CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 20, 1996
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 961
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 962
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 963
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 963
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 963
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 964
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 964
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 964
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 965
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 965
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 965
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 965
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 966
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 966
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 967
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 968
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 968
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 969
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 969
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 969
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 970
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 970
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 970
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 972
Bill C-240. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 974
Bill C-241. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 975
Bill C-242. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 975
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 975
Motion for concurrence in ninth report 975
Motion moved and agreed to 975
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 991
(The amendment is agreed to). 992
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 76; Nays, 131. 992
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 47; Nays: 161 993
Motion for Concurrence 994
Bill C-21. Motion for first reading deemed adopted. 994
Bill C-21. Motion for second reading 994
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and theHouse went into
committee thereon, Mr. Kilgourin the chair.) 995
(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.) 995
(Clause 4 agreed to.) 995
(Clause 5 agreed to.) 995
(Clause 6 agreed to.) 995
(Clause 7 agreed to.) 995
(Schedule agreed to.) 995
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 995
(Preamble agreed to.) 995
Bill C-21. Motion for concurrence 995
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 995
Motion for concurrence 995
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 132; Nays, 76 996
Bill C-22. Motion for first reading deemed adopted 997
Bill C-22. Motion for second reading 997
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and theHouse went into
committee thereon, Mr.Kilgour in the chair.) 997
(Clause 2 agreed to.) 997
(Clause 3 agreed to.) 997
(Clause 4 agreed to.) 997
(Clause 5 agreed to.) 997
(Schedule A agreed to.) 997
(Schedule B agreed to.) 997
(Schedule C agreed to.) 997
(Schedule D agreed to.) 997
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 997
(Preamble agreed to.) 998
Bill C-22. Motion for concurrence 998
Motion for third reading 998
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 999
Bill C-221. Motion for second reading 999
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1000
959
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 20, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our custom, we will now sing O Canada,
which will be led by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform
Party embraces a flat tax. This is at a time when multimillionaire
Steven Forbes has been rejected even by the far right of the United
States in his attempts to convince the American people the logic of
this tax.
A tax which would lower taxes to those earning more than
$200,000 while increasing the taxes of already overtaxed middle
class people earning between $35,000 and $65,000 is the agenda of
the Reform Party. Robin Hoodism in reverse. Taking from the less
wealthy and giving to the wealthiest is the agenda of the so-called
Reformers.
What else would a flat tax do? It would not tax interest. The
banks will be very supportive. It will eliminate lower rates of
income taxes for small and medium size businesses. So much for
the Reform Party's job creation programs which will reduce small
business employment while lining the coffers of financial
institutions.
Reform thinking on flat tax is the same as those who thousands
of years ago believed in a flat earth, the neanderthals of tax reform.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
whatever happened to truth in sentencing of criminals? In Canada
unfortunately the most obvious truth about prison sentences is that
they are a fiction.
For instance, section 745 allows criminals sentenced to life
imprisonment the eligibility for release only 15 years into their
sentence. It is a sure bet for criminals because 78 per cent of those
who apply for parole under section 745 are granted early release.
Using section 745, child killer Clifford Olson can apply for parole
in August this year.
I speak on behalf of a growing majority of Canadians who
believe that early release should only be considered for truly first
time non-violent offenders. Canadians are telling justice officials
to bring back the principles of truth in sentencing. You do the
crime, you do the time.
Clearly section 745 must be repealed. On behalf of Canadians, I
urge the justice minister to do so without delay.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
prospective privatization of services at the Five Wing Base in
Goose Bay, Labrador will be a needless blow to Labrador. These
are not the policies of careful and responsible economic
management that the economy of Labrador so needs and expects of
the federal government.
Liberals and Reformers have a lot of buzzwords for downsizing
federal government services. Whether we call it privatization,
commercialization, contracting out or alternative service delivery,
it all boils down to the same thing: fewer jobs, lower pay, fewer
benefits and greater insecurity.
The Liberals have called on the private sector to be responsible
employers and to do its best to provide steady, secure employment.
Behind this rhetoric the Liberals themselves are mimicking the
worst corporate offenders with their self-defeating downsizing.
New Democrats join with the citizens of Labrador in demanding
a federal government that sets an example of responsible economic
citizenship.
960
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to pay tribute to the outstanding volunteer efforts of Mr. Frederick
Harttrup of Waterloo.
Mr. Harttrup, accompanied by his wife Olive, recently travelled
to Trinidad to advise a government owned forestry company on
production techniques and total quality management.
Mr. Harttrup made recommendations pertaining to log supply
and quality, sawmill flow systems and layout and the operation of
the saw show and the planer mill.
Mr. Harttrup is one of 7,000 Canadians who have volunteered
their time through CESO International Services. Since its founding
in 1967, CESO has been providing volunteer advisers to businesses
and organizations in Canada's aboriginal communities, developing
countries and emerging market economies in central and eastern
Europe. CESO volunteers are skilled Canadian men and women,
usually retired, who willingly share their lifetime of practical
experience with those who need it.
To Frederick Harttrup and to all the CESO volunteers, we
express our appreciation and we send them our thanks.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, March 21 is the first day of spring. It is also the
international day for the elimination of racial discrimination.
This year's symbol for this day is the crocus, the first flower of
spring and the symbol of a fresh start. This campaign encourages
Canadians to break free from the darkness of ignorance into the
light of tolerance and respect.
Thirty-six years ago on this day a peaceful march against
apartheid in Sharpeville, South Africa turned into a massacre. All
too often since then this tragedy has been repeated in different
Sharpevilles around the world. These incidents may not always kill
the body but racial discrimination destroys the soul and the
self-esteem of the victim.
We in Canada take for granted our peaceful lifestyle, our
reputation as a kinder, gentler nation. Yet we have our own less
violent Sharpevilles in many parts of Canada. Each time we deny
the cultural reality of our neighbour, denigrate his language or her
costume, we commit an act of discrimination.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week my colleague from the Okanagan brought forth
a motion to encourage this Parliament to think carefully about how
it defines sedition. This was precipitated of course by the
outrageous actions of the Bloc defence critic who invited members
of the armed forces to switch their allegiance in the event of a yes
vote. This was not a job offer. This was an invitation to desert the
Canadian Armed Forces.
Canadians have expressed disbelief that a government could
tolerate such an offensive and potentially dangerous act.
Attempting to undermine the loyalty of the armed forces is
completely beyond the pale in a democratic country.
The Liberal government tried to ignore this matter and it watered
down the Reform motion to the point where it had no teeth. If the
defence minister had been doing his job, this matter would not have
required a special intervention.
We hope this has served as a wake-up call to this government.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the poet said:
Winter's rains and ruins are over,
And all the season of snows and sins:
The days dividing lover and lover,
The light that loses, the night that wins:
And in green underwood and cover
Blossom by blossom the spring begins.
(1405 )
We bring spring greetings and the daffodils which some
members are wearing from Vancouver where spring began some
time ago. We also bring greetings from radio station CKNW, home
of open line hosts Rafe Mair, Bill Good and Gary Bannerman.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow marks the International Day for the Elimination of all
Forms of Racial Discrimination. It is a day for Canadians to reflect
on the harm racism causes in our communities and to think of what
we can do to make Canada a more tolerant society.
[Translation]
At this time last year, I really believed we had made progress in
this area. However, the racist remarks and accusations made by the
961
Bloc and the PQ during the referendum, and especially those
uttered by the former premier of Quebec, have only increased
racial tensions in Quebec. Worse yet, the new premier of Quebec
never distanced himself from his predecessor's racist comments.
[English]
Part of the solution is admitting that you have done something
wrong. By refusing to apologize for their behaviour the Bloc and
the PQ are saying that it is okay to make remarks like this and that
people will eventually forget anyway. I have not forgotten and I am
still waiting for an apology.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in 1996, the economic, scientific and political reality of
the Francophonie is 49 countries on five continents.
France is the only one of those countries whose only official
language is French. Elsewhere in the francophonie, French is only
one of the official languages.
In this context, it is up to French speaking countries to give
French, a favoured communication tool, the place it deserves in all
areas of human activity, at both the national and the international
levels. Even if it is generally recognized that, in America, Quebec
is a beacon for the Francophonie, we are also aware that the
Francophonie extends beyond Quebec's borders.
It is with respect that we salute our cousins in the francophone
and Acadian communities. We pay tribute to their courage and
determination in fighting for their rights, despite the provincial and
federal governments' anaemic political will to recognize in real
terms the equal status of French in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is the Journée internationale de la Francophonie. This day is
celebrated each year with many activities and festivities that
highlight the diversity of francophone communities across the
country.
Today is also the second day of the Semaine nationale de la
Francophonie organized by the Association canadienne
d'éducation de langue française or ACELF. This is a great
opportunity to recognize the important contribution made by
francophones to Canada's linguistic, cultural and economic
vitality.
As a member of Parliament of Franco-Ontarian origin, I am in a
good position to note the full extent of francophones' contribution
to society in Ontario and Canada. Ottawa-Vanier boasts many
organizations that mirror the strong francophone presence outside
la Belle Province. I am thinking in particular of the Ottawa campus
of La Cité collégiale, the University of Ottawa, the many primary
and secondary schools for francophones and immersion students,
the Centre francophone de Vanier, the Richelieu service clubs, the
Patro in Lowertown, Montfort Hospital, the regional ACFO, the
Caisses populaires, and so on.
I urge all French-Canadians to be proud of their mother tongue
and to contribute to its development.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last night during debate on my private member's Bill
C-201 which deals with impaired driving causing death, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice cited in his
remarks a letter from a member of MADD Canada which stated six
reasons not to support my bill.
Jim Wideman, the executive director of MADD Canada wrote
me this morning to set the record straight. He wrote:
On behalf of the board of directors of MADD Canada, I would like to reaffirm
our support of the private member's Bill C-201. I am aware that other
correspondence has been sent to Mr. Rock's office. Let me reiterate that the
National Board of MADD Canada, our chapters and members wholeheartedly
support Bill C-201.
Once again I would like to support MADD Canada, all its
chapters and members who are in support of my bill. I urge
members of this House to support it as well.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as
part of the celebrations marking la Semaine de la Francophonie,
author and songwriter Luc Plamondon was the 1996 winner of the
Mérite du français dans la culture.
(1410)
Over the past 25 years, Luc Plamondon has written more than
500 songs as well as musicals like Starmania, La légende de
Jimmy, and Sand et les romantiques. On March 30, live from the
Quebec National Assembly, Luc Plamondon will give a dictation
he will have written himself as part of the third Dictée des
Amériques, in which about 100 finalists will be competing.
I would also like to congratulate other winners: Métallurgie
Noranda, for their workplace francization campaign; the
Fédération des secrétaires professionnelles du Québec, for the use
of French in the workplace; Paul-Sauvé school, in
Saint-Vincent-de-Paul de Laval, for Pousse-Mine, its newspaper;
as wells as many
962
radio and television shows such as ``Le 6 sur 6'' on CKOI, ``Vidéo
Rock Détente'' on the Unimédia network-
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his
time is up.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
senseless tragedy has struck the world once again. Yesterday fire
broke out at a disco in Manila. The disco was packed with students
celebrating their graduation.
Reports show that at least 150 young people perished in the fire
and scores were injured. Most of those who died were trampled to
death in a rush for the disco's only exit.
On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to extend our sympathies to
the families and loved ones of all who died. I also wish to offer my
personal condolences to the constituents of Filipino origin living in
my constituency of Parkdale-High Park who may have lost
someone dear to them.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to everybody concerned.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, March 21, is the International Day
for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The nations of the
world must realize how much social and human damage is caused
by racism and segregation, at home as well as elsewhere in the
world.
The global cultural mosaic is enriched by the diversity of the
people who inhabit this planet. We should not let hate and scorn
destroy our social fabric, when our communication technologies
bring us closer and closer with every passing day.
Racial discrimination, however and wherever it is expressed,
must be severely condemned not only by government authorities
around the world, but also by you and me, and anyone who still
dreams of a world where racism will be a thing of the past, lost in
the history of mankind.
* * *
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour for me, as member for Laval West and former Minister of
Canadian Heritage, to stress that this is the Journée internationale
de la Francophonie, which marks the beginning of the Semaine
nationale de la Francophonie.
I often had the opportunity, when visiting French speaking
communities in western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic
provinces, to see that they are dynamic and full of vitality. I also
had the opportunity to talk with many Canadians who speak this
beautiful language and who are proud of the French culture to
which they belong.
I also met many fellow Canadians who adopted French as their
second language. The 1996 edition of the Semaine nationale de la
Francophonie seeks to pay tribute to the valuable contribution
made by French speaking people, both in Canada and around the
world.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when he
delivered his inaugural address at Quebec's socio-economic
summit, the PQ premier said, like the Prime Minister had done a
few weeks earlier, that he was greatly concerned by the issue of job
creation.
The premier invited employers and business leaders to do their
share to help create jobs. He said: ``Employers must agree to
voluntarily develop activity sectors requiring a larger workforce''.
The PQ leader agrees with us that the responsibility for creating
jobs does not rest with the government, but with the private sector.
We are pleased to see that our respective governments came to the
same conclusion as regards job creation.
We take advantage of this summit to remind the Quebec
government that it is in our best interests to work together, in order
to find solutions to the major problems affecting all Canadians and
Quebecers.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, March 21 is officially the first
day of spring. For many it signals the end of a long winter and the
beginning of a beautiful spring and summer. As well it is the
International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Although this date was declared 30 years ago by the United
Nations as a symbol of the worldwide need to end racism, not
enough progress has been made as racial discrimination remains
prevalent within Canadian society. This fact was confirmed by
963
yesterday's report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission
presented by its chief commissioner, Mr. Max Yalden.
Racial discrimination can rear its ugly head in all aspects of
ordinary life: education, employment opportunities, justice, the
workplace and housing to name a few. Nobody is ever born a racist.
It is something that is learned through social interaction.
Hopefully this special day will signal the beginning of a renewed
sense of tolerance within Canada.
_____________________________________________
963
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the human rights commissioner accused the
Liberal government of lacking the courage of its convictions, of
dragging its feet. He even said the government ought to tidy up its
own affairs before preaching to the rest of the world about
respecting human rights. These are extremely serious accusations.
What explanation does the Prime Minister have for the fact that
he has still not kept his promise-despite its being down in black
and white in the red book, that book he is waving in our faces in the
House all the time-to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to
include sexual orientation among the prohibited grounds for
discrimination?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I would point out to the Leader of the
Opposition that his researchers ought to have checked out the red
book, because that is not in it. It is a commitment I made myself
during the election campaign, in a letter, and one I intend to keep.
We have been in government for a scant two years and a half.
This year we passed legislation protecting the rights of the
individual with respect to sexual orientation in the Criminal Code.
A bill was passed and another is in the makings. Its time will come.
It is our intention to keep this promise, which was not in the red
book. As the Prime Minister has promised it, it will be done.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, here we are now with the theory of throwing out crumbs to
the people. ``One crumb now, and perhaps another before the
elections''.
How can the Prime Minister explain the hesitancy of his
Minister of Justice, if not by saying that his own caucus is deeply
divided on this question?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many issues are raised in the House, and each bill is tabled
in its own time. Priorities must be set and our legislative agenda
must be organized.
As I have just said, one bill on the subject has been passed in the
last twelve months. When the time is right, we will be introducing
another in the House. However, in theory, we still have more than
two years, seven months and four days before we have to call an
election.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, that seems a long time to the Prime Minister. He appears
to be counting the days until it is over. We do not want to wait those
two years and some months and some days for an answer. People
are waiting. The human rights commissioner has asked the
government to move quickly on this.
Given that the Prime Minister admits this was one of his
promises, will he make a formal commitment to settle this matter,
not only before the next general election but within a few
months-which may be two ways of saying the same thing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have nothing more to say. I have indicated the
government's position and a bill will be brought to this House
before the next elections.
(1420)
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in its
annual report, the Canadian Human Rights Commission issues a
warning with respect to a Supreme Court ruling that, under certain
circumstances, persons charged with sexual assault should have the
right to consult the therapeutic records of victims.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Given that the Criminal
Code has already been amended to prevent accused from
cross-examining victims on their sexual past, is it not appropriate
to follow this up and bring in legislation making it illegal to consult
the medical and therapeutic records of sexual assault victims?
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for the question. This is an issue that has
come before the courts in a number of court decisions.
The Minister of Justice in his capacity as attorney general has
intervened on these issues. This is a matter now under consultation
and review to see if legislative clarification is needed in light of
Supreme Court decisions on these disclosures.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
talking about decisions already handed down, not those to come.
Since the Minister of Justice always relies on the courts to make the
law for him, does the Prime Minister not think that by holding up
the passage of effective legislation, he is creating a category of
victims that will be forced to choose between disclosing their
964
therapeutic records and accusing their attacker, or keeping their
records confidential and dropping their complaint?
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
indicated, the Minister of Justice continues consultations in this
regard with different individuals and groups interested in this
question.
He is reviewing this for possible legislative change. Certainly it
is a very difficult issue. One must on one hand balance the rights of
the accused to a full answer and defence while on the other hand
ensure victims are properly protected in the trauma of trials they
need to go through.
This is a matter under review. An answer will be forthcoming.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, while federal ministers have been jetting around the
country trying to convince Canadians of the virtues of a $30 billion
deficit, the separatist government in Quebec has embraced the need
for deficit elimination.
Mr. Bouchard is apparently committing himself to eliminating
the provincial deficit by 1999 or earlier, after consultation with
business leaders, labour leaders, federalists and separatists, all of
whom have told him this is necessary for a Quebec economic
recovery.
Will the Prime Minister be convening a get together, a summit
meeting of Canadian economic leaders to establish a firm date and
a plan for eliminating the federal deficit and strengthening the
Canadian economy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a plan in the red book which was approved by the
Canadian people in the last election. We are right on target.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have the spectacle of the federal government's being
now the only senior government left in Canada not committed to
deficit elimination.
This is not just embarrassing to the House, it is a national
disgrace and it is also dangerous to the cause of national unity.
Once again the federal government is letting Quebec separatists get
out in front on an issue, this time fiscal responsibility, which effects
the attractiveness of federalism and national unity.
When will the Prime Minister set a firm date for deficit
elimination? Is he prepared to let this slide and play catch-up with
the separatist Government of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. leader of the third party should read the
newspapers. Since the budget the Minister of Finance produced the
Reform Party has had virtually nothing to say against the budget.
(1425)
The market has reacted very well. Because we are following our
target and not trying to talk about the year 2010 and so on, we have
a goal of 3 per cent for this fiscal year. The interest rate went down
by three points during the last year.
The Minister of Finance had set a target of 2 per cent for the year
before and as usual he will do better than his target.
I think the question of managing the finances of the country is
handled pretty well by this government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am really talking about the connection between the fiscal
position of the Government of Canada and the unity issue. Once
again the Prime Minister is not looking far ahead.
In order to win the next contest with the separatists the federal
government must be, not appear to be, fiscally stronger and more
fiscally responsible than the separatist Government of Quebec. It
should be ahead on deficit elimination, it should be ahead on debt
reduction and it must be ahead on tax relief if it is to win that
contest.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that by dragging his feet on
these three issues he is weakening the federalist position even
before the next contest with the separatists begins?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we were to rely on the leader of the third party to keep
Canada united we would not be very secure.
I am amazed when I listen to the leader of the third party talk
about presenting a budget and meeting our target. We heard some
months ago that the third party was to present its own budget before
ours but it chickened out.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
As confirmed in the Canadian Constitution, we intend to leave manpower
training to the provincial government and to pay for those who will receive this
training without imposing, as Mrs. Harel herself admitted yesterday, any
conditions with respect to the training itself.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to make a commitment in this
House to have the active manpower training measures and the
relevant budgets transferred to Quebec within three months, as
965
requested by Mrs. Harel and all the stakeholders currently gathered
in Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we said, and I said that the funds allocated to manpower
training, earmarked for manpower training, will be transferred to
any provincial government as soon as an agreement can be
negotiated.
Regarding all the active measures developed by the federal
government to create jobs across the country, using the UI fund or
government funds, these are federal programs under the Canadian
Constitution and they will remain under our control. But as far as
manpower training is concerned, I am prepared to sign it over
tomorrow morning. The problem is that, any time we give an inch,
they want a mile.
Just yesterday, the president of the Conseil du patronat, which is
part of the consensus, indicated that the consensus was about
manpower training. We respect the consensus and we are prepared
to transfer responsibility for manpower training to the provinces
tomorrow morning, provided the funds really go to providing
training to the unemployed.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister should be better informed. All morning, participants at the
conference have been saying very clearly that what Quebec is
asking for is control over all active measures. I therefore ask my
question again.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to make a commitment to
recognize the Quebec consensus and negotiate the transfer of all
active manpower training policies and relevant budgets
accordingly?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they might as well ask for the transfer of the UI fund while
they are at it. It is an active measure aimed at the unemployed. As I
said, as far as manpower training is concerned-the bone of
contention that has been used in this House for months now-we
are prepared to transfer the related funds to the provinces, and we
are waiting for them to come forward.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the current environment minister was in
charge of immigration he spent $20,000 of taxpayers' money
producing a booklet that could best be described as the Liberal red
book, part two.
This booklet quotes from the red book on at least 43 separate
occasions and is even entitled ``Creating Opportunity''. The only
difference between this booklet and the red book is that the
taxpayers had to pay for this copy.
Does the Prime Minister believe that having the taxpayers pay
for the red book, part two, is an example of the honesty and
integrity he promised to bring to government in the red book, part
one?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they use the red book in the House of Commons in every
second question. I guess it is a good document.
I have nothing to add to what the minister of immigration said
yesterday about this.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the former minister of immigration produced
this booklet despite objections of the bureaucrats in his department.
It was destroyed by the current minister of immigration because in
her words it was inappropriate.
Will the Prime Minister live up to the promise of the red book,
the original version, and restore a little honesty and integrity to
government by instructing the Liberal Party of Canada to
reimburse Canadian taxpayers for the cost of this Liberal
propaganda exercise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister replied to this question yesterday. When she
joined the department she decided she wanted to change some
policies in the department, as happens when there is a change of
ministers. New ministers approach problems in different fashions.
She made a decision and the decision will stand.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Yesterday, the minister stated in this House that consultations
were under way on the setting of marine service fees. But yesterday
in Montreal, the commissioner of the coast guard was intransigent
in refusing to make any changes to his new proposal.
Since the commissioner showed no intention of listening to the
concerns of St. Lawrence stakeholders and simply defended his
own fee setting plan, does the minister recognize that the
commissioner of the coast guard is not holding a real consultation?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this issue has to be taken in its overall context.
I think everybody in the House would agree this is not a simple
business of deciding on a maritime service fee for all of the
country.
966
There are a number of options. One was to consider a port
specific fee structure, but that would not work. Another was to
consider a national system, but that would not work either.
The system we have now considered in this iteration of the
consultation really looks at three regions: the Pacific, the Atlantic
and the inland and Laurentian region.
If the hon. member says the commissioner of the coast guard was
not responsive to suggestions, I have to remind him that no fewer
than 300 people and parties were listened to. The marine advisory
board has regular consultations with him. He is going on now to do
more iterations and consultations. While he may not have given on
major points yesterday, the purpose of the consultations is to have
one more round before we go into effect.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
minister made a commitment to table impact studies in this House.
At the same meeting in Montreal yesterday, the commissioner of
the coast guard admitted that the studies mentioned by the minister
would not be completed before September, while the new fee
structure would take effect in July.
(1435)
How can the minister justify the coast guard's imminent decision
on the basis of studies that will be carried out after the new fee
structure comes into effect?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not doing anything to contribute
to the ease of the particular system.
When we are dealing with something this controversial and
complex across the country and we want to do it within a
reasonable timeframe, of course there has to be feedback. The
feedback takes place during the process of consultation, as the hon.
member knows. He is smiling at me.
The imposition of the fees we were hoping would be done by
April 1; however, it would appear we will not be able to do it until
June. The $20 million collected on April 1 will now be later than
that and every month that goes by we will have to collect more.
The hon. member is trying to impede the process. He is doing
absolutely nothing to add to the simplicity of imposing these fees
and coming up with an effective system across the country that is
fair and reasonable.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
know the environment minister used public servants and
taxpayers' money to produce 30,000 copies of the Liberal
propaganda aimed at Canadian immigrants. The minister knew
exactly what he was doing when he ordered the documents,
``Creating Opportunity'', the red book sequel. It is the very same
title, if we can imagine.
Not all of these documents were shredded and I offer to table a
copy.
What will the Prime Minister do about this blatant, partisan
misuse of public funds?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just said that when the minister looked at the document
she said it was not to be distributed and she had her own reasons for
doing so.
We are working on a sequel to the red book. It will be ready for
the election and it will again defeat the Reform Party.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
question is who is paying for that red book?
The current minister now knows exactly why she shredded them.
They were nothing more than partisan. Maybe we will at least give
her credit for knowing that it was wrong and that something
smelled about it.
The reasons are not good enough. I ask the minister that she
stand up and answer to it. The former minister knew he was
breaking the rules when he made the document. His departmental
officials told him he was breaking the rules. His cabinet successor
was so concerned about it that she tried to destroy the evidence.
As I said before, not all of the evidence was shredded and I have
a copy which I am willing to table.
Canadians thought this kind of political sleaze belonged only to
Brian Mulroney, but it has hung over to this Parliament.
Which red book should Canadians believe in, the red book that
talks about integrity and honesty in government or the red book
these people shredded to try to avoid a scandal?
The Speaker: Colleagues, some of the adjectives you are using
are getting a little close. I appeal to you to think very clearly before
using strong adjectives, which usually elicit a strong response from
the other side.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to reply to the harsh words of the quasi-leader of
the third party by saying that the government is very proud of its
record of integrity. We have been in government for 27 months and
there have been absolutely no serious accusations made by anyone.
I believe both ministers acted properly in this matter. We can
stand the criticism of a party which has very little to show. It should
put its own house in order first.
967
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Over the last few years, the
federal government has acquired houses in the Oka area, some of
which are illegally occupied by aboriginals. The Minister of Indian
Affairs refuses to pay the hydro bills of these illegally occupied
houses.
(1440)
How can the Prime Minister let his minister drag his feet
concerning the illegal occupation of houses in Oka, particularly in
light of the resulting problems for Hydro-Québec, which wants to
collect the money owed to it?
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question. The allocation of houses to
Mohawks in Kanesatake is going very well. Ten houses are still
occupied illegally. Necessary action was taken and formal notices
were sent to squatters on December 21, 1995.
This is an internal issue which concerns the community itself.
The community has a management housing board which must
make its own decisions.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary says it is an internal problem. In the
meantime however, Hydro-Québec is suffering a loss.
I feel that the government purposely refuses to settle the issue.
Since it is incapable of taking its responsibilities and settling the
issue of illegal occupants in Kanesatake, could the government, as
trustee responsible for aboriginal people and as owner of these
homes, at least pay those hydro bills until the issue is settled?
Hydro-Québec should not have to suffer the consequences of the
federal government's carelessness.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I just said, this is an internal problem which concerns the band in
Kanesatake. In fact, last year the department sent a letter to
Hydro-Québec to advise it that it would stop paying these hydro
bills, because this is an internal issue which must be settled by the
Mohawks themselves.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the recent budget the government announced that it was
going to sell its 13,000 hopper cars. Those are the hopper cars used
to transport Canadian grain to ports.
The statement begs three questions of the Minister of Transport.
First, will the $400 million the hopper cars are worth be realized?
Second, who will be the prospective purchasers? Third, will the
terms of sale protect the farmers in Canada, including those in
Ontario, and will it protect the ports in Vancouver, Prince Rupert,
Thunder Bay and the down river ports of Quebec?
The Speaker: Usually members ask one question and
sometimes slip in two or up to four. Take your pick, two out of the
four.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for that comprehensive question.
As the budget announced, the government is going to sell the
13,000 hopper cars which are owned by the department. Next week
the department will be inviting proposals from potential financial
advisers with knowledge and expertise in both rail financing and
the grain industry who will assist in drafting the terms and
conditions for the transfer and the terms of sale.
When considering proposals I can assure my hon. colleague that
the interests of producers, shippers and the railways will be taken
into account. The objective is to make the most efficient use of
these cars and to achieve maximum benefit for the Canadian
taxpayers.
How much will be achieved in the sale, I cannot at this time
state.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the mysterious
document that the former immigration minister published at
taxpayers' expense and the current immigration minister shredded
to avoid discovery was purely partisan, Liberal Party advertising.
I do not need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very serious
incident. Ministers of the government are not to use public money
for party purposes. Doing so is a gross violation of public trust and
an abuse of the public purse.
Who ordered the printing of the document entitled ``Creating
Opportunity'' and how is the government to be held accountable?
(1445 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the government speaks about its programs they are
of course related to its policies. The government has the programs.
When we say that we have implemented a program and have
informed the people about it, a day does not go by without
somebody getting up in the House and asking me: ``When are you
968
going you do this or that because it was in the red book?'' I always
reply that it is in the red book.
When we say that we are on target for the deficit, it was in the
red book. When we say that we will meet the 3 per cent target of the
red book-
Mr. Harris: What about the GST?
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes, it is partisan when I say
that. It is what I said as the leader of the Liberal Party. I have
repeated it as Prime Minister of Canada and I have done it as Prime
Minister of Canada.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the red book
promised integrity. It promised to get rid of the GST too. The
immigration minister asked for this document to be printed because
he thought it was government policy.
A big question is why the present minister decided it was
inappropriate. The answer is clearly because it is partisan and that
is not acceptable.
Will the Prime Minister show some ethics and solve this
problem by asking for an apology for the Canadian people?
Perhaps the ethics commissioner should be involved here.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a program. The government is implementing that
program, a program that was established by the Liberal Party.
The promises of the Liberal Party have become the promises of
the Liberal government. As a promise of this government it will be
kept. When the government says it has kept its promises it says at
the same that the Liberal Party has kept its promises.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Following the
recent budget, the Minister of Natural Resources advised the board
of directors of the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion, which
runs the tokamak facility for the development of fusion located in
Varennes, that the federal government was cutting off its funding
on March 31, 1997.
Does the minister realize, and I hope she does, that by
withdrawing funding of $7.2 million from the Varennes tokamak,
she will be depriving Quebec of the only major long term energy
research project that might benefit the province?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that difficult
choices have had to be made within all programs and all initiatives
of the government. AECL is no exception. Its budget was reduced
by one-third in the budget the Minister of Finance announced two
weeks ago.
The priority for AECL in the coming years is to develop an
export market for Candu reactors. Difficult choices have to be
made. That is not to suggest this science is not good science. It is
not to suggest that the people who have done it are not good
scientists. It does suggest that in this difficult time choices have to
be made, priorities have to be set and priorities have to be delivered
on.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of financial choices, I wonder about the minister's
financial logic in this case when we know that shutting down
activities at the tokamak facility in Varennes would mean the loss
of 20 years of development in the field of fusion and $70 million in
infrastructures, including $11 million in new equipment that will
never be used, and above all, the loss of approximately one hundred
jobs in the high tech field in Quebec.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I suggested a moment ago, choices have to be
made, priorities have to be set. Fusion is not an energy priority for
the government.
Mr. Bergeron: We've noticed that.
Ms. McLellan: I would like to remind the hon. member that my
department has created a new research facility in Varennes that
delivers on the government's priorities of renewable energy and
energy efficiency.
* * *
(1450 )
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 12,000 people of
Haitian origin live in Papineau-Saint-Michel. Coincidentally the
new minister for spending money in Haiti, Pierre Pettigrew, is
running in the byelection there.
First, Pierre toured Haiti, then he picked up a $24 million tab for
Haitian peacekeeping and spent several million taxpayers' dollars
on aid to Haiti. Now he has arranged for the president of Haiti to
visit Montreal this weekend.
Is the government prepared to tolerate this blatant influence
peddling just to win a single byelection?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very happy that for the first time democracy is
working
969
in Haiti. The president decided to come to Canada. I will be
delighted to receive him in Ottawa Saturday.
We are doing our best to restore good government there. The
United Nations and the United States have asked Canada to take
over the role that the United States had there some months ago. I
am very proud that the people of Canada are willing to help the
poorest people of the world who live in Haiti.
If the president decides to come this weekend, we are not going
to tell him to go back home until after the election. There is no
connection at all.
Mr. Hermanson: Your nose is getting longer.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): There was none.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): There was none. Of course, all
the Reform Party members can ask that question. The people from
Haiti who live in Montreal have the good sense not to vote for the
Reform Party.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the people of
Canada are sick and tired of old line political patronage. Pierre
Pettigrew has done everything except hand out free tickets to
Montreal Canadiens' games in an attempt to win the byelection.
Also very interesting was his decision not to invite the Prime
Minister to visit, but instead concentrate on more locally popular
politicians like the Haitian president.
When the red book talked about governing with integrity, did
that include unelected government ministers having a blank cheque
to influence elections?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to inform the Reform member that the President of
Haiti is taking a trip outside his country. He has decided to visit the
Dominican Republic, the U.S. government in Washington, and the
Canadian government in Ottawa.
He was not likely to alter his itinerary to accommodate the
problems of the Reformers. As I have already said, moreover,
Montrealers of Haitian origin have sufficient judgment not to vote
for the Reform Party, despite its trying every trick in the book to
gain a few political points while dwindling away more each day
from the Canadian political scene.
* * *
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Some time ago now, the special commission on the restructuring
of the reserves released its report.
[English]
Could the minister inform the House what steps, if any, have
been taken to deal with the commission's report?
[Translation]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the regiments,
squadrons and ships of the Reserve Force are very important. They
are a mirror of Canada's history and Canada's values. It is very
important that they be maintained.
[English]
The traditions of our reserve force must be kept. Later this
summer, I shall be reflecting on this matter, on the commission, on
the House report, on the Senate report. In doing so, I should be
mindful that the disbandment of units must be kept to a minimum,
that control of the local armouries must be given back to the militia
units and that there should be more people in the reserve and not
less.
* * *
(1455)
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
their red book the Liberals promised stable multiyear financing for
the CBC. When Mr. Manera was appointed, the Liberals promised
that there would be no more cuts other than those imposed by the
previous government.
On November 22, Mr. Beatty stated that any new cut to the CBC
would lead to a change in its mandate. Well, the budget slashes the
CBC's funding by $150 million.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Given what Mr.
Beatty said in November, is the minister in the process of altering
the CBC's mandate through the budget, that is to say, through the
back door and without public debate?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage says she is about to announce the
creation of a cultural production fund. Does the minister intend to
impose a CBC tax, thus shifting part of the deficit to the taxpayers
and making them pay twice for the same service?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
970
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Canadian Heritage upheld the CRTC's direct to
home satellite policy which is so anti-competitive that not even the
Prime Minister's son-in-law could make it work.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask members to please stay directly on
the issues and go to the administrative responsibility of whatever
minister is involved rather than going off on side issues. I would
ask the hon. member to do that.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): This dramatic flip-flop occurred
right after Power DirecTv decided that it wanted to throw in the
towel.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. What happened to
the Liberal government's policy of competition in the direct to
home industry?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the
member of the Reform Party has the gall to stand up and ask that
question in the House when the government, in previously
amending the Broadcasting Act, suffered such derision from the
Reform Party. If the member wants to talk about flip-flops, the
flip-flops are on that side of the House.
At the moment two companies are licensed to offer direct to
home, Power Corporation being one of them. A third company is
ready to come into the arena very soon.
In not turning back the decision of the CRTC, the government
believed, as the CRTC believed, that the people who are currently
receiving cable in their homes should not have to subsidize the cost
of the high technology of the new direct to home instruments.
Current television users should not be subsidizing technologies that
may be coming in. It should be paid for by the people who want to
bring in that technology.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that answer
just is not good enough. Competition in this country is being
thwarted and stopped by that government policy. It has to change.
Other people support that position such as the Friends of
Canadian Broadcasting. The British and Australian governments
have made representations to the government saying that the
current policy should change. The International Federation of Film
Producers has threatened to take Canada to the World Trade
Organization because of this type of attitude. Also some Canadians
do not agree.
The government knows of these objections. Why is it continuing
a policy that was brought about by the CRTC?
(1500 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, part of our mandate as the
Government of Canada is to defend Canadian consumers and not to
defend American television producers and British and Australians
who may be making representations.
In fact there are currently two companies that have an intention
to proceed, including Expressvu and the Power Corporation. There
is a third company that has just recently received a letter from the
CRTC to hear its application.
The message of the CRTC is that Canadians who are currently
watching television on cable lines they have paid for through their
cable subscriptions should not have to cross-subsidize satellite
television. If you want satellite technology, you pay for it.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, gay, lesbian and bisexual people in Canada are getting
very tired of waiting for equal rights, not special rights. They are
told that this government is saying that our rights are not a priority
any longer.
Is it clearly the commitment of the Prime Minister that a bill will
be introduced and passed in this Parliament before the next
election? This would keep the promise the Prime Minister made in
writing in July 1993 which I quote: ``The Liberal Party of Canada is
firmly committed to banning discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation''. Is that clearly the commitment of this Prime Minister
in this Parliament?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member had been in the House at the beginning
of question period, I replied to that question. I said a bill will be
introduced. We passed legislation on that matter in relation to the
Criminal Code a few months ago. The bill amending the human
rights act will come eventually but not at this moment because we
have other priorities. It is part of the program. We have passed one
bill already and the other one will come in due course.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning the
Globe and Mail reported that the major banks
intend to continue their plans to expand their insurance business
and sell insurance directly to consumers even though the finance
971
minister said that the existing restrictions on banks selling
insurance would be retained.
Would the secretary of state for financial institutions explain to
the House what steps the government is taking to maintain the
existing restrictions on the sale of insurance by banks?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's
position is quite clear. In the recent budget the finance minister said
that the present restrictions on the banks networking insurance will
be maintained.
The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce or any other bank
cannot sell insurance to the customers in their branches. That is
what the restriction means. They can and do own insurance
companies who can sell insurance in other ways, in other places.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I have a point of order from the
government whip. It is the first notification I have.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, you will no doubt recall that during question period the
hon. member for Red Deer, I believe in a question accused another
member of this House of influence peddling. Influence peddling is
a serious accusation in the Criminal Code. That kind of accusation I
suggest cannot be made directly or indirectly in the House.
Citation 481(e) of Beauchesne indicates that a bad motive cannot
be imputed to another member. Citation 487(1) indicates that
threatening language is inappropriate. Citation 487(2) says that
indirect accusations are just as inappropriate as if they were made
directly.
This language must be withdrawn. It is not appropriate for such
language to be used on the floor of the House against any member.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind
the hon. party whip that the person I suggested was doing this is not
a member of this House. As he is not a member of this House, I
would assume then that the rules of this House do not apply.
(1505 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, as I mentioned earlier in our debate, I
would ask you to be very cognizant of the words that you use in this
House. Both in the questions and in the answers some words tend to
be more inflammatory.
I listened to the debates. It was my perception at least with the
use of the words ``influence peddling'', if they were directed at a
sitting member of Parliament, surely they would be
unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. I go beyond that. I
would ask that in the use of these words that they be not used in a
very loose fashion.
I will take it upon myself to get the precise meaning by looking
over the ``blues'' and the use of these two words ``influence
peddling''. I will come back to the House and make a further
decision or a further comment if it is needed.
I have another point of order from the hon. member for Beaver
River.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
regarding question period as well, in my question for the Prime
Minister I said that his Liberal government was imitating the
political sleaze of Brian Mulroney. You got up and said that I
should not be using derogatory adjectives and I certainly would not
think of doing that. The word ``sleaze'' is a noun.
Further to that I also said that I would like to-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Grey: We can consider that one for the Beave, right?
Mr. Speaker, I offered to table at least one copy of the document
by the former minister that was not shredded. It is called ``Creating
Opportunity: Fulfilling the Promise of Immigration and
Citizenship''.
I would like to seek unanimous consent to table it so that one of
the unshredded copies will be kept forever more.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, one or two weeks ago, did you not rule
that we could table anything in this House without unanimous
consent?
The Speaker: I hope I did not because I would have to eat crow
right now.
A private member may have something tabled in the House with
unanimous consent. With a minister it is a little bit different. I
know that is the clarification the hon. member wanted.
_____________________________________________
971
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
972
both official languages, the government's response to one petition
presented during the first session.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): On
March 20, all French speaking countries around the world celebrate
the Journée internationale de la Francophonie.
(1510)
On behalf of the minister responsible for the francophonie, who
will be with us in this House next week, I am pleased to mark this
event.
Canada's involvement in the francophonie is a an essential
element of its foreign policy.
The francophonie is a forum in which all Canadians, and
especially our 8.5 million francophones, can affirm their sense of
belonging and develop their culture. It is also a forum that
highlights the solidarity between the 49 member states and
governments.
At the francophonie summit in Benin last December, the Prime
Minister outlined Canada's priorities within this forum for the next
few years. First, consolidate francophone institutions. Second,
define the francophonie's policy on conflict prevention.
In this context, I want to acknowledge two actions recently taken
by Canada. At the Bordeaux conference, Mr. Pettigrew's proposal
to create consultation committees on Burundi-a country ravaged
by civil war-was approved in order to bring back peace.
Also, as a result of the work done by the Association des
parlementaires de langue française in Haiti, my government made a
commitment to maintain a peacekeeping force in that impoverished
country. It was a difficult situation, but Canada has remained
steadfast in its solidarity.
The Prime Minister, the Minister for International Co-operation
and myself will have the honour of welcoming President Préval to
Canada later this week.
Finally, as a third priority, Canada wants to put the francophonie
on the electronic highway. Its access to and presence on the Internet
are an essential part of keeping French alive and well in growth
industries.
Canada is in the vanguard of new communication technologies.
That is why we will host a conference on this subject very soon.
Finally, I would like to say a few words on the francophonie's
huge impact within our borders.
Like their counterparts in many French speaking countries,
French-Canadians speak the same language but with different
accents.
I am thinking, of course, about Quebecers, who set the tone for
our French culture. I am also thinking about the Acadian and other
francophone communities across Canada who, by deciding every
day to speak French, give the Canadian francophonie its full
significance.
I am proud to say that the legislature in my province of Manitoba
will soon inaugurate a monument in honour of Louis Riel, which
recognizes the legacy of those men and women who were leaders of
the Canadian francophonie. They are still inspiring us today.
I wish all French speaking nations and all francophiles in our
country a great Journée internationale de la Francophonie.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
with great honour and pride that I rise today on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois to draw attention to the Journée internationale de la
Francophonie.
This day is especially important for all Quebecers and all
francophones in the rest of Canada, whose collective future is
necessarily tied to that of la Francophonie as a whole.
Listening to the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us proudly that
8.5 million Canadians are French-speaking, I could not help but
reflect on the sad situation in which francophones outside Quebec
find themselves.
If today we are celebrating this memorable day, this does not
necessarily mean that we must ignore the bad position the French
language is in everywhere else in Canada. Contrary to what the
Prime Minister said, there are no longer one million Canadians
outside Quebec for whom French is the language spoken at home,
but only 640,000.
(1515)
In actual fact, there are not 8.5 million people in Canada who
still speak French at home, but only 6.3 million. That is 2.2 million
fewer than suggested by the minister, if you exclude those who
barely know the language.
In relation to the total population, this also represents a decrease
in the francophone population in Canada as compared to 1981.
Instead of getting better, the situation of the French language
outside Quebec is deteriorating. No wonder that the minister is
trying to embellish reality, when in fact francophones outside
Quebec are being assimilated at an increasing rate. The rate of
assimilation is even as high as 75 per cent in British Columbia. We
are pleased-
An hon. member: It can't be soon enough.
973
Mr. Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I must tell you that I just heard
one of our friends from the Reform Party make a rather
uncalled-for remark to the effect that it cannot be soon enough,
that 75 per cent is not enough.
We are pleased to learn that a monument in honour of Louis Riel
will soon be unveiled in the minister's home province. One can
wonder however if the importance attached to la Francophonie by
the government in that province is not limited to just that,
monuments.
In Manitoba, the rate of assimilation of francophones is 50 per
cent. The minister should not be proud, he should be ashamed.
More than 25 years of official bilingualism did not stop the
assimilation of French speaking people outside Quebec. As well,
there is no indication that, in Quebec, the relative percentage of
French speaking people will be maintained. The irresistible
attractive force of English in North America weighs more heavily
than the progress made by the French language among allophone
communities.
Moreover, the use of French in the scientific field is very
problematic. Scientific research at the international level is done in
English. No one can deny that. Indeed, English is by far the
dominant language within the scientific community.
Nevertheless, this does not keep us from hoping that French will
eventually be used more in the field of science. This is why we
must increase our efforts to ensure that our scientists can spread the
achievements of the Quebec and French speaking scientific
community throughout the world.
Our researchers obviously have a responsibility to teach and to
work in French.
As for the information highway, we are pleased that both the
Quebec and the Canadian governments intend to be very active
regarding French content. Let us hope that the Cotonou summit, in
Benin, will have definitely put the French speaking world on the
information highway.
Finally, French speaking states must also try to stop the erosion
of the French language within international organizations. The
challenge is, of course, to avoid letting English truly become the
only language of communication at international forums.
In concluding, I would like to emphasize the urgent need for
solidarity between Quebec, francophones in Canada and other
French speaking nations around the world.
Our commitment in Haiti is a step in this direction and is to be
commended.
Finally, I wish to point out that Quebec's sovereignty is now
more obvious than ever to other countries in the Francophonie.
There is no doubt that francophone countries have understood that
the situation has evolved and that sovereignty is now only a
question of time.
The close results in the last referendum have given additional
moral weight to Quebec, the weight of a state that will soon
become sovereign. Quebec will therefore play an increasingly
important role in the international Francophonie. It has,
furthermore, been named rapporteur for the Francophonie until the
summit to be held in Hanoi, Vietnam, in 1997.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish a memorable day to all
those who cherish this beautiful language.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, before I start
my response, it is our position that we examine our membership in
all organizations and certainly the francophonie is one of those.
I have listened to the minister say many wonderful things about
the francophonie. I hope the minister's optimism is justified but I
certainly have some doubts. My doubts really started last year
during the francophonie conference in Benin when the member
countries failed to condemn dictators as the Commonwealth had
done during the meeting in New Zealand. Nigeria had been
expelled from the Commonwealth because of its abusive
government. This was action, not like what we saw in Benin.
At the Benin conference there was no action. There were not
even strong words for the dictators of the world, some of whom are
members of the francophonie. This made me wonder what this
organization really does. Is there ever productive action or just an
endless series of conferences that provides good photo
opportunities for politicians? Is the francophonie about unveiling
statutes and making warm, fuzzy speeches when it should really be
getting things done? Is that not what international organizations are
supposed to do?
(1520)
Canada spends millions of dollars every year on the
francophonie, but where was the francophonie when it came time
to bail out Haiti, one of its members? Again there was no action.
Instead Canadian taxpayers had to open their wallets to save the
day. Why?
When the minister talks about the upcoming visit of the Haitian
president to Montreal, I am surprised he can talk about it with a
straight face. On the final weekend before the byelection in the
riding with the highest concentration of people of Haitian origin,
can the minister really pretend this has something to do with
francophonie solidarity? It is about getting Pierre Pettigrew
elected, plain and simple.
In the future the francophonie must shed its current image of an
expensive forum where dictators mix with democrats to have
974
banquets and stage photo opportunities. This does nothing for the
citizens of the member countries.
There are many poor people who live under repressive regimes
and they deserve to have the francophonie working for their
interests. These people need action, not meetings, discussions and
political rhetoric. If the francophonie can provide this action, good,
but the time for change is now, not five or ten years from now.
Being a forum for solidarity is no longer enough. The
francophonie must become a functional tool to strongly press for
democracy, peace and human rights.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I could have the
unanimous consent of the House to respond on behalf of the NDP
to the minister's statement.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of
the New Democratic Party to the statement by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs. I would like to add my own best wishes to the
francophones in Canada and around the world on the occasion of
this Journée internationale de la Francophonie.
In the new world order, or more accurately the new world
disorder, feelings of solidarity, of shared roots, of world citizenship
have given way to relationships that are purely commercial. In that
context it is most timely to celebrate international ties between
cultural and linguistic communities such as those developed by the
French speaking countries and communities. In our market driven
world, we should cultivate communities, and the francophone
world community helps us in that vital task.
[English]
Like the Commonwealth, the francophonie can and does play an
important role not only in the cultural development of member
states but also in their political development. Canadians look to the
francophonie, like they do to the Commonwealth, as an agency that
can play a creative and positive role in the challenging task of
building an international community in which basic human and
democratic rights are respected everywhere.
However, the francophonie has a way to go before it fulfils that
kind of role in the way the Commonwealth has in the past, for
instance with respect to South Africa. I share the urgings of a
previous speaker that the francophonie needs to take a stronger
stand with respect to human rights in its member states.
The minister mentioned Louis Riel. As a Manitoban I second his
sentiments that a francophone was the founder of our province. The
francophone parish, the parish of Notre-Dame-de-l'Assomption,
was a founding element of the community I come from, Transcona.
(1525 )
In 1911 it was francophones from St. Boniface and from Quebec
who came to Transcona and helped found the community. They are
a vital part of it today. Their school formed the nucleus around
which a very successful French immersion program was built in
Transcona. It created an opportunity to learn French and also the
French culture because it was an institution that grew out of the
French speaking community in Transcona.
[Translation]
Allow me to again express my best wishes to all of the
francophones of Canada, the francophones of Quebec, the
Acadians, the Franco-Manitobans in my own riding of Winnipeg,
and all other French speaking Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of various committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the ninth report later this day.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-240, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child
care expense).
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table this bill in the
House today, which proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to
convert the child care expense deduction to a tax credit and to
extend the same value of tax benefit to those who provide care in
the home to their preschool children.
The bill will also recognize the honourable profession of
managing the family home and caring for preschool children and
eliminate in part the tax discrimination against families that make
the choice to stay together and to provide direct parental care.
The bill represents not only a starting point but I believe a
turning point whereby family values return to be a significant
priority in this place.
If the family were strong, the deficit would be gone.
975
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-241, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (punishment for subsequent and serious personal injury
offence).
He said: Madam Speaker, it is snowing today in Ottawa but the
daffodils are up in my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby and
we have some here today supplied by the radio station CKMW
from my riding.
It is a pleasure to introduce the bill to the House. Too often
following a serious crime we learn the offender has a long criminal
record. We need some common sense crime prevention. This bill
would imprison an offender for an indeterminate period of time
should they be convicted of a second serious personal injury
offence.
At first glance opponents of the bill say it resembles the three
strikes and you are out laws currently be used in several U.S. states.
However, this bill avoids the shortcomings of the American model.
Stealing a pizza or painting one's name on a bridge or even writing
a bad cheque, although hurtful and socially disruptive, are not
examples of a serious personal injury offence as defined in the
Criminal Code.
(1530 )
This amendment would operationalize the existing Criminal
Code sections and protect the community from the few offenders
who are causing the majority of serious crimes and who are
unwilling to reform.
The way the law currently stands there is little deterrence for
repeat offenders who commit serious personal injury offences. This
bill goes to the source of the problem for the safety of the public.
Most important, it places the victim's concerns before those of the
offender.
I encourage all members to support this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-242, an act to amend the Divorce Act
(joint custody).
He said: Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank my hon.
colleague from Athabasca for seconding this bill.
The Divorce Act is discriminatory. It leaves non-custodial
parents, usually fathers, out in the cold. I know some very good
fathers who always pay child support but can no longer afford to
see their children because their mothers have taken them to live a
considerable distance away.
Statistics show a direct correlation between access and
non-compliance. Non-custodial parents who get to see their
children are more likely to make their payments. However, custody
now goes to one parent unless an application for joint custody is
made. It should be the reverse.
Joint custody of and access to one's children should be automatic
unless it is not in the children's bests interests. Today I am tabling a
bill to amend the act to make joint custody automatic.
The recent controversy over child support payment taxation
should not detract from the most important issue to children. In
most cases that issue is not dollars and cents but guaranteed access
to both parents.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
if the House gives its consent, I move that the ninth report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have a second motion. If the House gives its unanimous consent, I
move:
That, the following change be made to the membership of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Pagtakhan for Bélanger.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
a group of seniors in my riding call on the government to ensure
that reforms of seniors' benefits be consistent with the historic
commitment of the Liberal Party to elderly Canadians.
976
The petitioners want adequate income, appropriate health care
and affordable housing. I believe they reflect the opinion of most
seniors in Canada.
(1535 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present
today. The first petition is from Airdrie, Alberta.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families who make the choice to provide care in the home to
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition is from Burnaby, B.C.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I have a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 to
present from my constituents in the Kerrobert community and
Luseland area. It was circulated prior to the budget.
It calls on the federal government to recognize that Canadians
are paying approximately 52 per cent of the cost of a litre of
gasoline at the pumps in the form of government taxes. The
petitioners do not want to see an increase in taxes in the federal
budget because of this high tax. I am happy to present this petition
on behalf of my constituents.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
in accordance with Standing Order 36 to present a further 2,400
names to the much larger petition asking Parliament not to increase
the excise tax on gasoline.
I realize it is irrelevant to the recent budget, but certainly
relevant to next year's budget. I am pleased to present them.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by
numerous constituents of my riding of Tamil descent. They ask the
Government of Canada to take an active role in bringing an end to
the turmoil and atrocities from all sides that are currently taking
place in Sri Lanka.
The petitioners ask us to assist to bring an immediate ceasefire
and peace with justice in that part of the world.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a
petition from my constituents of New Westminster-Burnaby.
I am pleased to point out that their diligent effort has paid off.
These petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline and strongly consider reallocating its current
revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling national highways.
[Translation]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have here a petition signed by people in Quebec who call
upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to ensure the right of
all Canadians to die with dignity by allowing people with terminal
or irreversible and debilitating illnesses the right to the assistance
of a physician in ending their lives at a time of their choice, subject
to strict safeguards to prevent abuse, and to ensure that the decision
is free, informed, competent and voluntary.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have a second petition that is signed by residents of
Manitoba and British Columbia which notes that the charter of
rights and freedoms guarantees that everyone has the right to
protection against discrimination and that the Government of
Canada has recognized that this includes discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on
sexual orientation.
977
(1540 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Shall all
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Shall that
agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I wish to
inform the House that because of the ministerial statement
Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes.
Since today is the last allotted day for the supply period ending
March 31, 1996, the House will now proceed as usual to
consideration of supply bills. As is our custom, do hon. members
agree that this bill should be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
977
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the GST should be ``killed, scrapped,
abolished''.
He said: Madam Speaker, Canadians have been waiting a long
time to hear this debate in this place. After all, the promise to scrap,
axe and abolish the GST was one that the Prime Minister, the
Deputy Prime Minister and the finance minister made at various
times over the last several years and of course during the election
campaign.
After over two years into the mandate of the government, it is
more than past time to have this debate. Sadly it is a debate that has
to come from the opposition rather than the government which was
proposing it during the election campaign.
It was a major campaign promise. In fact, I would argue that it
was probably the most important promise that the government
made during the 1993 election campaign. Some members across
the way who were on doorsteps throughout this country told
Canadians face to face that should the Liberals assume power the
GST would be history, that it would be gone.
I am not going to make an elaborate argument against the GST. I
do not think I have to. Government members have already made
the argument for me. They made the argument during the election
campaign and even since then.
I would like to run through a chronology of the different quotes
that have been dug up from various members opposite to
demonstrate there is a huge weight of evidence that the government
did promise to abolish, to axe, to scrap, to get rid of, the GST.
Today it is fudging on that promise.
By the way, Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the
hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound.
I would like to go back into the public record and point out to the
House what was said by hon. members on the Liberal side in the
lead-up to the last election campaign and let Canadians judge for
themselves and hopefully remind the Liberals and perhaps tweak
consciences a bit so that when it comes time to vote they will vote
for their constituents instead of voting for the party whip.
Let us go back to 1990. This was in the wake of the GST being
brought in by the previous Tory government which had its own
undemocratic ways about jamming bills through. I will go back to
the Edmonton Journal of March 6, 1990 for the first in a long series
of quotes that I am going to use this afternoon.
(1545 )
The Liberal Party would scrap the GST, the current Minister of
Human Resources Development pledged in a nationally televised
debate with former finance minister Michael Wilson in March,
1990: ``The goods and services tax is a regressive tax. It has to be
scrapped and we will scrap it''.
Let us go to the Windsor Star of November 9, 1990. This is a
quote by the current Liberal House leader: ``Not only do the
Liberals oppose the GST now, that opposition will continue even if
the bill is passed. We are not interested in tinkering with the GST.
We do not want it at all''.
From an April 4, 1990 article in the Montreal Gazette: ``I would
abolish the GST''. That was stated by the current finance minister.
The current Prime Minister of Canada said in the Montreal Gazette
of September 27, 1990: ``I want the tax dead''.
978
Let us look at the chronology to see how things change over
the course of years. Let us go to the Ottawa Citizen, February 11,
1991: ``I say we will replace the tax. This is a commitment. You
judge me by that''. These are the words of the Prime Minister.
The words are starting to change.
From the Toronto Star, November 7, 1991:
`Some senators are confused and upset by [the Prime Minister's] inability to
consistently say that a Liberal government will scrap the GST', a senior Liberal
source said yesterday.
[The current Prime Minister] was accused of flip-flopping after he backed
away from a promise to abolish the GST on Monday, saying the tax would be
`fundamentally changed' under a Liberal government. On Tuesday [the Prime
Minister] was back saying he would scrap the tax after the 88,000 member
Canadian Federation of Independent Business released a critical report on the
GST.
I have dozens and dozens of quotes. I will obviously have to
abbreviate them to get through my entire presentation. Let us skip
ahead to the 1993 election year. Here is an interesting quote from
the Toronto
Star, February 12, 1993: ``The Liberal leader says it
could be 1995 before he decides how to keep his promise to scrap
and replace the goods and services tax''. We certainly wish it would
have happened in 1995 but 1995 has come and gone.
I think a lot of people will remember this quote from 1993, one
week before the election. I know the member across the way will
remember this one because these are words that live in infamy in
the world of the Liberals. This is from the current Deputy Prime
Minister appearing on a CBC electronic town hall meeting one
week before the election: ``If the GST is not abolished under a
Liberal government I will resign''.
She said ``abolished''. As the hon. member for York
South-Weston has been fond of pointing out about his own
government, abolish is not synonymous with harmonize, which is
what the Liberals are trying to convince Canadians they were
saying during the election campaign. However, that is not the case
and Canadians know better.
I want to fast forward a little now to 1994 and then ultimately to
1995 and 1996. Here is what the Victoria Times Colonist said on
May 18, 1994:
The federal government will replace the hated GST within two years [the
current Prime Minister] pledged Thursday.
Revenue minister-predicts that voters will punish any provincial
government that fails to merge its sales tax with a revamped goods and services
tax.
``Revamped''? That sounds suspiciously like tinkering with the worst tax
ever imposed on Canadians instead of trashing it. If the voters are going to
punish any government, it will be the federal Liberals for failing to deliver on a
clear, specific election promise.
In fact, when [the current Prime Minister] was trying to entice Canadians into
making him prime minister, he said it was the only specific promise he was
making.
(1550 )
The weight of evidence is overwhelming and in the court of
public opinion Canadians are not only trying this government, they
are convicting it. I think they will mete out a very harsh penalty at
the next election.
Let us go to the Ottawa Citizen, August 10, 1995: ``The hated
GST will be replaced with a new national sales tax in next year's
federal budget, the Prime Minister promised Wednesday''.
From the same day, an interesting quote from the hon. member
for Mississauga West: ``I think the GST is going to become a hot
point. I think if we do not do something about it our credibility is
gone. People in my riding hate the GST. It is not like one of those
mild we do not like it, they hate it. If the GST is merged with
provincial sales taxes voters will not be satisfied unless the overall
tax take is simultaneously reduced. You cannot just do a little paper
switch or move the shell and hide the peanut''.
I think that is a wonderful quote and I think it is a perfect
analysis of the situation.
Here is an interesting quote from the Ottawa Sun: ``In 1993 the
Liberals promised to scrap the Tories' hated GST but so far have
not kept their word. That broken promise, stressed the member for
Broadwood-Greenwood, is going to come back to haunt them in
an election expected next year. It is one word. It is trust''.
The hon. member for York South-Weston said: ``I hope we do
not try to hoodwink people into thinking our commitment was
contingent on the provinces agreeing to harmonize their taxes with
the GST''. That came from a Liberal member, a member who went
to doorsteps along with all the other members across the way trying
to convince Canadians that if they voted Liberal they would get rid
of the GST.
Now we have some members who are feeling their conscience.
They are coming forward to the media and urging their party that
the GST must be scrapped, abolished, axed, as they said it should
be during the election campaign. Now we are starting finally to get
some debate about that in the House thanks to the Reform Party
because obviously the Liberals have not brought this forward to
this point and it is not in their interest to do it.
This vote is a chance for Liberal members across the way to
throw off the fetters of party discipline, to vote with their
constituents and to finally fulfil their promise to get rid of the GST.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this is a very
important debate. It has transfixed the Canadian public since the
previous Conservative prime minister, without consultation with
the Canadian public, brought in the tax and barrelled it through the
979
House of Commons. Clearly there are many of us on this side who
understand the veracity of opinion with respect to this tax.
As the hon. member opposite selectively quotes, I remember
quite clearly in the red book and during the election campaign we
as a party in waiting, one that was soon to have been given the trust
of the Canadian public, made it extremely and exceptionally clear
what our platform was.
Rather than having to wait until opposition members with
selective memories misquoted us, we put down in writing, in black
and white, what our policies were.
With respect to the GST we had said in opposition that it was the
wrong tax at the wrong time. At that point it was the wrong tax, it
was the wrong time and it aided and abetted in the deepening of a
recession caused by the previous government's misguided
economic policies.
At the time of the election it was very clear to us that we would
be faced with an enormous task to try to balance the books, to try to
put our fiscal house in order. What we said at the time in the red
book, in black and white, is that this government would get rid of
the GST and that we would replace it with a taxation system which
was easier to administer, fairer to small businesses and which took
in the same amount of revenue.
I know my hon. colleague from the Reform Party is an avid
reader. He quotes the red book often. It is one of his favourite
pieces of reading material.
(1555)
Would his party support today the abolition of the GST if it knew
it would lead to a $17 billion increase in the deficit? If not, would
he specifically tell us which programs would be cut which would
amount to that $17 billion? Which social programs would be laid to
waste? Which transfer programs would he and his party cancel?
What would be the impact of those program cancellations be to, for
instance, the people of Labrador who are in the middle of an
election campaign and who are wondering which party better
represents the future for the people of that riding?
Mr. Solberg: Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises a number
of issues. Let me underline that the confusion about what the
Liberals said is apparent in his own party. I have quoted things
which several Liberal members have said in the last couple of
months. These are people who campaigned door to door under the
impression that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and
the finance minister meant what they said and intended to do what
they said. Obviously they feel they have been let down.
The hon. member raised a good question. What would the
Reform Party do? The Reform Party would wipe out the deficit and
eliminate the GST in stages, unlike the government which is
leaving a $17 billion deficit out there. The only thing that can
happen when we have a deficit that large is that the government
would move toward eliminating all kinds of services to seniors. It
is talking about making more cuts to social programs, which it said
during the election campaign it would never touch.
We see more broken promises. Quite frankly, we are seeing
hypocrisy from that side equalled only by the government before it.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, Reformers do not really know how the Liberals can or will
deliver on their red book promise to scrap the GST. However, it is
their problem, not ours.
I remember vividly discussions about the strategy which Reform
should follow during the election campaign. The suggestion came
up that the idea of scrapping the GST is very popular; it would gain
us lots of votes. However, cooler rational heads prevailed and said
we could never deliver on that. It is not responsible to go to the
people of Canada during an election campaign and say we will get
rid of tax revenue worth $17 billion when the country is going
bankrupt. Appropriately, we did the responsible thing and said we
would eliminate the GST, as the people of Canada want, once the
budget was balanced.
The difficulties in which the Liberals find themselves could not
have happened to nicer guys.
I will address a question which has not been raised. The defence
on the other side is: ``We did not say we would get rid of it; we said
we would replace it with something else. We would harmonize it''.
Harmonizing sounds like a good and interesting idea. However, it
does not meet the requirements I believe the people of Canada have
for a taxation system.
The general idea of a value added tax is supported widely in
academic circles. It is a tax which encourages savings and
investment. At a low tax rate it would not be too onerous and it
would catch people in the underground economy who do not pay
taxes. Whenever they spent their money, they would end up paying
taxes.
(1600 )
The political process so destroyed the basic idea of a value added
tax that it is appropriate it is not called a VAT like in Europe, but
that it is called the GST. It is ironic that the cause for this
abomination, the GST, this caricature of a value added tax was
caused by the Liberal opposition members who sat on this side of
the House. I have heard it told repeatedly how it all came about.
In a heated attack by the rat pack, the Minister of Finance of the
day, Michael Wilson, without thinking through what he did, gave in
to the incessant demands that at least food should be exempted
from the value added tax. All the experts who have studied the
history of the tax have told us that from that moment on we ended
up not having a good GST, not a good value added tax. We ended
up with the current abomination because he opened the floodgates
980
on exemptions which resulted in all kinds of difficulties which now
exist. It is they who made it such a hated tax.
I sat through many, many weeks of hearings. Nearly a thousand
witnesses told us what an abomination this tax is. Some episodes of
how terrible a tax it is stand out in my mind. These difficulties will
not be eliminated by harmonization; they will be aggravated.
The most memorable event was when a gentleman came to
testify before the finance committee with a shopping bag full of
cancelled receipts from his store. He runs a used goods store in
Toronto. His business had shrunk by over one-half. He said:
``People see a price of $100 on a used refrigerator. They say that is
what they want and to ring up the sale on the cash register. The
sales attendant hands a bill of $107 to the individual who says that
he wants it for $100. We tell the customer there is GST on it. After
a long debate which really irritated and made all the customers in
the store mad, the individual gave up and said to cancel the sale and
take back the refrigerator''.
It was a most dramatic representation. The store owner said it
was not an isolated incident. The receipts he had in the bag all had
been cancelled within six weeks. He said: ``It has been going on
like this. My business is being wiped out. Where do these people
go? They go next door, to smaller stores, to entrepreneurs who are
less honest than I am and they end up not paying the GST''. This is
just one example.
We remember the difficulties of paying GST when we buy five
muffins but not if we buy six. There were representations from
restaurant owners who told us they cannot stand the competition.
When they sell a pizza they have to charge GST on it. However,
someone can go next door to a supermarket where the pizza is all
made for them and all they have to do is pop it into an oven and
they do not have to pay GST. That is highly unfair.
There are other things that are not very well known. The
municipal sector is given special treatment. That sector does not
have to pay GST. Fine, but consider that it has been found that
some functions carried out by municipal workers can be achieved
more efficiently and cheaply by contracting to the private sector.
Lo and behold, when municipal employees collect the garbage
there is no GST but when it is contracted out, there is GST. There is
a tax on privatization. Is this right? This is highly inefficient.
(1605)
We heard horror stories about the way in which the GST
encourages the underground economy. Many conferences have
been held and papers have been written on this subject. There are
stories.
We hear about people who order a wing built on their house.
They are given two prices, one with GST and one without. They
can pay by cheque if they wish or alternatively, they can pay by
cash which will cost 7 per cent less. As we heard again and again in
the finance committee, the people who offer these dealings not only
fail to pay the GST, but they probably do not report the income
from their work either.
We heard horrible stories about businesses being affected by a
strange ruling. Natives are not subject to the GST. A store located
outside the border of a reserve used to be quite profitable selling
candy to children from the native reserve. It was doing fine, thank
you. Children coming home from playing baseball would buy
candy. Now the store is not able to compete any more. Somebody
has opened a store on the other side of the border and does not pay
any GST.
To summarize my point, the government is holding out the hope
that all the difficulties existing with the GST, which the people hate
so much and which we heard so much about in the finance
committee, can be wiped out by harmonization. That is not going to
be possible because of the abomination of having so many different
exemptions to the tax. It is a terrible tax that cannot be saved. That
is the conviction I have reached.
I therefore move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the word ``should''.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The
amendment is in order. On questions or comments, the hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am really baffled. It used to be
said about communists that the hardest thing about being a
communist was predicting the past because of revisionist history. I
see this going on in the Reform Party. It is incredible.
(1610 )
In 1990 the hon. leader of the Reform Party said that his party
would repeal the GST. In 1991 he reversed and said that it could not
be repealed immediately because that would increase the deficit. In
1992 his party changed its position again, that it would reduce the
GST but in stages and after the budget was balanced.
In 1994 in a minority report appended to the finance committee's
report on the GST, the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound
said: ``We commend the government on its attempt to harmonize
the tax with the provinces. While we support the much needed
harmonization, this would be a very difficult political objective to
achieve''. I recall he offered his help to achieve that.
Now there is a motion that states we should scrap it, end it,
abolish it. We had a Reform Party alternate budget last year but
981
there is no Reform alternate budget this year. There is no provision
for replacing the revenue from the GST that would not come after
scrapping it.
I ask the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound, what is the
position of the Reform Party today on the GST? What will it be
tomorrow, the day after and the day after that? We have been
through five different versions.
Further, would the member explain what was meant in last year's
minority report when he and his party said: ``We believe that a
broadening of the tax base would address many concerns placed
before the committee. That would also require an increase of the
current GST rebate''. He was clearly willing to talk about a
broadening of the base to get a lower rate, including food, drugs, all
manner of things.
Mr. Grubel: Madam Speaker, at stake today is not the Reform
position on the GST. At stake today are promises made during the
election campaign which were very influential. When knocking on
doors I heard all the time: ``Why are you not promising to eliminate
the GST? Why are you not doing this?'' I said that we could not do
so responsibly. People said that nevertheless they would vote for
the people who would get rid of it. I won in my riding but I wonder in how many ridings the Liberals squeaked by, especially in Ontario, because they made this promise which they knew they could not keep. That is the issue. It is not an issue of how we m
Co-operative as we are with the finance committee, we are trying
to understand what is best for Canada given what we have known
all along but what the Liberals had denied during the election
campaign: We cannot get rid of the GST but how can we make it
better? Harmonization will be better but it will not solve the
fundamental problems which are documented in the examples I
have given. That is the issue.
The Liberals continue to claim that they did not say they would
get rid of it. They have twisted it and said they would harmonize it
and do something else, as if that would solve the problem. After
studying the GST more than I ever wanted to, I can say that
harmonization will not solve the problems that have made
Canadians unhappy enough to tell me they would vote for the
Liberals because I would not promise to get rid of it.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, perhaps I will be
better able to get a straight answer from the hon. member opposite.
My colleague indicated quite clearly that it is extremely unclear
what the current position of the third party is with respect to the
GST. We heard the previous speaker from the Reform Party
indicate that his party's platform during the election campaign was
to eliminate the GST after the federal deficit was eliminated.
If the motion before us were adopted it would have the GST
eliminated before the elimination of the federal deficit. Is the hon.
member trying to tell us that his party would eliminate the GST, as
was the case in its campaign platform, after the deficit has been
eliminated? Or, in spite of the deficit, which is going down the right
way but is not quite there yet, would he still eliminate the GST and
add $17 billion a year to the deficit?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Debate. The
hon. Minister of National Revenue.
(1615 )
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I was fascinated by this motion which has been
presented for us to debate here in the House by the hon. member for
Medicine Hat. It states: ``That, in the opinion of this House, the
GST should be ``killed, scrapped, abolished''. Period. End. Full
stop. Nothing more.
There is no indication here about how the third party would
replace the GST; if it would replace the GST; how it would deal
with the $17 billion in net revenues the goods and services tax
brings in to the federal government. There is nothing that talks
about that in this motion, this current, the fourth or perhaps the fifth
iteration of the Reform Party platform on the GST.
I can only conclude that what Reformers must be saying is they
do not care about those funds. They are taking the position that we
can walk away from $17 billion and they are prepared to face the
critics who say that this approach is foolhardy and irresponsible.
I said I was fascinated that Reformers would propose such a
motion for debate today. However, I am really not surprised. Here
again we have members of the Reform Party using political
grandstanding to make some kind of point. I am not sure what it is.
I am sure the last laugh is going to be on them. When we look at
this, here again they are providing simple answers to very complex
problems. Their political naivete is showing through yet again.
Also, the motion is intellectually dishonest. I sat on the finance
committee with those members opposite. I listened as they did to
Canadians right across the country about their concern for this tax,
their hate for this tax.
We heard from large businesses which said: ``If you do not
harmonize this tax with the 10 provincial sales taxes, we will never
have interprovincial trade that is free and open''. We listened to
small and medium size businesses which said: ``If you do not
harmonize this tax, the administrative nightmare we face daily is
never going to go away''. They said to us: ``If you do not change
this tax and make it more flexible so that we do not have to go
through the same process as large companies do when we do not
have accounting departments to do that, it is going to kill us''.
982
We listened to individual Canadians who said: ``This tax is
driving us crazy''. Yes, I remember that very individual, the
retailer who came to our committee with his bags of tax receipts,
showing the number of customers that had walked out of his store
and not completed their transactions because they were not
prepared to pay the final price. He said to us: ``When you change
the tax, make sure that the tax is included in the pricing on the
floor''.
We heard from advocates of social groups, social organizations,
poverty organizations who said: ``We understand that the
government needs the $17 billion. We understand that you want to
have a mix of tax regimes: corporate, personal income tax, and yes,
a consumption tax. But for goodness sake, make sure that the
notion of progressivity, that the rebate continues on''.
I would point out at this time, Madam Speaker, that I am sharing
my time with the hon. member for Willowdale and will look to you
for a cue as my time runs out.
Let me continue by saying that as a committee we responded to
these concerns. We made recommendations. As my colleague from
St. Paul's pointed out, the third party said in its minority report:
``We commend the government on its attempt to harmonize the tax
with the provinces. While we support the much needed
harmonization of the tax, this will be a very difficult political
objective to achieve''. We agreed that harmonization was
important, that including the tax in the pricing was important, that
changing the tax so it was more responsive to individual companies
depending on their size was important.
I bring out the red book and quote directly from our platform, the
platform we took to Canadians in 1993. It states: ``A Liberal
government will replace the GST with a system that generates
equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and small business,
minimizes disruption to small business and promotes
federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization''. We
went beyond that. We presented a complete package to the people
of Canada. We told them that we recognized this was a poor tax. It
was poorly strategized, poorly conceived, poorly implemented. It
is hard to administer.
(1620)
We recognized, as I read from the red book, the answers. We said
that in the first 12 months of our mandate we would talk to
Canadians and confirm this with them, which we did as a finance
committee. Lo and behold, the answer that came back was
reflective of the position we took in our platform.
We know we have to replace the GST. We are committed to
replacing it. We know that Canadians across the country support
the strategy the finance committee put forward and which the
Minister of Finance is working at achieving.
We are taking a responsible position here. We need to work with
the provinces in order to make them understand that their
constituents are the ones we talked to. The answers the provinces
would get from the people in Ontario, British Columbia and Prince
Edward Island are the answers we got as we crossed the country.
The answer is to come together, to have a single tax, to respond
to the needs of the country, to improve our interprovincial trade, to
respond to small and medium size businesses, which we know are
the engines to our economic future, and to respond to individual
Canadians. They do not want a tax but are prepared to pay taxes to
support our social programs and our seniors benefits, those things
that make this country unique and which are so important to us.
I admire the Minister of Finance for the work he is doing in his
discussions with the provincial finance ministers. I will work as
closely with him as I can to ensure that we have success in this
regard.
In the Ministry of National Revenue we have come to the very
clear conclusion that there is but one taxpayer and we want one tax
administration. Therefore, in the budget and in the speech from the
throne we have identified the importance of moving toward a
single Canada revenue commission. We will consolidate the work
of the department even more so than we have.
I would like to recognize the work of those members of my
department who have consolidated very disparate branches of
endeavour and brought them under one administration. We will
continue to work with other federal departments such as
agriculture, immigration and transportation to consolidate our
work, reduce duplication, save money and reduce overlap.
We will then, with this agency, go forward and ask the provinces
to work with us and consolidate the administrations that are dotting
our country in each province and territory.
I am hopeful as we proceed along that agenda that we can clear
the path and assist the Minister of Finance and draw to the attention
of the finance ministers in all of the provinces how important the
harmonization of this tax is, how important including the tax in the
pricing is and how important it is to ensure that the tax regimes we
have in effect in Canada are responsive to Canadians and to
Canadian business.
That is the commitment we made as a Liberal Party. That is the
commitment we continue to maintain and work toward as a Liberal
government. I would ask members of the third party to remember
the comments they made in their minority report, the support they
gave to this position. I ask them to begin to work with us instead of
continuing with this political grandstanding and flip-flopping to
position themselves in whatever they view to be in the best view of
the Canadian public at a certain point in time.
983
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to tell the revenue minister that I will be addressing
the minority report when I give my speech.
(1625 )
Concerning her comments and speech, the issue is twofold: what
politicians or candidates say when they run for election versus what
they do once they get into government. That is what is at issue here.
When the Deputy Prime Minister ran as a Liberal candidate she
said that if elected, the Liberal government would abolish the GST
or she would quit. She believed it was time politicians kept their
promise. She said words to that effect. Now, as Deputy Prime
Minister the difference is: ``If we do not replace the GST I will
resign'' and there is nothing about politicians keeping their
promise.
At issue here with the GST is the language and rhetoric used is
stronger at the door and implies or suggests so that people who are
listening infer a different concept than what is in the red book. I
will acknowledge that what is in the red book and always has been
there is replace, replace, replace.
Now let us go to the next promise. In 1993 the current Prime
Minister said: ``We will replace it by 1995''. What year is it now?
Mr. Thompson: It is a lot later than that.
Mr. Silye: I think 1995 has come and gone. The government has
had two years. There are 170 members in the government. When
the Prime Minister was in opposition he said he would get rid of the
GST in a day. Well he has been Prime Minister for two years and he
cannot even keep the promise to replace the GST. He cannot keep
the promise of the deadline. He has had two years. He said he could
do it in a day. That is the issue.
With that short, short, very factual preamble, my question is:
When will the Liberal government keep its red book promise and
replace the GST?
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Madam Speaker, I assume there is time
to answer after that very short preamble. I would just point out that
we on this side know it is 1996 and not 1950 like members
opposite.
The member is talking about what people said at their doors. I
remind the hon. member that in 1990 it was the Reform Party
leader who said while his party was trying to get a new senator and
its first member of Parliament elected, that the Reform Party would
rip out the GST if it has been imposed against the will of the
people. That was in the Reform Party's election campaign.
As I said in my comments this tax was conceived of and
implemented poorly. It is now very difficult to administer as a
result of the work of the previous government. The last thing I want
to do is to inflict another ill-conceived replacement on the
Canadian public. We will take the time needed to get this tax right
because we are a responsible government. We have listened to what
the people of Canada have said.
[Translation]
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, first of
all, I wish to thank the hon. members for Capilano-Howe Sound
and Calgary Centre, who worked very hard with the finance
committee in preparing the report on the future of the GST.
We worked very closely together. We travelled across Canada
and they really supported our position that the amendments
suggested by the committee were valid.
[English]
In part of the process we went through we looked at 20 different
alternatives to the GST. It would do us well to recall very briefly
those tax alternatives we looked at. At the time everybody on the
committee, Reform, Bloc and Liberals said that we had to replace
that tax. We could not just abolish it because we needed the
revenue. So what tax alternatives did we look at? There were
probably five different categories.
(1630)
The first category of tax replacement was that maybe the tax
could be abolished without replacing it and three scenarios under
that category were looked at.
The first was that maybe the stimulus to the economy from
getting rid of the tax would be so enormous that the economy
would prosper simply by eliminating the tax. If that worked, why
not eliminate more? It was the old supply side, trickle down
Reaganomics that does not work. It was rejected unanimously by
the committee.
The second alternative was to reduce government expenditures.
However, to reduce expenditures by $17 billion in one year would
have been too much for even this economy to swallow. We have
made tough cuts and have been able to reduce program spending
over a four year period by about $14 billion. That would have been
even more dramatic and it would have had a terrible effect on the
growth of the economy at that time.
The third alternative was to cut transfer payments to the
provinces. At that time the transfers in cash were about equal to the
net take on the GST. However, look at the implications that would
have had on spending programs in the provinces. Look at the
implications that it would have had for the programs that members
on all sides of the House have asked us to support as a federal
national government.
The next category of replacement was income tax alternatives to
the GST. We had five of those: a personal income surtax, an
exchanging of tax bases with the provinces, a flat tax, an additional
flat tax add-on to the personal income tax, and a corporate income
tax increase.
In essence, abolishing the GST and putting it all into personal
income tax would have meant a 21 per cent increase in federal
984
personal income tax, which would be unthinkable when the top
marginal rate in Ontario is 54 per cent.
There are many who said it could be done with corporate taxes.
That would have meant an increase of more than 150 per cent in
corporate taxes in that year.
Those are eight of the alternatives at which we looked.
The third category of replacement was revenue taxes. The first of
these was a turnover tax. A tax of 1 per cent to 2 per cent could be
imposed on every financial transaction, every business transaction,
every sale which took place. The trouble is that it had been tried for
many years in Europe. Although the rate is low, it cascades. Every
time a transfer of goods or services takes place within a corporation
it would be added on. It would not take account of efficiencies.
That is why every European country which has used it rejected the
turnover tax.
Then there was the payroll tax. It would take about a 3.5 per cent
payroll tax to replace the GST. Some people advocated it. It would
have been simple but who would have been paying it? Only the
workers. Only the people who are already taxed by way of payroll
levies and income tax. It would not have hit those who were retired.
It would not have hit those who were living off enormous incomes
which were not earned. It would not have been fair. It would have
been a killer of jobs. We had to reject it.
The fourth category involved miscellaneous proposals for
replacing the GST. We looked at a wealth transfer tax. We looked at
green taxes. We looked at taxing gambling and lottery winnings.
However, even if we could get the maximum out of those three
different taxes, in their total they would not have accounted for
more than about one-fifth of the GST. A lot of these were taxes
which had been rejected in the past for very valid reasons.
The fifth category of replacement taxes which was looked at
were the consumption based taxes. Six alternatives to the GST
were looked at.
The first was the manufacturers' sales tax. Parliaments had
unanimously rejected that in the past. It only applied to about
70,000 taxpayers. There were hundreds of thousands of exceptions
to it. It was a very narrow base and it hurt manufacturing. It made
manufacturers non-competitive.
(1635)
A wholesale tax was looked at. It would have had somewhat the
same impact, although not as bad as the manufacturers' sales tax.
However it still had many anti-competitive aspects to it.
Next we looked at going to a straight federal retail tax, a single
stage tax. But when we examined all of the provincial retail sales
taxes which are single stage, a lot of testimony was given about
how unfair these taxes were and how non-competitive they made
businesses. Businesses ended up paying all sorts of retail sales
taxes when they should not have.
Also there were certificates of exemption so that if a farmer
wanted to buy a hammer to fix his barn he did not have to pay the
sales tax on it. Many of these sales slipped through the net and
businesses were being unfairly penalized. No one suggested that
we go to the retail sales tax.
The next one was an addition method value added tax. This is
where we started to look at the value added tax concept.
The 18th alternative that we looked at was a theoretical
proposition, but only the academics have ever supported it, no one
ever said it could work in practice and we rejected it.
The nineteenth alternative was one that had considerable merit
potential. It was the business transfer tax. This would have been a
value added tax that could have possibly worked in an ideal world
where you did not have a federal state but a unitary state, only one
level of government, where all governments could come on board
at the same time, where you tax all the same base but you had a real
problem accounting for imports and exports which are fundamental
to our economy.
Universally tax experts, the business groups, the small business
groups, the big business groups, the chambers rejected the business
transfer tax which had previously looked as if it could have been
the panacea.
The next alternative was to keep the GST the way it is. We could
not because it imposes such a burden on small business and all
Canadian taxpayers because they are supporting 10 different taxes
at the retail level which is totally unfair. We could not support it
even in terms of big business.
The system in Canada is the only system in the world where
there is more than one tax at the retail level. Canada has 10
different taxes. Any party that stands in this House and argues that
this is good for consumers, good for business, good for jobs, good
for our competitiveness is absolutely insane.
We concluded that this system would not work. The only thing
that could work was a national value added tax where the federal
GST is eliminated, the nine provincial retail sales taxes are
eliminated and they are replaced with one national value added tax
under one administration.
This has such benefits for consumers, for ease of compliance by
small businesses, for doing business across this country, for
making every business, small and large, competitive. This is why
we have supported this proposition. This is why we look forward to
seeing it come in.
985
It is why I wish to move an amendment to the amendment put
forward by the Reform Party. The motion reads: ``That in the
opinion of this House the GST be killed, scrapped, abolished''.
I ask that the period be removed out after that and include the
following words ``and be replaced with a system that generates
equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and small business,
minimizes disruption to small business and promotes
federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization''.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is my understanding that any amendment has to be addressed to our
amendment which was to remove the word ``should'' from the
original motion.
(1640 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I accept the
point of order of the hon. member and move that this amendment is
not receivable.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. member who is a well known,
famous, most competent tax lawyer whether during the
deliberations of the Liberal Party of which he is an influential
member, he ever advised his colleagues that it would not be
possible to get rid of the GST.
Was he totally unaware of the difficulties which exist in
harmonizing and doing all the other things that we had proposed?
Did he warn his colleagues about this? Was he ignorant about it?
Did he just say it to himself and not tell them? Was he simply
rejected? How could a distinguished tax lawyer, with as much
influence as he has, get his party to accept a resolution which any
informed tax lawyer would have known could not be kept?
Mr. Peterson: Madam Speaker, it is quite evident that the
member for Capilano-Howe Sound is quite right. We realized as
did he when he was working with us on the committee that the
essence of getting a streamlined tax system for all Canadians is
co-operation at the federal and provincial levels.
All of us knew this. We do not have the authority to dictate what
the provinces do. However that does not mean we should not
endeavour in all parties to try to make our country work better. All
of us agree. I know the member who just asked this question agrees
with us that it would be a significant improvement to the system if
we could get rid of the 10 different existing tax systems and replace
them with one tax system under one administration.
The saving in cost of compliance to small and big businesses
would probably be in the neighbourhood of $400 million a year.
The cost to all taxpayers by getting rid of 10 different systems and
replacing them with one would probably be in the neighbourhood
of $400 or $500 million each year.
The cost in aggravation to consumers of not having tax included
pricing when they go into the store about which he spoke most
eloquently would be enormous. Of course it requires the agreement
of the provinces, as many things in this country does, in order to
make it the type of country we want it to be. He knew that and we
knew that when we spoke of it in the red book.
We said that we wanted the tax to be harmonized with the
provinces, that is, we needed their compliance. We needed their
co-operation. We needed their agreement. That has always been
part of the understanding and he knows it.
While I still have the floor-
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought I
saw you rise after the member sat down. I saw you rise and begin to
recognize someone, and now he is getting up to move a motion. I
would think he is out of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): That is not a
point of order. We were on the five minutes allowed for questions
and comments.
Mr. Peterson: Madam Speaker, because the hon. members
opposite objected to the way I had worded my amendment
earlier-
Ms. Clancy: What?
Mr. Peterson: What I wish therefore is to do it in such a way
that it does respect the amendment they made, which is what they
have asked that I do. I will comply with their wishes and yours,
Madam Speaker.
(1645)
I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting after the word ``should'' a comma
and inserting thereafter ``be replaced with a system that generates equivalent
revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small businesses, minimizes disruption
to small business and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and
harmonization and be killed, scrapped and abolished''.
Mr. Silye: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that to
move an amendment at this stage is out of order.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): On the point of
order raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre, he is
absolutely right. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Willowdale is out of order, as he had finished his speech and we
were in the midst of question and comment period. Therefore, I
cannot recognize this amendment.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
motion put forward by the Reform Party reads, and I quote: ``The
GST should be killed, scrapped, abolished''. The Bloc Quebecois
will support this Reform Party motion, because the GST should
986
purely and simply be abolished, although our reasons are different
from those set forth by the Reformers.
How much money does the federal government make with this
goods and services tax? When it was first established in 1991, it
brought in $2.5 billion; the following year, in 1992, $15.2 billion;
in 1993, $14.9 billion; in 1994, $15.7 billion; and last year, 1995,
$16.8 billion. This is a tax that puts $15 or $16 billion in the federal
coffers year after year.
Our position on the GST is not new. It was elaborated upon in the
minority report presented by the Bloc Quebecois members of the
Standing Committee on finance in June 1994. As far as we are
concerned, this position is still valid, and I welcome this
opportunity to outline it for the hon. members.
Madam Speaker, would you please ask the hon. members to let
me speak in peace? I notice that certain members are in deep
conversation in the back.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Will the hon.
members who need to discuss matters in this House, thereby
interfering with our listening to the member who has the floor,
please withdraw behind the curtains to have their conversations.
Mr. Bélisle: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The liberal
government is still reneging on its promise to abolish the GST. Let
me quote a few lines from the March 11, 1996, issue of the Globe
and Mail, which are very enlightening in that regard. First: ``I have
already said personally and very directly that if the GST is not
abolished, I will resign''. That statement was made to the CBC by
the current Deputy Prime Minister on October 18, 1993, one week
before the federal election.
As for the current Prime Minister, he is quoted as saying, also in
1993: ``We will scrap the GST''. The red book, published in 1993,
states as well, and I quote: ``A Liberal government will replace the
GST''. Again, in March 1996, the Deputy Prime Minister stated:
``If we do not replace it, I will resign. I really do not have much
choice. It will be replaced''.
You probably remember that the GST and its abolition where big
issues during the election campaign in 1993.
(1650)
It was a major issue and it greatly helped the Liberals get
elected. Since then, the Liberal strategy has been to downplay the
importance of that issue, so as to make it easier to renege on their
election promises.
During the election campaign, the Liberals made no bones about
the fact that they were going to abolish the GST. Now, they talk
instead of replacing it, of harmonizing it with provincial taxes. The
Liberals are doing that because they are quietly paving the way for
a national sales tax. Instead of abolishing the GST, they will make
it even more pervasive.
The Liberal government, with its commitment to harmonize,
now stands exactly where the Conservatives were. Indeed, before
disappearing from the political map in 1993, the Conservatives
were thinking of the same thing, harmonizing the federal and
provincial sales taxes.
You have to admit that the Liberals and the Conservatives are
pretty much one and the same. In addition to proposing a hybrid
GST which in no way solves the management problems created by
the GST, the Liberals want to impose this rigid tax to the provinces.
In view of this all-out attack against the provinces' authority, the
Bloc Quebecois totally distances itself from the Liberal position
and proposes instead to abolish the GST and to transfer to the
provinces the tax field currently occupied by the GST. We feel this
is the only way to implement a single tax system that would benefit
the provinces.
As for Quebec, such a transfer would reflect its specificity and
its fiscal autonomy. Quebec and other interested provinces could
thus define the parameters of the new tax field, such as the goods
and services that are taxable and not taxable, as well as the type of
tax to be applied. This single tax would be administered and
collected by each provincial government. Finally, this single tax
should not take more out of taxpayers' pockets than do the current
provincial sales tax, the QST in Quebec, and the GST together.
The Bloc Quebecois understands that the transfer of this tax field
to Quebec could result in a significant loss of revenue for the
federal government and that the latter should be compensated for
that loss. Without touching transfers of tax points and special
abatements-a tax field already occupied by the Government of
Quebec-the federal government could reduce the transfer
payments it makes under the various provincial transfer programs
by an amount equivalent to the current GST revenues collected in
Quebec.
This would also reduce federal interference in certain sectors of
exclusively provincial jurisdiction, thus helping to cut back on
duplication. In addition, as long as Quebecers pay their income
taxes to the federal government, an equalization program should be
maintained, without additional cuts, in order to offset the
differences in the provinces' fiscal capacities.
In practical terms, our proposal would eliminate the duplication
resulting from the existence of two parallel taxes and would reduce
administrative costs for businesses, which would have only one tax
to keep track of.
What is the context in which alternatives to the GST have been
analysed?
It is a difficult context financially and economically. Middle and
low income taxpayers have reached their threshold of tolerance.
Unemployment rates are high and public finances are in such a
987
poor state that they are resulting in a risk premium on interest rates
that is detrimental to investments.
The labour market is in a sorry state. Remember that with the
increase in the population, we need several hundreds of thousands
of jobs more in Canada, just to return to the level of employment at
the beginning of the recession in the second quarter of 1990.
If we look at the tax statistics by income brackets published by
Statistics Canada, we see that the increase in the tax burden of
middle and lower income citizens is indeed real. Between 1972 and
1992, taxpayers saw a jump in real tax rates of 22.7 per cent.
During the same period, taxpayers in lower income brackets saw
their real tax rates go up by 42 per cent.
(1655)
The increased tax burden has triggered the emergence of a
flourishing underground economy. As the Liberal majority report
states, analysts estimate the underground economy to represent
somewhere between 2 and 20 per cent of the GDP. Only a total
revision of the taxation system could make it possible to contain
and reduce the size of the underground economy, because it is
linked to the overall tax burden or, in other words, is dependent on
all taxes paid by the taxpaying public.
The question of abolishing the GST and transferring it to the
provinces arises in this context. All the commotion focussing on
replacing the GST illustrates, more clearly than anything else
could, the necessity of a total review of the federal taxation system.
An examination of that system shows that high income individuals
and major corporations have the financial means and the legal
expertise to take advantage of a number of tax loopholes which
save them considerable amounts of tax.
Think, for example, of the family trust scheme by which rich
families can put off, virtually forever, having to pay capital gains
tax on the assets held in trust. It is hard to estimate what the tax
losses are on such tax deferments, because the Department of
Finance keeps the figures hidden. According to a study
commissioned by the Canadian Association of Family Enterprise in
1990, however, tax losses can be estimated at several hundred
million dollars.
In 1993, when the Liberals were the opposition, they-the
present Minister of Finance included-voted against reinstatement
of the tax breaks associated with family trusts. Now the Liberals
are refusing to abolish those same breaks, but they show no
hesitancy in the least to dump on the unemployed, couples with
child support agreements, and the pensioners of the future.
In fact the Liberals, just like the Conservatives in 1993, have
given in to the lobby of rich influential families who want to keep
their assets safe from taxes, while the tax burden on low income
families continues to spiral endlessly upward.
Another example of unfairness are the tax havens. In the Auditor
General's report in 1992, it was pointed out that the Income Tax
Act and the tax agreements made it possible for foreign affiliates of
Canadian companies to avoid paying tax in Canada and to take
advantage of the lower rates of taxation available in a number of
countries considered tax havens.
In fact, the auditor general estimates that more than $16 billion
were invested by Canadian companies in tax havens, thus avoiding
paying millions of dollars in taxes to the federal government every
year. This means that, in a roundabout way, several Canadian
companies are declaring abroad revenue earned in Canada.
Taking advantage of tax loopholes, many high income earners as
well as big profitable firms do not pay a cent in taxes. It is to put an
end to this kind of inequity that the Bloc Quebecois is demanding a
comprehensive review of the Canadian tax system, not this
business taxation committee comprised mostly of advisors working
for firms using tax havens and contributors to the Liberal election
fund.
The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that, in order to prevent big
profitable firms from using complicated schemes to pay
ridiculously low taxes, the government should impose a real
minimum tax on the business profits made by large corporations
instead of an easily avoidable capital tax.
The GST is not the only component of public revenue that needs
to be reviewed and changed. In the minority report on the GST
tabled by the Liberals in 1989 while they were in opposition, it is
recommended that the Conservative government abandon its plans
to introduce a goods and services tax and immediately initiate
consultations with Canadians and the provincial governments on a
fair and integrated reform of the tax system as a whole.
Now that they are in power, the same Liberals are content with
trying to harmonize the GST and bring down three consecutive
budgets that do nothing to eliminate unfairness. It is wrong to
believe that all federal tax problems can be resolved by merely
reforming our sales tax.
(1700)
Several examples show that the Liberals are victims of their own
policy of analyzing the GST separately from the other sources of
federal revenue. Chapter 2 of the report of the Liberal majority on
the finance committee, tabled in June 1994, states that wealth
transfer tax cannot be considered as a replacement for the GST as it
would not generate as much revenue.
This kind of reasoning rules out alternatives like a real minimum
tax on large corporations making profits, the taxation of family
trusts, the elimination of tax shelters, and so on. They rule out all
partial solutions that, together, could do the job.
988
Finally, the Liberals are making exactly the same mistake as
their predecessors by changing their minds about reviewing all
sources of government revenue. By tackling only one aspect of
the problem, the Liberals will never arrive at a lasting decision,
because the tax system is a complex and delicate equation in
which fair taxation and a balanced budget cannot be achieved by
imposing a new tax in isolation.
The Bloc Quebecois' proposal would allow the Quebec
government to put in place a tax that really meets Quebec's needs
and avoid the mess that would inevitably be created by 11 parties
trying to negotiate the base, administrative details and
characteristics of the tax.
Our proposal would also make the Quebec government less
vulnerable to the federal government's unilateral cuts in transfers
to the provinces. At the operating level, it would eliminate the
duplication resulting from two parallel taxes, improve control and
reduce administration costs for businesses, which would have only
one tax to manage.
Some may argue that our position would encourage consumers
to take advantage of provincial rate differences. In this regard, we
would like to repeat what the Liberal majority on the finance
committee wrote in its report, namely that the committee
recognized that the national VAT might encourage consumers to
take advantage of rate differences, but no more so than today's
provincial sales taxes.
It must be understood that the Bloc Quebecois' proposal derives
from the basic principle guiding our policies: Quebec sovereignty.
Indeed, sovereignty means, among other things, that the Quebec
government would have full control over all these budgetary and
economic instruments. It would then be free to use these tools
based on Quebec's specific needs and Quebecers' aspirations.
The Bloc Quebecois makes this proposal from a Quebec
perspective. However, it could also apply to any other province
wishing to take control of the tax field currently occupied by the
GST.
For these reasons, we will support the Reform motion to abolish
the GST. The Minister of Finance wants to harmonize the GST with
provincial sales taxes. This is a new centralizing attempt by the
federal government. Why not harmonize that tax with the support
of every province? As for Quebec, our proposal seeks, as I said, to
abolish the GST and to transfer to the province the tax field
currently occupied by that tax. Abolishing the GST does not mean
merely changing its name, as the government might think.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the member from the separatist
Bloc party. His speech contained many interesting comments.
However, we have to get the debate back to the original intent of
the motion put forward by the member for Medicine Hat to force
the Liberal government to live up to the promises it made during
the campaign prior to the writ period.
(1705 )
We want to address the very deceptive campaigning promises the
government made prior to the election. Its members went around
door to door, meeting to meeting, rally to rally and unabashedly
told Canadians that if they were elected they would abolish, kill,
remove, place six feet under, get rid of the much hated GST which
they railed against in the House when the Tory government brought
it in. I do not know how those members can sit here with such
righteous indignation at our request that they simply live up to the
promises they made.
There is one thing about Liberals that we all must know by now.
If they say something verbally, we had better get them to write it
down. They never used the words ``replace'', ``harmonize'' or
``change'' during their campaign, the verbal part of their campaign.
We have a couple of extremists in the Liberal Party, particularly
the hon. member for York South-Weston. He remembers the
campaign promise the Liberals verbally made to the people of
Canada that if the Liberal government did not live up to its promise
to abolish, kill, get rid of the GST he would vote against the budget.
We support that member. It is too bad the government will not
support its members who heard the promises with the true intent
they were made.
The motion of the hon. member for Medicine Hat calls on the
government to live up to the promise it made to the Canadian
people before the red book was written and the words magically
changed. We are asking the Liberals to live up to their promise, do
the honourable thing and scrap, kill, abolish, get rid of, bury the
GST like the Canadian people were led to believe they would do
before the infamous red book came out and magically changed it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélisle: Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with the
hon. member who just spoke, because we in the Bloc Quebecois are
simply asking that the GST be abolished and that this tax field be
transferred to the provincial governments, and in our case, to the
Government of Quebec.
I suspect that when the Minister of Finance tells us that he wants
to harmonize this tax with provincial sales taxes, what he really
wants is a single federal sales tax. He is going to change the name
of this tax, call it something else. I also suspect the government of
wanting to conceal this tax in the sales price so that it will no longer
be noticed by customers. I think that as elected representatives, as
parliamentarians, we must remain very vigilant, because I am
989
certain that the government will never abolish it. It will just give it
another name and bury it in the price of goods and services sold.
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, it is my duty to inform
the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Laval
East-securities.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member-
Mr. Discepola: Resuming debate.
Mr. Silye: Are we on debate or are we still on questions and
comments?
The Deputy Speaker: There is time remaining for questions and
comments.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, that is why I appreciate the impartiality
of the Chair. Government members were yelling at me that I was on
debate. I wonder why they were yelling that.
Mr. Discepola: It is because the Chair said ``resuming debate``.
Mr. Silye: I stand corrected.
I thought the member's speech was very pointed. I thought it was
an excellent speech and an excellent commentary. It shows us it
does not matter which part of the country we come from. It shows
us it does not matter which political party a person supported. The
members of the Bloc Quebecois stood for something. They went
door to door and told their people there needed to be change in
Ottawa and they are here trying to put forth that change.
I do not agree with the change they are pushing for. I do not want
the country to separate. I want them to reconsider. I want them to
be a part of Canada. Nevertheless, they are here and they are doing
what they have to do.
(1710)
When we told the voters out west and in Quebec what we wanted
they woke up, smelled the coffee and knew how bad the federal
government was. They knew we needed to change the system so
they sent us and the Bloc here and we have kept our promises. We
backed out of the pension plan, as we said we would. We can be
trusted to keep our word.
We presented a budget to the government and it laughed and
scoffed at us. It is now whining that it does not have one this year
that it can throw in our face when it cannot defend its own.
It does not matter where you are from in this country, what you
say you should mean and you should keep your word. I would like
the hon. member to comment on how his constituents react to what
was said at the door by Liberals in his riding versus what they are
doing now in government.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélisle: Mr. Speaker, I am completely in agreement with the
remarks of the hon. member who just spoke. I think that the
government should permanently abolish the GST and, in addition,
transfer this tax field to the provinces. The government should
streamline the bureaucracy, as the Bloc Quebecois has been asking
it to do for two years. Military spending should be further reduced;
the boom should be lowered on family trusts; a committee on
business taxation should be created whose members are
parliamentarians, not specialists in tax havens; a minimum tax
should be set on the profits made by corporations and something
should finally be done about the $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes not
recovered by Revenue Canada that the auditor general has been
complaining about for the last two years.
If the government did all these things, it would be able to make
up the $16 or $17 billion it is now collecting in the form of the
GST.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I quote the
current minister of fisheries, promoted to his job, from February
11, 1993, a man who I believe keeps his word, a man who believes
in what he says: ``Our alternative to the GST is that we are not
going to have one. We are not going to have a tax that burns the
individuals and the small businesses which then go broke because
they cannot afford the people and computers to do it''.
The red book states ``replace''. If the Liberals replace it through
harmonization have they provided an alternative to GST, because
we will still have the same hierarchy, administrative work and the
valued added tax in place that we have to collect, get credit, pay
back, collect, get credit, pay back? Will this problem be solved?
Will it still burn individuals in small businesses? They will still go
broke because they cannot afford the people and computers
required to do the work.
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
I have another quote by the member for
Broadview-Greenwood, whom I respect a lot because he stands
up and says things he believes in and he believes what he says. He
wants the government to consider tax reform. He wants the
government to introduce a simplified system of taxation. He
submitted to the Standing Committee of Finance ideas and
suggestions supported by 17 of his colleagues on a way to keep
their election promise, the promise he made at the door, because he
is a man who keeps his word, to get rid of the GST and replace it
with a flat tax.
990
We just heard the chairman of the Standing Committee of
Finance talk about how that was impossible because there was not
enough time to consider it. What a foolish statement to make when
the Prime Minister sat in opposition and said: ``I would get rid
of the GST in one day''. He has been here for over two years and
has not replaced it. In 1993 he said he would replace it by 1995.
It is now 1996 and he still has not replaced it. To me this is all
about trust, integrity and being held accountable. That is what this
debate is all about.
(1715)
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood said: ``It is no
secret that we as Liberals, if we are given, and I say it humbly, the
trust of the people in the fall, the GST will be scrapped''. The
Liberals have received that trust. They made those promises to
replace the tax. They have not achieved, they have not engineered,
they have not accomplished trust.
I have another quote from the current national revenue minister
who I worked with in the standing committee. She is a person who I
know has conviction, who believes in what she says and who will
do what she says. In the Winnipeg Free Press, March 24, 1994 she
said: ``As Liberals we were elected to change the tax, abolish the
tax, scrap it''. She said this as an MP.
We know that certain members of the Liberal government, one
for sure, has said publicly that because the government is not
keeping its promise on the GST, he is going to vote against the
budget.
There is a difference between what Liberals said at the door to
get elected and with the phrasing in the red book which they are
now hiding behind. The current minister of revenue, no matter how
much she tries, and I heard her speech, said that they will change
the tax, abolish the tax, scrap it or replace it. They still have not
done it.
Now they throw back quotes in our face and say that when the
Reformers worked on the Standing Committee of Finance this is
what they said but they are all selective quotes out of context.
Let me put it back in context. In our executive summary, and this
is after the first year we were here, we were trying to show
Canadians that we were a constructive alternative. If we were going
to criticize we would come up with some suggestions on how to
make it better. Of course the government never listened.
We have heard bits and pieces of quotes for the last week in
question period. The master of myth, the Minister of Finance, has
used little parts of it. The member for Capilano-Howe Sound, the
member for Lethbridge and myself were responsible for the
minority report. We said the majority finance committee report on
the replacement of the GST cannot be fully endorsed by the Reform
Party. While the replacement goes part of the way in responding to
concerns presented to the committee, many of the concerns will
only be addressed by future negotiations with the provinces. Even
that the Liberals are not doing in good faith.
If they really want this harmonization to work, if they really
want to meet their commitment to replace the GST, they should be
giving the provinces an incentive. But they want their 7 per cent.
They want to leave the provinces with 8 per cent and still charge 15
per cent.
If they really want to have it they should reduce the federal rate
by 2 per cent. Give the taxpayers a reason, an advantage and show
that those efficiency costs can be passed on. This government does
not pass savings along to the taxpayers because it is a tax and spend
government.
The majority report recommendation merely tinkers with the
current GST and does not live up to the Liberal promise to scrap it.
That is in the report, that is quoted but then they stop.
Reformers are of the view that value added taxes are incapable of
responding to a significant portion of the concerns raised during the
hearings. The hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound pointed
that out very well in his speech. That is in Hansard if any of the
members would like to check it out.
The third thing the Reform Party recommends is spending cuts
be the government's first priority. It took the Liberals two years to
even make a cut when they should have done it two years ago. This
country would be $10 billion better off in terms of debt and $1
billion better off in lower costs in terms of interest.
As well, the entire current system of personal, corporate and
value added taxes should be replaced. Here is what the Reform
Party would do. It would use a simple, visible and fair system of
taxation that incorporates the principles of fairness at the lowest
rate possible.
In the interim the party will support reforms to the current
regimes that move in this direction. I am adding today, with the
staged elimination of the GST once the budget is balanced.
We have positions. We have suggestions. This government's
strategy is to blame the provinces because they will not harmonize
the tax systems. The government will not even be able to replace
the GST. It does not want the provinces to agree with it otherwise it
would have given them an incentive. It would have lowered the
rates. There is no incentive. Therefore, there is no real desire.
(1720)
The Liberals' strategy is to try to convince Canadians. The
master of myth, the finance minister, says: ``Let's put this deal out
there. We'll blame the provinces. Let's throw it in the face of the
991
Reform members. We will select sentences from their executive
summary, put them on the defensive, show that they support our
harmonization and then we get out of it. We don't have to do it.
We'll just make that promise, re-elect us and then we'll do it''.
I predict that is what the Liberals are jockeying for. That is what
they are trying to do, put themselves in a position so they do not
have to keep that promise. Even in that promise of replacing the
GST, Canadians will not be fooled. Canadians are smarter than the
government thinks they are. Canadians should be given more credit
than what the government gives them. They are not going to be
fooled. They are going to see through this duplicity.
Talk about the intellectual dishonesty, of which the revenue
minister accused us, of saying one thing to somebody face to face
at the door: ``If you elect me, I'll scrap something, I'll abolish
something, I'll get rid of something, I'll kill something'' and then
not really point out to them that all they really said was they would
replace it with something that generates equivalent revenue. That is
not the rhetoric they used.
The Liberals said: ``Elect me. I'll replace the GST''. How would
it have sounded if they had said: ``Elect me. I'll replace the GST
with something that gets just as much money out of your pockets as
we are now''. Would that not sound great? Would that not be the
best way to get elected? That is why they will not keep this
promise. That is why they cannot keep this promise.
I know I have a minute left, but I have said enough. I am sure
everyone gets the message. I am sure the Liberals now realize that
their intellectual dishonesty is going to come back and haunt them.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the constituents
in my riding would not forgive me if I did not tell a story about
what happened in my riding, in answer to the member for Calgary
Centre.
A meeting was held there. There were 6,000 people in the
Centrium and the message they gave to their member of Parliament
at that time was: ``Do not vote for the GST. The GST is a bad tax''.
That message came through loud and clear. Their member came
back to this House and said: ``The people of my constituency
support the GST''.
I remind the government about that. I remind government
members that the same fate could befall them when they promised
they would get rid of the tax. They said they would kill the GST.
They said they would get rid of it and they did not deliver on their
promise. Canadians know that and will reward them accordingly.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, ``axe the tax''. That was mantra of Liberal members
before they were elected.
Who am I? I am opposed to the GST. I have always been opposed
to it and I always will be opposed to it. Who am I? I am the Prime
Minister of Canada, Mr. Jean Chrétien, on October 29, 1990.
The Deputy Speaker: The member will know that none of us is
to refer to another member by his or her name.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker.
Who am I? We hate it and we will kill it. The hon. Prime
Minister of Canada, May 2, 1994.
Here we are in March 1996. When we go to the store, what do we
pay? We pay the GST. It may as well be called the ``get stuffed tax''
because that is what the Liberals are saying to the Canadian public.
They did not get rid of this reviled tax.
When I talk to the people of this country, when I talk to the
people of my riding, when I talk to the businesses, no single tax is
more reviled than the goods and services tax. It is complicated, it is
expensive and it is inefficient. It was misleading for the
government before it was elected to promise the people something
that they so desperately wanted but which it has not given them.
This tax provides $18 billion to the public coffers every year. How
much of that actually gets to be used? Two-thirds. One-third of the
tax goes into administration. How inefficient can we get? That is
completely inefficient.
(1725)
What the Canadian public needs and wants is tax relief. Reform
members want the GST to go and we have a plan. What is that
plan? The plan is to balance the budget. We simply cannot provide
tax relief and get the GST down without doing that.
What has the government done? When I was elected two years
ago, the government had $120 billion to spend on programs such as
health care and education. What has it done? It has dropped it to
$103 billion because it cannot balance the budget, something
everybody here has to do in our private lives. Otherwise, we would
go bankrupt. That is what is happening to Canada. We are going
bankrupt.
It does every Canadian a great disservice to continue with the
mythology that we can spend more than we take in. Two years ago
Reformers put forward a specific, sensitive plan that would
preserve the core of our social programs, that would preserve the
core of health care and education to get the deficit down to zero and
bring the debt down which is the true ogre.
We gave the plan to the Liberals and said, use it. Take it for all
Canadians. Did they do that? Absolutely not. They continue to
mortgage the future of all Canadians and compromise the lives of
their children. That is reprehensible.
992
We have been accused of being the slash and burn party. I
submit that we are the only political party that is committed to
preserving social programs. We are the only party that has a plan
on getting the deficit to zero, bringing the debt down so that we
can preserve spending and give the public the desperate tax relief
that they demand.
I challenge the members opposite to go into their communities,
to speak to people about how they are overburdened by taxes. The
GST is but one. Before they decrease the GST, we should get our
spending down.
There are actions that the government can take today, and that
includes simplifying this odious tax. It is absolutely absurd that the
GST in its complexity exists. We can simplify it by businesses only
putting in one submission every year. It would also diminish the
amount of money that has to be spent on administration which is a
complete and utter waste of money.
It shows a deplorable lack of trust and integrity on the part of the
government that it will promise things purely to get elected.
Reformers have not done that and the public finds it absolutely
reprehensible that any political party does that. They will see
through this at the time of the next election.
My hon. friend has put forward a brilliant way of simplifying the
tax system. The government has done absolutely nothing to
simplify a tax system so that the average person can fill out the tax
forms.
Reformers are going to provide this year a simplified tax system
for all Canadians to use so that they can fill out their own tax forms.
Ultimately we will provide a way in which all Canadians will be
able to get tax relief. That is the name of the game. We will provide
it through a simplified tax system.
Once again I feel it is falling on deaf ears for some strange
reason. Tragically for all Canadians the government failed to
co-operate and use our constructive solutions to help all Canadians
across the country.
Once again I challenge members across and I challenge the
government to use our good suggestions. Nobody has a monopoly
on suggestions for the country. However, we have a lot of good
ones but the government has ignored them, to its peril. These
suggestions come from the grassroots of the country.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
[Translation]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The vote is on the amendment by Mr.
Grubel. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(The amendment is agreed to).
The Deputy Speaker: The next vote is on the main motion, as
amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 16)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
993
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
Venne
Williams-76
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Young
Zed -131
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Caron
de Savoye
Eggleton
Finlay
Gerrard
Graham
Guay
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Jacob
Marchand
Nunziata
Patry
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wood
(1800 )
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion as amended
defeated.
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 19, consideration of
the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member
for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot relating to the business of supply.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
[Translation]
If you were to seek it, I think the House would give its
unanimous consent that those members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion currently before
the House, with Liberal members voting nay on this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition will vote in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, Reform members, except for those
who might wish to do otherwise, will vote no on the motion.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrat members in the
House will vote yes on the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, I take it there is unanimous
consent to all of those motions made.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ianno: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded with the
government side on the preceding vote.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 17)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
994
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Taylor
Venne -47
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Williams
Young
Zed-161
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Caron
de Savoye
Eggleton
Finlay
Gerrard
Graham
Guay
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Jacob
Marchand
Nunziata
Patry
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wood
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion negatived.
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-21, an act for granting to Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for
the financial year ending March 31, 1996, be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-21, an act for granting to Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for
995
the financial year ending March 31, 1996, be read the second time
and referred to committee of the whole.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went
into committee thereon, Mr. Kilgour in the chair.)
(1805)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Order, please. House in Committee of the
Whole on Bill C-21, act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums
for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March
31, 1996.
(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall Clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall Clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall Clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to.)
(Clause 7 agreed to.)
(Schedule agreed to.)
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Chairman, before carrying on, can the
minister assure this House that the bill is in the usual form.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Chairman, this bill is identical to bills passed in
previous years.
The Chairman: Shall Clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill passed.)
(Bill reported.)
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved that the bill
be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Williams: Are we not voting at this time, Mr. Speaker?
The Deputy Speaker: The matter has been carried so there is no
debate.
Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time?
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Massé moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That this House do concur in Interim Supply as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $28,036,537,062.88 being composed of:
(1) seven-twelfths ($21,324,082,274.22) of the total of the amounts of the
items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997
which were laid upon the Table Thursday, March 7, 1996, and except for those
items below:
(2) eleven-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 140,
Natural Resources Vote L15, Public Works and Government Services Vote 25
and Treasury Board Votes 5 and 10 (Schedule A) of the said Estimates,
$487,697,833.33;
(3) ten-twelfths of the total of the amount of Finance Vote 20, Justice Votes 15
and 20 and Transport Vote 1 (Schedule B) of the said Estimates,
$1,286,805,833.33;
(4) nine-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 35,
Finance Vote L25, Human Resources Development Vote 40, Indian Affairs and
Northern Development Votes 15 and 45, Industry Vote 120 and Transport Vote
45 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates, $3,183,909,750.00;
(5) eight-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 65,
Citizenship and Immigration Vote 10, Human Resources Development Votes 5
and 10, Industry Votes 65 and 110, Justice Votes 1 and 5, and Public Works and
Government Services Vote 15 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates,
$1,754,041,372.00;
996
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.
[
English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent
that the members who voted on the opposition motion with regard
to the GST be recorded as having voted on the motion presently
before the House and that the members are recorded as having
voted in the reverse way.
(1810)
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the
opposition will vote against the motion before the House.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Agreed.
Mr. Solomon: Yes, we agree with that motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 18)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Young
Zed -132
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
997
Speaker
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
Venne
Williams-76
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Caron
de Savoye
Eggleton
Finlay
Gerrard
Graham
Guay
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Jacob
Marchand
Nunziata
Patry
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wood
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-22, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain
sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial
year ending March 31, 1997.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-22, an act for granting to Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for
the financial year ending March 31, 1997, be read the second time
and referred to committee of the whole.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we have moved
from Bill C-21 to Bill C-22. Can you confirm that we are now on
Bill C-22?
The Deputy Speaker: The member is absolutely right. We are
on Bill C-22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went
into committee thereon, Mr. Kilgour in the chair.)
[Translation]
The Chairman: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-22.
[English]
(Clause 2 agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall Clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to.)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall Clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall Clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to.)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall Schedule A carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Chairman, I want to raise a very important point. I would like the
minister to tell the House if the presentation of this bill is exactly
the same as in previous years?
Mr. Massé: Mr. Chairman, the proportions requested in the bill
will be used for all essential requirements of the federal
administration until October 31, 1996. The bill does not release the
total amount of any of the items. The bill is in the usual form of
interim supply bills.
Passing the present bill will not prejudice the rights or privileges
of members to criticize the items in the estimates at committee
stage. The usual commitment is hereby given that these rights and
privileges will be respected and that they will neither be abolished
nor limited in any way through passing the present bill.
(Schedule A agreed to.)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall Schedule B carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule B agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall Schedule C carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule C agreed to.)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall Schedule D carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule D agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
998
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to.)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we should be paying better attention. It
is my observation that on most of these motions the nays have been
much louder than the yeas, and I do not think it is correct for you as
the chairman to say that it carries on division. It should be defeated
on division unless the Liberals wake up and actually say yes.
(1815)
The Chairman: I thank the hon. member for the point.
Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to.)
The Chairman: Is the bill adopted?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Bill reported.)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved that the bill
be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
On division? I ask the hon. member for Elk Island, is it
acceptable to carry it on division?
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, if we can be assured that the members of
the governing party who are asking us to give authority for all this
borrowing are awake and know what they are doing on behalf of the
Canadian people, then yes.
The Deputy Speaker: I think that was a yes. I declare it carried
on division.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. By your own
admission you said the nays carried the day. Therefore unless there
is a recorded vote in the House this motion is defeated.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member profoundly for
that very correct observation. May I do it again?
All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time?
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Massé moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent to carry it on division?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: On division.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we wanted this
vote recorded, not on division.
The Deputy Speaker: I will have to do it again.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. We do not
have to call in the members.
999
(1820 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent that the vote applied to third reading
of Bill C-21 be applied to third reading of Bill C-22, presently
before the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 18]
_____________________________________________
999
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-221, an act to amend the Competition Act (illegal trade
practices), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to lead off the
debate on my private member's Bill C-221, an act to amend the
Competition Act.
The bill would amend the Competition Act by making it an
offence for manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles and
farm equipment to engage in certain marketing practices with their
dealers. In the great majority of cases in Canada franchise
agreements provide that a dealer shall not carry any other line, or
dual, without the written permission of the manufacturer. In
practice permission is rarely forthcoming.
There are generally two sets of consequences arising from this
restrictive arrangement. In the first, the dealer's investment in one
line of motor vehicles or farm equipment very often substantially
exceeds the investment actually required to efficiently supply the
sales and servicing demands faced by a particular a dealer in his or
her market. In the second, a dealer may be forced to own several
facilities selling different lines and may desire to amalgamate those
brand lines under the same roof, thereby saving overhead and more
efficiently utilizing his or her resources.
Because of the current prohibitions on dualling found in
Canadian dealership agreements in neither of these cases can the
dealer take the sensible course of action he desires to take. Further,
if the dealer proceeds to attempt to dual his facilities without
manufacturer approval, which is rarely granted, his action would
constitute cause for immediate termination by the manufacturer of
his dealership rights.
I believe all Canadian vehicle and farm equipment dealers aspire
to having available to them the option of dualling, which their
counterparts in so many U.S. states enjoy. Roughly 50 per cent of
American automobile dealers operate their dealerships as duals, in
some cases with more than two lines. Why should anti-dualling
provisions which prevent that right in Canada be lawful?
By compelling manufacturers and distributors to allow their
dealers the choice to offer one or more new lines of motor vehicles
or farm equipment I believe two positive results would follow.
First, the investment of the dealer would be utilized more
efficiently and effectively. Second, the public in the dealer's
market would be better served through a wider array of products
and services.
As it stands now, in virtually 100 per cent of motor vehicle and
farm equipment franchise contracts in Canada the manufacturer
has the authority to terminate the contract if the dealer does not
abide by the manufacturer's rules of dealer purity. This whole issue
was brought to my attention shortly after the last election.
(1825 )
A constituent of mine who is a dealer in new and used farm
equipment, and who has contracted with the Ford-New Holland
company, wrote to me:
While it is true we have all signed agreements alluding to the sale of
competitive products, it should be noted that for many of us we had no option
but to sign this agreement, for our ability to stay in business hinged on the
exclusive availability of the Ford-New Holland line. If I chose not to sign, I
would have lost the business my father and I worked 40 years to build. It is true
that Ford-New Holland is not restricting the number of agencies we represent as
long as they are housed in separate facilities.
However, most of the lines Ford-New Holland deems competitive do not
represent enough volume to operate as a stand alone dealership. Therefore the
demand for exclusivity leads to lessening and even elimination of competition.
This policy has far reaching consequences to our customers as well. By reducing
the number of agencies willing to handle a line, you also reduce availability of
service and repair parts. Our farmers today do not need a further erosion of
service.
Why should rural dealers and farmers be denied reasonable
access to all lines of agricultural equipment? As far as I am
concerned, it is essential that dealers be given the freedom to carry
more than one line of equipment to be of service to their farming
customers.
All major farm equipment associations across Canada have been
lobbying the federal government for years to have this onerous
restriction on their livelihoods loosened.
The same is true of motor vehicle dealers. A 1993 survey of
Canadian car dealers showed that about 50 per cent of the dealers
would try to add another line if wide open dualling were permitted.
Presently the Competition Act provides that exclusive dealing
can be prohibited by the competition tribunal in very limited
circumstances. Subsection 77(1) of the act defines exclusive
dealings as any practice whereby a supplier of a product, as a
condition of supplying the product to a customer, requires or
induces a customer to deal only or primarily in products
designated or supplied by the supplier, or requires or induces the
1000
customer not to deal in a specified products except as supplied by
the supplier.
Under subsection 77(2) of the act, the director of investigation
and research can apply to the tribunal for an order to prohibit a
supplier from continuing to engage in exclusive dealing only if
three conditions are met: first, if the supplier is a major supplier or
if the practice is widespread in the market; second, if the practice of
exclusive dealing is likely to impede entry into or expansion of a
firm in a market, or to impede the introduction of a product into or
expansion of a product's sale in the market; third, if as a result of
exclusive dealing competition is or is likely to be lessened
substantially, that is, in a major way.
In my opinion current anti-dualling provisions in Canada do
fulfil elements one and two. However, element three, the
substantial lessening of competition test imposed by the act for the
director to be able to move against restrictions on competition
occasioned by anti-dualling provisions, is unlikely to be clearly
presented in the case of most vehicle and farm equipment
dealerships in Canada.
To be really affective and fair, an amendment to the act should
not only allow for enforcement action against anti-dualling
provisions in franchise agreements but should also be framed in
such a way that a dealer or a member of the public injured by the
existence or the enforcement of such a provision will have the right
to take private action against the restrictive provision.
Bill C-221 would effectively solve the problems created for
dealers and the public through a simple prohibition of anti-dualling
provisions in the franchise agreements. I also believe the bill has
the benefit of brevity and clarity while identifying the restrictive
conduct in those provisions as against the interests of the Canadian
public.
By utilizing a prohibition to deal with the anti-dualling
provisions, Parliament would be enabling dealers and members of
the public who suffer loss or damage to take legal action for
recourse independent of any action which the Bureau of
Competition Policy may or may not be able to undertake.
Bill C-221's proposed prohibition of anti-dualling provisions
will permit the crown to choose to proceed against an accused
manufacturer by way of a summary conviction or by way of
indictment. Typically the crown would proceed with a summary
offence in less offensive cases and in the case of a first offender
while reserving the potential for harsher penalties for cases of
outlandish breaches and repeated violations by a manufacturer
which has shown contempt for the law. This dual approach is seen
in the act's treatment of misleading representation and has proved
to work well.
(1830)
In the process which led to the drafting of this bill, some have
questioned whether it is not unusual to be proposing legislation
amending the Competition Act that would only apply to just one
segment of the economy. Not at all. There are a number of industry
specific provisions in the act. For example, section 5 deals with the
exemption from the conspiracy provision of the act for security
underwriters. Section 6 deals with amateur sport in relation to the
act. Section 48 deals with conspiracies in professional sport. There
is even a subsection which deals exclusively with soft drink
franchisers.
I suggest that the restrictions faced by dealers in motor vehicles
and farm equipment are unique and particular to these types of
dealerships.
We do not see the same restrictions applied to dealers in
electrical appliances or musical instruments. Though each may
specialize in one particular brand, each is free to carry other brand
names as he or she may sees fit.
I am of the opinion that in the great majority of cases, when
business is left alone, it tends to thrive when it is allowed to find its
own solutions to problems that confront it. In that respect, I agree
with the viewpoint that the role of government is to construct a
framework that allows businesses to operate with the least amount
of constraint.
However, there are instances when government is called on to
correct an inequity which threatens the livelihood of certain sectors
of the economy. Over the past two years I have become convinced
that the constraints faced by dealers in automobiles and farm
equipment must be properly addressed.
I feel it is very important that we give the small business
community a break. The Prime Minister said a few days ago that it
is time corporate Canada released its iron grip and did its part in
allowing small businesses to expand and provide employment
opportunities for Canadians.
I believe my bill echoes that sentiment and I ask for support from
all members.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
be able to speak this evening on Bill C-221, proposed by the hon.
member for Lambton-Middlesex. This is a bill which regulates, or
perhaps deregulates. It stops a manufacturer of motor vehicles,
farm tractors or farm implements from preventing any dealer from
selling other lines of products.
Examining this deceptively short bill, I became aware that there
were very serious consequences to accepting something like this. I
wonder, in fact, whether the hon. member even took the time to
examine the consequences to any extent.
1001
We are aware that this country has a debt load of approximately
$600 billion at this time, and we also have our own individual
debts. We each of us have fairly considerable debts ourselves, we
are even probably more in debt than ever before. In other words
consumer buying power is very low.
The automobile and farm equipment industries are barely viable
at this time. Many dealers are having trouble keeping their heads
above water; many are losing money even. Changing the way
dealerships and sales of farm and automotive products are
organized too rapidly would be very problematical.
We in Quebec-and I believe the same goes more or less for the
rest of Canada-have a network of dealerships in place. In the past
20 or 25 years, many new car dealerships have sprung up, and we
have invested considerably in them. We have invested some
$500,00 to $2 million in buildings and showrooms.
(1835)
Highly specialized equipment was bought, as required to
perform automotive and tractor maintenance. As we all know, this
kind of equipment is becoming more and more sophisticated, with
state-of-the-art mechanisms, thus requiring sophisticated
maintenance, which means that dealerships must invest substantial
amounts to provide good customer service. Sales people must also
be trained to sell specific makes of cars, tractors or farm
machinery.
All this means a great deal of expense for car and farm
machinery dealerships and manufacturers. Very large sums
amounts of money are spent on marketing this expensive and
sophisticated equipment. Obviously it would be out of the question
to change the whole marketing system overnight.
Personally, I think it would be very dangerous and expensive to
decide overnight to allow a car dealership to sell other makes of
cars for example. That would probably be too easy.
Let me give you an example. Say a dealership signs an
agreement with a manufacturer to sell a line of cars with several
models but later realizes that the models do not sell well or that it is
unable to market the product properly. Because these models do not
seem to sell, the owner decides, overnight, to start
selling-assuming this was a GM or Pontiac-Buick
dealership-Nissan or Toyota cars.
I do not think the Nissan or Toyota dealer would be very pleased
to see a GM dealer selling his products. He would probably choose
the top-selling models to the detriment of those that are less
popular and thus hurt his competitors.
I am neither for nor against this bill, but after examining it, it
seems to me that there are serious risks to passing this type of bill.
It would certainly be very important to allow a period of
adjustment. Certainly, five or ten years, and maybe longer should
be allowed to change this marketing structure, which has been in
place in Canada and the United States-but we are concerned here
with Canada-for years, and particularly for the last 25 years,
during which automobile and farm equipment dealers have
invested large amounts of money.
I am sure that if we began to upset this marketing approach,
chances are there would be a considerable number of bankruptcies,
and many jobs lost. That is why I mentioned at the beginning of my
speech that we are not in a period where we should make changes
too quickly. A lot of jobs could be lost. What we need now is to
create jobs, but I think that we would risk losing a lot of jobs if we
turn the existing marketing structure for automobiles and farm
equipment upside down.
I would suggest that the hon. member continue to examine and
work on her bill. She could try to form a small committee to
analyse, to question witnesses from the makers, for example, to ask
them their opinion.
(1840)
What do consumers think of it? What do dealers think of it. They
should be asked because I am not even sure that a consumer would
feel very secure if he saw a large car dealer, in Montreal or Toronto,
selling a dozen lines of automobile and a hundred or so models. I
cannot see the consumer being reassured, knowing the complexity
of the service and the guarantee.
Would he feel secure about after sales service? The consumer
might also perhaps have doubts. Can certain monopolies arise
among automobile dealers? Large dealers could sell several makes
and decide on the prices, as if they had a monopoly. Prices would
then increase.
The hon. member said that prices might go down, but it could
also be the reverse. In the long term, prices might go up, because
there would monopolies in the distribution and sale of motor
vehicles or farm equipment. This could indeed be a danger in the
long term and should be thoroughly examined.
It may be that remote areas need dealers selling several makes of
cars or tractors. It might be a good thing in this case. However,
would dealers selling several makes of cars or tractors be in a
position to adequately service the vehicles bought by consumers
for a rather large sum of money?
A farm tractor costing $100,000, $150,000 or $200,000 is a
major investment. I think that consumers would be concerned if a
dealer sold too many makes of tractors.
I can understand a dealer in a remote area saying that he will not
survive if he can only sell one make of tractors. That may be the
case. But then again, perhaps that dealer should have a smaller
franchise that better reflects the size of the local market.
1002
Again, I am not opposed to this idea, but I feel that this bill
could cause major upheaval. The marketing structure that has been
in place for many years works rather well and seems to meet the
demands of consumers. Changing that structure could be quite
risky.
It would also set a precedent. For example, suppose that a
Saint-Hubert BBQ restaurant in Quebec does not do very well.
Could the manager of that restaurant start selling burgers from
McDonald's to improve sales?
If we agree to do that for motor vehicles, people in the food
industry might want the same. When you think of it, a person
becomes a dealer of his own free will. He signs an agreement with
the maker of a car or farm tractor of his own accord, whereby he
agrees to sell only certain models and makes.
In that sense, the current act gives a person the opportunity to
choose the products he wants to sell. If, some day, that person
realizes that the products he sells no longer meet his expectations,
he can always sell his business to someone else.
[English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate this evening on Bill C-221.
As a former machinery dealer and one who was involved in the
industry for a good many years, I can tell the House that the bill has
significant importance to me, as I believe it does for most of us in
the House.
I am in complete support of this private member's bill as
proposed by the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, which is a
neighbouring riding to mine. I would like to commend my
colleague for her efforts to amend the Competition Act.
(1845)
The purpose of this bill is to put an end to a restriction in almost
all franchise agreements that does not allow car or farm equipment
dealers to sell a competitor's product. This practice is known as
dualing.
As members will know, dealers are only allowed to display and
sell the products of the manufacturer or distributor with which they
have a franchise agreement because the agreement contains
anti-dualing clauses.
In some cases the franchise agreement states that a dealer cannot
dual without the written permission of the manufacturer. In
practice such permission is rarely given. Franchise agreements can
be cancelled and torn up by the manufacturer or the distributor if a
dealer sells another line of products. For example, a John Deere
dealer cannot sell New Holland tractors.
I have talked to the local farm equipment dealers having a part in
those organizations over the years in my riding and in other areas of
the province and country. They basically support this bill. They
want to be able to sell more than one line of product.
Dealers with a franchise agreement are also required to invest
large sums for facilities, equipment, personnel and training in order
to provide the sales and servicing deemed necessary by the
manufacturer. Sometimes the dealer's investment in inventory and
overhead required by the manufacturer is more than economically
practical, thus tying up funds that could potentially be used to sell
and service a competitor's line if the dealer was allowed to do so.
In small rural areas it makes sense to offer variety. A Case IH
dealer, for example, may not be able to go it alone but if allowed to
combine with another product, could stay in business.
Franchise agreements with anti-dualing provisions are
restrictive and should be trashed. Dealers are unable to provide
their customers with the choice from more than one line and
consumers are not given the advantage of being able to compare
and chose between competing lines of product. This problem
becomes more significant in communities and markets not big
enough to justify a dealer making a large investment to sell only
one line.
It is interesting and ironic to point out that franchise agreements
with anti-dualing provisions are illegal in many American states
such as Iowa, Missouri, New Hampshire and others. The threat of
termination of an agreement is grounds for a civil suit in the U.S.
If American dealers have operated successfully for years without
anti-dualing provisions, there is no justifiable reason whatsoever
that Canadian manufacturers and distributors can argue to maintain
them in this country. On top of that, many of these American
companies, such farm equipment dealers, are allowed different
products in the U.S., but these same dealers in Canada are not. This
is a farce.
Canadian laws do not protect our car and farm equipment dealers
from unfair franchise agreements. Current laws are not adequate in
their terms or satisfactory in their enforcement to strike down
anti-dualing provisions. Bill C-221 proposes an amendment to the
Competition Act that will disallow anti-dualing provisions in
franchise agreements. It will put us on a level playing field with the
U.S. and help our small business people compete in our own
markets.
Last year one automaker in Canada recognized that sales were
plunging and agreed to allow its dealers to sell cars from other
companies. Mazda Canada Incorporated was the first to do so, but
others are sure to follow. Mazda had built a very large dealer
network but it was not selling enough cars to justify it.
Today's market calls for diversification. Consumers will head to
the dealer with the most selection. Competition is healthy. I believe
it is the government's responsibility to provide a climate that will
1003
end anti-dualing provisions in franchise agreements to allow
dealers to sell products from competing manufacturers.
Manufacturers, distributors or suppliers can argue that scrapping
anti-dualing rules is not the way to go. First, they may suggest
dealer loyalty will be diluted if they are allowed to sell products
from more than one producer. Dealer loyalty should be earned by a
manufacturer, not forced or coerced by the threat of termination of
an agreement. Imagine if a grocery store were only allowed to sell
one brand of peanut butter.
Selling competing brands allows the consumer to choose. Again
this is a capitalist system. This bill will strengthen and enhance the
free market system.
Second, manufacturers may argue customer loyalty will be lost
if dealers are selling products from competing manufacturers. I
submit that customers will remain loyal to a dealer as long as they
feel they are being dealt with fairly. I also submit a customer will
remain loyal to a dealer that does offer them the choice of more
than one product. Service and selection are the two main reasons
for shopping for and buying any product, whether it is a car, a seed
drill, a planter or a new suit.
(1850)
Third, manufacturers may threaten to take away exclusive
distribution of their parts from dealers. That is exactly what this is:
a threat that could be used by a manufacturer against a dealer that
takes legal action against anti-dualing provisions.
Fourth, a manufacturer may claim if anti-dualing is prohibited
that a car or farm equipment dealer would or could become a
monopoly supplier in the local market. But, on the other hand, is
that not what a manufacturer is promoting if he argues that no other
product line can be sold out of that dealership?
Another argument that could be brought forward if an end to
anti-dualing practices is put into effect is that the number of dealers
will decrease. However, we have to recognize that this is reality in
today's marketplace. Companies are diversifying in order to
survive. Today, as many MPs from rural areas will know, the farm
equipment dealers are gone. There used to be five in the town of
Dresden, a town of 2,800, and today there are no dealers left in that
community.
In summary, Bill C-221 will allow for automotive and farm
equipment dealers to sell products from competing manufacturers.
This is diversification. The more selection dealers have to offer
consumers, the more likely their businesses will prosper. The
amendments in the bill are good for business and they are good for
the consumer, who will benefit from more selection.
I applaud my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex for coming
forward with this bill. She truly represents her constituents from
her mainly rural riding in southwestern Ontario. As was mentioned
last night during private member's hour on Bill C-201, partisan
politics has no place during Private Members' Business.
I urge all members from all parties to support Bill C-221. It
makes sense, it will enhance competition and it will put our small
business entrepreneurs on a level playing field with those in the
U.S. That is the direction in which we should be going.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe there are three or four members
who wish to speak. Unfortunately, we are going to be short of time.
I would ask members if they would be so kind as to keep their
remarks a bit shorter than they might otherwise intend.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will try to observe your request.
I would like to commend the intent which the hon. member for
Lambton-Middlesex has presented in Bill C-221. The intent of
trying to create more competition and providing a more
competitive marketplace is a good idea. Some of the things which
the hon. member is trying to achieve are laudable and worthwhile.
I certainly agree with the previous speaker that this is not a
partisan issue. It is a good idea to observe that, especially when we
are debating Private Members' Business.
I would like to look at this from the perspective of the principle
of legislation. The legislation should be supported by principle.
The principle which is involved in this legislation is that it should
encourage and maintain competition and entrepreneurship, as well
as providing a level playing field.
Another characteristic is that it should be enforceable. That
means it has to be clear, it has to be reasonable and, of course, it has
to enjoy general public support. Those are rather significant
matters of principle which any bill should have.
I would like to briefly refer to the provisions in the current
legislation. It is very interesting what section 77(2) states. It states
that the the director of investigation and research can apply to the
tribunal for an order prohibiting a supplier from continuing to
engage in exclusive dealings, if the supplier is a major supplier or if
the practice is widespread in the market, and if the practice of
exclusive dealing is likely to impede entry into or expansion of a
firm in a market, or to impede the introduction of a product into or
expansion of a product sales in the market, or to have any other
exclusionary effect on the market, and if as a result of the practice
of exclusive dealing competition is or is likely to be lessened
substantially, that is, in a major way.
(1855)
I would respectfully suggest that the provisions in the current
legislation are adequate. Their enforcement however is very
inadequate. The hon. member in this legislation is trying to find a
way to
1004
have the provisions that are contained in the existing legislation
enforced more equitably and a little more easily.
If that is the issue, then the bill goes too far. It applies exactly the
same way as the bill is being proposed to urban situations where
there are very dense centres of population and to areas where there
is sparse population. The problems of doing business are different
in a highly concentrated population centre as compared with a
sparsely settled area.
The intent of her legislation would definitely appeal and apply to
the sparsely settled population centre. I could not agree more. I am
not sure however that the same universal application would be
equally well supported in large cities like Edmonton, or Toronto, or
Ottawa for that matter.
Perhaps the question is, should we not provide for a more
effective enforcement mechanism of the current legislation? I do
believe, and the hon. member for Huron-Bruce indicated this, that
Mazda had recognized that they should allow dual lines to boost the
sales of their Mazda line. It is great. It is wonderful. That is the
kind of line that the market will provide.
The legislation should allow for that freedom to exist. Where
that freedom is interfered with, the director under the existing
Competition Act should be allowed to interfere. The reason why he
does not interfere is not totally clear to me. In the background
information the indication was made that resources are inadequate
for the director to actually pursue these kinds of deviations from
the intent of the law.
I would respectfully suggest to the House that the appropriate
resources be made available to the director so that he or she can
prosecute those people who are not meeting the intent of the
legislation. We need to be very careful about that sort of thing.
Something else exists in the current legislation which I believe is
very inadequate. I would like to refer to some of the notes that the
hon. member did make available to my office, which I really
appreciate. I would like to read this into the record: ``The exclusive
dealing provision of the act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the
director to move against restrictions on competition such as those
inherent in anti-dualing provisions''.
That is correct. That exclusive prosecution capability ought to be
included in the dealer's ability to go to the tribunal and alert them
that there is a problem. I would agree.
Perhaps the amendment includes that. But the amendment would
have been more appropriate if that could have been expanded so
that dealers could do that.
The next paragraph goes on: ``Therefore individual dealers
whose businesses are injured by the restrictions contained in
anti-dualing simply do not have the right to instigate proceedings''.
That is the point and I agree completely with it. I know the hon.
member said the amendment does that but I am not quite convinced
that it does. Section 77(2) or earlier sections which give the
director that exclusive right have not been eliminated. Therefore a
different set of litigation laws has to be appealed to in order to
make happen what the hon. member suggested would happen.
Finally, to be really effective and fair, an amendment to the act
should not only allow for enforcement action against anti-dualing
provisions in franchise agreements but also should be framed in
such a way that a dealer or a member of the public-we are adding
the member of the public now-who is injured by the existence or
enforcement of such provisions will have the right to take private
action against the restrictive provisions.
Those are the kinds of things that I believe should be included in
the amendment to the current Competition Act. I agree with that
and support it.
(1900)
I find myself not in opposition to the bill but suggesting that
some changes could be made that would make it a little more
effective and that would make a distinction between the sparsely
populated centre versus the densely populated centre because the
problems are different. I know the sparsely populated centres are
the ones where the current anti-dualling provisions handicap the
dealers tremendously. They do not do the kinds of things the
member is trying to do with this bill. I agree completely with that.
Perhaps this will improve it a little. Maybe the next time we
come at this we will have it put together the way we need it.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is indeed a great honour for me to support private
member's Bill C-221 presented by my esteemed colleague from
Lambton-Middlesex. The issue at hand is a grave one for many of
my constituents. I will digress for a moment to respond to the
member from the third party with regard to three of the
observations he made.
The first is in relation to sparsity. The city I come from was so
sparse that all the dealers left, that is 10,000. We must be careful
when we talk about sparsity. What does sparsity mean? For people
in rural Saskatchewan everything is fairly sparse. We have to
ensure that dealers have a place and that they are protected.
Let me go one step further and consider a company like
McDonald's. Anyone who competes against McDonald's wants to
be located right next door because he likes the competition. Yet
within the framework of these large companies they are telling the
John Deere dealer not to move beyond the scope of John Deere.
People travel hundreds of miles to get parts and this dealer who
is having trouble competing in the world around him adds one or
two parts to provide that level of service, and they are prepared to
see him lose his dealership. On the other hand if they were really
competitive and open minded individuals they would say: ``No,
John Deere we want you to handle that and we want you to handle
Case as well. If our machinery is the kind of machinery we say it is,
ours will be selected over Case anyway''. I appreciate what my
1005
hon. friend from Huron-Bruce who was in that business had to
offer on this very important topic.
With regard to the proposal in Bill C-221, the machinery dealers
are now saying they are prepared to go along with the proposal on
this type of thinking: ``We will step in and allow you to sell
combines, but we will not allow you to sell tractors''. They are
going to move in and add additional pressure on the people who are
providing that service on their behalf.
I support the bill. I think the bill is well framed. We do have to
look at it. The question was raised of why does somebody not move
in and take some action against this inappropriate behaviour? That
small dealer is not going to go against his company because his
survival is based on that company's supporting him with that
machinery. If he loses that line, he is out of business. In rural
Saskatchewan when someone comes to pick up his machinery, he
picks up his fuel, he picks up his food and he picks up his mail. It is
another way to ensure that rural Saskatchewan, rural Manitoba and
rural Canada in general will eventually die.
It is incumbent on all of us to do something as we speak on this
very important private member's bill. Again I commend the
member for Lambton-Middlesex for having the courage to come
forward and say there is something in this private member's bill
that we want everyone to look at. The time has come for us to set
aside our personal feelings and ask: Is it good for Canada? Is it
good for rural Canada? Is it good for all of us? Can we support it?
In my opinion, we can support it and we will support it.
(1905)
I sincerely thank my friend opposite for allowing me the
privilege of taking part in this very serious discussion. I look
forward to the statements from my fellow MPs from
Saskatchewan.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important
private members' initiative.
I too wish to congratulate the member for Lambton-Middlesex
for her dedication to this issue. She and her office have worked
diligently with some in the industry to achieve a goal. I am very
happy to spend time in support of her work.
I was very pleased to hear the interventions of the other members
this afternoon which indicated that there is a great need to make
changes in the Competition Act to support the communities we
represent and the economy of our country. At the same time, the
debate indicates there is considerable support for the bill and the
ideas that go along with strengthening the bill.
The member for Huron-Bruce gave us a good indication about
what someone from within the industry thinks of the need for the
bill. I was grateful for his intervention because it strengthened my
confidence in the overall outlook on the bill.
For the benefit of those who are hearing about this for the first
time, Bill C-221 is an act to amend the Competition Act, which
creates an offence for manufacturers and distributors of motor
vehicles and farm equipment to engage in certain marketing
practices with their dealers. In virtually all cases, franchise
agreements provide that a dealer shall not carry any other line or
``dual'' without the written permission of the manufacturer. In
practice we know that permission is rarely forthcoming.
I come from a farming area in northern Saskatchewan where the
communities are very small. The people who farm in those
communities have great distances to travel for their support. In the
past, farm dealers have driven throughout our area as they do in
other parts of Canada. Over the years, the economics of rural
Canada with a sparse population with decreasing incomes from the
farm have led to a lot of changes in the way in which the agriculture
industry is serviced. Where we once had many dealers, we now
have a handful.
It makes it very difficult because there are many different
product lines and there is a lot of loyalty to the original product
lines on the farms scattered throughout northwest Saskatchewan
and elsewhere. Fewer dealers and a great number of product lines
results in many farmers finding it difficult to obtain the parts and
service for the equipment they originally bought.
This private members' initiative gives the opportunity to some
of the dealers currently carrying single product lines to recognize,
understand and support the marketplace within their area. Many
different product lines are not able to be serviced under the current
arrangements. It would be marvellous if the local single product
line dealer in one community could provide parts and service for
many of the product lines that exist within that dealer's community.
It would be of great benefit to the whole region.
(1910)
At the same time, there might be an opportunity for new
dealerships to open their doors, servicing not just one product line
but several product lines. They could service the entire community.
Rural Saskatchewan, particularly the remote rural part where
several members of this House come from, is currently so
underserviced by the equipment dealers.
1006
I am very proud of the equipment dealers that currently function
within northwest Saskatchewan and Saskatchewan in general.
They have had a very difficult time throughout the past 10 years
with the decline in farm prices. They have stuck with their
communities and they work hard in them. Quite often they and
their staff volunteer their time in the communities for everything
from coaching minor hockey and baseball through to calling some
of the church bingos that still exist throughout the riding. I am
very grateful that those people are able to contribute to the
communities in the way they do. This legislation offers greater
opportunities for those people to remain in our communities and
for others like them to find themselves there as well.
I do not want to go on at great length because there are others
who wish to speak to this bill. The restrictions that have been put in
place have certainly increased costs and reduced availability within
the marketplace. I hope that this bill has the support of the
members of the House.
The member for Lambton-Middlesex has certainly done her
homework with regard to this bill. She has talked to everyone in the
industry from the Ontario Farm Implements Dealers Association
through to dealers across Canada. I know they have contacted her
because some of them from Saskatchewan have contacted me
asking to whom they can direct some of their information, concerns
and support.
I am also aware that the Minister of Industry has tried to address
this issue through the competitions bureau and that earlier this year
the competitions bureau was to hold hearings and should have
reported on this. I would have been happier to be standing here
today supporting a government bill that I knew was going through
all three readings in this House and that I could vote in favour of to
ensure that with government support the legislation would go
through and this would have full government support.
In the absence of government support and in the absence of a bill
presented by the Minister of Industry, I am very happy to be able to
stand today and support the private member's initiative by the
member for Lambton-Middlesex. As I said earlier, I commend
the bill to the House. I would hope that members of the House will
find it in their power to put some pressure on the government to see
that this type of legislation finds its way into reality.
The member's diligence, dedication and hard work in this regard
should have its rewards. I only hope that they are forthcoming.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on private member's
Bill C-221 as introduced by my colleague representing the riding of
Lambton-Middlesex. I congratulate and thank my colleague for
the work and research she has put into this bill.
(1915 )
This bill proposes to amend the Competition Act by making it a
criminal offence to prohibit manufacturers and distributors of
motor vehicles and farm equipment from engaging in certain
marketing practices with their dealers.
As I understand it, the purpose of the bill is to improve the
efficiency of dealer operations. The view has been expressed by my
colleague that restrictive arrangements between manufacturers and
dealers prohibiting the the practice of dualling may result in
inefficiencies for dealers in the sales and servicing of motor
vehicles and farm equipment.
The objective of increasing efficiencies is a valid one in the
context of competition legislation. Promoting efficiency and
adaptability of the Canadian economy is specifically cited at
section 1.1, the purpose clause of the act, as one of the principle
purposes of the legislation. The provisions of the Competition Act
have been created with this objective in mind.
The second objective addressed in Bill C-221 is to protect and
encourage franchise dealers operating throughout the country by
allowing them greater opportunity to realize gains in efficiency in
their operations. Small and medium size businesses are at the very
heart of our country and their success is key to the growth of the
Canadian economy.
Accordingly, this objective is equally as important and
noteworthy and is also recognized in existing competition
legislation. It is recognized throughout the specific provisions of
the Competition Act, which have been created with this purpose in
mind, and more specifically in the purpose clause which provides
that the purpose of the act is to ensure that small and medium size
enterprises have an equitable opportunity to participate in the
Canadian economy.
While the objective of the proposed legislation to control the
anti-competitive consequences of prohibitions against dualling is
worthwhile and should be supported and encouraged, the proposed
bill is not the most appropriate for ensuring this objective.
A provision which addresses the very same objectives and
conduct as the proposed bill attempts to address can already be
found in section 77 of the act. This section deals with the issues of
exclusive dealing. In order to understand why the existing
provisions are more appropriate than those found in Bill C-221 to
address the conduct complained of, it is important to consider the
Competition Act and the structure under which it has been created.
1007
The current legislation is a framework law of general
application. It applies with some notable exceptions to all sectors
of the Canadian economy, namely manufacturing, resources and
services. The law touches on the everyday life of all Canadians
by maintaining and encouraging competition in the marketplace
with the objective of providing consumers with competitive prices
and a variety of choices in the goods and services they buy.
Competition policy is a fundamental element in the
government's economic framework aimed at fostering efficiency,
adaptability, innovation and growth in the Canadian economy.
Bill C-221 would create criminal offences punishable on
summary conviction or on indictment with the possibility of a fine
in the discretion of the court or imprisonment for a term of up to
five years. It is important to remember that criminal law is a
powerful legislative tool, one that ought to be used with restraint.
In particular, this is a legislative tool that ought to be invoked in
limited circumstances. It should be invoked in respect of conduct
that gives rise to clear, serious harm and in respect of types of
conduct that are likely to be harmful across a wide variety of
economic conditions and business circumstances.
This is why the Competition Act has been drafted to include both
criminal prohibitions and civil reviewable matters. Criminal law
should be reserved for the most serious acts where it is clear that a
particular conduct should be outlawed. Offences of the act which
fall into this category include conspiracy and bid rigging.
On the other hand, the Competition Act contains other matters
which are not criminal prohibitions but are categorized under the
legislation as matters that may be reviewed by the competition
tribunal, an administrative body under a civil standard of proof.
(1920 )
The tribunal may make remedial orders to overcome the effects
of such practices but penal consequences are not imposed for a
violation of these provisions.
Bill C-221 would create an absolute prohibition and declare
certain conduct undesirable in all circumstances without
recognizing that circumstances may equally exist which would
make the conduct pro-competitive or competitively neutral.
This issue will certainly be raised in committee when we discuss
the amendments to the Competition Act once they are introduced.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the consideration
of private members' business has now expired and this item is
dropped from the Order Paper.
1007
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in this
House, on March 13, I questioned the President of the Treasury
Board about his intention to establish a Canadian securities
commission. I pointed out to the minister that the various
provincial securities commissions were already busy setting up the
system for electronic document analysis and retrieval, commonly
known as SEDAR. This new system, which should be operational
in a few months, will ensure a true integration of financial markets.
The funniest part of it is that the minister seemed totally unaware
of the very existence of the system.
On this issue as on many others, the federal government is
showing that good intentions do not necessarily give good results.
The Bloc Quebecois understands that a degree of harmonization
is required between the various provincial commissions for the
sake of efficiency and effectiveness. The private sector also came
to that conclusion, and that is why, in a very near future, SEDAR
will make the issue of securities easier between provinces.
The system that the federal government intends to establish, on
the other hand, has nothing to do with wanting to simplify the
process; chances are it is yet another attempt at centralizing and
interfering. The idea is not new, by the way. Aggressive action to
create a Canada-wide securities commission was undertaken as
early as in 1964 by a royal commission. In 1979, another attempt
was devised in the form of a draft bill. Finally, less than three years
ago, the premiers of the maritime provinces also called for the
establishment of a Canadian securities commission.
As is its custom, the federal government is once again
duplicating what the provinces are already doing, without worrying
about costs or effectiveness. To add insult to injury, it wants to
interfere in an area in which the private sector is about to
harmonize the rules in co-operation with the other provinces.
Federal-provincial overlap? Totally out of the question, Mr.
Speaker.
At a time when socio-economic stakeholders in Montreal
deplore the serious economic problems plaguing Quebec's largest
city, the federal government is once again trying to steer financial
operations toward Toronto. Brokers, lawyers, accountants in the
financial sector might be forced to leave Montreal for Toronto.
This is the effect the creation of a Canadian securities
commission would have, by centralizing financial activity on that
Ontario metropolis. It is not, moreover, mere happenstance that the
English speaking provinces, and Ottawa, are trying to isolate
Quebec and to force its commission to be subservient to the
Canadian one.
1008
The government must put an end right now to its centralist plans
for the Montreal region, which are prejudicial to that region. Let us
keep in mind that, only days ago in the throne speech, the federal
government announced its intention to face up to the realities of the
20th century, and to withdraw from areas of provincial jurisdiction
as much as possible.
Now, only a few days later, it makes a complete about face and
wants to interfere in an area where the provinces and the private
sector are managing very well.
We see clearly what is going on now; those old ghosts of
centralization are still haunting this House.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a question
about the system for electronic document analysis and retrieval, or
SEDAR.
It would perhaps be useful to tell the House what SEDAR does.
SEDAR makes it possible to transmit documents electronically to
securities commissions and to create an electronic data base
accessible to the public.
Rather than being mailed to each of the provincial
administrations, as is now the case, documents would go out once
electronically. For us and for those involved in the securities
market, this is clearly a welcome measure. In fact, if we were to set
up a Canadian securities commission, SEDAR would be an
essential part of it.
With the advent of SEDAR, the Canadian securities commission
is not superseded. In itself, SEDAR does not eliminate the overlap
in the present securities regulation system in Canada. It does not
solve the problem of approving prospectuses and registering
brokers. The approval of at least 12 regulating bodies is still
required.
It does not eliminate the inconsistencies in the application of
provincial rules, the discrepancies in execution, or the time and
effort necessary to co-ordinate the policies of provincial
administrations.
The commission would promote the effective application of
regulation and improve access to Canadian financial markets. As
financial markets are increasingly linked to foreign markets, we
must increase the efficiency of our markets in order for our
businesses to be competitive.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 7.26 p.m.)