation, then it would have saved itself all this
embarrassment.
(1320 )
I agree that tax in pricing at this stage is a good thing to do.
Because of the fear that the Conservatives had over the ability of
the government simply to raise taxes by one little percentage point
on the harmonized sales tax and get away with it because people
would not notice it is just not true. In western Europe we have seen
that when the German government tried to do that it had a major tax
revolt on its hands. The Conservative argument in the light of those
experiences is not valid.
In the hearings of the finance committee the member and I heard
from 1,000 witnesses the suggestion that we still have a real bad
monster on our hands, a value added tax which has in it
exemptions, zero rating and all kinds of complications which are an
9071
accountants' nightmare. Witnesses suggested getting rid of this,
put the same rate on everything at a much lower percentage than it
is right now. If there are good causes-magazines and poor people
who need subsidies-write them cheques. Give them explicit
subsidies. It will be open and everyone will know about it.
I would like to ask the hon. member's position on this
suggestion. Does he see any hope that a reform of this sort will be
carried through in the future?
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Capilano-Howe Sound for what I think is a very important
question.
I agree with him that from a strict tax policy point of view the
ideal tax would be the simplest. It would apply to everything, no
exemptions. That would mean a lower rate. For example, if the
GST were to apply to basic groceries it could probably be reduced
by about 0.7 per cent. Everything in the country would have a
slightly lower tax rate.
In asking this question the member has displayed the type of
integrity and intellectual honesty which we in the finance
committee have to come respect over the last three years. I
commend him for this. The problem is from a tax policy point of
view. It might be right but Canadians at this point are not yet
prepared to accept that the tax should apply to things such as basic
groceries, certain medicines, drugs and health devices.
I do not mind that debate being held. I commend the hon.
member for bringing this forward but at this time I do not think
Canadians are ready to accept that type of tax reform. We are
having enough difficulty getting the harmonized tax in place.
Maybe that is something that can be contemplated down the road.
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment proposed by the Reform
Party is in order subject to a small editorial change. It reads:
That the motion be amended in the first paragraph by deleting all the words after
the word ``That'' and substituting the following:
this House agrees with the principle set out in the amendment made by the Senate to
Bill C-70, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account
Act and related acts, but would propose that the amendment be amended to read as
follows:
Pages 334 and 335, clause 242: Replace lines 40 to 45 on page 334 and lines 1 to
4 on page 335 with the following: ``Subsection (1) comes into force on a day fixed
by order of the Governor in Council, which day shall not be before the first day on
which all provinces have enacted laws requiring that suppliers include the tax under
Part IX of the act in indications of the prices of property or services supplied''.
(1325 )
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. You have been
trying to clarify that amendment which comes from a party that
promises to practise politics differently.
Can the Chair or the Reform members clarify whether the
amendment would have the effect of denying the benefits of
harmonization to Atlantic Canada because one province does not
have a sales tax and it calls for-
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary knows that is
not a point of order but debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Standing Committee on Finance held three days of hearings on Bill
C-70 in January. Here are some powerful examples of what was
contained in the briefs. I will provide a quick overview.
For example, the Retail Council of Canada, which submitted a
brief, represents over 65 per cent of all retail business in Canada.
Even though this body supports the harmonization of provincial
and federal sales taxes, it opposes the inclusion of the tax in the
selling price in the maritimes as a policy that will drive up costs
and add to the confusion among consumers.
By approving several different ways of displaying the price with
the tax and by providing a number of exceptions to these rules,
federal policy seriously complicates the situation. How is it
possible to compare costs at two retailers that use different
methods to display a price with the tax?
Consumers will be faced with different labelling within a single
store. For example, some products will display the price with the
tax, others without; others will have a package label without tax,
but a shelf label with it and then there will be products that are tax
exempt or that do not need to have the price indicated with the tax.
How are we going to know the total cost of our purchases with such
a system, with such confusion? A single product could have as
many as four different prices on the label: the regular price with
and without tax, and the discount price with and without tax.
In short, as these examples show, it will be much more difficult
for the consumer to discover the price of merchandise quickly and
easily.
The tax can be included in the price over a four month period, as
the legislation provides. The Retail Council of Canada claims, and
rightly so, that the firms including the tax in the price ahead of the
others will be shooting themselves in the foot, because they will
display a price on a product that will be higher than at a
competitor's.
The buffer period may well be useless, because, in all likelihood,
every firm will be waiting until the last minute to display prices
with the tax included.
9072
In terms of the costs involved in Bill C-70, the Retail Council
of Canada estimates it will cost the retail industry $90 million in
recurring annual costs and another $85 or $90 million for the
initial adjustment to switch over from the old way to the new
harmonized Liberal tax.
Finally, the council vehemently criticizes the fact that hearings
were held on only three days in January. It also criticizes the
Standing Committee on Finance for holding hearings only in
Ottawa, thus preventing a multitude of small retail merchants from
testifying and expressing their opinion.
The Council said, and I quote:
[English]
``These tactics leave retailers wondering whether legislators
have any interest in their views whatsoever''.
[Translation]
It should be pointed out that the Bloc Quebecois supported the
Reform motion to continue hearings in the maritimes, a motion that
was defeated by the Liberal majority in committee. I clearly
remember that hearing day; I sat on the committee as a Bloc
Quebecois member.
(1330)
In its brief to the committee, and this is a second example, Sears
Canada, said, and I quote: ``For Canadian retailers, tax inclusive
pricing in a partially harmonized system will mean higher costs
and more complex systems''.
Sears will produce 52 million catalogues in 1997, but the
production of ``harmonized'' catalogues, to accommodate the
standards applying to the maritimes, will cost Sears a fortune. It
may also mean fewer catalogues or higher retail prices for
consumers in the maritimes.
Sears also testified that, while the purpose of this legislation is
not to limit product availability in harmonized provinces, this will
certainly be the result''. In addition, like many other large chain
stores, Sears labels its products before shipping them to its stores.
With Bill C-70, the company will have to keep two separate stocks,
depending on whether the price includes the tax or not, with the
related increase in production costs being reflected in retail prices.
Goods will have to be divided in lots and stored separately before
shipping, which complicates things, be it only by imposing the use
of a dual stock system.
The brief submitted by Woolworth Canada Inc., a company with
over 100 stores and 14,000 employees in the provinces affected by
harmonization, included the following: ``Given that the proposed
legislation applies only to three small provinces, and given the
current proposals regarding tax inclusive pricing, we believe that
costs will significantly increase for retailers and consumers, and
that this legislation will also result in extreme confusion''.
In its brief, Canadian Tire writes the following, and I quote:
[English]
We are opposed to the piecemeal approach to the application of tax inclusive
pricing as part of the introduction of the new HST. This would create very significant
ongoing costs as well as extreme confusion to our customers-for the retail industry,
any benefits derived from input tax credits are more than offset by the significant
cost increases resulting from tax inclusive pricing. There are no savings; in fact there
are increased costs.
[
Translation]
Here are a few excerpts taken from the Liberal minority report of
November 1989 on the GST, when the Conservatives decided to
introduce this consumer tax, and I quote: ``The Liberal members of
the finance committee maintain that the goods and services tax
proposed by the Tory government is bad and that no 'repair job' of
any kind will make it fair for taxpayers''. You can find that quote
on page 283 of the report.
What are the Liberals doing with Bill C-70, if not a repair job?
Except for the fact that the tax is hidden in the price, the GST
remains the same and its rate remains the same. In fact, it is the
provincial tax that is being harmonized. Therefore, the Liberals are
only doing a repair job on the Conservatives' GST and, if we are to
believe their own words, this new HST is as bad and unfair for
taxpayers as the old GST. ``Moreover, if the GST is hidden in the
sales price, it will be a lot easier for the government to raise it
later''. This is from page 298 of the same report.
Based on the Liberal logic, one can conclude that the Minister of
Finance will certainly increase the GST in the maritimes in his next
budget, since he is in the process of hiding that tax in the sales
price. In 1989, the Liberals condemned the idea of hiding the GST
in the price. However, in 1997, they are doing just that, on the false
pretence that this is what consumers want.
Consumers want the Liberal government to fulfil its
commitments, including the promise to scrap the GST; they do not
want the government to hide it in the price or partially harmonize
it.
(1335)
Why, then, have the Liberals systematically refused, since they
have formed the government, to carry out such a total reform of the
Canadian taxation system?
Even though this ill advised promise will cost Quebecers and
other Canadians close to $1 billion, all the Liberals can think about
is getting out of the mess at any cost and as quickly as possible. Just
as they did with the Airbus affair, Pearson and the Somalia inquiry.
This is therefore not the first time the Liberals have made
colossal errors that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of
dollars but not taken any responsibility for their actions. Even in
9073
the case of the GST, the Liberal government showed its contempt
for democracy by preventing opposition members from doing their
job.
Yet the Liberals came up with 13 important amendments, those
were their words, to Bill C-70, the very evening of the third and
final day of public consultation, claiming that these amendments
were a response to the complaints heard during the three days of
hearings. If it was possible to find 13 amendments in three days,
imagine how many we would have had if we had been able to
extend the public hearings by one or two weeks.
In their haste to leave behind the embarrassing issue of the GST,
the Liberals do not want to hear what people have to say; they are
afraid that people in the maritimes will tell them the plain truth:
Bill C-70 is a botched job, a very bad bill. The Liberals are standing
in the way of democracy by preventing citizens from expressing
their views during the legislative process, and by moving full steam
ahead, worrying more about their electoral agenda than about doing
a good job of serving the citizens who will pay for this new tax, and
who, in the meantime, are paying their salaries.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed as a block to this bill
to harmonize the GST in the maritimes. This is a botched bill. It is
based purely on political and electoral considerations. It is badly
written. People have pointed out all sorts of shortcomings that the
government does not even want to hear about. It is not the
harmonization model that maritimers deserve and are calling for.
What is more, in order to convince the three maritime provinces
in question, the federal government had to promise political
compensation of $1 billion, while it has systematically refused to
pay Quebec, in all fairness, the $2 billion it lost by harmonizing its
provincial sales tax with the GST in 1991.
If the federal government is able to come up with $1 billion for
the maritimes, let it also find a way to come up with the $2 billion
owing Quebec. Otherwise, everyone should receive the same
treatment and the federal government should stop subsidizing New
Brunswick's corporate raiding in Quebec using Quebecers' tax
money.
For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is calling upon the
government to go back to the drawing board, to start from scratch
with a new bill on its plan to harmonize the GST, this time taking
the time required to present a serious bill, and particularly taking
the time to listen to what people have to say.
The Liberal government had winning votes in mind when it
spoke out against the partial removal of the tax from books. Only
educational and literacy institutions will pay no GST on books
purchased, while what I would call the normal taxpayer, the person
who buys books at the neighbourhood bookstore, will continue to
pay it. No doubt what the Liberals want is to be able to say, during
the next campaign which is almost upon us, that they have taken
the GST off books. But that is not true.
In conclusion, I would like to say that, with the Senate
amendment to Bill C-70, there will be no further reference to
including the GST in the price as long as a minimum of 51 per cent
of the population of Canada does not have a provincial sales tax
system harmonized with the federal sales tax. During all of the
House debates on Bill C-70, the Bloc Quebecois spoke out against
the government's haste to get rid of the GST business before the
election.
(1340)
The Bloc Quebecois spoke out against, and voted against, Bill
C-70, asking the government, as I have said, to go back to the
drawing board, to propose another model for harmonizing the sales
tax, since this one was full of defects.
Unfortunately, the Liberals would not listen to us. But now we
have the Senate proposing an amendment to Bill C-70 which is,
basically, along the same lines as what we were finding fault with
in the bill, and the Liberals are preparing to adopt it.
I would therefore like to say in closing that the Minister of
Finance has stated, on a number of occasions, that Bill C-70 would
introduce inclusion of the GST in the price in response to the
wishes of the people. Now that they are preparing to remove
inclusion of the tax in the price from Bill C-70, what is left of Bill
C-70? Nothing. The GST is still the GST. What is being
harmonized is the provincial tax, not vice versa, despite what they
are trying to make us believe. And for that they are going to pay the
maritimes $1 billion, while Quebec gets turned down when it asks,
in all fairness, for $2 billion for having done the same.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I promise I
will not use the word you and I debated in the House a little while
ago or refer to the definitions the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance was so worried about.
I will call it an inducement. I will call it a payment to another
province that tried to make up for a shortfall in revenue in terms of
the provincial sales tax it was charging. They have now converted it
to a broader base of goods and services which in effect has the final
impact of raising the GST in the three Atlantic provinces from7 per cent to 15 per cent.
After two or three months consumers will realize that they have
to pay more for goods and services in the three provinces thanks to
the Liberal government and thanks to Atlantic MPs. During the
9074
election campaign I hope they remember that and vote for the
people who will represent their region.
I find it interesting that two groups are responsible for having the
bill come back to the House. It passed third reading; it was pushed
through. The Liberal government was praising its merits and the
value of a harmonized sales tax. One of the two groups is the
provincial government of New Brunswick and Premier Frank
McKenna.
He is no longer a Liberal in the true tradition in that he has
broken with the rank and file Liberal philosophy. He has chosen to
do something the Reform Party prides itself in doing. He has
chosen to represent the people who voted him into power. He
listened to the people in his region and argued their position so that
they got a chance to have an impact on a collective group like the
House of Commons.
The second group that had influence was the Senate banking
committee. If it were not for its members taking the time to go to
the Atlantic provinces, the government would have been able to
force, pressure, foist, push, cajole or put it on to the people of
Atlantic Canada and then brag about how good the harmonized
sales tax was for the rest of the country.
The Senate committee listened to the people of the Atlantic
region. As a matter of fact the master of myth, the Minister of
Finance, even felt it was so important that he should show the
courage to show up at the committee to tell Atlantic Canada why he
felt he had to have tax inclusive pricing.
Having done so it all came out: all the things Reform Party
members said in the House of Commons and all the things
committee members said in the Standing Committee on Finance on
what was wrong with harmonized sales tax: that it was ad hoc, that
it was partial, that it was confusing, that it was coercion.
(1345 )
Yes, that payment of $961 million to the Atlantic provinces was
definitely an influencing factor for those three provinces. Not that
it was better for business or for anybody, because at the end of the
day everybody in the Atlantic provinces who made representation
to the Senate committee complained. The Canadian Federation of
Independent Business and the Retail Council of Canada
complained that the Liberals were not listening. However, the
finance minister said that consumers wanted this and the
government was going to give it to them. That is why we have tax
inclusive pricing.
The minister was not listening to the people. This was strictly a
poorly concocted, politically motivated effort so that in the next
election the Liberals can stand up and say they kept their promise
to replace the GST.
Because the deputy leader quit, we all know the Liberals did not
keep the promise they made door to door to get elected which was
that they would kill the GST. They said they hated it, they would
kill it, they would abolish it and they would scrap it. They know
they did not keep that promise, so they want to shift the debate on
to another level, another plane which is to read the red book which
said ``replace''. They wanted to put this in there. They wanted to
change the name. They wanted tax inclusive pricing so they could
call it the harmonized sales tax and nobody would be referring to
the GST.
They did not get their way. The GST is still there. I am very
disappointed that at the end of the day we have a bunch of
politicians who end up lacking integrity and losing their principles.
How can a person as knowledgeable and as competent as the
Minister of Finance lose his principles? How can a person like that,
who sat in opposition dreaming of being in government and who
finally is in government, entrench the GST in people's lives forever
when he said that if one ever combines a provincial sales tax with
the goods and services tax we would have the net result of
entrenching the GST? Is this his legacy to the people of Canada? Is
this his idea of representation and doing what is in the best interest
of all Canadians or is this just an example of partisan politics at its
worst?
Another gentleman, one I respect an awful lot and one I think is a
Reformer in Liberal clothing, is the current Minister of National
Defence. I remember when he was minister of transport, the job he
did there, the way he did it and how he took that department and
downsized it. He did not fire 44,000 employees like the secretary of
Treasury Board has. He had all those people relocated. He
privatized some aspects of the service of that department that
should be in the private sector and retained those aspects of the
department that should be in the public sector. He then went to the
area of unemployment insurance and was on his way of doing a
good job there and then the rug got pulled from underneath him
because they needed help in defence. Now he is there.
However, as much as I respect him I will criticize him. I criticize
him for a lack of integrity and for changing his principles. Is it not
important to stand on principles? He is one of the Atlantic MPs.
When he was on this side of the House he said there was no way a
government should ever impose a hidden tax. He said that the tax
must be open and visible because that was the only way to hold the
government accountable. Both the finance minister and the defence
minister were right then. What has happened? Why have they
changed their minds? It is not wrong. It is right. That is the right
attitude and the right philosophy.
I sadly conclude that the only reason they have done this is
strictly for politically motivated purposes. Where are the Liberals
today? They are sheepishly talking about how they are going to
meet the deadline of April 1. They are going to go ahead with this
9075
bill because harmonization is important. They have backed off on
the tax inclusive pricing because the Senate has forced them to do
it.
(1350 )
Why are they not standing up and condemning the senators?
Why are they not condemning all those people in front of the
hearings who said they did not like this tax and the government
knows better than the people do on what is good for them?
Why are they not praising today tax inclusive pricing? Where are
all those advantages that they talked about before, how the
harmonization would blend in nicely with the consumer and the
retailer, and that the price the consumer sees on the item is the price
they pay at the till, everybody will just spend more money,
everybody will be happy, the whole economy will grow and
everything will be wonderful?
Why are they not talking about that today? They are not
hammering on all those advantages any more. Where did they go?
This was so important. What about the consumers, Mr. Finance
Minister? Mr. Finance Minister, you said that you will give the
Canadian public what it wants, and what it wants is tax inclusive
pricing and this government gives the people what they want.
Where is he today? Where is he on this issue?
I am proud of the fact that Canadians and especially those
Canadians in Atlantic Canada took the time to go to those hearings
and made themselves heard. I am proud of what the senators did. I
will give them a lot of credit too. They have some power.
We as members of the third party here have no power. It shows
the dangers of a democratic dictatorship that does not listen. All the
things that we pointed out have come to pass. They are true. The
Senate has done its job. That is why I am always in favour of a
Senate; the type of Senate is another story and another debate. At
least it is a check and control. It is a chamber of sober second
thought.
The government and the cabinet need a lot of second sober
thoughts. They are ramming some of the worst legislation in the
history of this country on Canadians. From gun control to
endangered species to financial institutions, the government is
wreaking havoc on the whole economy and the rights and freedoms
of Canadians and corporations across the country.
This harmonized sales tax is another example of that. The
government is setting bad precedents. We have a finance minister
who has been criticized by the auditor general and who made this
$961 million payment to the Atlantic provinces one year ago. He
charged it off to the year ending 1996.
I will read from the public accounts how we are supposed to do
our accounting and how we are fairly supposed to represent the
finances of the nation. This finance minister who has been getting
all the credit and all the praise from the left wing leaning Liberal
press in this city has gone against generally accepted accounting
principles. The auditor general says so, most CAs, most CGA,
CMAs, RIAs and MPs would say so who have an accounting
background.
In the public accounts of 1996 the auditor general said: ``The
inclusion of the transitional assistance of $961 million in the 1996
deficit and accumulated deficit represents a departure from both
sound accounting practice and the government's own accounting
rules''.
Second, so that people who are listening understand what we are
to do when we charge something into a current year's budget, we
have to have an agreement in place on how the money is going to
be spent and who the two parties are that are involved, not a letter
of intent, which is what the finance minister argues on this or, as it
says here, the financial obligations are reported as liabilities if the
underlying event occurred prior to or at year end.
We are speaking of March 1996. This deal takes effect April 1,
1997. We still do not have a harmonized sales tax in place. Why did
Atlantic Canada get $961 million, if not as an inducement to
procure these signed agreements? Even today the agreement is not
in place and the money has been put out.
(1355)
We are talking about integrity. These are the finances of the
nation and we have a finance minister who is so cocky, so
overconfident that he feels he can do anything with any piece of
legislation, that he can ram it down the throats of Canadians and
nobody will question him on it.
Thank God there is a Senate, especially with this kind of House
where we are fractured, where we cannot hold the government
accountable because we do not have enough manpower to do it.
I think the Liberals are very lucky to have a free thinking, open
minded Liberal premier in the province of New Brunswick. I
predicted that those three premiers in the Atlantic provinces would
lose their jobs if they went ahead with the harmonized sales tax, the
tax inclusive pricing. At least somebody was listening.
Frank McKenna, in a newspaper article written by April
Lindgren of the Ottawa Citizen, said he is unapologetic for doing
what he did even though he is a Liberal premier: ``When you are a
provincial government and the federal government is of the same
persuasion, there is no law requiring that you park your brains and
your opinions at the door''. That is what the backbenchers from
Atlantic Canada have done on the issue. They parked their brains
and their opinions at the door. They are like trained seals. They just
follow the pack, do what the cabinet says must be done and what
the finance minister says should be done because they are high in
the polls. Everything here is related to polls. They are trying to get
9076
themselves re-elected. Liberal members support what is in their
own self-serving best interests and not the interests of Canadians.
I commend the premier of New Brunswick for having the
courage to tell the truth. The truth is that the consumers will have to
pay the tax.
The Speaker: I know that consumers, as I, will wait with bated
breath for the end of your speech. You still have four minutes and
the floor will be yours if you wish at the end of question period
today.
It being almost 2 p.m., we will proceed to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
9076
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are thousands of Canadians who do not know the
name of the member of Parliament who is speaking from in
Chamber at this very moment.
Currently, Mr. Speaker, you address members according to
ridings. My name and riding are printed for a few seconds in small
letters at the bottom of the TV screen.
The Canadian National Institute for the Blind and severely
visually impaired Canadians have indicated that this practice is
unfair, given that blind persons cannot read members' names and
province of origin as printed on the screen.
I recommend that it would be more appropriate to have members
addressed by their name, riding and province. This would only
pertain to the manner in which the Speaker addresses members and
not to the manner in which members address each other in the
House.
In the name of fairness I pray that this recommendation be given
serious consideration.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, 1997 is a banner year for la Francophonie. This year we
celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Charte de la langue française,
the 10th anniversary of the Semaine du français, the 5th
anniversary of the Semaine internationale de la Francophonie and
the 7th anniversary of the Journée internationale de la
Francophonie in Quebec. These various events have now been
combined in the Francofête, being held for the first time from
March 16 to March 23, with the author Marie Laberge as honourary
chair.
The Francofête is an event marked by pride and excellence. At
the heart of this event we find the French language, the official and
common language of Quebecers at work, in communications,
business, culture and education.
To quote Yves Duteuil: ``It is a beautiful language with
magnificent words that expresses its history through its many
accents''. This week is a wonderful opportunity to speak, write,
read, sing and love this language of ours.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party's fresh start for justice has the Liberal Party's spin
doctors scrambling for answers.
An access to information request clearly points to the Liberal
failure to deal with hardened criminals who make a career out of
hurting or killing innocent Canadians. The Liberal justice minister
believes that capital punishment and truth in sentencing are
``buzzwords'' and are an act of revenge.
The Liberal idea of a safer society is to release violent offenders
earlier because it is cheaper to do so, all under the name of
rehabilitation. Liberals do not believe that the punishment should
fit the crime. Neither do they believe that criminals are responsible
for their actions. They say that you and I and society are to blame.
The bottom line is that the Liberal government continues to
support criminals with its weak laws. On the other hand, innocent
citizens are victimized and to the Liberal mind this is good.
The Liberal government is deluded. Fresh start for justice is the
only answer to law and order in this country.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for more
than a decade this government and the previous one have pursued
the same economic policies: deregulate, cut spending, lay off
workers.
Both business and government have sung the same tune. Has it
worked? We have 45 per cent more child poverty in the country
than in 1989 when this House passed a motion to do away with it.
Today's Globe and Mail reports that the working poor are now6 per cent worse off than 10 years ago.
9077
University of Saskatchewan economists tell us that realized net
farm income for their province was $315 million in 1996, or about
$5,000 per farm. The projections are that it will be lower in 1997.
Bankruptcies hit record levels in 1996 under these policies. Real
income for most Canadians is declining as are living standards.
However, big business profits are up and so is the stock market. But
for ordinary people, nothing but harder times.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is financial light at the end of the deficit tunnel, as
we heard from the Minister of Finance during his recent budget
presentation.
Canadians have a right to be proud of the accomplishments
toward deficit reduction: proud of moving from being referred to as
a third world country financially in the early nineties under the
previous administration to today, once again, being the envy of the
industrialized countries of the world.
Canadians are proud also that the deficit reduction
accomplishments have provided the flexibility for financial
investment in health care, student education, children and families,
rural Canada, the tourism industry, the infrastructure program
extension and programs to foster small business, economic growth
and jobs.
This is responsible government. Canadians have a right to be
proud of their accomplishments. God bless and long live Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently
attended the 46th parliamentary seminar in the United Kingdom.
Participants included legislators from all corners of the globe:
Malawi, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka and
Uganda. The seminar coincided with Commonwealth Day, March
10.
Canada is held in high esteem abroad and is well served by its
commitment to multilateral organizations such as the
Commonwealth and la Francophonie.
One of the lasting impressions I will have will be the importance
of our country's foreign aid to the well-being of fellow
Commonwealth and la Francophonie citizens. I urge all members,
as legislators in one of the richest and most senior members of both
organizations, to recognize and promote the value of foreign
assistance.
I call on the government during la semaine internationale de la
Francophonie, specifically the Minister for International
Co-operation, to continue our foreign aid activities so that we may
look forward to a time when we will be members of organizations
such as la Francophonie and the Commonwealth where wealth is
indeed-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.
* * *
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as an Ontario MP I have been hearing a lot of whining
from Mike Harris and his chorus line in the Reform Party. They are
trying to blame every cut in Ontario on the federal government.
They are tossing out accusations that Ontario's transfers have
been cut by over 40 per cent. The fact is, when this government
assumed office, total transfers to Ontario, cash and tax points,
amounted to $10.3 billion. This year it is $9.1 billion.
The real reduction is 11 per cent, which only represents 2.5 per
cent of provincial revenues. The 1996 budget includes a plan to
start increasing transfers once again.
(1405 )
How much has Mike Harris cut? More than $6 billion from
hospitals, schools, municipalities, social assistance and shelters for
battered women. And why has he had to make these cuts? To pay
for an irresponsible $5 billion tax cut for his rich friends.
Reformers can say what they like, but my constituents do not
buy their sudden belief in medicare. I look forward to pitting our
record and commitment to social programs against these right wing
relics of the past.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday thousands of Quebecers filled St. Catherine Street to
celebrate St. Patrick's Day, when all Quebecers become
O'Quebecers, as Cardinal Turcotte pointed out.
St. Patrick's Day is a time to remember when this community
came to Quebec from its country of origin some 150 years ago to
escape the potato famine. The conditions for these immigrants on
board ship and subsequently in quarantine on Grosse-Île remain
painful memories that testify to the courage and determination of
the Irish.
In his sermon yesterday in St. Patrick's Cathedral, which was
founded 150 years ago, Cardinal Daly recalled the warm welcome
extended in the past by Canada's francophones who, together with
the Irish already established in Montreal, worked so hard to
alleviate the suffering of these Irish newcomers.
9078
St. Patrick's Day has become a tradition in Quebec. We all
celebrate this day and hope that this tradition will be maintained
for many years to come.
A happy St. Patrick's Day to everyone.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the people of Cariboo-Chilcotin support the protection of
endangered species but they oppose Bill C-65, the federal
government's endangered species protection act.
Bill C-65 threatens the rights and livelihoods of thousands of
responsible ranchers, miners, foresters and landowners in the B.C.
interior. It gives federal authorities the power to dictate to
responsible landowners and users how they will use their land. It
offers no compensation to landowners and users who are forced to
leave productive land dormant, and Bill C-65 allows activist
groups to go to court solely to stop resource development. This bill
is an unfair, unbalanced and unsatisfactory piece of legislation.
Fortunately there is a better way. The Reform Party has proposed
42 amendments that would ensure fair compensation, co-operation
by all concerned and a commitment to the preservation of all
endangered species. If the government refuses to pass these
amendments I will vote against Bill C-65 on behalf of the people of
Cariboo-Chilcotin.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Friday's
announcement by the Minister of Transport abolishing Ports
Canada Police bypasses the democratic process in this House. Bill
C-44, the Canada marine act, is presently before the House. There
are provisions in that bill that deal with ports police. It is confusing
that the minister would abolish ports police before Bill C-44 is
passed.
In the announcement the minister has placed access control in
the hands of the ports and municipal police forces to ensure
standard police services at the ports. But the minister made no
reference to the present ports police officers. What are the
minister's plans for these dedicated and specially trained people?
And what is he going to do about continued funding for such
services?
The ports police officers are specialists in their field. They are
trained and knowledgeable in national and international crime.
Why is the minister subjecting our communities to the possibility
of increased crime? I urge this minister and this House to
reconsider what came out on Friday.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 150 years ago the great potato famine was devastating the
Irish countryside and Irish tenants were fleeing their homeland.
Today Canada, while celebrating St. Patrick's Day, also
celebrates the great migration of those people who became the
backbone of so many of our communities. Whether it is corned
beef and cabbage at the historic Victoria Tavern in Windsor or a
green beer at the Knights of Columbus in Tecumseh, the people of
Canada are all Irish today.
However, as we enjoy the fun, let us not lose sight of the
historical fact that so many came here out of such a great tragedy
and that they joined with others to build one of the great free
democracies of the world.
* * *
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, health care
continues to be a priority for my constituents in Lincoln, and they
are worried about its future.
As the Ontario government continues to pursue its plans to
restructure hospitals like the West Lincoln Memorial in Grimsby
and St. Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton, let me share with the House
what my constituents are saying. They want a health care system
that is focused on patient care and wellness and not one that offers
fewer services at fewer locations.
Let us be clear. Premier Harris has decided to close hospitals in
Ontario. That is his choice and no one else's. The National Forum
on Health stated that Canadians want the federal government to
continue to play a strong role in protecting our publicly funded
medicare system. The government has demonstrated that support
through the recent budget which invests in the delivery of health
care services.
(1410 )
Clearly we will continue to ensure that our universal health care
system is protected and meets the needs of all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for too
many years, the east end of Montreal has been associated with
factory closings and unemployment. As of today, this unfortunate
perception will change and there is new hope for the east end of
Montreal.
At a press conference this morning, the Minister of Human
Resources Development announced a $8.1 million subsidy to Iris
Inc., a sock manufacturer. This financial assistance comes out of
9079
the 30 per cent of the transitional job fund which has been
earmarked for Quebec.
Thanks to this partnership between the Government of Canada,
the municipality of Ville d'Anjou and the private sector, an
expansion plan worth an estimated $63.7 million will create more
than 3,000 permanent full time jobs in the east end of Montreal
over the next three years.
* * *
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois has a new leader, and, for the first time, the leader of a
federal political party was elected by universal suffrage.
More than 50,000 members of the Bloc exercised their right to
vote. That figure is more than the number of Quebecers belonging
to the Liberal Party of Canada. This is an extraordinary democratic
exercise, and I challenge the other federal political parties to follow
the Bloc's example.
I speak on behalf of all my colleagues, supporters of the Bloc,
and leadership candidates in congratulating the member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie.
We have no doubt that, with our team of members, he will gain
the support of all those who hold so dear the sovereignty of Quebec
and the defence of the interests of the people of Quebec.
Well done, Gilles.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Kevin
Martin and his Ottwell Curling Club rink have once again proven
that Edmonton is a city of champions.
Kevin, along with lead Don Bartlett, second Rudy Ramcharan,
third Don Walchuck and fifth man and coach, Jules Owchar, won
the 1997 Brier yesterday in Calgary with a thrilling 10-8 victory
over the powerful Vic Peters rink from Manitoba.
All who helped organize this year's Brier championship are to be
congratulated. A quarter of a million people attended the event
during the week.
It looked bad when we lost to Peters in the round robin during the
week, but on Friday night in the quarter final we squeaked out a
win and it was then one game each. Then Sunday was the all-time,
ever-lovin', championship tie-breakin' round. In the eighth end my
heart sank when Peters stole two, but in the ninth we scored three
back and then in the tenth end we stole one for the win. What a
finish.
Now it is on to the world championships where once again
Martin will prove that we are the best of the best. Way to go Kevin
Martin, you are the champ.
* * *
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Renewable Fuels Association and its members are
gathering in Ottawa today to discuss the environmental and health
benefits of ethanol fuels. Ethanol and other renewable fuels can
greatly reduce vehicle tailpipe emissions, the leading source of air
pollution and related health problems. The use of ethanol in our
vehicles will reduce ground level ozone, carbon monoxide and
particulate matter in the air we breathe.
A healthy and vibrant ethanol fuel industry in Canada will
provide the following benefits: clean air, reduced health care costs,
a domestic and renewable fuel supply and a stable domestic market
for Canadian grains.
It is time for all Canadians, both rural and urban, to adopt the
vision of cleaner air through renewable fuels like ethanol. It
benefits all of us.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
three weeks ago, the Ontario Health Services Restructuring
Commission recommended the closure of the Montfort hospital.
Since the announcement, there has been an upsurge of popular
opinion in eastern Ontario and especially within the francophone
community in support of the Montfort hospital.
(1415)
To mark the blossoming of this solidarity in support of the
Montfort, a rally will be held at the Ottawa Civic Centre this
Saturday, March 22 at 2 p.m.
I invite everyone in the community, everyone who is a friend of
the hospital, everyone who believes in the importance of being
given health care in one's own language to help the organizers of
the SOS Montfort campaign fill the Civic Centre to the
overflowing.
_____________________________________________
9079
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
The Speaker: We will now proceed to oral question period with
the new Leader of the Opposition.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
9080
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday a crowd of over 600 demonstrated noisily in
front of the Hell's Angels headquarters in Saint-Nicolas.
These citizens turned out, despite low temperatures and gang
members' attempts to intimidate them. They are calling for
concrete and rapid action from this government to put an end to the
biker war. They even carried placards asking politicians how many
more victims it would take to get them moving.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: How many victims
will it take before this government makes up its mind to take action
and finally introduce a bill outlawing gangs like the Rock Machine
and Hell's Angels as criminal groups and known law-breakers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, on behalf of all members of the House, I would
like to congratulate the new Leader of the Opposition on his
democratic election as leader of his party. I wish him much good
luck, not too much, obviously, but enough to enjoy his new duties,
which I have already performed and which are not very easy. It is
not always easy to lead a party. I come from Shawinigan, and I
know whereof I speak.
I would just like to say that you have already been in the House
for some time now and that we are ready to work in everyone's best
interests.
Obviously, I had occasion to answer the hon. member's question
last week. The Quebec Minister of Public Security, Robert
Perreault, echoed the words of his predecessors last week when he
said that an anti-gang law would not resolve the problem, that it
was a question of the administration of justice. Sufficient staff were
needed to work on this problem.
Furthermore, the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve said
that Pierre Sangollo was the man most qualified to speak on this
topic. He quoted Mr. Sangollo as saying that the bomb problem
would not go away because of anti-gang laws; the only way to
restore peace to Quebec was to increase the number of Carcajou
investigators and give them the tools they need.
This could be sorted out if you were to call the head office in
Quebec and ask them to bump up the number of investigators in the
Carcajou squad, as Mr. Sangollo recommended.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, that is interesting because Mr. Perreault also said that he
was open to a public debate.
Is the Prime Minister telling us that if he receives a request from
Quebec-because the Criminal Code is a federal statute, is it
not-he is prepared to respond positively, to take action, to outlaw
groups like the Rock Machine and the Hell's Angels as criminals
and law-breakers? If he were to receive a request from the
Government of Quebec, am I to understand that he would agree to
take action?
The Speaker: By its wording, the question is a hypothetical one,
but if the Prime Minister wishes to reply, it will be allowed to
stand.
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am aware that the Solicitor General and the Minister of
Justice are in constant communication with responsible authorities
in all provincial governments. This is not a problem peculiar to
Quebec; groups like this exist throughout Canada. It is very
difficult to define with any great precision which are criminal and
which are not.
I am certain that my colleagues, the Minister of Justice and the
Solicitor General are presently holding discussions with provincial
authorities. If they have any good proposals to make that require
legislation, the government will consider them, as we always do.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is almost the only person in Canada
who does not know who the Rock Machine and the Hell's Angels
are. We are not talking about choir boys or a bowling team, as
everyone knows.
There is an emergency in Quebec. People have been killed as a
result of what is going on. Bombs are going off weekly. Is the
Prime Minister ready to hold an emergency debate, here, today, this
evening, on the issue of biker gangs in Quebec, because that is
where they are raging?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that the administration of justice is a provincial
government problem. The responsible police forces in Quebec
report to the provincial government and are directed by one of the
opposition leader's predecessors. If the Quebec police need the
federal police, we are always prepared to come to their assistance,
but the responsibility is Quebec's.
He could call his former leader and tell him what to do.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister appears to be out of touch
with Quebec reality. There is a bikers war in Quebec, and it has
been going on for some years, but the Prime Minister keeps
blathering on, as though nothing was wrong.
How can the Prime Minister contend, as he did today, that we
have all the tools necessary to combat the activities of criminal
biker gangs, when in Quebec not one week goes by without
buildings being blown up, or worse, innocent bystanders being
killed?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government appreciates the
9081
confusion and dismay biker gangs are causing in the Quebec City
area. It is a very serious and dangerous situation indeed-and a
tragedy, in the case of young Daniel Desrochers, who was killed in
Montreal last year.
At the same time, the Prime Minister said, might I remind the
hon. member, that this is essentially a provincial matter. It concerns
the administration of justice, which falls primarily under the
jurisdiction of the provincial government.
The Solicitor General of Canada and myself have made it clear
that we are prepared to work with our Quebec counterparts to find
appropriate ways and tools for the police to fight organized crime.
We said so six months ago, at the national forum on organized
crime that was held here in September. We are prepared to work
with our counterparts to find tools that can help the police.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister will neither hold an emergency debate,
as requested by the Bloc Quebecois, nor undertake to act on
proposals made by the Government of Quebec to deal effectively
with the gang war. Meanwhile, the Hell's Angels and the Rock
Machine are causing mayhem in Quebec.
My question is for the Prime Minister and I would like him to
answer because this is a very important question. Will the Prime
Minister admit that, by being stubborn, he is protecting criminal
biker gangs instead of protecting the life and safety of innocent
people in Quebec?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are more than 800 sections in
the Criminal Code to assist peace officers in the performance of
their duties. I do not think there is a simple or magical solution.
(1425)
Robert Perreault, the Minister of Public Security in Quebec, said
essentially the same thing. In his opinion, an anti-gang law is not a
magical solution; it would cause more problems than it would
resolve.
Former Quebec Minister of Public Security Serge Ménard made
the following comment: ``I remain convinced that what we lack to
fight organized crime is not legislation but sustained law
enforcement''. That is the solution: police work. As I said, if we
can help police in any way by adding something to the Criminal
Code of Canada, we will gladly do so.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday it was reported that personal bankruptcies had jumped22 per cent for last year over 1995. Almost 80,000 Canadians went
broke thanks to Liberal economic policies.
Not only have the government's high tax policies given us the
worst string of unemployment numbers since the great depression,
they are causing Canadians to go broke at near record numbers.
What does the Prime Minister have to offer the unemployed and
the bankrupt other than his empty election promise of jobs, jobs,
jobs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I tell everybody that the government is trying very hard to
make sure the economy performs very well. At this moment, as I
have repeated in the House, we have the lowest interest rates we
have had in 35 years. Everybody who reads the newspaper realizes
that housing is picking up, that people are buying more cars, and so
on.
We have seen the country producing net more than 700,000 new
jobs, more than as I have said Germany, France, Great Britain and
Italy. It is not enough. The level of unemployment went from11.4 per cent to 9.7 per cent. We wish it would be lower but we
have done the right thing to achieve these goals. That is why in the
last week of reports in terms of optimism in the country for
investment it is the best in many years.
We had to tackle the problems that were left to us when we
formed the government, a deficit that was $42 billion. We had to
reduce it and we have managed to create a lot of jobs in the
meantime.
We are working very hard. I know the people of Canada will
have an occasion within the next 18 months to make a judgment on
our policies and the flip-flop of the Reform Party.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is one
thing to talk about flip-flop. These kinds of numbers and
encouraging words the Prime Minister fools himself with are no
comfort and mean absolutely nothing to people who are
unemployed and looking desperately for jobs.
The Liberals' flowery words and rosy predictions are absolutely
cool comfort to the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians and the
nearly 80,000 Canadians who went broke last year.
Since the Prime Minister's jobs strategy has failed miserably and
since he has ruled out tax relief, I ask him to get to the facts and not
give us the flowery numbers and predictions he knows are glossy.
How does he plan to keep his red book myth of jobs, jobs, jobs that
he tried to snow the people with in 1993?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have explained, we have seen the confidence of
consumers growing very fast in the last quarter. For example,
residential investment has grown by 23 per cent. Consumer
spending is
9082
increasing by 5.6 per cent and fixed business investment by more
than 23 per cent.
We do not claim we have solved all the problems, but I am
telling the hon. lady we have done our best with the right
preoccupations. We are not a party that is just proposing.
I know they can say that because they will not form the
government. The only goal they have whenever they get up is to
make sure there will be no more old age pension or Canada pension
plan for the poor and that there will be tax cuts for the rich.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting to hear this rhetoric.
In 1992 someone who sat exactly there with 1.5 million
unemployed, Brian Mulroney, told us not to worry, that Canada had
the best job creation record in the G-7.
(1430 )
Now in 1997 with 1.5 million still unemployed someone who
sits in the very same chair, the present Prime Minister, is saying:
``Don't worry, Canada has the best jobs creation record in the
G-7''. It is the same old story.
We could not trust Mulroney with that line in 1992. Why in the
world should we trust the Prime Minister with the same old line in
1997?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was not the same line that we had because it was not our
slogan. The member is right that it was Mr. Mulroney's slogan of
jobs, jobs, jobs.
We said to the Canadian people that we would restore confidence
and tackle the deficit and the debt of the country. When we formed
the government interest rates were four points above those of the
Americans. Now our interest rates are below theirs. At this time our
interest rates are 2.5 per cent lower than those of the Americans.
We have not seen that in 40 years.
I agree with the hon. member that we are paying the price
because we had nine years of the Tories in government, and they
are not about to come back.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
With the election fast approaching, the Liberals should be
ashamed of their poor performance in job creation. In addition to
the fact that 45 per cent of all new jobs since 1993 were created in
1994, only 288,000 jobs were created in the years 1995 and 1996
together.
How can the minister shamelessly predict the possible creation
of 300,000 to 350,000 new jobs in 1997, given that, for 1995 and
1996 together, only 288,000 new jobs were created, 60 per cent of
which were part time jobs?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously, as a government, we
cannot be pleased with the figures regularly heard in this House.
We are constantly striving to create an economic climate that
will convince people to invest more. We also implemented job
creation initiatives like no government before us. We changed an
unemployment insurance system that acted as a disincentive to
work, and replaced it with job creation funds, with a transitional
job creation fund.
This morning, I was pleased to announce, in the east end of
Montreal, an $8 million subsidy from the transitional job creation
fund that will help create 3,000 jobs in the textile sector in the east
end of Montreal.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it takes
some nerve for the minister to boast about using the transitional
fund to create jobs when the $300 million to be spent over three
years comes from the UI fund and the cuts affecting the
unemployed.
The minister talks about creating many new jobs in 1997, in the
private sector, but he is trying to hide the reality of massive job
losses in that sector. Indeed, from February 1996 to February 1997,
85,000 workers in the private sector lost their jobs. Of the 189,000
jobs created in 1996, 125,000 were precarious independent jobs.
How can the minister use such a smoke and mirrors approach in
promising 350,000 new jobs?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is lucky enough to be a
member of the OECD, one of the world's foremost brain trusts, and
it relies on the economic studies made by that organization.
The hope to create 350,000 jobs in our economy in the next year
is based on the serious work done by these people, who have
identified our economy as the most promising, since it is basically
sound.
It is perfectly normal to have jobs of a different nature than in the
past, including independent jobs, which are perfectly acceptable in
the new economy, and which should not be looked down on.
* * *
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to a study by the C.D. Howe Institute, the government
has been hiding about $9 billion in income and sales taxes that it
has sucked
9083
out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians. This represents about
$1,700 per family.
In a related story the government has been busted for going $9
billion over target on the spending projections put forth in its 1995
budget. In the case of regional development it is about 50 per cent
over its target, just like the money the minister announced.
Is cooking the books the Prime Minister's definition of fiscal
responsibility?
The Speaker: The hon. Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank members of
the Reform Party for their greeting.
Members of the Reform Party should read some of the
independent comments about Canadian government policies. I
suggest they read, for example, the comments of Maureen Farrow
of Loewen, Ondaatje, McCutcheon Limited who said:
International investors, whom I talk to every day, are looking at Canada as if it
we've sort of arisen from the ashes. It's fascinating because it's the deficit, the
debt-the current account, the contained inflation-the overall competitiveness, the
restructuring of the export sector, and we've gained enormous market shares across
the board on our export markets.
She was referring particularly to markets in the far east. That is
an economic success. Those are not the problems the hon. member
is talking about. He is talking about non-existent problems.
Definitional problems were mentioned in the particular article. As
usual for the Reform Party, the numbers he quoted were incorrect.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
eagerly await the member's retirement.
It is obvious government members are using creative accounting
and tax increases including $3.7 billion in user fees to cover up
their managerial incompetence. They are as guilty of fudging the
books as the Tories before them.
How can Canadians trust anything government members say
when it is obvious they have blown their spending reduction
targets, just like Michael Wilson did, and covered them up with tax
increases?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the secretary of state retires he will be able to talk
about the successes he had as a secretary of state for the
Department of Finance.
In the case of the hon. member who just spoke, he will have a
forced retirement.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Last night, CTV reported that Agriculture Canada has for years
subsidized research enabling cigarette manufacturers to use plants
with a high nicotine concentration, and here the government has
just passed its anti-smoking legislation claiming to have the health
of Canadians and young people at heart.
Would the Minister of Health confirm whether the federal
government has supported research on levels of nicotine in the
past?
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada does not fund research on
nicotine. We do measure the amount of nicotine in plants in a
similar way that we measure sugar in plants. We measure the length
of tobacco plants. We measure placement of the leaves on plants,
but we do not research in the area of putting nicotine into plants.
Quite frankly those types of measurements are done on all
products grown as a crop in Canada.
(1440)
It is very clear that the nicotine level in plants that have been
approved by agriculture Canada, the varieties, has gone down from
high levels in the 1980s through the 1990s consistently. The level
of nicotine in plants has dropped in Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a recent
study by Health Canada revealed that nicotine levels in tobacco
increased 53 per cent in the past 27 years-that is a scandal.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Aside from his fancy
speeches on health, does the minister intend to do what is needed to
reduce nicotine levels in tobacco in order to fight addiction to this
product at the source?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a very hard time remaining seated. These are the
members who last week were on their feet trying to block our bill
banning tobacco advertising directed at young people. Such
hypocrisy.
Last week they voted against a bill that restricts advertising on
tobacco and today they are complaining about tobacco. The people
of Quebec, however, will understand that they have once again
failed to look after the interests of young Quebecers who give in to
smoking.
9084
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, I would prefer that words
such as ``hypocrite'' and ``hypocrisy'' not be used.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the tobacco
companies say they do not manipulate nicotine in tobacco
products. We have found out that they do not need to. Agriculture
Canada is doing that very thing by searching out and researching
strains that raise the nicotine level in those strains.
The Liberal government is directly implicated in this search.
Why the double standard?
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate
the fact that we are not. We had very high levels of nicotine in the
1980s. Through the 1990s those levels have been decreased
consistently with every brand coming forward.
I might well point out while I am on my feet that the research in
agriculture Canada is for agronomic purposes, making sure our
environment is safe, making sure that we have alternate crops for
those people who are involved in agriculture with tobacco.
We have taken out over 50 per cent of the tobacco growers in this
country in the last 10 years. As a matter of fact, 90 per cent of the
research dollars that have been spent in agricultural research in
tobacco have been taken away.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I disagree. I will
quote a research arm of this government. This is what the research
is doing: ``Overall these lines have improved yield and grade
quality and will contribute greatly to the economic well-being of
who? The tobacco companies''.
The new tobacco bill has a proposal in it that would allow this
government to control nicotine levels. We thought, frankly, that it
would lower it. What has it done? Research that will raise it.
The tobacco companies lost the battle on ads. It looks like they
have won the war on addicts. Why?
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
point out that the nicotine levels are generally set on an
international basis. Within those structures on the international
basis the levels of tobacco that have been approved in Canada, that
go forward in Canada, have declined through the 1990s. The
number of people who are growing tobacco has declined. There has
been absolutely no commercial tobacco production in the maritime
provinces, the Atlantic provinces, since 1996.
We have reduced the number of people growing tobacco. We
have provided alternate crops. We have changed the whole
mechanism by which tobacco is grown.
(1445)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
January 23, 1996, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development recognized an interim band council to administer the
Lac Berrière reserve.
This irresponsible act led to 100 children having their school
closed for more than a year, several roads being barricaded,
numerous court cases, a community divided, and a trilateral
agreement coming to an end on December 31 of last year.
My question: since the Liberal government bears the bulk of the
responsibility for this crisis, will the minister finally make up his
mind to take action to put an end to this situation, which has gone
on far too long already?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem in the Algonquin
First Nation of Barrière goes back to the 1950s and 1960s. There
was an outburst in 1964. The community has been in rough shape.
The chief did not hold elections for 15 years. We spent half a
million dollars with the province of Quebec to look at abuse on the
reserve. A petition came forward asking for an election.
We have the most qualified person I could find to go in there,
Judge Réjean Paul, an aboriginal superior court judge, and two
elders. They have been working with the band. It is difficult.
However, I am sure that the hon. member would not want to use
this incident, which is a tragic incident, for political purposes.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a
member of the opposition, I am entitled to ask questions. One thing
is clear: the entire situation at Lac Barrière is paralyzed at present,
and the minister is directly responsible for this state of affairs.
The barricades make it difficult for all of the forestry activities in
this region to be carried out. In order to make things easier for the
businesses in this region, will the minister commit to negotiating
with the Lac Barrière band council and the Government of Quebec
a new trilateral agreement on the 10,000 square kilometres of forest
resources around the reserve?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we had worked in the past with
the province of Quebec on a trilateral agreement. It was not
mandatory in the federal government to do so. We did pay a fair
9085
share of the moneys. We are prepared to work co-operatively with
Quebec on the forestry problem.
On the band itself, Judge Réjean Paul, who had actually quit, was
convinced to go back and put a last proposal to the band. Hopefully
it will accept this proposal and perhaps get on with its future.
It is a problem that has been there for four decades. Using this
group for political purposes does not cover the hon. member in
grace.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Last October 16, the minister and the president of the Canadian
Pediatric Society indicated their concerns about fetal alcohol
syndrome, stating that the wisest decision for a woman to make
was to abstain from alcohol during pregnancy.
Can the minister clarify for us what initiatives his department
intends to take in support of this recommendation?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member will know that the improving of the health of
Canadian mothers and babies is an important priority not only for
the federal government but certainly for provinces and other
stakeholders.
Four initiatives have been undertaken by my department. We are
working in partnership with the Canadian Paediatric Society. We
have developed a joint statement on the prevention of fetal alcohol
syndrome. Health Canada has also provided funding to the
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse to operate its 1-800
information service. We produced and are distributing public
awareness materials.
Finally, prevention through early intervention programs such as
the Canada prenatal nutrition program reinforces the government's
commitment to giving children the best start in life.
While I am on my feet, I want to thank the hon. member for his
continuing interest in this subject matter and for the various
suggestions he is putting forward in trying to rectify this.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Major Armstrong appearing before the Somalia inquiry stated that
in his opinion the shooting of Ahmed Aruush on March 4, 1993 was
a murder.
He reported this to his superiors and it seems that headquarters in
Ottawa was also advised. It then took six weeks to dispatch a police
investigation team. Some think this sent a message that may have
contributed to the torture death of Shidane Arone on March 16.
Neither the justice review nor the committee of four can tell the
minister of defence what took place at national defence
headquarters. How does he intend to find out?
(1450 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman refers to the work done by a retired chief justice of the
supreme court, Mr. Dickson, and his team on the military justice
system. I know that the hon. member has deep concerns about the
Canadian forces and how the military justice system works, how
the military police organization responds to the kinds of challenges
that obviously occurred in Somalia.
I have now received the report from Mr. Justice Dickson. I will
be reporting to the Prime Minister before the end of the month. I
think I can say without equivocation that the hon. member will be
as impressed as I have been by the work done by Mr. Justice
Dickson.
That having been said, with specific reference to the question he
put today, the hon. member will know that I have not in the past
commented on testimony brought before the Somalia commission
of inquiry and I will not do that now. I will have nothing to say
about how it has dealt with that issue until such time as it has
prepared its recommendations and has submitted them to the
government.
I am sure the hon. member and Canadians look forward to
receiving the report of the Somalia commission of inquiry no later
than the end of June.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the justice committee probably has provided good
recommendations but that does not deal with the problem of what
happened at NDHQ after that report. It seems that there may have
been several cover-ups at several levels, in Belet Huen, in
Mogadishu and then the so-called damage control in Ottawa.
The commission may be able to answer the questions about Belet
Huen and Mogadishu, but with the inquiry shut down it will not be
able to establish the facts of what took place in Ottawa.
How does the minister intend to deal with this apparent attempt
of a cover-up of murder?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the incidents to
which the hon. member refers have been the subject of various
proceedings within the military justice system. I do not intend to
comment on that.
9086
With respect to the roster of witnesses, of the agenda and the
workplan of the commission of inquiry on Somalia, I have not
commented on that. We are now two years beyond the time when
that commission began its work.
I will leave it to the hon. member and to keen observers of this
entire exercise to determine for themselves and to respond in their
own way whether they believe that people who were involved or
who were aware of the incidents when they occurred in Somalia
should have been heard at the end of two years or earlier. I do not
intend to comment on that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
According to the minister, one of the characteristics of the new
Employment Insurance Act is to calculate the number of hours
worked, and no longer the number of weeks. However, the
Employment Insurance Act still excludes one class of casual
workers. I am referring to the 20,000 members of the army reserve
whose assignments for less than 30 days do not count for
employment insurance. However, members of the reserve very
often have assignments of less than 30 days between September
and June.
What explanation does the minister have for the fact that 20,000
members of the reserve are partly excluded from the provisions of
employment insurance, while according to the government, the
purpose of the new legislation is to allow a larger number of people
to qualify for employment insurance benefits?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure to look into
the particular case of members of the reserve.
The fact is that we want to encourage people to accept more
work. As soon as workers finish their first hour of work, we start
covering them. We want to encourage people to accept more hours
of work.
Obviously, to obtain the amount necessary for coverage and
benefits, we think it is also important that people have an incentive
to look for work other than what they can get within a certain
period on the labour market. That is what we are doing.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
has shown his ignorance in this respect.
Is the minister prepared to make a commitment, as of today or at
least as soon as possible, to do what is necessary to remedy the
situation and provide equal treatment to 20,000 members of the
reserve by removing this unfair and inequitable exclusion?
(1455)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate
that a question such as this which is rather technical and concerns a
group of people who are very important to us at the Department of
National Defence, should be asked without prior notice, because
otherwise we could have checked all aspects of the legislation.
As members know, very few members or ministers in this House
are in a position to know every detail of every act, however
complex it may be.
I can assure the hon. member that the government is doing what
it can to encourage people in the public service to participate, if
they so wish, in the activities of the reserve or the militia. We want
to do everything we can to encourage Canadians who are
interested, because we are increasing the membership from 20,000
to 30,000.
I can assure the hon. member, as the Minister of Resources
Development just did, that we are doing everything we can to be
fair and equitable to everyone who needs employment insurance.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a week ago today the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Dundurn said in this House: ``Everybody knows
Clifford Olson will not be granted parole''.
I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he agrees with this
former chair of the justice committee. If so, why is he allowing
Clifford Olson to terrorize his victims over and over again?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the application brought by Clifford
Olson will be determined by a jury in a courtroom in British
Columbia in the months ahead.
In the last three and a half years that it has been my privilege to
be Minister of Justice, I have made it my business to meet as often
as I can with those who survive and grieve the loss of victims of
crime. One thing I have learned about that process and the victims
of crime is that it is terribly important not only to sympathize with
them and their terrible grief but to be honest with them. I know the
hon. member would want to be honest with the victims of crime.
It should be remembered that it is not the present government
that created section 745. Section 745 has been part of the criminal
law of this country since 1976. It is this government that introduced
9087
important changes to section 745 so that multiple murderers will
never be able to apply in the future, so that juries will have to be
unanimous, so that judges will first screen even those applications
that can be brought.
My point is let us be honest about what is going on. There was no
easy way to roll back Clifford Olson's right to apply under section
745. We have taken care of the section for the future. When we
introduced those changes the hon. member and his party voted
against them.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind this House that it was Liberals who brought in
section 745.
Are the Liberals trying to rehabilitate Clifford Olson by allowing
him telephones, fax machines, word processors and early parole?
Are you trying to rehabilitate-
The Speaker: Colleagues, please be sure to address your
questions to the Speaker.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fate of Clifford Olson and his
application, as I have already said, will be determined by a jury in
the courtroom. That is where such matters should be dealt with.
I want to be clear in response to the hon. member's more general
inquiry. This government has on many justice issues stood four
square with victims of crime. Victims of crime were in this very
building the day that Bill C-68 came up for a vote in the House of
Commons, the gun control bill. My hon. colleague and his fellow
members of the Reform Party voted against the gun control bill.
Victims of crime were one floor away in tears as they recalled
their tragedies. They implored the members of the Reform Party to
vote for gun control, and the members of the Reform Party voted
against it. This government stood with the victims. The
government stood with the victims when it amended the Young
Offenders Act to provide for victim impact statements at
sentencing, and the Reform Party voted against it.
(1500)
Let me close by saying that at times there have been differences
with victims on matters of principle, but victims know the
government stands with them in strengthening the criminal law of
the country.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will meet in Madrid this
summer to decide on the entry of new members to the alliance.
Could the minister tell the House how the Canadian government
will decide its position on NATO enlargement and how he sees
NATO enlargement reinforcing European security?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question and take the
opportunity, in light of his recent statement about voluntary
retirement, to pay special tribute and to say thanks for the major
contribution he has made to Canadian foreign policy over the years.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg-South-Centre): As
parliamentary secretary and chairman of the defence board he has
played a major role, particularly in his concern about applying
standards of security and democracy in central and eastern Europe.
On the specific question, the Prime Minister has taken a very
strong position in relation to the broadest and widest application of
membership. That is now being discussed in certain circles.
We have also supported the notion of a special arrangement with
Russia. Just a week ago in a meeting with the Prime Minister the
Ukrainian foreign minister was given the assurance of a special
relationship with Ukraine.
All these initiatives support the initiatives the member has taken
over the years to ensure that Canada has an important role to play in
the expansion of democracy in eastern Europe.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
In moving grain to the west coast it is obvious the railways have
failed to perform. Yet they bear no responsibility. The $65 million
of losses due to demurrage and non-performance of contract are
borne by farmers. Non-performance is not the fault of farmers, of
grain companies or of grain handlers. Only the railways were
responsible.
Does the government now realize this and is it prepared to
amend the Transport Act to rebalance the relationship between
shippers and railways by including the right of shippers to
performance guarantees with appropriate penalties for poor rail
performance?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that there have been
very dramatic improvements in the shipment of grain to the coast.
Rail car unloads for the last week for which I have figures were at
4,500 cars as compared to under 4,000 for the previous week.
Things are improving and I hope we will soon have the backlog
dealt with. There is a reduction in the ships waiting on the west
coast from 39 to 30.
However I have been requested by the ministers of
transportation of three of the four western provinces to look into
the issue by way of an inquiry. I am in discussion with them on
whether that is
9088
the best approach. Our objective in government is to make sure we
come up with new approaches which will prevent the types of
delays we had this winter.
This will take the co-operation of all parties. I reject out of hand
the suggestion of the New Democratic Party of simply pointing the
finger of blame at one of the various parties. We have done that for
110 years and the result is the problem we had this winter.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: I bring to the attention of the House the presence
in our gallery of His Excellency Ahmed Attaf, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: I also bring to the attention of members the
presence in the gallery of Dr. John H. Gibbons, Science and
Technology Adviser to the President of the United States.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order.
During question period a Reform member alleged that Clifford
Olson had a fax machine, word processor and telephone. I want to
inform the House that the hon. member's information, like most of
what the Reform members say in this regard, is totally incorrect.
(1505 )
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would request that the Prime Minister be required to withdraw his
slanderous inference that the Reform Party would do away with old
age pensions.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if every time the Reform Party says something about me
that is not the way I like it, I would be up on my feet quite often.
I will let the people of Canada decide within 18 months. Get
ready.
9088
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-386, an act to amend the Criminal Code (probation
order).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to present the bill
to the House of Commons, although I am very sad about the
conditions which led to my presentation.
Last summer there was a situation where a father beat up his
28-day old son. The judge recommended that there be changes in
legislation that would allow judges to attach probation periods to
federal sentences.
When sentences are put by a judge where there is full
understanding of the situation, the judge at the time of sentencing
should be able to set probation standards so that they are not
established at some future point in time by people who are unaware
of the absolute horror and tragedy of many of these situations.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-387, an act to require that in the advertising and at
the opening of a cultural project supported by public money a
public acknowledgement of the grant be made.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the bill in light of
the amount of discussion at the moment concerning issues like
Canada cultural grants and things of that nature.
If there were the ability to be able to understand public
involvement in some of the cultural projects with public money,
two things would happen. First, the public at large would be able to
assess the value it has received from its dollars.
9089
(1510)
Second, it would give ability to the people of Canada to
understand the support for cultural events. This would be
particularly applicable in areas where federalism seems to be
getting a black eye at the moment.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by constituents in the national capital region.
They want the House of Commons to call on the federal
government to establish an infrastructure program that would help
with the establishment of a proper national highway system.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions to present. The first six bear 376 signatures
and deal with the following.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact two strikes
legislation requiring that everyone convicted for the second time of
one or more sexual offences against a minor person, as defined
under the Criminal Code of Canada, shall be sentenced to
imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole or early release
whatsoever.
For anyone awaiting trial on the offences mentioned in the
petition, the petitioners pray that such a person be held in custody
without eligibility for bail or release of any form whatsoever until
such time as the matter is fully concluded in a Canadian court of
law.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition bearing 53 signatures that deals with pedophiles.
They request that sexual offenders be made public through a
registry including their date of release and the community into
which sexual offenders or pedophiles settle.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition bearing 150 signatures.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to deport immediately all
refugee and landed immigrants who commit and are convicted of a
serious criminal offence in Canada, thereby protecting the
Canadian people from these perpetrators.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition-
The Speaker: I think three in one day is enough.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from the east coast to
the west coast. Some are from Quebec and Ontario.
The petitioners are very concerned about the 7 per cent GST on
reading materials. They feel the GST is an unjust taxation on
reading materials, that education and literacy are critical to the
development of our country, and that an aggressive tax on reading
handicaps this development.
The petitioners call on the government to zero rate books,
magazines and newspaper under the GST.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I have a petition from a number of petitioners
in the Campbell River, B.C., area who are petitioning the
Government of Canada.
They believe police and firefighters are often required to place
their lives at risk in the execution of their duties on a daily basis.
They also believe that employment benefits of police and
firefighters often provide insufficient compensation to the families
of those killed while on duty.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to establish a fund
known as the public safety officers' compensation fund for the
benefit of families of public safety officers killed in the line of
duty.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by 400 constituents of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
They call upon the House of Commons to institute the minimum
mandatory sentence of five years of incarceration for persons
convicted of sexual abuse against children.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a second petition signed by 600 constituents from
New Brunswick.
They urge all levels of government to demonstrate their support
for education and literacy by eliminating the sales tax on reading
materials.
The petitioners ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and
newspapers under the GST. In those provinces with the HST they
ask that both levels of government consider harmonizing their sales
taxes and that reading material be zero rated under the provincial
sales tax as well.
9090
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by 300 constituents calling upon
Parliament to legalize cannabis.
(1515 )
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by people in my riding of Egmont, Malpeque,
Dartmouth and Halifax.
The petitioners state that because the national highway policy
study identified job creation, economic development, saving lives,
avoiding injuries, lower congestion, lower vehicle operating costs
and better international competitiveness as benefits, they wish to
see the national highway system in Canada being upgraded as it is
being upgraded in the United States and Mexico.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present today.
The first petition comes from Mississauga, Ontario. The
petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that our
police officers and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily
basis as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians.
They also state that in many cases the families of officers are
often killed in the line of duty and left without sufficient financial
means to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish
a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and
bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Ottawa, 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.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families who choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged and the
disabled.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have in
hand a petition with 25 signatures from the citizens of Riondel,
which is a small community that is literally at the end of a road in
Kootenay East. It has been cut off as the result of the federal
electoral boundary changes and is going to be included in the
Okanagan riding. It is a grievous error.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament take the
necessary action to correct this error and return Riondel to the
federal electoral district of Kootenay-Columbia.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
my constituents. These constituents are opposed to the government
selling Candu reactors or Candu technology to China.
The Speaker: Before I give the hon. member for
Parkdale-High Park the floor, did I understand that a statement
was made today that you will not be presenting yourself in the next
election?
Mr. Flis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: As an old timer with you, Jesse, I am sorry to hear
that news. I now recognize the hon. member for Parkdale-High
Park.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Flis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for putting the icing on my
retirement.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
following my question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs today on
NATO enlargement, I am pleased to table seven pages of signatures
on the same topic.
The petitioners argue that the security of central and eastern
Europe is of fundamental importance, not only to the countries of
the region, but also to the members of NATO, including Canada.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to
support unequivocally the enlargement of NATO to include all
countries of central and eastern Europe that wish to join, excluding
non a priori.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: Does this request for an emergency debate refer to
the letter I have received from the leader of the party? Because only
he can-
9091
Mrs. Tremblay: Perhaps the fact that Mr. Duceppe is the new
leader was overlooked.
(1520)
The Speaker: Could I see the letter please?
I am sorry. I am getting old and I cannot see very clearly. It
certainly looks like the signature of the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52 of the House of Commons,
I wish to request that an emergency debate be held regarding the
social, economic and human consequences of the war being waged
by some biker gangs in Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois represents the majority of Quebecers in the
House of Commons, and the biker gang war recently moved from
Montreal to the Quebec City region where, in the past year, some
80 criminal incidents have taken place.
The Quebec government took action by setting up an operational
co-ordination group, as well as a regional intervention group
against organized crime, known as the GRICO unit. The provincial
government earmarked $1.5 million for Operation GRICO. In spite
of all the efforts made by the public and the government, people are
absolutely helpless against what is happening.
We in the Bloc Quebecois listened to our party's grassroots
during our national convention and passed an urgent motion in that
regard. We must not forget the recent rally in Saint-Nicolas and last
weekend's bomb.
Mr. Speaker, I would therefore ask that you consider favourably
our request for an emergency debate.
The Speaker: I have here the hon. member's letter. The issue
raised by the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata is a serious
one, which causes great concern in Quebec and elsewhere in
Canada.
However, upon reading the Standing Orders of the House of
Commons, it seems to me that the hon. member's request does not
meet the prescribed requirements. Should the context change, the
hon. member could always avail herself of the same process.
_____________________________________________
9091
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-82, an act to amend certain laws relating to financial
institutions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we do not
mind that Orders of the Day being changed halfway through the
day. As you know, we were talking about the amendments by the
other House to Bill C-70. Now we find, with no consultation, we
will be debating Bill C-82.
We think of the co-operation that we have given the government
side on the tobacco legislation and other legislation. Now we find,
with no consultation whatsoever, it changes the order of business
and we are now expected to debate another bill today when we have
been talking about the harmonized sales tax all morning.
I am wondering where the government is coming from in
changing the Orders of the Day like this.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will appreciate that
Standing Order 40(2) states that:
Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the
government determines.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Mr. Silye: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: No, I am not going to listen to any more.
Mr. Silye: Well, it is a new point of order then.
The Deputy Speaker: That will be judged very quickly, whether
or not it is a new point of order.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, prior to
question period starting at two o'clock, I was on my feet during my
20 minute allotment. I was not finished. I was told by the Speaker
who chaired question period that I would get the floor after Routine
Proceedings. I do not have the floor. I was given a certain amount
of time to finish my speech because I have some very important
things to say on that bill.
(1525 )
The Deputy Speaker: The member has raised an interesting
point. Speaker Parent did give an undertaking that the member for
Calgary Centre would speak right after question period.
Undoubtedly the Speaker thought that the bill would be recalled
and the member could finish his intervention.
Of course, if there is unanimous consent, we can do anything that
the House wishes to do. I wonder if the member wishes to ask for
unanimous consent to complete his intervention.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps when Bill C-70 is brought back there would be favourable
winds to having the hon. member finish his speech at that time.
The government has the prerogative to call what business it
wishes. I know you have already ruled on that. I would remind my
hon. colleague from St. Albert to refer to the House business
9092
statement that was given on Thursday which clearly indicates that
Bill C-82 is coming forward today.
The Deputy Speaker: It goes without saying that the hon.
member will be entitled to finish his intervention the next time that
matter is called.
I take it from the comments of the parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader that there will not be unanimous consent
to allowing the member to finish his remarks.
Accordingly, we are caught by the Standing Order. I have heard
enough on that point of order. The Standing Order is very clear. The
government can call any order it wishes at virtually any time.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I had
the floor prior to question period. As a member of Parliament, my
privileges are that I am allowed to give a speech with a certain
allotment of time.
Because question period comes at a certain time and interferes
with my speech, I should not be denied my right as a member of
Parliament to finish my speech which has four minutes left.
If this government is in such a darn hurry to get on with other
legislation without letting me finish my four minutes, this is just
another example of the dictatorial power that these-
An hon. member: Order.
Mr. Silye: I had the floor, Mr. Speaker. My privileges are being
denied.
The Deputy Speaker: There was the possibility of a solution
which, obviously, is not one that is acceptable to all the members of
the House as it must be. Accordingly, it is my duty under the orders
to put the bill presently before the House.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You
alluded to the fact that you thought there was no unanimous
consent. I do not recall you seeking unanimous consent of the
House to let the hon. member for Calgary Centre finish the four
minutes of his speech.
The Deputy Speaker: That is correct. There was not a call for
unanimous consent. Perhaps the easiest thing to do is ask if there is
unanimous consent to let the hon. member for Calgary Centre
finish his speech?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair heard a no, therefore there is
not unanimous consent.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If we are
not going to debate Bill C-70 this afternoon as I was told we were,
could you advise us please on what day next week we will be
debating it?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John probably
does not realize that the Chair does not know these things. The
Speaker is not able to do that. Perhaps the hon. Secretary of State
for International Financial Institutions will do that in his remarks.
(1530)
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I have a quick question
which I hope you can answer. The Speaker told me as a member of
Parliament that I would have the floor after question period for four
minutes. That Speaker left and there was a transition when the
Speakers changed. If that is what happened I still stand in my place
and I insist that I get my four minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: The same point was made before. I will
try to put it in other words. The government is entitled under our
rules, which have been passed by all members, to change the order
of business whenever it wishes to do that.
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to add my voice to those of hon. colleagues in the
government in support of Bill C-82. I hope my other colleagues
will be equally supportive.
I attach particular importance to the consumer protection
measures in Bill C-82. We live in a period of rapid evolution in the
financial sector. Technological advances, globalization of financial
services markets and a changing competitive landscape are some of
the broad trends at play. All of these trends have major implications
for consumers, most of which are positive in nature.
Canadian consumers enjoy more choice and convenience in the
financial services market than ever before. Long gone are the days
when we had to go to the bank between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on a
week day to take out money and write cheques to make payments.
Now we can get cash at any hour of the day or night through
automated banking machines. Payments can be made using
convenient new mechanisms like direct debit and pre-authorized
debits. In addition, we can do the basic banking we want, apply for
loans or seek insurance coverage from our home computers or by
telephone.
Technological innovations have been accompanied by an
ever-increasing array of financial products from a range of service
providers. For example, insurance products can be tailor made to
fit an individual's circumstances. Consumers who carry credit card
balances can reduce their interest costs by using one of the new low
rate credit cards on the market, and consumers can satisfy many of
their financial needs through one stop shopping. For example, they
can take out mortgages, invest in guaranteed investment
certificates and buy mutual funds from the same trust company.
These innovations bestow countless benefits on consumers. At
the same time, they have led to changes in the relationship between
financial institutions and their clients. Consumers want this
relationship to be balanced and fair, and have therefore expressed
9093
the desire for better protection in their dealings with financial
institutions.
The government agrees that consumer protection must be
enhanced in the context of a rapidly evolving financial sector. Bill
C-82 proposes several measures to accomplish this.
One key measure deals with privacy. Privacy protection is of
utmost importance to the government. This is an age where
technological advances permit increasingly easier access to and
analysis of personal information. In this environment, consumers
want to maintain control over their own information. They want to
know why their information is being collected, how it will be used
and how it will be stored.
In the financial sector the collection and handling of personal
information is a significant issue. Financial institutions rely on
extensive amounts of often sensitive information to offer their
services. As a result it is important that they take privacy protection
seriously.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, do we have quorum?
The Deputy Speaker: The member is correct. There is not a
quorum. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: There are now 20 members in the House.
We have a quorum. Resuming debate, the hon. secretary of state.
(1535 )
Mr. Peters: Mr. Speaker, financial institutions have made efforts
to deal with privacy concerns. For example, they participated with
consumer groups, government representatives and other business
groups in the development of the Canadian Standards Association
model code for the protection of personal information which was
finalized in April 1996.
The government wants to build on these efforts. Accordingly, the
bill provides the authority to make regulations in the area of
privacy. Specifically, it allows for regulations requiring financial
institutions to establish procedures governing the collection,
retention, use and disclosure of customer information and to
inform customers about these procedures. In addition, the bill
provides the authority to require financial institutions to establish
procedures for dealing with complaints on privacy and to report
annually on complaints received and actions taken to respond to
them.
Following passage of the bill, the government intends to
establish regulations to implement all of these requirements. I am
sure that hon. members will agree with the merits of this proposal.
Although privacy protection is an issue that cuts across industries,
and the government is developing a broader approach to privacy
protection, it is important to take this opportunity to respond to the
immediate concerns of consumers of financial services.
Bill C-82 also provides for enhancements to the cost of credit
disclosure provisions in the legislation. These provisions were
designed to ensure consumers are informed about the cost of credit
before they enter into loan contracts.
As part of the internal trade initiative, federal and provincial
governments agreed in September 1996 to harmonize cost of credit
disclosure requirements across jurisdictions. The objective of the
harmonization exercise is to ensure uniform disclosure practices
across the country and to ensure consumers benefit from a
consistently high standard of protection.
Accordingly, the bill proposes amendments to the disclosure
provisions in federal legislation. These amendments will allow the
government to implement all aspects of the agreement with the
provinces.
Under the new cost of credit disclosure regime, consumers will
receive fair, accurate, timely and comparable information about the
cost of borrowing. Armed with such information, they will be
better able to assess credit options and obtain the most economical
credit for their needs.
The government has been working to better protect consumers in
other ways. I would like to report on significant initiatives in two
areas: access to basic financial services and information about fees.
During the course of the 1997 review, several consumer groups
expressed concern that low income individuals often have
difficulty in getting access to basic financial services such as
opening accounts and cashing cheques. For example, it was pointed
out that financial institutions' identification requirements often
include credit cards and a driver's licence which not everyone has.
To remedy the situation the government held discussions with
consumer groups and with financial institutions.
I am pleased to report that the major banks have made a number
of important commitments to improve access. In particular, banks
have agreed that they will require only two pieces of signed
identification instead of three to open accounts or to cash cheques.
They will also accept sponsorships from responsible customers
known to the branch. In addition, employment will not be a
condition of opening a bank account. Bank staff will be trained to
follow these policies and to be sensitive to the needs of low income
individuals.
The government has also encouraged improvements with respect
to information about service fees. While consumers have access to
a broad range of accounts in deposit taking institutions, they often
find it difficult to compare the changes applicable to various
accounts and therefore choose the best account for their needs.
After discussion, the major banks have agreed to ensure that clear
information about their products and services is available in
publicly accessible areas of their branches. This will include
information about low cost accounts and tips on minimizing fees.
The banking industry is also working with Industry Canada to
9094
provide information about bank accounts on Industry Canada's
Internet site.
(1540)
I believe that the measures I have discussed today will provide
important benefits to consumers of financial services. We are
confident that these initiatives will help ensure a healthy balance in
the relationship between financial institutions and their clients.
In closing, on behalf of the government I would like to extend
sincere appreciation to the various consumer groups that played a
role in shaping these initiatives. These groups gave freely of their
time and energy to ensure that the consumer voice was heard in this
review, and the government has listened.
I call on my colleagues in the House to do the same by giving
their support to Bill C-82.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more than
anything else, Bill C-82 is a technical revision of the Bank Act. It
does not contain major changes such as the deregulation of
financial institutions, for example, allowing banks to sell insurance
and the merger of major banks.
The government does, however, propose some legislative
novelties, one might call them, which, although they do not go as
far as the white paper and the Liberal finance committee report, do
merit our further attention.
In addition to technical amendments to the Banking Act, Bill
C-82 seeks to modify or develop legislation on two main themes:
enhancing consumer protection, on the one hand, and lessening the
burden of regulation imposed on financial institutions on the other.
It must be noted that implementation of a new access system for
foreign banks will, it seems, come in a separate act slated to come
out by the end of the year.
The government will adopt clauses on the protection of
confidential information, better information on the cost of credit,
and protection of consumers from tied selling. After discussions
with the government, the banks will take a number of steps to
improve access by low-income individuals to basic financial
services, as well as information on banking services which, we
must admit, have been virtually non-existent until now, possibly to
the detriment of users of banking services. Banks must also adopt a
policy on tied selling, and set up mechanisms to handle complaints
on this. Some banks have already taken such initiatives.
As for tied selling, the government is naive almost to the point of
complacency. These measures apply only to banks, while the same
thing is not required of other financial institutions. This is because
banks fall under federal jurisdiction, while the other institutions,
such as insurance companies, come under provincial jurisdiction.
The federal government should let the provinces set the rules and
require its federal institutions to adhere to the provincial
legislation. This is the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois. That way,
the legislation would not have the double standards it does at the
moment.
The government also states that the clauses to amend the Bank
Act so as to prevent high-pressure tied selling will come into effect
only if they prove necessary. Banks are being asked to create their
own internal complaint handling system, and the act will apply
only if this proves insufficient-but using what criteria?
The government is therefore doing nothing concrete about tied
selling. What is proposes to do eventually is not even the right
thing, in our opinion. It just refers to tied selling in order to gain
brownie points as the elections come closer, but in actual fact it
strikes us that this is nothing but hot air.
(1545)
If the government wants to do something concrete, it should
make the banks subject to the same legislation as financial
institutions that come under provincial jurisdiction, which offers
consumers genuine protection.
We deplore the fact that the federal government is trying to
interfere, through the back door, with areas under provincial
jurisdiction. Under sections 254 to 259 of the Insurance Companies
Act, an insurance company with a federal charter or a foreign
company regulated under this act is currently prohibited from
selling its policies in Canada to another insurance company that is
provincially regulated.
Since most foreign insurance companies operate in Quebec
under a federal charter, Quebec insurance companies cannot buy
their policies when these companies withdraw from the Quebec
market.
This is unfair to Quebec insurance companies for the following
reasons: first of all, they cannot freely enter into transactions with
another insurance company that is federally regulated, even to
purchase a block of policies that are all held by Quebec policy
holders. Second, it is against the spirit of NAFTA because through
Ottawa, artificial trade barriers are being created in Quebec. Third,
banks and trust companies do not have the equivalent in their
legislation, so that a federally regulated bank or trust company may
buy blocks of business from their provincially chartered
counterpart.
In other words, Quebec insurance companies are not treated as
well as foreign companies and this, in their own country. In a joint
brief dated February 1996, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance
Association, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Insurance
Bureau of Canada, Canada Trust, the Trust Companies Association
of Canada and the Credit Union Central of Canada-this is starting
to look like quite a crowd-asked the federal government to allow,
with the approval of the minister, the transfer of policies in Canada
9095
from a federal insurance company to a provincial insurance
company.
The Government of Canada did not respond to this request in
Bill C-82, thus perpetuating the unfair treatment of provincially
chartered insurance companies like those in Quebec. If nothing is
done, C-82 will continue to restrict the opportunities for expansion
of provincially regulated insurance companies, so that many will
prefer to obtain a federal charter. Let us not forget that insurance is
a strictly provincial matter. The federal government has always
tended to forget that.
The reason the federal government is prohibiting the sale of
policies by a federally chartered company to a provincially
chartered company is that the latter is outside its control and
supervision. On the other hand, the federal government is
permitting the sale of blocks of insurance policies by a provincially
or federally chartered company to a federally chartered
company-the reverse is not permitted-on the grounds that the
latter is under its supervision and must be a member of the
Canadian Life and Health Insurance Compensation Corporation.
Clearly, it is a one way street: what goes one way does not go the
other. It has been this way since 1867, always to the federal
government's advantage. Over time, companies, and especially the
major ones, end up with only a federal charter, because a provincial
charter penalizes them by preventing them from acquiring blocks
of policies from a federally chartered company.
The provincial market, which is shrinking as a result, may well
disappear. Sooner or later, if there are no more companies with a
provincial charter, the province, as we know, will become a
redundant lawmaker, and this is how the federal government will
take total control of an area that, under the Constitution, comes
totally under provincial jurisdiction.
(1550)
In such a situation, the Bloc certainly has nothing against the
protection of consumer information, but this is a matter of civil
law, an area of provincial jurisdiction. Quebec already has
legislation on consumer protection, on the protection of personal
information, on insurance and on market intermediaries, which is
to be reviewed shortly.
The aim of the federal government is to be able to make
additional regulations in an area of jurisdiction where it has no
business, by duplicating and overlapping what already exists. In
this regard, federal policy never changes.
This is to be found in section 459 of the Bank Act, which is
amended by clause 55 of Bill C-82, which is before the House
today. The government claims in its fine speeches to want to
eliminate overlap and allow the level of government best suited to
provide the public with the services it needs to do so. In fact,
however, it continues to trample all over fields of provincial
jurisdiction.
It cites an agreement between the provinces in order to legislate
in this area. That is not what federalism is about. It is not because
ten provinces agree on a subject that the federal government has the
right to make laws and regulations in an area of jurisdiction that is
not its own.
The federal government claims with Bill C-82 to be improving
access to basic financial services for low income Canadians. For
instance, only two pieces of identification instead of three would be
required to open an account or cash a cheque, photo ID being
considered desirable but not mandatory. This is a mere facade,
since the problem remains.
The federal and provincial governments forbid banks to ask for
some identification that most Canadians carry, including their
social security number. The solution would be to think of a piece of
ID that everyone has and that banks are allowed to ask for to check
the identity of individuals. More often than not, the only cards they
can ask for are credit cards, which very few low income people
have.
Banks are not allowed to impose undue pressure on their clients,
but the legislation does not say what constitutes undue pressure. In
any case, it is up to the provinces to define this undesirable
practice, as consumer protection is a provincial responsibility.
However, the federal government reserves the right to make
regulations in an area under provincial jurisdiction where there is
already duplication and overlap, as pointed out earlier, in the case
of Quebec. This is unacceptable to us, Bloc members.
In addition, Bill C-82 makes a distinction between undue
pressure and favourable tied selling in subsections 459.1(2) and
(3).
This policy raises major questions, since the goods that are tied
seldom have the same life or expiry. This will make control
extremely difficult, in a word, it cannot work. Why not require
banks to comply with provincial consumer protection and tied
selling regulations?
We know that, for the federal government, streamlining and
duplication are synonyms, while harmonization really means
interference. But this must stop, particularly if the government
wants to fulfil the commitments made in the last speech from the
throne. We feel that Bill C-82 provides the government with a good
opportunity to show that it intends to fulfil its fine promises by not
legislating and by not adopting regulations that duplicate and
overlap what is already being done at the provincial level.
The federal government is imposing on banks standards that are
not imposed on other institutions that come under provincial
jurisdiction. Given that all these financial institutions are
ultimately competing against each other, the only way to ensure
they are subjected to the same rules is to let the provinces decide
how these
9096
institutions, including banks, must deal with the issue of consumer
protection, including complaints relating to tied selling.
(1555)
The Insurance Brokers Association of Canada fears that federal
regulations in the financial planning sector would interfere with
what is already being done. According to the association, the code
of ethics on the disclosure of personal information, which is
currently adhered to on a voluntary basis, is too soft on banks,
given what is required of intermediaries in the marketplace.
The Bloc Quebecois expressed a number of reservations
regarding Bill C-82. The government should correct the irritants
that we mentioned today. Then, and only then will we be able to
support Bill C-82.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon.
member sitting next to me just made an excellent speech. He gave
some advice to the government, but I notice that there are more
Bloc Quebecois members than government members, or even
Reform Party members, in the House of Commons. I am asking the
Chair to check to see if there is a quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: There are now more than 20 members in
the House, we can therefore resume debate.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
address Bill C-82. I would like to go over a number of issues and
review some of the items that are in the bill which the
parliamentary secretary has pointed out.
I would also basically like to submit to the House a lot of the
work that was done by my colleague from Okanagan Centre who is
our critic for industry and who has been monitoring and following
the impact of this bill on Canadians and the four pillars of our
financial institutions in Canada. A lot of what I do will be some
work that he has done and that he has monitored.
I will express the overall outline of the Reform Party and then
explain to Canadians who are watching how standing committees
work, what actually is presented at standing committees by various
groups and how that has an impact or no impact on final legislation.
I will then read into the record a report by the member for
Okanagan Centre which he has sent to the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions. That way our position as a
party and our contribution to this debate on this issue will
definitely be moved forward.
The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions
indicated that Bill C-82 was really about protecting consumers. In a
sense that is right but there are objections I have to that comment.
How do we protect consumers when we increase their taxes? How
do we protect consumers when we confuse them across this
country, for instance, with the harmonized sales tax in three
provinces but not in the other provinces? How can we implement
tax reform and how do we encourage financial institutions and the
four pillars to know what is going on when we have one tax regime
in three provinces and a different one in other provinces?
(1600 )
We saw that big flaw. We saw that the direction of the
government in terms of taxation was the wrong direction. We saw
that in terms of another bill we debated earlier today, Bill C-70, the
harmonization tax, the blended sales tax or the tax inclusive pricing
which the Senate sent back to the House. I thought we were
finished with it.
Although the amendment is headed in the right direction on that
bill, tax inclusive prices in three provinces confuses consumers and
lenders. The bill does not go far enough. I do not see why the bill
should not have had, along with being open and visible, a national
harmonized sales tax, not a partial one, and a single rate, not a
mid-double digit rate. A lower rate would force the federal
government to keep its expenses down and not overspend. There
should have been another amendment to allow doctors to claim the
GST on input credits.
The Liberals are very lucky they have a Senate and senators who
went on a trip. Because of the power they have in the other place
they were able to send the bill back to this House. At least they
understand the meaning of representation and what is in the best
interest of an area or a community. The Liberal premier of New
Brunswick also understands the meaning of representation. He puts
the people of New Brunswick first and not the Liberals. He puts the
people he represents first and not his party. He puts his province
first and not the Liberal federal government. Many Atlantic MPs
will benefit from that decision.
I said many times that the harmonization effort was not really
based on economic benefits for Canadians. I submitted sufficient
proof that it bears a high cost. Yet the parliamentary secretary just
said on Bill C-82 that he is worried about consumers.
Consumers are taxpayers. Taxpayers have had to pay three
provinces $961 million. Taxpayers are consumers. They have a
traditional cost in terms of their businesses and government
transitional costs of $200 million. They are over a billion dollars
now. There will be a huge increase in costs to consumers when the
blended sales tax is applied in the three provinces after April to
goods and services the provincial sales tax never applied to before.
It will represent a 7 per cent tax increase to consumers.
9097
I have read all the news about the government and what the
Liberals are doing by introducing this bill and that bill and by
jumping back and forth one to another. A new issue has come up
that amazes me and disappoints me. The Liberals truly sound like
the Conservatives before them.
During the Charlottetown accord Mulroney labelled anyone who
voted against his accord as enemies of Canada. Now certain
Liberals feel threatened by the actions of the Liberal premier of
New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, in terms of the Liberals'
re-election chances federally. They are angry he did a flip-flop on
the harmonized sales tax. They are angry he did an about-turn and
does not support the harmonized sales tax the way it was being
shoved down the throats of Atlantic Canadians.
McKenna sided with the Senate banking committee to defer tax
inclusive pricing, much to the embarrassment of the Liberal
government and in particular the finance minister who claims that
he was representing the consumers of Canada, the consumers of
Atlantic Canada. Yet he is contradicted by the Liberal premier.
A disgruntled Liberal MP claims that ``people are getting tired of
his shenanigans'', referring to Premier McKenna and his actions.
The Liberal MP goes on to state further ``on the condition of
anonymity''. This is a public servant elected by people and he
speaks on the condition of anonymity. Does that shows real
courage? He says: ``I have never seen a premier accumulate so
many enemies in three and a half years''.
Because a Liberal premier, no less, disagrees with the federal
government on what is best for the constituents of New Brunswick,
he is labelled an enemy of the federal Liberals. Shame. Arrogance
abounds on the government side.
(1605)
All members of Parliament should be evaluating the
consequences of increased taxes. All members of Parliament
should be evaluating the consequences of tied selling, allowing
banks to get into all businesses and becoming a stronger oligopoly.
All MPs should be interested in representing the wishes of their
constituents.
Our job as politicians is to represent voters across the country,
not just the wishes of the federal Liberal government. If they do not
agree with the government they should not be labelled as enemies
of the country, as enemies of Canada, or as enemies of the Liberal
government. If the Liberal government cannot keep an election
promise it is not the fault of those who oppose. Nor should they be
labelled as enemies.
I spent some time on the aspect of consumer protection. That is
what Bill C-82 is all about. After the review will the bill improve
things for the people of Canada, the consumers, as the Secretary of
State for International Financial Institutions claims?
Let us look more specifically at what the legislation does for
Canada and for Canadians. Some of the more notable clauses in the
bill provide that more detailed information be available to the
consumer regarding cost of credit disclosure. They require
simplified and improved dissemination of information to
consumers about basic financial services, low cost options and fees
on products and services. They also allow non-deposit taking
institutions to opt out of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
and loosen subsidiary requirements. So far so good.
They introduce regulations to allow financial institutions to enter
into joint venture agreements and propose changes that permit
mutual insurance companies to issue participating shares. They
require that large mutual insurance companies remain widely held
after conversion to a stock company. They also permit foreign
banks to be regulated as Canadian banks.
In terms of foreign competition the Reform supports competition
in the financial sector. We support permitting foreign banks to be
regulated as Canadian banks. The Reform feels that competition
leads to the best service and to a lower cost for the delivery of that
service.
There is also an item called coercive tied selling. The whole
issue of tied selling is probably the single most controversial aspect
of the bill the government will have to address and be held
accountable and responsible for. The issue raises serious concerns
with regard to tied selling. Subsection 459.1(1) in clause 55 states:
A bank shall not impose undue pressure on, or coerce, a person to obtain a
product or service-
Subsections (2) and (3) set out provisions where the banks are
allowed to offer loans to persons on more favourable terms and
conditions, on the condition they buy other products and services
from a particular person. A bank or one of its affiliates may offer a
product and service to persons on more favourable terms, on the
condition a person obtains a loan from the bank.
Although subsections (2) and (3) are intended to be
interpretative clauses for the courts, it is our opinion that they
permit tied selling and give the banks considerably more power
than they enjoy now.
We recommend that these clauses be deleted. If not, the banks
will have the ability to pressure individual and small businesses to
consolidate their financial activities and requirements into a single
provider. This would not be considered fiscally prudent. Having
assets under one roof increases the relative influence of the bank to
determine who is granted loan capital and who is denied access.
(1610 )
In order to ensure a balanced system that respects both the
interests of the consumer and the integrity of Canada's financial
9098
institutions it is necessary to ensure that legislation such as the
Bank Act is clear in its meaning and intent.
We must be prudent in all cases and ensure that access to capital
is freely available without constraints of any kind. That point is
trying to strengthen the argument that tied selling is a very delicate
and potentially divisive issue. It deserves further review and
discussion.
Earlier I said I would talk about some items raised in the
Standing Committee on Finance in October last year. This is where
the issue was discussed and certain groups came before the
committee to make representations.
I will read the fourth report of the Standing Committee on
Finance of October 1996 under tied selling:
Tied selling occurs when a vendor requires a customer to purchase one produce or
service as a condition of purchasing another one. As the white paper points out
``concerns have been raised that the special nature of the relationship between
financial institutions and their customers renders their customers especially
vulnerable to coercion and that market forces and the Competition Act may not
provide sufficient safeguards for these consumers''.
The committee is concerned that tied selling must not be confused with cross
selling. Cross selling, in essence, involves offering a lower price for a particular
product or service if the customer agrees to purchase another product or service.
That is like a volume discount. It continues:
Non-coercive cross selling may actually result in savings to customers who often
find package sales attractive. As well, banks may find it worthwhile to make small
business loans only if other services to that customer are part of a package, and the
committee does not wish to discourage lending to small business. It is not always a
simple matter, however, to distinguish between tied selling and cross selling.
That gets back to my earlier point that the Bank Act must be
clear in its language and in its intent, and I do not believe it is. It
goes on:
The Independent Investment Dealers Association brought three specific cases of
alleged coercive tied selling by banks before the Senate Committee on Banking,
Trade and Commerce. The Canadian Bankers Association has disputed that these
cases involve tied selling. Without investigating the details of each case, the
committee cannot judge their merits. Suffice it to say, however, the committee
remains concerned about the possible abuse of power by not only banks but by all
financial institutions and insists that their customers not be subjected to abusive
practices involving tied selling.
The Competition Act currently prohibits tied selling by ``a major supplier of a
product in a market that is likely to
(a) impede entry into or expansion of a firm in the market,
(b) impede introduction of a product into or expansion of sales of a product in the
market, or
(c) have any other exclusionary effect in the market with the result that competition
is or is likely to be lessened substantially''.
The committee does not believe that any of its concerns about tied selling of
financial services can be dealt with by the Competition Act prohibitions since undue
pressure on an individual customer would not meet the test of substantially lessening
competition in that market. Accordingly, arguments to the effect that the Competition
Act can resolve this committee's concerns about tied selling are specious.
In addition to the Competition Act prohibitions against tied selling, section 416(5)
of the Bank Act states as follows:
``No bank shall exercise pressure on a borrower to place insurance for the security of
a bank with any particular insurance company-''
The committee received representations from both the Canadian Bankers
Association-and the Independent Investment Dealers Association-on this
provision.
The IIDA asked that section 416(5) be amended to read as follows:
``No bank shall exercise pressure on a borrower to purchase or obtain any
financial product or service from any particular supplier''.
The CBA objects to the use of the word ``pressure'' as it currently applies, and to
the expansion of its prohibition beyond ``insurance for the security of the bank'' to
``any financial product or service''.
The committee shares the concerns of the CBA that the word ``pressure'' is not
defined and that many aspects of selling could involve an element of pressure. As
stated by the Consumers' Association of Canada, what is important is that the
pressure not be undue or coercive. The committee therefore recommends that
section 416(5) of the Bank Act be reconsidered with a view to reflecting that it is not
just any pressure, but only undue or coercive pressure, that amounts to unacceptable
behaviour.
Secondly, the committee recommended that the prohibition in section 416(5) of
the Bank Act against undue or coercive pressure should apply to the provision of
``any financial product or service'' and not just ``insurance for the security of the
bank''. There is no reason why such pressure should be permitted in any instance.
Thirdly, the committee recommends that a provision similar to section 416(5) of
the Bank Act as amended above apply to all federally regulated financial institutions.
Undue or coercive pressure should not be prohibited only among banks.
Recognizing the possibility that constitutional issues might arise, the committee
recommends that the government undertake discussions with the provinces with a
view to obtaining this protection for consumers of all financial institutions.
Fourthly, the committee recommends that financial institutions would be required
to:
designate a senior level officer in each financial institution to implement procedures
for dealing with consumer complaints;
provide customers with details on how customers can make complaints; and
report annually on the complaints received and the actions taken to respond to these
complaints.
Fifthly, the committee recommends that customers who believe their complaints
have not been dealt with adequately by the financial institution concerned shall be
informed of their right to complain directly to the Consumer Protection
Bureau-under the Minister of Industry, and the CPB shall report to Parliament on such
complaints.
Sixthly, in the event the largely self-regulatory regime proposed herein proves
inadequate to protect customers against undue or coercive pressure from tied selling,
stronger measures should be undertaken.
Lastly, the committee recommends that officials study the laws and jurisprudence
in other jurisdictions to assist in determining more precisely the difference between
tied selling and cross selling. For example, section 106 of the 1970 Bank Holding
Company Act of the United States spells out in some detail the instances of activities
of banks that are not considered to be tied selling and which are therefore
presumably for the benefit of consumers. Various provincial laws dealing with this
issue might also prove helpful.
These are the conclusions drawn by the Standing Committee on
Finance based on the submissions given by various witnesses on
the issue of tied selling.
One can see how technical this issue is in the sense that it is hard
to understand and is hard for anybody to really get it clear in their
mind the difference between tied selling and cross selling, when
they are going from one by placing conditions into the other where
they are just suggesting a better deal or a lower rate and a real
benefit if they are offering cross selling.
9099
I would like to read from a document written by the member for
Okanagan Centre, our chief critic of industry, who is not here
today. It is just a short article that he entitled ``It's Time to Stop and
Take a Good Look at the Financial Sector''. Having read this, I
share the general thrust and view of his position on this.
(1620)
He goes on to write:
[The finance minister] surprised many in his 1996 budget speech by assuring
Canadians that banks would not be allowed to sell insurance through their branch
networks-this year. This soft ball, so deftly tossed our way, neither assuaged our
concerns or addressed the issue.
The real issue is not whether the banks should be allowed to sell insurance or enter
into the car leasing business but whether true competition exists within the financial
sector and thus whether the consumer and the economy will benefit if banks are
allowed to enter other markets.
The banks assure us that their own industry is competitive and not the oligopoly
that Canadians suspect. This is difficult to believe when the six largest banks in
Canada move en masse to raise or lower interest rates every time the bank rate so
much as twitches. The only competition in this case is, who will move first.
The four pillars of the financial sector, banking, insurance, trust companies and
securities dealers, have crumbled as deregulation and technological progress has
blurred the lines of distinction. The banks have been applying pressure ever since to sell
insurance in their branch networks, enter into auto leasing, and increase their interest in
the securities market. Further deregulation and the subsequent increase in the size of
banks, however, could reduce competition in the financial sector and hurt consumers.
These are perennial issues in Parliament particularly when a review of the Bank Act is
scheduled. Major reviews are conducted every 10 years, interspersed with minor
reviews every 5 years.
1997 brings a minor review but it is a major review that is required. We need to know
a good many things: How do our financial institutions interact? How do they operate in
relation to other sectors of the economy? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
current regulatory structure? Not only will the answers reveal whether or not true
competition exists within the banking sector and thus, whether or not they should be
allowed to expand into other financial services, the answers will determine the veritable
strength of our financial sector as it heads into the 21st century. Until such a review is
completed, a moratorium should be placed on making further decisions about financial
institutions.
Furthermore, Parliament must be the venue, perhaps in the form of a joint
committee of the finance and industry committees. It is the only way we can assure
all interests will be recognized and the process will be both accessible and
transparent. Canadians must be able to see the process in order to put faith in it.
As lobbyists from all sides pressure members of Parliament to take sides and
others to try to frame the issue within the overly political constraints of a war
between big and small business, the challenge will be to keep our eye on the ball.
That is, to ensure true competition exists and is free to function within the
marketplace, that stability is maintained in respect of financial sectors, and a prudent
regulatory structure is in place to protect the consumer.
If the bottom line is met, Canadians and the economy will indeed emerge as
winners.
Some hon. members: Time.
Mr. Silye: That is the opinion of the hon. member for Okanagan
Centre, who was our chief critic on industry.
I would like to continue, but I notice members on the opposite
side are either wanting to take a breath of fresh air outside or they
want me to finish speaking.
I want to add that if I would have been given unanimous consent,
which Liberal members denied me, I would have finished that four
minutes, I would have gone back to my office and I would not be
making these people yell ``time''.
For the sake of clarification and for their benefit, I would like to
let them know how much time I have left in this speech. I believe I
have another 15 minutes, if I am correct. Will the Liberal members
kindly indulge me and allow me to finish my remaining 15 minutes
without yelling ``time''?
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, could you please clarify that. I
understood that the member had 20 minutes for his speech. He has
now spoken for approximately 25 minutes. He seems to be under
the impression that he has more time remaining.
(1625 )
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is allowed 40 minutes
for his intervention. He has 12 minutes and 26 seconds left in his
intervention.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, would you add another minutes for this
intrusion and please make it 13 minutes and 20 seconds. These
people want to rush things through in such a dictatorial
undemocratic fashion. They have used closure more times than the
previous government, which is not democratic. Now I am off on a
tangent which I will take a minute to do.
When you are in opposition you have the rules of the House
which are here to protect the interests of the minority. Obviously
the Liberals have such a strong majority and they are representing
the wishes of those people who put them in here. But for the
protection of all Canadians and all provinces the Liberals have to
take the time and give us time to be heard. They have to allow us to
tell them what we think is right or wrong about a bill. They have to
give us the opportunity to point out what we feel on a constructive
basis could make the bill better.
If they do not have the integrity or the fortitude to sit there and
listen, then they are not really interested in the people of Canada;
they are interested in themselves. They have no place to go this
afternoon. They have nowhere else to go except for here where they
can sit and listen, and that they will do at least while I have the
floor for another 11 minutes and 20 seconds.
This is meant to be a democratic institution. I wish government
members would recognize that just because they have a majority
they do not have the right to trample over our rights in the minority.
We have to be heard. We insist on being heard. The games this
House leader plays and the way the Liberals fool around with the
government orders with no notice, a lack of notice on this bill. Our
chief critic is not here. He is not able to tell the people what he
really thinks. He has been in the standing committee. He could
shed a heck of a lot more light on this bill than I could.
I have some experience with banks and financial institutions so I
feel qualified as a businessman to speak on this bill. I will get little
9100
more personal if not as technical on this bill once I have read this
letter which was sent by my colleague from Okanagan Centre to the
Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions. This is
the kind of work that Reform Party members do. It is a sample of
the kind of hard work that Reform members of standing
committees have done.
My colleague from Capilano-Howe Sound sits on the Standing
Committee of Finance and has been our chief finance critic. He has
made a number of valuable interventions in standing committee.
They have been good, open, democratic and non-partisan
suggestions. Here is an example from the member for Okanagan
Centre. I hope the government listens to what he has to say. The
reason I want to read this into the record is to show Canadians how
things work in Parliament. It is not just debate and question period.
For the media and for a lot of people it is just question period, it is
theatrics. The real work is done right now on debate like this where
people get up and put forth their arguments for or against a bill.
Then the bill is sent to committee where people come forward as
witnesses and argue their points of view, how they feel a certain bill
will impact on them. And then there is the work that gets done
behind the scenes.
Here is a sample of some work behind the scenes, a letter to the
Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions written by
the Reform member for Okanagan Centre:
Dear Minister,
As the Reform Party critic for financial institutions, I wish to express a concern
that a growing number of small business people and I have with Bill C-82, an act to
amend certain laws relating to financial institutions.
Specifically our concern rests with clause 55, section 451.1 subsections (2) and
(3).
While 459.1(1) states explicitly that no bank shall impose undue pressure on, or
coerce, a person to obtain products and services, subsections (2) and (3) appear to
contradict 459.1(1) by allowing the banks to do just that. In our opinion these
provisions for tied selling give the banks considerably more power than they enjoy
now.
As acknowledged by your officials, the definitions of tied selling and coercive
tied selling are numerous. While sectors do practise tied selling or product bundling,
we feel caution must be exercised where coercive or pressure tied selling is
concerned. Any legislation which could be interpreted as giving the banks the ability
to coerce or exert pressure is grievous. Mechanisms such as conditions for preferred
rates on loans and/or products and services which unduly influence the consumer to
consolidate assets within one financial institution is not prudent in our opinion.
While we understand subsections (2) and (3) are considered to be interpretive and
are intended to assist the courts, the Reform Party feels it would ultimately be in the
best interests of all concerned to delete (2) and (3) thereby allowing 459.1(1) to
stand on its own merits and to remove any chance of misinterpretation which would
give the banking sector grounds for unfair advantage. Any resulting confusion can
be adequately clarified by the provisions set out in 459.1(5) via the regulatory
powers of the Governor in Council.
Barring this amendment, we would like to suggest an alternative amendment to
Clause 45 and Clause 55 be deleted.
We are extremely aware of the time constraints inherent in the Bank Act which
emphasize a preference for speedy passage of Bill C-82 through the House. The
Reform Party does not wish to unduly delay the passage of this Bill. However, since
a growing number of small business people, including members of the casualty and
property insurance sector, share our concerns, I feel it would be irresponsible of me
as a critic to advise our caucus to support Bill C-82 as long as Clause 55 stands as is.
We would like to see an amicable resolution to our concerns and wish to express our
support for the merits of this legislation. Our main objective is and will always be to
ensure that the integrity of our financial institutions remains intact and the interests of
the consumer and the small business person are balanced with the interests of the
financial sector.
I ask that you give fair and reasonable consideration to these concerns.
(1630)
It is signed by the Reform member of Parliament for Okanagan
Centre.
As members can see, our main concern with this bill lies in that
aspect which controls tied selling and the difference between that
and cross selling. One must be very careful when passing
legislation and making laws that one does not step on people's toes
or infringe on the rights of the corporation or the individual.
Banks are in a position to offer a lot of services. However, when
looking at the size of banks and the number of people who are
dependent on them, there has to be in anyone's mind some concern
that legislation is not passed that allows the banks to have an unfair
advantage over smaller or specialized businesses. That specialized
business may be a large insurance company which offers just one
service. It is not in a position to cross sell its product or offer
volume discounts unless a person takes out a bigger life insurance
policy or leases a more expensive vehicle or something like that.
When these smaller businesses are involved in their own
specialized niche, it is important that when dealing with the banks
that legislation is not imposed that gives the banks more power
than the other financial institutions and investment dealers raising
money, who can be offering chequing services and who cannot.
I have heard arguments from people who are anti-bank or bank
bashers who say that the banks can get into any business they want.
They can lend money for any purpose they want, provide insurance
services or provide leasing facilities or whatever. We should then
allow other people like investment dealers or other institutions to
get into the banking business.
They do not like that so why not allow that so that we can have
these specialized businesses if they have sufficient capital to offer
other services? It seems to me that insurance companies have
sufficient cash around. They could be in the deposit taking
business, chequing business or credit card business which is a big
business. We notice in the the Eaton's bankruptcy application that
the most successful portion of its business is the credit card
business and it is highly profitable.
We are trying to review the Bank Act, trying to make it fair for
consumers and, at the same time, not make it punitive for the
banks. We have to make sure that while one is applying for a loan
for a house and the bank is approving the mortgage, it can suggest
9101
one may need insurance for the house, so while one is there the
bank might like to show its package.
The problem is how can one be inside that room or how can we
pass legislation that puts one inside the law inside that room? We
do not know what the bank manager or the account manager is
saying.
(1635 )
The manager is telling the customer that the bank is giving him
or her a mortgage. There is a big difference between your mortgage
is approved, you have the proper credit facility and you know what,
we can offer you insurance. Here is our package and I think it is a
heck of a deal. You should take a look at it. That is okay and is cross
selling in my mind. However, if the manager says that your
mortgage is approved if you also take this insurance policy on the
house, they come together, that is tied selling. That is not right.
That is coercive. That is undue pressure on the consumer.
I feel that a lot of my intervention today was technical in nature,
but I wanted to tell Canadians that a lot of work goes into bills like
this. A lot of different people with different points of view make
contributions. It is not easy: tied selling, cross selling, the
difference, who is inside that room, how do you know.
Although the intent of the bill is is necessary and we agree with
the majority of it, the one area that we are still unhappy with is the
area of the tied selling in that clause.
Consequently, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that'' and
substituting the following therefor:
``Bill C-82, an act to amend certain laws relating to financial institutions, be not
now read a second time; that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the
subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Industry''.
We are very concerned about that one area, tied selling versus
cross selling. As I said earlier in my speech, the Bank Act must be
clear and concise in its language so that people can interpret it
without ambiguity.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would think that
great herd of Liberals could somehow manage to maintain a
quorum.
An hon. member: There is a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess for some of the members
opposite math is difficult.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre has carried on in a diatribe
about his not being permitted to finish the last four minutes of his
speech on the previous bill. I am sure which all members look
forward to hearing from him on Bill C-70 when it is taken up again.
I want to point out, because he has harped on this, that in the
Thursday question the House was informed that the government
would commence consideration of Bill C-82 with respect to
financial institutions no later than 3 p.m. today, Monday and that is
exactly what we did.
[Translation]
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to start
the second reading debate on Bill C-82.
This legislation proposes important measures to better protect
consumers of financial services, to lighten the regulatory burden of
financial institutions, and to define some of the provisions in the
legislation affecting these institutions.
These measures are the results of a thorough consideration
process and of widespread consultations. Therefore, I would like to
take advantage of this opportunity to thank, on behalf of the
government, the many consumer groups, industry members and
other stakeholders who shared their opinions with us.
I want also to mention the very helpful participation of the
House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and of the
Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.
(1640)
Canada has one of the strongest financial systems in the world, a
system that is effective, efficient and stable. It strikes a balance
between our financial institutions' competitiveness and their
stability. We want this to continue. That is why the Canadian
government is keeping a close eye on the evolution of the financial
sector and considering ways of evaluating the system.
In 1992, we eliminated a large number of restrictions that
prevented financial institutions from freely competing with each
other. The consensus seems to be that these changes had a positive
effect. When the 1992 bill to amend the legislation on financial
institutions was passed, it was agreed that the legislative
framework would be reviewed five years later. That is why the
legislation contained provisions calling for a review in 1997. We
embarked on this legislative review with two objectives in mind: to
determine whether the measures adopted in 1992 had yielded the
desired results and to see whether the legislative framework was
still appropriate in view of the financial sector's evolution.
Following extensive consultations and in-depth analysis, the
government came to the conclusion that the framework put in place
in 1992 was working well in general and that its main components
had to be maintained. The majority of stakeholders agree with this
evaluation. However, we believe it is possible to make a number of
9102
major changes to give consumers better protection and to bring the
legislation more in line with the new realities of the markets.
[English]
Let me now turn to the specifics of these adjustments. They
involve amendments to statutes governing financial institutions
and related acts, including the Bank Act, the Co-operative Credit
Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act, the Trust and
Loan Companies Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
Act and the Canada Payments Association Act.
Several of the proposed adjustments are aimed at strengthening
consumer protection. Relationships between financial institutions
and their clients are in constant evolution and regulation needs to
reflect this changing environment.
The bill proposes a number of amendments to improve
protection for consumers in their dealings with financial
institutions. The first of these changes involves privacy. The
protection of personal information is an area of growing concern to
consumers. Accordingly, the bill provides the authority to require
financial institutions to establish procedures governing the
collection, retention, use and disclosure of customer information,
to implement complaints handling procedures and to report
annually on complaints. Regulations will be passed to implement
these requirements.
The bill also proposes to enhance cost of credit disclosure
provisions in the financial institutions statutes following the recent
federal-provincial agreement on harmonization of disclosure
requirements. These changes will result in improved and uniform
disclosure practices throughout the country.
Another matter the government will address is tied selling. The
matter is a complex issue and, indeed, members opposite have been
talking about it for a few minutes and should hear the reply.
Tied sales can be beneficial in many situations where a consumer
pays less for one product if he or she purchases a second product.
However, concerns have been expressed about the potential for
financial institutions to exert undue pressure on consumers when
selling financial products. In response, financial institutions will be
asked to adopt a policy on tied selling and establish procedures for
dealing with complaints in this area. While the government is
confident that this is the best approach, we are prepared to go
further if the need arises. The bill includes an amendment to Bank
Act to prohibit coercive tied selling.
The Secretary of State for Financial Institutions issued a press
release on February 14 which suggested that the government would
proclaim this amendment if necessary. After additional
consideration, the government is now prepared to set a specific
date for proclaiming the amendment. We intend to bring it into
force on September 30, 1998.
At the same time the government wants to provide an
opportunity for the institutions to address the tied selling matter
through the establishment of appropriate policies and procedures.
Therefore, the government is requesting that, before the
proclamation date, the House of Commons finance committee
carry out a review. This review would assess the degree to which
tied selling remains a problem and the extent to which financial
institutions have responded to the challenge. It would also consider
methods to differentiate between beneficial practices such as when
discounts are offered for taking more than one service, something
the hon. member for Calgary Centre did not want consumers to
have the advantage of, and those forms of tied selling that might be
anti-competitive. These matters would be reflected in regulations.
(1645)
Consumers raised other issues during the 1997 review, including
the difficulty many low income individuals face in getting access to
basic financial services and the difficulty of comparing service
charges across financial institutions. While the government is not
proposing legislative changes in these areas, I am pleased to report
that discussions with major financial institutions and consumer
groups have resulted in concrete commitments to address these
problems. I am confident that these commitments will result in
significant improvements in access and information on service
charges.
The government recognizes that to promote a proper climate for
economic growth and jobs, we need to ensure regulatory
requirements that are fair and necessary. The bill identifies several
areas where the regulatory burden on financial institutions can and
should be eased.
First, several rules governing the operations of foreign banks in
Canada will be modified. These will streamline regulatory
requirements and lower costs for foreign banks. In particular, the
legislation removes the requirement for regulated foreign banks
which own a schedule II bank to own other financial institution
subsidiaries only through a schedule II bank. It also includes
changes to ease regulatory requirements for near banks.
Near banks are entities that do not generally take deposits and
are not regulated as banks in their home jurisdiction but provide
banking type services. Approval requirements will be reduced for
near banks in certain circumstances and near banks will be
permitted to own non-bank financial institutions.
Another element of the bill that will reduce regulatory burden is
deposit insurance opt-out for eligible institutions. Many banks in
Canada specialize in serving wholesale customers whose deposits
far exceed the amounts insurable by the Canada Deposit Insurance
Corporation. Such institutions will be permitted to opt-out of
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, CDIC coverage, provided
they are not affiliated with another CDIC member. As a result they
9103
will no longer have to fulfil the reporting requirements associated
with CDIC membership. Banks serving retail customers are still
required to be members of the deposit insurance program.
In addition, subsidiary requirements will be eased. Currently
financial institutions can engage in certain types of business only
through subsidiaries. To reduce operating costs the legislation will
permit financial institutions to carry on both information
processing and specialized financing activities in-house.
The bill also includes a number of changes to streamline the
self-dealing regime. These involve streamlining the operations of
the conduct review committee, narrowing the range of related
parties and allowing subsidiaries of a federal financial institution to
transact with each other.
Changes are also necessary to keep the financial institution
statutes current with evolving trends. The bill proposes a number of
changes in the area of corporate governance. Although the
corporate governance provisions were updated in 1992 and are
generally considered to be working well, changes are needed to
keep the legislation in tune with evolving standards. The bill
proposes measures to update and improve corporate governance
procedures, including clarifying the duty of the audit committee
and enhancing policy holders' rights.
Regulatory adjustments will also be made to provide more
flexibility to financial institutions seeking to enter into joint
venture agreements. The requirement that the eligible joint venture
be controlled by a financial institution will be removed. These
adjustments will enhance the ability of financial institutions to
compete both in Canada and abroad.
The legislation includes a number of amendments to enhance
access to capital for mutual insurance companies. They will be
permitted to issue participating shares. In addition, the
demutualization regime will be extended to apply to all mutual life
companies and added flexibility will be provided. Large mutual
insurance companies will be required to remain widely held after
conversion to a stock company.
(1650 )
The Superintendent of Financial Institutions will have the
authority to exempt companies on specific aspects of the
demutualization regime on a case by case basis. The Minister of
Finance will have the authority to exempt companies in financial
distress from any aspect of the demutualization process. Details
will be set out in regulations to be developed in consultation with
industry participants over the coming months.
Bill C-82 also includes a number of amendments of a technical
nature that are aimed at further streamlining the statutes governing
financial institutions and the agencies that govern them.
Among the technical amendments are changes to the Bank of
Canada Act to remove outdated impediments to certain activities of
the bank. These include expanding the range of instruments that a
bank may buy and sell in clarifying the ability of the bank to carry
ancillary activities such as licensing anti-counterfeiting
technology.
The bill also includes technical amendments to the Bank Act, the
Co-operative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies
Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Canada Deposit
Insurance Corporation Act, the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions Act and consequential amendments to the
Winding-Up and Restructuring Act and the Greenshield (Canada)
Act.
[Translation]
The financial services sector is in constant evolution. It is
absolutely necessary to update constantly the regulations
governing this important sector of our economy to reflect the
various changes that occur.
Even though it is agreed that the system works well in general, as
I said earlier, it will be improved immediately through the bill
before you. We are still focused on the future. That is why we have
established a task force on the future of the Canadian financial
services sector. The task force will be responsible for advising the
government on the appropriate framework for the financial sector
in the 21st century, a framework that will promote economic
growth and job creation.
We have also undertaken a review of the payment system.
Moreover, we are reviewing the access rules for foreign banks,
which will lead to a system for establishing branches. Legislative
proposals on this subject will be made public by the end of the year.
We have to approach tomorrow's challenges intelligently, but the
same applies to the changes before us today. This is an important
bill for many Canadians and I urge the House to adopt it as quickly
as possible.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask a couple of questions of the parliamentary secretary to
the finance minister.
One of the amendments to the bill allows foreign banks to branch
directly into Canada. I do not disagree with that. It is a good thing.
It helps increase the number of service providers. It increases
choice which should lead to more efficiency and lower cost of
services.
I would like to ask the hon. member, on the other side of the
coin, has the government addressed the Canadian banks' concerns
regarding what they need? What is the government doing to help
our banks compete in foreign markets?
Foreign banks are now allowed to come in here. What have the
big banks, if anything, said to the finance committee with respect
to their expansion abroad? What has the government done there?
That is one question.
9104
The second question I would like him to touch on is with respect
to tied selling. In the press release that the government issued, it
said that it would introduce tied selling safeguards. I do not think
he would argue that there is a difference between tied selling and
cross selling, and that one is good and yet the other we have to be
careful about. I know that even in my intervention I used
terminology which is difficult to understand. If we do not go slowly
it is difficult to convey the message we are trying to pass along to
consumers.
(1655)
What specific protection is the government providing for
consumers, as the bill stands now? What are the safeguards against
tied selling? I assume the member is also against allowing the big
banks to do it.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I regret, because I have great
regard for the member opposite, that he has it wrong. The bill does
not allow foreign branching. There was an announcement at the
time the bill was introduced that a foreign branching regime would
be put in place by the end of the year. However, a great deal of
study needed to be done about many features of the foreign
branching proposal. He is not quite right on that, but he makes an
important point about how that will enhance competition in certain
sectors.
He is right, there is a flip side to that, which is the position of
Canadian banks abroad. I can assure the member opposite that the
government would not have taken the step of announcing the
possibility of direct branching, as opposed to the current regime,
unless it was assured that in those major jurisdictions where
Canadian banks operate, namely the United States and Europe, they
were gaining additional access.
If he talked to bankers today he would learn that the doors have
been increasingly opening south of the border to allow greater
expansion for Canadians doing business there. Recent changes,
particularly under their securities acts, have made that an even
more hospitable environment than just a few weeks or months ago.
I am glad the member asked the question because it gives me a
chance to reinforce something which I said in French and will now
say in English, that is, the establishment of the task force on the
future of the financial services sector. That task force, which is
under way and will report to the minister roughly 18 months hence,
will address the very question of what the shape of the sector
should look like, both to ensure that our institutions can be
competitive internationally and to serve the needs of Canadian
consumers.
That brings me to the last point, which dealt with tied selling and
cross selling. I agree with the member opposite that there are a lot
of terms involved which can be quite confusing. As a former
competition lawyer I can tell him that it is a very interesting but
complex field.
If he was concerned, as he asserts, about the ability of banks to
grow and compete internationally, then I invite him, when the
finance committee studies further this issue, to read up on it, do a
bit of work on it, talk to people who know something about the
field and share his views with the committee.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate the answer I was
given. I asked two questions. On the first issue the member gave a
nice political speech about foreign banks and what is not in the
legislation.
He said that I am confused. Yes, maybe I am confused. I am
confused because the government shoves legislation down our
throats, does not even give us a copy of the legislation and expects
us to debate it.
The press release to which I referred was issued by the
government on February 14. That was four weeks ago. It said what
it was going to do. It said that it had listened to everybody. It said
that the matter had been reviewed, that it was different from the
June 1996 white paper and that it was going to include a new
regime allowing foreign banks directly into Canada. That is where I
obtained that information. If the government can change its mind in
four weeks, maybe it should give all of us notice.
The member did not answer my second question on tied selling.
The question was: What safeguards are in the legislation for my
benefit as a person who has not had a chance to read the final
version of Bill C-82? I wonder how many Liberals have read the
final version. What is in the bill that will satisfy the concerns which
some Canadians have about the issue of tied selling? What is in
there to protect the consumer from undue pressure and coercion?
What is in the bill which allows the banks to hold their heads up
high and claim they are not doing it? What is in the bill? I would
like an answer to that question.
(1700)
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I offended the hon.
member opposite. He has not done his homework by his own
admission. When I rise to ask questions on questions and
comments I have usually read the sections I am asking about, read
the press releases properly, and know generally what I am talking
about.
The foreign branching regime will be the subject of additional
legislation in place by the end of this year. It is not in the bill. The
press release makes that perfectly clear. That was his first question.
His second question was on our banks abroad. I answered it.
His third question was on tied selling. I am tempted, as lawyers
say in court sometimes, to respond to all three questions by saying
asked and answered.
9105
Specifically on tied selling, we have proposed a change in the
law with respect to coercive tied selling in direct response to the
testimony we had. We would welcome the member's input at the
finance committee on what he thinks should be done.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion of the hon. member for
Calgary Centre is acceptable as to form.
[Translation]
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: the hon. member for Frontenac-agriculture; the hon. member
for Mackenzie-railways.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party
indicated, in 1992, the federal government conducted a
comprehensive review of the legislation governing the operation of
financial institutions and changed things that had remained
unchanged for 50, or even 60 years, in some cases.
At the time, the industry asked that the act or amendments
thereto be reviewed after five years to see what, if anything, had
gone wrong with the 1992 reform. That is why we are doing this
now, in 1997.
We have before us Bill C-82, an act to amend certain laws
relating to financial institutions. My hon. colleague from the
Reform Party referred to this bill as a highly technical 250-page
bill, which it is indeed. These amendments will affect a fair number
of acts. It will affect the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit
Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act, the Trust and
Loan Companies Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
Act and the Canadian Payments Association Act, to name a few.
This bill is very much a symbol and an object lesson for Quebec.
A symbol because, once again, it contains provisions that encroach
upon Quebec's jurisdiction-but I will get into that later; we have
used the word ``encroachment'' so often in the past three and a half
years that it is beginning to stick in my craw-encroachments that
fly in the face of the Canadian Constitution.
It is kind of funny to see Quebec being taken to the Supreme
Court of Canada to find out whether we have the right, under the
constitution, to take a democratic step in this country, while every
day, the Liberal Party, the government in office, encroaches on,
invades provincial areas of jurisdiction without even bothering to
ask permission, thus violating its own law. It even amended the
Canadian constitution in 1982 without asking Quebec's
permission. In fact, it did so in spite of the unanimous opposition of
Quebec's National Assembly, which included federalists. The
federal government uses the constitution when it wants to and the
way it wants to, while forcing Quebec to comply with it.
I want to take this opportunity to stress that the decisions to be
made in the next Quebec referendum will not have to take into
account what the Supreme Court of Canada thinks, what the
Minister of Justice thinks, or what the Prime Minister of this
country thinks. Quebecers will make a decision that concerns them
alone. I am reminded of a famous line coined by Mr. Bourassa, who
was a known federalist in Quebec. He used to say: ``Quebec is,
today and forever, the master of its own choices and of its destiny''.
(1705)
The bill is also a great object lesson in that it tells us a lot of
interesting things I will get back to later.
Generally speaking, we can live with the bill in its present form.
However, we deplore the fact that the federal government is trying
to interfere, as I was saying, in areas under provincial jurisdiction,
through the back door as it were, as is often the case. That is why
our main amendments-and I give advance notice, there will be a
few covering the bill as a whole once we have gone over it in
depth-will be along the lines that the federal government should
just require federal institutions to respect, which they do not do, the
provincial legislation in effect where they conduct their activities,
when these activities come under provincial jurisdiction; insurance
being strictly a provincial matter.
In a joint brief mentioned by my colleague, the member for La
Prairie, some twenty minutes ago, which was signed by a number
of people, including the Canadian Life Insurance Association, the
Canadian Bankers Association, the Insurance Bureau of Canada,
Canada Trust, the Trust Companies Association of Canada, and
Credit Union Central of Canada-we are talking about a lot of
people here-they all asked the federal government to allow, with
the minister's approval, life insurance policies in Canada to be
transferred from a federal to a provincial underwriter. This is not in
the bill, with the result that the injustice to provincial underwriters
and specifically those in Quebec continues to exist.
A provincial underwriter may not buy blocks of insurance
policies from a federal underwriter under the law as it now stands.
What exactly does this mean? It means that when underwriters
want to obtain a charter, they are better off going for a federal
charter, which lets them buy up blocks of provincial insurance
policies, because the reverse is not permitted under law. In the long
term, underwriters in Quebec and elsewhere will always be better
off obtaining a federal charter, while Quebec already has
legislation covering this. In the long term, underwriters will
gradually switch over to federal charters, with the result that, in a
few years, the federal government will be able to say that the
legislation we
9106
have in Quebec covering these fields of activity is redundant,
without purpose, and should be abolished.
This is how the federal government has gradually taken over the
provinces' and specifically Quebec's fields of jurisdiction. In the
long term, the purpose of this interference is to increase Ottawa's
powers. This has been going on for a long time. People have been
talking about it as far back as 1867, well before my time. This is
how they have gradually turned Canada from a confederation into a
federation.
The term ``confederation'' has an extremely specific meaning.
First of all, it is the name that was given to Canada: the Canadian
confederation. A confederation is a group of virtually autonomous
states which decide to provide themselves with a central
government less powerful than the sum of themselves, to pool
certain things. That is what we are seeing in Europe. Europe will be
a confederation.
But, gradually, the central power has taken over certain
jurisdictions, or taken over from some participants in this power,
and the circumstances have gradually turned Canada into a
federation. In other words, the central power is now greater than
the power of the provinces, not what the Fathers of Confederation
initially planned. This has led to the political impasse we are now
at, going from one referendum to another, until the next one.
(1710)
The goal of all of the federal government decisions is to transfer
more and more power to Ottawa, more and more political power,
while the economic power is being transferred, generally speaking,
to Ontario. To refer to Gordon Gibson's famous book, Plan B,
which I think my Reform friends have read, he says that the major
problem in Canada is not Quebec, the problem is Ottawa.
I recommend that my colleagues, who think we are the only ones
saying this, read Gordon Gibson's famous Plan B, where he states
that the federalists are the problem. The problem is Ottawa, and the
senior public servants, the bureaucracy that exists here, which is
perpetuated by inertia.
I will return later to a discussion of the invasion of jurisdictions,
but this act is one of the many we have spoken out against since
coming to this House. I could not begin to list the laws we have
spoken out against as invading Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, as
gradually transferring powers that belong to Quebec to the central
power in Ottawa.
We know very well that being a political minority leads
inevitably to being an economic minority. The one with power over
the purse strings has control, and vice versa. The more power, the
more control. Ottawa is gradually assuming all of the power by
invading Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, and it is making the
decisions. This bill represents a decision to invade one area of
jurisdiction: insurance, which belongs literally to the provinces. It
has been decided to pass legislation to cover all insurance, whereas
Quebec already has a set of laws governing this.
So this is a minor decision in a 250-page piece of legislation that
will have long term consequences for Quebec insurance
companies.
I would like to give a few examples of minor decisions made in
the past that have had disastrous economic consequences in the
long term. Take for instance when they dug the St. Lawrence
Seaway. At one point it was decided to dig the St. Lawrence
Seaway. What have the consequences been for Quebec? Well,
Montreal lost its basic economic infrastructure. As you know, ships
used to stop in Montreal before the seaway was built, and all the
plants were there. The government wanted to shift the economic
centre to Toronto to have direct access to the core of the U.S.
market: Chicago, Detroit and Milwaukee, via the Great Lakes.
So they created the St. Lawrence Seaway, which took away
Montreal's basic economic infrastructure, and you do not have to
take my word for it. Mordecai Richler said as much himself in his
book Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! My dear friend Mordecai tells us:
[English]
``Once the St. Lawrence seaway was in place Montreal's
slippage was inevitable''.
[Translation]
Once the St. Lawrence Seaway was built, Montreal's decline
started. It was inevitable. A minor decision made in Ottawa which
had disastrous consequences for Quebec, in the long term, exactly
like those we find in Bill C-82.
Another example, much more recent, is the Borden line. In 1963,
the federal government started to regulate the sale of crude oil by
establishing the Borden line. All oil sold in Ontario had to be
western oil, and the pipeline built from the west to Sarnia ended in
Sarnia. At the time, the petrochemical industry was in the east end
of Montreal, in my riding, in Montréal-Est, in Anjou. That is where
the oil companies were. We were refining the oil.
So what happened as a result of this minor political decision?
The oil companies in Montreal that were refining oil had to get the
oil in Sarnia, refine it and return it to Ontario. In the long run, the
oil companies realized they would be better off if they transferred
their refineries to Sarnia, got the oil locally, refined it and then
delivered the finished product to Quebec. We lost 8,000 jobs when
four of our six major oil companies moved out.
A minor decision was made in Ottawa, with disastrous economic
consequences in the long run for Quebec, like the decision we see
in Bill C-82.
9107
What about the auto pact? The entire automobile industry was
established in Ontario. Quebec never got any of the tens of
thousands of jobs in that sector.
Air transportation: more minor decisions were made in Ottawa.
(1715)
They decided one day to build the Mirabel airport, because
Dorval was busy and had too much air traffic. Once the Mirabel
airport, which cost an arm and a leg, was built, and tens of
thousands of people were moved out of their homes, a minor
political decision was made: the requirement that air carriers
arriving from the east serve Montreal ahead of all other Canadian
cities was lifted. The requirement was eliminated.
What costs airlines the most is not flying time, but take offs and
landings. So it is to their advantage to land in only one place to
serve Canada, and of course they chose Toronto.
Once Mirabel was emptied, hundreds of millions of our dollars
were allocated to expanding Pearson airport in Toronto. Money was
spent to empty the place, because a decision was made in Ottawa,
just like the decisions that appear in C-82.
What happened as the result? Ottawa could then question the use
of having the air traffic controllers' school in Montreal, when
Toronto was where the action was. So the school was moved to
Toronto, and the head office of Air Canada was moved to Toronto,
because that was where the action was. A minor decision to transfer
things to Toronto had dreadful economic consequences.
In the energy system, what about the billions of dollars that were
spent? I think $12 billion was spent in all over 20 or 25 years in
Ontario to create 40,000 jobs in atomic research, whereas Quebec
all on its own developed the single it controls, hydro electricity.
One quarter of the $12 billion came from Quebec and went,
because of a government decision, to the development of atomic
energy in Ontario, which will eventually become a competitor.
Then there was the tobacco debate. Today in Oral Question
Period, we saw that the federal government has been doing
research up to now to increase levels of nicotine. I worked in the
tobacco fields in Ontario for a number of years, and the research
centre is in Delhi. I know this city well, because I spent some time
there.
They did studies for about ten years in order to increase the
nicotine content in tobacco and then they turn around and, choking
with emotion, make decisions in the House to show their concern
about smoking among young people and they abolish tobacco
company sponsorships.
Where does most of the tobacco sponsorship occur? In Quebec.
In two to three years, we may lose the Montreal Grand Prix, the
Jazz Festival or the Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire because
of a government decision. All this is happening because the
government has decided to pass laws and make decisions
encroaching on our areas of jurisdiction.
All those cases are examples of small decisions with
catastrophic consequences, the same way a small provision in Bill
C-82 encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction. The government is
trying to justify this-and what an object lesson it is-by claiming
that the transfer of insurance blocks between a company with a
federal charter and a company with a provincial charter raises a
problem of civil law and common law by virtue of what is called
``novation'', an extraordinary word.
This means that someone cannot transfer his debts to another
person without the agreement of his creditor. In other words if I
borrowed, for instance, $6,000 from a bank, I cannot tell the bank
that my brother will pay my debt. Under the principle of novation,
a bank will never accept that, and the peculiar thing is that this
principle is being used in bill C-82 to encroach on one of Quebec's
areas of jurisdiction.
(1720)
Double standards again, if that principle applies-and, as I just
explained it largely does-a debt is not transferrable. The
government has used this principle in a bill to encroach upon
Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and has failed to specify that the
same principle would apply to the transfer of Canada's debt.
You will remember, I am sure, that the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission received three studies. One was conducted in France,
the other in England and the other, if I am not mistaken, under the
aegis of the C.D. Howe Institute. They all came to an extraordinary
conclusion saying that Quebec is not legally required to take on
part of Canada's debt if it becomes a country. These studies were
conducted by people outside the government.
We all remember what Ross Perot said. During the presidential
campaign in the United States, he said: ``Poor Quebecers, you do
not have to carry that debt''. Those are the words of Ross Perot,
who was then in the running for the presidency of the United States.
He did not get in, but he did say that.
These studies tabled before the Belanger-Campeau Commission
explained the principle of ``novation'', and they were taken up by
English columnists across Canada. I will briefly read from one of
those texts to show that whenever you refer to principles in a bill,
you have to recognize that these principles apply everywhere and at
all times. The principle is the following; I am quoting in English
9108
from a December 13, 1994 article by David Crane. As you know,
David Crane is the financial editor of the Toronto Star. He said:
[English]
``Canada's foreign creditors would not want to transfer part of
Canada's debt to Quebec. This is money they loaned to Canada, not
Quebec. There is no way in the world you can go to an international
banker and for every $100 Canadian bond get a $75 Canadian bond
and a $25 Quebec bond. In a way that helps Quebec because it
means that Canada would have to reach an accommodation with
Quebec. Since Canada cannot force Quebec to take its share of the
debt technically Quebec could walk away from its share of the
debt''.
[Translation]
That is all. I yield the floor to my friends. However, William
Johnson has a similar text.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, once again
we are witnessing in this House an attempt on the part of the
Liberal federal government to meddle in an area of provincial
jurisdiction, as my colleague from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies so
ably proved. He gave several examples. What is the federal
government trying to do?
We have every right to believe that we will have an election in
the spring. During the last referendum, the Liberal government
promised it would recognize distinct society. It is so distinct that as
soon as we turn around, it tries to step into yet another area of
provincial jurisdiction through its spending power.
One may well wonder if the Prime Minister gets it. He knows
full well though that when it comes to provincial powers,
Quebecers are adamant. We would like to repatriate the powers
Ottawa took away from us, and now he wants to interfere in areas
that come under our jurisdiction. It is very rude on their part. If we
are on the eve of an election, why are they doing this? They know
full well that Quebecers are going to say: ``This time you will not
get away with it''.
It is supper time, young people at home are watching us; I would
like my colleague from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies to quickly go
over what he explained earlier so that people really understand
what is at stake here, the dark side of Bill C-82, and why it is so
important for Quebecers to pay attention and remember how the
Liberal government is intruding. People must understand this and
let the government know what they think come election time.
(1725)
I would ask my colleague to repeat the examples that clearly
show how the Liberal government, the Prime Minister, the member
for Shawinigan, are once again trying to pull the wool over our
eyes.
Mr. Pomerleau: Madam Speaker, I do not know if I should
repeat everything I just said.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Give other examples.
Mr. Pomerleau: There is indeed no lack of examples showing
that, every time Canada's and Quebec's interests come into
conflict, our friends opposite, originally from Quebec,
francophones from Quebec, are the first to come down on Quebec
and vote in a way that serves Canada's interests at the expense of
Quebec.
I think that my hon. colleague can fully understand that, any time
nationwide issues are discussed, Liberal members from Quebec,
who are a minority in their own caucus, will eventually toe the line
of the Canadian majority, and put Canada's interests before those
of Quebec.
Take for example the tobacco issue. Every single member on the
other side, including those from Quebec, voted with the
government, knowing full well that this legislation directly affects
all festivals held in Montreal. They all voted with the government.
We will recall that, when we were dealing with the raw milk
cheese issue, in a fanciful departure from reality, the Minister of
Health decided it was harmful to people's health, even though
people have been eating raw milk cheese for ages and no one has
ever died from it. All of a sudden, the minister decided that raw
milk cheese, which just happens to be sold, made and widely sold
in Quebec, was bad for our health and that its production should be
discontinued. The Bloc Quebecois then had to organize a sampling
of this ``poisoned'' cheese in this House to show the public and
those voting on the other side that there was nothing wrong with it.
Not one member from Quebec on the other side took a stand with
us on this issue.
These two recent examples show that members from Quebec
elected under the Liberal banner inevitably stand on the side of
Canada, for the interests of Canada, as opposed to those of Quebec.
Before I conclude, I will remind you of the famous words of the
Minister of Interdepartmental Affairs who, just a few months
before the referendum, and that is why he was made a minister, said
in Toronto-I heard him myself and could not believe my
ears-that the best way to resolve the Quebec issue was to make
Quebecers suffer.
A member from Quebec, paid by Quebecers and sent here to
look after their interests, comes here with only one idea in mind: to
make Quebecers suffer. That is what Quebec members on the
Liberal side are like.
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise in the House
today to debate Bill C-82 and to discuss its provisions and some of
its impacts on consumers.
9109
Having just listened to the previous speech in the House I will try
to address the bill as opposed to having a diatribe about something
that was not relevant to the bill.
The bill is about making important progress to ensure that our
banking regime, our financial institution regime, is more
responsive to the needs of consumers wherever they live in Canada,
be it in Quebec or elsewhere.
This is part of an ongoing process undertaken by the Liberal
government. We are trying to combine the best of our financial
institutions. There are some positives we want to maintain as a
society and as a government.
Our banks are successful corporations. They are strong. They are
world leaders in finance. They provide financial stability to the
country, far more so than the banking industry in many other
countries.
(1730 )
Today the banks in Canada employ 500,000 people. They
represent 3.5 per cent of the whole Canadian workforce. The
financial services industry in Canada represents about 7.5 per cent
of GDP. These are all important aspects of financial institutions in
Canada and something we as a government and we as Canadians
want to ensure continues.
However, we need to balance that as well. We need to balance
that with the need to ensure that these financial institutions are
serving consumers. We need to balance that with the need to
protect consumers who use our financial institutions from potential
abuses. Regardless of their socio-economic status, we also need to
ensure that consumers of all stripes have access to our financial
institutions.
What this bill is about is combining those two things,
maintaining what is best in our financial institutions but also
ensuring that we have the appropriate protection for consumers
built into legislation.
This is not something that is just happening today. It is
something we have done all along. I had an opportunity, when we
dealt with the issue of access to capital as part of the industry
committee's examination of the banking industry, where we
worked as a government to institute changes with the banks so that
there would be better protection for consumers. Coming out of that
process was some progress. We were able to put in place a number
of tools to help our small business community to have better access
to capital. One of the tools was ensuring that the banks would have
to establish a code of conduct that governs how they deal with their
small business customers.
I would say to all of those small business men and women who
may be watching today, when they are talking to their account
manager at their local branch they should ask for that code of
conduct. It sets out the rules on how the banks are going to deal
with their accounts.
A second tool that was put into place was an alternative dispute
resolution system. If someone is not pleased with the process that is
taking place with their account manager there is a mediation
process available at their banks and they should ask to use it.
As a third tool, all the financial institutions, the banking
institutions anyway, have an ombudsman in their operation to
whom the consumer can appeal his or her problem if they are not
pleased with the decision of the account manager. The banks have
come together now and have an industry-wide ombudsmen
consumers can appeal to if they are not satisfied with what is
happening in the institution.
The fifth tool that we have been able to put in place is the
requirement that the banks provide to the government and to the
people of Canada quarterly statistics on their small business
lending. In fact, I believe it is close to 19,000 different stats that are
provided each quarter on small business lending.
Some of these tools that we were able to develop through the
industry committee and working with the financial institutions are
finding their way into the legislation that we are debating in front
of the House today. The code of conduct is one where the rules have
to be set out up front and in writing so that the consumer
understands exactly what the rules are and that the institutions
understand exactly what the rules are that they are going to play by.
We see those types of tools coming out in the privacy code that is
being suggested in this piece of legislation. We are seeing, in the
whole issue of tied selling, that there will be a code of conduct that
outlines what is and what is not permissible, that it is public and
that the consumer knows in advance.
We also see the use of the ombudsmen in this piece of legislation
where if the consumer is not satisfied on the issue surrounding tied
selling, that the institution is following its code of conduct, then the
consumer should appeal it to the ombudsman.
The third tool that we see coming out in this piece of legislation
as well is the whole issue of reporting. The financial institutions
will have to report the number and nature of the complaints they
are receiving on the issue of privacy and on tied selling so that
there can be public accountability of what they are doing.
It has been mentioned by a number of speakers in the House that
this bill is fairly technical in nature in the changes that it is
proposing. However, there really is some important application to
what everyone will actually see in dealing with their financial
institutions.
9110
(1735)
First is the whole issue of privacy and privacy protection. Most
consumers who deal with financial institutions are concerned when
they see the array of computers and the massive amount of
information that banks have on individuals. They are rightly
concerned that the information is going to be maintained in a
confidential nature. None of us would like that type of information
to be exchanged with phone marketers or whoever else it might be
given to.
This bill calls on the financial institutions to develop a public
code of conduct as to how they will deal with privacy issues. It
calls on them to publish that code. It calls on the financial
institutions to establish a method by which consumers can
complain and put forward their concerns that the privacy code is
not being maintained and to make those types of complaints and
concerns public. That is positive. Consumers want to see their
privacy protected.
Another issue that is being addressed in the review of the
banking and financial services industry is disclosing the cost of
credit. Over the years Parliament has moved and financial
institutions have moved on the need to disclose the cost of credit.
That is very important to someone who is obtaining a loan or a
lease, although I believe more work has to be done in terms of
disclosure. The consumer needs to know what will be the actual
cost.
Although we have had disclosure laws for some time, this will
make those disclosure laws more uniform so that a consumer can
make an informed comparison between the disclosure of one
company and the disclosure of another company, or between one
industry and another. That is something which is being taken on
with this review and it is positive.
Then there is the whole issue of tied selling. That is of real
concern to consumers. All of us would agree that it would be
inappropriate if somebody from a financial institution said to
someone ``I will approve this loan only if you buy something else
from me''. That is the type of tied selling which we do not want to
see. It is different from cross selling and up selling, which is quite
appropriate and a normal business function. However, we do not
want to have tied selling.
That is why I am pleased to see that this legislation contains an
amendment to the Bank Act which would prohibit tied selling if the
self-regulation that I talked about a little earlier was not enough,
that being the development of a published policy, a public
complaints procedure, an appeal mechanism to an ombudsman and
a reporting by the ombudsman on what he or she believes are
infractions. If we find that is not going to be enough, if we find that
is not going to ensure that this practice does not become
widespread, then there is some legislative fallback position that we
are able to provide ourselves.
This legislation will lead to an entry policy review, which the
minister has committed to completing in this calendar year. We
will take a look at streamlining the procedures by which foreign
banks can operate in Canada. Most of us would see that as being
positive. If we can increase the amount of competition in the
financial services industry in this country, most people believe that
will lead to improved service, improved access to capital and a
whole range of good things that will come through increased
competition. Most people in Canada would see that as being
positive. I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions is proceeding with that review
and will complete it in fairly short order.
There are a couple of things the minister was able to announce
which came out of the review he has been undertaking and the
discussion paper which he put forward some months ago. One of
them has to do with the access to basic financial services.
(1740 )
I think there are a lot of consumers who have been frustrated in
dealing with their local financial institution when they try to cash a
cheque and do not happen to be at their own institution or they try
to deposit a cheque and then find out that the funds will be held and
they cannot get access to the funds for a week or two. Perhaps they
are trying to open an account and for some reason there are
arbitrary rules in the institution and they will not be allowed to
open an account.
Often it is low income Canadians or those who are not in the
workforce who have great difficulty accessing these financial
institutions. It is not appropriate. There should be equal access to
financial institutions.
I was pleased to see as part of the discussion paper and in
discussions with the financial services community that a number of
standards have been put forward and the institutions have agreed to
work toward and implement within their branches things like
lessening the identification requirements, explaining clearly
whether a hold funds will be placed on the individual's account,
eliminating employment as a condition of opening an account,
ensuring that there is no minimum deposit requirement in order to
open an account, training of staff to be more sensitive when dealing
with consumers who might be opening a small account. I think
these a positive things that needed to be worked out and I am
pleased to see that has been done.
As part of the discussion paper some important work has been
done which has been discussed in the House, the need for the banks
and other financial institutions to proactively advertise their low
cost services. We heard that in the discussion on credit cards where
9111
many institutions have low cost credit cards. When it is pointed out
some would say they did not even know that existed.
I was pleased to see that in response to the discussion paper the
financial institutions have made a commitment to proactively
advertise their low cost services. I look forward to seeing that
implemented and the changes taking place.
In conclusion let me say that with the legislation the government
is moving along the road to find a balance between keeping those
things about our financial services industry that are strong and
helpful to the country and to the citizens of our country. We want to
make sure that financial stability is maintained and that
employment opportunities that are presented by financial
institutions are maintained.
We also want to make sure it is done in a way which will protect
individual consumers and will give consumers the right to access
those services.
This has been an ongoing process by the government over the
last three and a half years and progress is being made. I am sure the
task force which was struck to look at future changes and at our
financial services sector going into the 21st century will continue. I
look forward to its findings.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my
colleague, John Chant, for having been named the director of
research for the task force on financial services which was
appointed in response to Bill C-82 and some of the difficulties that
were raised in that context.
Professor Chan is a trained economist who was for a long time
the chairman of the department of economics at Simon Fraser
University. I have spent many hours with him in seminars, tenure
committees and various other official functions. I am very pleased
that the government has appointed him to this position.
As a result of my acquaintance with him, I am sure that the
report which will come out will be superb. All the research papers
will be of the highest quality. What the government does with it is
another question.
(1745)
The white paper on financial services was tabled in June 1996.
The first draft of Bill C-82 was discussed in the finance committee.
We heard from many witnesses. My special interest was on the
restraints to be put on foreign banks because I had written and done
research in that field. It was of great interest to me to see what
innovation would take place.
There is a lot of scepticism about what committee hearings do,
whether or not they are a waste of time, and in the end the
government does what it wants to do anyway.
After this experience I must say I am very encouraged. At the
same time I am also somewhat concerned about how it was
possible the white paper of June 1996 could do what it did. What
did this paper do? What did we find out was wrong in Bill C-82
with respect to foreign banks?
It turns out that foreign banks in Canada are now required to
operate at all times as subsidiaries of their foreign parents. That
imposes a huge cost on the operation of foreign banks in Canada. It
has prevented the establishment of a lot of banks. In recent years it
has driven out a large number of them. The owner is required to
have capital of at least $10 million, to have a board of directors,
and to issue every six months very large and onerous reports.
We were told in the finance committee hearings that this was a
serious detriment to the expansion of further foreign competition in
the country, which almost everybody agrees would be to the benefit
of consumers.
That is not all. I was even more disturbed when I heard witnesses
telling us that they had been providing services of extreme
importance to Canadians. For example, a company told us that it
was about to introduce a new credit card system under which it
would be possible to charge an interest rate of about half the current
normal charge under bank cards issued at the moment.
The company has developed a computer program which allows it
to investigate the credit worthiness of large blocks of people. As a
result of that and the experience of operating in the United States, it
is able to break even and make a normal profit on a much lower
interest rate. It would be a great innovation if such a system were
introduced in Canada. It would put downward pressures on all
interest charges on credit cards. At any rate if Canadians do not
want it they do not have to go to that company.
Bill C-82 suggested in its first draft that the company wanting to
introduce the new credit card would have to incorporate itself,
spend $10 million on a capital base, have a board of directors and
have all kinds of onerous reporting requirements.
(1750)
Similarly there has been a company in Canada for many years
specifically aimed at making loans to people who have been turned
down by conventional banks, people who cannot get credit
anywhere. This is often the last recourse for certain borrowers.
The company happens to be owned by an American company.
The first draft of Bill C-82 suggested that this organization would
have to incorporate with a minimum of $10 million. We were told
that if the company had been forced into doing that it would simply
have left Canada, to the detriment of the Canadian public.
I find very disturbing how these ideas got into the first draft of
Bill C-82. I asked very pointed questions of the witnesses,
especially people, namely the representatives of the big banks who
argued that those rules were in the interest of Canada.
9112
The answers received from the representatives of the big banks
were not very good. They did not look very good when they tried to
answer my questions in a rhetorical fashion without going into
details on why it was taking place.
While there is this disturbing aspect about how this could have
been put into the bill in the first place, it raises questions about the
power of banks and their influence.
The people of Canada should feel confident that the second
reading of the bill has eliminated this onerous requirement for
foreign bank subsidiaries. Now they can operate as branches. Those
companies that provide a limited range of financial services even if
they are owned by a foreign banks will not have to incorporate.
This is a great victory for the parliamentary system and the
functioning of the finance committee. To anybody wishing to read
the blues or the reports of the finance committee on what went on I
will take a little credit for complaining about how bad this part of
the bill was. It was removed in 18 months.
The task force will report. I hope and trust, knowing John Chant
and knowing the quality of the people on the task force, we will get
more competition from foreign banks or from other financial
intermediaries. That is the only way to make sure there is no
concentration of power in the banks or in the financial system.
This ends my discussion of Bill C-82. I welcome the changes.
However I would now like to turn to an issue raised by John Geddes
in The Financial Post last weekend. The story has the potential of
hurting the credibility of the government on an issue on which it
invested a great deal of credibility going into the next election.
When the 1997 budget document came out there were tables,
summaries of transactions, what money was coming into the
government over the next two years, what was going out and where
it was being spent.
In 1995-96 in that same document there were tables outlining the
size of departmental spending. It was broken down separately.
These numbers are almost impossible to obtain except if one goes
through the onerous job of looking at the estimates.
(1755 )
In the past departmental spending in 1993, 1994 and 1995 was
always there. There was a lot of bragging in the document of two
years ago about how the program review undertaken by the head of
the Treasury Board would reduce departmental spending from $51
billion to $42 billion or by 19 per cent. I wondered why that was
not there this year.
In previous documents the yearly target for each department was
clearly outlined. The yearly obligated spending cuts in the
departments of defence, transport, native affairs, natural resources,
heritage and culture were outlined, but for this year they were not
there. I did not think through why the information was not there. I
asked someone who said it just was not done this year.
This week the Senate finance committee is holding a hearing in
which it will ask the government precisely what happened and why.
The government is supposed to be cutting 19 per cent of
departmental spending and is not on target. It is way off target at
only 9 per cent. Less than half the proposed cuts have been
undertaken.
The article goes on to discuss how the people in the Treasury
Board are trying to spin this scandal. The scandal is not just that
they did not meet the target. In the eyes of the Liberals there was a
certain fairness in the way in which they distributed the burden of
fiscal restraint. They claimed they would download a certain
percentage on the provinces because everybody has to share 24 per
cent. They said that was okay because they cut their program
spending by 19 per cent. They did not and they will not. Let us see
how they will fix it up over the next two years. If they do not fix it
in this year's budget, when will they do it?
I remind the people of Canada that the government came in with
a deficit of $42 billion. By 1998-99 there will still be a $6 billion
deficit, which means that the Liberals have projected to eliminate
$36 billion from the deficit. I ask viewers to test themselves as they
listen to this debate. What percentage of the $36 billion total came
from cuts to government spending? I have what is alleged to be $9
billion from departmental spending. Now we find out that is not
true. Instead of $9 billion it will only be $4 billion.
How did government members break the back of the fiscal
crisis? It was by increased revenue. They say that it was the gross
dividend but nevertheless it is higher taxes. Some $28 billion worth
of higher taxes is the main instrument used by the government to
eliminate the deficit. It was supposed to have cut $9 billion in
departmental spending. Now it turns out the government is way off
target by $4 billion.
Let us look at that in the context of what the government asked
the provinces to absorb. It has reduced transfers to the provinces by
$7.5 billion. The government was supposed to have cut its
departmental spending by now and it is not even delivering on this.
I believe this is really a major scandal. This raises major questions
about the ability, the seriousness and the integrity of the
government on its highly touted fiscal plans.
(1800)
It is true that the Minister of Finance has set hurdles about one
inch high, jumped over them, cleared them by a large margin and
then bragged that he is hitting his targets, that he is doing better
than his targets. I must congratulate him on the ability of his spin
doctors to so fool the people of Canada into thinking that he is
doing the right thing, that all of the attention in the aftermath of the
9113
budget release was focused on hitting the targets, exceeding the
targets.
That to a very large extent was due to circumstances over which
the minister had no control. One of them was lower interest rates.
We know there were lower interest rates, not just in Canada but
throughout the world. It was the world interest rates which came
down.
I am prepared to admit that there were also some reductions in
the gap between the U.S. and Canadian interest rates which should
be attributed to the deficit reduction progress made. I do not deny
this. Nevertheless, the attention on this low barrier that the minister
set for himself, and was exceeded and was very easily exceeded,
was due, first, to the lower interest rates created outside of Canada.
Second, it was created by economic growth which resulted in
bracket creep and higher tax take. That is how the government
came to the position of being able to brag as it did.
Because of this excellent, superb spin doctoring by the minister
and his department, nobody noticed until the Senate finally got
around to it that the government is away off target on the spending
for which it is directly responsible, namely what is known as
departmental spending. It is supposed to be $9 billion when it is
only $4 billion. I say shame.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I find myself in the rather
awkward position of thinking that we had heard the last from the
member for Capilano-Howe Sound last week and standing up to
thank him on that occasion for his even-handedness in giving credit
where credit is due. Now to my great chagrin I see that he will not
stay dead and I am going to have to put a stake through his heart
once more.
I did mean what I said last week about him doing politics a little
differently but today his colleagues seem to have got to him. I think
he has been a little unfair in his comments today.
There are two targets that matter, the targets for reducing the
deficit and reducing overall program spending. We are on target for
both. In fact, we are doing better than we projected for both. There
has been no increase in program spending as today's article that the
hon. member referred to claims.
Projected program spending would amount to $106 billion in
1997-98 and $105 billion in 1998-99. With program review the
1997 budget forecast program spending was revised downwards, as
the member knows. As with our deficit reduction targets we are
ahead of our original projections.
I will use this time to say that. It is in the nature of a comment
because I care not to ask him a question.
(1805 )
Mr. Grubel: Madam Speaker, this is spin doctoring at its best.
However, as I have great respect for the hon. member, I do not
think this is the cause of his problem.
There is a difference between program spending and
departmental spending. I am not talking about program spending.
Sure, the downloading went ahead as expected. The problem I have
is with something that is called departmental spending which is
part of program spending.
Since this was not stated in the budget, I can only rely on the
graph that has been provided here. For example, government
services were supposed to have gone from about $6 billion to $4
billion in the 1997-98 fiscal year. Where is it? It is still at $6
billion. This goes on and on. The only department that hit its target
is the Department of National Defence.
I would be happy to learn from the hon. parliamentary secretary
if he has in his briefing notes a page dealing with this issue. His
comments concerned program spending, which I have no problem
with. However, the issue that is being discussed this week in the
Senate committee deals with departmental spending. I would love
to hear why this article is wrong. I would love to be able to tell my
people in the next election that the government is really on track
but these numbers suggest it is not. I wonder what went wrong.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
always listen with great interest when the member for
Capilano-Howe Sound takes the time to make a speech. I
especially listen when he goes off any written text because I find
then he gives us the benefit of what he is really thinking and it
comes out a lot clearer.
I would like to get something straight. I have never read that
newspaper article to which he referred. I do not have a clue what he
is talking about.
Therefore, as an individual MP sitting here, I am hearing for the
first time that the government is behind in its departmental
spending cuts. It has not made the size or kind of cuts in
departmental spending that it had projected it would when it
bragged about how it was going to eliminate the deficit. It did that
by downloading 25 per cent or 29 per cent on to the provinces. The
member for Capilano-Howe Sound told me that we also had to get
our spending under control. We are all going to share this equally.
What the member just said is that the government indicated it
would cut departmental spending by 19 per cent, which means $9
billion. It has not done that. Nor does it appear that it is going to be
able to achieve that. I just want to get this perfectly straight and
clear because I know this member does not say things just to win
political brownie points like members on the opposite side do. He
does not take cheap, political, partisan shots like members on the
other side do.
9114
Mr. Morrison: Like you do.
Mr. Silye: Like I do sometimes. However, he does think things
through. I would like to know, as a taxpayer, will the government
be able to achieve what the master of myth, the finance minister,
set out in budgets? Where is the government on its $9 billion in
spending cuts by departments now? Has it cut anything at all? How
much has it cut? What is there left to cut? How much time does he
have to get there?
Over a four year period has the government pulled the wool over
Canadians' eyes? Has the master of myth led the Canadian
taxpayer astray again by not coming clean on where we are on
departmental spending?
(1810 )
Mr. Grubel: Madam Speaker, if I may read from an article from
the Financial Post, dated March 15-17, authored by John Geddes,
it states that according to figures published last month by Treasury
Board, with the government's main spending estimates: ``The
government projects that its departments will spend about $50
billion in fiscal 1997-98 beginning April 1, compared with the
target of just under $42 billion set out in Martin's landmark 1995
budget''. This budget said the spending cut would be 19 per cent. In
fact, it will be only 9 per cent. This is a true scandal.
The only department which has met its 1995 target is the defence
department. Even the department headed by one of the most
effective managers in the government, namely the department of
transport, has fallen by a steep 38 per cent, but that still does not
equal the 51 per cent cut which was targeted in 1995.
I urge anyone who is interested in this to have a look at this table.
It raises serious questions about the integrity of the government. It
keeps on talking about how far it has exceeded that one-inch target
it set for itself. What really counts is smaller government. What
really counts is doing what is right but is politically hard, namely to
undertake the cuts in departmental spending.
Why has that not taken place? What is going on? How much
more is missing from the 1997 budget as we go into an election?
I hope that the other House in its committee work will make sure
that if there are other skeletons in this closet they will be dug out
and the government will be held accountable for not carrying
through with the grandiose plans it had. We will not be diverted by
spin doctors from what is going on in government.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his answer. I
guess what he is really saying is that over the last four years the
government has cut $7.5 billion in transfers to the provinces and
only $1 billion of departmental spending and that the reduction in
the deficit has come from increased taxes. Is that correct?
Mr. Grubel: Madam Speaker, that is correct. If I may repeat
those numbers, of the $36 billion improvement, $28 billion came
from increased taxes through bracket creep.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it has
been interesting listening to the debate on Bill C-82. We have had
the government interpretation and we have had the Reform
interpretation. We have not heard a lot of interpretation by the
Bloc.
I thought that it might be of value to read into the record a totally
independent interpretation written by the law firm of Gowling,
Strathy & Henderson in Ottawa. It is entitled ``Financial
Institutions Legislation and Foreign Branch Banking''. It states:
In mid February the Secretary of State for Finance-tabled legislation to
strengthen consumer protection, ease the regulatory burden on financial institutions,
and ``fine tune'' certain provisions in the financial institutions statutes. Bill C-82, an
act to amend certain laws relating to financial institutions, responds to proposals set
out in the June 1996 consultation paper, the 1997 Review of Financial Sector
Legislation: Proposals for Changes, and to comments received during the
consultative hearings. The legislation establishes March 31, 2002, as the new
``sunset'' provision for all federally regulated financial institutions.
The government has given itself expanded authority to make regulations
governing privacy and enhanced cost-of-credit disclosure. The Bill also introduces
tied-selling safeguards, and provisions to improve dissemination of information
about fees.
To update and fine tune financial institutions regulation, banks that do not take
retail deposits will be allowed to opt out of the Canada Deposit Insurance
Corporation coverage, more flexibility will be provided to financial institutions
seeking to enter into joint venture arrangements and access to capital for mutual
insurance companies will be enhanced.
Changes to the provisions governing the operations of the foreign banks in
Canada include: ``near banks'' (entities which do not generally take deposits and are
not regulated as banks in their home jurisdiction but do provide one or more banking
type services) which have received approval under the Bank Act to enter the
Canadian market will no longer need to seek further approvals, provided their
unregulated activities do not include taking deposits;
Removing the requirement for regulated foreign banks owning Schedule II banks
to own their own financial institution subsidiaries through the Schedule II bank; and
Permitting near banks to own non-bank financial institutions.
Mr. Peters also announced that separate legislation will be made public before the
end of the year to allow foreign banks to branch directly into Canada. The easing of
foreign bank entry was a priority recommendation contained in separate reports
released last fall by the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the
House of Commons Committee on Finance.
The government's decision to act in this area prior to receipt of the report of the
Task Force on the Future of the Canadian Financial Services Sector was ``noted'' in
the Finance Minister's February 18 budget when he stated: ``the increased
competition this [foreign branch banking] should produce will increase the
financing options-that is, the increased access to capital required by small- and
medium-sized Canadian businesses.
9115
(1815)
Before I go on to conclude this analysis by the law firm I might
say that any action that the government, indeed any government,
can take which will increase access to capital required by small and
medium sized Canadian business surely must be a positive activity.
What is stopping so many operations in Canada from being able to
survive, let along thrive, is a lack of access to capital. If in the
judgment of our industry critic this bill turns out to be a tool that
will work in that direction, then if for only that reason I would be
inclined to support it.
Carrying on with this analysis:
The main characteristics of the new branching regime would be as follows:
Foreign bank branches would not be allowed to take retail deposits.
The ability to operate branches would generally apply to foreign banks with at
least $25 billion in assets on a world-wide basis, a limit that would permit most
foreign banks operating in Canada as subsidiaries to operate as branches.
The Superintendent would have the power to require the maintenance of assets in
Canada with an unrelated approved financial institution to cover liabilities of the
branches.
A capital equivalency deposit of at least 5% of branch liabilities would have to be
maintained at all times with a recognized financial institution.
The foreign bank would have to be regulated on a consolidated basis in its home
jurisdiction in line with internationally recognized regulatory standards acceptable to
the Superintendent, with appropriate co-operative regulatory arrangements in place.
Branches would be subject to appropriate Canadian reporting, auditing and
taxation requirements. In cases of branch liquidation all assets in Canada of the
foreign bank could be seized to satisfy the obligations of the Canadian branches.
The government will also review all other aspects of foreign bank entry policy.
Pending completion of this review, foreign companies offering a limited range of
financial services which now operate unregulated in Canada as well as new entrants
that meet certain criteria, (i.e., non-deposit taking with a $200 million ceiling on the
assets of Canadian operations) will be allowed to carry on their activities without
being regulated, but will be required to disclose to creditors and customers that it is
not regulated as a financial institution in Canada.
A final decision on the status of those unregulated foreign companies now
operating in Canada and of those intending to set up operations during the interim
period, will be taken once the branching regime and review of the foreign bank entry
policies have been completed. It is expected that once the banking regime is in place
a number of these companies will convert their Canadian activities to branch
operations.
(1820)
I wanted to put on the record an independent analysis or
evaluation of what is a very technical bill. I recognize that not
infrequently members end up in some fairly partisan sparring, and
various things are said sometimes in jest and sometimes in the heat
of the moment. However, with us having the unfortunate title of
politician, sometimes we act like politicians.
The bill is probably one in which each of us would do well to rise
above the normal partisan discussion which is going back and forth
because it is so key to what ends up impacting Canadians in every
day of their lives.
As I understand it from a summary that has been given to me by
our industry critic, the bill will provide that more detailed
information will be available to the consumer regarding cost of
credit disclosure.
I recall that very frequently, almost on an annual basis, there is
discussion in the public domain about the cost of credit cards of
banks as well as credit cards of the financial institutions. I note that
in the current Eaton's difficulty that the credit card section of the
Eaton's empire is one of the strongest assets it has. It is reported to
be a part of the corporation that does not require support and ends
up contributing to the bottom line of the Eaton's group.
We also note that most of the banks issue credit cards with 18, 20
and 24 per cent interest rates on an outstanding balance. While
Canadian consumers have a personal responsibility for what they
do and must not always be looking to the government to be
protected, on the other side of the coin there is a clear
understanding that the Canadian consumer who has a piece of
plastic, a credit card by which he or she can access all sorts of
goods and services, has a responsibility in the way that credit card
is used.
Clearly, as the credit card balance goes up and particularly where
there is a very high interest rate, it is important that there be
detailed information available to the consumer so that he or she
may understand what the cost of constantly carrying a balance will
be. I wonder how many Canadians are really aware if they have a
$2,000, $3,000 or $5,000 balance on their credit card, that as long
as they leave it on their credit card, just how much more interest
they will actually end up paying for the use of that money? It is the
equivalent of a very high cost loan.
A second part of Bill C-82 requires a simplified and improved
dissemination of information to consumers about basic financial
services, low cost options and fees on products and services.
(1825 )
It works to the the advantage of some of us to pay a $25 monthly
fee or whatever the fee is where everything is rolled in whether it is
inclusive of a safety deposit box, perhaps a credit card with no
further fee, perhaps overdraft protection that is available on the
side that simply needs to be activated. But all of these financial
services end up costing money.
In a lot of instances when people started to use their bank card,
they were drawn into the practice of using that card on the
9116
assumption that their transaction was not going to cost them
money. Indeed, some banks actually did that.
I applaud what the government is bringing forward where there
is a simplified and improved dissemination of information to
consumers about what the services are and what the costs are.
Allowing non-deposit taking institutions to opt out of the Canada
Deposit Insurance Corporation and loosen subsidiary requirements
makes sense. This becomes a user pay kind of a situation of which
the Reform Party is completely in favour. We believe that people
who are making use of any service, whatever the service may be, it
is their responsibility to make sure that the service is properly and
adequately funded.
If non-deposit taking institutions are required to pay into the
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation the danger is much the
same as the danger that we have realized with both the
Conservatives and now the Liberals leaving people with no option.
Both have told people that they have to pay into the unemployment
insurance fund, for example. Where there is a mandatory
requirement, where there is a sucking in of money we can count on
the fact that there is a government somewhere in the background.
In this instance the fact that the Canada Deposit Insurance
Corporation will permit non-deposit taking institutions to opt out is
only fair, right and proper.
It introduces regulations to allow financial institutions to enter
into joint venture arrangements and proposes changes that permit
mutual insurance companies to issue participating shares. This gets
into a slightly trickery area in my judgment.
On the surface it appears to be a very sound move. Not
infrequently people will end up in a business situation where they
require someone, some corporation, some financial body, some
venture capital. That venture capital has to come from an
organization with very deep pockets. Quite frankly, I cannot think
of a better description of banks than an institution with deep
pockets.
It would allow the bank entering into joint venture arrangements
for that bank to be able to get into the boardroom, into the decision
making process should it so choose if the venture is going off track.
One of the difficulties in my constituency, and I suspect with a lot
of businesses all over Canada, is that when they enter into an
arrangement with the bank, almost invariably the bank ends up
making sure that it is triple secured for any of the money that it
actually extends in the form of a loan.
When it is triple secured it ends up falling back on a feeling of
comfort. Perhaps they do not have to look over the shoulder of the
entrepreneur to the same extent. Not looking over the shoulder of
the entrepreneur in itself ends up creating some difficulty or some
problem. More often than not, the financial institution, the venture
capitalist, having a vested interest, will be able to foresee
difficulties.
Madam Speaker, I note that you are giving me the high sign. I
will sit down. I know that the House will just be waiting with bated
breath for me to continue my intervention the next time this topic
comes up.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from March 13, 1997, consideration of the
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being6.30 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, March 12, 1997, the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on
the motion for time allocation at third reading stage of Bill C-66.
Call in the members.
(1900)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 260)
YEAS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bethel
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Brushett
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
McWhinney
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
9117
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Zed-105
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Asselin
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams -58
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dubé
Duceppe
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Loubier
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: Madam Speaker, could you confirm that this is in
fact the 37th time that the Liberals have invoked closure with this
motion?
[Translation]
The House resumed, from March 13, 1997, consideration of Bill
C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, as reported (with
amendments) from a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on report
stage of Bill C-32.
[English]
The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on Motion No. 1 applies
to Motions Nos. 8, 11, 39, 42, 43 and 46.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I would propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House-there will be some exceptions-with Liberal members
voting yea.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, I wish to have
clarification. On group 7, I wish to have some amendments but this
would not affect those.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
official opposition will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote no unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, NDP members present vote yes
on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, the PC Party will be voting nay.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, had I been here for the
first vote I would have voted with my party. I would therefore like
my vote applied as such.
Mr. Telegdi: Madam Speaker, I would like to be recorded as
voting with my party on this one, as I did not vote on the previous
one.
Mr. Epp: Madam Speaker, in order to have clarity and no big
problems about this later, you indicated this was on Motions Nos. 8
and 11. I believe the intent is 8, 9, 10 and 11. I would like that
clarified, please.
(1905 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 1 and the vote on Motion No. 1 applies to Motions
Nos. 8 to 11, 39, 42, 43 and 46.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
9118
(Division No. 261)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brushett
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Zed -142
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-23
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dubé
Duceppe
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Loubier
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 1 carried. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11,
39, 42, 43 and 46 carried.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to report stage
Motion No. 49, report stage Motion No. 6 and report stage Motion
No. 17.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, on Motion No. 17, I wish
to abstain.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the government whip
could repeat what he said.
Mr. Kilger: That the vote previously taken on report stage
Motion No. 1 be applied to report stage Motions Nos. 49, 6 and 17.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There is not
unanimous consent.
[Translation]
The question is on Motion No. 48.
9119
(1910 )
[English]
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 48 obviates the necessity of
putting the question on Motion No. 49. A negative vote on Motion
No. 48 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 49.
The question is on Motion No. 48
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I would propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
official opposition will vote nay.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote yes.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote no.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting against the
motion.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, I wish my vote to be
recorded with the government on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 48, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 262)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-23
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brushett
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Zed -142
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dubé
Duceppe
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Loubier
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
9120
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 48 lost.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find consent to
apply the results of the vote just taken to report stage MotionsNos. 5, 44, 25, 28, 31, 35, 38, 40, 41 and 55.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 262.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motions Nos. 5, 44, 25, 28, 31, 35, 38, 40, 41 and 55 defeated.
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 50, 51 and 52 are therefore defeated.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 49.
(1915)
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, you will find there is unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yea.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
official opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Reform Party members present will vote no.
Mr. Blaikie: New Democrats vote yes, Madam Speaker.
Mrs. Wayne: I will be voting no, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Bhaduria: I will vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 261.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 49 carried.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find consent to
apply the results of the vote just taken to the following government
report stage Motions Nos. 6 and 17.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 261.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motions Nos. 6 and 17 agreed to.
[Translation]
The question is on Motion No. 4.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, you will find there is unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
official opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Reform Party members present vote no.
Mr. Blaikie: New Democrats vote yes, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Silye: I would like to vote yea on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting no.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting no on this
motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 263)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Fillion
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McLaughlin
Nunez
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Silye
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-36
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brushett
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
9121
Dupuy
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Wayne
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Zed-129
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dubé
Duceppe
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Loubier
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 4 lost.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent to apply the result of the preceding vote to the
following motions: Motions Nos. 7, 54, 57 and 32.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1920)
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would
like to make it clear that on this set of motions I am voting nay as
opposed to the previous ones so it will not apply in the same way.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 265)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Fillion
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McLaughlin
Nunez
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-35
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brushett
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Lincoln
9122
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Wayne
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Zed-130
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dubé
Duceppe
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Loubier
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motions Nos. 7, 54, 57 and 32 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 60.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the
House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
official opposition will be voting yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote yes unless they make motions otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I vote yes.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes.
(The House divided on Motion No. 60, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 264)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brushett
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
9123
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Wayne
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Zed-165
NAYS
Members
-0
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dubé
Duceppe
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Loubier
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 60 agreed to.
The next question is on Motion No. 13. An affirmative vote on
Motion No. 13 obviates the necessity of putting the question on
Motions Nos. 14 and 15. A negative vote on Motion No. 13
necessitates the question being put on Motions Nos. 14 and 15.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent that members who have just been recorded as
having voted on the previous motion be now recorded as having
voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members
voting yea.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
official opposition will be voting nay.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote no.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this
motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will vote yes.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will vote yes.
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 266)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brushett
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
de Jong
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Wayne
Whelan
Wood
Zed -112
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Silye
Speaker
9124
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-53
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dubé
Duceppe
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Loubier
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 13 agreed to.
The next question is on Motion No. 24. An affirmative vote on
Motion No. 24 obviates the necessity of putting the question on
Motion No. 25. A negative vote on Motion No. 24 necessitates the
question being put on Motion No. 25.
(1925)
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the
House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House.
At this time I would draw your attention to deleting the name of
the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Otherwise Liberal members will be
voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official
opposition will be voting nay.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
vote no.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this
motion.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I vote yes on this motion, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Telegdi: I vote yes on this motion, Madam Speaker.
Mr. PeriG: Madam Speaker, I want to be recorded as voting yes
on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: I will be voting yes, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Bhaduria: I will be voting no on this motion, Madam
Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 267)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Blaikie
Chamberlain
de Jong
McLaughlin
Peric
Telegdi
Wayne-8
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brushett
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
9125
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Zed-156
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dubé
Duceppe
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Loubier
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 24 lost.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
you would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
the following report stage Motions Nos. 29 and 34.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 267.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motions Nos. 29 and 34 lost. Motion No. 30 is therefore defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 26.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the
House would agree I would propose you seek unanimous consent
that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting nay with the exception of the member under
whose name the motion stands.
(1930)
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official
opposition will be voting nay.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members vote yes.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this
motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes for the
motion.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, for clarification, the member for
Guelph-Wellington under whose name the motion stands will be
voting yea and all the other Liberals will be voting nay.
(The House divided on Motion No. 26, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 268)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Chamberlain
Cummins
de Jong
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Morrison
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-29
NAYS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brushett
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
9126
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
McWhinney
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Zed -135
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dubé
Duceppe
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Loubier
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 26 defeated. The next question is on Motion No. 27.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find consent to
apply the results of the vote just taken to report stage MotionNo. 27.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, I wish to vote with the
government on Motion No. 27.
(The House divided on Motion No. 27, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 269)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
de Jong
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Morrison
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams -28
NAYS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brushett
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
McWhinney
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Zed -136
9127
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dubé
Duceppe
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Loubier
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 27 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 35.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you would find that with
respect to Motion No. 35, the vote was applied as a result of a vote
taken earlier on Motion No. 48.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Thank you,
that motion was defeated.
[Translation]
The question is on Motion No. 36. The vote on this motion will
also apply to Motion No. 58.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent that all members who voted on
the motion previously before the House be deemed to have voted
on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting
nay, except for the member for Guelph-Wellington, who will be
voting yea.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The official opposition will be voting
nay, Madam Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote no.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats will vote no on
this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes.
(1935)
Mr. Bhaduria: I will be voting yes on this motion, Madam
Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 36, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 270)
YEAS
Members
Bhaduria
Chamberlain
Wayne-3
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brushett
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Zed-161
9128
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dubé
Duceppe
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Loubier
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 36 lost. I therefore declare Motion No. 58 lost as well.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe that you will find consent
to apply the results of the vote just taken to report stage MotionNo. 37.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 270.]
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I therefore
declare Motion No. 37 lost. I declare Motion No. 59 lost as well.
[English]
The question is on Motion No. 45.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent that all members who voted on
the motion previously before the House be deemed to have voted
on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting
nay.
I wish to indicate the withdrawal of the members for St. Paul's
and Essex-Kent.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official
opposition will be voting yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote yes.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this
motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes.
Mr. Bhaduria: I will vote no on this motion, Madam Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 45, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 271)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Asselin
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams -58
NAYS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brushett
Caccia
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
McWhinney
Minna
Mitchell
9129
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Zed-104
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dubé
Duceppe
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Loubier
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 45 lost.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.) moved that Bill C-32, an act to amend
the Copyright Act, as amended, be concurred in at the report stage
with further amendments.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
official opposition will be voting yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, this bill is supposed to help artists
but hurts the whole industry. We are going to vote no.
(1940 )
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote no on this
motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting no.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting no on this
motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 272)
YEAS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brushett
Caccia
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
McWhinney
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Zed -134
9130
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
de Jong
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Morrison
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams -28
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dubé
Duceppe
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Loubier
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): When shall the
bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9130
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
you have such a good memory that you probably remember that,
last Tuesday, I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I was
not very pleased with the answer, that goes without saying. That is
why I want to take advantage of these Adjournment Proceedings to
revive the debate; I am ready to listen to the answer of the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, who is
currently in Japan to promote Canadian exports.
My question is quite simple. Pursuant to the agreement we
signed three years ago with GATT, now known as the WTO, the 118
signatory states agreed to reduce direct farm subsidies in their own
countries.
Canada is preaching by example. Of course, it is benefiting from
all this since it is saving money on the backs of farmers, who will,
of course, pass on higher prices to all consumers.
Let me give you an example. Here, in Canada, over a three year
period, the government has, under the helm of the Minister of
Finance, reduced direct farm subsidies by 21 per cent, or more than
one fifth, compared to 23 per cent for our neighbours south of the
border.
Some members will say: ``Yes, but Jean-Guy, that is 2 per cent
more''. Yes, I agree, but these cuts are being implemented over
seven years instead of three, which is more than twice as long. All
things considered, the cuts in Canada are more than twice what
they are in the United States. Our farmers are directly affected.
The most striking example is without any doubt the total
elimination of subsidies to industrial milk producers over the next
five years.
(1945)
To keep their income at the level it was two years ago, farmers
must raise the selling price of industrial milk. And you know as
well as I do that each time the price of butter goes up, consumption
goes down.
We are in a dilemma and our milk producers are able to increase
dairy production by 5 to 10 per cent fairly easily. But if we raise the
price, we will have to reduce the quotas. Thus, we are in a catch 22
situation with this government.
For example, the Western Grain Transportation Act was
suddenly abolished in the West. That meant $860 million each year.
Sure, since that was in western Canada, this good government of
ours gave almost $3 billion as a bonus to farmers, while there was
no bonus to the dairy producers when their grant was cut; there is a
double standard.
Moreover, the Federation of Dairy Producers of Canada formally
asked the agriculture minister to postpone until February 1, 1998
the next 15 per cent cut in the grant to industrial milk producers,
which is to take effect on August 1, 1997. It is only a matter of six
months. We are waiting for an answer and if you consult the
calendar, you will see that there will be an election in June. I
suspect our good Minister of Agriculture will make his
announcement during the next election campaign, which I for one
would find quite dishonest on his part.
We are only four months away from August 1, and I wish the
agriculture minister would make that announcement, which would
9131
be most reassuring for our dairy producers, since, according to
reports, the income of Quebec dairy producers has fallen every
year because of these famous cuts.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
government is eliminating dairy subsidy gradually at the dairy
industry's request so as to avoid any disruptions.
The dairy industry is continually improving its efficiency and
competitiveness so consumers can expect that dairy products will
continue to represent good value in the future as they have in the
past.
The Canadian Dairy Commission has been instrumental through
its pricing policies in maintaining fair returns for efficient dairy
producers and ensuring a continuous supply of high quality dairy
products for consumers are affordable prices. I am confident that
the dairy sector will be able to adapt to the changes in the subsidy
that remain to be implemented because they will be gradual and
foreseeable.
Comparing support for agriculture between countries is best
done by looking at producer subsidy equivalents, PSE. The PSE
measures how much farm revenue results from policy transfers
counting both expenditures by government and support created by
market regulations. The PSEs are estimated consistently for all
OECD countries.
In 1996 the PSE for Canada for all agriculture was 22 per cent
and for the dairy sector it was 57 per cent. In the United States the
PSE for all agricultural products was considerably lower at 16 per
cent and for the U.S. dairy sector it was lower also at 48 per cent.
Expenditures for agriculture overall in Canada are expected to
decline over the next few years. Spending on income support
especially for subsectors other than dairy, poultry and eggs is
declining, but the spending is also being shifted from passive price
or income support toward the development of transitional
assistance. In the United States spending is targeted less on
adjustment and more on plain income transfers.
The Canadian government's resolve to cut back on spending
overall, not only in agriculture, has helped to create an economic
environment that is conducive to investment and development.
Interest rates are lower in Canada than in the U.S. Agriculture
benefits for Canada are very positive.
(1950 )
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Madam Speaker, some
weeks ago I asked a question in the House to which the minister of
agriculture chose to respond. It had to do with the establishment of
branch lines after the change in the Transportation Act that
occurred in the House the last year. The protection of branch lines
which was intended to last until the end of 1999 simply
disappeared.
As a result we have seen at least the CNR post its list of branch
lines that will be abandoned. That list is becoming very instructive
for communities looking to see what will happen to them if they are
living on branch lines.
The point I was trying to make with the government was that we
are finding time after time the railways have announced that they
will no longer maintain or provide service to branch lines. When
community groups or others investigate to see whether or not they
should buy them, they find the railway has already achieved an
agreement with the elevator companies along the lines to agree
they will not sell to anybody attempting to use the elevators and
purchase them later.
The point I was trying to make with the minister of agriculture
because he represents a seat on the prairies was that the envisioned
creation of a whole bunch of short lines will not happen.
We have several actual examples. One is in my riding. It is light
rail. A short line could exist if they moved traffic out slowly and
they are willing to set up a short line. There is a large alfalfa
dehydrating plant at the end of that short line which provides quite
a lot of tonnage. To make the short line efficient and effective
economically they will also have to continue to haul the grain
gathered on those lines.
The two companies that have elevators at three or four points
along that line decided to build inland terminals 30 or 40 miles
away. They do not want their own gathering outlets competing
against the capacity of those inland terminals. They have an
agreement which seems to be held by the railway that the line can
only be purchased by someone who refuses to move grain on the
line. That makes it uneconomical for the community short line to
exist.
The minister being a political person decided to make some
politics with his answer. He decided to ignore the question
completely and say that if there were no short lines in
Saskatchewan it would be because of the provincial law.
If he had listened at the short line conference he and I were in
attendance at, he would have heard existing short line operators
point out that it was not a problem for them at all. They could
simply constitute themselves first off as a Canadian corporation
and use Canadian successor right laws. In fact the operators already
in existence say Saskatchewan successor right laws are not an
impediment whatsoever. Their real problem is having the elevator
companies stay in existence along those lines.
We are back to the situation we had 100 years ago before we
started regulating rail lines and elevator companies, where the
elevator companies and the railroads simply have farmers at their
mercy.
9132
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, by
streamlining and shortening the current process for rail line
rationalization the Canadian Transportation Act will encourage the
conversion of underutilized rail lines to short line railroads as
opposed to their abandonment.
The main line railways are required to make available a
three-year plan showing which lines they intend to keep and which
they intend to sell, lease or discontinue.
Once the railways have advertised their intention to divest
themselves of a particular line, parties interested in setting up short
line railroads on that line would then have at least 60 days to
indicate their interest to the railway. The elevator companies
cannot prevent the creation of short lines.
Within the legislation there is a provision that states the railroads
must negotiate with the interested parties in good faith. It is a
business decision of the elevator companies whether they continue
to operate an elevator or close the elevator to consolidate their
operations.
It is anticipated that there will be line abandonments due to
elevator closures. However it is also anticipated that opportunities
for short line operators will arise on branch lines that have
operational elevators and sufficient volumes.
Short line operators have to take into consideration the
consolidation of an investment plan of grain companies when they
make decisions on potential purchases of lines. If no interest is
expressed by short line operators, the CTA allows provincial or
municipal governments to acquire the lines at net salvage value.
In summary, new provisions of the CTA encourage the transfer
of lines where it makes economic sense and provides opportunity
for governments to acquire lines if it is in the public interest to do
so.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 38(5) the motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.55 p.m.)