CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 27, 1996
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 1285
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1286
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1288
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1288
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1288
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1290
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1290
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1291
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1291
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1293
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1293
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1294
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1294
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1295
Bill 246. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted
1295
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1295
Bill C-247. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1296
Bill C-248. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1296
Bill C-249. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1296
Bill C-250. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1296
Motion for concurrence in 11th report agreed to 1296
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 1297
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 1297
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 1297
Bill C-9. Report stage 1298
Motion for concurrence 1298
Motion for third reading 1298
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 1307
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 1309
Bill C-19. Report stage 1311
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais) 1311
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1311
Division on motion deferred 1315
Division on Motion No. 2 deferred 1316
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1316
Bill C-9. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 1316
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 133; Nays, 74 1316
(Bill read the third time and passed) 1317
Bill C-216. Motion for second reading 1317
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1319
1283
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 27, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our custom, we will now sing O Canada,
which will be led by the hon. member for Oxford.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to draw the attention of the House to a unique Canadian
scientific initiative in my riding of Nickel Belt which will soon
help unlock the secrets of our universe.
Sixty-four hundred feet underground in Inco's Creighton mine in
the town of Walden, the finishing touches are being added to a
neutrino observatory. Underground and shielded from cosmic rays,
the observatory will study neutrinos, small particles emitted from
the centre of the sun. The results could very well change our
understanding of the universe and the very foundations of physics.
The observatory represents an international consortium made of
Canadian governments, the U.S., the United Kingdom, universities
and Inco Limited. It is a model of how governments and the private
sector can partner to achieve great things. It is also a partnership
led by Canadians.
I wish to extend my congratulations to all the contributors and in
particular to Inco for showing us once again that mining in Canada
is on the cutting edge-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
* * *
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, take back
the street rallies are becoming all too common in cities and towns
across Canada. From the east coast to the west coast, Canadians
are calling on the government to get tough with convicted
criminals.
The years of lenient sentences, pampered prisoners and lax
parole laws that favour offenders' rights over victims must end.
Too many innocent lives have been snuffed out because this Liberal
government is stuck in neutral.
Respondents to my recent householder demanded a return to law
and order. Canadians want a say on capital punishment through a
binding referendum. People want justice put back in the justice
system.
Canadians are sending a wake-up call to the Minister of Justice.
If he does not respond quickly, the voters will ensure that he and his
colleagues are on this side of the House after the next election and
will be watching a Reform government implement the changes that
they were afraid to make.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on April 1 the Canada health and social transfer will be
implemented gutting national standards in the Canada assistance
plan and slashing billions of dollars from health care,
post-secondary education and social assistance and services.
This week Jean Swanson, president of the National Anti-Poverty
Organization and Guy Caron, chairperson of the Canadian
Federation of Students, have launched in Ottawa a National Fast
for Fairness co-ordinated by the Action Canada Network.
Their fast, joined and supported by people across Canada,
including churches, universities, food banks and union locals,
draws attention to the CHST and the devastating impact it will have
on people's lives, our economy and our vision of Canada.
New Democrats join our voices in calling for national programs
with national standards and adequate funding and in supporting the
alternative federal budget.
Finally, we pay tribute to Jean Swanson and Guy Caron for their
personal leadership on this profoundly important issue.
1284
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to extend my heartfelt congratulations to President
Gosnell and the Nisga'a people on the signing of the agreement in
principle this past Friday. Our colleague, the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, is also to be congratulated for
his important role in seeing this historic moment to fruition.
Those who know the history of this agreement know that it is
long overdue. The Nisga'a have been turned away too many times
by too many governments for too many years.
The signing marks the end of 20 years of negotiations, two
decades at the negotiating table watching federal and provincial
governments come and go. For the Nisga'a this has been going on a
lot longer than 20 years. The Nisga'a people have been working at
this for over 100 years, quietly, patiently, with dignity and
persistence.
The time is long overdue. Our government has a chance to
change history and we will do so.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last month, Pontiac made headlines across the
country. The mayors of the Pontiac regional county municipality
had decided to consider a motion proclaiming the territorial
integrity of the Pontiac RCM, should the yes side win the next
referendum.
In the end, on February 16, the Pontiac RCM mayors signed a
joint statement asking: ``That the Prime Minister of Canada,
provincial and territorial premiers spare no effort to reach a
compromise eliminating the option that would result in altered
territorial borders''.
The next day, a local paper ran an article under the headline
``Sixteen Pontiac Mayors in Favour of Secession''. This catchy title
in no way reflected the content of the Pontiac mayors' final
statement, and I question the real purpose of such statements.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
rising today to express my sincere appreciation to the city of
Edmonton for the marvellous work it did in hosting the World
Figure Skating Championships. Thanks to the tremendous spirit of
so many hardworking volunteers who organized this event,
Edmonton was a showcase to the world.
(1405 )
All programs were sold out and the economic impact to the city
of Edmonton was over $40 million. The figure skating
championships had a huge television audience with over one
billion people from around the world watching the event.
I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate Shae-Lynn
Bourne and Victor Kraatz for a fantastic performance which won a
bronze medal for Canada.
Once again I would like to thank the city of Edmonton for its
outstanding work in hosting the 1996 World Figure Skating
Championships.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
year the Mascouche board of trade is celebrating its 20th
anniversary.
The Mascouche board of trade has managed to stay the course
and reach full maturity. Through hard work, efforts, motivation,
and perseverance, its members, headed by Richard Boies, have
shown their ability to help businesses.
Success in business requires a great deal of consultation and
flexibility on the part of individuals, who must join forces to
succeed. In these difficult economic times, we must recognize the
need to work together and merge our energies to reach our goals.
I would like to congratulate all the members of the Mascouche
board of trade who, I trust, will know how to be as successful and
committed as during the past 20 years.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
preliminary agreement has been signed transferring a B.C. highway
to the Nisga'a people.
Given the number of conflicts that have arisen in both British
Columbia and Quebec these past few years around road access,
signing this agreement with the Nisga'as sets a precedent that will
be a source of conflict and will cause more roadblocks to be
erected.
Thus far, the Bloc Quebecois has been supportive of the
agreement with the Nisga'a. However, if a similar agreement were
negotiated in Quebec, they would have a problem with that and
would probably not go along with it. Why does the Minister of
Indian Affairs support this irresponsible precedent and how can the
Bloc be in favour?
The Bloc has supported every major government initiative
regarding aboriginal people outside Quebec. Interestingly enough,
1285
the Bloc supports the minister on agreements concerning other
provinces, when it would object to similar agreements being signed
in Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the Valley Regional
Hospital in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants is leading the
way in health care reform in Nova Scotia.
The Valley Regional Hospital will be the first in the province to
come under the jurisdiction of one of our four new regional health
boards. These boards were established as part of last year's
provincial health reforms.
Since its inception in 1904, the Valley Regional Hospital has had
a distinguished history. This new designation does not represent the
end of an era but is one more example of how the hospital has
always responded positively to change.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
tremendous contribution of retiring director Peter Mosher, to Betty
Mattson, the hospital's new acting general manager, the staff and
many volunteers for their efforts to lead Nova Scotia's health care
system into the future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on March 25, Greece celebrated 175 years of
independence. It was on March 25, 1821 that the Greek people
started their struggle to regain their independence after 500 years
of Turkish domination. Their sense of identity as a people enabled
them to set off on this difficult journey that required tenacity,
courage and above all solidarity.
The people of Greece-birthplace of western civilisation,
especially in the fields of arts and science-were oppressed by the
Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years without ever losing sight of
their quest for independence.
Today, we salute the Greek people, who, through their
determination, succeeded in regaining their freedom and their
place in the world community. We share with Quebecers and
Canadians of Greek origin the well-deserved pride of Greece for
achieving its freedom and sovereignty.
[English]
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
premier of Alberta mistakenly subscribes to the notion that
meetings of provincial premiers are the best means of defining
change to our Confederation.
The premier of Alberta calls the premier of Quebec a great
Canadian. Why? Because he needs his support to grant federal
powers and erode national standards. He does this without
consultation, without the consent of any Albertan but himself and
perhaps his cabinet.
(1410)
What about the great Canadians who live and work in Alberta,
those who have positive and constructive suggestions for the
renewal of our Confederation? Does he value what they think?
Does he even ask what they think?
The most powerful message that I have heard from Albertans is
that there is a need to be inclusive, to fully involve the people of
Alberta. It is their collective wisdom that will build bridges of
accommodation and understanding between people, provinces and
regions.
Our Edmonton East Unity Roundtables included 300 people. A
constituent of mine summed up the sentiments beautifully when he
said-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vaudreuil.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Montreal Botanical Garden recently inaugurated its new facilities,
built at a cost of $22.3 million.
The work done includes the renovation of the administrative
buildings, the construction of a new complex for visitors, and the
refitting of the laboratories. The new additions and the modernized
existing facilities will definitely increase the potential of the
botanical garden and the interest that it generates among tourists, in
Quebec and abroad.
Last year, the garden welcomed over one million visitors and the
economic spinoffs greatly helped Montreal's economy. The
Canadian government invested $5.7 million in this partnership
initiative with the Quebec government, the City of Montreal and
the Université de Montréal.
This shows once again that such partnerships between the
governments of Canada and Quebec are the best way to ensure the
economic recovery of the Montreal region.
1286
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
economy of the Montreal region is currently undergoing a major
crisis. The unemployment rate is alarming, 48,000 jobs were lost
between the months of November and January, and the
unemployment insurance reform is forcing more and more people
to turn to on social assistance.
What is the federal government doing to correct this
unacceptable situation? Nothing. The mayor of Montreal, Mr.
Bourque, came to Ottawa to ask for federal assistance. He went
home empty handed. Minister Stéphane Dion wants to divide
Montreal into small blocks, while the Minister of Human
Resources Development calls the unemployed lazy people and
agitators.
Montrealers are still waiting for the jobs promised by the Liberal
Party during the election campaign. So far, they only got cuts in
social programs, in the UI program and in the transfer payments to
the provinces. The Liberal government's performance regarding
Montreal is a real shame.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
once again the justice minister fiddles while victims of crime burn.
And the smouldering anger felt by victims' families is spreading
like wildfire across other groups concerned about justice.
When will the justice minister wake up to the overwhelming
demands to repeal section 745? Even when the public protest
spreads to the grassroots of his own party, he insists on talking
about weak-kneed amendments.
Yesterday the Canadian Police Association smoked him out on
his use of convoluted logic to defend his foot dragging. The CPA
also joined Reform in demanding a complete repeal of section 745.
Amendments will not do.
This government likes to talk about the will of the majority, but
this minister is stubborn as a rock, even when in the minority in
public opinion, among victims groups, with police, even in the
House of Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Industry announced yesterday that our
government was about to invest, in partnership with the private
sector, some $15 million in order to connect all Canadian schools
to the Internet.
This official announcement merely fulfils the commitments we
clearly outlined in the throne speech and the last budget. By the end
of 1997, this federal government project will allow students from
across the country to communicate with one another and give them
access to the vast pool of information known as the Internet.
The implementation of SchoolNet in all Canadian schools will
be done as indicated in the budget speech, in co-operation with
provincial and territorial governments. Through this
announcement, our government confirms its intention to give
Canada an information infrastructure that will enable it to assume
real leadership at the global level.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week
marks the 75th anniversary of the launching of the
Bluenose which
has come to be recognized as Nova Scotia's sailing ambassador.
The Bluenose, launched in Lunenburg in my riding of South
Shore 75 years ago, is a continuing portrait of the heritage and
industry in my riding. The lumber mills, blacksmiths, shipwrights,
sailors, fishermen and all those who either helped to build her
decks or worked upon them are the very roots of our heritage and
our communities.
The Bluenose is not only a legend on the South Shore, she is
known the world over as one of the greatest sailing ships of all
time. The historic importance of the Bluenose as a fishing and
cargo carrying schooner as well as her prowess as a racing vessel
have marked her place. She continues to be celebrated on
something each of us carries with us every day, the dime.
It is important that we recognize Canada's seafaring history and
make it a part of our national identity. Nova Scotians will salute
this vital part of our heritage this year by celebrating the Year of the
Wooden Boat. We must hold on to the memory of this great
national icon for generations of Canadians to come.
_____________________________________________
1286
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, over the years the federal government has made a number
of decisions that have had a negative impact on the economic
1287
development of Quebec. I would remind you, if I may, of the
Borden line, which in the early 1960s literally killed the
petrochemical industry in east Montreal, and the more recent
decision to build Mirabel airport, which did considerable harm to
Montreal's air traffic and is currently causing problems the federal
government is washing its hands of. Now, once again, the federal
government is getting ready to impose a unilateral decision with
the potential of disastrous consequences for all of the ports along
the St. Lawrence.
My question for the Prime Minister is as follows: Are the federal
government's proposals to first of all divide Canada into two main
maritime regions, east and west, and then to subdivide the east into
three parts-the Atlantic ports, the St. Lawrence ports and the
Great Lakes ports-not likely to isolate the St. Lawrence ports and
to place them in a delicate situation with respect to the new fee
structure the government wishes to implement?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in my capacity as minister, I have not yet reached a
decision concerning the organization of Canada's ports, whether in
Quebec or in the other provinces.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
By isolating the St. Lawrence region, if the minister were to
decide to do so, does he not acknowledge that the St. Lawrence
ports are at risk of being extremely ill served by the new fee
schedule he is planning to implement, particularly the charges for
icebreaking and dredging?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have not yet reached a decision. If I do make such a
decision, I can assure the hon. member that we have no intention
whatsoever of isolating the ports in the province of Quebec, or the
province itself, as they themselves wish to.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Minister of Transport is more
reasonable than his fisheries colleague, who has been the one
responding in this matter until now.
I will ask the Minister of Transport to give us some hope for the
future by bringing his fisheries colleague around to see reason and
ensuring that no decision is made on charges for navigational aids,
icebreaking and dredging operations.
Can he commit to no decision being made by the government
until the period of consultation is completely over and the report
tabled, so that an informed decision can be made, rather than a
half-informed one, as his colleague in fisheries wishes to do?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am always ready to listen to representations by the hon.
member, and I am always ready to consult my colleagues here.
But the hope for the future of Quebec's ports, for the province of
Quebec and for Canada, lies in the results we obtained in the
byelections, which indicate that we are now well placed to keep
Quebec's ports properly integrated within the Canadian system.
(1420)
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some Wednesday
afternoons things get a bit topsy turvey. I understood from the
Minister of Transport's second response that he would not be
making a hasty decision. I am sorry to say that he will not be
making one, since the coast guard now comes under the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans.
My question is therefore to the new Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans. He can take note of what his cabinet colleague just said.
Consultations are currently under way on the subject of the fees the
coast guard will charge for marine services. I would remind the
minister that these consultations are to conclude in the middle of
the month of April. The deputy minister in question, the
commissioner for the coast guard, announced last week that the
minister would reach a decision within two weeks, even before the
end of the consultations.
Here is my question, since those opposite seem to be in a hurry
today. Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is responsible
for the coast guard, prepared to put off his decision to impose
charges for navigational aid services until April 19 at the earliest,
so the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans can complete
its work?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well what is happening
here. His question is one of total rhetoric. He serves on the
committee, he sits on the committee, but for the benefit of the
House here is what is happening.
The commissioner of the coast guard along with others has had
many consultations, three months of consultations. We are now
before the committee. The fisheries committee will hear witnesses
and further consultation until I believe the second week in April.
No decisions have been made and consultations will continue to
take place.
If the hon. member is concerned about decision making, no
decision has been made. It will not be made while the committee is
doing the study and it will not be made until completion of the
committee's work.
1288
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think we can
assume the minister has said he has yet made a decision and will let
the committee complete its work.
Since the minister is prepared to put off his decision until we
have finished our work, is he, while we are on a roll, prepared to
take into account the recommendations to be made by the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and especially requests
coming from people in the industry, from the St. Lawrence and the
Great Lakes, because, until now, the coast guard commissioner has
had four bosses, none of whom has taken the time to listen to the
industry? So I ask him to wait.
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I assure the House that the commissioner of the coast
guard has been more than patient in hearing the consultations and
the intonations of all interested parties in all ports in Canada from
one coast to the other.
In the navy we had a thing called obey the last order, but
consultation does not mean that you obey the last order, that you
listen to the last person. The consultation will take into
consideration all the points that have been made from January until
whenever the committee is finished its work.
In addition to the hearings of the committee there will be a staff
of the commissioner of the coast guard attending these committee
hearings. When the committee is finished its work we will not start
from scratch all over again because we will take into consideration
the ongoing consultations so that a decision can be made in time to
collect these fees for the whole year.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this fiscal year eight provincial governments are expected
to balance their budgets or post surpluses. This means they will be
in a position to offer tax relief to consumers and businesses and
therefore stimulate real job creation for the unemployed. The only
government left dragging its feet on budget balancing and tax relief
is the senior government in Canada, the federal government.
If eight provinces can balance their budgets and even the
separatist premier of Quebec can commit to deficit elimination,
why can the federal government not do likewise?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said many times in the House, we have a plan
that is working very well.
Interest rates are down by 3 points since last year. This morning I
was reading in a newspaper that all the agencies evaluating the
rating of Canada in terms of quality investments said it is now one
of the best places in the world to invest. It is working very well.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): The federal
government has a plan, Mr. Speaker, but it happens to be the
slowest plan in the country for reducing the federal deficit.
Why should the national government, the one that is supposed to
provide leadership, be the last to commit itself to balancing its
budget? It ought to be the first.
If the Prime Minister simply cannot put together a balanced
budget plan, would he be willing to hold a Canadian economic
summit, like the one in Quebec, and allow business, labour and
provincial leaders to put together a balanced budget plan for him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, we have a plan that is working very well. When
we look at the OECD nations and at the group of seven, it is Canada
that has the best performance at this time because of our steady
decline in the deficit in relation to GDP. When we became the
government it was 6.2 per cent; it went down to 5 per cent; it went
down to 4 per cent; it went down to 3 per cent; and it is going to 2
per cent.
As everybody knows, if we move too fast we could create all
sorts of problems, including a recession. When that happens less
revenue comes in and the deficit increases.
To be balanced, like the Liberal Party tends to be, not to the
extreme right, not to the extreme left, that is the way Canadians do
things, and it is working very well.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister compares his government's financial
performance to that of the OECD countries. He ought to compare it
to the provinces in Canada. Eight provincial governments are on a
faster track for deficit elimination and tax relief than the federal
government.
On this countdown we are hearing, from a $40 billion deficit, to
$30 billion, to $20 billion, to $10 billion, the other side that is never
spoken of is the federal debt's going from $450 billion to $500
billion, from $550 billion to $600 billion.
I will ask one more time. What is wrong with the decision
making and financial planning apparatus of the federal government
that it cannot produce a budget balancing plan when eight other
governments in Canada can?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we came to be the government only two years ago. If we
had been the government before that we would not have the
situation we have today.
1289
I suggest the leader of the third party take 24 hours, sit down
and read what I said to him in my first two answers and he will
understand.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Yesterday the Minister of Industry attempted to play down
Liberal patronage in Statistics Canada recruitment. Yet, patronage
has reached such a point that Statistics Canada management found
it necessary on March 25 to issue a memo, of which I have a copy,
recommending that its commissioners act with intelligence and
discretion in order to avoid, and I quote: ``-having people in high
places halt the process again''.
I call upon the minister to inform this House. Who are the people
in high places who halted the process? Are they from his
department or his office, because quite obviously they are not from
Statistics Canada?
(1430)
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we went through this fairly painfully and slowly
yesterday. I will try not to take too much time today.
I would remind the hon. member that we did-
Mr. Young: Could you draw pictures, John, for him?
Mr. Manley: -in the past employ a political reference system
in naming census commissioners in this case.
It has come to my attention that of the names that were referred
from the province of Quebec the most successful patronage boss of
them all, I am afraid to say, was the independent member for
Beauce who had 19 per cent of his recommendations accepted. The
Bloc had 18 per cent and my colleagues in the Liberal Party had 17
per cent.
He perhaps ought to ask his colleague, the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie, who somehow managed to get 61 per cent
of his accepted.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed
a painful answer. Can the minister explain to us why the census
commissioners had to have their priority lists referred through a
member of his office, in this instance Franco Iacomo?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I explained yesterday, there are priority lists for the
recruitment of census representatives. Priority is given to the
names referred through my office. If hon. members wish to ensure
their names are referred they need only call my office.
However, they cannot both rely on a system of political referrals
and then suggest it should not occur. The hon. member making that
suggestion reminds me of the veterinarian who set up shop with a
taxidermist under the sign: ``Either Way You Get the Dog Back''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I understand the CSIS employee suspected of
being a Russian mole is no longer an employee of the service.
Can the minister explain why this individual was released only
two months ago and not five years ago when the internal
investigation was done?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
can the hon. member explain why in the House and outside the
House she alleged that this individual was now an employee of
CSIS? Perhaps the hon. member better withdraw her allegations
and go back to the drawing board.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister stated that although a
CSIS employee had committed numerous breaches of the service's
security policy he was confident in how CSIS had handled the
issue.
Yet in 1988 when Kwan Lihuen, a CSIS translator in Vancouver,
was found to have had unreported contact with targets of the
service he was immediately suspended and then fired when his
security clearance was pulled. Even when SIRC and the federal
court ruled that Kwan's clearance should be reinstated, CSIS
refused to rehire him.
Can the minister explain why CSIS was so rigid in that case and
so lax in this one?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question, but I
1290
will be happy to seek further information about the case she
mentioned even though I think the record is clear I was not the
minister in 1988.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
A memo from Statistics Canada dated December 5 said, with
regard to priority lists, and I quote: ``A candidate who scored 60
per cent in the written exam and 56 per cent in the oral exam has
priority of employment over a person from another source who
scored, for example, 80 per cent and 75 per cent in the same
exams''.
Does the minister not find unacceptable the fact that some
people who get better scores in the exams are not hired only
because their name is not on the priority list?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many of my colleagues have had the same experience.
These people were chosen to fill the positions of census
commissioner. There was no priority list.
In fact, that is why a priority list was established for the positions
of census representatives.
[English]
The choice was made on the basis of a written test followed by
an oral examination. Many people in all parts of Canada and from
all parties passed the written test but did not pass the oral
examination. That gave rise to the numbers I quoted earlier which,
if anything, indicate this test was very stringent.
By far the bulk of the people retained to perform the work on the
census will have come from no political list at all. About two-thirds
will come from sources other than political referrals.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately, the minister has misunderstood what I said. It is not
those who have the highest scores who are hired, but those who
have lower scores. That is what the memo says.
The memo says that those who score 60 per cent and 56 per cent
in the exams will be hired, but those who score 80 per cent and 75
per cent will not necessarily be offered a job. The department does
not want to hire them. The memo says that those who score 60 per
cent and 56 per cent will be hired and that those who score 80 per
cent and 75 per cent will not be hired. That is what the memo says.
Can the minister explain to us why his department writes these
kinds of memos and will not hire the most competent candidates?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again the hon. member seems very confused by the
process.
If the hon. member were saying we were hiring people who did
not pass the test because of their political affiliation, I would agree
with her that we would then have a problem. However, the reality is
that nobody is being hired unless they prove their qualifications.
There is no priority list, save for the census representatives. We
have asked that priority be given to the names referred from my
office provided they pass the required test.
I am advised that the hon. member for Saint-Hubert has sent us
names, and those names will be on the priority list. If she wishes us
to remove them from the priority list we will endeavour to do so.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Patricia Grace Ducharme of Campbell River, British Columbia is
dead today because police were not allowed to warn her that she
was living with an extremely dangerous suspect in a murder case.
A police staff sergeant told the Vancouver Sun he was unable to
warn her of the imminent danger because of the freedom of
information and privacy acts.
Will the solicitor general please tell the Canadian people and the
House if he feels this outdated, ridiculous law is still an effective
means of looking out for the interests of the public?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will have to get more information about this and get back to my
hon. friend.
What I would like to know is whether the acts the hon. member
is referring to are federal law or provincial law. He has raised some
very serious matters which deserve to be treated seriously and the
first thing for me to do is to be sure of exactly what the facts are.
(1440 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
answer does not surprise me. It is about victims' rights and we do
not hear much about that from the other side.
1291
Let me quote Chris Simmonds of CAVEAT, British Columbia:
``The problem really isn't with the RCMP, it rests with the
politicians in Ottawa. There should be a law on the books so that
when police feel someone is dangerous they have the right to warn
them. An officer could have taken her aside and warned her. At
least she would have known who she was dealing with''.
Does the solicitor general agree there is a need for such a law,
yes or no?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we on this side of the House are very concerned about victims'
rights. It is for that reason that this party brought in the gun control
law that was opposed by the Reform Party.
I want to ask my hon. friend, is it not true that CAVEAT called
for support of the gun control legislation while it was opposed by
the Reform Party, yes or no?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. In its final
report, the information highway advisory committee recommends
the review of foreign ownership policies for broadcasting and
telecommunications companies in order to promote investments
and competition in Canada.
Can the Minister of Industry assure the House that he intends to
recommend to cabinet that foreign ownership of parent
telecommunications corporations go from 33.33 per cent to 49 per
cent?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows that Canada, together with other
parties to the Uruguay round, is now engaged in negotiations in
Geneva on the issue of trade in telecommunication services.
We have an offer on the table at the present time in Geneva
which would bind our current law that permits 20 per cent foreign
ownership directly and 33-1/3 per cent indirectly. Combined this
comes to about 46 per cent. We are not at the present time
proposing a change in that bargaining position.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if that is the case, can the minister tell the House that he
will follow up on the recommendation made by the information
highway advisory committee to ensure that these two industries,
telecommunications and broadcasting, are subject to the same
foreign ownership rules?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since we are not about to recommend changes at this
point, I would remind the House that the same rules do apply for
broadcasting and telecommunications.
Mr. Gauthier: No, no.
Mr. Manley: It is the same thing. We are not proposing changes.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
Last December the minister participated in a sacred assembly
where he was asked to establish a national aboriginal day that
would formally recognize aboriginal people and their contributions
to society. I would like to ask the minister why he is considering
such a day and if he will act on it.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a national aboriginal
recognition day was passed by the assembly in Quebec in 1990. It
has been requested by the Assembly of First Nations and by
spiritual leaders. It has been pushed by private members of the
NDP, by our member from Red Sucker and two weeks ago by the
executive committee of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities.
These people are looking for a day of recognition, a day
celebrating the aboriginal ties to the land. The challenge to the
government is whether it is prepared to do it from sea to sea to sea.
I am pleased to advise the House and members that the caucus, the
cabinet and the government have reflected on this.
The Prime Minister will be proclaiming very shortly that there
will be a national aboriginal day. It will be at the summer solstice,
June 21 of each and every year. It will be a celebration of the
spiritual ties of the aboriginal people, a recognition of them as our
neighbours. Hopefully it will lead to a better future for all of us in
Canada.
1292
(1445 )
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in this Parliament the Bloc Quebecois has supported every
major government aboriginal initiative outside Quebec.
If the Nisga'a deal was in Quebec rather than in British
Columbia, the Bloc would not support it because of the precedent
established by the transfer of ownership of public roads to the
Nisga'a. The memories of disputes over ownership of roads at Oka,
the Mercier bridge and Akwesasne are too fresh.
Why is the minister promoting a deal in British Columbia that he
would not dare promote in Quebec?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise is patently wrong
but a comparison of what the Bloc and Reform do is interesting.
The party to my far right, Reform, has opposed the Yukon
legislation, the Nisga'a legislation, the Davis package, the Arctic
exiles package, the B.C. treaty process.
The Reform Party has voted against every piece of aboriginal
legislation brought to the House except the Norman Wells
legislation that benefited an oil company. If Reform members want
to compare themselves to Bloc members, if the Bloc supported one
piece of legislation, Reformers would be at least tied with the Bloc.
If the Bloc supported two pieces, it would be 100 per cent better
than the Reform.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we do comprehensive analyses more than the minister. We
supported the Split Lake agreement. We supported the Pictou
landing agreement.
The Nisga'a deal sets a precedent for future land claims across
Canada. It gives the Nisga'a constitutional protection for
preferential tax treatment forever. This ends the possibility of an
equal taxation system for all Canadians.
Why has the minister broken his promise to deal with native
taxation on a national basis?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the Reform proves to all
members that it does not know what it is talking about. If it does
know what it is talking about, it is giving the wrong information to
the House.
The Nisga'a deal proclaims that in the 12 years, after we help
them, the Nisga'a will be paying taxes like every other Canadian.
They are under the Criminal Code. They will be under the charter
of rights.
This party purports to have some spiritualism. Let me read
something:
The mainline churches support these negotiation processes in principle
because we have been trying for over 30 years to face our own role in this sad
history-We either get on with it as immigrant people, or face our First Nation
neighbours in the streets and at the barricades-John Siebert, program officer,
human rights and aboriginal justice, United Church of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Yesterday, the coalition to save the Quebec City bridge sent all
members of the House of Commons pieces of the bridge as well as
a photograph showing how dilapidated it is. According to a study
done for CN, restoration work must be undertaken as soon as
possible to prevent irreversible damage. The Quebec government
and CN recently said they wanted to do their part in saving this
heritage property, a world-famous masterpiece of civil
engineering.
Does the minister admit that the federal government is the only
stakeholder that still refuses, unlike CN and the Quebec
government, to do its part in restoring the Quebec City bridge?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government is fully aware of how important
the Quebec City bridge is. The hon. member should know that the
Quebec City bridge was transferred to CN in 1993, which means
that the federal government no longer has any economic or
financial interest in it.
CN wants to continue maintaining the bridge and will do so, but
it also wants to come to an agreement with the Quebec government
regarding the repairs to be done within a few years.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the
Minister of Transport will finally understand how important this
issue is when the bridge starts crumbling into pieces tomorrow.
After recognizing the Quebec City bridge as a national historic
site, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Minister of
Transport admit that, unless the government makes an immediate
commitment, this recognition remains an empty shell while the
Quebec City bridge continues to deteriorate?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a $700,000 consultant study was done by the firm
Modjesky and Masters which was one of the firms that was
consulted when the original bridge was built many years ago. The
1293
study confirmed that the bridge can be maintained and will be as
long as maintenance is constant. CN plans to spend approximately
$1.5 million to $2 million this summer in repairs to the bridge.
CN is prepared to enter into an agreement with the province of
Quebec for a more complete restoration of the bridge in the years
ahead. All it is waiting for is a decision by the Quebec department
of transport which has the responsibility for this bridge.
May I repeat to the hon. member that this bridge was not built by
Canadian National. It was built by the Intercolonial Railway
Company. This was a company picked up by CN as it acquired
certain bankrupt companies. The federal government had
responsibility for it for many years, but as of 1993 its financial
responsibility for this bridge ceased.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
the finance minister ran for the Liberal leadership, he stated that
harmonizing the GST with provincial sales taxes would make it
almost impossible to get rid of the GST down the road. Now he is
pushing extremely hard to harmonize the GST with the provinces.
Does the minister now believe that the GST should become a
permanent fixture in the Canadian taxation system?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
no. There were a number of times in opposition and previous times
in my life when I certainly criticized the GST. In fact, I would
criticize the GST today. There are a number of major problems
with it. In fact, that is why we want to bring in a replacement tax,
precisely to deal with those problems.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister made a very trenchant observation when he was in
opposition, that if the GST did become harmonized it could be
there forever.
My question is for the finance minister. Does he believe that
harmonizing the GST would make it virtually impossible to get rid
of it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first we are talking about a replacement tax that would make it
better for consumers and better for small business.
Second, as with any tax, a subsequent government or this
government is capable of dealing with it. There is nothing in any
single tax that would so bind a government, either federal or
provincial, that it could not deal with it and not deal with its own
revenues.
The government is going to do what it said in the red book. It is
going to do what was promised on page 22. That is what was
promised Canadians. The tax system will be dealt with in a way
that will allow Canadian companies to create jobs, allow them to be
competitive and allow consumers to have a lower rate. In fact, we
are going to do a great deal to make this economy better and better
and better.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Most often when we talk about the Atlantic fishery we hear only
of the downturn of the cod fishery. However, the shell fishery in my
riding and across the Atlantic provinces is doing extremely well
and is a mainstay of the economy of the fishery at this time.
Will the minister tell the House of the growth and the success of
this bright sector?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do thank that the hon. member for her question. The
Atlantic shellfish fishery is a very vibrant part of the Atlantic
fishery and of the Atlantic economy as a whole.
In recent years prices have increased substantially and the
landings have been up. The indications are that prices were pretty
stable last year. Early indications are that they will be stable over
this season as well.
(1455 )
In addition, the landings are not expected to fluctuate over the
period of time that we are looking at. For the Nova Scotia economy,
the shellfish landings represent 40 per cent of the quantity of fish
and 80 per cent of the total fisheries landing.
This resource is so important that efforts will be taken to make
sure that strict conservation measures are applied and the quotas
will be given in a fair and reasonable manner.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last year, more than 25 per cent of the contributions paid
by employers and employees into the UI fund, or $5 billion out of
$18 billion, were used for purposes other than providing assistance
to the unemployed. The Minister of Finance will divert another $5
billion this year, and more than $5 billion next year to reduce his
deficit at the expense of the unemployed.
Why does the minister persist in calling UI premiums money
that no longer goes back to the unemployed and which, in fact,
constitutes a hidden tax?
1294
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when we came to power, the UI fund was running a deficit in
excess of $6 billion. By the end of 1995, this deficit had turned
into a surplus of approximately $735 million. It certainly is not
more than $1 billion today. We have made it very clear that we
wanted to build a cushion to protect the workers in times of
economic decline.
The hon. member talks about diverting funds and that sort of
thing. Look, we do not even have a $1 billion surplus to spend on
Canadian workers.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, why is it then that, last week, senior officials at the
Treasury Board and the assistant auditor general confirmed our
fear, a fear we have had for the past six months, of seeing employer
and employee contributions used to replenish the federal
government's consolidated revenue fund like any other tax or
revenue collected by the federal government. Someone somewhere
is not telling the whole truth.
In this context, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance the
following question: Could he confirm that his government's refusal
to transfer any active employment measure to the Government of
Quebec may have been motivated not only by his own centralizing
designs and those of the Minister of Human Resources
Development, but also by the fact that this would create a shortfall
of a few hundred million dollars in the federal government's annual
budgetary revenue, letting its real deficit show a bit more?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
can only repeat once again that UI premiums have been used to
absorb the deficit, which amounted to about $6 billion. Today, the
surplus does not exceed $1 billion.
It is obvious that the funds were not used for any purpose other
than to make up the deficit we had inherited.
Now, the deficit, I mean the hon. member-
Some hon. members: Ha!
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): There is no difference.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): No, no, I meant to say the hon.
member. It was a slip of the tongue, Mr. Speaker; I take it back.
This is a matter of accounting. In 1986, the auditor general
insisted that the UI fund was part of the federal government's
consolidated account. It is purely a matter of accounting. We are
only following the auditor general's instructions. If the auditor
general is prepared to instruct us otherwise, we are prepared to sit
down with him. But this is all a matter of accounting. This is
unfamiliar ground for an economist.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the information commissioner has found that officers in national
defence headquarters altered and destroyed documents relating to
the Somalia affair to prevent them becoming public.
He stressed that this deception was deliberate and the result of
clear and direct orders. How can the House, the commissioners on
the Somalia inquiry, or the Canadian public believe anything this
minister or his department says when his officials are proven guilty
of this kind of cover up?
(1500 )
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
remind the hon. member that it was the deputy minister of defence
who drew this matter to the attention of the information
commissioner immediately upon learning of the irregularities.
We welcome the report of the information commissioner.
Indeed, his findings and the facts in his report are consistent with
those that have been revealed in the military police investigations.
All of the matters addressed by Mr. Grace in his letter to the
deputy minister have either been addressed or are being addressed.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the department was dragged kicking and screaming into the
arena to declare this information.
The information commissioner advises in his report that he gave
the Minister of National Defence the names of those ``who gave
clear and direct orders to destroy all original versions'' and the
names of those ``vigilant, courageous and honourable employees of
national defence, both military and civilian, who delayed in
obeying''.
What has the minister done to punish those who gave the orders?
What has he done to ensure the protection of those who did the
right thing?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to
the kicking and screaming, I would like to quote from a letter
written by Mr. Grace to the deputy minister: ``There is a silver
lining to the cloud which these cases represent for national defence.
The wrongdoing which occurred was first brought to my attention
by the deputy minister of defence''. In other words, it was brought
to the attention of the commissioner by the department itself. There
was no kicking, screaming or dragging.
1295
Obviously this is a disconcerting series of events and all of
those matters will be addressed.
What the hon. member has also failed to reveal in the House is
that his party, together with members of the national media,
maligned the present chief of defence staff. Mr. Grace in his letter
has since said that the chief of defence staff, General Boyle, has
had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the wrongdoings.
I expect apologies from the Reform Party and the national media
with respect to the actions taken against the chief of defence staff.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It
concerns the very serious Pacific salmon treaty impasse. Salmon is
of vital importance to the B.C. economy.
Will the minister make public the report of the mediator that was
rejected by Alaska and the United States? Will he push for binding
arbitration of this dispute? Should this fail, will the minister stand
up for Canada and take tough measures from rigorous customs
inspections of U.S. vessels up to a transit fee as suggested by
Premier Glen Clark? Will he stand up for Canada?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question does represent the
sensitivity of this issue with fishermen in British Columbia. I am
very sensitive to that. I have been there twice and have spoken with
them and I will be going out again soon.
The hon. member is aware that as we speak, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs is in the United States. He will be discussing both
with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of State, Mr.
Christopher, exactly the points the member is making.
I want to reassure the hon. member and those fishermen on the
west coast of British Columbia who are so concerned that we will
do whatever is considered necessary to ensure that the principle of
equity, which is their concern with salmon, is achieved. The best
arrangement possible will be made for this year through the Pacific
Salmon Commission and in future years as a result of tough
negotiations with our neighbours as necessary.
* * *
[
Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to inform the House that when we came here this
afternoon, 56 Canadian citizens on board an aircraft in Egypt had
been kidnapped and flown to Libya. I am pleased to announce that
they have now been freed and that all are safe and sound.
_____________________________________________
1295
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's response to two petitions
which were presented during the first session.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 11th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration and the Standing Committee on Human Rights and
the Status of Persons with Disabilities and associate memberships
of some committees. If the House gives its consent, I intend to
move concurrence in this 11th report later this day.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-246, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual
exploitation of children outside Canada).
She said: Madam Speaker, this bill seeks to amend the Criminal
Code concerning child sexual exploitation abroad. Right now,
Canada cannot prosecute an individual who is a Canadian resident.
This bill would make it possible to prosecute anyone who commits
such a crime abroad. It seeks to prohibit the sexual abuse of minor
children abroad. It also seeks to introduce the principle of
extraterritoriality, which would allow Canada to prosecute a
person. The bill would also make it an offence for a person to be
involved in the transportation of individuals going on a trip abroad
for sexual purposes.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
1296
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (trespass).
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill.
I have received numerous complaints that persons are trespassing
on property causing a public disturbance and destroying a sense of
community and liveability for children, yet are unable to be
removed permanently. For example, we know that malls are a
popular place for youth to hang out. If the security of the mall is
forced to remove a problem person, that person can re-enter the
mall within minutes. The only way the person can be charged is if
they resist. Therefore if the person never resists, the act could
continue over and over.
There is a serious technical gap in the law which has been
identified by the New Westminster city police in my riding as they
have a storefront office in a local mall.
To come to the aid of the community which is being subjected to
this loophole in the law, I am proposing an amendment to section
41 of the Criminal Code, making it a summary conviction for a
person who has already been lawfully removed from real property
or a dwelling house not to be able to lawfully return for 24 hours.
(1510 )
The Criminal Code is full of gaps like this one and while this bill
may only fill one of the holes, it is certainly a good start. Our laws
need to support the law-abiding citizen rather than provide a legal
invitation for repeated mischief without ensuing consequences.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-248, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (prostitution).
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill
in the House.
In my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby prostitution is a
problem. Constituents are very concerned. They feel the only
action taken so far was to move the prostitutes from one side of the
railway track to the other, and I say that in a literal sense.
My community asked me to represent it and to take real action
from the federal standpoint. My constituents want amendments
made to the Criminal Code in order to make penalties tougher and
control easier.
Currently in section 213 of the Criminal Code public
communication to obtain sexual services only carries a penalty of
summary conviction.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-249, an act to amend the Nuclear
Liability Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, under the Nuclear Liability Act a
private nuclear facility is now required to carry $75 million in
insurance to cover damage from facility breakdowns and other
accidents. This bill would increase that amount to $500 million and
could oblige the crown to pay damages above that level.
We must remember that the damages from the Three Mile Island
nuclear breakdown a few years ago amounted to $3 billion and
damages from Chernobyl amounted to $14 billion.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-250, an act to amend the
Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, currently under the Parliament of
Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act the Prime Minister has
complete latitude in determining when general elections and
byelections will be held. This is unacceptable to Canadians who
want a little more certainty as to when they will go to the ballot
box.
This bill would not contravene the Constitution Act of Canada,
but would make changes to existing legislation so there would be
fixed elections. General elections would generally be held every
four years and byelections could only be held in the fall or the
spring of the year, thus bringing certainty to a very uncertain era.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
if the House gives it consent, I move:
1297
That the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
which was presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1515)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, today I
am presenting a petition originally signed by 6,300 people in the
riding of Shefford, which I represent in this House. This petition
represents over 10 per cent of the adult population and the names
were collected in five days. It asks that Granby's Canada
employment centre, with all the existing services, be maintained.
The Granby CEC is an economic development tool essential to
the Granby area. I would like to thank all those who helped collect
the signatures, especially the Granby Chamber of Commerce,
which organized and piloted the petition.
The petitioners call on Parliament and the Minister of Human
Resources Development to re-evaluate their decision, in order to
maintain the existing services at the Granby CEC.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions under Standing Order 36. The first is from Red
Deer, Alberta. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition is from Strathroy, Ontario. The petitioners bring
to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic
beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability and
specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related
birth defects are 100 per cent preventable.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
two petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre. The first group of petitioners request that the Government
of Canada not amend the human rights act to include the phrase
sexual orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could
lead to homosexuals' receiving the same benefits and societal
privileges as married people.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
second petition concerns the age of consent laws. The petitioners
ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 to protect children
from sexual exploitation and abuse.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
these petitioners make the following comments. They note that
tobacco and its products are related to a number of illnesses, such
as cancer, heart disease, strokes, emphysema, and chronic
bronchitis.
They further note that they contain 4,000 chemical products that
cause problems, 43 that cause cancer, and that perhaps 38,000
premature deaths can be attributed to cigarettes and the other
products every year. They want it to be identified as a dangerous
product.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first, with 325
signatures, is from my constituents echoing their frustration over
another example of high taxation caused by government
overspending or the potential of that.
They draw to the attention of the House that they oppose any
increase now or in the future in the federal excise tax on gasoline.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition is from Sun Hope in memory of André
Castet. This is a petition to ask that the rights and protection of
victims take precedence over the rights of criminals and that
substantive change happen to the Young Offenders Act over and
above the ineffective changes of Bill C-37.
The third petition, again from my constituents, calls on the
House to recognize that dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles
1298
should be locked up for life, violent offenders should serve their
full sentences, that we should have a control registry of names and
addresses and that we should keep offenders incarcerated if they
are a risk to society.
Among other things the petitioners from my constituency ask for
these changes.
(1520)
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to present a petition from a group of taxpayers who I
know will be pleased that the finance minister obviously heard
their message and did not increase tax on gasoline in this year's
budget.
I am sure they would want the message presented to Parliament
for consideration for next year's budget.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition I have is from several hundred residents of this
region urging Parliament to follow through on the commitment of
the government to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to
prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I rise to present a petition signed by numerous
constituents of my riding.
The petitioners ask that the House not amend the Constitution, as
requested by the Government of Newfoundland, and refer the
problem of schools back to the Government of Newfoundland.
One of the instigators of the petition, Al Selinger, also states in
an accompanying letter that such an amendment would abrogate
the rights of a minority.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
1298
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, an act
respecting the Law Commission of Canada, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.)
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): When shall the
bill be read a third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Goodale (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.) moved that the
bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am very pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-9, an act
respecting the Law Commission of Canada.
I would first like to thank the members of the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for their work in reviewing
and amending the bill in the previous session. The amendments
adopted by the committee, incorporated in Bill C-9, will contribute
positively to the implementation of the legislation.
The passage of the legislation fulfils an important commitment
made by the government in the red book that we would restore at
the national level an independent capacity for law reform.
Bill C-9 will achieve that goal and it will do it in keeping with
the government policy of ensuring that advisory organizations
provide essential services that are cost effective and efficient. It is
part of a broader effort to establish a more efficient and effective
legal system.
We have made every attempt to reflect the results of our
nationwide consultations in the legislation before members today.
The legislation proposes a lean commission, flexible in form,
multidisciplinary and inclusive in function with an emphasis on
streamlining the legal system.
The preamble provides a guiding framework, a philosophy by
which the new commission would be governed. This framework
takes the form of specific principles identified in the consultations
including openness, inclusiveness, responsiveness, a
multidisciplinary approach, innovation and cost effectiveness. The
law commission visualized in Bill C-9 will be different from that of
the
1299
former commission in its attention to the process of reform and the
stakeholders involved.
(1525)
The commission's mandate will be to study and to keep under
systematic review in a manner that reflects the concepts and
institutions of the common law and the civil law systems the law of
Canada and its effect with a view to providing independent advice
on improvements, modernization and reform that will ensure a just
legal system that meets the changing needs of Canadian society and
of individuals in that society.
In exercising its mandate the commission will provide advice on
the development of new approaches to the law; measures to make
the legal system more efficient, economical and accessible;
partnerships and co-operative arrangements with other
communities in Canada to stimulate critical debate; the elimination
of obsolete laws an anomalies in the law.
An important consideration underlying this legislation is the
particular balance struck between the independence of the
commission and the need for accountability.
The commission will be an independent arm's length body
reporting through the Minister of Justice to Parliament and will set
its own agenda. This independence would be balanced by a
requirement in the legislation ensuring that the minister be
consulted before the agenda is set.
The legislation provides for a ministerial reference power but
also requires that the minister consult with the commission before
making such a reference.
The commission, through the minister, would table study
reports, agendas and annual reports before Parliament. Similarly,
the minister would be required to respond to any report received
from the commission.
The commission will consist of five commissioners, a small
permanent secretariat, a volunteer advisory council and volunteer
subject panels. The president will be full time while the other four
commissioners will serve part time. Instead of retaining a large in
house staff to conduct studies, the commission will contract for
research from outside sources or enter into joint arrangements with
existing institutions and agencies.
To provide the commission with the capacity to examine the law
of Canada in a manner that reflects the concepts and institutions of
the two juridical systems in Canada, common law and civil law, an
amendment was introduced by the committee to require that
members of the commission be chosen, taking into specific
consideration the need for commissioners as a group to have
knowledge of the two legal systems.
As an indication of the desire for the new commission to conduct
business in an open and inclusive fashion, the advisory council will
be established in legislation to provide advice on the strategic
direction of the commission and to review its performance.
To further ensure that the commission will be provided with
advice reflecting the principles enunciated in the legislation's
preamble, the committee proposed that the same factors be taken
into consideration when appointing members to the advisory
council, as in appointing the commissioners.
Therefore although membership is not limited to the legal
community, members should be broadly representative of the
socioeconomic and cultural diversity of Canada, represent various
disciplines and reflect knowledge of common and civil law
systems. I believe this amendment enhances the legislation and the
ability of the commission to fulfil its mandate.
I mention the amendment made to the mandate of the advisory
council, clause 19. Rather than operating at the request of the
commission, the advisory council will have an obligation to advise
the commission in matters related to its strategic direction,
program of studies and performance.
In other matters related to the purpose of the commission the
advisory council will have discretion in exercising its advisory
function. This amendment, introduced in committee, is critical to
ensuring a transparent and inclusive process intended to be open
and responsive to Canadian society. I strongly support this
amendment.
The existence of the advisory council and the ability to create
subject panels will be a significant departure from the structure of
the former Law Commission of Canada. It is through these bodies
that consultations will be institutionalized.
(1530)
In addition, the commission will be designated a departmental
corporation to enable it to receive funds from outside sources, from
private and voluntary sectors and to generate revenues through the
sale of annual reports and other publications.
In conclusion, the commission envisioned by the legislation
represents and number of significant differences from the former
Law Reform Commission of Canada. Its broadened approach to the
process of law reform is to be inclusive, multi-disciplinary and
open to all sectors of Canadian society. There will be greater
emphasis on the efficiency and economy of the legal system. It will
have a leaner budget and a structure employing part time
commissioners, a small secretariat and the use of outside
researchers optimizing joint arrangements, collaboration and
partnerships, notably with the academic community. It will have a
more inclusive manner of operating, using an advisory council and
subject panels. Innovative approaches, including new information
technol-
1300
ogies, will support a commission which will approach its task with
more vigilant attention to cost.
The purpose of the bill is to bring a wide ranging, integrated
approach to the improvement, modernization and the reform of the
law of Canada. The law is the infrastructure of our social and
economic life and in this context, law reform is an essential
ingredient to nation building.
I am confident that the Law Commission of Canada as proposed
in Bill C-9 will make an important contribution to this vital
enterprise. I urge the House to pass this bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Speaker,
here we are at third reading of Bill C-9, which provides for the
creation or rather the exhumation of the Law Commission of
Canada. Whatever the case may be, the Minister of Justice today
wants to revive this useless body, which cost taxpayers $105
million over its 20 years of existence and which made few
recommendations that Parliament actually used.
The Law Reform Commission was established in 1971 under the
Law Reform Commission Act. Its role was to systematically study
and review Canada's laws. It did three main types of research:
substantive criminal law, criminal proceedings and administrative
law.
In its last year of existence, the commission had a budget of $5
million. In addition to the commissioners and employees, the
commission hired a number of consultants on contract. More than
82 per cent of the commission's expenditures went to salaries and
special professional services-primarily university researchers and
lawyers hired as consultants for short periods. In this area, the
accent is on research and not on practical management.
Unrealistic research programs and astronomical costs were the
two main reasons the government of the day chose to abolish the
commission.
When the commission was dismantled, the Department of
Justice received interim credits so that the work that was furthest
along could be completed, particularly the work in the
multiculturalism and justice project, undertaken at the request of
the minister.
In addition, in June 1993, Treasury Board gave final approval to
the funding needed for the Department of Justice to set up and
implement a long term law reform strategy. One of the aims of the
program was to provide the department with the resources it
needed to study more law reform issues internally, for example, by
paying experts on a contract basis in the areas under study; to work
with other organizations such as the Quebec law reform institute
and other major institutions in the field of justice.
The annual budget for projects in the law reform division ranges
from $500,000 to $600,000. The studies funded by the division
dealt not only with multiculturalism and justice but also with a
whole range of problems related to law reform such as human
rights, euthanasia, changes to the preliminary investigation
procedure, jury selection and many others.
(1535)
The division now includes three full time and one part time
employees. The minister wants to set up a new commission when
there is already a competent staff ready to respond to the
government's requests.
The division is doing a very good job. The minister could very
well entrust this law reform division with all the work needed to
direct and reform Canadian law and to find innovative solutions to
endemic problems. When I think about how this government is
slashing the budgets of the NFB, Telefilm Canada and the CBC, I
feel like hitting someone.
The Canadian government would rather waste $3 million a year
on a commission that will carry out consultations. The Minister of
Justice finds it desirable to appoint 29 federalist friends to this
commission. The minister of consultation may not like it, but Bloc
members will not be fooled. Ironically, it is the law reform division
that, in May 1994, distributed a consultation paper and
questionnaire on the creation of a new law reform commission to
884 individuals and organizations.
Of the 884 questionnaires that were mailed out, 126 were
returned to the department. These are the extensive consultations
referred to in the bill's preamble. Former members and researchers
of the old commission were undoubtedly consulted. However, it is
not so clear that consultations were held outside that community.
But the consultation paper and questionnaire were distributed to all
senators and members of the House of Commons.
One thing is clear: the provinces as legal entities were
overlooked. The desire to seek out people's views is expressed
several times in Bill C-9 but nowhere in the text could I find some
concern about consulting the provinces as major stakeholders in
Canada's legal community. According to the constitutional
distribution of legislative powers, the federal government must
legislate in its areas of jurisdiction. By creating a new commission,
the federal government may well overstep its jurisdiction.
What concerns me the most is that the new commission's
mandate is, and I quote: ``to study and keep under systematic
review, in a manner that reflects the concepts and institutions of the
common law and civil law systems, the law of Canada and its
1301
effects with a view to providing independent advice on
improvements, modernization and reform that- meets the
changing needs of Canadian society and of individuals in that
society''.
In light of this statement of principle, we must conclude once
again that the federal government is seeking to centralize reforms
and to standardize legislation across the country without taking
regional disparities into consideration and above all without
considering Quebec in its study and review of both legal systems in
Canada. It is outrageous on the federal government's part to claim
to be reforming and reviewing ing Quebec's civil law, since it has
absolutely no jurisdiction.
The Minister of Justice should reread carefully section 92 of the
1982 Constitution Act. It is very upsetting to see him condone such
inappropriate legislation. What are the real motives and goals of
federal authorities concerning the new commission's role? Will the
commission be yet another centralizing instrument? Is this not an
indirect way of doing what is prohibited by the Constitution? The
federal government's intentions are clear: It wants to standardize
the law, whether civil or criminal, across the country.
The unavowed dream of federal authorities is to move into
various areas of provincial law under the cover of direct
consultations with the public, while ignoring the provinces. They
want a single federal law from coast to coast.
(1540)
This emphasis on the consultation by the commission can only
be done at the expense of the research component, particularly if its
budget is two million dollars less than that of the former
commission, even with the use of new communication
technologies. Indeed, these technologies involve costs which will
probably be as high as the travel expenses incurred by the former
commission, if not higher.
One has to wonder how an agency such as this one, with an
annual budget of $3 million, can truly conduct or commission
research and develop various programs to that end, while also
holding major public consultations.
Bill C-9 provides that the research and analysis responsibilities
that are incumbent on a reform commission will be assumed
primarily by various social bodies independent from the
commission itself. This is how the federal government will ensure
the financing of its initiative.
Indeed, the Minister of Justice seeks to have the provinces
indirectly finance research activities relating to law reform by
having such activities conducted by university research centres,
and even the Institut québécois de réforme du droit.
Under cover of a partnership and a streamlining of resources, the
federal government is once again showing us that we have to keep a
close eye on it. The cost of the research conducted by the
commission will be borne by the provinces.
The mandarins in Ottawa, led by the Minister of Justice, view
the provinces, and Quebec in particular, as nothing more than
pressure groups, on the same footing as a gun manufacturers
association, a seniors club or a chamber of commerce.
The bottom line is that the field of action of the new commission
will not be limited to federal law. On the contrary, it appears from
the policy statement and the preamble that the federal government
will not make any bones about stepping into the provinces' fields
of jurisdiction. The consultation paper published May 16, 1994 was
already ominous. It says, and I quote: ``-the need for law reform
stems from the inability of existing laws to deal effectively with
problems, and the root causes of those problems often involve the
complex interaction of social, economic, health, education, and
other factors''.
What is the most worrying is that, with Bill C-9, Quebec loses its
guarantee of representation on the commission. In effect,
subsection 4(3) of the old Law Reform Commission Act
guaranteed that two of the five commissioners came from Quebec.
Not only is the federal government not consulting Quebec in the
areas that concern it, but it is also excluding it outright by not
having a representative from our province.
In addition to the absence on the commission of Civil Code
experts from Quebec, the skills and abilities of the commissioners
are extremely vague. I note in passing that the government has
completely ignored the recommendation by the Canadian Bar
Association that women be represented equally in the composition
of the commission.
If we look at clause 7 of Bill C-106, before it went to committee,
all we find is the following passage, and I quote:
7. As a group, the Commissioners should be broadly representative of the
socio-economic and cultural diversity of Canada and represent various
disciplines.
In committee, we attempted to reason with government
members, but they turned a deaf ear. At the very most, and as often
happens with this government, we are left with an empty shell, in
the form of clause 7(3) as it now stands:
7.(3) As a group, the Commissioners should be broadly representative of the
socio-economic and cultural diversity of Canada, represent various disciplines
and reflect knowledge of the common law and civil law systems.
(1545)
This means that, if the commissioners have a knowledge of the
civil law, they do not have to come from Quebec. What explanation
can there be for this lack of logic? What explanation can there be
1302
for the only province in Canada with civil law and which comprises
one quarter of the Canadian population not being represented on
the commission?
The federal government's intention to shove Quebec aside is still
more obvious in the English version of Bill C-9. It states, and I
quote, that the commissioners ``represent various disciplines and
reflect knowledge of the Common law and Civil law systems''. In
the English version, then, they need only reflect a degree of
knowledge of the Quebec system and can, just as easily as not,
come from British Columbia or the Yukon. This is shameful.
Not only does the federal government wish to interfere with
areas that are not within its jurisdiction, but it has the audacity to do
so in a cavalier fashion. This is a situation in which incompetence
comes very close to deception.
The composition of the Supreme Court ought to have been the
exampled followed. The Supreme Court Act calls for at least three
of the nine judges to be from Quebec. It is totally logical for the
highest court in Canada to reflect the two legal systems in the
country. Why did the Minister of Justice not subscribe to the same
logic?
A final consequence of the federal approach is that, by allowing
the future commission to address provincial law, the provinces face
the risk of bowing to pressure for uniformization. This will be even
stronger, to the point of being unbearable, if the provinces do not
have a hand in determining the composition of the commission and
its mandate, and in approving that mandate. For this reason alone,
Bill C-9 is unacceptable.
This is not all. Unlike the former Law Reform Commission Act,
clause 4 of the bill accords less importance to the new
commission's research role and focusses more on lucrative and
other organizational and promotional activities. This contradiction
is striking, to say the least.
These new requirements are indeed surprising and a long way
from the role that should be played by a commission responsible
for reforming the law and carrying out the mission set out in clause
3 of the bill. The reason is simple. The Minister of Justice wants to
make his commission into a propaganda tool through a basic shift
in its mandate.
Not only is he broadening the scope of the commission in order
to encroach in areas of provincial jurisdiction, not only is he
dropping Quebec's representation on this commission, but he has
the gall to use his new commission as a marketing tool to promote
federal interests.
How do you expect the Bloc to support such a bill? The minister
wants us to believe that his commission will be independent. In
clause 3, the bill clearly provides, and I quote, that:
The purpose of the Commission is to study-the concepts-of the common
law and civil law systems-with a view to providing independent advice on
improvements, modernization and reform-
This is bunk. The appointments of the five commissioners are
clearly partisan. It reeks of payment for loyal services. The five
commissioners will be appointed by the Prime Minister on the
recommendation of the Department of Justice. The commissioners
will also be appointed during pleasure. In other words, they will be
relieved of their duties if they are unsuitable and fail to follow the
party line and the legislative program of the government in power.
Following their appointment, the commissioners then appoint
the members of the advisory council. There will be 24 of them.
They too are appointed during pleasure. They are not paid for what
they do, but do receive travel and living expenses. These 29 people
will make up the Law Commission of Canada. With 29 partisan
appointments, the Minister of Justice is creating his own fan club
of intellectuals, who will philosophize over the ins and outs of the
law.
They will be so far removed from reality, that the Minister of
Justice will soon realize his error and put an end to this
commission.
(1550)
In a different but equally important connection, any reform
agency has problems inherent to its nature and mandate. The
former commission never overcame the intrinsic problem of time.
The more complex and lengthy the bill, the longer its consideration
takes and, consequently, the higher the chances that the
sociopolitical context has changed drastically between the time
when the commission started studying the bill and the time when it
finished, which makes it more difficult to adopt reform proposals
as submitted.
The former commission was severely criticized in this respect by
the Office of the Auditor General of Canada in the House of
Commons. In 1985, the auditor general's office conducted an
in-depth audit of the operation and management of the former
commission. In his report, the auditor did not mince his words
about the project management approach of the commission.
One excerpt speaks volumes; it says, in essence, the following:
``Since 1972, the commission has neither reviewed its initial
research program nor submitted a further program, in spite of the
fact that its work has changed considerably. There were also major
delays in the implementation of its research program and major
cost overruns compared to 1972 cost estimates. For example, not
one of the completion deadlines were met, and in many cases,
projects have yet to be completed 10 years after the original
completion date''.
In paragraph 10.30 of his report, the auditor general points out
that the absence of written guidelines and procedures has caused
deficiencies in the commission's contracting process. The report
cites among other examples the fact that the basis for selecting
1303
various consultants or researchers were not put in writing. The
report concludes that, unless it goes to tender, the commission
should justify its choices in writing to ensure that any given choice
was reasonably motivated.
Bill C-9 does not act on the auditor general's recommendations.
A follow-up audit conducted by his office in 1998 showed that,
three years after it was initially recommended that it do so, the
former commission still had not undertaken a comprehensive
review of its program effectiveness.
If I interpret the commissioners' complaints correctly, the
former commission was in greater need of direction and control
than of an arm's length situation and mandates as broad as they are
ill-defined. The justice department never assumed its responsibility
as a regulatory body. The situation had been allowed to deteriorate
to the point where the government did not have a choice any more.
It had to get rid of the commission and integrate some of its
resources into the Department of Justice, hence the establishment
of the law reform division.
I would like to say that the justice minister cannot be serious
when he describes the future commission as a streamlined law
reform commission of Canada. If he was serious about
streamlining, he would let it be. A streamlined commission already
exists within his department.
The Minister of Justice did not learn from the mistakes of the
former commission. He chose to ignore the report in which the
auditor general severely criticized the former commission. It has
not gotten through to him yet that there is already, within his own
department, a division whose sold purpose is to reform Canadian
law. By failing to learn from past mistakes, he runs the risk of
making the same mistakes.
Moreover, and the minister will not be warned again, Quebec
will not be fooled by this cheap trick aimed at invading its areas of
jurisdiction, spending public money needlessly in the process. The
Bloc Quebecois cannot condone this kind of manoeuvring.
(1555)
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
for the information of Canadians watching this debate, we are
debating Bill C-9, formerly introduced in the last sitting of the
House as Bill C-106. Essentially it sets up a law reform
commission. The purpose of the commission is to advise
government on needed changes and modernizations to the existing
laws of Canada.
We opposed this bill when it was introduced to the House at
second reading and we oppose it now at third reading. I hesitate to
take the House's time by reiterating the same concerns and
arguments that were made in the debate on October 19, but there
are a couple of new developments which need to be discussed and
which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. There
have been a couple of amendments suggested to the bill and those
should be dealt with.
The commission is being set up as a ``departmental
corporation''. This is to be in aid of increasing or underlining the
independence of the commission from government and also to
allow it to generate revenues which is an acknowledgement of the
concern that has been raised about the cost of this ever increasing
circle of commissions and other groups which keep being created.
I would hesitate to predict what a departmental corporation
could bring in or recover from the sale of its reports. I suggest it
would certainly not be a very considerable amount. Even
Parliament itself seems very uninterested in many of these reports.
They gather dust on shelves. I would be extremely surprised if
members of the public laid out cold hard cash just for the pleasure
of reading them. I would also point out that the research work done
to generate these reports in the first instance is funded solely from
taxpayers' dollars. For taxpayers to have to pay additional money
to look at the reports they paid to have generated in the first place
does seem to be a bit much to ask of any member of the public.
The Reform Party suggested two amendments to this bill at
committee stage. The first one was to correct what we felt was an
unjustified inclusion in the bill of the words ``after extensive
consultation''. We feel that the legislation which is put before
Parliament should be defensible and should be accurate in the way
it is framed. We really felt that extensive consultation was a
misnomer for the process that had taken place in bringing back this
idea of a law reform commission.
The consultation in fact consisted of 844 questionnaires of which
only 126 were returned, a less than 15 per cent return rate. The 844
questionnaires went out to, among other people, every MP and
every senator. About half of all these questionnaires went to
members of Parliament who have to vote on whether or not this
whole thing goes ahead. It seems redundant to preview the opinions
of members of the Canadian Parliament and then call this
consultation. When we use the word consultation the public thinks
of it as we are consulting members of the public at large, or
extensively some other interests besides the law makers and the
decision makers in Parliament, but that was not the case.
We felt for the integrity of the legislation and the plain speaking
that would be required of legislation that the reference to extensive
consultation should be deleted. However, it is still in there.
Canadians are being given to understand that there was extensive
consultation and extensive discussion across the country about
1304
bringing back the commission and it should be put on the record
that this was definitely not the case.
(1600)
The other amendment which we proposed would increase the
role of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in the
appointment of the commissioners and the advisory body to the
commission.
When I criticized the Minister of Justice for this at second
reading he rose in the House and said that this body was going to be
both independent and accountable. It would be independent of the
minister and it would be accountable to the House through the
minister. At that time I asked, and I still have not received a
satisfactory answer to this difficulty, how a body could be
independent of a minister when it is accountable to the House
through that minister.
There are so many areas in the legislation where not only is the
commission accountable through the minister, it is directly a
creature of the minister. The minister, for example, appoints the
five commissioners. How can a body which is appointed by a
minister, through his recommendations to council, be even
remotely considered to be independent of that minister?
The commission must consult with the minister before setting its
agenda. The commission must carry out studies or prepare reports
at the request of the minister. The response to the recommendations
of the commission is at the minister's discretion. The minister
could simply ignore or neglect to do anything about the
recommendations of the commission.
There is so much leeway and control over the process by the
minister that to say it is independent of him or her is simply
incorrect. There is absolutely no basis on which to make that
argument.
To say that the commission is accountable is again a notion
which cannot be supported by the facts. For example, the
commission will be given $3 million a year on which to operate.
However, it will be set up as a departmental corporation.
Supposedly, it is like another crown corporation which is at arm's
length from government, therefore, not only can government not
tell it what to do unless it wants to do that, members of Parliament
cannot obtain information from it through the Access to
Information Act.
The departmental corporations are totally independent bodies.
They are corporations in the private sector. As members of
Parliament, even though these bodies are totally funded by
taxpayers, we have no right to obtain information from them.
The grain commission is a good example of this. The
commissioners on the grain commission set their own
remuneration. They set their own terms of reference. They set their
own pensions. The people served, the taxpayers of Canada, and
even members of Parliament, cannot obtain information from it
because the commission is at arm's length and has such a level of
independence that it is accountable to no one.
This commission has been set up in the same way and yet the
minister tells us that it will be accountable. However, in the way it
has been set up, the accountability is once again shielded behind all
of these arm's length mechanisms. We are going to have the same
situation as we have with the other bodies.
For example, ACOA was asked by the taxpayers how many jobs
it had created with the millions and millions of dollars the
taxpayers had given to it in order to create economic activity in
Atlantic Canada. However, they cannot obtain an answer. ACOA is
not required to give that information to the people who are giving it
money.
To set up another body like this is a slap in the face to taxpayers.
Members have to realize that taxpayers work very hard for the
money they give to bureaucrats and politicians.
(1605 )
They should have some means of ascertaining that they are
getting bang for their buck. However, we have no certainty of that
in this legislation. Another $3 million is floating around the
countryside with the accountability mechanism very uncertain and
loose. We should object to that very strongly.
For example, we have so many services which taxpayers
desperately need in order to take advantage of economic
opportunities, to get health services and the education of our young
people and our workforce. The $3 million is being cut from the
kinds of services that Canadians are demanding. Here is money
being used to set up a commission that Canadians are not
demanding but which they pay members of Parliament to carry out.
The whole job of members of Parliament is to recommend and
put forward legislative measures that are needed to deal with issues
facing the country. The whole point of having members of
Parliament is to update and modernize the laws so they meet the
changing needs of Canadians.
Why on earth are millions of dollars being spent on members of
Parliament who come with all different perspectives, meeting in
committees, studying issues, travelling the country, debating in the
House of Commons and analysing bills and then all of a sudden
another $3 million is being thrown into the hat to have another
commission of buddies of the justice minister, whomever he
decides to appoint, to do the very same work that members of
Parliament are elected and paid to do?
In my speech on this matter on October 19, I made an offer to the
justice minister. I said: ``If you are really so desperately in need of
a law commission, then we as Reform Party members in the House
of Commons will gladly do that job for nothing. We will study
these issues and give you recommendations. We will certainly be
1305
truly independent. We will not cost you a nickel. We will do the
kind of research and advising that you say you need''.
Many resources are open to members of Parliament and certainly
to the justice minister. There are professors in universities in the
area of law and law reform whose mandate is to do independent
research. They would be delighted to share the fruits of their
labours with lawmakers. However, all of a sudden even more
researchers will be hired to do even more research when there is
plenty being done.
This bill is not needed. It does not do the work that it is supposed
to do. It sets up yet another bunch of appointed people to be used by
the minister to validate what he wants to do anyway. This is a very
bad piece of legislation, especially at a time when the country is
going deeper into debt by millions of dollars every day.
I would urge the House to reject the setting up of yet another
body and yet another commission, that we get on with the job of
doing this work with the elected people who we are already paying
and that we forget and scrap these kinds of measures. They are not
needed and they will not do a better job for Canadians than is
already being done.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, in
looking at this bill, I have been trying to figure out what it is that
the Liberals are attempting to accomplish. The thesis of my speech
today is Liberal patronage.
The question has to be asked: Where is the money coming from
that will create the new agency whose work is already being done
by the justice department? When the law reform commission was
abolished some of the funding was redirected to the justice
department. Is the $3 million for this new commission coming
from the justice department which is already doing that type of
work? Will there be a cut in the department's budget to make way
for the new commission?
(1610 )
It is rather instructive to look at what was said by the previous
government when it cut the law commission. The Hon. Gilles
Loiselle, President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State for
Finance on April 30, 1992 said:
The Law Reform Commission was created in 1971. It has played a useful role
in conducting an ongoing review of the statutes of Canada, in co-ordinating
non-governmental research on legal issues, and in providing independent
advice to the Minister of Justice.
The government has concluded, however, that these functions can be fulfilled
without maintaining a separate organization. Responsibility for commissioning
outside research will be assigned to the Department of Justice, with the minister
and the department seeking the views of researchers and practitioners in
universities and elsewhere. The Law Reform Commission will accordingly be
wound up and any necessary continuing resources transferred to the Department
of Justice.
The Liberals are trying to make work for their Liberal lawyer
friends and are revisiting the Liberal law reform commission.
Where did the $3 million come from? Did it come from the
resources that were returned to the justice department by the
previous Conservative government or has the government just dug
a little bit deeper into the trough so that it can reward its Liberal
lawyer friends?
By eliminating the law reform commission in 1992 the
government of the day was moving toward eliminating duplication.
My Liberal friends of today do not necessarily understand the
concept of eliminating duplication, particularly if they can be
setting up more boards to employ more Liberals.
The government wants to bring the law commission back. Much
of the work can be done by the justice department which has far
greater resources. I refer to comments by Peter McCreath who was
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State (Finance and
Privatization) on April 30, 1992. He said:
It is not as if the kind of work that has been done by the Law Reform
Commission of Canada will cease if the law reform commission ceases to exist.
It is very important that kind of research continues to take place-
Law reform is possible in Canada even without the Law Reform Commission.
In the name of logic, are the Liberals of today actually saying
that the work previously being done by the law reform commission
over the last four years has not been done? That is a little bit of a
stretch in terms of credulity.
I am trying to drive home the reason why the Liberals of today
are trying to bring this back for their Liberal lawyer friends. The
members of this new commission will be order in council
appointees. It may be another chance to let the few remaining
Liberal supporters in this country who do not have government jobs
get on the government payroll. In short, the commission has the
opportunity to be a haven for political appointees.
I would like the member for Kingston and the Islands, who loves
to kibitz on this, to directly refute that this commission will not be
a place to put the wonderful Liberal lawyer friends of this
government today. In fact that is the reason why this is being
redone.
Mr. Milliken: I hope it is.
Mr. Morrison: But he is a lawyer.
Mr. Abbott: Is he a lawyer?
Mr. Morrison: Of course he is a lawyer.
Mr. Abbott: Is he a lawyer? We listen to him talk and talk and
talk so he must be a lawyer.
1306
We have seen the Minister of Justice begin politicizing our
courts by several of his recent appointments of defeated Liberal
candidates and Liberal riding presidents to the benches.
I am going to deal with the issue of patronage in detail at the
conclusion of my speech but I am still working to develop this case.
Actually I do not have to work to develop this case. It is so obvious.
The Minister of Justice will have to be consulted before the
agenda of the commission is set. As was pointed out by my
colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North, this is very clearly
not an arm's length organization. Is it not really just Liberal logic to
say that these people are independent-
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Is there such a thing?
Mr. Abbott: Is there such a thing as Liberal logic? Well, these
things do happen.
The minister states that the commission will operate at arm's
length. That is really magic because there is a little discrepancy
here. He wants it to be independent, but he wants it to do what he
wants it to do.
(1615)
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Selfish.
Mr. Abbott: I do not know about selfish, but it certainly defies
the whole idea of-
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Liberal logic.
Mr. Abbott: -Liberal logic. You got it.
The minister also gets a say in the appointment of council
members. In short, it appears that the new law commission will be
an extension of the minister's and the department's staff. If it is
simply an extension of the minister's and department's staff, why
are we setting it up? Why not just give the justice department
another $3 million and say to get on with the job? If that is what
this whole process is all about, there certainly would have been a
less expensive way than going through the whole business of
coming up with this legislation. Why did he not ask for an extra $3
million from the Minister of Finance?
It is interesting that the former member for
Edmonton-Strathcona on November 25, 1992 in talking about the
old Law Reform Commission said: ``It costs $4.9 million each
year''. I should point out that the Liberals always start low and aim
high. They are only starting at $3 million right now. Who is to
know where the cost of this commission is going to go? I come
back to the member's comments: ``It costs $4.9 million each year.
It has five full time commissioners and''-believe it or not-``a
staff of 36. That is a lot of staff and a lot of commissioners, and it
costs a lot of money. It is my belief that in Canada we have created
too many commissions, too many boards and in a certain way we
have devalued Parliament''.
What is really scary is that the situation of creating too many
commissions and getting things out of the control of
parliamentarians was started by the Liberals and the Conservatives
attempted to terminate it in their feeble little way. Now that the
Liberals are back, guess what? We have the re-creation of yet
another commission. Terrific.
``I would rather see'', the member said, and this reflects the
comments of the member for Calgary North, ``work of this nature
done by parliamentary committees-. I say to my colleagues in
response, we have had an independent agency that has done a lot of
good work but it is time we ourselves did this work and brought
some prestige back to Parliament. Let us not devalue Parliament by
giving its role to outsiders''.
Reflecting on the most recent legislation by this Liberal
government, it does devalue the whole role of Parliament and
parliamentarians. It just treats this place like a rubber stamp. When
the Liberals are not getting their own way they simply bring in the
pile driver of closure to make sure that it gets through, as witness
the reintroduction of this piece of legislation.
The member said: ``We can do that independent work. There is
also a fiscal argument here. It is an expenditure of $5 million a
year. We have had a deficit over the past years of roughly $30
billion a year,''-and of course it has gone up since then-``now
$34.6 billion has to be borrowed. We have to borrow that money
each year and then we have to borrow money to cover the interest
on that money each year''.
In parenthesis I point out to all the Liberals present that their
government, in the life of this government, will increase the annual
interest charge on the debt that they have accumulated by $11
billion a year. It is an increase. That is only the difference between
what the interest charge was when this government came in. When
these people are kicked out of office in 1997, they will have added
an annual interest charge of $11 billion a year to service the debt,
yet they are perfectly prepared to spend another $3 million a year.
The member went on: ``We have to borrow that money each year
and then we have to borrow money to cover the interest on the
money each year. It is a vicious cycle. The government has to take a
hard look at where we spend our money. Some of this work will be
contracted out but there will be a net saving''.
The point of my speech today very simply is that this
government did not learn anything. The Liberals were booted out
for a nine year period when there were people here who tinkered
around the edges. They really did not get anything done but at least
they understood that we cannot spend money we do not have.
Those
1307
people on the other side of the House to this day still do not
understand that basic concept.
There was an interesting article in the November 21, 1995
Financial Post in which Deborah McCorkell-Hoy, director of the
law reform division of the Department of Justice had some really
interesting comments. I quote from the article:
When the commission was set up, McCorkell-Hoy said, everyone agreed that
it should be as independent as possible, but it ``needs to be tied to the needs of
Canadians''.
To put that into effect, the bill creates a 25 member advisory council ``to
advise on the strategic direction of the commission and review its
performance''.
As well, specific reform projects will be monitored and advised by panels of
expert specialists.
McCorkell-Hoy points out several areas that could attract business partners
and funding:
Intellectual property and its relationship to new information technologies.
Biotechnology, a subject in which law reform ``has tremendous implications
for the economy of the country, and yet the law is unknown''.
(1620)
Well, of course, we are dealing with the Liberal government.
Federal financial regulatory mechanisms, especially in international
commercial law.
Since the bill gives the commission a wide mandate to develop ``new
approaches to, and new concepts of, law'', it's not inconceivable that other
federal areas such as taxation, corporate law, labour law, unemployment
insurance or immigration could be research targets.
Right there, in the words of this official from the justice
department, we have a very clear and very specific indication that
this bill is being set up to reward the government's Liberal lawyer
friends. That is what it is all about. It is a make work project.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Patronage.
Mr. Abbott: Well, was it not a minister who said that we should
have more transparent patronage? Is that not what he said in the
House the other day? Only the Liberals would say that.
The point I am trying to drive home and for the people of Canada
to understand, is that when the Liberals run out of work they can
give to their friends, they come up with some kind of a make work
project like this one. What do we have in Canada as a result of the
charter of rights and freedoms but a charter industry populated by
high priced lawyers who go around trying to figure out how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is only in the wonderful
world of the Liberals.
We have stated, since its inception, that the country needs less
government, not more. Canada has no lack of agencies, boards or
commissions. Creating another agency when the work proposed is
already being done makes absolutely no sense, which is the thesis
of my speech.
It is not a matter of privatizing law reform. There is no mention
of making cuts within the justice department when its work will be
done by the commission. This is a make work project for the
government's Liberal lawyer friends. That is it, plain and simple.
This is a Liberal patronage bill.
Look at the fact that the Prime Minister is not satisfied to just
appoint Liberal bagmen to the other place. People go there and
travel at taxpayers' expense going around and collecting funds for
the Liberal government for the upcoming election. He is not
satisfied with that.
As a matter of fact, Senator Taylor, the most recent appointment
to the other place, was very open, honest, candid and frank when he
said: ``This is a patronage appointment. I have been a Liberal all of
my life and this is what I get for it''. He got appointed to the other
place so that he can travel around and pick up money for those
people. It is absolutely shameful.
If we value the work of an independent commission, why is the
justice minister so closely involved in the process? Because this is
not an independent commission. That is why. This is a process of
making work for Liberal lawyer friends.
The justice minister picks appointees, he has a say on the agenda
and will have flexibility in response to the commission's
recommendations. Even after these lawyers get paid all of this
money, the justice minister will have flexibility. If we were to
translate that, the justice minister can ignore the recommendations.
These recommendations have the potential of being of absolutely
no value except the value that has been siphoned out of the pockets
of tax paying Canadians.
If we are truly interested in the modernization and reform of
Canadian law, why would we not have a completely independent
body without such a large role for the Minister of Justice?
I rest my case. The plain fact of the matter is that because of the
very, very close tie-in, the connections, the absolute control by the
minister of justice, this law does nothing except make work for
Liberal lawyer friends.
(1625 )
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on a very
logical, well put together and erudite examination of Bill C-9.
There are huge problems today in the justice department and in
the ability of our men and women in uniform who go out on the
streets every day to defend the rights of innocent civilians. They
put their lives on the line every day. If we speak to them we will
1308
find they are incredibly dissatisfied with the justice department and
the laws and regulations it has put forth over the last 20 years which
have significantly hampered their honourable goals for Canadian
society.
What constructive suggestions does the hon. member feel we
could put forth, such as victims rights, repealing section 745 and
such? I would like to hear his views on these very important issues.
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, there are many issues the justice
minister is absolutely ignoring and I might suggest at his peril and
the peril of the Liberal Party. They are issues like section 745
which has the absolute backing of the majority of the members of
this House and the majority of people in Canada. It also has the
backing particularly of the victims of the people who are currently
incarcerated who may become eligible under section 745. There are
many, many bills like that.
It is so obvious and seems quite clear to me, to return to my
original thesis, that this bill is simply a make work project. The
justice minister is not listening. We could not only save the time of
this House and the cost of putting this bill through, but we could
also save the $3 million a year that will be forked out to the Liberal
lawyer friends.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I understand the member has a substantial interest in law and order
issues. The speech he has just given indicates that this bill in
particular is of great interest to him. Perhaps the member for
Kootenay East could explain to the House and to his constituents
why he never turned up in committee to discuss the bill.
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, as you would be aware and I know
the member is aware, a member of Parliament has many
responsibilities be they in revenue, in heritage, whatever the case
may be.
This issue is of tremendous importance to people in my
constituency. As a matter of fact, I devoted my most recent
householder entirely to the issue of crime and what the ordinary
citizen could be doing about crime even under the meagre, pitiful
laws the Liberals are presently toying with.
As we have been given the opportunity today, when I do have
some time available to speak to this issue, I speak on behalf of the
people of Kootenay East. They say to this government to get on
with the job, change the justice system and do not tinker and play
with it with these silly make work projects.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member for Kootenay East was able
to clarify why at the beginning of speech he was asking all those
questions about the bill. He wanted to know various details about
the bill, why the minister was not doing this, why the minister was
not doing that, why the bill did not do this, why the bill did not do
that. We all know why he does not know the answers. He did not
attend the committee meetings.
I am astounded the hon. member would say in justification for
his failure to show up to discuss the bill in committee that what he
did was put out a householder to his constituents about law and
order issues. Why did he not put out one on his attendance?
(1630)
I suggest that had he put out one explaining where he was when
he was not at the justice committee discussing what he says is a
very important bill, perhaps his constituents would have
understood a bit more about his views on justice matters.
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, of course we are talking to the
now defunct, failed, fired parliamentary secretary who used to
spend all of his time in the House.
Maybe I could ask him the same question. Did he attend the
justice committee? Did he attend the finance committee? Did he
attend the heritage committee? Did he attend the natural resources
committee? Did he attend the environment committee? What was
he doing wasting his time here in the House, running around like he
did before, making all sorts of these little yattering noises?
We all know very well that what really goes on is when a
member of Parliament comes to Ottawa, unfortunately even if he is
six foot five and 250 pounds, he cannot be dissected and sent to this
committee, that committee and also be in the House to answer the
inanities of the former parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay East
managed to get through that particular matter without answering
the question as to why he was not in committee. He has made
comments about the member for Kingston and the Islands who was
fulfilling his duties in the House, quite different from some of the
members opposite. Again, he has not mentioned why he was not in
committee.
I am sure he cannot make that comment about me in the justice
committee because I was in that committee all the time, even on
this bill. I never saw him once. Perhaps he can now take this
opportunity to answer why he was not at any time at any of those
committee meetings dealing with this bill.
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member
speaks about fulfilling his duties. I wonder if the member would
care to stand up perhaps in the next segment in debate when he can
answer the question of how he fulfilled his duty in that committee
on Bill C-68 when the people in his constituency clearly and
demonstrably gave him direction that he was to vote against Bill
C-68.
1309
I suggest the reason he did not fulfil his responsibility to his
people in his constituency was that he knew if he kept quiet on
Bill C-68 he just might have a chance of being appointed the chair
of that committee.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, today we are speaking about Bill C-9, an act to create the
Law Commission of Canada.
This commission was set up to do some relatively general things.
It was set up to study, analyse and give advice on measures to
improve our justice system.
This is another sad day in Parliament. This is another example of
what I call studyitis. When we have problems in this country do we
address those problems? Do we bring forth constructive solutions
to impact on those problems in an effective way? No. What do we
do? We study them. We analyse them. Perhaps we give advice on
them.
There have been thousands of studies on ways to improve justice
in Canada. All we need to do is come together to look at those
solutions, take the best solutions out of those suggestions and
impart those to the Canadian justice system for all Canadians.
As we speak people are being raped, murdered, assaulted,
robbed, all manner of terrible things are happening to them, and the
justice department has been largely ineffective, particularly in the
last 10 years, in dealing with these problems.
We have another Pavlovian response by the government to some
very serious problems that exist in Canada today. It is not benign. It
will cost taxpayers $3 million to bring the commission together.
Again we have to ask why. Why are we doing this when
constructive solutions already exist?
(1635)
I do not agree with the commission. I challenge the Minister of
Justice and the solicitor general to work together with our party,
which has put together many constructive improvements for the
justice system, to enact those improvements. I send that challenge
out to them and I hope they respond.
I would like to introduce constructive solutions on which we can
work to improve the justice system.
First, we have a problem with the time it takes an individual who
is arrested to be tried and convicted. Today we have a very onerous
system. It takes a great deal of time before the person who is
charged is brought to justice. One of the things we could do to
expedite the time involved would be to eliminate preliminary
hearings. They are expensive, time consuming and they delay
justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Second, we could limit the number of appeals available to
convicted persons. Appeals must happen. It is the only fair way to
have a balance and a check in the existing system. However, to
allow individuals to continually appeal is wrong. It is a waste of
taxpayer money.
Third, we could limit the number of adjournments which lawyers
can introduce during the course of a trial. Currently lawyers can
introduce umpteen adjournments. They cause an incredible
backlog in the courts. There must be a fair number of adjournments
to ensure that due process takes place. However, if we limit their
number we could expedite the process while ensuring the accused
receives a fair trial.
Fourth, the Minister of Justice could introduce a DNA data bank.
This would enable police officers across Canada to take DNA
samples from accused individuals and place them into the data
bank. It would help police officers to speed up their analysis of
criminals. If a person is innocent they have nothing to fear. Is this
an abrogation of an individual's rights? Absolutely not. It is
something we could introduce today for the collective good of all
Canadians. A DNA data bank would expedite a person's guilt or
innocence.
Fifth, it is very important that we repeal section 745. I have
heard the intervention by the Minister of Justice. He said there are
many exceptions to this rule. However, we have to understand that
section 745 applies to individuals convicted of first degree murder.
It is very difficult to convict a person of first degree murder. Those
who are convicted are guilty of heinous crimes, including the
murder of a police officer. The number of individuals convicted of
these crimes and who were released after 15 years is shocking. It
sends a very bad message to those contemplating vicious crimes.
Consider the juvenile system. Juvenile violent crime is on the
increase. It is the fastest growing aspect of crime in the country.
Something must be done about it. Unfortunately the solutions
attempted by the government have been wholly inadequate. It is
high time the government began to implement constructive
solutions for youth. Youth crime is a tragedy.
(1640 )
What we should do is name youths convicted of a crime. This
would show them they cannot hide behind anonymity when
committing a heinous crime. We have to speed the process from
apprehension to trial, as I mentioned before. We need to have
constructive solutions to address the precursors to those children
who lead a life of crime.
This comes down to some of the determinates of health which
have not been widely looked at. Many of these juveniles go on to
live a life of crime. I have worked in adult and juvenile jails both as
a doctor and as a correctional officer. Many of these individuals
have had tragic family histories. They live in a family milieu which
breeds a psychology that can lead to conduct disorders and then to
crime.
1310
When we identify these family circumstances, we need to bring
to bear the full resources we have to try to ameliorate these
circumstances. Sometimes this cannot be done. Unfortunately the
system we have today ensures that those children continue to
remain in the tragic, harmful, often violent and always repressive
situation. Sexual violence often exists within the family and if not
that, physical violence and an enormous amount of neglect.
The mindset we have today within our social programs and the
justice department is to keep these children basically where they
are. This is a mistake. A child cannot change his or her pattern of
behaviour if they are living under these very tragic family
circumstances. It is imperative that these children be removed from
the home for as long as it takes for the family situation to become
sufficiently better so that the child's basic needs are met and their
personal safety is ensured.
Work and skills training should be made obligatory not only for
adults but for juveniles. This will be imperative if they are to
become a functional member of society when released from jail.
Many individuals, particularly in adult institutions, have
problems with substance abuse. Jails do try to some extent to
address the problem but the way they do it is wholly inadequate.
Conditional on their release, if substance abuse is identified as a
contributing factor to their criminal behaviour, they should take
part in effective substance abuse programs in the judicial system.
We must also look at the rights of the victims, something we
have not heard much about in the House. This is absolutely
imperative. We have to hold the rights of victims as the
pre-eminent issue in justice. We must protect the rights of innocent
civilians above those of criminals, period. That is the primary role
of justice. Right now that is not what we are seeing.
My colleague earlier today in question period, when asking a
question to the Minister of Justice, gave a profoundly tragic
example of a woman who was murdered because she could not get
the information needed from the judicial system that the individual
she was with was violent and that her life was at risk. Who are we
trying to protect, the criminals or the victim? We must protect the
victim. I do not care about these spurious arguments put forth about
protecting the human rights of an individual. The person whose
human rights must be protected first and foremost is the victim.
Therefore our party has put forth many constructive solutions,
including making obligatory victim impact statements, appropriate
restitution to the victim and counselling.
(1645)
I will give a really sad example that happened in my
constituency. A lady came to my office. Her 13-year old son, an
invalid, was sexually abused by an older boy, a 17-year-old. When
they went to court and the older boy was convicted of sexually
abusing the handicapped 13-year-old, the 17-year-old said he was a
victim.
The 17-year-old got more counselling, money from this
institution, from the justice department, than the victim, much
more. That is not justice at all. Who are we trying to protect?
We need balance. The accused and the convicted must be treated
too. To ignore them is to ignore society at our peril. We must also
first and foremost be able to protect, treat and deal with the victims
of some terrible crimes that exist in society.
We see little justice in the justice system. We see a crisis of
conscience within those men and women who put their lives on the
line every day to protect us.
I spoke with some members of a police force yesterday. They
echo what is said by police officers in my riding, that the system we
have today simply does not work. We cannot merely tinker around
the edges. We have to impact some good, strong, effective
solutions and we need to do it now. If we do not do it now, more
innocent civilians will be unnecessarily hurt.
We can address the precursors to the individuals who commit
these crimes. By doing that, we will be saving ourselves not only
money but a lot of grief and individuals who need not be hurt in the
future.
It is up to us in the House to look at these effective solutions
today and enact them. It is not up to us to enact another bill, to
develop another commission to do more studying, to give more
advice, to do more analysis to enact solutions that are already on
the books.
The solutions are there and I challenge the government once
again to look at those solutions and bring them to the floor of the
House. Let us have a vigorous debate and pick the best ones. There
are many that were done by learned individuals.
I hope hon. members opposite will take it upon themselves to
bring forth some effective solution for all Canadians to protect
them and to prevent further crimes. It must be done today.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Before we
proceed with questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Burnaby-Kingsway, health.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I was
really interested in the comments by my colleague from
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. One of the thoughts that crossed my
mind was a term I was trying to think of earlier in the most recent
exchange. What we are looking for here is Liberal logic. Basically
he has asked them to take a look at some very logical, rational ideas
that would put the rights of the victim first.
1311
Would he agree with me that the term Liberal logic is the
ultimate oxymoron?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, I
thank my hon. friend for the question. It never ceases to amaze me
why, with all the resources we have, with all the intelligent people
who sit in the House today, we do not enact these solutions. The
power to do this lies with the government. Liberal logic is indeed
an oxymoron. Here the Liberals have the opportunity for a solution
and they play politics with it and fritter it away. Why? The goal of
the House is not to enact solutions, the goal is not to bring forth
good solutions to the Canadian public. The goal is the maintenance
of power. The problems of the country become secondary to
effective solutions to address the problems of the country. The
problems become secondary to the acquisition and maintenance of
power. That is a huge disservice to the Canadian people.
(1650)
If the Canadian public only knew what went on in the House and
how we are living in a very pyramidal system where the important
decisions of the country are made by approximately 12 elected
officials and a number of non-elected and unaccountable officials,
it would be shocked.
All is not lost, however. If the government would remove itself
from its profound and primary desire to maintain power and looked
beyond that to build a better House of Commons which gives the
ability to individual members of Parliament, across party lines, to
represent their constituents effectively and to put forth effective
solutions, which gives the power to committees to bring forth
solutions and legislative initiatives to the House, there would be a
much more democratic situation in the country. By doing so we
would build a stronger Canada.
Instead we have a situation in which the frontbenches and the
whip structures cower members in the back to do exactly what their
leader tells them to do.
That does their constituents a disservice because there are
numerous good solutions that the backbenchers have which I have
spoken to many times. There is no reason why those solutions
cannot be brought forth for the public to digest, debate and for us to
debate in the House.
If we accept the current so-called democratic situation we have
here today, we should be ashamed of ourselves. The House is far
from being a democracy.
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: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 35(5)(a), the division on the question now before
the House stands deferred until 5.30 p.m. today, at which time the
bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
* * *
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-19, an act to
implement the agreement on internal trade, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
(1655 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): This is the
ruling by the Speaker on Bill C-19, an act to implement the
agreement on internal trade.
There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice
Paper for the report stage of Bill C-19.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate but voted on
separately.
[Translation]
Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted on separately.
I will now submit Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-19, in Clause 9, be amended
(a) by replacing line 5, on page 3, with the following:
``nor in Council may, by order, subject to subsection (1), do any one or''; and
(b) by adding after line 13, on page 3, the following:
``(2) Any order made under subsection (1) is subject to the adoption by the
House of Commons of a resolution explaining the measures contemplated by
the order, which shall have been debated for two days before being put to a
vote.''
1312
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-19, in Clause 14, be amended
(a) by replacing line 6, on page 4, with the following:
``14. (1) The Governor in Council shall, by''; and
(b) by replacing line 10, on page 4, with the following:
``ing out the purposes of the Agreement only after scrutiny and approval by
the appropriate committee of the House of Commons''.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
address the motion which I just moved, Motion No. 1. Even though
you read it, I would like to read it again to make sure that people
understand its meaning. The motion reads:
``(2) Any order made under subsection (1) is subject to the adoption by the
House of Commons of a resolution explaining the measures contemplated by
the order, which shall have been debated for two days before being put to a
vote.''
As Quebecers, we supported the free trade agreement with the
United States. We support, in principle, free competition. We
worked very hard to give Quebec access to the vast U.S. market.
We know that, at times, the Canadian market was harder for
Quebecers to penetrate than the U.S. one. Deregulating internal
trade seems like a good idea.
We must deregulate so as to not impede free competition or the
movement of goods, services and people. During the last
referendum campaign, we Quebec sovereignists spoke at length of
an economic partnership with the rest of Canada. This measure is a
step forward that will allow for the free competition and the
partnership that we sought to have with the other Canadian
provinces.
(1700)
As I said a moment ago, we have always been very favourable to
free trade and, I repeat, we would like to see a very open economic
partnership among the provinces so that we can work much more
freely with the other provinces in Canada and, naturally, at least
have the possibility of conducting trade as easily between
provinces as with the United States.
That is what we are proposing in this motion, and particularly
with respect to disputes, the committee which will settle disputes
between provinces. We have a committee that settles disputes
between Canada and the United States, but the bill that deals with
an internal trade agreement sets up a committee to settle disputes
that will arise over time.
This is where we have a problem. The process is rather complex.
We are told there will be a complaints secretariat; if a complaint
cannot be settled internally by officers of the permanent secretariat,
there will be three other possibilities. First of all, there is the
possibility of consultation, at the request of the secretariat. We will
also have an internal trade committee. This committee will be a
permanent one, with representatives from all the provinces,
appointed by the provinces through a rather special procedure, with
which we are also in agreement.
It will also be possible to form a special group, a sort of
arbitrator for very serious conflicts between certain businesses that
are not adhering to the rules of the agreement. If the working group
decides on a course of action that is not sufficiently stringent or
accepted, then the next step will be trade action taken by the
government.
This is where we have a problem. Trade action can be
implemented by order of the governor in council, in other words,
by cabinet. That is why I am tabling this motion. We do not agree
that the government should be allowed to decide by order to act,
because I feel that the governor in council could decide, almost in
secrecy, to act.
This is where the problem lies. There could be conflicts between
economic sectors of activity or conflicts between certain
businesses or ways of doing business. There will be some
economic sectors in conflict with others, with the bulk of a given
economic sector under the control of one or a few provinces, to the
detriment of another.
This goes beyond trade and might affect the economy of a
province, any province. That is why we in the Bloc Quebecois
propose in this motion that there be a debate of at least two days in
the House of Commons before the order takes effect. We feel that
this is very important because it could affect a province.
This is not only a matter of trade. In some cases it may lead to
confrontation between certain provinces.
(1705)
This is the reason we believe there must be more transparency
and a public debate, before the government acts. I have referred to
the entire process, an excellent one, for settling differences. It is
very well organized, very safe and complex and will, I think, be
able to play an effective role. But, if the process cannot work, I
envisage serious repercussions which must be revealed publicly
and debated publicly.
For this reason, I find this is a bit risky. Some provinces, in any
case, might be affected on the economic level. This is why we feel
there must be debate for two days before we go ahead with a
ministerial order.
These are the main reasons. We in Quebec are also somewhat
concerned to see the federal government taking this decision via an
order. We see this as just one more power the federal government is
giving itself. It is another example of the federal's centralization.
Since this is an agreement between the provinces why, in the long
run, is it the federal government which will settle the matter by an
order. This strikes us as somewhat dangerous. The federal govern-
1313
ment might favour one province over another because of the power
it has given itself to settle certain problems relating to internal
trade.
Overall, we are in favour of liberalizing trade between the
provinces, but we strongly insist-and I address these words
particularly to the government members who will be having to vote
on this-that they support this motion, so that MPs from the party
in power will have the opportunity to have their say. Perhaps the
government members representing certain regions will express
themselves freely, so that their region, or their province, will be
protected in sectors which might affect another province.
For this reason, we deem it very important to debate the matter
in a way that is both open and transparent. I hope the government
members will take this motion under consideration.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to speak to Motion No. 2 regarding changes to the bill that will
implement the agreement on internal trade.
During my address today I will explain that without the inclusion
of my amendment, Bill C-19 will not address the concerns of
Canadian taxpayers who are tired of the onslaught of patronage
appointments from this Liberal government.
I will explain how my amendment will improve this legislation
to serve the best interests of Canadians by providing a transparent
system of scrutinizing governor in council appointments as they
pertain to the agreement on internal trade.
The amended clause would read as follows:
14(1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, appoint any person to fill any
position that may be necessary or advisable, in the opinion of the Governor in
Council, for carrying out the purposes of the agreement only after scrutiny and
approval by the appropriate committee of the House of Commons.
Government ministers have made a practice of conducting the
business of governor in council appointments in secret. The
salaries which are bestowed on these appointees are paid for by the
taxpayers. It is only right that these same taxpayers should have a
say in how many appointments are made and how much the
commissioners are paid.
(1710)
This amendment establishes elected members of Parliament
serving on committees as scrutineers to patronage appointments. It
will ensure that Canadians, through their elected members of
Parliament, play a role in governor in council appointments.
The process thus far has been anything but open. Even though
the Liberals campaigned on integrity in government and pledged
to award governor in council appointments based on merit, Liberal
Party affiliation has been at least as important as merit. I would
suggest that it has been far more important in many of the
patronage appointments made by the government.
This amendment will help the Liberals to keep their election
promise. After all, everyone needs a little help now and again.
The agreement on internal trade, which will be implemented by
this legislation, was contrived from executive meetings involving
cabinet officials of the 12 provinces and territories along with the
federal government. These 13 government bodies are defined as
parties to the agreement. Their objective is the removal of
interprovincial trade barriers which cost Canadians between $6
billion and $10 billion a year. The objective is, indeed, admirable.
The government is to be congratulated for taking the first step in
freeing up trade within Canada. Unfortunately, it is only a very
small first step.
The result of this process so far is a seriously flawed agreement
which identifies the problems, yet does very little to solve them.
The important thing to remember is that all provinces and
territories signed the agreement showing an intent to remove trade
barriers. The problem exists in the means available to remove those
barriers.
The agreement on internal trade outlines a series of legitimate
objections which allow exemptions to the agreement. These
objections are based on public security and safety; public order;
protection of human, animal or plant life and health; the protection
of the environment; consumer protection; protection of the health,
safety and well-being of workers; and affirmative action programs
for disadvantaged groups. If it can be proven that any of these
provisions will be infringed on by the removal of a barrier, they
will be exempt from the agreement. By doing this a party can
protect specific interests very easily.
The fact that all agreements are based on the unanimous support
of all parties leaves the door open to protectionist practices. This is
evident in the removal of a dispute settlement mechanism in the
energy sector. Just last week the House debated the Churchill Falls
power contract. The trade barrier created by the contract is costing
Newfoundland and Labrador close to $1 billion a year in lost
energy revenue.
The very principle on which the agreement on internal trade is
based is contravened by that contract. The people of Newfoundland
and Labrador look to the new agreement on internal trade to right
the wrong. Unfortunately, the process of deliberation between the
provinces does not provide any real hope for the resolution of this
problem as the agreement now stands.
1314
The definition of a legitimate objective is extremely vague. It
encompasses nearly every protectionist measure implemented by
the provinces and ensures that barriers will continue to exist.
It is obvious from this language that disputes between parties
will arise. It is imperative that a trade agreement contain a dispute
settlement mechanism which is fair, effective and binding.
It remains to be seen whether the dispute settlement mechanism
in the agreement will be effective. However it has met with
considerable criticism from a wide range of groups, individuals and
companies that have examined this agreement.
(1715)
The process that individuals and governments have to go through
to settle a dispute is lengthy, complicated and limits the access of
individual businesses to the mechanism. The Minister of Industry
and his provincial counterparts had the arduous task of striking an
agreement which not only addressed the barriers to trade in Canada
but was also agreeable to all parties on all issues. This was partially
accomplished, although many of the sectors were not addressed
effectively. That is the problem. Some were not addressed at all.
The committee of ministers set out objectives for designing the
dispute resolution mechanism. This was to include: (a) disputes are
to be directed by governments rather than private parties; (b)
non-confrontation resolutions are to be used wherever possible; (c)
no access to the courts will be granted in dispute settlements, no
room for court interpretations; (d) restrict access to private parties
in order to minimize the possibilities of frivolous claims being
used as a means of harassing governments, resulting in financial
burdens.
I want to repeat part of the last criteria set out by governments in
this agreement: to restrict the access of private parties in order to
minimize the possibility of frivolous claims being used as a means
of harassing governments. This agreement is more concerned with
protecting governments from harassment than it is with protecting
individual Canadians and individual Canadian companies. That
shows there is a real flaw in the thinking that has gone into the
dispute settlement mechanism.
I question the rationale for restricting individuals access to
dispute resolution mechanisms. As stated earlier, trade barriers cost
Canadians money and jobs. Therefore Canadians need to be
assured that their concerns on the existence of these barriers will be
duly heard and acted on.
Access to dispute resolution mechanisms by individual
Canadians ensures that the concerns of small businesses that rely
heavily on internal trade will be dealt with. The purpose of this
agreement is not to appease governments but rather to ensure
access to markets across Canada. That is the purpose of this
agreement.
The agreement on internal trade includes a provision which
allows individuals access to the dispute resolution mechanism. The
following is a brief outline of that provision. As I go through it,
members will acknowledge that the mechanism is much too
complex, much too slow and has no teeth.
First, an individual company is to contact its party to the
agreement. Its party is either a provincial or the federal
government, depending on jurisdiction. If the government involved
refuses to act on its behalf, the party that wants to use the
mechanism can contact the internal trade secretariat and apply for
individual to government consultation.
Before access is granted, an individual has to undergo a
screening process which determines whether the individual's claim
is frivolous or vexatious. If it is deemed to be frivolous or
vexatious, then the claim is disqualified and the individual
company is not allowed to go through the dispute settlement
mechanism.
If the claim is deemed valid, then the dispute will be heard by a
panel of experts. This is where my amendment comes in. Each
province and the territories, along with the federal government,
will appoint five panelists to a roster that will consist of 65
panelists.
The terms of reference of these experts, their pay and their
accountability is not mentioned in either the agreement or in this
bill. The agreement also calls for the appointment to the office of
the secretariat of internal trade of screeners and others as needed by
the governor in council. The bill asks Canadians to sign a blank
cheque for an undetermined number of people, to be paid an
undetermined amount of money, to do an undetermined job.
(1720)
Canadians are tired of this kind of patronage appointment. They
want accountability. In fact, when the Liberals were in opposition
they too wanted accountability of order in council appointments.
They suggested that there be established a non-partisan nomination
and confirmation procedure for order in council appointments. Is it
not interesting now that the Liberals are the government they forget
what they wanted when they were in opposition?
My amendment will deal with this problem of openness in order
in council appointments.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the two motions on the floor I will deal
first with the matter that was brought forward by the hon. member
from the Bloc Party.
1315
I would suggest this amendment is one that really reflects a
continuing misunderstanding of how the dispute resolution
procedures of the agreement are intended to operate.
The amendment is quite unnecessary because then the federal
government would be tied to a procedure to which none of the other
parties under the agreement are tied. There are 13 parties and the
other 12 would not be tied to the procedure.
Further, Motion No. 1 is nothing but an attempt to restrict the
scope of action that the government may legitimately expect to
have to ensure that it is able to protect the national interest in the
negotiated balance of benefits in the agreement on internal trade.
The proposed amendment by the hon. member for the Bloc is a
cumbersome procedure. It is unnecessary and it is time consuming.
It is unnecessary because the government in any retaliatory
procedure under the act, the retaliatory measures first of all by the
government must be fully consistent with the agreement on internal
trade. Second, they are matters that are entirely within the
government's constitutional jurisdiction.
Again I emphasize that the procedure being suggested is one that
only the federal government would be required to follow. None of
the other parties would have to follow it.
The amendment in effect would be an attempt to unilaterally
amend the agreement that all parties have agreed to already. This
cannot be done. The amendment is a disguised effort to delay or to
impede the ability of the government to act in the national interest
in areas that are clearly within its own jurisdiction. For these
reasons I suggest that this amendment does not warrant the support
of the House.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member from the Reform
Party involves a much broader question. It that involves the
question of approval of government appointments. This was dealt
with in committee and has already been rejected.
The committee was not the place where this matter should have
been dealt with. The motion should be dealt with in another
committee if the Reform Party is intent on pursuing such a matter.
(1725 )
This amendment proposes a complex method of making
appointments. It is obvious the Reform Party has one intention, to
tie up the House continuously in matters like this so business
cannot go ahead. That is all on which the Reform Party is intent.
The amendment is an attempt to grandstand, it is not an attempt to
try to see that the business of the House proceeds in an orderly
manner.
I would suggest this is a matter that it is not appropriate to deal
with at this time and it should be rejected.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Longueuil
wish to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Vegreville?
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I would like us to move
on to Motion No. 3.
[English]
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood
that Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are grouped together and Motion No. 3 is
to be debated separately. I would like to make a few comments on
Motion No. 3 as presented by the Bloc.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. Motion No. 3 is
in the next group. We are dealing with the first two now.
[Translation]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, the recorded division on
Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
1316
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
[Translation]
Motion No. 3 in Group No. 2 will be debated and voted on
separately.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-19, in Clause 20, be amended
(a) by replacing line 1, on page 6, with the following:
``20. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act or any provision thereof, or''; and
(b) by adding after line 4, on page 6, the following:
``(2) Any order made this section respecting the coming into force of section
19 is subject to an obligation on the part of the federal government to commence
negotiations and to enter into an agreement with the government of Quebec to
eliminate inconsistencies between the provisions of the Internal Trade
Agreement and Quebec's laws and regulations respecting bulk trucking.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief so we can finish at 5.30 p.m.
First of all, the reason we introduced this motion-
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member, but it is 5.30 p.m.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, an
act respecting the Law Commission of Canada, be read the third
time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred division on the motion at the third reading stage of
Bill C-9, an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 31)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robinson
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-133
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
1317
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -74
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bergeron
Caron
Chamberlain
de Savoye
Deshaies
Gerrard
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Lefebvre
Loubier
Marchand
Marchi
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Nunziata
Stewart (Northumberland)
Wood
(1755 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
1317
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcasting
policy) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to begin second reading
debate on Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act
(broadcasting policy). The act has one objective and that is to
control the relationship more completely between the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which
Canadians love to call the CRTC, and the public. For the purposes
of this discussion I refer to the public as those people who presently
receive television services by way of cable transmission, but this
bill will also cover those Canadians who will soon receive
television services by way of telephone lines or direct to home
satellite services.
Controlling a relationship is never easy, we all know that. Yet
this is a relationship, the connection between the CRTC and its
public, which the Government of Canada through the Broadcasting
Act brought into existence and which we by Bill C-216 can once
again bring back under control.
There are three components or factors to this argument which I
refer to for discussion purposes as the three cs. These are: cost,
choice and culture.
Last year when the CRTC authorized the grouping or bundling of
new programs on to cable carriers and at the same time allowed
cable companies across this country to charge more for them, that
commission, those people who are supposedly protecting us and
nurturing Canadian culture, forgot, ignored, or what I would
suggest, turned their collective backs on Canadian cable
subscribers. The consumers had two choices: they either paid more
or they received less.
Who in this place could forget the anger, the vitriol and the
simple disgust of those who were being held for ransom? We, the
representatives of the people in this place, were besieged,
harangued and generally deluged with hundreds of calls from angry
consumers who from their perspective generally knew that their
pockets were being picked with the express consent of the CRTC,
the very government agency which was put there to protect them.
(1800)
Canadian consumers quite simply were held ransom by an
industry with an astounding 52 per cent return on its capital
investment. Who can forget at the same time the reaction of the
CRTC, which referred to this practice of negative option billing as
a necessary evil?
From my perspective as a representative of a certain group of
people, it was a necessary evil to tell my constituents that they
would receive, wrapped in the bundle of new channels, Canadian
culture.
As to the issues of cost and choice, the CRTC chose not to do
anything. Who can forget that Keith Spicer, the architect of this
policy, was out of the country on vacation when this storm struck?
Keith Spicer, the so-called czar of Canadian culture, was on a
foreign holiday as Canadians received a post Christmas gift they
did not want.
While Keith was out exploring foreign cultures, members of the
House were publicly stating, to use one quote, that the CRTC was
in bed with the cable companies. Newspapers across the country
gave anecdotal reports of what individual consumers felt and
planned to do. All ridings across the country are certainly aware of
that.
Let us in the House not forget that it was not the cable companies
that decided Canadians would receive seven new channels they did
not ask for. It was the CRTC that licensed the new services after
deciding which, in its collective wisdom, were best for the whole
country.
At the same time, it was the CRTC that permitted the packaging
of new channels, totally unsolicited by Canadians, with popular
1318
programs such as ``CNN'', an American network, to give its
favourite seven infant channels a chance of survival.
The Globe and Mail noted in its editorial of January 7, 1995:
``Effectively the commission was levying a tax on television
viewers to support quality broadcasting''.
Canadians some 15 months later understand what the Consumers
Association of Canada observed in January 1995, that the equality
for the practice was backward.
The CRTC and the cable industry justified the negative option
tactic in the name of culture, but in reality it was driven by business
imperatives. It is very interesting.
It was reported on January 7, 1995 that the president of Rogers
Cablesystems, Colin Watson, in an interview which was reported
widely across the country stated that this sleight of hand called
bundling or negative option billing was the only way that Rogers
Cablesystems could sign up enough new customers.
I do not have to suggest to anyone in the House or anyone
watching the proceedings today that every business in the country
would love to be the beneficiary of this kind of largesse which the
CRTC was doling out but for which the Canadian consumer was
being told they would pay.
Canadian viewers were being told what they could watch and
what they would pay in the name of Canadian culture. Is it not
interesting that one of the conduits of Canadian culture has today as
its most popular program, according to the rating agencies, reruns
of the ``Mary Tyler Show'', a great Canadian show, and that
another has that hybrid of Cosmopolitan and Vogue magazines
called the ``Fashion File'' as its most popular program.
In return for this, seven new networks were guaranteed cash for
life-that is my term-by the CRTC. Cable companies, as we now
know, reluctantly bent to public pressure. They bent in the sense
that they apologized for the behaviour and most gave a window of
opportunity to opt out of the new channels, but never did they allow
Canadians to decide up front that they could decline the channels.
The onus, the burden, the obligation was decidedly on the
individual within a certain timeframe to either cancel the channels
or pay for them. This is a unique and tragically Canadian way of
selling Canadian culture.
More important, did Canadians receive any assurances from the
CRTC that this would not happen again? Apologize? The cable
companies did. The CRTC? Certainly not. Mr. Spicer and his
commission, in my opinion, are much too busy regulating to
acknowledge any errors.
(1805)
Last week my office received from the CRTC a recent bulletin
which stated: ``The CRTC regulates the rates but expects each
cable operator to inform subscribers in advance what subscribers
must do to have optional packages removed''. I have to emphasize
``removed'', not ``added''.
The Canadian public today, 15 months later, does not have real
choice on what services are to be added but only, in the words of
the CRTC, what can be removed. Quite simply, negative option
billing still survives. It is very much alive and well.
Canadians would also be upset to learn the CRTC is about to
consider 40 new applications for specialty channels. Members of
the House and Canadians will be pleased to know that the potential
exists to receive, if the CRTC will bless them, such great Canadian
programming as the ``Horse Network'', the ``Home and Garden
Network'' and the ``Mystery Network''.
Forty corporations, most of them individuals who have recently
incorporated shell companies, are poised to sell a concept which
they hope will be richly rewarded by these guardians of Canadian
television.
Soon telephone companies and direct to home satellite services
will be channelling TV programming into homes across the
country. What can those people expect? If we follow Mr. Spicer,
the chair of the CRTC, in a speech delivered to the Canadian Cable
Television Association, he noted that Canadian consumers want,
deserve and will increasingly settle for nothing less than the
maximum control possible over which services they select and pay
for. As a consumer, Mr. Spicer agrees 100 per cent with that goal.
He went on to say that full pick and pay, beyond a few rock bottom,
common national interest services, can come only after this decade,
meaning sometime in the year 2000 or thereafter.
With 40 applicants lining up, with new carriers pressing to enter
the marketplace, we in the House have a choice, a choice we must
make for consumers. That choice is clear. Bill C-216 would amend
the Broadcasting Act, specifically section 3, so that consumers
from this time forward will be given control over what they receive
and the cost of what they receive.
Section 5 of the act imposes an obligation on the CRTC to
regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting
system with a view to implementing the broadcasting policy which
is set out in the act.
This bill would amend the broadcasting policy section, section 3,
so that a cable distributor or other distribution undertaking, which
could be a telephone company or a direct to home satellite
company, could not demand money from a person for the provision
or sale of a new programming service when the person has not
agreed to receive the new service. In the vernacular, consumers will
not pay for what they do not want. Certainly this is what consumers
want.
The Consumers Association of Canada liked this bill. It issued a
press release yesterday which called on members of the House to
support it. At the same time the Public Interest Advocacy Centre
has endorsed it. That group noted there are generations of laws
protecting consumers against unsolicited goods and yet still today
1319
cable companies, as merchandisers of goods, do not have to await
the consumer's choice.
(1810 )
Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act imposes a statutory duty on
the CRTC to be ``responsive to the evolving demands of the
public''. Since the CRTC has been silent for 15 months, we as
members of the House can now move to respond to the demands of
the public. There are those who would suggest that as members of
the House we have a statutory duty to uphold the laws of the
country.
As is often the case there is always the question of powers
between the federal government and the provinces. Certainly in the
House we have the authority to regulate in this domain throughout
Canada and we, the members of the House of all parties, have the
opportunity to take in hand the rights and the interests of
consumers.
The issue of provincial versus federal jurisdiction is as old as the
country. The question of whether a law is intra vires or ultra vires
has always been a healthy industry for the legal profession and
certainly has kept the judiciary busy.
When the storm erupted over this issue last year the then
minister of Canadian heritage stated, as was reported by the press,
that this was a matter of provincial jurisdiction. He then a few days
later acknowledged that broadcasting was four square within
federal jurisdiction.
We must remember that cable companies as federally regulated
undertakings can claim immunity from provincial laws, especially
consumer protection laws. Quebec has a consumer protection act
which would appear to forbid the practice. In section 5 of that act
the following are exempt from the application of the title on
contract regarding goods and services: contracts regarding any
telecommunication service supplied by an operating company
within the meaning of section 2.
Professor Hudson Janisch in an interview with the Ottawa
Citizen January 7, 1995 noted that provinces are free to control
commerce but they lose that control. Quebec acknowledged that in
section 5 when it comes to federally regulated industries such as
cable.
Professor Janisch, an expert and professor in regulatory law at
the University of Toronto, pointed out that the Broadcasting Act
instructs the CRTC to protect consumers as set out section 3 of that
act.
There are a number of underlying factors we must realize.
Consumer protection is not clearly federal, it is not clearly
provincial. The federal government has jurisdiction over cable
television pursuant to its powers. Consumer protection legislation,
whether enacted by the federal or provincial governments, usually
provides a remedy. This bill does not provide a remedy. Proposed
Bill C-216 does not provide this remedy to consumers because
clearly it is not consumer protection legislation.
The CRTC does not prohibit cable companies from using
negative option billing, we all know that, to sell new discretionary
services because it does not regulate discretionary services. It
could regulate discretionary services but it has decided not to do so.
Instead it informs cable operators that it expects them to notify
subscribers when they will be given new services and how to opt
out if they wish. The CRTC is required by section 5 to regulate and
supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with a
view to implementing the broadcasting policy set out in section
3(1).
We know that cable companies have used negative option
billing. There are 40 applicants which now want to get on the
system and enter the homes of Canadians. There is a new method
by which cable providers could still slide those services in without
using negative option billing. If we assume there are four new
channels, they will provide these services free for six or eight or
twelve months and then will apply for a rate increase. We have the
opportunity by this bill to stop these hybrid variations on negative
option billing.
There will be those who say this bill is not necessary. I have
heard representations from public servants who maintain this
legislation is not necessary; it can be done by regulation, it can be
done by ministerial directive, it can be done by all sorts of
methods. We know that regulation changes. Regulation is not law.
It is not in a statute. All of us know that ministers come and go and
that ministerial directives can easily be changed.
(1815)
The only assurance anyone could possibly give would be that
there is no assurance at the moment unless Bill C-216 is passed. We
must embody in statute, in the Broadcasting Act, that this practice
is policy in this country. On behalf of Canadian consumers we must
be willing to build a firewall between the CRTC and the consuming
public to ensure that this does not happen again, either directly as it
did last year or in some other hybrid variation.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am happy to speak to Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcasting
Act, which was introduced by my colleague from
Sarnia-Lambton. I am happy to participate in this debate both as
the member for Richmond-Wolfe and as the official opposition's
critic on heritage and cultural industries.
1320
I would like to tell my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton that
I applaud his initiative because it clearly shows his concern for
consumers, who are too often left to fend for themselves when
dealing with organizations such as the CRTC. Also organizations
like the CRTC and others often let things slide without taking a
stand.
The purpose of the bill introduced by the hon. member for
Sarnia-Lambton is to protect consumers against a questionable
business practice called negative option billing that forces people
to pay for a cable service they did not request. They receive this
service and, if they do not ask for it to be stopped, they are
considered to have bought it.
For the benefit of our listeners and my colleagues, I would like to
put the situation in context. I would remind you that, by amending
section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, this bill provides that a cable
distributor should not demand money from a person for the
provision or sale of a new programming service where the person
has not agreed to receive the new service. It seems to me that, in
our society, people should not have to pay for a product or service
they did not ask for.
This business practice of selling programming services to
consumers who have not asked for them, which is called negative
option billing, started in 1994 when the Canadian Radio-Television
and Telecommunications Commission or CRTC granted eight new
special cable service licences.
Why were eight new licences issued? The CRTC had one main
goal, namely to strengthen the Canadian presence in the Canadian
broadcasting system in anticipation of this system being inundated
by American services, thus preventing an American invasion of
Canadian distribution systems.
This goal in itself is certainly commendable. However, after this
decision was made by the CRTC, in many cases, new channels
were added to cable subscribers' discretionary service package.
This means that those who already paid for a cable package now
had this service added, and that made them angry. Why? Protests
were sparked by this marketing strategy used by cable operators,
which consists in imposing new and unrequested services on
consumers and charging them extra for it.
No one in this House has to pay nor wants to pay for services
they never asked for, that appear out of nowhere.
(1820)
The CRTC decision resulting from the public hearings on the
industry's structure released in 1993 kicked off a number of
regulatory reforms that were implemented when the eight
dedicated cable broadcasting licences were issued. Marketing
strategies based on negative optioning were debated and tacitly
agreed to, since the CRTC did not take a stand.
The CRTC never regulated or attempted to regulate the negative
optioning marketing practices of cable operators.
It seems obvious that a deliberate choice was made not to make
public statements on the appropriateness of such practices. The
CRTC did not react. It gave tacit approval by letting cable
distributors set the rules themselves. It seems that, in the past, such
practices helped new specialty services succeed on the market,
while also promoting the cultural development goals set out in the
Broadcasting Act.
So, the CRTC said: ``Since this has worked before, we will leave
them alone''. Monopolizing consumers' ability to buy at their own
expense is definitely a curious way to protect the culture of Quebec
and Canada. Consumers are the ones who should decide on the
content and the services they want.
During the 1993 public hearings on the industry's structure,
however, some witnesses expressed their concern regarding the
negative option billing for new services. Later, consumer
protection groups expressly asked that the Broadcasting Act be
amended to force the CRTC to protect the interests of consumers,
not just cultural interests, when regulating the monopoly that the
cable television industry is.
We agree that the content should be Canadian and should
protected from neighbouring countries, but not at the expense of
consumers, not by leaving them at the mercy of cable distributors.
This does not make sense.
Cable television subscribers had already started rebelling. The
CRTC's way of looking after their interests was to merely urge
cable distributors to pay greater attention to consumers' requests. It
said to those who provide the service and make money in the
process: ``Set your own rules, but please act properly''.
In reality, the marketing component in the Canadian cable
distribution industry is left to the association itself. In the end, the
association is the one that sets the marketing standards advocated
by the national Cable Television Standards Council. As regards this
issue, it is clear that not only the CRTC but also the Liberal Party
dragged their feet and did not take their responsibilities on time,
since consumers had to send a wake up call.
On January 5, one year after consumer associations protested
against negative option billing, Rogers Broadcasting Ltd., the
largest cable distributor in Canada and the initiator of that practice,
gave up the idea and apologized for its mistake. The company
called itself to order, which is a good sign. But it was the result of
pressure from consumers and not the government acting
responsibly and declaring that, in this field, the commercial
practice was unacceptable. From now on, says the Canadian Cable
Television Association, in an attempt to reassure us, the practice of
negative
1321
option billing is a thing of the past and the cable distribution
industry will listen to consumers.
Thus, the bill introduced by the hon. member for
Sarnia-Lambton merely confirms a single practice. This brings
me to the question of duplication. A single practice. The bill
confirms an intrusion into the jurisdiction of provinces that have
already taken responsibility in this area. This is not the case in all
the provinces, I admit, but for Quebec particularly, where the
Consumer Protection Act is strong and has been around for a long
time, the proposal of similar legislation in the House of Commons
represents a direct intrusion into one of Quebec's areas of
jurisdiction.
(1825)
I am pleased to see this initiative by the hon. member, because he
is, to all intents and purposes, reminding his own government of its
responsibilities. He has just told it: ``You have neglected the
situation''. And unlike in Quebec and in another province that has a
consumer protection act, in all the other provinces, no action is
taken and cable distributors are asked to regulate themselves and
decide on their own what the rules should be.
The Government of Quebec has already established its
jurisdiction by way of its Consumer Protection Act through a
general prohibition on the sale of any service through negative
option billing. Paragraph 230 (a) of this act is very clear. By
regulating the commercialization of cable distribution services
through an amendment to its Broadcasting Act, Ottawa reveals
once again its determination to interfere in an area of provincial
responsibility.
In Quebec, however, any contractual agreement between a
consumer and a cable distributor has been subject, since the
introduction of these services, to the Consumer Protection Act.
I must therefore reiterate that any such bill tabled in this House
is very clearly a duplication of regulations and an intrusion of the
federal government into the jurisdiction of the State of Quebec. It is
not ill will on the part of the member. It is because his own
government has not taken its responsibilities and he is calling it to
order. He is also reminding the government that many provinces
have no consumer protection legislation and that the present
government, with the CRTC, is sending a very clear signal to cable
distributors to take whatever action they see fit.
In terms of the content of the bill and the concerns of the hon.
member for Sarnia-Lambton, I would say to him that we think
alike. But as for the principle of tabling a bill in this House that
represents a direct intrusion into the province's area of jurisdiction,
we have no choice, as the official opposition, but to vote against
Bill C-216.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak on behalf of the Reform Party. Our position on this bill,
subject to individual members' votes, is that we would be
supporting the bill.
Part of the problem and one of the hesitations I had as heritage
critic in recommending to my caucus that we look at supporting
this bill is the fact that it does not really deal with the issue. It is a
little band-aid on a great big problem.
Anybody who comes to my home will see some of the
construction I have done. It is really quite laughable and
identifiable. There is a fairly broad piece of trim which covers up
the error I made when I was trying to put the corners together. On
top of that broad piece of trim is a medium size piece of trim to
cover up the errors I made when I was crafting the broad piece of
trim. Then there is a very small piece of trim which actually covers
up the problem that was created with the medium size piece of
trim. In other words, I am not a particularly good carpenter and it
requires a tremendous amount of work to cover up the fact that the
whole thing is being held together by chicken wire and chewing
gum.
It seems to me that is a word picture of what we have with the
CRTC and the fact we are dealing with this issue. This bill is a
band-aid, a small piece of trim on a far larger problem. This is the
reason there was concern about supporting the bill.
(1830 )
The heritage minister has called for a review of the CRTC. I am
not sure how serious she was. It seems to me that just about every
time she wakes up in the morning she has some new ideas and then
her department has to run around after her picking up the pieces.
Whether or not she was really serious about a CRTC review, I do
not know.
The problem is that there is a need for a CRTC review. The
CRTC reflects what would be best classed as horse and carriage
electronics. What I am saying is we have moved from the horse
past the car to the jet, to the space age piece of equipment, while
the CRTC mandate itself and the way it goes about doing its
regulations is held back still feeding oats to the horse. An awful lot
of the regulations show the results of feeding the oats to the horse
by the road apples.
The problem is the CRTC comes forward with the kind of
regulations that it does, particularly the kind of decisions it makes
with respect to content. It ends up effectively forcing the cable
companies to find creative ways to get around the problem, that
somehow they are going to have to get dollars for some of these
programs and some of the content that is going to be put on the air.
1322
Clearly with the way the technology is right now in 1996 in the
majority of homes in Canada, there cannot be true competition in
the cable industry. In fact, we have to go outside the cable industry,
speaking of technology, in order to create competition for the cable
industry.
The marketplace probably would take care of this kind of
negative option billing, this kind of high handed approach that was
exercised by the cable companies in trying to come forward and get
the revenue the CRTC said they had to get for these channels that
nobody wanted. It would have worked out.
For example, there would have been competition if we had had a
coherent policy from this government with respect to direct to
home satellite service. Right now the DTH and the decision cabinet
made to not interfere with the CRTC is driving a grey market of
gigantic proportions.
Across the border from my constituency is a very small town in
the northern area of Idaho. On a very busy day I do not think we
would find 50 people in that town but amazingly there are 600
mailboxes. I wonder why there would be 600 mailboxes for 50
people. I bet it has something to do with the fact that if someone
wants to get into the satellite grey market they have to have a post
office box in their name in the United States. I will bet that is the
answer.
That is the reality of what is going on, not only to people who are
adjacent to the border as my constituency is but to people further
north, in northern areas of British Columbia and in northern areas
of Alberta. That is what is going on in western Canada. Quite
frankly if it is not happening in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, the
prairies and Quebec, I would be very surprised. That is going on
because of the very bad, antiquated, out of touch, out of date
policies this government is having the CRTC enact. We are driving
people to become electronic Americans. That is the shame of it.
This is the same cabinet that made the decision not to interfere
with, not to question the decisions that were made with respect to
the direct to home satellite. This is the same cabinet which said:
``No, we cannot do that''. It is the same cabinet which on the same
day decided it was going to interfere for the second time with
digital audio services that had been proposed by Shaw Cable. It
defies logic to have people believe that the same cabinet which
would not overturn the boneheaded position of the CRTC with
respect to direct to home satellite service, on the same day by some
coincidence would interfere with a Canadian company trying to
bring digital audio services to Canadians on a Canadian service. It
defies logic for the cabinet to suggest that it could not do one but
could just happen to do the other.
(1835)
It is for that reason, if the heritage minister is serious and if she
is calling for a real CRTC review from top to bottom particularly
with respect to its mandate, we would be fully supportive of that.
However, I do have a caveat on that as well. The difficulty is that
these little mental droppings she gave to us about her thinking of
having a CRTC review, which I happened to see in ink in the
newspapers, indicated that she was going to have the CRTC review
itself.
Heaven forbid that we should get into another $2.5 million
Juneau boondoggle as we did with the CBC review. That was pretty
ridiculous when the budget for the CBC review I believe was struck
at around $900,000 and the Canadian taxpayer ended up paying out
over $2.5 million for it. I am not recommending that.
On the other side of the coin I also think it is very short sighted,
narrow minded and myopic on the part of the minister for her to
say: ``Why don't we have a review of the CRTC by the CRTC for
the CRTC so that it can tell me about the CRTC and what it should
be doing''. The minister does not seem to have a tremendous
amount of control over a lot of things, quite frankly.
Let me get back to the issue of Bill C-216. The reason I support it
and in spite of the fact that I see it as being a necessary little
band-aid on the larger issue of whether the CRTC should be doing
these things is that I do believe there has to be protection in our
society for tactics that can be used by people in a broadly based
commercial marketplace.
Let me make my position really clear on that. I do not believe in
overregulation in a narrow marketplace. The reason I do not
believe in overregulation in a narrow marketplace is that I do
believe in the basic assumption in business of caveat emptor, let the
buyer beware. Far too often we try to mandate with government
action things that could be better handled by the free market.
In this instance, there is a very broadly based marketplace and
there are seniors and people who require some protection.
Therefore, I would support and I am recommending to my
colleagues in the Reform Party to support Bill C-216 to afford that
protection to a broadly based marketplace.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
pleasure to enter into the debate on Bill C-216 introduced by my
colleague from the riding of Sarnia-Lambton. I applaud his
initiative in this matter.
Generally I recognize the importance of maintaining the cultural
industries within our country. I believe it is part of the mandate of
the CRTC to ensure that there is a cultural identity that goes from
sea to sea to sea. I also believe this is part of its mandate that the
CRTC attempts to do reasonably well.
Having said that, I also realize that the concept of dividing up
our country into areas where cable providers can function is a
method of granting monopolies. From someone who believes in
free competitive forces in the marketplace, I have initial
reservations about that process.
1323
I have also realized that there is a significant advantage to
Canadians rationalizing their marketplace to provide enough
revenue for some of these businesses to do research and
development. We are talking about convergence in the
communications businesses throughout Canada. Canada has been
able to compete internationally and allow the penetration in
telecommunications because we have taken these initiatives.
(1840)
When creating a monopoly it must be done with a certain degree
of caution. We do not want people to use their market areas in such
a way that they disadvantage their customers. This is the essence of
the bill. It attempts to address a practice which for some reason has
become acceptable to the cablevision industry but clearly is not
acceptable to everyday Canadians. Why do I say that?
Most of my riding is serviced by the Rogers cablevision network
system, on which I do a program once every two weeks. When this
process of negative option billing was introduced, there was an
immediate outrage among my constituents. It would appear that
governments had allowed the monopolistic part of the CRTC
regulatory environment to gouge them. It was not really any
different from a neighbourhood theatre sending a bill to someone
for a movie they have never seen or ever desire to see. This is what
we did to average Canadians.
It was not that Canadians were upset about the concept of
Canadian content. Maybe if somebody took the time to explain to
them the need for Canadian content, they would pay more
themselves directly or they would agree to support it through their
governmental system, as we do with the CBC, or possibly through
public broadcasting arrangements. The bottom line is that they
were not given the choice and that is what upset them.
I talked to my local cablevision company to see what was the
fallout to this, what actually happened after the smoke cleared.
Rogers said it was sorry and so on but the bottom line is that most
people, after having been given the option to send in a little card to
say they want out of the system, did not do that. In reality, the
negative option billing system was successful for Rogers and that
industry.
Why do we need negative option billing in the first place? It is
interesting to note a comment from Mr. Watson who was a director
at the time. He said: ``Outlawing the negative option sales
tactic''-I underline the word tactic-``would decrease
subscribers' acceptance rates, cut cablevision services expected
revenue and choke new channel source of cable fees and
advertising''. What he is saying is that this tactic was designed for
the express purpose of making people pay for things they would not
normally have. He is saying that if they were given this choice,
they probably would not do it.
We have set up a governmental process that is unacceptable to
the average Canadian. It is clear that the essence of this bill is to
address that wrong. For that reason, it is highly appropriate.
A number of other things were going on in the cablevision
industry at that time. There was a concept of consolidation. In my
area it used to be Maclean's. Maclean's became Rogers and Rogers
became a huge organization. Part of that consolidation cost a lot of
money. People got some money out of this. They were paid off and
so forth. How will that be financed for rationalization? It will be
done through a fee structure. That is exactly what this is all about.
The CRTC acquiesced in that situation. Possibly it saw the
rationalization of the cablevision market to be a long term goal for
Canada. Maybe it is. I have not really taken the time to study all
that.
(1845)
However, the bottom line was that Rogers, in particular, gave a
new definition to the word over-extended. Indeed, by subsequently
reducing its rates, I suspect it is having financial problems.
Nobody took the average Canadian into consideration. Some of
my colleagues have noted that at least two provinces already have
legislation in place that prohibits negative option billing. In
addition, the industry is attempting to develop the technology to
give recipients of cablevision the choice.
At the time, a Regina company had the facilities to give certain
numbers, approximately 9,000 of its 50,000 subscribers the option
to say no. If they did not want certain channels coming into their
houses they did not have to pay for it.
The industry realizes the importance of individual choice. As I
understand it, the industry is now working on the technology to
provide that very service. In four or five years from now people
will have the choice of channels. They recognize the importance of
consumer choice. It appears that the menace of negative option
billing is still within the system today. The purpose of this bill is to
eliminate it.
In conclusion, I believe this has told us that we must have
another way to sell Canadian content. Maybe we need to allow free
access to home environments for a period of time so that people
can become adjusted to new programming and learn to accept or
reject it. People cannot be charged for services they did not ask for.
It is just not fair within the existing marketing system.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will be very brief.
I want to take this opportunity on behalf of my colleagues in the
New Democratic Party to indicate our support for the bill that has
been proposed by the member for Sarnia-Lambton.
1324
As the member of Parliament for Burnaby-Kingsway, I recall
the tremendous sense of outrage and the anger of my constituents
at the time that Rogers Cable proposed the negative option billing.
There were many calls and letters. I spoke out at the time against
that option and urged the government to move forward with strong
and effective legislation. Therefore, I am pleased to see that this
bill is now before the House.
I also want to note that the New Democratic government of
British Columbia has also shown national leadership on the issue. I
know that members of the House and those watching would want to
know that the B.C. New Democratic government has shown
leadership and has moved on this front at the provincial level under
consumer legislation to ban negative option billing in the province
of British Columbia.
However, this is a matter that falls within federal jurisdiction
under broadcast regulations. I welcome the opportunity to support
the legislation and I hope members of the House will pass this bill.
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like the other
speakers in the debate on Bill C-216, I too received hundreds of
calls over a period of one week in my constituency office. This
issue is perhaps the one on which I have received the most calls
during my period as a member of Parliament. One resident of
Kitchener continues to call me every two or three days on this
topic.
The importance of this issue to my constituents is clear. I do not
intend to talk today about the questions which have been raised by
the member for Kootenay East or the member for Durham, which
were on technology and the CRTC regulations in general.
(1850 )
The questions of negative option billing and consumer choice
are important to me and to my constituents. Negative option billing
is not something new to the cable industry in Canada. It is a
practice which has been sanctioned and condoned by the CRTC.
With the rapid change in telecommunications and the way in which
television is delivered with black box decoders and satellite dishes,
the cable industry faces major difficulties in adjusting to market
changes.
We know fairly clearly what is in the cable companies' interests
in this regard, but we must ask ourselves what is in the interests of
the consumers.
When this issue first arose and when I heard about the intention
of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton to introduce this bill, I
immediately decided that I would second it when he asked me to do
so. I did so because of the interests of my consumers and also
because this practice raises other problems in the area of consumer
choice.
Some have spoken about Canadian content and have seen that
issue to be of particular difficulty. I do not share that concern. In
fact I talked to many of my constituents about their reaction to the
action by the Rogers cable system. It led some of them to be
concerned about Canadian content. Indeed, they even suggested
imposing higher Canadian content rules because of negative option
billing. In short, there were unintended consequences of the action
which impaired the support that Canadian cultural content has had
in Canadian broadcasting.
There is a danger. Canadian content is very important. The
CRTC, through its regulations, has accomplished some fairly
important things. It has promoted the Canadian music industry.
We have heard a great deal about Alanis Morissette recently. At
the Grammy awards Canadian entertainers did extremely well.
CRTC practices may have in fact created this very strong and
vibrant Canadian music industry.
Canadians, in general, support the cultural practices of previous
governments in supporting the CRTC and its regulations. However,
they do not support a policy which misleads consumers. As the
hon. member for Durham said a few moments ago, this is a tactic
which has developed. People take these channels without realizing
the additional cost. Even after the controversy ended, it turned out
that most did not opt out.
This approach undermines moral principles. The CRTC received
a lot of criticism. Rogers cable system admitted that this practice
would not be accepted. There was negative publicity about the
entire industry. The fact that negative option billing still exists is
unacceptable to all Canadians.
The government should listen to the statements which were
made by consumer groups. The Consumers' Association of Canada
was mentioned earlier. I would like to read into the record a
statement which was made by the executive director of the
Consumers' Association of Canada. She stated:
The new telecommunications environment is about competition and
choice-this Bill will help to make sure that Canadians are informed and willing
consumers of cable services.
Of course the bill she was talking about is Bill C-216.
The executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre
stated:
Bill C-216 drags the regulation of the Canadian cable industry into the
twentieth century. Governments have long recognized that consumers should
not pay for unsolicited goods. No matter what the motive is behind negative
option marketing, it is an abuse that must be corrected.
Further, Michael Janigan of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre
stated:
This Bill is an important precedent for the future, when multi-media program
services will be fighting for a niche on the Information Highway. Consumers
have every right to know what they are receiving and to obtain only what they
request.
1325
(1855 )
The consumers of Canada have spoken. The member for
Sarnia-Lambton has listened and I stand with him supporting the
interests of the consumers of Canada.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak on private member's Bill C-216, an act to amend the
Broadcasting Act with respect to broadcasting policy, put forward
by my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton.
In the week between Christmas and New Years in 1994, my
office, like those of my colleagues, received a deluge of calls from
Erie constituents who were concerned with their cable package and
the billing option that was to take effect on January 1, 1995. They
were angry and they had had enough. I certainly did not fault them.
They were right. Negative option billing is unacceptable.
I am in favour of Bill C-216 because it would ban negative
option billing. It would apply not only to cable companies but to
any other company that provided a distribution undertaking which
is defined under the Broadcasting Act as ``an undertaking for the
reception of broadcasting and the retransmission thereof by radio
waves or other means of telecommunications to more than one
permanent or temporary residence or dwelling unit or to another
such undertaking''.
Today we are looking at more players entering the market for
broadcasting services such as telephone and satellite companies
which will soon provide competition to cable companies. By
passing Bill C-216 we can ban negative option billing for new
programming services no matter who provides them.
My constituents were calling me because the cable companies
are federally regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission, commonly referred to as the
CRTC.
In 1994 the CRTC licensed six new English language and two
new French language specialty services. The commission's two
primary objectives in doing this were to strengthen the Canadian
presence in the Canadian broadcasting system, especially in
anticipation of an invasion by American direct to home satellite
services and to ensure that the widest possible selection of new
Canadian services would be available at a reasonable cost.
I support these objectives. I support strong Canadian content and
a strong Canadian presence in the entertainment industry. However,
this cannot be achieved by taking advantage of the Canadian
consumer. My constituents were not upset there were eight new
channels on January 1, 1995. They were angry because they would
automatically be billed for a service they did not request. They felt
manipulated through higher fees and the repackaging and
repositioning of channels-
The Deputy Speaker: I am very sorry to interrupt.
Unfortunately the time has expired.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon.
member is in the middle of his speech. We are wondering if he
could have the unanimous consent of the House to finish. Perhaps
the Speaker would not see the clock for the remainder of this
member's speech.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to let the
member have three more minutes to finish his speech, if that is
sufficient?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence and
that of my hon. colleagues.
In recent years Canadian producers have proved themselves to
be formidable broadcasters, able to compete at home and around
the world in the fields of drama and entertainment. Many of these
new specialty channels licensed by the CRTC offer excellent
programming and would have survived without having to be forced
on anyone. However, I am afraid that the consumer backlash did
little to enhance the popularity of the new specialty channels.
On January 5, 1995 a major cable company had partially
capitulated, apologizing for its mistake in not presenting the new
services as a separate discretionary package. It offered consumers
the choice of keeping only their current package of specialty
services at additional fees. However, the much disputed negative
option marketing scheme used to launch the new line-up remained
firmly in place, leaving the onus on the consumer to refuse the new
package.
This brings me to my role as a parliamentarian and a
representative of my constituents in this House. Some would argue
this is a consumer rights issue under the jurisdiction of the
provinces but provincial consumer laws do not apply to cable
companies which are clearly under federal authority.
I do not understand how the protection of the choice of Canadian
cable consumers is a matter outside of federal broadcasting
jurisdiction, as some have suggested. Section 5 of the federal
Broadcasting Act creates an obligation for the CRTC to regulate
and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with
a view to implementing the broadcasting policy set out in the act.
Proposed changes to section 3 of the Broadcasting Act would ban
the practice of negative option billing for new programming
services.
1326
(1900)
There is no doubt that over the next decade the cable industry
will change drastically. More and more consumers are beginning to
demand that they pay only for those channels they want. However,
I understand the technology to allow this is not to be realized until
the turn of the century. Thus television and the cable industry are
currently in a period of transition. Program selection is increasing
but the technology to give viewers real choice has not yet arrived.
In May 1994 the CRTC chairman acknowledged that television
consumers want more control: ``Consumers want, deserve and will
increasingly settle for nothing less than the maximum control
possible over which services they select and pay for. As a consumer
and the CRTC chairman, I agree 100 per cent with this goal''.
Cable television services in Canada are distributed either as part
of a basic service or on an discretionary basis. Basic cable service
is a standard package of services provided to all subscribers within
a cable company's service area. It consists of a number of
mandatory or priority Canadian programming services, including
the CBC English and French network services, local and regional
stations, provincial educational services, a community channel as
well as various optional services.
The proposed changes in my colleague's bill are timely because
commencing May 6 of this year the CRTC will consider licensing
more TV channels and all these new channels will be scrambling
for an audience. My constituents must be allowed to make a
positive choice to obtain these services. Some may not realize a
response is necessary or even possible. Some may inadvertently
forget. They do not want to have to call their cable company to say
stop these extra channels.
I criticize the negative option billing approach used to introduce
the new services on the grounds of fairness and consumers' right to
choose. Consumers should have the right to select the brand of
programming they want rather than having it imposed on them by a
paternalistic regulator and monopolistic industry.
Negative option marketing favours corporations and
disempowers consumers. The Broadcasting Act is too one sided in
requiring the CRTC to protect only Canadian cultural interest, not
consumer interest.
As MPs we have a golden opportunity to respond to Canadian
consumers who demanded that we put an end to negative option
billing for new programming services. Government have long
recognized that consumers should not pay for unsolicited goods.
No matter what the motive behind negative option marketing, it is
an abuse that must be corrected.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: The item is dropped to the bottom of the
order of precedence on the Order Paper, the time having expired.
1326
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, March 31, a profoundly important deadline for Canada's
medicare system, is approaching.
Earlier this month I asked a question of the Minister of Health
concerning the impact of NAFTA on Canada's medicare system. I
asked the minister to show some leadership with respect to some
very serious differences in interpretation of NAFTA and its impact
on the medicare system in Canada.
It was on March 13, the day I asked the question, that a legal
opinion was made public by Dr. Brian Schwartz, a respected
lawyer. He indicated that there are serious ambiguities in annex II
of the NAFTA agreement. He went on to note in his legal opinion
that there are a number of grey areas that exist in the health care
sector, and that U.S. providers and their federal government will be
exerting political and economic pressure on Canada and the
provinces to open up markets.
He went on to point out that United States trade representative
Mickey Kantor has issued an interpretation of annex II of the
NAFTA agreement that is very alarming because it opens wide a
tax on Canada's medicare system. Mickey Kantor said that if social
services are supplied by a private firm on a profit or not for profit
basis, chapter 11 and chapter 12 apply.
In other words, what he is saying is that the United States
considers Canadian not for profit health providers subject to the
full force of NAFTA's investment and services rule. That means
they are wide open to big American for profit corporations to move
in on those sectors.
(1905)
Much of Canada's health care system is delivered through the
non-profit sector. A large majority of our health delivery takes
place in the private sector through non-profit agencies such as
hospitals, labs, nursing homes, community clinics, regional health
boards and so on.
If our government and if the Minister of Health do not stand up
for Canadian medicare and do not reject this interpretation by the
United States trade representative vigorously, it is clear we will
open up the Canadian medicare system to U.S. corporate health
care giants. We know the power of these giants. They have taken on
Bill Clinton on health care reform.
1327
I support the B.C. minister of health, Andrew Petter, who has
shown leadership on this issue. I urge the Government of Canada to
show the same kind of leadership and to stand up and say we will
protect the Canadian medicare system against this kind of narrow
interpretation of the United States trade representative.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that we are
better than prepared on this and we will not shirk any of our
commitments and that medicare is one of the highest priorities of
the government. It will not be unprotected in NAFTA or open to
competition by the NAFTA signatories.
The federal government has been working for over a year with
the provinces to ensure the broadest possible protection for our
health system within the existing provisions of NAFTA.
In recent weeks the Minister of Health has been working very
closely with his colleagues, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the
Minister for International Trade, to clarify and resolve the issue.
Within NAFTA, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico each has its own
social service reservations entitled annex II which exempts health
and other social services from key NAFTA requirements such as
the most favoured nation or national treatment. This exemption
protects our health system. It means Canada and provincial
governments maintain the flexibility and control they need to
operate and decide what is best for the health system.
The exemption for health and other services applies to the extent
that these sectors exist for ``a public purpose''. Each of the NAFTA
partners must interpret the meaning of public purpose to the
situation in its own country. NAFTA does not make that definition.
The scope and coverage of annex II are being interpreted as
broadly as possible to provide maximum protection for Canada's
health system. The great majority of health services exist for public
service and are considered to fall within the exemption of annex II
reservation.
I know you are trying to get me to close, Mr. Speaker, but
perhaps you will allow me to make the point the hon. member
opposite so clearly wants to have made. Do I have the unanimous
consent of the House?
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I welcome the
opportunity to give unanimous consent to the member to clarify the
government's position with respect to Mickey Kantor's very
narrow interpretation.
The Deputy Speaker: My reading of the clock is that the
member's time has expired. Is there unanimous consent to let the
member have another 30 seconds to finish his answer?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I will try to address the government's
policy, which is what the member wants to hear. Canada's
interpretation of annex II includes the fact that the test of a public
purpose under NAFTA is not restricted to whether a health service
is wholly funded or insured by a provincial health insurance plan.
Annex II is the main protection for our health system. For health
services wholly funded by provincial health plans there is no
question of exemption under NAFTA. Under annex I, with its
March 31, 1996 deadline, there is also provision-
The Deputy Speaker: The time has now expired. The House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 7.09 p.m.)