CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 6, 1996
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6181
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6183
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6183
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6184
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6184
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6184
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6184
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6184
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6185
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6185
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6185
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6185
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6186
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 6187
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 6187
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6187
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6188
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6189
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 6190
Bill C-346. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted. 6192
Motion for concurrence in 44th report 6192
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6194
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6194
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6194
Bill C-61. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 6196
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 6196
Motion for concurrence in 44th report agreed to 6196
Motion moved and agreed to 6196
Bill C-41. Motion for third reading. 6196
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6200
Motion M-205. Consideration resumed of motion 6211
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 31; Nays, 124 6212
Bill C-214. Motion for second reading 6212
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 6216
6179
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 6, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, and at great expense we have brought in the
talented member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the Niagara Federations of Agriculture on their award
winning educational video entitled ``Where Does it All Come
From?'' This 13-minute children's video was recently honoured at
the TVO Telefest awards gala in Toronto where it was awarded first
prize in the instructional category.
The video offers children a fascinating insight into where our
food comes from. The film represents a true picture of agriculture
in the nineties and deals with the dairy, fruit and sheep industries.
The video was produced in partnership with the Niagara College
television arts program and many talented Niagara peninsula
residents contributed to its outstanding success. Lucy Decandido, a
Niagara College graduate, filmed and edited the piece as her
third-year project. The narration was provided by 12-year-old
Keely Carter of College Street Public School in Smithville.
As one participant said: ``Agriculture has a very positive story to
tell and it is up to the agricultural community to tell it''.
I compliment the Niagara Federations of Agriculture on their
initiative to sponsor a copy of the video and teacher's kit for every
elementary school in Niagara.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
November is osteoporosis awareness month. This disease, which
makes bones more fragile and fracture-prone, affects more than 1.5
million people, primarily women, one woman in four and one man
in eight in Quebec and in Canada.
This silent and stealthy disease has a high social cost. More than
a billion dollars are spent annually on hospitalization, ambulance
services and drugs to treat osteoporosis-related injuries. The total
over 25 years will be in excess of $32 billion.
The physical and emotional suffering and the costs related to
osteoporosis could be reduced, however, simply through
prevention, particularly information, consciousness-raising and a
healthy calcium-rich diet.
Osteoporosis is surely a good example of the old adage: ``an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure''.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a few
days ago some softwood lumber mills across Canada found out that
the government is putting them out of business. They were
expecting to have their exports to the United States cut by 10 per
cent. They were not expecting to have to close their doors
altogether.
The lumber deal the government signed with the United States is
a death warrant for some small mills in this country. The industry
would have been better off with the American countervailing duty
at the border. The mills would have survived and then we would be
well on our way to a settlement with the World Trade Organization,
a solution that we recommended to the government seven months
ago.
This problem has developed because the Liberal government has
been afraid to take on the United States. It has buckled to American
6180
pressure. Unfortunately, the price will be paid by employees and
owners of small mills across Canada.
So much for the red book. Jobs, jobs, jobs will be lost, lost, lost.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
met recently with representatives of the SDF of Cameroun, a sister
party of the NDP in the Socialist International, and from them I
learned that many abuses are currently taking place without an
appropriate international response, considering that the democratic
institutions now in operation in the Cameroun are a result of
conditions set by the IMF.
For example, only a small percentage of the eligible electorate is
registered and in the last election there were blatant episodes of
vote rigging, ballot tampering and the overturning of results that
were not favourable to the governing party.
One wishes that the IMF enforced its democratic and political
requirements as strongly as it does its structural adjustment and
economic requirements.
I call on the Canadian government to use its membership in the
many international forums of which it is a member to engage
constructively with the Cameroun to improve its democratic
institutions. Strengthened democratic structures will be well worth
the investment if they can prevent the kind of bloodshed and civil
strife we are seeing in parts of central Africa today.
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today on behalf of my four-year-old daughter, her friends and,
indeed, all of the children of Winnipeg who are outraged by the
unwarranted attack by the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle on
Winnie the Pooh. The member charges that by profiling Winnie the
Pooh on our stamps we are in danger of losing our identity as a
nation.
Winnie the Pooh was born in White River, Ontario. He is named
after the great city of Winnipeg. His origins have been celebrated
for decades in Canada and there are statues to him in three
Canadian cities.
Like a great many other Canadians, our Winnie has made it big
on the international stage. He won an Oscar and has become one of
the most popular children's entertainers in the world.
Contrary to the statement by the member that we are losing our
identity, we are in fact enhancing it. We are celebrating a Canadian
who brings joy to the hearts of children around the world.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Another young suicide victim was buried in Rankin Inlet last
weekend. Another bright and capable youth who could have
contributed greatly to his community and to all of Nunavut took his
own life and was lost to us forever.
There have been too many deaths. Our youth, our best and
brightest hopes for the future, are killing themselves at shocking
rates. It has to stop.
I call on all the people of Nunavut, young and old, individuals
and communities, to come together to make suicide prevention a
priority. Our youth need us and we need them.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next
Monday Canadians will pause, as we do each year, to remember
those who defended us in the battle against fascism; those who
fought for us in the interests of democracy and freedom.
(1405 )
We will remember our family, our friends, our neighbours, those
in zones of conflict in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
They met the enemy on the high seas, in the air and on the ground,
worked in the factories, volunteered in their communities and gave
the best of themselves. Many made the ultimate sacrifice so that we
may live in peace.
Let us not forget the contribution of even one Canadian in the
monumental struggle against hatred, racism, tyranny. All deserve
our thanks and recognition.
Veterans of the RAF Ferry Command, no less than veterans of
the army, navy, air force or merchant marine, deserve recognition
for the risks they took, sacrifices they made and the lives they lost
in our defence.
All those Canadians who gave so much in our time of need were
and are a model for all of us, both at home and around the world.
6181
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend, I took part in the annual assembly of the Canadian
Hispanic Congress in Vancouver.
The hispanic community is made up of some 300,000 men and
women who were born in Latin America or Spain. They came here
to escape persecution, dictatorship or civil war, or merely in search
of a better life.
Canadians and Quebecers of hispanic origin, of which I am one,
constitute a relatively new, dynamic and growing community, with
an important contribution to make to their host society. Quebec has
welcomed some 80,000 Latin Americans with warmth and
generosity. They have integrated well with this society, with which
they have characteristics in common, due to their shared latin
heritage.
As the sole member of this House of hispanic origin, I wish to
greet the members of this ethno-cultural community, the executive
of the Canadian Hispanic Congress, and particularly its president,
Bernardo Berdichewsky.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals have been patting themselves on the back lately, claiming
that they have kept most of their red book promises.
The facts are that of the 198 promises made in the red book, only
two had a major impact on the voters and, indeed, were major
reasons for voters giving their trust. The failure to deliver on jobs,
jobs, jobs as well as scrap, abolish and kill the GST are the two
broken promises Canadians will remember in the next federal
election.
On the GST, the Liberals had no real plan to replace the $15
billion in revenue so they could scrap it. They just made a hollow
promise to get elected. We are still paying the GST.
On job creation, the Liberals had no plan to help the private
sector create jobs. There are as many people unemployed now as
when they made their hollow jobs promise to get elected: 4.1
million unemployed Canadians is totally unacceptable.
The red book was a fairy tale that should have begun ``Once
upon a time''. There will be a happy ending, however, with the
defeat of those who make broken promises and the election of a
party that gives a guarantee with its promises.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Wilfrid Laurier was elected Prime Minister of Canada in June. A
Liberal, he is filled with enthusiasm and determination. That was
100 years ago, in 1896.
He used to say how proud he was to be French-Canadian. And it
is this pride I found in Vancouver when I met with British
Columbia's francophone community in mid-October.
The 70,000 francophones living in B.C. need our help. We must
help them get the access they need to French-language radio and
television programming.
It is this pride to be French-Canadian they are demanding. I join
with my Liberal friends, my Bloc colleagues, I am sure, and my
friend, the hon. member for Beauce, in calling on Heritage Canada
to set aside a special budget for B.C.-oriented programming.
Wilfrid Laurier, we salute you and assure you that the 1 million
French-Canadians outside Quebec have a strong voice in this
Parliament.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is Veterans Week, from November 3 to 11. It is a fitting time to
pay tribute to one of Canada's veterans, who is also one of my
constituents, Smokey Smith.
Born in New Westminister, B.C. and enlisting in the Seaforth
Highlanders Regiment in March of 1940, Smokey Smith is one of
only two living Canadians who have received Canada's and the
Commonwealth's highest decoration for bravery in action, the
Victoria Cross.
Fifty-two years ago Private Smith's regiment headed an attack
across the Savio River in Italy. It is here Private Smith earned his
Victoria Cross, almost single-handedly turning back an enemy
counter attack. As a result, his battalion was able to consolidate a
bridgehead, vital to the success of the overall Canadian military
operations in the region.
(1410 )
This House and its members salute Smokey Smith today. We
cherish the uncommon valour and the personal commitment and
sacrifice of Private Smith and of all our veterans who served
Canada in two world wars and also in the United Nations military
operations and peacekeeping missions around the world.
6182
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with a great sense of urgency that I rise to speak about
the situation in Zaire.
Canadians are deeply concerned by the violence there. This part
of the world is in great danger if nations and people of goodwill do
not step in and prevent this violence.
I encourage all actions to ensure the safety of refugees in Zaire
and to establish and protect a safe zone for aid organizations to help
ease the suffering that has occurred and is occurring.
We should see these as real people, real individuals, not political
issues and not a political game. I encourage all members to speak
out not only among ourselves but also among our constituents. I
ask all Canadians to support whatever efforts that are necessary and
given by our foreign affairs and others as their work is reaching a
solution in that area.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to congratulate U.S. President
Bill Clinton on his re-election.
Now that the election is over, we hope that the President will
again have some elbow room to address the many international
issues that were left on the backburner, especially those with
Canada, on a more solid and conciliatory basis.
Let us not forget that several trade disputes remain unsettled.
This includes the Helms-Burton law, whose outright withdrawal we
are calling for, as well as the disputes regarding the tariffs on dairy,
egg and poultry products.
Furthermore, we believe Canada could take advantage of its
special relationship with its American neighbour to help revive the
Middle East peace process and favour the rapid establishment of an
international force that would open the eagerly awaited
humanitarian corridors in eastern Zaire.
As the member for Bellechasse, I wish to thank the people of the
state of Maine for voting in a referendum to allow the rational
development of their forests to continue.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as we prepare to once again officially commemorate the valiant
sacrifices made by veterans of our navy, army, air force and
peacekeepers, we pause to pay special tribute to Canadian
merchant mariners, the fourth arm of Canada's services.
Their vital role in carrying supplies to our troops in battle was
fundamental to allied victory.
Terrible risks were a fact of life. They faced brutal U-boat
attacks, surface raiders and marauding aircraft, all attempting to
interrupt this lifeline to our troops.
Merchant mariners faced severe conditions on board, shipwreck
in a cruel, cold sea often covered in blazing fuel and a prisoner of
war camp if they were able to reach land. Sixty-seven ships were
lost and on average when a ship went down less than half the crew
survived.
Four hundred died during the great war and of the 12,000
merchant mariners who risked their lives to preserve cherished
freedoms in the second world war, over 1,400 died.
Despite atrocious conditions, they did not shirk their duty. Thus,
it is our duty to remember the contributions and sacrifices they
made; a debt too great to ever be forgotten.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on April 2, our government reached an agreement with the
American government over the softwood lumber issue. This
agreement will give our industry immunity from legal action by the
American industry for the next five years.
For our part, we have agreed to limit at 14.7 billion board feet
per year the amount of softwood lumber shipped to the U.S.
duty-free. To meet this commitment, we have put in place a quota
system that was generally well received by the industry in the four
main lumber-producing provinces.
This system will be reviewed annually and will adjust to changes
in the industry and to market conditions.
The quota system is not a limit imposed on producers. In fact, it
guarantees extended access to the U.S. market.
6183
[English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Monday, November 11, will be Remembrance
Day and hundreds of thousands of people from across Canada will
gather at cenotaphs to remember the 115,000 young Canadians who
were killed in World War I and World War II, the Korean War and
peacekeeping duties, plus remembering those hundreds of
thousands who came home.
(1415 )
They gave up their future in Canada. They fought so that we
could live in peace and democracy. They fought so that we can sit
in this Parliament today and express the views of Canadians from
across this great land of ours in a free society.
They left their farms, their businesses, their high schools, their
universities. They left their loved ones behind. This is something
we should never forget. They went to do their duty in a cruel world.
Today we can never take things for granted. If there is anything
that we should implant in our own mind, in the minds of every
Canadian citizen and everyone in the free world, do not forget
them.
On Monday, let us remember them. Lest we forget.
The Speaker: Before going to question period we are going to
have a little bit of a change. I am going to recognize the Minister of
Veterans Affairs.
* * *
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State
(Veterans)(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent for a
minute of silence in respect of our Canadians veterans who paid the
ultimate sacrifice.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]
The Speaker: Thank you, my colleagues.
_____________________________________________
6183
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, President
Clinton's election was hailed by the Canadian government as
auguring well for the future. It is a pleasure to join the government
in congratulating President Clinton, and we wish to extend our best
wishes as well.
In this connection we would like to ask the Prime Minister if he
intends to take advantage of the good relationship he has with
President Clinton to intervene immediately and effectively against
the Helms-Burton law, which is a major irritant, not only for
Canada but also for many other countries, including members of
the European community.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during the lunch break, I had a chance to talk to President
Clinton and, speaking on behalf of the Parliament of Canada and all
Canadians, I offered him my sincere congratulations and my best
wishes for a second term.
As you know, we have a good relationship with the U.S.
government at this time. We did not have a very long discussion,
but I had a chance to mention some of the irritants that we would
like him to monitor.
I mentioned Helms-Burton, and I also asked for his co-operation
on the matter of Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi. He told me he was
watching this matter very closely, and we are to have another talk
within a few days. In any case, in two weeks we will be in Manila
together. We will be meeting again.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the Prime Minister for his reply. I felt it was important to
raise these questions.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he also intends to
discuss with the President, on very short notice, the unfortunate
habit of the United States to be overly protectionist, which creates
problems and goes against the spirit of the Free Trade Agreement,
as in the case of softwood lumber, for instance.
Did the Prime Minister bring this up or does he intend to, very
shortly?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that if we look at the various subjects at issue
between Canada and the United States, there are no major, pressing
problems, with the exception of Helms-Burton law.
As for softwood lumber, we have concluded an agreement with
them. We have agreed to impose a limit on exports. The Minister
for International Trade has concluded an agreement, after
consulting with the provincial governments. As far as the United
States and we are concerned, the matter was settled by this
agreement.
If there are any other problems the hon. member wishes to raise,
I will take note of them and mention them to the President when we
meet. The softwood lumber question has already been settled, and
6184
we are now putting the requisite mechanisms in place to
implement the agreement.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
Prime Minister seems to be open to suggestions, I would like to
mention that the U.S. pensions issue is disturbing many Quebecers.
The official opposition asks the Prime Minister to raise with
President Clinton those issues that are troubling our people and
affect them directly.
Furthermore, I would ask the Prime Minister this: Following the
preliminary ruling made in the controversial eggs, milk and poultry
question, a ruling that is to be confirmed very shortly, I would like
to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to make
representations to the U.S. president before it is too late, before
Canada is forced into the same kind of situation as in the case of
softwood lumber, in other words, before we are forced to negotiate
an agreement at our expense. The softwood lumber agreement is
far from perfect and puts a heavy burden on lumber producers. The
agreement on milk, eggs and poultry might go the same way, unless
the Prime Minister quickly and proactively intervene with the
President.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as far as the eggs and poultry issue is concerned, we have
discussed this problem several times with the Americans. Our
position is clear. We have determined that the marketing boards
that exist in Canada have a right to exist under the agreements we
signed with them and under the GATT agreements that were
renegotiated a year ago.
We believe that our position complies with the agreements we
have with the Americans. If they want to challenge these
agreements, legal recourse is provided under NAFTA and also
under the GATT rules, so that we can defend our rights. Our
positions are clear, and at this moment, these agreements between
our two countries exist. They have been duly signed.
* * *
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister.
Beyond trade-related matters, there is also a number of urgent
issues on the international scene. Again, Canada can play a positive
role, including through its relations with the United States.
Following President Clinton's re-election yesterday and the
recent Nairobi summit, will the Prime Minister propose to the
American president to submit to the Security Council a joint
request from Canada, the United States and France to quickly put in
place a multinational humanitarian force to put an end to the
terrible plight of Zairian refugees?
We have nothing against diplomacy but, as Bernard Kouchner
pointed out again this morning, time is of the essence and people
are dying.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada showed leadership and initiative regarding
African regional leaders. Indeed, we are prepared to carefully
examine the African leaders' proposals for a safe haven, a corridor
and the presence of neutral forces. Ambassador Chrétien's special
mission will provide us with an opportunity to immediately review
these proposals and to determine the types of resources and
commitments required from the international community as a
whole.
(1425)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there is another major issue regarding foreign affairs.
Given that tension is rising in the Middle East, does the Prime
Minister intend to discuss, with the American president, the urgent
need to revive the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian
authority, before the current crisis degenerates even more?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, beginning on Tuesday next week I will be in Cairo at the
middle eastern major summit meeting. I hope to have direct
discussions with the foreign minister of Israel and the
representative of the Palestinian authority as well as other leaders
from the Middle East.
We will certainly make very clear our strong support for
continuation of the peace process, our commitment to help them
develop economically and to provide the kind of support we need
internationally on a multilateral basis to search for the right
solutions for peace in that area.
I will be very pleased to report to the House after that trip.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for months the Prime Minister has made frequent
references to his special ethics guidelines for cabinet ministers.
Then he says that he cannot release them because they are cabinet
confidential. Now according to the CBC and his own ethics
counsellor, these special ethics guidelines for cabinet ministers do
not even exist. It seems that the Prime Minister's guidelines are
imaginary like his homeless friends.
Will the Prime Minister clear the air and simply release his much
touted ethics guidelines for cabinet ministers to this House?
6185
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have seen the fresh start and it is not starting very
well.
In every case that comes before this House the Prime Minister
has to judge the facts and the facts are public. I have spoken about
the case that was mentioned which I discussed with the ethics
counsellor.
I have said in the House many times and I will repeat again that
the directives written by the Prime Minister for his ministers are
directives of the Prime Minister to the ministers for their conduct.
The conduct of a minister is a question of public record. I take the
responsibility if somebody questions the conduct of ministers.
In the case of the secretary of state, I have accepted her word and
everything is in order at this moment. I do not have anything to
add, but had the leader been here last week he would have heard the
same-
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would ask you to refrain from
speaking about who is here and who is not here at whatever time.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been out talking to real Canadians, not imaginary
ones.
This issue really should not be that difficult. The Prime Minister
has repeatedly told this House that he has special ethics guidelines
for cabinet ministers. The CBC and the Prime Minister's own
ethics counsellor say that they do not exist.
Either it is one thing or the other. Do these special guidelines
exist? If they do and the Prime Minister assumes responsibility for
ethics with his ministers, will he table those guidelines in this
House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat that I have guidelines for ministerial conduct
which have been transmitted to the ministers. They have read them
and they follow them.
An hon. member: Did they follow them?
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes, and they follow them very
well.
(1430 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to regard ethics as a private
matter between himself and the ministers. He will not release the
guidelines to the House and the public, and he only uses them to his
own political advantage, like when he had to sack the former
minister of defence.
The ethics of elected officials are public business. For the public
to judge whether the conduct of a cabinet minister is ethical, they
have to know the standards against which they are being judged.
If the Prime Minister really does believe in open government and
a higher standard of ethics, why does he not table in this House his
special ethics guidelines for cabinet ministers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the conduct of the minister is public.
We have been in government for three years. Never before has
the ethics of a government been challenged so little by the public
because the ministers are acting honourably in every case. I am not
afraid to stand here with my colleagues who have shown in the last
three years that we in this government have extremely high
standards. That is why this government is respected by the
Canadian public.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the last Liberal report of the Standing Committee on
Finance contains the following phrase, and I quote: ``The
Committee encourages the government to continue working with
interested provinces in order to set up a Canadian securities
commission'' But, in this morning's papers, we learned that a
number of provinces think the project is on the way out.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he confirm that
his government is dropping the project to set up a Canadian
securities commission, knowing that it is unanimously opposed by
economic, financial and political circles in Montreal and
throughout Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the request of several provinces, the federal government is
examining the possibility of setting up a Canadian securities
commission. We are negotiating with these provinces. It is not the
federal government's intention to impose it on anyone.
It is certainly our intention to make it easier to put the industry in
a position of being able to compete with the financial industry
outside our borders.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the very least that can be said in all this is that the Minister
of Finance is completely confused. The first project was for a
Canadian securities commission that would replace all the
provincial commissions.
Second, faced with mounting opposition to the project, they
decided it would be optional. Then there were, in theory, not ten
securities commissions but 11. This morning, in the newspaper, the
minister said: ``This could perhaps be cut down to two or three''.
This is just so much stalling around. It is what comes of not looking
after your own affairs.
6186
Since nobody in Quebec wants a Canadian securities
commission, since opposition is growing in British Columbia and
Alberta, and since there is a viable alternative to this commission
known as the SEDAR system, now being developed and put in
place by provincial commissions, why is the finance minister so
bent on pushing ahead with this project, which would be
devastating for the economy of Montreal?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member seems a bit confused.
[English]
What has happened is that the federal government at the request
of a number of provinces has sat down and looked at the possibility
of creating a national securities commission. The major purpose of
this is to ease the issuance of prospectuses, a great deal of which
will benefit the business community in Montreal, in Quebec and in
Vancouver and all of British Columbia.
I find it very hard to understand that the hon. member opposite
would say to the federal government that when the provinces want
to rationalize their operations, make them more effective, make
them more competitive, the federal government should not sit
down with them and try to do that. It is very clear that the real
purpose the member has is to not make the federation work, is to
not make Canada competitive. That will not work out to the benefit
of anybody, including the business community in Montreal.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the appointment
of cabinet ministers to their posts is the responsibility of the Prime
Minister and my question is directed to him. He has created a bit of
a conundrum here by saying that the code has been read by his
ministers, which shows that it is in printed form, yet the ethics
counsellor says that it does not exist.
(1435)
My question relates to a code that we do know exists. The 1994
code states that ``a public office holder shall not directly or
indirectly use or allow the use of government property of any
kind-for anything other than officially approved activities''.
Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board said quite clearly
that the whited out portions on the case in question were for
personal expenditures.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to admit at least that the secretary
of state clearly breached that section of the code?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
can only repeat what I said yesterday.
Under section 19 of the Access to Information Act, a
government institution shall not disclose personal information. The
Access to Information Act goes on to say that the definition of
personal information stated under the Privacy Act applies. Personal
financial transactions are included under personal information
under the Privacy Act. Therefore, these things should not be given
for public scrutiny because they are protected under the Privacy
Act. It is clear and that is the end of the matter.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the President of
the Treasury Board has just confirmed what we believe to be true,
which is that all of these things which are whited out are personal.
All we want is accountability of those personal amounts so we can
estimate their value.
An ordinary Canadian caught robbing a bank would not be
allowed to simply return the money and walk away on the grounds
that he was not committing the offence in bad faith or for personal
financial benefit and intended to reimburse the bank at some future
date.
In breaching the code and chapter 2-7 of the Treasury Board
guidelines, the junior minister committed a serious offence, one
which would have resulted in severe discipline for any other
member of the department.
Does the Prime Minister's talk about a high standard of ethics
not demand that these guidelines and code be enforced?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again the rule is clear. Government travel cards should be
used for official government expenses. When they are not, when
they are used for personal expenses, then the card holder must
reimburse all personal expenses.
This is exactly what the secretary of state did. She has
reimbursed all the expenditures which were made with the
government travel card. In this case, she has followed the rules and
has presented excuses for what she has done, but what she has done
is considered to be under the rules.
Once again if we were to have a beer or see a film in our hotel
room which is on an account and we pay with a government card,
the rules say that we must reimburse that personal expenditure.
This is exactly what the secretary of state did. She made excuses
for using a government travel card. She now has a personal
expenditure travel card. That is the end of it.
The Speaker: My colleagues, as you know, in the preambles to
our questions I give quite a bit of latitude because I am waiting
until we get to the question. Although the question itself is in order,
sometimes the preamble comes very close to being out of order. I
would just ask you to be very judicious in your choice of words in
the preamble.
6187
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Secretary of State for Veterans.
The members of the Merchant Marine who took part in Canada's
war effort have long complained that National Defence and
Veterans Affairs do not consider their concerns to be a priority.
They are calling for the benefits available to other veterans to be
available to them as well, without any discrimination.
(1440)
Can the minister indicate what his government's position is on
this matter, and will he commit to providing Merchant Marine
veterans with the same benefits as those provided to military
veterans?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State
(Veterans)(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since 1992 Merchant Navy veterans have been considered
full status veterans and they receive every pension and anything
that is available to any other veteran in this country. They are
eligible for all the benefits that any veteran in Canada is eligible
for.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
along with other members of this House, I had the honour of
participating in a ceremony remembering them. Forty-two per cent
of the members of the Merchant Navy who lost their lives in the
second world war came from Quebec. There is a reason for the
Merchant Navy veterans to be meeting. They are excluded from a
number of the provisions of the war-related benefits act.
Does the minister commit to holding consultations with the
coalition of Merchant Navy veterans before tabling his bill to
modify the provisions currently in effect?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State
(Veterans)(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are approximately 3,000 Merchant Navy veterans in
Canada. That figure is from the coalition. Over 2,000 of these
veterans receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I ask my hon. colleague or any other member of the House who
knows of any veteran, including a Merchant Navy veteran, who is
not receiving a benefit because of anything in the legislation to
contact me or the Department of Veterans Affairs. They are eligible
for any benefit that any veteran is eligible for in this country.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question with no preamble for the Secretary of State for Training
and Youth. Has she seen these ethical guidelines and, if so, when?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to
put the information before the House. I have done so.
I have been villainized, I have been criticized, I have been
damaged politically by these people wrongfully. The facts were
misrepresented.
I tabled all the information that they asked for. They have since
moved the goal post. They are not satisfied. This is a party bereft of
ideas. This is a party that has nothing-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, quite clearly this is a party
that is coming apart at the seams. It has absolutely nothing to take
to the public. It is villainizing me. It is trying to build a reputation
on my back. I will not stand for it any more.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are
not moving the goal post; they have moved the guidelines.
Without trying to villainize her at all, I have one question for the
junior minister. Has she seen the guidelines and when?
(1445 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the secretary of state had a chance to come to the House of
Commons last week. As an hon. member of this House, she gave an
explanation that was accepted by the House of Commons.
They can do that type of thing. I remember there was a party
whose members said they were going to change the mentality of the
House of Commons, and they are loving being in the dirt at that
level.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
On the one hand, under Quebec law, pregnant workers may use
the provisions respecting preventative withdrawal from work, with
compensation, if their work presents a risk to themselves or to the
foetus. Similar provisions exist in several other Canadian
provinces. On the other hand, those subject to the Canada Labour
Code do not enjoy the right to preventative withdrawal.
6188
Will the minister admit that the fact that the Canada Labour
Code provides for neither reassignment nor preventative
withdrawal with compensation penalizes pregnant or breastfeeding
workers in Quebec and Canada?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are currently reviewing part II of the Canada Labour
Code, which deals with the matter raised by the hon. member.
A group representing employers and unions, together with
officials from the Department of Labour program, has already
reached a consensus on 90 per cent of the proposed changes. We are
now working on the remaining 10 per cent.
On Monday, I instructed my officials to work on a consensus on
this matter with that group so that, hopefully early in the new year,
we can submit the next set of changes to the Canada Labour Code,
concerning health and safety as proposed by the hon. member.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on a biographical note, I would like to remind the minister
that, in 1993, he voted for an amendment regarding preventative
withdrawal tabled by the Bloc Quebecois, and I ask him this: Will
he undertake to make the necessary changes to the Canada Labour
Code so that agreements can be entered into with the provincial
governments, that would include compensation plans for the
reassignment or preventative withdrawal of pregnant or
breastfeeding workers, where such plans exist?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I just said, we are reviewing the amendments. I can
assure my hon. colleague that we are looking at this very seriously
and we intend to make changes as soon as possible.
* * *
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International
Trade.
On October 31, following the recent Canada-U.S. agreement on
softwood lumber, lumber companies in Quebec and Canada
received a letter from the Canadian government indicating their
market quotas.
Can the minister explain how these quotas were calculated and
say if steps were taken to protect those companies that have already
exceeded their quotas?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the members of the House that
first of all we responded in this agreement with the United States at
the request of the industry. The industry was, of course, in the
setting of the quotas consulted right throughout the way. It
established criteria, forwarded its suggestions to us and by and
large that is what we followed.
By and large the setting of the quota is based on past experience.
Each of the companies was allowed to pick its best 12 month period
with a two and a half year timeframe, and that is the information
they provided for us and that was the basis for our calculating what
they should be getting in the way of quota.
I should point out that quota means free quota because they can
still export as much as they want but it means that there are fees
that have to be paid over and above that quota.
There are some companies, as the hon. member has pointed out
in his question, that have exceeded their allocation. A lot of them
have done this of course in full knowledge about what their past
experience has been but have elected to rush the border and sell all
in the early phases of this program, which is unfortunate if they are
now facing a difficulty in terms of quota.
We have however, provided two things-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island.
* * *
(1450)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want the record
to show that I and the members of the Reform Party find no
pleasure at all in making these accusations.
I also want the record to show very clearly that we are here to
ferret out the facts and we want to know if these guidelines exist.
Today there is more than adequate doubt that they exist. Will any
minister who has seen the guidelines please stand up?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member is up every day and he is not able to table any
facts or make any arguments. They are arguing about how I deal
with my ministers. They should have the facts and the guts to make
accusations, not to work only with innuendoes like that. If they
want to make accusations they can get out of the House and make
accusations and face the consequences.
If the member has something concrete, put it to the House and
we will deal with it. We are not playing with innuendoes.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has put it right on the line. We do have the courage to
demand the facts and we are not going to let up until we have tabled
in this House un-whited documents that show all the facts.
6189
I will personally be delighted if the minister is totally
exonerated, but until those missing blanks are filled in we will
not let it rest. Will they do that?
The Speaker: Colleagues, on the words we are using, I have not
heard any accusations but now ``exoneration''. Please, my
colleagues, be very judicious in your choice of words. I am going to
permit the Prime Minister to answer.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been a member of this House for quite a long time.
I arrived here in 1963. It is a tradition in this House that when an
honourable member of the House gets up to table the facts, there is
an acceptance by the people that those are the facts until they can
prove the contrary.
The secretary of state rose and explained her case in front of the
nation, and they carry on the innuendoes with no facts.
He should do his homework, find the facts and come back, not
operate on innuendoes. This is not the dignity in this House that we
used to have in the old days.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport.
Since Canadian airlines' restructuring plan was announced last
Friday, divisions have appeared within the Canadian government.
On the one hand, the Minister of Industry was willing to consider a
request for financial assistance from Canadian; on the other hand,
the Minister of Transport reiterated yesterday that his government
would not invest another penny in Canadian.
Since the federal government has already done more than its
share for Canadian, notably by guaranteeing a $120 million loan,
buying back three Airbus planes for $150 million and awarding it
the lucrative Asian market, can the Minister guarantee us today he
has no intention of injecting more tax dollars into a company that
has lost over $1.3 billion in the past eight years?
(1455)
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member talks about differences of opinion between
ministers and getting quotes by two ministers who said exactly the
same thing.
I would point out to the member that the company we are talking
about, Canadian airlines, has a major problem of restructuring
which it faces and this will require substantial changes to its
operations. It is a private company and therefore must go out and,
like other private companies, attempt to deal with its problems on
its own.
From the government's point of view, we wish to encourage
competition. Many of the steps we have taken since becoming
government have shown that. We believe the increase in air traffic
that has resulted since we have taken office does show that we have
succeeded in this regard.
Obviously we are particularly interested in this major company,
one of our major carriers internationally as well as domestically,
but at the present time we have received no request for any
assistance from either the company or from the unions involved as
well.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I note that the
minister gave no guarantee.
But could the minister at least guarantee us that Ottawa will not
amend its foreign investment regulations to allow U.S. interests to
take over Canadian airlines, which is less and less Canadian?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no question at the present time of answering such
a question in this House because no request has been put by anyone
in the airline industry for us to make that decision or to reconsider
that decision.
Therefore the question is entirely hypothetical and obviously
cannot be answered in this House under the rules of Beauchesne's,
which I happen to have in my hands at the present time.
The Speaker: We stay away from props, colleagues.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a prop
on my desk but I will not use it.
Yesterday the Minister of Justice accused me and my colleagues
of failing to support some of the bills that he has rammed through
this House, including Bill C-68.
I have today with me 24 reasons why we could not support Bill
C-68. Canadians were told repeatedly that the security of the
firearms registration system could not be breached. Today I have
24 individual restricted firearms registration certificates containing
the name and address of each owner together with the full
description of each firearm. These were all sent to the wrong
individuals in the mail.
I ask the solicitor general how this enormous breach of security
could occur.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
6190
my hon. friend has raised this with me for the first time right now
in the House. If he would care to meet with me and provide me with
the material I will do my utmost to get him a complete answer.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly
will do that. I will make sure that he gets these certificates so that
the rightful owners can eventually get them.
However, it is clear that Reform members were right. The
firearms registration system is not secure and serious breaches
have occurred.
Will the solicitor general admit this and agree that this presents a
serious problem for the Liberal's proposed registration system for
rifles and shotguns?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the registration system we have at present is designed for use under
the present law that is the registration law that existed prior to Bill
C-68. We are busy working very vigorously to have a cost effective
automated system using the best of technology which will respond
to the needs of Bill C-68 and which will be based on learning from
any difficulties that relate to the present system.
The present system is not the one which will be applied in order
to carry out Bill C-68, which is overwhelmingly supported and
desired by the great majority of Canadians.
* * *
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Canada is a world leader in forestry practices. We are all
concerned about the environment and the health of our Canadian
forests. Would the minister tell us what is being done in the area of
certification to ensure that the Canadian forestry industry is
adhering to sustainable forestry practices?
(1500 )
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada is one of the
world's leading forestry nations. As such, all forestry stakeholders
take their environmental responsibilities very seriously.
A recent example of this responsibility is an industry driven
initiative undertaken in conjunction with the Canadian Standards
Association to develop a new sustainable forest management
standard.
These standards were recently approved by the Standards
Council of Canada. They will subject the forestry industry to a
rigorous, scientifically technical standard in relation to sustainable
forestry management. They will also be subject to independent
third party audits.
This is another example of how we are maintaining our position
as one of the world's leading forestry nations.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance. He will know that the minister of
revenue was recently in Nova Scotia pointing out that the
legislation enacting the blended 15 per cent tax is not etched in
stone.
She goes on to point out that the government is open to accepting
a number of changes and then says that the Canadian public wants
this tax.
Can the Minister of Finance point out what evidence he has to
indicate that the Canadian public wants this tax? If he cannot prove
that, is he open to scrapping the whole notion?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows that legislation is developed and
passes through this House in a particular way. He knows that my
department, along with the Minister of Finance, have worked with
the three Atlantic provinces to develop legislation that will
harmonize the sales tax system.
As a member of the finance committee, I crossed this country
and listened to Canadians who said to us: ``Fix this tax. Fix it by
harmonizing it. Fix it by having tax included pricing. Fix it by
having one administration''.
I congratulate the Atlantic provinces for having the foresight to
understand that this is what will be the solution to this tax. I would
suggest to the hon. member that he talk to his own province about
the importance of such a solution.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to introduce to you a
very select group.
[Translation]
Today we have with us in our public gallery 70 teachers from
across Canada, who came here to attend the first teachers' forum on
Canadian parliamentary democracy.
[English]
These men and women were selected for excellence in the
teaching profession. In my view, this is the all-star team, the Team
Canada of Canadian teachers. The teacher's institute has brought
them to us for an intensive four days to study our parliamentary
way of life. Please welcome them to our House of Commons.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
6191
(1505 )
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on a point of order.
I will be very brief, but I am asking for clarification from the Chair
on an important issue regarding the certification of a petition.
Just to give the background on this, I sent to the clerk of petitions
a petition which was signed by 27 Canadians residing in my riding
of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. The clerk sent it back to me
not certified. In her decision she outlined the reason as ``not
meeting the requirements of Standing Order 36(2)(g)'', which
reads:
In order to be certified, pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, every
petition shall:
(g) contain at least twenty-five signatures together with the addresses of the
signatories, from persons other than Members of Parliament.
I disagreed at the time with the clerk that the petition failed to
meet this criterion. When I pursued the matter with her office I was
informed by her staff that the petition was not certified because five
of the signatures were in Punjabi. I was further informed that all
signatures must be in either French or English.
Now, in an attempt to get further clarification of how I could
table this petition, I approached-
The Speaker: Is this the same petition that you approached the
Table with earlier today which was subsequently approved? Could
you answer that question for me?
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, it was. But I think the House needs to
get clarification on this matter and that is why I raise it.
The Speaker: I undertake to look into this matter further. I
understand that the petition was approved. Therefore, that would
seem to put the case to rest.
As far as the clarification goes, I will look into that matter and I
will come back to the hon. member with some more information if
it is necessary, either here in the House or in my chambers.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
assumed you already knew about my point of order.
The Speaker: My colleague, I did know about your point of
order. It slipped my mind. As I was leaving I heard your voice
calling me back and here I am.
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, as usual, my dutiful servant.
With your indulgence I wish to set the record straight with
respect to my vote last night on private member's motion No. 221.
I wish to be recorded in support of that motion and that Hansard
and the House of Commons Journals be so corrected.
The Speaker: Thank you, my colleague. I assure you that will be
corrected.
_____________________________________________
6191
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to seven petitions.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 1, 1996,
your committee has considered Bill C-53, an act to amend the
Prisons and Reformatories Act and your committee has agreed to
report it without amendment.
* * *
(1510)
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have the honour to present the 44th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the list of
members and associate members of several committees.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this
report later this day.
[English]
Madam Speaker, also I have the honour to present the 43rd
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
regarding the selection of votable items in accordance with
Standing Order 92. This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
6192
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-346, an act respecting federal
funding of certain activities, events and facilities that are supported
by tobacco companies.
He said: Madam Speaker, I table this bill, which seeks to prevent
federal funds from being used to subsidize cultural and sporting
events that are supported financially or otherwise by tobacco
product manufacturers, or to promote cultural and sporting
equipment bearing the name of a tobacco product manufacturer or
the brand of one of its products.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, after consultations
there is unanimous consent to move, seconded by the hon.
members for Roberval, Calgary Southwest and Winnipeg
Transcona a resolution as follows:
That this House unanimously support the bid by Canada to host Expo 2005 in
Calgary from May to October 2005, the centennial year of Saskatchewan and
Alberta.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, on behalf of all Calgarians I do proudly second this
motion that this House support the bid of Canada and Calgary to
host Expo 2005.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to second the motion proposed by the
heritage minister. As leader of the official opposition, I had the
opportunity to meet with the members of the committee who will
decide whether or not Expo 2005 will be held in Canada.
(1515)
I have assured members of the committee, and also members of
the organizing committee, that we not only support this event, but
that we will take every possible step to ensure that it is a big
success. We have no doubt about Calgary's extraordinary ability to
organize such and event.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, on behalf of all the New Democrats in the House of
Commons and I am sure New Democrats across the country, I am
very pleased to second this motion. As someone who remembers
well Expo '67 in Montreal and Expo '86 in Vancouver, the good
Lord willing and the creek don't rise, we all look forward to
attending Expo 2005 in Calgary.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
as caucus chair of the national capital region, the region that
competed most vigorously with Calgary to be chosen the city to
host Expo 2005, may I say that I am very pleased to endorse the
motion that Calgary be chosen as the world city to host Expo 2005.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
if the House gives its consent, I move that the 44th 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): Does the
House give its unanimous consent for the member to move the
motion?
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, perhaps the
member could indicate the nature of the report and what is in the
report that is being reported. It is hard to give unanimous consent if
one is not aware of what is in the report.
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, I am a vice-chair of the
committee and the report was handed to me at the last minute.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The table can
read the summary of the report.
[Editor's Note: Report read by Clerk.]
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, this raises the whole question of
the method by which members of Parliament are appointed to
committees. Those of us who do not belong to a particular caucus
are excluded from the process in terms of committee selection.
One of the things that I have stood for in the 12 years I have been
in Parliament is parliamentary reform. It seems to me that
subsequent committees which have studied the whole issue of
parliamentary reform-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Does the hon.
member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We do not
have unanimous consent.
6193
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, is a
member of Parliament entitled to indicate the reasons that
unanimous consent is not being granted, if the House is interested?
If it is not interested, then I will not explain.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House has
asked for unanimous consent. We do not have unanimous consent.
We will move on to other motions.
(1520 )
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
if the House gives its consent, I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
be modified as follows: substitute Bonnie Hickey for Peter Milliken.
[
Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Does the hon.
member have the unanimous consent of the House to table the
motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There is not
unanimous consent.
* * *
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to table a petition signed by 2,664 residents of the
federal riding of Bellechasse, and certified by the clerk of petitions.
This petition calls for the abolition of the Senate of Canada. I
would also ask you to note that this petition has received the
support of the municipal councils of L'Islet and
Saint-Fabien-de-Panet in my riding.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to
the House three petitions signed by the residents of York North.
The first petition outlines some of the challenges our youth face
in making the transition from school to work. The petitioners call
upon Parliament to ensure that the government continues to create
opportunities for youth through internship programs, information
technology, improved Canada student loans, summer student job
programs and programs targeted directly to youth at risk.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition draws to the attention of the House the
importance of income protection for today's seniors and for future
generations. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to work
toward fair and sustainable income programs for seniors, ensuring
that those in need receive adequate and stable support.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the final petition deals with the security and safety of all
Canadians.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the
Liberal government's safe homes and safe streets agenda is making
a difference as the crime rate fell again in 1995, its fourth annual
drop following 30 years of almost constant increase. The
petitioners call upon Parliament to continue to take a tough line on
crime and to enact laws which will provide Canadians with the safe
homes and safe streets they so rightly deserve.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a
petition from Canadian professional photographers in the industry
of photography who are concerned that they have no copyright
protection founded in Canadian law. The petitioners call upon
Parliament to enact legislation to provide the following protection.
They ask that copyright in a photograph come into being
automatically as soon as the image is fixed in a tangible medium;
that ownership of the copyright in professionally created portrait
photographs vests solely in the photographer and not in the person
who commissioned or sat for the portrait; that copyright is a form
of statutory intellectual property distinct from the photograph and
sale of the photograph does not imply any transfer of the copyright
interest; any assignment of the copyright must be in writing, signed
by the copyright owner; and that duplication in any form of a
professionally created photograph without the authorization of the
photographer constitutes copyright infringement.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is an honour today to finally be able to present a
petition which has been signed by 27 of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to consider the difficulty
faced by seasonal farm workers in the Okanagan Valley of British
Columbia due to the new EI rules.
It gives me a great deal of pleasure to present this petition. It has
been held up for quite some time. It is an honour to be able to
present it on behalf of my constituents.
6194
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by constituents of
Lambton-Middlesex, many of them from Wardsville, Newbury
and Bothwell, which has been duly certified by the clerk of
petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners request that the House of Commons enact
legislation or amend existing legislation to define marriage as a
voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to each other to
the exclusion of others.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
three petitions to present today on behalf of my constituents.
The first group of petitioners request that Parliament pass
legislation to strengthen the Young Offenders Act, including
publishing the names of young offenders, lowering the age of
application and transferring serious offenders to adult court.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
second petition concerns age of consent laws. The petitioners ask
that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children
from sexual exploitation and abuse.
(1525 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
final group of petitioners are requesting that the Government of
Canada not amend federal legislation to include the phrase sexual
orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion would
indicate societal approval of homosexual behaviour. The
petitioners believe that the government should not legitimize this
behaviour against the clear wishes of the majority.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have a petition from numerous citizens of my riding of
Peterborough.
These citizens draw to the attention of the House the fact that
section 327 of the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement
discriminates against James Bay Crees who no longer live in James
Bay, Quebec simply by virtue of their not living there. Specifically,
the Mocreebec Nation who reside in northern Ontario suffer due to
not having a land base, rights within the James Bay Northern
Quebec Agreement, or federal funds.
Therefore these petitioners request that Parliament revoke
section 327 of the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement due to
its contravening the Canadian Constitution 1981. They request that
the Mocreebec Nation be recognized and a land base and federal
funds be allocated to them.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to present to the House today a petition signed by
several hundred Canadians calling on the government and
members of Parliament to support Bill C-205 introduced by the
member for Scarborough West so as to provide in Canadian law
that no criminal profits from committing a crime.
Criminals are not prohibited by Canadian law from profiting
from their crimes. Criminals have the opportunity today to produce
videotapes, write books and to profit as a result of their crimes.
These petitioners call on the Government of Canada to take
immediate action to stop people like Clifford Olson from profiting
from their heinous crimes.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition has to do with section 745 of the
Criminal Code.
Section 745 allows convicted killers to apply to have their parole
ineligibility reduced. The petitioners and millions of other
Canadians want this government to take immediate action to stop
convicted killers from applying under section 745 to have their
parole ineligibility reduced so that the penalty for first degree
murder becomes a minimum period of incarceration of 25 years.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 which I
would like to present on behalf of many Saskatchewan residents
from Saskatoon, Shellbrook, Warman and Hepburn.
This petition is in response to the price gouging by gasoline
companies in Saskatchewan. These people are very concerned
about the fact that they are being gouged at the pumps. The
petitioners call upon the House of Commons to urge the
government to establish an energy pricing review commission to
keep the pricing of gasoline and other energy products in check.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have three petitions today.
The first petition is from Cambridge, Ontario. The petitioners
would like to draw to the attention of the House that our police and
firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they serve the
emergency needs of all Canadians. They also state that in many
cases the families are left without sufficient financial means to
meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund to receive
gifts and bequests for the benefit of families of our police officers
and firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
6195
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition comes from Verona, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. The petitioners therefore pray and call upon
Parliament to pursue initiatives to assist families who choose to
provide care in the home to preschool children, the chronically ill,
the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the final petition comes Calgary, Alberta.
The petitioners would like to draw 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 or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
(1530 )
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 to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is my
honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on
behalf of a whole number of constituents who are not interested in
merging the GST and PST but are actually asking the Liberals to
keep their promise and not proceed with the GST any longer. After
all, that is what they promised and that is why people voted for the
Liberals in many respects. The Liberals simply broke that promise.
These people are infuriated. I suspect they are all Liberals on this
petition as well. However, that is just the way it goes.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, my
second petition is on behalf of a number of constituents, as a matter
of fact hundreds, who are worried about the government's interest
in exporting CANDU reactors to China. They realize that this will
upset the very delicate balance that currently exists in terms of our
overseas exports. They are concerned about the abuse of human
rights in that country and feel it is morally wrong to be exporting
CANDU reactors with the suggestion that in the future they could
be converted into nuclear weaponry. These Canadians want nothing
to do with that particular process.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order today to ask the government
House leader when I can expect to receive answers to my Questions
on the Order Paper Nos. 4 and 52. I requested an answer to both
questions within 45 days.
As of today, Q-4 has been outstanding for 253 days and Q-52 has
been outstanding for 175 days. Q-4 is about public safety. It is
about criminal access to firearms from the police and military. Q-4
was first placed on notice in the last session of Parliament on
November 24, 1995, almost one full year ago. Even though I
requested an answer within 45 days, almost a year has passed and
the government still refuses to provide me and my constituents
with the information we need to hold the government accountable
for its actions.
I am concerned that the government will call an election before it
gives us an answer. I as a member of Parliament cannot function
and do my job if the government continues to hide information that
should be on the public record and that it should have full access to.
I am going to ask the Speaker as well, can you tell me what
options I have to ensure that my rights and privileges as a member
of Parliament are respected in this regard?
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member
has asked for information that is very complex and takes a lot of
research. I am sure that he would like to get the full documentation
on all the questions he has asked.
As I understand it, the papers are being processed and as soon as
they are available we will have them in this House. Some
information is very easy to get within the allotted time but when the
member asks such convoluted questions and so many questions at a
time, it takes the department a little longer to get this information
for him.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member also has the option to transfer those questions under a
motion to adjourn the debate.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam Speaker, I would
prefer that those questions remain as they are so I receive a good
answer to them.
My response to what the hon. member has said is that they have
told me this for months already. The fact is this information should
6196
be on the public record and available before the legislation is even
brought before the House. Therefore I cannot understand why it is
not available to me.
(1535)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, on the
same point of order, I view the point of order raised by my
colleague with great concern. I had raised virtually the identical
issue for another question. The Speaker at that time ruled that this
was a serious matter. The government did not seem to be too
concerned about meeting its obligations to respond within 45 days.
I would therefore ask again, on behalf of my colleague, and
reiterate and point to the Speaker's ruling of some months ago
when he said that he views this issue very seriously. I would
certainly hope that the government would hear my colleague's
request and answer forthwith, rather than putting us off time and
time again with the fact that it takes a great deal of work.
There is no indication whether it is going to answer tomorrow,
next week, next month or whether it is going to take so long that we
have an election in the meantime.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I think your
point of order has been well received.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I ask that Notices
of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6196
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 5 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-61, an act to implement the Canada-Israel free
trade agreement, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): 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 third time and passed.)
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
might prevail on the Speaker and on the House to inquire as to
whether there is unanimous consent to return to Routine
Proceedings for a committee report.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6196
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
if the House gives its consent, I move that the 44th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
again, if there is unanimous consent I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
be modified as follows:
Substitute Bonnie Hickey for Peter Milliken.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
6196
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-41, an act to amend the
Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement
Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension
Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act, be read the third time
and passed.
(1540 )
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on third
reading debate of Bill C-41, which is intended to amend a number
of statutes to provide a comprehensive approach to improving the
6197
system in Canada for determining the amounts and making more
certain the payment of child support for parents who separate.
The objective, first and foremost, is to ensure that the interests of
the children are put first in terms of financial support when families
separate.
The House will know from the measures already announced that
the initiative rests on four principle grounds. First is the creation
through regulations to the Divorce Act of guidelines governing the
determination of standard, uniform amounts for child support
depending on the income of the parents.
Second is a change to the way child support payments are taxed
to make things simpler and fairer.
Third is an improvement to the process by which the federal
government assists in the enforcement of child support orders once
made.
Last is a measure that will double within the next two years the
amount of the working income supplement which is a tax free
component of the child tax benefit available to working families
with children whose total income is less than $26,000 per year.
[Translation]
First of all, I must say that we have introduced the child support
guidelines as a way of determining what constitutes a proper
amount of support according to the financial capabilities of the
payer.
They involve numerical calculations which take into account
amounts that families at similar income levels would spend on their
children. These amounts are easy enough to ascertain. They are
presented in a table format, similar to an income tax table.
In this way, child support awards can be consistent, fair and
predictable. Yet at the same time, the objective of consistency
always has to be balanced with the need to have sufficient
flexibility to deal with individual circumstances.
Consequently, application of the table amounts is not completely
rigid. The table award can be adjusted either upwards or
downwards to account for special expenses or for any undue
hardship suffered by either parent or the child as a result of
awarding the amount of child support proposed by the guidelines.
[English]
In addition, there is a provision in the bill which allows the court
to adjust the award if it causes unfairness because of special
provisions made in a pre-existing agreement between the parties.
For example, if the couple agreed that the custodial parent would
maintain ownership of the family home but that in return the
amounts of child support would be lower than they might otherwise
be, a court could consider departing from the guideline amounts,
taking into consideration the unequal division of property. This
allows parties to negotiate agreements that may be suitable to their
own particular situations.
Also in recognition of the reality that many children's parents
are not fortunate enough to be represented by legal counsel, the
guidelines will help ensure that they too benefit from an adequate
award by providing for a standard amount depending on income.
(1545 )
During the hearings on Bill C-41, the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs heard from a wide variety of witnesses,
many of them representing separated and divorced parents. One of
the issues they addressed was the challenge we face in working
toward a greater consistency in awards while allowing for some
flexibility to adjust to individual circumstances. Some witnesses
thought that a greater discretion should rest in the court while
others preferred the greater predictability and consistency that the
guidelines provide.
[Translation]
However, the major legal organizations appearing before the
committee, such as the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du
Québec and the National Association of Women and the Law, all
welcomed the guidelines as an initiative which provided a better
balance of predictability and response to individual circumstances.
They considered the guidelines to be a positive step.
And I am confident that canadian families will share this
conclusion once the guidelines are operational next May.
[English]
There are no doubt those-as there were among the witnesses
before the committee-who considered the actual amounts in the
guidelines to be either too high or too low. Opinion will be divided
forever on whether we have captured just the right amounts in the
relevant income categories. However, we believe that as a matter of
policy, standard guideline amounts are a vast improvement for
children of separated families and we have to start somewhere.
The first draft of proposed guideline amounts were published in
1992 and there were many who commented and reacted. The
federal-provincial-territorial committee that designed these
proposals went back to the drawing board with those comments in
mind and published a second proposed guideline table in 1995.
Once again reactions and comments were received, changes were
made. In the income levels of $40,000 and below there was a 15 per
cent across the board increase in the proposed amounts.
We believe the amounts now proposed are realistic, fair and
appropriate. However, I want to assure the House that Bill C-41
contemplates continuous review and monitoring of these amounts,
6198
and of the guideline system as a whole, to ensure the process can be
changed and improved to meet and overcome difficulties as they
arise.
Bill C-41 provides for a review process that contemplates a
report to Parliament on the operation of the guidelines to be tabled
no later than the fifth year following the implementation. If the
right balance has not been struck, there will be an opportunity to
change the guidelines.
The Department of Justice is committed to ongoing monitoring.
If gaps arise early on, before the end of the five-year review, they
can be addressed quickly through amendments to the regulations.
The guidelines are primarily found through subordinate legislation.
That will allow us to respond more quickly and effectively when
changes are needed.
This is a process that has been followed in other countries which
have adopted guidelines, including Australia, New Zealand,
England and each state of the United States of America. The
guidelines will be refined and improved as experience is amassed
in dealing with them. It is extremely significant that in none of
those countries where guidelines have been adopted, has it been
concluded that it would be appropriate to return to the old system
of judicial discretion from which we are now departing with the
adoption of a similar approach.
(1550 )
I am confident that in bringing forward this legislation we are
taking a significant and a positive step for the children of separated
and divorced families in Canada and we are doing so in a way that
is flexible and capable of responding to the need for adjustment as
time goes on.
Adequate and consistent awards are of little comfort to children
if they are not paid. That is why more than half of the bill is
devoted to measures which will strengthen the existing means of
enforcement available to the federal government, introducing new
ways of securing payment of support for children.
The federal licence denial mechanism set out in part III of Bill
C-41 is a new measure designed to deal with those support payers
who persistently breach their payment obligations.
We know that many parents make their child support payments
in full and on time, notwithstanding the fact that they often do so
with great difficulty. They take their responsibilities seriously. It is
out of respect for those people who make their payments in full and
in the interests of the children who would otherwise suffer that we
must do everything possible to ensure that those who can pay but
wilfully refuse to do so are pursued by every means within our
disposal. Part II of Bill C-41 is designed to do just that.
While many of the options relating to enforcement fall within
provincial jurisdiction, the new licence denial measures in Bill
C-41 will provide concrete action at the federal level to address
chronic and wilful default by those who can pay but do not. It will
provide provincial and territorial governments with programs and
new enforcement mechanisms to go after delinquent debtors and
send a strong message that they must address and not avoid their
support obligations.
Refusing to support one's children is a serious breach of the law
with consequences that can affect children throughout their lives. It
is not simply a matter of providing the necessities and furnishing
financial support. The record shows that a child who is in a
situation where payments are not made by an absent parent bears
emotional scars for life and takes the message that the absent
parent has abandoned or rejected them and left them behind.
The legislation we are urging on the House is intended through
its specific requirements to ensure that licence denial at the federal
level is available to the provinces which seek it as a last resort
against support defaulters who have persistently breached their
obligations. Since our goal is to see that children are supported,
particular emphasis is placed on making sure that the defaulter is
given an opportunity to avoid licence denial actions by making
arrangements for payment with a provincial enforcement agency.
[Translation]
In addition, we are taking steps to strengthen the effectiveness of
our existing enforcement services by ensuring that support
recipients obtain monies owing more quickly.
While the major role of enforcing support orders is carried out
by provincial and territorial enforcement programs, the federal
government is the largest collector, on their behalf, of delinquent
payments.
Through garnishment of income tax refunds and unemployment
insurance monies, among others, the federal government collected
$53 million last year. And it is estimated that at least this amount or
more will be collected again this year.
The salaries and pensions of federal employees can also be
garnished for support enforcement purposes.
(1555)
Through Bill C-41, the government will collect more, and more
efficiently, on behalf of children owed child support in this country.
[English]
It is often difficult to locate a defaulting parent who is in arrears.
So as well as garnisheeing money owed to the children the federal
government helps provincial governments find payers whose
whereabouts are unknown. Accurate information to locate persons
who have breached family support orders is a key first step to
collection.
6199
One of the most significant and practical improvements
provided in part II of Bill C-41 is the addition of the data banks
of Revenue Canada to the list of those sources already searched
to provide address information for locating defaulting payers. The
confidentiality of the information held by Revenue Canada will
be safeguarded to ensure that it is used solely for the purpose of
locating support defaulters and securing support payments.
Finally, I should not leave the subject without noting that many
of the witnesses who appeared before the committee expressed the
wish that we would have gone further into a different but related
area of custody and access enforcement in dealing generally with
the subject of child support.
There is no question that difficulties with custody and access are
the single most significant and difficult source of emotional pain
for separating parents. Among all the problems that are presented
when parents divided and must share the responsibility of children
in those difficult circumstances, deciding on and honouring the
terms of custody and access present the most complex and
challenging of the problems.
The Divorce Act already provides that when access and custody
are being determined or enforced, the court must be governed by
the best interests of children. As a result of amendments introduced
in the House 10 years ago, the Divorce Act also provides that in
determining which parent is to have custody, the willingness of the
intended custodial parent to provide maximum access to the other
parent is to be taken into account, reflecting the underlying value
that we must place on the child seeing as much of both parents as
possible, all other things being equal.
But the disputes between parents on terms of custody and
enforcing access are such that more than merely legislative change
is required in order to meet them. We can use all the words we want
to express the desire we all feel that in appropriate cases, all things
being equal, both parents should see as much as possible of the
children when the parents separate.
In the last analysis it is up to the two individuals in their own
circumstances, in their own good conscience and acting in the best
interests of their own children to resolve the problems that arise.
Some three or four years ago the Department of Justice started a
broad public consultation on the subject of custody and access.
After spending those years discussing with judges, family law
lawyers, family counsellors, custodial and non-custodial parents,
children, medical experts all of the issues arising from custody and
access paradigm, we concluded that no consensus was out there in
terms of specific legislative changes to be made to help improve
the situation.
There are so many facets to this difficult problem of human
relations that there was no consensus about how a legislature could
help beyond what is already there as tools in the Divorce Act. And
so this bill does not propose legislative change to deal with custody
and access. It deals rather with child support. It is careful not to
link child support and access because in our judgment that would
be a terrible mistake.
(1600)
To suggest or to provide that money could be withheld if access
is denied would leave the child or the children hostage to the
emotional dealings between the parties. It would deny the child
necessities based on the ability or willingness of the parents to iron
out their difficulties in terms of access. That is simply bad public
policy and is unacceptable.
We recognize that the issues of custody and access remain
unaddressed at least in terms of the federal legislation. It is our
intention, once Bill C-41 is adopted, to renew and complete our
work on custody and access to determine whether there is any way
in which we can, through legislative change or other policy
initiatives, improve the present situation in Canada in terms of
custody and access.
For the present those are the reasons this bill does not deal with
that subject. Rather, it deals with the four elements which I
described at the outset:
First, it has guidelines to help introduce an element of
consistency and practicability in establishing uniform amounts
geared to income for children. It takes the guesswork out of fixing
child support amounts. It provides guidance to parents as to what
their obligations are. It reduces the costs of litigating this issue and
perhaps facilitates the settlement of issues between parties by
taking at least one issue off the table and providing a legislated
response.
Second, it changes the tax system. It eliminates the deduction to
the payer and no longer requires the recipient to take child support
into income for tax purposes. It sweeps away a rule that was put in
place in the early forties so that the tax system can more fairly
reflect the social values of the current age and overcome the
unfairness of the custodial parent having to pay income tax on what
is not usually money for that person but is support for the child. It
relieves the custodial parent of the burden of administering the tax
system with all of the complexities that involves.
Third, it strengthens the provisions for enforcement, as I have
described them today.
Fourth and last, it takes all of the revenue the federal government
will derive from ending the deduction for the payer and devotes
that revenue dollar for dollar and then some to a doubling of the
working income supplement. This provides tax free dollars for
6200
those who need it most: working families with children and
incomes below $26,000.
I should say in closing that the measure of doubling to $1,000
per family the working income supplement in July 1998 will result
over the next five years in our putting more than a billion dollars of
additional revenue into the hands of over 700,000 families in this
country, fully one-third of whom are single parent families. That is
going to be a real improvement to the lives of those children.
I commend Bill C-41 to the House as an important part of an
integrated strategy to improve the system for child support
payment and enforcement in this country. It represents sound
public policy and a genuine improvement for children of separated
parents. I ask the House to support it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
passing of Bill C-41, which seeks to modify the system for
determining support payments is, in our view, another indication of
this government's unwillingness to listen to the provinces, in this
case Quebec. It is still the same old game of cat and mouse, as we
see again with this bill on support payments.
The current government is once again imposing legislation that
we think is flawed, and is rejecting out of hand amendments from
any party other than its own. This is a sad state of affairs and I
deplore it, particularly as the purpose of this bill is to improve the
living conditions of children.
(1605)
I know that the minister is just as anxious to attain this goal as I
am. However, the route chosen does not seem to be the same as the
one favoured by Quebec. When we compare the guidelines being
proposed by Quebec and those being proposed by the federal
government, it is clear that we are at cross purposes. I will come
back to this a bit later.
Right now, I would like to remind the government that too often
its words are unfortunately at odds with its actions. As always, the
government claims to have fine principles. It proclaims its wish to
work toward decentralization of power, but it does absolutely
nothing concrete to move in this direction when the opportunity
arises.
I think that this bill was a good opportunity for the government
to show that it was open to including the small changes needed to
recognize Quebec's distinct character. I will, if I may, repeat what
the Prime Minister said less than a year ago, on November 29,
1995, during the debate on the much discussed distinct society
motion. Members will recall, I hope, that it is this motion the Prime
Minister is relying on today in his attempt to trick Quebecers into
believing that he has kept his pre-referendum promises.
Back to what the Prime Minister said. He said, here in this
House: ``I made three commitments during the Quebec referendum
campaign: first, to recognize that Quebec forms a distinct society
within Canada; second, not to make any constitutional change that
affects Quebec without Quebecers' consent; and third, to undertake
changes to bring services and the decision making process closer to
citizens''. This is where I would question the minister. In this bill, I
would like to see him respect the guidelines proposed by the
government of Quebec.
Members on the government side will have noted, I hope, that
Quebec forms a distinct society, or so their leader claims. They will
also have noted that he spoke of bringing services and the decision
making process closer to citizens.
Regarding the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, the
Prime Minister said a bit later on: ``Once it is passed, this
resolution will have an impact on how legislation is passed in the
House of Commons. I remind Canadians that the legislative branch
will be bound by this resolution, as will the executive branch''.
``This is a real, dynamic recognition, recorded in the very heart of
our country's government''. That is what the Prime Minister said. I
am not inventing anything, I have taken it word for word from what
he said.
I will repeat it again, for I am a person who has doubts if
somebody tells me one thing and does the opposite. ``Once it is
passed, this resolution will have an impact on how legislation is
passed in the House of Commons. I remind Canadians that the
legislative branch will be bound by this resolution, as will the
executive branch. This is a real, dynamic recognition, recorded in
the very heart of our country's government''. When I say that the
words spoken in this House by this government are not in keeping
with its actions, this is the proof.
On Bill C-41, we had proposed modifications, amendments, and
I would liked to have seen some of them passed. I could perhaps
have thought there was come connection between these words and
the actions being prepared. I have to say that this is lip service only.
The motion on the distinct society is supposed to have a real
impact on the way the wording of bills is passed. What impact did
this motion have on Bill C-41? Barely two days ago, the Bloc
Quebecois presented motions to amend the bill, to improve it, to
bring it more in line with the aspirations of Quebecers.
Two days ago, we proposed that a province's guidelines be
automatically recognized if they met the standards set out in the
bill, the criteria imposed by the federal government. It seems to me
that this is not so difficult, when they claim to wish to recognize
6201
different ways of doing things, and acknowledge in a bill that
Quebec is a distinct society.
(1610)
I will tell you why we think it is distinct. In my opinion, this
position was perfectly reasonable and desirable. First, as I have
said, we accepted, albeit a bit reluctantly, it is true, the federal
jurisdiction over divorce. I say a bit reluctantly, because Quebec
has long desired to regain jurisdiction over divorce. Why? Because
this is one more aberration in the division of powers. We cannot, of
course, rewrite history, but it is still a fact that Quebec has been
extremely patient in constitutional matters.
Divorce renders the end of a marriage official, as everyone
knows. That is a self-evident truth. Since unions between
individuals fall under civil law, and therefore under provincial
jurisdiction, it became evident to Quebecers long ago that
dissolution of marriage ought to also be a provincial jurisdiction.
Such is not the case. however.
Despite this historical aberration and despite Quebec's desire to
regulate this area, we acknowledge, still being part of the federal
regime, that divorce does fall under federal jurisdiction.
Now we find the federal government wanting to modify the
Divorce Act. Is this not a good opportunity to make some space for
Quebec and the other provinces?
The government has made sure not to do so, and this is what we
find regrettable. We propose to respect the standards imposed by
the federal government, and that is acceptable, but what we are
demanding is that, once this condition is met, they give way in
favour of the provincial rules.
Why is it so important for Quebec and eventually for the other
provinces? Because the Quebec government is closest to its
citizens. As we said repeatedly only two days ago, this is the
government that administers all aspects of life in our society. It is
the government that is responsible for education, for providing
assistance with housing, food, clothing, entertainment, health care,
transportation, and so forth. In fact, the list is much longer.
The Quebec government and other provincial governments are
there to redistribute wealth and ensure that citizens who are less
well off or not as well equipped to make their way through life have
the minimum they need.
The provincial government looks after family life, day care and
the problems in this respect. So obviously, as we said before, it is in
the best position to know how to organize a child support payment
system in terms of the choices this society has made.
The Quebec government, as we all know, is about to adopt its
own guidelines. We explained at length that before drafting a final
policy, it considered all provincial transfer payments to its citizens.
It had to bring this new legislation into line with all its existing and
draft policies and also in terms of the government's review of its
approach to family policy.
The Quebec government, for the benefit of Quebec society and
especially that of its children, is preparing to adopt a policy on
child support payments, a policy that will complement steps that
have already been taken with respect to the collection of support
payments and their tax treatment.
We are talking about a concrete aspect of the specific identity of
Quebec society. That is why we asked the federal government for a
commitment to recognize the guidelines established by a province
for child support payments.
What did we get as an answer? A resounding no. We voted
yesterday, and it was no all the time. All the amendments we
proposed got no for an answer from all government members. I
find that deplorable. And do not tell us they are sensitive to
Quebec's demands. We have made those demands clear in this
House ever since we were elected. Was an amendment ever really
accepted? The list is very short, even in that case. And we deplore
that.
(1615)
The response we got smacked of the usual paternalism. We were
told that the federal government alone, without any debate in the
House, will decide if it feels like recognizing provincial
regulations. Period.
The Liberals are now in power. What would happen if they lost
the next election? No one knows. That is what we deplore. We
would have liked this bill to be sent back to committee so we could
talk about this. It is up to the people's elected representatives to
discuss general policy matters. This should not be done in small,
restricted committees.
This is rather inconsistent with the Prime Minister's comments,
which, I think, is unfortunate. It is totally inconsistent with the fine
promise to respect Quebec's distinct society. It is totally
inconsistent with the promise to bring services and decisions closer
to the people.
As far as I know, the provincial governments are closer to their
people than the federal government. That is what I am told every
day. When I tell the people in my riding that I come back every
weekend, they feel-and it is true, given their interest in provincial
legislation and in their government, not only in Quebec but in the
other provinces as well-that their provincial government is closer
to them.
I also deplore the federal government's spending powers that
have grown over the years. That is why we have an enormous
6202
deficit. There is overlap and duplication. Even our friends in power
never had the nerve to pretend that the federal government was
closer to its people than the provincial governments. It think it
would have been too much, even for them.
This is the first proof that the Prime Minister's promises were
not kept and that his government has no intention of keeping them.
Allow me to be sceptical. Even in a neutral bill like this one, the
Liberals found a way of sweeping Quebec's demands, however
modest, under the carpet.
I will now move on to the second motion we proposed in order to
improve Bill C-41. Its purpose is to limit the list of criteria listed in
new clause 26.1.
The minister did not say anything about it earlier. That is another
problem. As we know, this section lists subjects that federal or
provincial authorities may legislate guidelines on. Basically, these
are all the foreseeable issues that may arise in relation to child
support. These are the criteria I referred to in the first part of my
speech.
The problem with section 26.1 is that not only does it list
requirements, but it leaves the list open. Why is this a problem?
The problem arises from the fact that these requirements represent
an absolute prerequisite to the recognition of provincial guidelines
by the federal government, while the word ``including'' leaves the
door open to a redefinition of these requirements. Additions could
be made whenever someone feels like it without the hon. members
having any say in the matter.
The bill explicitly provides that, before any province may
implement its own guidelines in divorce cases, these guidelines
must have been approved by the federal government. In order to be
approved by the federal government, the guidelines must meet the
requirements set out in section 26.1. But in section 26.1, the
requirements are listed under the phrase ``including''.
This word is explicit. It means that what follows are examples,
indicating that the list is not restrictive or exhaustive. So, should
the government change tomorrow, they could take a look at the act
and decide to apply it completely differently. How can a province
make sure to meet the federal requirements when it knows only
about part of them? How can a province make sure to meet the
federal requirements if the federal government can change these
requirements as it pleases?
Let us imagine for a moment that a similar procedure applied to
tenders regularly issued by the government. There could be, for
instance, an invitation to tender for the provision of building
materials. The contract would state: ``The tenderer shall provide
the materials required to build a museum. He may also be required
to provide materials to build another type of building''.
(1620)
The fact is no one in the business would venture to bid on
something like that. We can easily understand why. How is the
required materials cost supposed to be estimated without knowing
how much will be needed?
Let me give you another example: the provision of services. No
one would respond to an invitation to tender for janitorial building
maintenance services stating that other work may be involved, but
not specifying what. How are people supposed to know if they can
meet the requirements for a given job when they do not know the
specifics? While simplistic, these examples are good illustrations
of the arbitrary nature of a clause that uses the term ``including'',
particularly when it applies to a regulatory process, something
about which I have doubts.
How could a province believe in an eventual recognition of its
guidelines, if the criteria relating to this recognition can be changed
at any time, at the federal government's discretion? How will a
provincial government be able to set its work objectives if it does
not know the expectations of the federal government, or if these
expectations are likely to change? It is like playing cat and mouse.
The federal government puts out a piece of cheese, watches the
provinces run for it and then puts the piece out of reach. This is
more or less what will happen with this bill.
Clarity must be the basic rule regarding legislation. The theme,
the objectives and also the consequences for non-compliance must
be clear. However, the proposed clause 26.1 is not clear, far from it.
In order to show its goodwill, the government must clearly set
the rules. The word ``including'' should have disappeared from the
final version of the bill, as was my wish and that of Bloc members
and Quebecers. Once again, the Liberal team did not deem it
appropriate to take into account its commitment to respect the
jurisdiction of the provinces.
Far from facilitating the taking over of responsibilities by the
provinces, the federal government passes legislation that could put
off some provinces, including Quebec, and deter them from taking
any initiative regarding the issue of child support. We do not want
this to happen and nor does the minister, because, as you know, the
objective is to improve the living conditions of children. We are all
working toward this goal. However, Quebec wants a little more
flexibility, and should have it. The government is working on
guidelines which will not be based on the same criteria as those that
will be proposed by Quebec.
However, I do not think Quebec will let the federal government
put it on the sideline. The issue will turn into another battle. As we
said, Quebec will proceed very soon. What will happen then? I do
not know. The situation is quite simple: Quebec is once again in the
great position of having to totally depend on the federal
government's goodwill regarding whether or not these guidelines
will apply in the case of a divorce. Is this the respect shown to
Quebec society? Is this the respect shown by governments that are
close to
6203
their citizens? This government shows its respect by keeping things
in a precarious position, and this is what we deplore. This is why
we are fighting in this House; this is what we were elected for. This
government shows its respect by keeping the provinces in the dark.
Its rule is might is right. Some respect!
This kind of respect is also displayed by the Liberal
government's attitude toward our request that the child's place of
residence-and this is important-be the factor determining
whether federal or provincial rules will apply when the parents do
not live in the same province. There is disagreement on this issue.
Quebec wants the place of residence to be that of the child, while
the federal government says it should be the domicile of the parent
paying support.
This may seem inconsequential to a member who does not really
pay attention to this issue and who simply votes as instructed by his
whip. However, this unjustified refusal by the Liberal team will
have a negative impact on many children, and I will tell you why.
(1625)
I will repeat the explanation given by my colleagues and myself
barely two days ago. Perhaps certain members across the way did
not hear, or perhaps they were absent. I will repeat it. The bill states
that, when parents do not reside in the same province, the federal
guidelines will apply. We in the Bloc Quebecois say that the
guidelines of the province in which the child lives should apply.
I will attempt to explain why. Setting aside the fact that the
federal grid does not, in our opinion, take into account all pertinent
information and is therefore flawed, and setting aside the fact that,
as I explained earlier, the provinces are in the best position to
develop their own grid, this rule will skew the support payments
regime and will create unfairness within a province, because
children in the same province will not all be entitled to the same
treatment for the sole reason that their non-custodial parent lives in
another province.
Furthermore, as I mentioned two days ago, since the stability of
the custodial parent is usually greater than that of the parent paying
support, it follows that the economic stability of the child demands
that his place of residence be the criterion used, to prevent grid
shopping by the parent paying support.
It is difficult to justify this government's rejection of our
proposal, all the more so in light of the Prime Minister's fine
words, his fine promises to respect Quebec society and to respect
the provinces. They were empty words, and nothing more.
When we know that families come under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the provinces, and rightly so, we are entitled to
wonder why the Minister of Justice is unwilling to budge, unless
what he has in mind is the provinces leaving it to the federal
government to resolve all support payment cases, regardless of
their legal foundation. Unless that is what the minister wants.
Someone across the way should have reminded the justice
minister that he must keep his word and respect the spirit of his bill.
If it had truly been his intention, as he says, to recognize grids
adopted by the provinces at some future date, he should have
recognized that the principle of uniformity applies first of all
within the provinces. He ought to have given up on imposing his
grid for paying parents living in a different province than the child.
He has not done so. Like his Liberal colleagues, the minister has
perpetuated the closed-minded attitude Quebecers are so
accustomed to.
One other proposal by the Bloc Quebecois was cavalierly
rejected yesterday. It was intended to protect the provinces. The
purpose of the proposal was to confer a grandfather clause on
provinces which had already adopted their own guidelines, and
which had succeeded in having them recognized by the federal
government. Why such a clause?
First of all, my fellow citizens will have understood that there is
not exactly an atmosphere of total confidence reigning at present.
When, as it has clearly done in its bill, the government keeps all of
the doors wide open, when it does not yield even one inch of a
virtually absolute discretionary power, there are grounds for
wondering where it is headed, and how it plans to exercise its
powers. If the past is any indication of the future, Quebecers will
have to brace themselves for more federal government
imperialism, especially from the present government.
What is more, even in a context that is relatively more
harmonious, in most areas the parties often deem it more prudent to
have a ``grandfather clause'' in order to ensure stability, whether
for a business contract, a collective agreement, or an agreement
between governments.
Considering the huge efforts invested by a government in
drafting and passing total legislation on support payments, it can be
readily concluded that there are grounds for preserving acquired
rights for some time to come. That is what the official opposition
tried to do on Monday. That is what the government refused to do
on Monday, on purely partisan grounds, if I dare say so.
If we look at this rebuff in the context of the fine promises of
November 29, 1995, it is patently obvious that the Liberal
government has no intention of modifying one iota of the
legislative process in recognition of the distinct society and to
show respect for the governments closest to the people.
6204
(1630)
The members of the Bloc Quebecois did not need this further
evidence of the hollow statements and promises made by the Prime
Minister and his team. However, Quebecers have now seen once
again that they have nothing more to expect from the federal
government.
In concluding, I would like to point out that the official
opposition will vote for this bill only because members of the Bloc
Quebecois believe in the value and importance of guidelines for
child support payments.
We will vote for this bill because we support the principle,
because we believe that guidelines will improve the quality of life
of women and children, of Quebecers and Canadians. We will vote
for this bill because we believe in a more just society, a society
where poverty will no longer be the fate of a large part of the
population.
We will vote for this bill because we set a priority on principle
and the well being of our fellow citizens. Certainly not because we
believe the bill is adequate in its final form. That is what I wanted
to say this afternoon. Certainly not because we appreciate the
overly paternalistic attitude of the present government. That is
what I wanted to deplore this afternoon.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-41. This bill establishes a
framework for the use of child support guidelines and measures to
tighten enforcement of support orders, to be effective May 1, 1997.
It amends the Divorce Act, Family Orders and Agreements
Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and
Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
It is my understanding that it does not apply to unmarried or
separated persons but it is expected that the provinces will enact
similar legislation and that the provisions will be applied
unilaterally in the provinces.
It is assumed following the passage of Bill C-41 we can expect
changes to the Income Tax Act to make child support payments
taxable in the hands of the non-custodial spouse, or ex-spouse in
this case.
This bill follows a federal-provincial territorial task force report
which did encompass the areas of custody, access and maintenance.
It is interesting to note that this bill virtually ignored two-thirds of
that report and simply went to the issues of child support guidelines
and enforcement.
This bill passed report stage on November 5 and the Reform
Party did express concerns and amendments at that time. First was
the consideration of the appropriateness of the process of guideline
review. Those guidelines are out of sight of public scrutiny and are
not as flexible as we felt would be necessary.
Second was the consideration of the payment and the ability to
pay and who it was that would be taken into consideration in the
payment of the child support.
Third was the lack of direction in the root causes and the damage
done through divorce proceedings and substantive measures to
address those root causes. That involves the issues of access and
the process of the divorce itself. I will be addressing these topics
today.
It is not often that the Divorce Act is opened up and when it is, it
is an important enough topic that Reform feels that surely the
government should take the time and the effort to do what is
necessary, to do what is best in this area. Today I ask this
government what indeed are the best interests of the child.
Certainly that is an issue that surrounds this whole issue of divorce,
one that needs to be answered in relation to the issue of divorce.
To whom do our children belong? Do our children belong to one
parent, both parents or do our children belong to the state? How
best do we address the needs of these children through what we all
know is the painful and often destructive process of divorce?
(1635)
These questions I fear are not well addressed in this bill and
today I would like to speak to that. Divorce indeed is a tug of war
between parents and perhaps the interests of government and how it
then proceeds to oversee that tug of war.
On the issue of the differences, I can see three principles where
the Reform Party would differ from the Liberal Party, and certainly
in my discussion today I would like to bring these out. These are
principles, not the specifics of the bill. I will mention them now so
that these can be considered as we look at the elements of the bill.
The first principle is the importance of families in our society
and the importance of government to support those families. I am
afraid in so much of what I see in what this government does. It has
forgotten that basic fact. Here we have a government wedded to the
idea of big government that would like to tax families into oblivion
with the stresses that come with the taxes that they give, families
that have to work half a year simply for the government and then in
light of that earn less and less each year as they work harder and
harder.
This government has forgotten the value of parenting and
perhaps even it has forgotten that within the family context divorce
hurts. Divorce hurts the families. The family breakdown now is
epidemic, going up 400 per cent in the last 30 years.
The root causes of many of our social dilemmas and the stresses
that we see I believe can be found in this very epidemic that we see,
whether it be youth crime, whether it be suicide among our youth,
whether it be the welfare rolls or poverty itself that concerns each
6205
of us in this country and in this place. What are the root causes?
Much of it can be traced back to this very institution we talk about
today.
Divorce hurts families. It hurts parents, it hurts the grandparents
and those around and, I would put to the House today, most of all it
hurts the children that watch it all go by.
The second principle is we have a government that is seized with
its own importance, a government that thinks that government can
solve all the problems, a government that thinks coming to a bill
such as this in an easy, fast manner, that wants to put a legislative,
legalistic quick fix to a problem that is much too major. It shows a
mindset of a government that is set on itself, a government that
believes in lawyers rather than people, a government that would
make decisions behind the closed doors of an order in council
rather than bringing them to a public place where they can be
discussed.
That is the kind of government that we see at work, a
government that would spend millions of taxpayer dollars on
poverty programs but forget to solve the underlying issues,
thinking that government can solve these things and forgetting that
it is people and the families in which they live who solve the
problems that are causing these very stresses; a government quite
frankly that is stuck on itself.
The third principle is true equality, the equality in the processes
that this government oversees, the equality of men and women, of
two parents coming into a situation such as divorce, both senior
partners treated with dignity and equality in the process the
government puts forward.
These three issues, the importance of family, the overriding
intervention of government and equality of people in the processes,
are the three principles that go through the discussion that I want to
bring to this place today.
I would put to the House that the government's solution, as
proposed in Bill C-41, is really no solution at all. What it does is
create greater inequity within our families. It creates greater
insecurity within our families, greater potential rancour within the
divorce process and greater potential economic loss to the parties
involved with the potential need for greater litigation.
(1640)
There are several concerns that I want to bring forward today
which are specific to the bill. First is the guidelines, their control
and application.
These guidelines will not be developed within the House of
Commons. As the justice minister mentioned, there will be a
review in five years and I do commend the government for putting
in place a specific review process. But in the meantime these
guidelines can be adjusted and changed. Again, I agree with the
adjustment factor for the guidelines. However, I disagree that the
adjustment be made behind closed doors, without accountability to
the Canadian public. This is much too important.
The principle of order in council, behind closed doors
government decision, I remind members on the other side, is
something they spoke out against when they sat on this side of the
House. Again in this legislation, as in other legislation, there are
regulations, orders in council determining the direction of things
that affect Canadians in a very real and important way.
The process of the review of the guidelines must come back to
Parliament, back to the committees of this place. The process must
be accountable to Canadians. The pattern of the government is all
too common. It shows that the government again thinks too much
of itself and too little of the Canadian people.
How would the guidelines be applied? How would they actually
work in the lives of Canadians who are already in distress, in a
situation which is causing them and their children much pain?
I feel that the principle of the guidelines is well intentioned.
Largely guidelines can bring about a fairer process. They give
parameters wherein perhaps we could have a system that would
treat those involved in a fair and equitable way.
The system that existed before these guidelines were put in place
was criticized for producing different awards for individuals in
similar situations. It was felt that it allowed too much judicial
discretion. Therefore people who were in identical support
situations but with different judges and in different provinces
would receive vastly different awards. The new system will
produce similar awards but for very different scenarios or
circumstances. In effect, we have taken the danger from one side
and actually overcompensated. The solution suggested by the
government could be just as dangerous and just as unfair for the
Canadians who will be using the system.
The system for which the guidelines are proposed is constructed
on the assumption that the non-custodial parent is basically a
source of funds and that the custodial parent has the exclusive care
of the child or children involved in the divorce. This is a simplistic
approach to the issue. It could be a detrimental approach to the
families that go through this painful procedure.
(1645 )
The first thing I would like to do is put forward our concerns
about the guidelines. The process that is put to the guidelines
withdraws the joint financial responsibility from the parents; it is
one parent's single responsibility for the support of the children.
The non-custodial parent is exclusively considered the source of
the funds for the support of the children.
6206
One part of the bill calls for the removal of section 17(8) of
the original Divorce Act which states:
A variation order varying a support order that provides for the support of a child
of a marriage should
(a) recognize that the former spouses have a joint financial obligation to maintain
the child; and
(b) apportion that obligation between the former spouses according to their
relative abilities to contribute to the performance of the obligation.
I repeat that this section has been removed. Reference to joint
financial obligation or relative abilities of both former spouses is
removed. Perhaps this is the most apparent place where the
underlying function of the guidelines is clarified. Within the
guidelines and the setting up of the guidelines and as I said with the
removal of this section it becomes very apparent there is no longer
joint financial responsibility for the support of the children.
A child is the product of two parents. Until a divorce is
encountered, there is a shared responsibility for the support of that
child. It is worked out between the parents and in no way does
society dictate that one should support and one should not. The
choice is there and should be there for both parents. That child then
walks into a court with the two parents and within a few minutes,
on a variation of an order, when that child walks out of the court the
financial responsibility for the support of that child rests solely on
the non-custodial parent. The guidelines are based on one income
only and the ability to pay of that one income only.
Given the situation of a professional custodial parent and a
non-custodial parent who perhaps works on commission or works
seasonally or whatever it might be, it seems to me to be unfair to
say that one is sole owner of the responsibility for support of the
child when indeed both could work that out together.
Presently in order to change that or to revise it, perhaps at the
time the decision is made the non-custodial parent is able and will
be determined to be able to make that support, but the only review
of that situation would be based on undue hardship. Again it would
still fall back to the non-custodial parent. In the meantime, the
custodial parent could have resources far beyond those of the
non-custodial parent and be willing to use those resources.
This system suggests an unequal value to the ability and the
desire of parents to put their resources toward their children. The
way this system is put forward, it is not the ability to support the
child that determines who supports the child but simply who does
not get custody of the child.
(1650 )
If we think of that, the very rancour in the divorce proceedings
centres around the custody battle. The changes to the Divorce Act
the last two times it was opened-the only two times it was
opened-with no fault divorce were to make the litigation process
quicker, easier and less rancorous. However, battles are fought on
custody considerations. Now something has been added to that
battle.
Not only does the battle concern custody but the battle for
custody will dictate a winner and a loser. I would suggest that the
winner takes all. The winner takes the child, the winner takes what
is given within the custody order. The loser loses the child and
instead becomes the payer and is completely responsible for the
support of the child. The ante increases in the custody battle. There
is a winner and there is a loser. Not only is there a loser in the
decision of who will be the non-custodial parent, but within this
extended battle the loser is the child who sees the rancour involved.
The guidelines ignore the non-custodial parenting process
outside the support payment responsibility. As we have said, the
non-custodial parent is fully responsible for the support payment,
which is based solely on the non-custodial parent's gross income.
The parent in this process is defined simply by the dollars and cents
they will be giving to the child, the dollars and cents that will be
ordered for payment within the child support decision.
There is no allowance in the process for any expenses, direct or
indirect, no matter how significant they may be, which the
non-custodial parent may put toward the child they will be
supporting. The guidelines completely ignore any other support in
the form of expenses. The guidelines cannot be challenged without
proof of a condition of undue hardship.
What about a non-custodial parent's costs for housing,
transportation and food, or costs in their activities with the
children? These are not even considered, nor can they be within the
guidelines. This results in a very great inequity in the value of
parenting between the custodial and non-custodial parents. Perhaps
worse, it may be a disincentive for a non-custodial parent to put
resources toward the child.
They will pay the same award regardless of how they interact
with the children after divorce. The non-custodial parent who
spends one day a week with their child will have the same order as
one who spends three hours with their child, or perhaps one who
spends every other month with their child. The actual child support
guidelines will give each an identical award.
I see this as the government's lack of recognition of the value of
parenting. A non-custodial parent is a parent, as is a custodial
parent. Both have valued input to the child. That is not recognized
and there may be a disincentive for that activity. This will lead
directly to greater custody battles. If payment is all that counts,
once someone becomes a non-custodial parent perhaps the custody
becomes all that much more valuable. Perhaps this too gives a
greater chance of payment delinquency.
6207
(1655)
In my riding and in meetings, non-custodial parents already feel
abandoned by the system. Anger and betrayal are felt by
non-custodial parents. They care about the children of the families
that have been broken up. They have been affected in very real
ways by the break-up of the marriage. It has been shown that
children are affected in very real ways by the removal of one
parent. They are affected by the rancour of a divorce proceeding.
There is already enough anger in the court decisions and in the
access problems. We need no greater anger or greater potential for
anger.
The government claims that the guidelines will ease tensions and
expedite the process. As I have said, the main area where acrimony
arises within divorce is within the custody proceedings. By putting
these guidelines forward and the way that these guidelines work,
the government has upped the ante on the battle that will go on in
the custody courtrooms of this nation.
This legislation means there will be more to lose in the process
for the loser and there will be more to win for the winner. There
will be more rancour in the process and unfortunately, the children
of divorce will be caught in the middle.
Outside the guidelines, the second major portion of the bill
would be the enforcement considerations that have been proposed.
The Reform Party strongly supports compliance with court orders.
It supports justice being done. It supports people obeying the law.
The Reform amendment that was put forward suggested that
more notice be given for federal activities such as the withdrawal
of passports or federal licences for the fairness of all concerned.
We also recognize that the present statistics of non-compliance are
indeed shocking. We want more investigation done about the
reasons for this non-compliance and the sources for this data. The
reasons are incredibly important. Unfortunately, because
investigation has not been done on why or how the information has
been gathered, we must speculate on what the reasons are for the
non-compliance.
An interesting study was done in 1992 in the United States by the
general accounting officer. Typically when people are investigating
non-compliance, they ask the custodial parent what the situation is.
In the study 66 per cent of custodial parents reported not receiving
child support because the non-custodial parent was unable to pay.
Part of this legislation is the ability to pay. I would hope that
indeed the guideline is met by the judges and the guidelines that are
put forward. It would seem that most people feel the guidelines are
a good start in that direction.
(1700)
The three best predictors of compliance are the fairness of the
original order, the non-custodial access to the child and the work
stability of the non-custodial parent.
The fairness of the original order depends on the reasonableness
of the guidelines. As I have already mentioned, the guidelines
which have been put forward ignore the value of parenting and
certainly the value of co-parenting. The fairness of the order must
be flexible. The guidelines must allow flexibility. They should
include flexibility beyond simply a condition of undue hardship.
The fairness of the original order depends on a workable review of
the circumstances and an equitable review of the situations of the
two parents and their ability to pay support.
One of the predictors I mentioned was the work stability of the
non-custodial parent. Part of that depends, of course, on
employment opportunities. The unemployment rate stands at 10
per cent. That is affecting non-custodial parents who want to
support their children and comply with court orders. The 10 per
cent unemployment rate is very much a part of the problem which
non-custodial parents face.
The final predictor which I mentioned was non-custodial access
to the child. This is a determining factor of compliance. While it
cannot be linked directly, however, one does affect the other.
Access goes to the heart of the matter when it concerns
non-custodial parents. Access and the issues surrounding it
underlie the value of parenting.
In the report of the provincial-territorial task force, access,
custody and support were interwoven. Divorce, access, custody and
support issues cross federal and provincial jurisdictions and take us
into territory which is confusing to both judges and the people
going through divorce proceedings.
In B.C. in the 1980s an experiment was carried out in a family
court. Federal and provincial jurisdictions were combined under
one roof.
Another experiment was carried out in Manitoba in 1989. It
investigated legislation that would enforce court awards that
granted access of the children to non-custodial parents. It was a
pilot project. It was different in that it provided access assistance. It
did not enforce access. Rather than necessitating a court
proceeding, it offered assessments, counselling, supervision,
conciliation and arbitration. Going to court in this process was a
last resort. Even then if the parties found that court was necessary
for an access determination they had help available through this
pilot program of assessment counselling and supervision.
6208
(1705)
As I looked at what was brought to me by different individuals in
terms of access, there are three kinds of access available. The first
is called reasonable access awarded. In perhaps two-thirds of cases
this would be the norm. It assumes communication between the
parents and that access is negotiated through that communication
but sole custody would generally be allotted to one parent. It is less
flexible than it sounds in that it tends to be specific but not specific
through a court order or a court agreement. Reasonable access is
then left up to the parents to determine the details.
It is this very process of reasonable access awarded by the courts
that seems to be open over time to changes, in some cases abuse by
one spouse or the other. It can lead both partners back to repeated
court visits, demanding perhaps court orders to make it work.
The new system proposed would not be helpful in this type of
situation. About one-seventh of orders are specified access and that
is when non-custodial visitation rights are given within certain time
limits. This is specified in the court agreement or in the court order.
This might be a second step for a couple from reasonable access to
specified access. However, couples find that within the process
there is little or no enforcement of access orders provided within
the court, within the system that gives them.
Within this legislation there are no enforcement measures
proposed for this important area. It has been suggested to me that
the provincial enforcement agencies that are proposed to enforce
the child support orders could also enforce the access orders, but
this has been totally ignored by the proposed government
legislation.
We have reasonable access or specified access but from what I
have seen the most reasonable and positive is the award of joint
custody. Perhaps 20 per cent of divorce cases go toward joint
custody. Sometimes it is de facto and sometimes it is de jure
situations but mostly through court ordered situations. That is
where parents agree to share the custody and the decisions,
including access to their children. In most cases it is extremely
flexible. With joint custody it can be equal or it can be that the
children are mostly with one parent, but it is a custody and access
decision that has flexibility without the winner and without the
loser implications that we have discussed.
It does not regard children as property to be bartered over but as
something valued by both parents and can be taken care of and
parented by both parents. It is interesting to note in terms of
enforcement and the compliance to a child support order that the
best case scenario is found in joint custody arrangements.
The member for Prince George-Peace River has put forward a
private member's bill, Bill C-242, that would make this type of
arrangement, joint custody, the rule instead of the exception in
divorce proceedings. This indeed would address the enforcement
of child support and the whole issue of child support in a far more
positive way than what we see within the present bill.
(1710)
The government version that we see today is actually a
disincentive to this type of arrangement which allows both parents
to parent and both parents to dialogue. According to the
government version if this joint custody is what is decided, then the
guidelines must minimize the differences in the standard of living
in the two households. This is a unique situation and applies to the
joint custody arrangements. This implicitly then includes the entire
households involved with the two parents. It includes spouses, it
includes children, it includes changes in circumstance and it is very
difficult. It is very hard to imagine how this will work, with
changing circumstances, new families and ongoing circumstance
provisions.
Someone deciding how they will have access and custody orders
made would see joint custody arrangements as having a greater
potential for invasion into the privacy of their home, greater
potential for acrimony in the decisions and unpredictable
obligations of child support in future years.
It would be less likely for spouses to take a chance on joint
custody because of the unpredictability of what their obligations
might be.
As I mentioned, this is the best approach. Yet this legislation
would penalize those who would potentially want to take this best
approach of joint custody. It would penalize those who would look
at their responsibilities of shared parenting with the greatest
importance. Those who want to contribute most in the co-parenting
process would actually be discouraged from doing so.
What is the purpose of the Divorce Act? I would like to say that
it is to protect the best interests of the child in difficult
circumstances. It is to protect strong family ties and try to keep a
connection with those ties and with those family members both in
the process and after the process of divorce.
This takes me to my final point, rethinking the whole divorce
process. A recommendation of the law society would remove the
adversarial approach. I say that the process needs change. The
process should go to a unified family court. The process, to be
optimum, should go to compulsory mediation that would force
communication rather than adversarial approaches. It would
protect the best interests of the child by putting connection between
the members who are going through divorce.
The Liberal version is big government, unbalanced
responsibilities and rights and a blindness to the child's best
interests. We need a balance to the roles of parents, equal treatment
of the spouses, valuing the role of parents and making government
accountable for its actions and motivations.
6209
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to indicate to the hon. member
that her 40 minutes has expired.
[Translation]
It is my duty, pursuant to our Standing Orders, to inform the
House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Malpeque-Agriculture.
(1715)
[English]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to speak in support of Bill C-41. I encourage all members to
support the legislation.
I say with the greatest respect that after listening to the speech of
hon. colleague from the Reform Party, I think at times we are
looking at a very different piece of legislation. This bill will make
support orders more fair. It will make them more consistent. It
takes into account the income of both parents.
Ms. Meredith: Have you read it?
Mr. Knutson: I have read it. It helps with dispute resolution at a
very difficult time. It is in the best interests of children that the
legislation go ahead.
I would like to emphasize that Canadians, regardless of what
political party they support, or what part of the country they are
from, share some fundamental values. One is that children should
come first. All of us in the House acknowledge that children, by the
very nature of their childhood, are vulnerable and powerless and
that their interests should be put first and foremost in every piece of
legislation affecting children. That is what this legislation does.
Those values make up an important part of providing the
framework for the legislation. The legislation will provide
adequate and consistent child support levels. Those values should
respect fathers who make their payments and make sure that those
who are obliged to pay actually do.
The starting point for understanding this legislation is to
understand that the Canadian family has changed dramatically over
the last 20 years. I agree with the sentiment of the Reform Party
that oftentimes those changes are not for the better. I do not think
any of us are particularly comfortable with the rise in family
break-up and divorce.
Over the past 20 years families headed by an individual parent
have doubled in number. There are almost one million such
families in Canada. In 1990, 61 per cent of single parent families
headed by women lived below the poverty line. That is an
extremely difficult social problem. It is not the fault of government
per se, it is a combination of a number of factors. But government
needs to address the issue.
The poverty level for single parent families headed by women is
at 61 per cent compared with just 10 per cent for two parent
families with children. While the steps taken in this bill will not
end child poverty, they are an important part of the Liberal
government's program to try to alleviate child poverty.
This measure derives its value from shared principles that we
have as Canadians. First is the principle that children should be
first in line. These reforms will put them there and keep them there.
Child support is the first obligation of parents.
Second is the principle that a child's standard of living both
before and after divorce should reflect the means of both parents.
These reforms make sure that it does. Children are a shared
responsibility of both the mother and father and the income of both
parents should be taken into account. A divorce does not change
that.
Third is the principle that people in like circumstances should be
treated in like fashion. The guidelines mentioned by my hon.
colleague are a core part of this legislation. They will ensure that a
couple with children who are getting divorced in British Columbia
and are in virtually the same circumstances as a couple getting
divorced in Ontario will by and large pay the same amount of
support for their children.
The strategy that the government has adopted has four
interdependent elements. We are introducing child support
guidelines to establish appropriate and consistent support levels
and reduce the degree of conflict between separating parents.
Anyone who has first hand knowledge of a divorce knows that it
can be extremely acrimonious and at the end of the day children
ultimately are the losers.
The government is also changing the way the child support
payments are taxed to make things fairer and simpler. Furthermore,
it is enhancing federal and provincial enforcement measures
targeted at the wilful defaulters. We are helping working poor
families by doubling the level of the working income supplement
of the federal child tax benefit over the next two years. I would like
to talk about each of these items in a little more detail.
First is the guidelines. As mentioned in my opening remarks, the
guidelines are about consistency. We all know and I think agree
that consistency is a fundamental part of justice. At the heart of this
approach, the guidelines will be used across Canada by the courts,
by lawyers and by parents to establish appropriate levels of support
payments for children. At present, courts determine support
payment levels on a case by case basis. Too often they are
inconsistent and it means that somewhere Canadian children are
the losers.
(1720)
The issue of the lack of consistency prolongs litigation and adds
to the anguish of parents. Unfortunately, not all judges take the
6210
same approach or have the same philosophy. As a result, levels
vary greatly not just across Canada but even from family to family.
The amount that is available to pay for a child's needs should not
depend on which province one lives in or to which court room the
case is assigned or which party has the more persuasive lawyer.
The guidelines will establish without the need for a trial the levels
of child support to be paid according to the income of the person
paying. The amounts are calculated by a formula that takes into
account average expenditures on children at various income levels.
If income levels increase or decrease so will the parent's
contributions to the needs of children, just as they would be if the
family had remained together.
The guidelines are standard but they are also flexible. They
allow for particular circumstances, such as child care costs and
uninsured medical expenses to be taken into account when
assessing the award. Furthermore, a court can also change the
amounts if undue hardship can be established.
This approach has tremendous strengths. It is simple and it is
standard. It ensures that support paying parents with the same level
of income will pay the same amount of child support.
Second, I would like to deal with the issue of tax treatment. As
most of us know, the change we are making has been controversial.
I support the changes to the tax treatment for a number of reasons.
Currently child support payments are tax deductible for the payer
and taxable for the recipient. This rule was put in place 54 years
ago and it needs to be changed.
Child support is not income for the parent but is money intended
for children and as such it should not be taxed. While I am not
divorced, when I spend money on my children it is not tax
deductible. If I were to become divorced why should it become tax
deductible if it was sent to an ex-wife?
Even when incomes are different, the courts often times do not
take into account the tax liability. Therefore, by making this rule it
will be taken out of the equation.
The no deduction, no inclusion approach will not come into
effect until May 1, 1997. It will apply to all new awards made after
that date but it will not apply after that date to existing awards
unless parties agree or unless a court directs that the changes be
made. By waiting 14 months, Canadians everywhere, as well as the
provincial governments, are being given the time to adjust to these
new rules.
The second most important part of the bill is the area of
enforcement. The guidelines or any law for that matter are
absolutely useless if we do not have the appropriate enforcement in
place to make the law work.
Let me make it clear from the outset that I acknowledge that the
vast majority of parents make their payments on time and deserve
our respect. These parents take their responsibility seriously and
they follow through. I want to point out emphatically that this bill
is about the chronic defaulter and the enforcement provisions in it
will apply to people who are far too many in number but by and
large are not typical of the majority.
Wilful and chronic default by people who can pay but refuse to
pay child support is simply unacceptable. The bill will do a number
of things. Let me just mention a few of them. Federal legislation
will authorize us to suspend federal licences and certificates such
as passports in cases of persistent default. The provinces will be
allowed access to the database of Revenue Canada to help trace
persistent defaulters. Money and effort will be invested in
upgrading computer systems to share information among the
provinces to help in co-ordinating their efforts.
Some of these measures may seem particularly harsh, but when
one looks at the consequences of defaulting parents and the
negative effects it has on children and the fact that often the family
in which these children live have to go to food banks and incur the
negative effects of poverty, these measures are appropriate.
The fourth pillar in our child support strategy is the doubling of
the working income supplement. I take a particular amount of pride
in this measures in because I was part of a group that lobbied the
government to double the working income supplement. When the
working income supplement was brought in by the previous
government it was placed at $500. It is a tax free benefit that goes
to working families with an approximate net income of $25,000.
(1725)
It recognizes that sometimes there is a cost when someone
moves off welfare into the work force. It gives people an extra
incentive to move off welfare and into the work force. The
government has decided to double it to $1,000 and I applaud it for
doing that.
I would like to point out that the working income supplement is
tax free and will go right to the bottom line for families who need
dollars for their children. It is distributed fairly, benefiting children
of separated families and families that remain intact. It is targeted
to those most in need.
In conclusion, these guidelines will ensure consistent awards at
the appropriate levels with diminished conflict and expenses. A tax
rule that reflects the social conditions and the values of 1942 will
be changed to conform to current needs.
Effective tools will enhance enforcement so that the people who
make their payments will know that those in wilful default will be
pursued. Every dollar of increased revenue that Ottawa derives
from the tax changes will be ploughed directly back into the system
for the benefit of children in low income working families. I ask
all members to support this bill.
6211
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the speech made by my Liberal colleague.
There is an issue on which I would like to hear his opinion because
he did not address it. As we know, the Liberal government often
claims to recognize Quebec's distinctiveness. It says it adopted
certain motions to that effect and even accuses the Bloc Quebecois,
the official opposition, of complaining for no reason since, finally,
the Liberals are recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness.
As far as Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act, is
concerned, everyone knows that, one, the Constitution gives the
federal government jurisdiction in this area and, two, Quebec has
some very special demands. We know that the National Assembly
would have liked to be consulted more extensively. It particularly
wanted the federal government to specify in the clause dealing with
guidelines that it would recognize any guidelines adopted by the
National Assembly.
I am asking the hon. member opposite, whose Liberal
government likes to brag about its recognition of Quebec's
distinctiveness, if he agrees that, if the government really cared
about this, it would have provided for Quebec's distinctiveness in
Bill C-41.
Why does this bill not provide for Quebec's special legislation?
Yes, it deals with divorce, but it is mainly concerned with children.
The main purpose of Bill C-41 is to protect children, to pursue a
family policy Quebec is developing, as we clearly saw last
weekend.
I am asking the hon. member why Bill C-41 does not make
special provision for Quebec's distinctiveness?
[English]
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his
question. I would like to make a couple of points. The way his
question came over the translation it was why does the federal
government not bind itself legally and put it in the bill?
I would like to remind the hon. member that the only way the
federal government can bind itself is by changing the Constitution.
The government cannot bind future Parliaments.
If the hon. member would like to engage in a discussion on how
we should change the Constitution to deal with these issues, I
would be fully prepared to have that discussion with him. From
what I understand, it is the position of the Bloc Quebecois and the
Parti Quebecois that they are not interested in a constitutional
question.
The issue also raises a broader point. In the current Canadian
federal system two people can move in together, not get married,
have children and become separated. The rules that apply to their
separation and how the children are dealt with are all within
provincial jurisdiction.
We can have two other people who happen to get married and
have children and yet the rules that apply concerning their children
when they break up are dealt with under the federal system. That
does not seem to make a lot of sense these days. It should be dealt
with constitutionally.
I would invite members opposite to enter into a discussion of
how we can change the Constitution while taking fully into account
the distinct society in Quebec. We could try to find a way to make
the country work better for all Canadians, including all Canadian
children.
And the bells having rung:
_____________________________________________
6211
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from November 5, consideration of the
motion.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the recorded division on Motion M-205 under Private
Members' Business.
Call in the members.
(1750)
And the bells having rung:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: As is the practice, the division will be
taken row by row, starting with the mover and then proceeding with
those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House
as the mover. Then those members in favour of the motion on the
other side of the House will be called.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you
know, members of Parliament, other than by the usage of the bells,
are not notified of when votes take place in the House. This is
especially of concern to members of Parliament who do not belong
to a particular caucus. There are some 15 of them in the House of
Commons. These members of Parliament are not advised.
My office called the clerk's department and there is no procedure
in place for those members of Parliament to be told when a vote
takes place and, in my view, that affects the ability of these
members to adequately represent their constituents.
We are about to vote on a matter and I am not aware of what the
nature of that matter is.
6212
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will know that the
projected order of business does give the time of the vote. In fact
it gives the time of the vote for tonight.
I appreciate that sometimes that does not happen. The member is
quite right that sometimes there is no indication of a vote, other
than the bells. I appreciate the point he has made to the House.
All those at my left in favour of the motion will please rise.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 166)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Johnston
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Speaker
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -31
NAYS
Members
Adams
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Easter
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Godin
Goodale
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Knutson
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Minna
Murray
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Skoke
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Wood-124
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Bélisle
Bergeron
Calder
Chamberlain
Cowling
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Flis
Gaffney
Gauthier
Graham
Guay
Jacob
Laurin
Loney
Mitchell
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speller
St-Laurent
Whelan
(1755 )
(Motion negatived)
The Deputy Speaker: It being six o'clock, the House will now
proceed to today's Private Members' Business.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.) moved that Bill C-214, an
act to provide for improved information on the cost of proposed
government programs, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to start debate
on Bill C-214.
The people want to turn the light on the departments of
government that are spending their money. They want to be part of
the process of government spending and not merely the recipients
of the bills through income taxes after the money is spent. They
6213
want to return to the origins of taxation when individuals gave
their specific consent to be taxed.
Many look in mystery as they study their weekly pay cheques.
They are mystified that so much is gobbled up by taxation and they
are at a loss to understand how they were part of a process that
allowed this to happen.
Over 55 per cent of our total personal income is accounted for by
all forms of taxation, from income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes
and municipal taxes. Government expenditure is a great confusion
to the public. It is an attempt to clarify and shed light on this
darkness which my bill before us tonight addresses. The whole
concept of taxation was originally based on consent, the consent to
be taxed for things which we considered common good, for
example sidewalks, snow removal and armies.
I have practised as a tax advisor to many Canadians and not just
the wealthy but also those to whom I have donated my time. The
common theme was did we consent to this level of taxation. Why is
it important and why have we succumbed to this state of affairs
when Canada's tax rates are the second highest in the western
world? Graduates of Waterloo university are encouraged to leave
the country because of a promise of lower tax regimes south of the
border.
Did people rationally weigh the cost of programs which have
pushed us to this dilemma? Indeed there are those who think by
simply balancing the annual deficit it is good enough, as if we
should continue to carry a mortgage of this magnitude forever.
What has caused us to create a deficit of over $600 billion? How
can we prevent this situation from repeating itself? This is the real
purpose of Bill C-214. People have lived in the dark over the cost
of government programs. This does not mean we should turn every
citizen into a bookkeeper or an accountant. We have to do away
with a thought process that someone else is paying the bills.
I often encountered this philosophy in my professional life.
People thought it was their next door neighbour who was paying for
programs and not them. The reality of course is that nothing is for
free and in one way or another we are all contributors. People want
to get out of the darkness and turn on the light.
This is the purpose of this legislation. We have bureaucrats who
spend endless hours studying government programs. Indeed
recently in the October report from the Treasury Board the minister
stated: ``We must equip ourselves with better systems for
evaluating the actions of government so that we can genuinely
answer for our actions, first and foremost to our fellow citizens
who are both clients and taxpayers''.
Our government has come a long way in bringing fiscal
responsibility back to government, from an annualized deficit of
$44 billion down to $17 billion. We are on the road to financial
responsibility.
The problem that gave rise to the original issue has not been
solved. Simply put, everyday people did not understand the process
or consent to the process that removed over 55 per cent of their
disposable income. I suggest that because of this lack of consent we
have watched a burgeoning underground economy and people
taking their investments offshore.
Thomas Jefferson stated the people are collectively wise. That is
why I believe this legislation will turn the lights on for those who
pay the bills. It will allow them to be included.
(1805 )
This bill will not give everybody an economic overview of
government but it will encapsulate the costs of specific legislation.
It will make the information readily available to the public and to
parliamentarians. Think of it, a bill that would shed light on the
back rooms of Ottawa where people spend our money.
Members of Parliament jump up and down here all week long.
They vote on legislation when many have not the slightest idea of
its fiscal impact on individuals and the economy in general. This is
because this information is not readily available. This legislation
would empower them. It would give them more information and
make them more effective in representing their constituents.
Accountability is what it is all about. The public is clamouring for
it and who are we to deny its rights?
The critics of this bill state two basic objections, that the process
itself will increase the cost of government and it will inhibit the
legislative agenda of the government. First, the government has
prided itself on its program evaluation system which analyses the
cost benefits of government programs. This is part of a program
known as program review. The tool for doing this is a process
called expenditure management systems. This is all very well and
good as far as it goes.
The problem is all of this examines costs and benefits which
have already occurred. Clearly knowing that programs have been
efficient or otherwise is useful but the taxpayer will already be
stuck with the bill. We are spending millions of dollars to conduct
this after the fact review. It would make more sense to bring this
examination process forward to the initial stage of legislation.
There is no question that with a greater degree of financial
control and scrutiny the government will save more money than
any incremental cost of having bureaucrats cost legislation prior to
its introduction as opposed to after it is in full swing. Simple
common sense tells us that better cost efficient decisions are made
6214
when people assess them prior to their commencement than after
the costs have been incurred.
A press release that was issued this morning by the Canadian
Federation of Taxpayers states: ``Taxpayers could save billions of
dollars if the House of Commons votes to pass Bill C-214, the
program cost declaration act, introduced by the member for
Durham, to be voted on today''-which is not quite true-``at
second reading. It would require government departments to
provide a cost analysis for each new bill''. The federation has
stated that billions of dollars could be saved for the taxpayers of
Canada.
Second is the concern that this will inhibit the legislative
process. It seems to me this argument goes back to regimes of the
past. Nobody would go down to a car lot, look over the car, agree to
purchase it, drive it away and say ``send me the bill'' without
knowing the cost, and neither should government. This is the whole
point of this legislation.
Past governments have promised us all kinds of programs
without fully informing us of their costs. A quick look at the state
of affairs of the Canada pension plan would leave anyone to
conclude that not taking the time or effort to anticipate cost has
now led us to a place where we have to make some pretty drastic
decisions which will not only affect the younger generations but
also some who thought their immediate retirement incomes were
secure. What degree of participation did people have in all of this
anyway?
It is hard to understand how someone could argue the point of
hindrance to the legislative process. It should be part of the
legislative process and people should have a right to know.
(1810)
These are not the issues of the rich but rather the poor and the
disenfranchised. As we go through a period of retrenchment of
fiscal priorities, many of the poor will be negatively affected. It is
to the loss of some of these social programs that this bill directs
itself, to the fact that after years of economic expansion that
government has extended itself well beyond what it is able to
sustain.
Indeed, the auditor general has gone on at length about whether
our current levels of deficit are sustainable. That is to say at what
point can governments no longer shoulder the cost of servicing the
debt? If we have a mortgage on every single Canadian, as our
government does, surely these same people have a right to see what
the costs are. More important, they want some assurance that we
are not going to return to the errors of the past.
This bill does simply two things. First, it requires that the fiscal
impact of new legislation be included in a bill at the same time it is
presented in this House. This also extends to the regulations of
departments.
Second, it requires that the auditor general certify that the
method of cost evaluation was fair and reasonable. I would like to
underline this matter. The auditor general is only certifying that the
method is correct. He or she has no political interference in the
worthiness of programs but simply whether the method used to
arrive at the estimated costs was reasonable under the
circumstances. I suggest that the parallel in the private sector
would be the certification of prospectuses.
Like the expenditures in the management system that we now
have in place, the role of the auditor general is what is known as ex
post. By this I mean he examines costs after they occur. Some of
our listeners would equate this to closing the barn door after the
horse is out.
This is the whole point of moving this process forward in time. It
is small comfort for taxpayers and citizens generally to discover
wasteful spending three years after the fact. It only makes them less
trustful of their elected officials and government generally. They
certainly feel they had no part in the decision making.
By costing legislation prior to its initiation, taxpayers and
citizens generally will have available to them the tools by which to
judge. It will be up to members of Parliament to justify whether the
cost is justified relative to the benefits to be derived. This clearly is
what democracy is all about. It makes people part of the decision
making of government financing.
I have always had much respect for the people who work for the
Treasury Board and also those in finance. I have often thought they
were much like a lopsided hockey team where they were the
goaltenders and every other department was the offence, all trying
to score, and score means budget allocations.
This is why I find it hard to understand why some of them are
reticent to accept this degree of accountability. It seems to me that
with the support of the general public they will be in a better
position to stop the pucks of the spenders of the future. This is the
problem. Many legislators equate a zero annual deficit with the end
of the story. This legislation would make legislators more
cognizant of the cost effects on the general public. Turn the lights
on. This is what taxpayers and citizens demand.
Here is what some people are saying about the bill. I have some
quotations here. The Auditor General of Canada said: ``We share
your view that the cost of government programs and operations
should be made more visible to Parliament and taxpayers''. ``I am
pleased to inform you that the Certified General Accountant's
Association of Ontario fully supports your private member's bill.
Your initiative accords with the CGA's Ontario Board of Governors
requirements that all action items presented to the board must be
accompanied by an explanation of financial implications''.
6215
(1815)
Another quote: ``Mr. Shepherd's bill is a good first kick at the
can and deserves the consideration of all members of Parliament''.
That was said by James Forrest of the Alberta Taxpayers'
Association.
``I commend you for presenting the right type of legislation
which will help the public to understand where their hard earned
tax dollars are being spent''. That is a quote from the president of
the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants. I could go on
with the list but obviously time will not permit.
We talk a lot about our youth and it is truly the younger
generation that will inherit our nation and propel it into the next
millennium. Saddling our youth with debts, which they did not
incur, will tie their hands. Governments are struggling with this
reality as we move toward a more responsible fiscal framework.
It is also appropriate that we conduct a post mortem. That does
not mean that we are dead, but it certainly means that financially
we are very much on the ground. When we conduct this port
mortem we must ask ourselves how this situation occurred in the
first place and ensure that we cure the disease so that it will not
happen again. That is what my bill attempts to do.
We need to give people the tools to make conscious choices
about government policy. Our younger generation will accept
nothing else. It is to these people that we address the need for a
more consensual form of government.
This is the day after the U.S. election. I was in the United States
on the weekend and I actually took part in some of the
electioneering. I stopped people on the street and I knocked on
doors. The mood was: ``They are nothing but a bunch of crooks. It
really does not matter anyway''. Corrupt election financing
practices, together with the fact that people cannot see how they
would count, has brought their voter turnout to less than 50 per
cent. Imagine, more than half the population of the so-called
strongest nation in the world do not consent to their government.
It is this issue which this legislation addresses here in Canada.
Turn on the lights and let the people decide. Include them in the
decision making process. To do otherwise is to court divisiveness
and exclusivity which may well lead to violence.
I have studied many regimes in Australia, Great Britain and the
Netherlands that are all moving in the direction of providing more
accountability for the actions of government to the people. Think
about it. Every piece of legislation that comes before the House
would have a cost attached to it. Some in the bureaucracy are going
to say it is very difficult to do. But the reality is that we already
have an evaluation and internal system of calculating the cost of
programs. It simply means moving the thought process up a little
bit closer to the legislative process.
How can we as legislators go around the country talking about
various pieces of legislation without understanding the full impact
it will have on the economy and on government spending? As I
researched this issue in other countries, I found that other
parliamentarians were doing much of what I am suggesting:
moving in the general area of greater accountability, greater
awareness of the programs for the general public.
There is nothing unusual about any of the things I am suggesting.
It is done in business every day. I am not saying that government is
a business. It is not. We have a very different social purpose here.
But government needs to be run a little bit more like a business.
People have to know the costs.
(1820 )
My fear is that even though we are going down the road of
financial and fiscal responsibility and we have moved the ship of
state, if you will, maybe 10 degrees on the course where we want to
go, there are people who will move it back the other way and we
will be off course again. People want to be part of the process. They
want to be involved in the process that allows them to make
judgments on how governments spend.
People are not going to sit down with a calculator and figure out
how much every piece of legislation impacts them, which is why I
have included a clause that says: ``divided by the population
statistics''. That way, everyone will know exactly how much every
piece of legislation costs him or her.
This could be a good thing. This is not a negative thing for
government programs. It could well be a good thing. For instance,
we may find that the cost of day care, if we extrapolate it over our
population base, is really quite small. People would have a greater
degree of acceptance of that if they saw that it was a small cost on
an individual basis. On the other hand, there would be those
programs that people would not think were particularly cost
effective. They would be able to make those kind of judgment calls.
There will be those people who could not care less. They will not
use the information at all but the bottom line is that they will have
the ability to do so.
The longer I sit in this House and the more legislation I see come
by, I cannot figure out what the financial impact of it is at all. I feel
it is really part of my responsibility, as a legislator, to know that
and to explain it to my constituents. I do not feel that I have the
ability to do that with the present legislative format.
Finally in summary, just simply turn the lights on here in
Ottawa.
6216
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Durham, a Liberal member, has put forward Bill
C-214, a bill to provide for improved information on the cost of
proposed government programs.
The hon. member for Durham, who sat on the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts as vice-chairman, is very interested
in any administrative or legislative measure that would make the
government more responsible or accountable for the enormous
amounts taxpayers invest every year in the federal public service.
I want to assure the hon. member of my support in requiring the
estimated annual cost and cost per capita of every new program be
published as soon as the bill that authorizes it is introduced in
Parliament or the regulation that implements it is issued.
The bill also requires that the auditor general be called upon to
determine whether the method of calculation is valid and the cost is
a good estimate. This assessment and the method to calculate the
estimated cost used by the auditor general would go a long way to
reassure the public on the objectivity of the calculations and cost
estimate.
To increase public awareness of the actual cost of government
programs and enhance transparency, as promised by the Prime
Minister during the last election campaign, transparency that never
really materialized, this bill also requires the total cost and cost per
capital of each program to be displayed at any place where the
program is delivered to the public.
The purpose of Bill C-214 is to require all departments to
provide detailed financial or cost analyses for any new legislative
measure.
Estimating these costs on a per capita basis will help individual
citizens understand more clearly how much each new piece of
legislation costs them personally, how much is actually taken out of
their pockets each time the government put a new program in place.
(1825)
This bill will make legislators and public service officials more
aware of the financial impact of various legislative measures. It
will also encourage the public to pay closer attention to
government spending.
I agree with the hon. member for Durham, when he says that, had
such a legislation been in place in the past, the debt burden facing
the taxpayers would have been much lower today.
I sympathize with the hon. member for Durham. His background
and personal experience, as well as his work at the public accounts
committee level, have all contributed to leading him to put Bill
C-214 before this House. However, while he has our support, the
problem for the hon. member, who sincerely wants to prevent the
setting up of programs that are useless and too costly, is that his
own government, his own party turns a deaf ear to his bill.
Indeed, the cost of government programs is the least of the
Liberal's worries. Since the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the
Liberal Party of Canada has buried Canadians under a mountain of
debts, and the current Prime Minister is carrying on the tradition.
The notion of cost-benefit analysis is a foreign to this government
as its understanding of Quebec is flawed or, for that matter, the
existence of two distinct peoples in Canada and the partnership that
could exist between them. This Liberal government's
constitutional policy is based on confrontation. The Liberals prefer
covering up to transparency and to analyzing the real costs of
government programs.
For these reasons, Bill C-214 stands little chance of being
supported by the hon. member's own party, even though such
legislation is urgently required.
A good illustration of the Liberals lack of support for Bill C-214
is an E-mail note we received in which the Liberal member for
Bruce-Grey writes the following to his colleague for Durham, and I
quote:
[English]
``While I find the objective of the bill laudable, I am concerned
that it could prove to be costly and cumbersome, particularly if
applied to all new programming proposals regardless of
materiality''.
[Translation]
While cost estimating is the very basis of the evaluation of any
new product or service in the private sector, the Liberal member for
Bruce-Grey tells us that estimating the cost of any new program
would be too costly when we do not know whether the program will
actually be implemented. The member for Bruce-Grey seems to be
implying that it is better to implement a new program without
knowing its costs, then to know the costs of a new program whose
financial impact would lead us not to implement it.
Such is the Liberal philosophy: it is better to not know the costs
of a new program, because this information could arouse the
suspicions of the media, of the opposition parties and of the
taxpayers, who would strongly object to its implementation.
Better to keep the public in the dark about the real costs of
programs, and above all to keep the auditor general, with his
objective and transparent opinion about such information, at a
distance.
We saw this, during hearings of the finance committee on the
transfer of two billion dollars of Canadian capital tax free to the
United States. Members of the Liberal majority and the chairman
of the committee himself tried to put the auditor general on the
6217
spot, because he had dared to give a dissenting opinion on the
controversial decision by the revenue department and the finance
minister regarding this unusual transfer of funds to the United
States.
(1830)
The final report by the Standing Committee on Finance, with
which the Bloc Quebecois was not in agreement-we tabled a
dissenting report-is devoted largely to trying to refute and
undermine the auditor general's opinion.
As political debate and public morality, we have seen worse.
Instead of attacking the message, Liberals attack the messenger.
At the end of his note to the member for Durham, the Liberal
member for Bruce-Grey says, and I quote:
[English]
``With respect to the role of the auditor general, his mandate is
one of ex-post review. Indeed your proposal may create a conflict
of interest for his office''.
[Translation]
The Liberals want to continue to maintain the role of the auditor
general's office as one of intervening after the fact, when the deed
is done and taxpayers money has already been committed and
spent.
As for the possibility of conflict of interest in the auditor
general's role, the Liberals have put themselves in a conflict of
interest situation for some time by attacking the auditor general
during hearings of the finance committee and in their subsequent
committee report to the House. The auditor general is accountable
only to Parliament, and that is why the Liberals are so afraid of
him, do not want to extend his mandate and are trying to undermine
his credibility to diminish the impact of his views. This is petty
politicking.
Bill C-214 presented by the hon. member for Durham, will
unfortunately not be supported by his own party, because it calls for
innovation in administration, for transparency-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time
has expired.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to
rise today in this House to speak in favour of Bill C-214 put forth
by my hon. colleague from Durham.
Bill C-214 is an act to provide for improved information on the
cost of proposed government programs. We as parliamentarians
need to rethink from time to time not only what we do but also how
we do it. Bill C-214 will help us to achieve this.
This bill will require the estimated annual cost and the cost per
capita of every new government program to be published as soon
as the bill that authorizes it is introduced into Parliament, or the
regulation that implements it is issued. The auditor general's
opinion on the estimate is also to be published. It also requires the
cost and the cost per capita to be displayed in any place where the
program is to be delivered to the public.
When a new program is to be funded from public money, the
minister responsible must make a declaration of the estimated
annual cost of the program in each of the first five years of its
intended operation, expressed as a total cost and as a cost per capita
for every resident of Canada. This declaration must be made in the
House of Commons if it is sitting, in the Canada Gazette, in
writing to every member of Parliament and in a media statement.
The Auditor General of Canada will provide an opinion that the
method of calculation on the cost referred to in this declaration is
valid and that the cost is a good estimate. If the auditor general
dissents from that opinion given by the minister, then the reasons
for the dissent shall be made public by the responsible minister.
The minister shall also ensure that the program costs are clearly
displayed at every place where the program is delivered and in
every document pertaining to the program.
This bill has the support of the Certified General Accountants
Association of Ontario, the Alberta Taxpayers Association, the
Chartered Association of Certified Accountants, the Society of
Management Accountants of New Brunswick and Prince Edward
Island and the Certified General Accountants of New Brunswick. It
is obvious that this bill is endorsed from coast to coast and for very
good reason.
Members of Parliament must be the stewards of the taxpayers'
dollars and MPs often cannot understand the financial impact of
legislation for the simple reason that it may not be presented in a
clear, concise manner. I believe that Bill C-214 will change this.
Over the years the information provided to parliamentarians has
become very technical and lengthy and deals with mainly short
term issues. It does not sufficiently help parliamentarians
understand the relationships between the resources we are
approving and the financial impact they would have on Canadians
and the results actually achieved by the program if applicable in
previous years.
(1835 )
No one will dispute that governments should be accountable to
the Canadian taxpayers. In fact it is the foundation of our
parliamentary system of government. The problem with our current
way of doing business is the timing of that accountability.
Most government accountability options focus on after the fact
methodologies such as evaluation systems. These initiatives
provide for reporting long after the tax dollars have been spent. To
me,
6218
this does not make sense and is questionable at best. The auditor
general also provides Parliament with that same hindsight analysis.
We must look at the issue of control and the understanding of
cost before moneys are spent. Is this not a logical extenuation of
accountability to the client or taxpayers? Our constituents deserve
nothing less.
Each piece of legislation should have attached to it the estimated
impact on government expenditures. Indeed it is a logical extension
of the current expenditures management system, one which must
involve the ultimate client: the people of Canada.
The provisions requiring publication of the costs and opinions
about those costs is an excellent initiative. Not only will it provide
a greater degree of financial scrutiny by the public over their
elected officials, it will also increase the public awareness of the
cost of government at all times but especially during periods of
restraint.
I know that some hospitals now issue a statement to the patient
after being discharged, not for the purpose of payment but to show
the patient the cost of hospitalization. Raising the awareness of the
public to programs and services that can be easily taken for granted
is good. The taxpayers are entitled to see where their money goes
and conversely they should be shown how much it is costing when
they themselves access programs and services. Very simply, it is
accountability.
When the board of directors of a corporation is considering a
new initiative, do they not intensely scrutinize the financial
implications of the corporation, both in the short term and long
term? Are we as parliamentarians not the board of directors of this
great country Canada? Should we not also be making decisions on
the new initiatives by intense scrutiny of the financial
implications? The answer is clearly yes, yes, yes.
With respect to accountability, the public demands more
accountability from Parliament. Bill C-214 is one way in which we
are counting taxpayers and citizens in on the process of evaluation
before the money is actually spent. People wonder at the deficits
built up by past governments. How did we get into this horrible
situation? By making Canadians and parliamentarians partners at
the point of sale rather than only when the bills come in will help
prevent or hopefully eliminate escalating deficits in the future.
My constituents can look at the per capita cost of a proposed
project and tell me it is not worth it. Many supporters of an
initiative in government may look at the cost in black and white
and decide it is not worth it. We can give Canadians these choices.
Our children are the true recipients of any unpaid liabilities and
the beneficiaries of prudent or imprudent decision making. We owe
it to that generation to be aware of the costs of programs before we
initiate them and before we saddle these children with an
unacceptable financial burden.
The forces that would turn government back on the road to fiscal
irresponsibility are at work today. Our colleagues opposite and
perhaps members of the bureaucracy are already pondering how to
spend annualized surpluses even though the deficit stands at over
$600 billion. This legislation will serve as a check on these forces.
Today one of the priorities of the Canadian government is to get
government right. Getting government right means modernizing
the way we conduct our business and to include the Canadian
public as citizens, as clients and as taxpayers. Governments must
be transparent. Canadians have the right to know and we
parliamentarians have the responsibility of informing them.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to address the Bill C-214 put
forward by the hon. member for Durham, an act to provide for
improved information on the cost of proposed government
programs.
Bill C-214 contains several proposals all of which address or
seek to address the need for accountability in federal spending,
particularly on government programs. The objective of this bill is
simple: accountability. This is an issue which must be addressed
and without question I support this objective. Accountability is
critical to good government, and unfortunately there is a need for
accountability within this government.
I support this bill in principle and I believe some of the proposals
contained in this bill merit support. However, there are also many
areas that must be amended before the bill can be supported in its
entirety.
For example, to make government more accountable, Bill C-214
proposes that a minister of the crown make a public declaration of
the cost of each new program funded from public money. This
public declaration would include the estimated annual cost of the
program in each of the first five years of its intended operation
expressed both as a total cost and as a cost per capita for every
resident of Canada.
(1840)
Providing annual projections for the first five years of operation
is a reasonable expectation for new programs. This should be a
matter of course. However there is a problem. Projections are not
binding once they are published. There is nothing to ensure that the
amount published will be the amount spent. One possible solution
could be an amendment to the bill that would require amendments
beyond 5 per cent to be announced as well.
6219
The proposal in Bill C-214 to provide estimated costs for each
program on an annual basis is clearly a good idea. However, I have
concerns that the proposed cost calculations for each program may
take the issue too far.
Estimating each program as a cost per capita for every resident
of Canada does not appear to be a necessary or cost effective
procedure. This proposal would be an inefficient use of
government money and has the potential to create an unnecessary
bureaucracy within government.
Bill C-214 also proposes that program costs be made available in
the House of Commons if it is sitting at the time, by publication in
the Canada Gazette, a letter to each and every member of
Parliament and a statement to the media if the House is not sitting
at that time. I fully support this proposal. In fact, this proposal
should be strengthened so that the minister's statement to the
media is not limited to periods when the House of Commons is not
sitting. The public should be informed each and every time a new
program is proposed.
Another concern I have is that Bill C-214 proposes that
following each new program declaration, the auditor general
should provide to the minister responsible for the program an
analysis of the cost proposal. The main purpose of the auditor
general is to report on how federal government departments and
agencies spend taxpayers' money. The role of the auditor general in
providing a measure of accountability between the government and
the people cannot be underemphasized. On first sight, the proposal
to have the auditor general evaluate the cost for each new program
may appear valid. However, this is not necessarily a good idea for
the following reasons.
I have concerns that such a proposal will create unnecessary
work for the auditor general. The independence of the auditor
general gives him the freedom to criticize and to form independent
assessments on how things are working. There is clearly a risk of
overloading the auditor general. Forcing many small projects on
him and his department as proposed in this bill would hinder the
auditor general from examining more significant issues.
Such a proposal also steps on the independence of the auditor
general. He must be allowed to use his own judgment in choosing
which areas to report on. Government must not legislate the auditor
general to evaluate specific programs.
However, if we wish to be more accountable, we must make
changes that allow the auditor general more freedom to report on
government spending. The auditor general should have access to
reporting on the costs of all government programs and initiatives,
including crown corporations and the Senate.
The auditor general provides a very valuable service to
Canadians and to parliamentarians. As it stands, he only has
limited
jurisdiction as to what he can now report on. If Canadian tax dollars
are funding it, then the auditor general should be able to investigate
it. It should be that basic.
Bill C-214 also proposes ``that program costs be clearly and
publicly displayed at every place under the jurisdiction of or
contracted to the Government of Canada at which the program is
delivered and in every document in which the minister or a person
acting with the authority of the minister undertakes to deliver to
any person a good or service under the program''.
Although I agree with the principle of this idea, I have concerns
that this procedure may also run into unnecessarily high expenses
that may not be essential. I suggest we maintain the principle of the
proposal, yet it should be revised with a more realistic goal.
Costs of programs and initiatives must be public and accountable
to the public, but how far we should go in this respect needs to be
discussed in depth. As it stands, Canadians have been left out of the
picture for too long. Canadians do not find out about the cost of
programs until they are already established and by then the money
is committed.
(1845)
Bill C-214 must be applauded for its efforts to make
governments inform Canadians. This is a step in the right direction
and it is good to see it coming from the other side of the House.
Governments clearly must be accountable to the people.
Canadians need to know what the costs are. After all, they are the
ones who are paying for the programs in the first place.
Certainly costs of advertising must be balanced against the
extent of advertising. The proposal in this bill appears to go too far
in advertising the costs with too little concern for the cost of doing
so. A balanced approach is needed, as both sides of the issue must
be addressed.
Government fiscal policies must be open and within the scrutiny
of the general public. The minister of heritage's complete lack of
accountability with her flag money is a typical example of the kind
of mismanagement and utter lack of accountability that goes on in
this government, and this type of irresponsibility must be brought
to an end. Spending millions of tax dollars without a clue of where
the money is coming from is utterly irresponsible.
Another issue is our debt, which is out of control. Canadians
want to know where their money is being spent. The member for
Durham, in his move toward accountability, is moving clearly in
the right direction.
Canadians want to know what they are paying for. Canadians
deserve to know what is going on in Parliament, in its departments
and in its crown agencies. Yet time and time again this government
6220
has voted down initiatives that would give Canadians open and
accountable government.
For example, if this government is truly committed to open
government as it claims, it would open all crown corporations to
the Access to Information Act.
Last week I asked the minister of public works to open Canada
Post to the public by putting it under the Freedom of Information
Act and to the scrutiny of the auditor general, but the minister
responsible for Canada Post refused. The government's refusal to
open crown corporations to the public makes its commitment to
open and transparent government somewhat hollow.
As well, there is complete lack of accountability in the Senate.
The Senate continues to spend over $40 million a year with
absolutely no accountability to the taxpayers who pay its way.
Actions must be taken, yet this government voted down a motion
that would require the Senate to account for its spending to the
elected members within this House.
The government voted for the Senate budget of over $40 million
without knowing how the money would be spent. This is very poor
accountability.
Open government means not only opening the finances of
government to the people but conducting the affairs of government
above board. Open government and accountability are the two
main principles within this bill. I believe the member is right on
track when he attempts to target these areas.
The member sees there is a lack of accountability and openness
in his government and is doing his bit to address the situation.
In conclusion, I support the member in his efforts and, as such, I
will support this bill.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
support a good friend, a good colleague and a damn good bill which
has been presented to this House, Bill C-214, the program cost
declaration act.
The member for Durham probably needs no introduction to
parliamentarians, but I think it is of note the work he has done on
public accounts and the work he has done hither to his hopefully
very long career as a politician, including many years as a
chartered accountant and a very fine, upstanding man in terms of
the community of Durham.
I speak with some knowledge, although he is not my chartered
accountant. I can assure members that many people speak very
highly of him. Any member whose dentist goes by the last name
McTeague has to know something about his clients.
Mirth aside, the bill deals very specifically with a concern that
Canadians have. The concern is that when we decide to move or to
allow supply, when legislation is provided, we seem never to be
able to provide people with an opportunity of knowing just how
much that legislation is going to cost.
I therefore commend the member of Parliament for having the
foresight and the experience in terms of his committee work to be
able to present a bill which I think a lot of members of Parliament
on both sides of the House are expressing they will support.
(1850 )
We realize that the bill is only in second reading and therefore
only in its first hour of debate. There will be two more hours of
debate. I look forward to listening to other members of Parliament
as they provide their views on the bill.
It is important to point out that the committee will hopefully also
be able to address the amendments that were suggested, for
example, by my hon. colleague from the Reform Party. I cannot
help but remark that while the member from the Reform Party
rightfully supports the bill, he took the opportunity to talk a bit
about the Senate. I was quite amazed to note yesterday that the
Reform Party was not willing to join in a motion by other members
to remove the section that would deal with abrogating or removing
the Senate.
The public has demanded greater transparency from us. It is a
slogan for many of us. As we go into campaigns we talk about the
need for making sure that people understand how much programs
and legislation will cost.
I believe this bill squares with the public expectations, certainly
in an era where there is justified or perhaps even unjustified
cynicism toward how politicians and governments spend money.
The hon. member for Durham who presented the bill has pointed
out that we are currently in a situation of being $600 billion in debt.
Some of that, I am sure, is the result of changes in the economic
climate, governments not being able to change with the times and
the result of great adjustments that have necessitated the
government to incur such a debt.
But that does not relinquish us from our responsibility of
providing the kinds of instruments that will allow the public and
politicians greater scrutiny on the bills that they pass from time to
time. Having had 18 votes in this Chamber last evening, it would be
good to know the quantum effect of how much those bills will
impact on our ability to make ends meet at the end of the day.
The hon. member from Durham who proposed this, whose riding
happens to be beside mine, talked about the importance of
inclusion, the importance of providing people a real opportunity for
participation. That does not mean that people necessarily will take
an interest in every single bill. But it allows one dimension of
information which allows a democracy to survive in a very trying
time. As we approach the 21st century an informed citizenry may
avail itself of very important information. That is why I believe the
member's bill is not only timely in the context of the deficit and the
6221
debt situation we have, but it is also timely because the public
expects us to do this.
Right now there is every indication that there is something
lacking when we talk about an underground economy. According to
some estimates by the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business we are losing somewhere in the order of as much as $100
billion a year because people are looking for alternatives. Some
people have low faith in the system and the way their tax money is
dealt with that they believe the best way to get around it is to cheat
the system.
I think that is a rather sad indictment on the situation we find
ourselves in. It makes the job of the revenue minister and in
particular the finance minister almost impossible if not elusive. We
have to bring Canadians back on side. How we do that is to provide
them absolute, open, honest, up front probate information so that
they can judge for themselves how the money is spent and ensure
their members of Parliament are accountable. In that way it would
make my job as a member of Parliament much easier to say to
those engaged in the underground economy, given the importance
of this bill and that it might someday be enacted, they have
absolutely no reason to hurt their fellow Canadians by simply
withholding or not paying taxes due.
This is what Parliament can do to bring people back on board and
address the cynicism that exists out there.
This may also, as the hon. member has indicated, prevent
unnecessary spending. There would certainly be a reluctance by
some members to accept a bill that would seem on the surface to be
aiming in the right direction. Sure, there are a lot of things we
would like to do, but if we do not have the money to make those
projects a reality, on whose shoulders or whose generation will the
mortgage or the cost of that program be borne? We have many good
programs in this country. Some of them have served this country
very well and will continue to serve the country in the future. I
think of our medicare programs and the transfer payments to the
provinces. There are many projects and undertakings that the
government has considered in the past and it has enacted valid
legislation. However, we must ensure that these projects and
undertakings square with public expectations as to how we are able
to finance them.
(1855)
In terms of the debate that surrounds what we are to spend and
what we are not to spend, it is important to allow people an
opportunity to converse with their representatives, if it is not
during an election campaign, in the case of a majority government.
There is an opportunity to speak to hundreds of constituents, who I
know attend the hon. member's office. It is one of the most
accessible offices in the region. It allows them to judge for
themselves the importance of the program and to weigh the cost
versus the social benefit. That is consistent with my definition and I
believe it is consistent with the definition of the Liberal Party.
I want to put this into context in the few minutes which are
allowed to me and talk about a project in the town of Ajax, which is
in my riding. It has a population of approximately 75,000. In that
town there is a program known as Stars. It was featured not too
long ago on ``W5''. The Stars program saves taxpayer money by
increasing their awareness of how to reduce spending. No jobs have
ever been lost by the town of Ajax. We have given people an
opportunity to determine how best to save valuable taxpayer
dollars while at the same time making sure that ends meet because
municipalities do not have the ability to incur debt.
The architect of this idea was Mr. Barry Malmsten. I am of the
opinion that the member for Durham may have talked to Barry
about this and applied the wisdom which has been enacted in
municipalities such as Ajax to the federal realm. That is very
laudable. If that is not the case, then it is certainly an awesome
coincidence. Again it leads me to the conclusion that what the
member is proposing at the federal level has already proven to bear
fruit at the municipal level.
I believe it is up to Parliament to at least consider it. It is an
important issue. Obviously it can be tinkered with in committee,
but the general thrust of the bill is something which I believe all
Canadians would support.
In conclusion, I would like to commend the hon. member. He has
put behind him a variety of well known organizations such as the
Certified General Accountants of Canada. I note that the
organizations include the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and its
chairman Jason Kenney. The federation has its provincial
organization in my riding. He commented on this as being common
sense in the Commons. Such flattery speaks to the importance and
the timeliness of this bill.
[Translation]
In concluding, we can say that this bill deserves the attention,
respect and even the support of the vast majority of members of
this House. I am pleased to have had a chance to speak to my
colleague's bill, and I hope it will be passed very shortly.
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, it is now 6.58 p.m. Is
there unanimous consent to call it 7 o'clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order
Paper.
6222
6222
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October
30, I asked the President of the Treasury Board the following
question:
Farmers are increasingly concerned about the multiple impact cost recovery is
having on their ability to survive and prosper.
What economic impact analysis has been and will be done to monitor these
impacts and is the minister prepared to redress any serious negative impacts should
they result?
The President of the Treasury Board responded by indicating
that each department is responsible for the cost recovery programs
it administers and responsible for any impact analysis undertaken.
He also indicated that the analysis would be undertaken in response
to specific concerns raised by stakeholders in the industry.
The role of Treasury Board seems to be to monitor and
apparently report on the overall impact of cost recovery programs.
My concern is that the cumulative impact of various cost recovery
programs which involve more than one department but impact on
the individual producer is not being adequately responded to.
For example, an individual producer may not have a direct
problem with cost recovery programs of Agriculture Canada, but
may have a problem arising out of the impact of cost recovery
programs from Health Canada, Transport Canada, et cetera.
It appears to me that an individual who has a problem with the
cumulative impact of cost recovery does not have any one place to
bring these concerns forward for redress. I would point out that
producers have to be assured that they will not be burdened with
new costs that will affect their competitiveness, especially now that
we are part of the new global environment.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has pointed out that the
new Pest Management Review Agency will cost recover
approximately 60 per cent of its costs while the counterpart agency
in the United States has a cost recovery initiative of only 15 per
cent. I understand the Minister of Health disputes some of those
figures, is reviewing the matter and will come back to the issue.
In the Prince Edward Island Guardian on September 26 under
the headline: ``Farmers fear fee hikes'', a very serious matter was
raised by Ivan Noonan who is general manager of the P.E.I. Potato
Board.
The article pointed out that fee schedules obtained by the
Guardian show that the government expects the new fees to more
than double the revenue it currently earns from a range of
Agriculture Canada services, such as licensing and inspection. Ivan
Noonan said: ``It is going to cause a lot more hardship for growers,
that is certain. If growers cannot pick up the revenue through better
prices or cutting costs per acre, then they will be out of business''.
We must assure producers that that cannot happen. Imagine the
cost. Imagine the impact on the macro economy of Prince Edward
Island if the multiple impact of cost recovery fees forced some
producers out of business.
We cannot allow ourselves to be penny wise and pound foolish.
My colleague, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, produced a
letter at committee that was sent to him by the vice-president of
Pickseed Canada.
In the letter the individual, Mr. Pick, said: ``Agriculture and
Agri-food Canada now has plans to increase our costs to export to
certain countries by as much as four times in 1997. If full cost
recovery is passed on, this could rise to as much as 10 times''. He
concludes by saying: ``We simply cannot do business with these
costs''.
The government must be extremely careful not to allow cost
recovery to push producers out of business.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
respond to the member for Malpeque. I have a lot of respect for
him. He works extremely hard on behalf of his constituents and he
is very knowledgeable about farming.
It is important that Canadians get food at a good price and that
user fees do not put an undue burden on them. The user fee concept
is not new. Canadians have paid a passport fee since the 1800s.
However, the extent to which public sector goods and services are
being financed by users and beneficiaries is increasing in Canada
as it is in other OECD countries.
The first principle is that those who enjoy, profit or benefit from
government services to the exclusion of the public at large, should
be the ones who pay the cost of providing them. That is the
underlying premise of the user pay policy. This promotes fairness
in the use of tax dollars, discipline in the consumption of services,
and allows users to have a direct say in the service and how it is
delivered.
The very existence of user charges permits the federal
government to improve cost recovered activities that it might not
otherwise be able to provide. It permits tax dollars previously used
to finance these activities to be reallocated to fund general
activities benefiting all Canadians.
The Treasury Board establishes government wide policies and
provides general guidance to departments on their
implementa-tion, but individual ministers are responsible for
applying the policy to programs under their area of responsibility.
Individual
6223
departments are responsible for deciding where fees are
appropriate and are to be initiated.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the parliamentary
secretary's time has expired.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 7.06 p.m.)