CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 17, 1996
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 1583
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 1584
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1589
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1589
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1589
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1589
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1590
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1590
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1590
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 1593
Bill C-26. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1593
Bill deemed read the second time, considered by committeeand
reported with amendments 1593
Motion for concurrence in 13th report agreed to 1593
Bill C-15. Motion for third reading 1594
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1609
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1610
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 1622
1581
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 17, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As is our custom, we will
now sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's teenage suicide rate is alarmingly high
compared with other industrialized countries. From 1979 to 1991
suicide by young people from 15 to 19 doubled to 13.5 per 100,000,
making Canada third behind New Zealand and Finland. When this
occurs in a nation that is constantly rated as the world's best, we
must ask ourselves what has gone wrong.
I urge my fellow members of Parliament to become more aware
of this problem and to support the efforts of this government to turn
this tragic statistic around. Our efforts must reflect the need to
communicate a message of hope to Canada's youth. We must not
fail in our commitment to create jobs and to create a society where
hope for a better tomorrow is the trademark of our efforts.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on April 26, the Académie des grands Montérégiens will
pay tribute to five personalities of our great region, including
someone who is well known in Saint-Hyacinthe, Claude
Marchesseault.
In the last three decades, Mr. Marchesseault has been involved in
areas as diversified as economic development, recreation,
exceptional children, the agri-food industry, the arts, philanthropy
and municipal affairs, while at the same time holding an important
position at the Fédération des caisses populaires Desjardins.
Since its founding, the Académie des grands Montérégiens has
honoured a number of outstanding people from our region,
including Raymond Lévesque, Arlette Cousture, Juliette Huot,
François-Albert Angers, Yves Beauchemin and Louis Laberge.
I salute the invaluable contribution made to our community's
development by the indefatigable Claude Marchesseault, who
cannot be ignored and who has now joined the ranks of the great
men and women honoured by the Académie.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one
month from now Canadians will be asked to identify themselves by
race in the 1996 census. We have the option of classing ourselves as
white, Chinese, Asian, black, Arab, Filipino, Latin American,
Japanese, Korean, or other. We do not have the option of skipping
the question.
If an employer or a landlord demanded to know a Canadian's
race, they would bear the full weight of the human rights law which
prohibits racial discrimination and so they should. Yet incredibly
the federal government requires the very same racial identification
by law.
I would urge all Canadians to send a message to the federal
government that in Canada we believe in the equality of all
Canadians regardless of the country of their birth or the colour of
their skin. Identifying our ethnic origin as Canadian on question 19
of the census will tell this Liberal government that Canadians want
to be known as Canadians, nothing more and nothing less.
Census by race, what a disgrace.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices in the region recently soared to their
highest level since the gulf war. The average price in Ontario last
1582
Friday was over 58 cents per litre. That amounts to an increase in
just one week of as much as three cents a litre.
No doubt an unusually cold winter and low inventory at
refineries are contributing to the price hike. Yet most of the price
fluctuation at the pumps seems to have little to do with the
wholesale price of gasoline.
Even though there was no increase in gas taxes in last month's
budget, the price of gas is rising out of control. We must do
something to stop it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this week, Expro Chemical Products of Valleyfield
signed a major contract with the U.S. firm OEA Inc. The value of
this contract lies not only in the amount of money Expro will
receive but mainly in its new mandate.
This company, which used to specialize in the manufacturing of
explosives used mostly for defence purposes, has just been
awarded its first contract for a civilian application. Expro is now
responsible for supplying a propellent used in the air bag release
mechanism for 1997 American car models.
This is a great example of the sense of innovation and initiative
that drives Canadian businesses. Expro's example shows it is
possible to convert defence industries to civilian and peaceful uses.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian curlers are the best in the world. They proved this in
Hamilton last month.
(1405 )
On March 30 the Canadian women's team won the women's
World Curling Championships. The high powered and charismatic
women's team skipped by Marilyn Bodogh from the St. Catharines
Curling Club with vice Kim Gellard, second Corie Beveridge and
lead Jane Hooper Perroud did Canada proud.
On March 31 the Canadian men's team won the men's World
Curling Championships.
Friends, family and Canadian curling fans cheered our teams on
and shared in the joy of winning the worlds for Canada.
I know my colleagues in this House join me in congratulating
these outstanding Canadian athletes. Their talent and determination
are exemplary and we are proud of them as proud Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
fall, two Saint-Hubert residents decided to do something on their
own and start a business without asking for any government
assistance.
Ginette Piché et Colette Gagné took advantage of the change
from hospital care to ambulatory care to launch a company called
``Beau ménage, bons soins''.
Their company provides personal care and housecleaning
services to seniors and those who are convalescing or
incapacitated, according to their needs and their means.
The range of services offered helps people with health problems
to remain in their homes. In the current context, such a resource is
indispensable. The business is about providing good and
diversified services, which is a great way to improve the quality of
life of the elderly.
Initiatives such as this one are always welcomed. This is why I
want to congratulate Ginette Piché and Colette Gagné and urge
them to persevere in their endeavour.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday a senior citizen in my riding came into my
office very concerned and anxious about a letter he had received
from the Council of Canadians. Basically this letter was nothing
short of a scam and fear mongering against one of our most
vulnerable groups in society, our seniors.
By distorting and misrepresenting the true facts, this Council of
Canadians plays on the fears of our seniors and attempts to extort
money from them. This group wants the seniors of Canada to pay
for what they are entitled to get for nothing: a petition presented to
the government on behalf of seniors. Every member of Parliament
provides that service free of charge. I know from the past three
years in this House that we all present all constituents' petitions on
a regular basis.
This group, which professes to care about seniors' lack of
money, asks for money 10 times throughout its letter. And if they
cannot commit to paying monthly contributions to this group, then
$35, $50 or $75 now will protect their hard earned pensions.
The confidence men of old were pikers compared with this
group.
1583
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to the Hon. Justice David McDonald, a great
Canadian from Alberta who died on April 8 in Edmonton.
Justice McDonald's life was committed to the highest ideals of
public service. He served in the courts as a practising lawyer from
1957 to 1973. He was appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta in 1974 where he served until his appointment to the Court
of Appeal of Alberta in November 1995.
He was chairman of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain
Activities of the RCMP from 1977 to 1981. He also served as
president of the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice
from 1974 to 1977.
A Rhodes scholar and a jurist of uncommon intellect, Justice
McDonald was a humanist who influenced all those who had the
privilege to work with him.
We extend our sympathies to his wife Dorothy, his children
Jacqueline, Jonathan and Catherine.
Please join with me in honouring a great Canadian, the Hon.
Justice David McDonald.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on April 16, at 2.30 a.m., in this House of Commons, the
government of the day yielded to pressure from the Liberal Party.
The date was April 16, 1896. That was 100 years ago yesterday.
Nine days later, a general election was called for June 23. Today,
it is important to remember that, for Canada, the 1896 election
marked the beginning of a new era.
Wilfrid Laurier, who was born in Saint-Lin-des-Laurentides,
spent all his life in Arthabaska. He was the Leader of the
Opposition at the time. Two months later, he became Prime
Minister of Canada, the first of many Quebecers to do so.
At the time, Laurier said that Canada could accommodate more
than one race. He was referring to French and English Canadians.
Nowadays, would we talk about peoples instead of races?
However, Laurier also added-
(1410)
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after 20 years of service to the people of
Guelph-Wellington, Mike Henry is retiring as general manager of
the Guelph Chamber of Commerce.
To say that we will all miss Mike is an understatement. As the
Guelph Tribune recently said: ``He was a dedicated and sociable
ambassador for Guelph, who was also a diplomat in co-ordinating
the efforts of volunteers toward the chamber's many goals''.
Mike Henry has served our community well. His retirement is
well earned but I know his work throughout Guelph-Wellington
will be missed.
Mike, you have earned our respect, appreciation and gratitude.
May your retirement be as fulfilling and wonderful as was your
work for all of us in Guelph-Wellington.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
January 17, 1993, Mrs. Micheline Tremblay, who resides in the
riding of Rosemont, learnt that her son Karim, then three and a half
years old, had been abducted by his father and illegally taken to
Egypt, his father's country of origin.
In spite of three years of relentless efforts, Mrs. Tremblay never
saw her son again. Every legal recourse undertaken proved
virtually ineffective, because Egypt has not signed any
international convention or bilateral agreement with Canada on
international child abduction.
But Egypt could enter into such an agreement with Canada, as it
did with France. What is missing is Ottawa's political will to act on
this fundamental civil rights issue. I call upon the support of all
members of this House to demand that the Canadian government
remedy this situation and make sure that Karim is reunited with his
mother as soon as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week Clifford Olson sent several members of this House, myself
included, a sneering note which detailed the child killer's intent to
seek early release under section 745 of the Criminal Code.
1584
Olson's note to my office reads as follows: ``I'm coming back
Art. Quick, get section 745 repealed. Smile, sucker''. This note
was signed in type, Clifford Robert Olson, the beast of British
Columbia.
Section 745 allows criminals sentenced to life imprisonment the
eligibility for early release. Olson will make formal application for
his judicial parole review this August. In addition, police killer Roy
Glaremin will apply a second time this May for early release.
Fifty of the 60 murderers applying for early parole thus far have
had their eligibility period reduced, at least 18 of whom have had
their parole eligibility reduced to 15 years.
I call on the Minister of Justice to wipe the smirk off Olson's
face. End this insanity, repeal section 745 without delay.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, we were told
by the Prime Minister in August 1993 that he would honour all of
his promises within two years. We were also told by the new
heritage minister that if the GST were not abolished she would
resign.
The GST remains in place and we are still waiting for both to
keep their promises. Now the government says that harmonization
will honour an election vow to scrap the GST, but a few years ago
at least one member of the current cabinet saw harmonization as a
barrier to replacing the GST.
The exact words of the finance minister when he was running for
the Liberal leadership were:
There is some possibility that when we take power in 1992, the provinces will
have entrenched the GST in their sales tax regimes. It would be extremely
difficult to undo in that instance, but-I am committed to scrapping the GST-
This is from
De Novo, a publication that was circulated at the
Liberal leadership convention.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Winnipeg North.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
The University of Waterloo deserves congratulations for
establishing the Stanley Knowles Visiting Professorship in
Canadian Studies at St. Paul's college, a program that highlights
the link between social justice issues and government policies.
This professorship is most appropriate because the life work of
Stanley Knowles has been the epitome of individual freedom,
democracy, justice and a sense of community and internationalism.
It is timely because these issues continue to challenge the world
community, including our diverse Canadian society.
Indeed I am honoured to be serving as the member of Parliament
for Winnipeg North which includes part of his former riding.
Mastering parliamentary procedures and placing people before
partisanship, Mr. Knowles was a very strong voice of social justice
in this House for decades. He is a living model for all
parliamentarians.
(1415)
Alone, it would be difficult to reach his heights. Together, we can
succeed in advancing the cause.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I quote:
``It would be worth the money if it was for Princess Di, but it is not
worth a dime for Prince Charles. Let's give him a chocolate bar and
tell him to stay home''.
That crude remark from the member for Edmonton Southwest is
about the time honoured tradition of covering the cost of a royal
visit when a member of the Royal Family accepts Canada's
invitation.
That crude remark speaks volumes about Reform's commitment
to cleaning up its extremist image, to equality for all people, to
respect for Canada's monarchy and to restoring civility to politics
in Canada.
I challenge the leader of the third party to tell Canadians if
Reform's respect for women goes beyond the physical. Tell us if
these kinds of public attacks on Canada's monarchy are a reflection
of Reform policy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Referendum Act is one of the most
forward-looking public consultation legislation in the democratic
world, and there is no equivalent legislation at the federal level.
Several Liberal members knew full well that, when federalist
forces from outside Quebec showed up for their illegal rally in
Montreal on October 27, they were breaking the law. Instead of
condemning this legislation, the government whip should use it as
a model to enhance the democratic process at the federal level.
Liberal members seem to think they can do anything they please
in the name of national unity. They break the law, act like martyrs,
play holier than thou or complain of harassment when Quebec's
director general of elections calls them to account for their rally
activities in Montreal.
1585
The whip and his accomplices should be reminded that, on
October 27, their illegal tactics gave millions of Quebecers the
feeling of being besieged.
_____________________________________________
1585
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday in this House, the new Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said, and I quote:
-bilingual or trilingual democracies have measures to ensure that their
language communities will live together in harmony. It is what we have in
Canada. We are very proud of it.
In the flurry of attempts to come up with a vocabulary more
suited to Canada's constitutional reality, are we to understand that
he thinks the concept of a Quebec people to be nothing more now
than a language community?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the official opposition seems to want to play
dictionary games. What counts, and I have been saying this since I
arrived in this House, is substance. Substance is what counts.
And the substance that Quebecers want to keep for the most part
is a Quebec identity and a Canadian identity; a Quebec pride and a
Canadian pride; a Quebec solidarity and a Canadian solidarity.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the minister wants to play, I am going to talk scrabble.
There is a six letter word in scrabble, spelled ``verity''. This is what
we in the opposition are after.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said himself that
there is a reality beyond words. Would he tell us whether, in reality,
he thinks, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that
Quebecers constitute a people?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, whom I thank for his
questions, seems, surprisingly enough, not to understand one thing.
It is an extraordinary opportunity in today's world to be born a
Quebecer and a Canadian. I am a Quebecer and a Canadian and I
would fight with every means democracy puts at my disposal
anyone who tried to take away my Canadian identity.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, you will understand that, through my dealings with the
minister, I will certainly pass politics 101, but I am not so sure
about him.
Shifting from the reality of a Quebec people to the concept of a
distinct society-Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport would
learn something too if he listened. Would you ask him to be silent?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: It is the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sure all members would
like to hear both the question and the answer.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Minister of
Transport. It is the Minister of Human Resources Development
who never listens and never understands anything in this House.
Let me get back to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
who, while he does not answer, at least listens. I would ask the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs if he would acknowledge,
after switching from the reality of the Quebec people to the idea of
a distinct society, to that of the homeland of the French language
and culture and finally to that of linguistic community, whether the
Liberal Party of Canada's search for new terminology continues to
be with the intent of diminishing the status and the role of the
people of Quebec within Canada?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to finally be able to express the truth
about the status and the role of the people of Quebec, because it is
not being expressed by the opposition and never will be.
The people of Quebec enjoy the greatest possible autonomy
within Canada as regards their own institutions. Of all the
federations in the world, it would be difficult to find one more
decentralized than Canada. Canada's provinces have a higher status
than American states, Swiss cantons or German l«nder. This is
what Quebecers enjoy. They also enjoy Canada.
We are not saying that everything is perfect. Things have to be
improved. The reality of Quebec in Canada and in North America
must be recognized, but to move from that fact to endlessly
describing Quebec as suffering to the point where only such an
extreme solution as secession will suffice is stretching the truth to
the breaking point.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There seems to be a lot of
energy on both sides of the House. This is fine, but, I would ask for
everyone's co-operation in making questions and answers a little
shorter.
1586
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I am sick and tired of hearing the minister
tell us that we Quebecers are lucky to enjoy our institutions within
Canada. That is appalling.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can go ahead and try,
as he has yesterday and today, to dissociate himself from the
Liberal Party of Canada's resolution adopted this past weekend, but
the fact remains that he voted in favour of this demeaning concept.
Will the minister admit that it is a cause for alarm that a concept
as important as the one adopted by the Liberal Party for its new
orientation has been endorsed by the Prime Minister, without the
minister responsible for this having any opportunity to say
anything about its content beforehand?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, in his preamble, the hon. member spoke of
``we Quebecers''. I would remind him that I am as much a
Quebecer as he is, and that no one here has the right to speak as if
he were the one and only spokesperson for Quebecers. I feel
obliged to remind him that Quebec is a pluralistic society.
(1425)
Second, concerning the motion on which I voted, I would repeat,
for what I believe is the third time in this House, that what it says is
that the Liberal Party of Canada supports the enshrinement in the
Constitution of the principles recognized in the Parliamentary
resolution defining the distinct society, which was adopted in
December, 1995. That is precisely why I voted in favour of the
resolution.
Third, the Liberal Party of Canada is a highly democratic party.
Sometimes democracy has such surprises in store for us, and we
shall always be most pleased to acknowledge and accept, for what
they are worth-I repeat, for what they are worth-the lessons on
democracy offered us by a party whose leader was elected by the
astronomical number of 150 members, and one of whose leading
members was quoted as saying that the choice of a leader did not
concern the public.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is not my fault that the minister felt excluded from the
``we'' in my reference to Quebecers.
What credibility can be given to a new minister of
intergovernmental affairs, when it took the unanimous
denunciation of the National Assembly to reveal to us the full
extent of his feelings on this proposition which, just hours before,
he was trying to sell us on right here?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am delighted with the hon. member's
commitment to never again identify himself and his party as the
sole Quebecers. That in itself is very good news.
Second, and I have always said the same thing about this, there
may be disagreements on the choice of words, but what counts is
the substance. I would advise the hon. member to go easy on
ridiculing the people of Quebec, who have always acted from the
heart, sometimes less than successfully but always admirably, in
seeking paths toward reconciliation, so that they might preserve
Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of National Defence to
explain to the House exactly what is his understanding of
ministerial accountability, particularly in relation to events
surrounding the Somalia inquiry.
We received the weakest answer that any minister has given to a
question in this House since the 35th Parliament began, so we want
to try again.
According to the doctrine of ministerial accountability, as
articulated by a former Liberal Speaker of this House, ministerial
responsibility extends to situations where there is a serious
dereliction of duty by an official of the minister.
Does the Minister of National Defence accept that the attempted
cover-up of data relevant to the Somalia inquiry constitutes a
serious dereliction of duty by somebody in his department?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the
leader of the Reform Party thought the answer was weak. Perhaps
that reflected the weakness of the question.
The question cannot be answered because all of the assumptions
in the question are totally false.
I have to reiterate that a commission of inquiry is looking into all
the matters that concern the hon. member so much. That
commission of inquiry should be allowed to do its work. We should
not be playing a political game in the House of Commons that
could injure the process of justice, that could further injure the
reputation of the men and women who serve in the armed forces
and perhaps even injure the reputation of Parliament.
(1430 )
I would ask the hon. member to confine his questions to what is
relevant. The relevant questions to be asked are those that will be
faced by the inquiry and to appreciate that the inquiry should do its
job to the fullest extent possible.
1587
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was asking about dereliction of duty. I was not referring
to the events that specifically gave rise to the Somalia inquiry.
That occurred under another government and led to the
establishment of this inquiry. That is not the dereliction of duty
I am talking about.
I am referring to the attempted cover-up of data relevant to the
Somalia inquiry, a cover-up that occurred under this government
and under this minister. I am referring particularly to the alleged
scheme by the public affairs branch of DND under General Boyle
to rename, hide and even destroy important Somalia documents.
I ask the minister again. Does he accept that this attempted
cover-up constitutes a serious dereliction of duty by officials
responsible to him in the department?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the
hon. member is so concerned about the public affairs issue. Last
week the commission chief, Justice Létourneau, said that he would
set aside two or three weeks to look at this specific question. He
starts those hearings on Monday. That is where all the questions
should be answered. That is where all the evidence should be
placed, not in the House of Commons.
The hon. member talks about dereliction of duty. If he wants to
talk about dereliction of duty I will, but of the dereliction of duty of
him and his colleagues.
Yesterday the hon. member made a grave allegation on the floor
of the House and went outside where parliamentary immunity was
no longer present and that allegation evaporated. His defence critic
has had so many positions on the inquiry that his credibility has
evaporated.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley
attacked and made allegations about CSIS some weeks ago and that
evaporated. The trend is clear, the Reform Party will evaporate in
the next election.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if these remarks constitute the minister's understanding of
ministerial accountability, no wonder his department is in a mess
and no wonder he is failing.
This minister was the Minister of National Defence when the
military hierarchy initially tried to whitewash this whole Somalia
affair. He was the Minister of National Defence when these vital
documents were tampered with. He was the Minister of National
Defence when his officials deliberately tried to block inquiries to
the Somalia inquiry.
Whether the minister likes it or not, the buck stops with him. I
ask him one more time: Does he accept responsibility for any
wrongdoing that the Somalia inquiry determines took place while
he was Minister of National Defence?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has become
patently obvious that the hon. leader of the Reform Party has never
read the terms of reference of the Somalia inquiry. The inquiry is to
look into cover-up. The inquiry is to look into the destruction of
documents. The inquiry is to determine if there is wrongdoing.
That is the forum, a neutral place with three independent observers,
not a partisan inquisition on the floor of the House of Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In 1993, Corporal David Gunther from Quebec died in Bosnia.
Once again, the department of defence found a way to come up
with two conflicting stories to explain to his family how he had
died.
In the first statement dated June 18, 1993, DND said Corporal
Gunther had been killed by fragments from a mortar shell that blew
up near his vehicle, while a second statement dated the same day
listed the cause of death as an anti-tank missile that made a direct
hit on his vehicle.
How does the minister explain once again his department's habit
of coming up with two different stories?
(1435 )
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot discuss
individual cases publicly because that would contravene the
Privacy Act. However, if the hon. member is giving me notice of a
question that really should be put down on the Order Paper I will
get him an answer in due course.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do
not appreciate the minister's answer at all. But, as long as a search
is on, can the minister tell us why, once again, important
documents have mysteriously disappeared from the armed forces'
filing cabinets, as in the Somalia affair?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just said, I
will take the question as notice and give the hon. member an
answer.
1588
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
On October 24, 1995 at 8.40 a.m., Nancy Fournier, a clerk of
DND's public affairs branch, was interviewed by the military
police about her refusal to destroy documents related to the
Somalia affair. Let me quote: ``She can recall on numerous
occasions being told to destroy files but specifically recalls a senior
officer saying to her `had you got rid of this stuff like I told you this
wouldn't be happening now'''.
According to the commission counsel on Monday they said: ``the
minister and the department did not deem it necessary to go any
further''. Why not?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon.
member and the Reform Party is doing is absolutely reprehensible
and it is contemptuous-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, it is contemptuous of the three
people who are charged with heading this inquiry.
Justice Létourneau has set aside two or three weeks on this
specific case. Everybody concerned, including the chief of defence
staff, will have an opportunity to make their views known and to
give their points of view. Then people can judge accordingly.
For the hon. member to read selective quotes from certain
documents into the record, some of which may be germane to that
investigation, to create a certain impression is absolutely and
totally unacceptable. I would say it is unparliamentary and it is
even un-Canadian.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to twist this, as the Liberals do
so well, and is shirking his responsibility as a minister of the
crown.
Canadians and armed forces personnel are tired of this minister's
lacklustre performance.
I will state again, ``he did not deem it necessary to go further''.
The minister had to know that senior officials at DND were defying
the minister's own order of a year ago to turn over documents to the
Somalia commission.
How can the minister continue in his job knowing that the
officials at DND defied his orders?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is becoming so incoherent he is choking on his rhetoric.
By and large I answered that question in the first response.
The hon. member talks about morale in the armed forces. Let me
tell him and his colleagues-I am sure that his colleagues have had
the same calls-that members of the armed forces and their
families have been outraged by the conduct of the opposition on
this matter.
It is the opposition that is trying to discredit the armed forces and
undermine the morale of the armed forces.
This matter should be dealt with in a calm and rational manner
before the inquiry that members in the Reform Party sometimes
support. They support it one week, they support it another week
and in between they are not so sure, they want it wound down. They
have no credibility on this issue whatsoever.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as we can see, the minister of defence is easily offended
when we ask him questions on what goes on in his department.
Earlier, in response to my colleague from Charlesbourg, he took
offence at being asked about events that call into question our
armed forces' credibility and, above all, his own credibility and
leadership. He has just done the same thing.
(1440)
When the minister of defence mentions families that, in his
opinion, are outraged by the opposition's attitude, he should
perhaps consider the members of Corporal Daniel Gunther's
family, who were told by the Information Commissioner of Canada
that documents were missing from the corporal's file and that he
could not explain why these documents were still missing. This is
strangely reminiscent of the Somalia affair and it would be in the
minister's interest to give this some serious consideration.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member has evidence germane to the inquiry he should submit it to
the inquiry, not read it into the record here.
It is quite obvious by the bluster we have just heard that the Bloc
Quebecois has joined the inquisition of the hon. member for
Calgary West. Perhaps if the shoe fits they should wear it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is all the members of this House and all Canadians who
may soon be outraged by the minister's unacceptable attitude.
1589
My question is a very simple one. The Information
Commissioner of Canada can give the minister all the answers he
wants. But would it not be normal for the minister of defence, who
is supposedly responsible for the Canadian Forces, to know what
goes on in his department and why some people routinely destroy
and hide documents? He should know this, if he were truly
responsible.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting
to listen to the hon. member when he claims to be speaking on
behalf of all Canadians. This is interesting coming from a
separatist.
[English]
It is interesting that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has joined
in a common front with Reform, a front to undermine the inquiry
and the judicial process to look into this very serious matter.
Canadians want answers. The government wants answers. We
will not get the answers from this line of questioning. We will get
the answers from an impartial commission which is doing its job
and doing it well.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
foreign affairs minister feigned outrage that Reform would ask
questions about UN Ambassador Bob Fowler.
However, I remind him there have been clouds over Mr. Fowler
for over two years. I remind him Mr. Fowler was deputy minister to
the present defence minister, deputy minister during the Somalia
affair. He was hustled out of town on December 23, 1994. He is a
well connected Liberal.
Will the minister not agree that the allegations raised by the
media, by former Prime Minister Kim Campbell and by Colonel
Geof Haswell constitute a serious cloud of controversy that must be
dealt with immediately?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me first clarify that I was not feigning indignation; I
really was upset by the hon. member's remarks.
To suggest that being a deputy minister of defence, while it is a
very difficult job, is somehow the reason why someone should be
asked to be pulled back from a diplomatic post simply does not
stand up to much credibility.
As we have repeated many times, the reality is there have been
allegations made. I have not yet had the pleasure of reading Ms.
Campbell's book. I may never have the pleasure of reading her
book; in fact, I am almost sure I will not have the pleasure of
reading her book. However, it is an allegation.
As the Minister of National Defence has explained many times,
we have set up an inquiry to look into all allegations, to ensure that
all information is given, to make sure all testimony is heard and
that we will not prejudge any of the results of that inquiry.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are not talking
about some clerk here. We are talking about Canada's
representative to the world at the UN. This guy was around as a
DND deputy minister for seven years. He is a Liberal friend. It is
not enough to say that Mr. Fowler has not been proven guilty.
To do his job and to be sure Canada is not undermined at the
UN-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. It is 2.45 p.m. and I
still have indications from many members who would like to ask
questions. I ask that we shorten the preambles and get to the
question.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, why will the minister not do
the right thing and put Canada's interests higher on his priority list
than defending a well connected Liberal appointee and recall Mr.
Fowler until these allegations are cleared up?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as is so often the case, the Reform Party tries to intrude its
own somewhat undercover form of politics in the debate of the
House.
Mr. Fowler is a long time public servant. He has had no
affiliation with any party as far as I know. He has worked in a
number of posts with great distinction. He is continuing to play that
role at the United Nations where he was fundamentally responsible
in helping put together a Haitian rescue force which has helped the
island. He has represented us effectively in the reform of the United
Nations. He is responsible for providing a new budgetary formula
for the United Nations. He is doing his job well.
The hon. member should not be so quick to dismiss the
fundamental principle this country stands for, that one is innocent
until proven guilty.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The government's carelessness in the Tran Trieu Quan matter
has gone on for too long. The day before last, in an about-face
designed to give the impression it is acting on this matter, the
government asked Vietnamese authorities to demand that Paul
Morgan be extradited. Just last week however, they claimed the
matter was in the hands of Mr. Quan's counsel.
Given that the government is dragging its feet in this matter and
failed to act until a reporter tracked down Paul Morgan, could the
1590
minister tell us what the government and the RCMP were doing
during all that time?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that we share the member's
concern about the serious situation Mr. Quan is in. But it is
incorrect to say that the government did not act on this matter. We
did take several steps.
The Prime Minister took the matter up with the prime minister of
Vietnam. The former Minister of Foreign Affairs also raised the
question. I myself discussed the matter with the ambassador.
This week, the Minister of Finance, who was in Vietnam,
expressed our government's concerns to the deputy prime minister
of Vietnam and asked that Mr. Quan be released. Meanwhile, I
wrote Mr. Christopher requesting co-operation on the part of
Vietnamese authorities in sharing information. At that time, We
spoke with Mr. Morgan's lawyers with a view to getting the
information and sharing it with the minister.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, around
noon today, one of the foreign affairs minister's own colleagues
stated that the government would not act.
Now that it has been revealed that CIDA recently granted $7.5
million in assistance to Vietnam through the good offices of
lobbyist Marc Lalonde, does this not prove that trade relations
clearly take precedence over human rights in the eyes of the
Government of Canada, even when the rights in question are those
of a Canadian citizen?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the position of the Canadian government has been to
ensure that the assistance it gives goes to help the people of
Vietnam in their development.
(1450)
I do not think the hon. member or the members of the Bloc
Quebecois would want to deny the kind of assistance that helps the
health, safety and security of people who are coming out of a
serious war situation and who are trying to rebuild their country.
It is important we dispel many of the myths the hon. member and
others have been trying to perpetrate that action has not been taken
on behalf of Mr. Quan. There has been a wide variety of
representations. We have been working with Vietnamese
authorities and American authorities to get the information.
We have made every effort possible to ensure that his rights
within prison are demanded. We made the representations as
recently as this week. We will continue to work on behalf of all
Canadians abroad to ensure their rights are protected wherever they
may be.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Given the tragic situation and the human suffering caused to the
Lebanese people by an occupation force, will the minister reaffirm
Canada's position regarding UN resolution 425, which provides
that Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty must be
ensured?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
The situation in Lebanon is indeed extremely serious. We
support Lebanon's territorial integrity and we are asking that
resolution 425 of the UN security council be implemented, in the
context of peace negotiations.
We have also asked for a ceasefire in that region. In light of the
current terrorist acts and conflict, next Monday, I will present
Canada's positions at the Luxembourg meeting, asking for a
reduction in the conflict, as well as for the protection of human
rights in the Middle East.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans is holding a gun to the heads of commercial
fishermen in British Columbia. He has told them they must make a
decision on license buy back before June but he will not set
allocations until the fall at the earliest.
How can fishermen in British Columbia make rational decisions
about their future in the fishery unless they know beforehand the
rules of the game? Will the minister extend the buy back offer until
after the allocations are set, as fishermen have demanded?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The
program is a voluntary program recommended by the industry,
which is in great difficulty. I do not think he would dispute that.
The proposals were made by the industry as a result of a report,
70 stakeholders and a report of 27 recommendations.
In an industry going through so much difficulty, incurring such a
loss of money, a potential loss of $10 million this year, we have to
start somewhere. We started here. Many people are in support of
this program. In response to the hon. member's question,
regrettably not.
1591
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at least we got
a straight answer.
The federal government is currently reallocating the salmon
resource in British Columbia through native land claim
agreements, as seen in the Nisga'a agreement in principle. The
overwhelming majority of British Columbians object to a racially
based, separate commercial fishery. The native only fishery is not
supported by either the Constitution or the decision of Canada's
courts.
Will the minister not admit he is reallocating the resource at a
time when he is asking the commercial fishing industry to
downsize by 50 per cent? Will he abandon this bizarre policy of
two commercial fisheries in British Columbia separated by race?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have to refresh the hon. member's memory on what
really took place.
In the consideration of the Nisga'a agreement in co-operation
with all the partners in the resolution of an issue ongoing for 100
years, it was agreed the food fishery would stay in the Nisga'a
agreement in principle and that the commercial harvest for the
Nisga'a nations would give the Nisga'a less than they would have
if they had ratcheted it up in succeeding years. It was put in the
agreement in principle not specifically as commercial fishing but
to be included in a harvest agreement to be looked at specifically.
(1455)
There are not separate fisheries based on racial considerations. I
think it improper that the hon. member would even suggest that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, intereted parties
from the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes regions continue to
appear before the standing committee on fisheries and oceans to
oppose the new fee structure for coast guard services which the
Minister of Fisheries wants to impose. Since his appointment, the
minister has always refused to meet those affected by the new fees.
How can the minister explain his systematic refusal to meet
these interested parties, given that formal requests were made to
him, among others by the Government of Quebec and by five
presidents of aluminum producers in Canada, which have sales
totalling $4 billion and which provide over 45,000 direct and
indirect jobs? How can the minister justify his refusal to meet these
people?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this matter is before the committee, but I will answer
the question.
In consideration of this matter the coast guard and the
consultations, of which there were more than 350, looked at four
different systems: port specific, national, east-west, and east-west
and Laurentian. There have been many iterations but each iteration
results in a refinement process.
The process now in place is the best process to address a fair and
equitable balance among all those who will pay the marine service
fee in response to the services provided by the Government of
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this does not
answer the question, but since the minister wants to talk about the
four different systems which he intends to create, I will give him a
chance to explain what is going on in his neck of the woods. Why
does the minister give preferential treatment to his province by
granting substantial rebates for navigation aids to ships that will
dock in Newfoundland, at the expense of the other regions,
including the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, which already
absorb half of the costs related to navigation aids?
How does the minister explain that? He creates three or four
different systems and subsidizes his province in the process.
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is absolute tommy-rot and the hon. member
knows it.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Deputy Prime Minister said: ``It is the policy of the Liberal
government to protect the Canada pension plan for seniors and its
viability in the long term''.
What right does she have to say she can protect the Canada
pension plan and maintain seniors' incomes before she has the
approval from the taxpayers to increase CPP premiums from 5 per
cent of their income to 15 per cent of their income?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that nearly
everyone who has looked at the Canada pension plan agrees on: it
has to be reorganized to ensure it is sustainable.
1592
The process put in place to evaluate the future of the CPP is one
that we look forward to the hon. member and his party
participating in. Canadians have a right to know what the
government believes should be done with the Canada pension plan.
However, it would be very important to know what the third party
feels should be done in order to protect future income for senior
citizens.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we wanted
an answer from the Liberal government as to what it will do to
protect the seniors and their incomes while the Canada pension
plan continues to be underfunded and requires support.
When the Deputy Prime Minister was standing here yesterday
saying she would protect seniors until such time as the Canada
pension plan premiums have been increased dramatically, how can
she guarantee these seniors' incomes will be protected?
(1500 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think every member of the
government understands the importance of protecting the Canada
pension plan. Every member of the government understands the
dangers of any plan that is subject to the kind of changing
demographics that are involved in Canadian society.
The process that has been initiated of which I am sure the hon.
member is aware is one that will provide an opportunity for
Canadians who have an interest in the matter to express their views.
As much as the hon. member would like to know the views of the
government, which this process will allow to come forward, I know
we are all waiting with bated breath to know not only the views of
the hon. member as to the future of the Canada pension plan, but
also the views of his party on how it should be financed.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Industry.
Our government is committed to fostering a new partnership
with small and medium size businesses which will create even
more jobs. How has the recent launch of Strategis and other
initiatives which give businesses access to the information
highway created a new business environment in Canada?
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, Strategis is an information age tool to help particularly
small and medium size enterprises in Canada engage in a process
of developing technology, engaging in international trade and
creating jobs and economic opportunity for Canadians.
The hon. member and members from both sides of the House
will want to encourage small businesses in their areas to connect to
the Strategis web site which is the largest business information web
site on the Internet. It is where they can find everything from
33,000 licensable technologies to 50,000 company profiles,
companies they can trade with, suppliers, partners, joint ventures,
and sources of trade opportunities elsewhere in the world.
The hon. members in the Reform Party are concerned about
time. This is a real time saver for small business.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Industry.
It was brought to my attention a couple of weeks ago that the
Minister of Industry contacted the MP from an abutting riding in
my area and asked him to submit a list of names for the census
taking. When I called the minister's office and questioned this, he
stated: ``Send your names in. Send them to Halifax. You do not
send them to my office''.
There are two lists, a and b. I was told my list could not be used
until list a was used up at the minister's office.
How can the Minister of Industry justify such a political
patronage system when he and his government ran on jobs, jobs,
jobs for all Canadians?
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, I am glad I did not leave at three o'clock.
I remind the hon. member that it was the Mulroney government
in 1984 that ran on jobs, jobs, jobs and it only got two of them in
the last election. Had the member been in the House in the weeks
before the Easter break she would have heard my assurance that if
she had names which she wished to submit to Statistics Canada for
census representatives, we would ensure they were submitted.
If she has some problem with that she should certainly follow it
up with me. I will be glad to investigate this because I did give her
that assurance.
1593
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): For some time now, the
House has been paying tribute to people who have greatly
contributed to Canadian life. It is our way to celebrate Canadian
excellence and success.
[English]
Today we are honoured to receive some of this country's most
distinguished women athletes. These women have represented us in
national and international competitions. They have broken records
and have won Olympic medals for Canada. They are symbols of
excellence and sources of inspiration for Canadians.
(1505 )
They are seated in the gallery now. While I introduce them I ask
you to please hold your applause until they stand together:
Cross-country skiers Shirley and Sharon Firth; gymnast Lori Fung;
figure skater Karen Magnussen; curlers Marcia Gudereit, Jan
Betker and Sandra Peterson; speed skater Sylvia Burka; skier
Lucille Wheeler-Vaughan; swimmer Joanne Mucz-Hainey; judoist
Tina Takahashi; skier Anne Heggtveit-Hamilton; shooter Linda
Thom; cross country skier and kayaker Sue Holloway; skier Betsy
Clifford-Higgins; track and fielder Diane Jones-Konihowski;
synchronized swimmer Michelle Cameron-Coulter; and marathon
swimmer Vicki Keith-Munro.
Please join me in welcoming these remarkable women who have
made outstanding contributions to Canadian sport and who have
honoured our country by their achievements.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): On behalf of our Speaker, I
am only too pleased to invite all the members to room 216-N, the
Speaker's salon, for a reception with our guests.
_____________________________________________
1593
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's responses to 48 petitions.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 13th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
and the Standing Committee on Health and the associate
membership of various committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this 13th report later this day.
* * *
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-26, an act respecting the
oceans of Canada.
(1510 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Could the minister possibly
indicate if in fact the bill is in the same form as it was at the time of
prorogation?
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I do wish to state that this bill is
indeed in the same form as Bill C-98 of the first session of the 35th
Parliament at the time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be
reinstated as provided in the special order adopted on March 4,
1996.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair is satisfied that
this bill is in the same form as Bill C-98 was at the time of
prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996,
the bill is deemed to have been read the second time, considered by
the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and reported with
amendments.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 13th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented
earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
1594
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present two petitions to the
House.
The first petition comes from Edmonton, Alberta. The
petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that
managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, comes from Sarnia, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House
that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability. Specifically, fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risk associated with alcohol consumption.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present and
support a petition on behalf of two dedicated constituents, Virginia
Uhran and Dianne Acri, concerning the child labour situation in
Pakistan.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact sanctions against
Pakistan by banning the importation into Canada of carpets and
other products produced by child labour.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
also my privilege and duty pursuant to Standing Order 36, to place
a petition in this House signed by constituents from across the
greater Toronto area.
The petitioners claim that whereas Taiwan has dramatically
improved its record on human rights and has held free elections in a
multi-party system and has conducted its first direct presidential
election on March 23, 1996, the petitioners urge and if necessary
facilitate the Government of China to enter into meaningful
dialogue with the Government of Taiwan at the highest levels such
as through their respective foreign ministries with an eye toward
decreasing tensions and resolving the issue of the future of Taiwan.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
1594
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1515)
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-15, an act to amend, enact and repeal certain
laws relating to financial institutions be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-15 at
third and final reading in the House. This is the sort of workaday
legislation that may lack drama but remains vitally important to
Canada because it will enhance the safety and soundness of the
country's world class financial system.
May I begin by reminding hon. colleagues that this legislation is
the product of extensive consultation. I would like to take this
opportunity to again extend the government's thanks to the many
industry participants and other stakeholders that provided such
constructive and insightful advice.
[Translation]
I would also like to thank the Standing Committee on Finance
for having decided to hold hearings on the bill during the summer
recess. The comments gathered by the committee constituted
invaluable preliminary work prior to the clause by clause study of
this major piece of legislation. We can rest assured that the bill we
are going to pass will serve the best interests of consumers,
financial institutions, our constituents, and the Canadian economy
as a whole.
[English]
There is no question that sound, secure financial institutions are
a fundamental requirement for national well-being. As I said at the
start, Canada is blessed with a world class system. The financial
sector is very much a part of a world of dynamic and dramatic
accelerating change driven by new technology, globalization and
new customer demands. All these factors culminate in heightened
1595
competition. That is why we are moving ahead with the measures
contained in Bill C-15.
This legislation is timely not because the system suffers from
any critical weakness. It does not. But to make sure we maintain a
dynamic, competitive financial sector and regulatory system we
must respond to market trends and recent experiences without
unnecessary delay. Bill C-15 will do this.
Let me emphasize that these are not patchwork, band-aid
measures. They flow from a series of basic principles outlined in
the white paper the government issued over a year ago. These
principles include the following: first, that ownership of financial
institutions is a privilege, not a right. Second, early intervention in
and resolution of institutions experiencing difficulty should occur.
Third, that financial institutions must operate with sufficient
incentives to solve their problems in a timely manner. Fourth, there
must be appropriate transparency and accountability in the system.
We have discussed the details of this legislation at some length
in committee and the House. Today I simply want to remind us all
of some of the more important changes that the House should
approve.
First, the bill establishes an enhanced system of early
intervention on behalf of troubled institutions. The legislation will
allow the office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to
take control of a troubled institution earlier than at present. It also
provides greater transparency in the supervisory process by
establishing guides to supervisory intervention. The intent here is
clear, concrete and constructive.
Early resolution of an institution's difficulties is the best way to
prevent substantial losses to depositors, policyholders or creditors
and potentially to shareholders.
This legislation states clearly that if an institution is facing
difficulties, owners do not have the right to continue in business
until they hit the brick wall and cannot pay liabilities as they come
due. Institutions will now understand that OSFI will take action if
its concerns are not dealt with promptly. That is a major
improvement.
This is not a punitive step. By increasing OSFI's scope for early
intervention, the legislation provides a new incentive for managers
and directors of troubled institutions to undertake early problem
solving for themselves.
The second element I would highlight in Bill C-15 is the
expanded role for the superintendent in the governance of troubled
financial institutions. In this case, the superintendent will have the
power to designate certain directors as affiliated and also veto the
appointment of directors and senior officers in troubled financial
institutions.
(1520 )
These additional powers reflect our appreciation of the
importance of effective, independent corporate governance. They
also stress that it is the boards of directors that represent the
ultimate frontline for problem resolution and good management.
Before concluding I should address a criticism of the legislation
levied by the official opposition related to jurisdictional issues.
The clear and certain benefits of this bill notwithstanding, the
official opposition has chosen so far not to support its passage. The
main criticism relates to the claim that the powers proposed for the
Bank of Canada, to mitigate systemic risk in clearing and
settlement systems, infringe on provincial powers over regulating
security matters. This is not the case.
The opposition's problem and misunderstanding of the goal of
this legislation begins with its failure to understand the nature of
systemic risk itself. This is the risk that one institution's inability to
settle a large value transaction could have a domino effect among
other participants.
In the proposed legislation the government is acting to provide a
formal oversight role for the Bank of Canada and to enhance its
powers to require appropriate risk control in payment, clearing and
settlement systems.
The bill provides the Governor of the Bank of Canada with the
powers necessary to control systemic risk. This can be achieved by
issuing directives to clearing houses, or where necessary,
participants in a clearing house, requiring them to cease a
particular course of conduct that results in systemic risk being
inadequately controlled.
I want to emphasis that dealing with systemic risk issues is
traditionally a matter for central banks, not just in Canada, but in
other developed countries. If there is ever a day when the failure of
a large financial institution at home or abroad threatens the stability
of the financial system, it will be the central banks of industrialized
countries, including the Bank of Canada, that will be called on to
deal with the fallout.
I also want to note that in committee the government moved
amendments to further clarify that the powers of the Bank of
Canada with respect to systemic risk do not infringe on traditional
areas of concern to provincial regulators about the health of
individual securities firms.
Specifically, the bill now provides greater certainty that the
governor may not issue directives in respect of matters directly
related to the participation of securities firms or other individual
participants in the clearing and settlement system. This includes
the corporate governance of the participant, its relations with its
customers, capital adequacy or the management of its investments.
1596
We fully understand that these aspects of business fall under
the purview of the principal regulator of the institution such as
the provincial securities commissions. We have made it clear that
these are not matters for the central bank. For these reasons I reject
the notion that this legislation infringes on provincial jurisdiction.
It does not.
In closing, I want to say that Canadians have come to expect a
sound and stable financial system. This is one of our most enduring
and sustaining economic strengths. That is why we must ensure
that we sustain and evolve the appropriate mechanisms needed to
manage and minimize risks. Bill C-15 honours that obligation with
positive, forward looking measures.
I have no hesitation in calling on my colleagues to pass this
important legislation. I hope that all members of the House will
join with the members on this side of the House in doing so.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading to speak to Bill
C-15, an act which concerns several acts regarding financial
institutions and the banking sector.
This bill concerns the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies
Act, the Insurance Companies Act, the Cooperative Credit
Association Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act, the Office
of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Canada
Deposit Insurance Corporations Act, the Canadian Payments
Association Act, and the Canadian Investment Companies Act.
This is a wide-ranging piece of legislation. This is a preview of
the major changes the Liberal government is getting ready to make
to the Bank Act before March 31, 1997.
(1525)
It is also, first and foremost, a bill that gave us a general idea, as
early as June, as my colleague from the finance committee already
said, so that when we began the clause by clause study of the bill in
August, we had some indication as to the government's intentions.
And these indications were confirmed, a few weeks ago, when the
government made its intentions known in the throne speech and the
budget speech.
With this bill, the government is intruding, roughly and
high-handedly, in an area which comes exclusively under the
jurisdiction of Quebec, Ontario, and all other provincial
governments. The area I am talking about is that of securities.
With the single clause extending the regulatory mechanisms to
the securities sector and implementing a Canadian clearing system
controlled by the Bank of Canada, the government is betraying the
1982 Constitution. Not only did the government patriate the
Constitution against Quebec's will, but now it does not even abide
by the provisions of that Constitution any more.
Quebec's jurisdiction over securities is based on section 92(13)
of the Constitution Act, 1982, which grants provinces jurisdiction
over property and civil law. What complements these provisions? It
is the case law of the Supreme Court of Canada, which has attached
the securities market to this initial area of jurisdiction, through the
provinces.
So, when we look at what is presented to us, when we look at the
clearly defined intentions set out a few weeks ago in the throne
speech and in the budget speech regarding the total and complete
intrusion of the federal government in the securities sector, we can
only confirm our opposition to this provision of the bill.
It is not that the bill's objectives are bad. The bill is aimed at,
among other things, reducing what are known as systemic risks in
the Canadian financial system, to avoid the so-called domino effect
in the financial sector that would occur, for instance, when one
institution is unable to meet its commitments towards another
institution. There would be a domino effect on the financial sector
as a whole. Everyone, sovereignists as well as federalists,
Quebecers as well as Ontarians, people from the maritimes or from
western Canada, agree on that: we must put in place a system that is
efficient and that reduces the likelihood of a financial crisis and of
systemic risks in the financial sector.
But we must totally reject the means taken by the government.
When the government, under the pretext of reducing systemic risk,
creates new and costly overlap for taxpayers as a whole-new
overlap that Quebecers as well as Canadians will have to pay
for-because it intrudes in a sector that is already very well served
by provincial institutions, there is a problem.
The Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec and the
Ontario Securities Commission are completely disregarded and,
through this bill, the federal government is allowed to interfere
more and more in this area under the provisions of a bill enabling
the Governor of the Bank of Canada to seriously interfere in this
area. At the same time, there is talk of creating a Canadian
securities commission, as mentioned in the speech from the throne
but not in the bill. This will not do.
How can you justify having provincial and federal institutions
that overlap like that? How do you expect to give a clear signal to
the financial community?
(1530)
Which policy directives should financial institutions in Quebec
and Canada follow? Those coming from a federal entity, as set out
in Bill C-15, or those coming from organizations and institutions
already well-established in the securities industry, such as the
securities commission, the Quebec inspecteur général des institu-
1597
tions financières, the Quebec government or even the Montreal
stock exchange?
How do you hope to create stability in this area when, by
interfering this way, although such interference is allowed under
Bill C-15, you are sending out potentially conflicting signals to the
same institutions? That does not make sense.
What justifies the federal government in telling the Government
of Quebec and the Government of Ontario: ``We have decided to
cast aside the institutions you are involved in, even though you
have successfully controlled the securities industry for many years.
In the future, we will be in charge''. The federal government has no
expertise in the area of securities since, under the very terms of the
Constitution Act of 1982, this is an area that falls under provincial
jurisdiction.
The second aspect of Bill C-15 that we cannot support has to do
with using this bill to amend the prerogatives of the Superintendent
of Financial Institutions and the Winding-up Act. Bill C-15 gives
more powers to the Canadian Superintendent of Financial
Institutions, who, in the future, will be able to interfere directly in
the business of provincially chartered institutions.
Such an extension of the prerogatives of the federal
superintendent of financial institutions will result once again in
costly duplication and inefficiencies in the system. On the one
hand, according to the legislation and the remarks made by the
minister and the parliamentary secretary, they want to introduce
efficiency and reduce duplication, but on the other hand, they
create duplication and inefficiencies with such a provision. Why?
Because, once again, the Quebec inspector general of financial
institutions as well as his Ontario counterpart are doing exactly the
same work and have exactly the same responsibilities as the ones
the government wants to give to the superintendent of financial
institutions of Canada.
Why this duplication? Why create new structures when we
should instead eliminate duplicating structures? When we ask the
government to study and review duplication and overlap, we are
not asking it to create some more but to eliminate what there is.
Yet, with this legislation, it is creating more, with all the resulting
additional costs to taxpayers and all the resulting problems in terms
of signals on the securities market.
I believe Bill C-15, through this provision as well as the first
one, will inevitably create instability and uncertainty on the
financial markets. Contrary to what the government representatives
say, I do not believe that stakeholders in the securities industry all
across Canada generally want the federal government to get
involved in that area, that they want it to set up a securities control
commission or that they want that the federal superintendent of
financial institutions to push aside the provincial officials working
in this area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction in favour of federal
authorities.
That is not the message I am getting from the financial sector,
and more particularly from Quebecers and some Canadians in these
institutions.
In the last fifteen years, I would say, provincial participantsin the securities sector have developed a great deal of expertiseand knowledge in this field. But most importantly, they have
introduced a harmonizing mechanism in order to reduce systemic
risks, and bring about efficiency gains in the securities sector. With
the new SEDAR system, they will soon be able to reduce from
eight or ten to only one the number of prospectuses required. That
will make for a better allocation of funds available on this market,
and a better use of financial resources on the securities market.
(1535)
So why has the federal government chosen this time to introduce
such a piece of legislation? Under the pretext of reducing the
systemic risks that have already been reduced thanks to measures
taken 10 or 15 years ago in this area, the federal government does
not hesitate a minute to say: ``From now on, I will oversee the
securities industry and ensure that resource allocation is efficient''.
That is unacceptable.
You either believe in a constitution, as the Liberals tell us, or you
do not. You either believe in the stability of our financial industry
or you do not. You either believe in a better allocation of all the
risks involved, and especially of systemic risks, or you do not care
at all. And that is the impression we get from the actions of the
current government.
When the only thing you do is increase the tension, the insecurity
and the instability on the market, instead of reducing them, you
either do not understand what is going on, and that shows how
incompetent you are, or you want more powers or more visibility
for the federal government. You are ready to give up efficiency in
order to be more visible and that is not good. That is not what you
need to do if you want to be up to the challenges awaiting you in the
securities industry and the financial sector during the nineties and
the year 2000.
The third reason why we cannot support Bill C-15 introduced by
the government concerns the amendments to the Canada Deposit
Insurance Corporation Act. Bill C-15 proposes to change the
current deposit insurance system. Right now, financial institutions
pay deposit insurance premiums based on the volume of deposits,
but under Bill C-15, premiums will be based on the risk that a
financial institution represents.
Since first seeing the provisions of Bill C-100, which is now Bill
C-15, last June, we have been questioning the secretary of state
responsible and the finance minister who, ultimately, is also
responsible for this legislation, about the impact of this new
provision. Up until now, that is almost nine months after the first
bill was introduced, our questions have yet to be answered.
1598
For example, we do not know what criteria will be used to
assess the risk that a financial institution represents. These criteria
will be defined in the forthcoming regulations, and the government
refuses to make these regulations public. One can wonder if these
criteria will respect the specific character of Quebec's financial
institutions. We have questioned the secretary of state responsible
and the finance minister many times on this subject, but we still
have no answer. We have no answer either to a question such as
what impact will a federal risk assessment as proposed in Bill
C-15 have on the financial community and how will this risk
assessment be interpreted by the financial markets.
On the one hand, there is talk of interference, inefficiency, waste,
duplication, overlap, all costly to Canadian taxpayers, and on the
other hand, when a clause is unclear and we ask for clarifications,
we get no reply. What kind of government are we dealing with
here?
In short, this bill is another illustration, first and foremost, of the
centralist dynamic inherent in the constitutional status quo. Bill
C-15, particularly in its creation of Canada-wide clearing and
settlement systems, encroaches on areas already covered by the
Commission québécoise des valeurs mobilières and the Inspecteur
général des institutions financières du Québec. This leads not only
to an overlap that is costly to the taxpayer, but also to
administrative inefficiencies, because financial institutions in
Quebec, as in Ontario and the other provinces, will be subject to
dual controls.
Second, Bill C-15 constitutes unacceptable interference in the
securities area. The various governments of Quebec have always
vigorously defended the prerogatives of Quebec concerning
securities.
(1540)
If I may, I would like to quote from a letter dated February 16,
1994, and addressed to the then President of Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister
responsible for Public Service Renewal by former Quebec premier
Daniel Johnson. Its subject is securities, for even that long ago the
federal government had indicated its great interest in securities.
The letter starts as follows: ``Mr. Minister, as I indicated in my
letter of February 15 on the entire process of improving the
efficiency of the Canadian federation, this letter more specifically
concerns your proposal regarding the regulation of securities''.
Mr. Johnson goes on to say: ``Allow me first to remind you that
the Quebec government never advocated-never advocated-an
increased federal role in the securities sector, which is a matter of
exclusive provincial jurisdiction. On the contrary, it has
consistently expressed its opposition to federal initiatives in this
regard''.
These are not the words of the current premier of Quebec, of
either Mr. Bouchard or Mr. Parizeau. They are the words of Daniel
Johnson, written from one federalist to another.
He goes on: ``In her five-year report to the National Assembly
last December, the Quebec Minister of Finance, reiterated the
concerns about the federal regulation of securities that would result
from this legislation expressed by a number of other provinces at
the time of the recent reform of federal legislation on financial
institutions. She said-and we are talking about a current federal
minister-that federal regulation would be inappropriate in
constitutional terms and from the standpoint of efficiency. It would
lead to duplication of rules of supervision and inevitably to a
heavier administrative and financial burden for issuers, investors
and intermediaries''. End of the letter from Daniel Johnson to the
current President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
When you are reduced to quoting letters from federalists- It
seems to me that the analysis presented by a federalist to another
federalist should be understood. It seems just an excuse to say:
``We know, you are a sovereignist. You want Quebec to be
sovereign. You refuse all interference. You fight against all
interference''. Yes, it is our job to do so, and I think Quebecers are
proud of that. But when one comes out with implacable arguments,
the same as those used by great federalists such as Daniel Johnson,
it seems to me that somehow the Liberal government should realize
that there is a certain consensus in Quebec. Moreover, I think they
are starting to get the picture as far as the homeland and the
linguistic community are concerned. They should also understand
that there is also a strong consensus to jealously protect Quebec's
prerogatives concerning securities.
I also think that it should be easy to understand, when the
president of the Montreal exchange himself tells us he does not
agree either with the idea of federal interference in securities. As
well, when we questioned the Minister of Finance, after the speech
from the throne, and all the more so after the budget speech, in
which he mentioned the federal government's intention, now
openly admitted, to interfere in matters of securities, he told us the
Quebec business community, major stakeholders in Quebec were
unanimous on the need for federal interference in the securities
market. After hearing several stakeholders, and the Montreal
exchange's president for one, we have to conclude that the Minister
of Finance has no idea what he is saying in this regard.
Let me quote Mr. Lacoste, the Montreal exchange's president,
when he appeared, on February 20, before the Senate Standing
Committee on Banking and Commerce.
1599
Concerning a better harmonization among provinces and greater
efficiency in the stock exchange, Mr. Lacoste said, and I quote:
[English]
``Yes, there must be better co-ordination, but better
co-ordination must still allow for regional disparities. I always use
the example that if we had a national or a single commission in
Canada in the 1980s, there would not have been a QSSP type of
program. There would not have been labour sponsored funds in
Quebec. Now they exist, so there is a need to preserve that.
However, I agree there must be better co-ordination''.
(1545)
[Translation]
Clearly, with such significant arguments, Mr. Lacoste, the
president of the Montreal exchange, has just told the federal
government in polite but firm terms to stay home. He has just told
the federal government to mind its own business, not to interfere
with the securities business.
I believe that when the president of the Montreal exchange says
such a thing, adding that if it were not for the fact that the 1982
Constitution gave the Quebec government exclusive jurisdiction
with regard to securities, we would not have had workers' funds
such as the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs et travailleuses de la
FTQ, because there would have been a coast to coast policy, and
major lobbies and decisions would have been increasingly
concentrated in the Toronto area, he is contradicting in a big way
what the finance minister has been saying so far.
There is definitely no consensus in Quebec to the effect that the
federal government must interfere in this area. Indeed, there is a
consensus in Quebec that the federal government should stay where
it is, deal with its own affairs, and not create costly inefficiencies,
overlaps and duplications for the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada.
This being said, and considering that the government did not
respond in any way to our expectations, since it refused to accept
any of the amendments we proposed, to avoid three of the negative
aspects of the bill, I have to ask my colleagues from the official
opposition to vote against this bill. We will do so with energy and
conviction, and then start working against it, given that the federal
government has firmly decided, first in June last year and then with
the speech from the throne and the budget provisions, to interfere
in a very cavalier and cynical way in the area of securities.
I am convinced that, over the next few weeks, the main
stakeholders in Quebec, just like the official opposition, will
oppose vigorously this interference by the federal government.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15,
an act to amend, enact and repeal certain laws relating to financial
institutions, is a continuation of the old Bill C-100 before
Parliament prorogued. The government is bringing it back
substantially in the same form as Bill C-100. That is why we are at
third reading now.
The purpose of the bill is to make many amendments and
changes to financial institutions and to do a lot of fine tuning. This
act is a result of a review of the safety of financial institutions.
It comes about as a response to the failures of a number of
financial institutions and is essentially the government's response
to concerns regarding these same institutions. The bill is also a
prelude to the Bank Act review due in 1997. That review promises
to be much wider in scope.
I will go through some highlights, some objections and some
deeper facts on some of the aspects of the bill. It is very
complicated and complex. It covers a lot of areas. I will not touch
on all of them, but I will try to hit on some of the points I feel the
Canadian public should be aware of. I will also try to enlighten
people interested in this debate.
(1550 )
The bill rejects deposit co-insurance, and we do not know why.
Since the introduction in 1967 of 100 per cent deposit insurance up
to a maximum dollar value which is currently $60,000, 30 financial
institutions have failed, with 20 failures in the last 10 years. This
has cost the CDIC, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation,
about $5 billion as of March 1994.
Interestingly, in the period proceeding 1967 there were no bank
failures. Governments over the years have exhibited reluctance to
institute market based measures of reform such as co-insurance,
instead opting for more regulation and oversight. The use of the
market through the implementation of co-insurance and market
based criteria as early warning signals would alleviate the
problems in the financial system in a less costly yet more effective
manner than proposing further regulatory change.
Regulatory attempts to mimic the efficient results achievable
only by the free market will always be more costly for all parties
involved and will rarely if ever achieve the same quality of results.
Under the proposed system depositors are only encouraged to
seek out the best rates regardless of the risk profile of the
institution in question since they know they will be fully
compensated by the CDIC in the event of a failure. This facilitates
the entrance, growth and eventual failure of risky and recklessly
managed institutions. It also discriminates against healthy, strong
1600
financial sector players who minimize risk by conservative lending
and borrowing policies.
I sure have a tough time making a loan. They are always tough
on me.
The act does set the stage for risk based CDIC premiums.
However, premium levels for different institutions will not be made
public. Again this gives the appearance designed to protect weak
institutions. As mentioned earlier, it also keeps the regulation of
financial institutions under too large a veil of secrecy. A
willingness to provide more information to the public would be a
positive move.
The Reform Party does not support the bill because the
government could have done much more in conjunction with
financial institutions to make it an open system, an accountable
system, a system that would work. Then Canadians would know
what is happening and would have some faith in it.
The bill proposes rated premiums for the CDIC and the
premiums will be according to the risk. As I mentioned, the bad
thing is that the CDIC intends not to make the Canadian public
aware of the particular potential risk involved in any particular
financial institution. This is a veil of secrecy and the taxpayers will
be left with the bill when large institutions collapse, as we have
seen in Barings' $1 billion loss and in Alberta's Principal Savings
and Trust Company.
That is why it is important for the government to consider what it
has unfortunately rejected, co-insurance as a partial solution. By
perhaps insuring up to only 90 per cent rather than 100 per cent of
deposits, investors having a 10 per cent stake in what they are
investing in, a 10 per cent stake in what is going on, would know
they have a potential exposure.
The advantages of this exposure would make the public more
interested in its money and it would do a little more research on the
financial institution. The competition and knowledge that this
would bring out would bring out the best in business among those
institutions. Just to have a monopoly, big is not necessarily better.
Also recent claims, as I have pointed out, have cost. When they
go into receivership these losses cost the taxpayers money, which
gives this guarantee by the government and CDIC which is really
backed by the taxpayers, and the big banks love it.
I will continue in this vein and discuss some facts on
co-insurance basically for future consideration, to lay it on the
record. There are some strong advantages in considering
co-insurance.
One hundred per cent coverage creates an incentive to place
funds with high risk institutions. With 100 per cent insurance risky
institutions can attract deposits by offering slightly higher rates.
(1555 )
Depositors are willing to use these institutions because they
know the CDIC safety net up of to $60,000 will be there if anything
goes wrong. This has enabled risky and uncompetitive institutions
to enter the marketplace, grow and ultimately fail and distort the
marketplace.
The consumers who bear the cost of deposit insurance.
Depositors of stable institutions suffer the most. They do not get
the higher interest rates and yet they still have to pay for the
damage caused by risky institution failures.
Therefore, as recognized in the just published study by the
Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the irony is that it is the very
group that co-insurance is intended to benefit, the average
consumer, that subsidizes the risky activities of the more
sophisticated who know how to take advantage of the inefficiencies
embedded in the system as a result of 100 per cent deposit
insurance.
There is almost universal consensus and support for
co-insurance. Talk about having committee meetings, listening to
witnesses and acting in conjunction with what you hear, despite
diverse interests from the banks, the insurance industry, both
present and past superintendents, the chairman of the CDIC, the
Canadian Institute of Actuaries, academics including most recently
PIAC which studied the issue from the consumers point of view,
and the Senate banking committee, all supporting co-insurance,
this bill and these changes do not include it.
Consumers can judge risk. Consumers do not use the vast
amounts of disclosed information because without co-insurance
there is no incentive to do so. Why worry? Why bother? Why read?
Why care? Just put in your money, it is guaranteed anyway. Look
for the best advertisement, the highest rate of return and away you
go.
The extremely high percentage of insurance deposits in failed
institutions illustrates that consumers are making accurate
judgments. For example, a recent failed institution, Income Trust,
had 99 per cent of deposits insured versus the 50 per cent industry
average.
Countries such as the United Kingdom and Ireland have forms of
co-insurance with no evidence of widespread demand for 100 per
cent coverage.
The secretary of state argued on August 15, when this bill was
still Bill C-100: ``The measures included in Bill C-100 flow from a
series of basic principles as outlined in the white paper issued last
February. Our subsequent consultations have left me more
convinced than ever that these principles and the fundamental shift
in the philosophy that some of them represent make this legislation
a vital and valid turning point in our approach to regulation''.
The secretary of state went on to point out there are are four key
principles underlined in this bill: ownership of financial
institutions is a privilege, not a right; early intervention in and
resolution
1601
of institutions experiencing difficulty should occur; financial
institutions must operate with sufficient incentives to solve their
problems in a timely manner; there must be appropriate
accountability and transparency in the system.
Those are tremendous underlying key principles. How could one
in the financial sector argue with those principles? I support
satisfying those principles, but this bill falls far short of the
accountability and transparency in the system. It is still veiled in
secrecy and by not considering co-insurance it denies the consumer
the opportunity to make some rational judgments for himself.
There has to be a greater review. Financial institutions of all
types, the four pillars, must come under a serious review, not
separately but collectively. We must do a massive evaluation. It is
time to stop and take a good look at the financial sector.
(1600 )
My colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan Centre, who is the
Reform Party's industry critic, wrote this brief paper. I would like
to read it into the record to give him credit for it because if we truly
wish to satisfy the four principles which the secretary of state has
stated in terms of evaluating financial institutions, then I feel that
my colleague's recommendations are worthy of consideration.
The paper states:
Finance Minister Paul Martin surprised many in his 1996 budget speech by
assuring Canadians that banks would not be allowed to sell insurance through
their branch networks this year. This softball so deftly tossed our way neither
eased our concerns nor addressed the issue.
The real issue is not whether the banks should be allowed to sell insurance or
enter into the car leasing business, but whether true competition exists within
the financial sector and, thus, whether the consumer and the economy will
benefit if banks are allowed to enter other markets.
The banks assure us that their own industry is competitive and not the
oligopoly that Canadians suspect. This is difficult to believe when the six largest
banks in Canada move en masse to raise or lower interest rates every time the
bank rate so much as twitches. The only competition in this case is who will
move first.
Yet none of them have moved very quickly to change interest
rates down on the personal credit cards that everybody has through
Visa and MasterCard, et cetera. One would think someone would
drop the rate to get more business.
The four pillars of the financial sector, banking, insurance, trust companies and
security dealers, have crumbled as deregulation and technological progress has
blurred the lines of distinction. The banks have been applying pressure ever since
to sell insurance in their branch networks, enter into auto leasing and increase their
interest in the securities market. Further deregulation and the subsequent increase
in the size of banks, however, could reduce competition in the financial sector and
hurt consumers. These are perennial issues in the Parliament of Canada,
particularly when a review of the Bank Act is scheduled. Major reviews are
conducted every ten years, interspersed with minor reviews every five years.
1997 brings a minor review, but it is a major review that is required. We need
to know a good many things. How do our financial institutions interact? How do
they operate in relation to other sectors of the economy? What are the strengths
and weaknesses of the current regulatory structure? Not only will the answers
reveal whether or not true competition exists within the banking sector and,
thus, whether or not they should be allowed to expand into other financial
services, the answers will determine the veritable strength of our financial
sector as it heads into the 21st century. Until such a review is completed, a
moratorium should be placed on making any further decisions about financial
institutions.
Furthermore, Parliament must be the venue, perhaps in the form of a joint
committee of the finance and industry committees. It is the only way we can
assure that all interests will be recognized and the process will be both
accessible and transparent. Canadians must be able to see the process in order to
put their faith in it.
As lobbyists from all sides pressure members of Parliament to take sides and
others try to frame the issue within the overtly political constraints of a war
between big and small business, the challenge will be to keep our eye on the ball.
That is, to ensure true competition exists and is free to function within the
marketplace, that stability is maintained in the respective financial sectors and a
prudent regulatory structure is in place to protect the consumer. If the bottom
line is met, Canadians and the economy will indeed emerge as the winners.
Before I conclude, I have one thing to say about financial
institutions and, more specifically, the banks.
There is concern among a lot of people, especially people who
are left wing political animals, who feel that the banking
institutions are taking advantage of them. I have some good things
to say about big banks and some criticisms as well. Since we are
dealing with financial institutions, I would like to take the
opportunity to touch on two points.
(1605)
A lot of people are criticizing the banks for not paying their fair
share or they are saying they should be embarrassed by their huge
profits. I know that the banks, although some may make a billion
dollars in profits, also pay a billion dollars in taxes. Profit is not a
dirty word. Profit means jobs. Losses mean lack of jobs. Losses
means subsidies; grants from governments; subsidization by
taxpayers; losses mean rewarding failure.
Let us reward and encourage profit and stop criticizing
companies that make a profit. That is no business of the politicians.
It is the business of businesses. Businesses should be encouraged to
grow, prosper and expand the economy. They should be given
compliments when they do so and government should stay off their
backs and out of their pockets so that they can create jobs.
1602
How many pages does this bill contain? All these regulations
have to be read and interpreted by somebody. This is a cost. It is an
expense to business. This is not an inducement to improve business
or hire more people and increase employment. We need fewer
regulations. Good regulations, yes, but fewer. We need to get the
government out of the business of being in business.
There are many financial institutions. I am looking for a
document that lists the number of institutions and their assets. I
was shocked to see how much these institutions control. But it
looks like I will not be able to find it at the moment so I will not be
able to quote from it.
One criticism I have of the banks is that they are quick to fiddle
with certain prime rates but have not looked at the rates of interest
on consumer loans or credit cards. I feel that sometimes they
encourage indebtedness by sending letters to university students
giving instant credit of $1,000. I know that happened to my
daughter when she graduated a couple of years ago. A bank sent her
a credit card and guess what? Within 30 days she was in debt to the
tune of $1,000. I do not feel that is a practice I would like to see. As
a parent I know I did not like it but it is done. There is nothing
illegal about it, but I feel that some people get themselves into
financial difficulties when that happens.
The problem with government tinkering with regulations and
trying to establish a level playing field among the four pillars of
financial institutions is that it keeps attempting to amend the
definition of a bank. In the Bank Act the definition of a bank is
something like ``a bank is what a bank does in Canada''.
Governments keep changing what a bank does. Therefore, other
financial institutions have a hard time competing because they are
at a disadvantage.
The thorough and proper review which is scheduled for 1997
should lead to some positive results. I sincerely believe that once
again this is an example of a Liberal government which uses all the
right words even when it describes the budget. It has the rhetoric
down, but the reality and what it is doing does not match the words.
The words are greater than the actions it takes.
As I have pointed out, the four key principles which the secretary
of state believes he is accomplishing with these new regulations for
financial institutions is honourable. But he is ignoring completely
and avoiding the issue of co-insurance which would clean up a lot
of the failures in these institutions and introduce responsibility to
investors. It has so many advantages. With so much support from
all the institutions and groups, at the very least this could have been
done. I believe we introduced it either in the standing committee or
in the House at an earlier stage as an amendment which was
defeated. I know we talked about it as a party.
(1610)
This measure would eliminate the burden on taxpayers. It would
reduce the risk for high risk institutions. We must have high risk
investments. We must have somebody to take them. We must
encourage them. The best person to take that risk is a person who
can afford to take the risk. We should not be putting all the
taxpayers' money at risk.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This concludes the first
round of 40-minute speeches. We now enter the next stage of
debate which has 20-minute speeches subject to 10 minutes of
questions or comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15
amending and enacting certain laws relating to financial
institutions is, in our estimation, a new attempt by the federal
government to control the provinces, and especially Quebec,
which, for the last 30 years, has developed several original tools of
economic and financial development.
On the economic and financial side, the federal government's
control is increasing daily. On the constitutional side, the Quebec
wing of the Liberal Party of Canada proposed last weekend that
Quebec now be recognized as ``the principal homeland of French
language, culture and legal tradition in North America''.
The distinct society concept, which was part of the political
landscape since the Meech Lake accord and was the subject matter
of a motion in this House last December, and which the
government seemed to want to enshrine in the Constitution, is
suddenly put off indefinitely following some prevarication by
certain premiers.
After the second world war, women were sent back home. Some
right wing groups still regularly send women back home.
Optometrists will often tell us whether bifocals will improve our
sight. But what does this vague concept of homeland have to do
with the constitutional issue and the recognition of a people?
Today, no longer sure about what to do with it, the federal
Liberals are sending the Quebec issue back home. Even the leader
of the official opposition in Quebec City tells us this has no legal
meaning; it is like saying that Newfoundland is an island and that
the Rocky Mountains are in the west. There are no intellectual
giants in this government.
This whole farce of a principal homeland in America shows once
again the true face of the federal Liberals and how little they know
and understand modern Quebec. Less than six months after the
Quebec referendum, the Prime Minister is once again going back
on his word.
What are we discussing these days in the House? Homeland
rather than distinct society, the importation of cheese made from
raw milk, our soldiers' lack of discipline, the Somalia affair, the
lightning search for missing documents ordered by the defence
minister. Once again, our play soldiers, who still cost Canadian
taxpayers $11 billion a year, are once again making fools of
themselves. It is a good thing that ridicule does not kill. Is this why
1603
Canada still has armed forces, to protect the country from ridicule?
If so, they are not doing a very good job.
After nearly three years in power, the Liberal government has
gone back on its promises to Quebec. They are making fools of
themselves in the rest of Canada, in terms of both imports and
defence matters. The Prime Minister has lost control of the
situation. There is no leadership left in this government. Worse,
there is no vision as to the future of this country.
This government, which is unable to renew the Canadian
Constitution, to manage its armed forces in a modern and
professional manner, to set credible import policies in a
globalization context, is putting forward Bill C-15, which shows its
inability to manage the federation at the economic and financial
levels.
(1615)
This bill contains a number of scattered, apparently unrelated
measures whose only purpose is to strengthen the monitoring and
regulation of financial services in Canada. Once again, the federal
government is trying to take control, to increase its powers.
The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to the principle itself of Bill
C-15, but rather to some of the proposed measures, which encroach
on major areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The most important measure in this bill would extend the Bank
of Canada's payment settlement mechanism to the area of
securities.
In fact, this initiative duplicates the clearing systems already
regulated by the Quebec securities commission and allows the
federal government to interfere in the regulation of securities,
which is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Under this bill, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation will
be setting the participation premiums according to the risk a
financial institution represents. This includes Quebec chartered
institutions already regulated by the Régie de l'assurance-dépôts
du Québec, where the deposit volume is the criterion. Thus, there
will be two standards of evaluation, and the one based on risk could
put Quebec institutions at a disadvantage.
The powers of the superintendent of financial institutions will be
increased so that he may request the winding-up of Quebec
chartered institutions. This duplication of services could lead to
numerous disputes between the different bodies.
As we mentioned during the debate at second reading, this bill
amends nine acts: the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies
Act, the Insurance Companies Act, the Cooperative Credit
Associations Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act, the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Canadian
Payments Association Act, and the Investment Companies Act,
which is being repealed.
This bill is a new indication of Ottawa's centralizing attitude. By
establishing Canada-wide compensation and payment systems, Bill
C-15 infringes on the authority of the Commission québécoise des
valeurs mobilières and of Quebec's Inspecteur général des
institutions financières. This results in costly overlap and
structures. Quebec's financial institutions will be subject to two
monitoring systems.
Therefore, Bill C-15 is an unacceptable intrusion into the
securities industry, which comes under provincial jurisdiction. In
Quebec, the various governments have always strongly defended
Quebec's jurisdiction over the securities industry. Even Daniel
Johnson reaffirmed that position in a letter to the federal
government on February 16, 1994, when he was Quebec's premier.
The authority given to the Governor of the Bank of Canada to
issue directives or orders to financial institutions goes squarely
against that traditional Quebec position.
This bill will result in even more unacceptable overlap. Beyond
the issue of jurisdiction, the fact is that Quebec's financial
institutions and individual savers will suffer from the duplication
Ottawa is seeking to impose. This will result in additional costs and
in a lack of consistency in government policies.
Let us now take a look at the clauses of Bill C-15 I feel will
create the most serious problems.
The Bank Act will be significantly affected. Clause 12 of Bill
C-15 provides that banks will have to disclose additional
information. The various provincial securities commissions
already request this type of information to banks and to other
companies listed on the stock exchange. Therefore, this is a new
type of duplication.
(1620)
The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act is also being
amended. Clause 21 of this bill defines the notion of ``affairs'' and
of the affiliates of the member institution. For example, if even one
of the institutions affiliated to Desjardins is a member of the
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the federal government is
entitled to give direction to all of Desjardins' affiliates.
Clause 22 will give the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
the opportunity to be instrumental in the promotion of standards of
sound business and financial practices for members institutions.
This is a good thing in itself, but it is also a kind of duplication in
the case of provincially chartered financial institutions that are part
1604
of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, since the province of
Quebec already has regulatory control over these institutions.
Clause 27 will allow the board of the Canada Deposit Insurance
Corporation to establish a system of classifying member
institutions according to the risk each of the institutions represents.
Hence, the federal government will have no other choice but to set
up a supervisory and monitoring system for these members
institutions. Again, this will mean some duplication for the
provincially chartered institutions, since Quebec already has a
control and examination process in place for these institutions.
Besides, such a classification system will put the smaller
institutions at a disadvantage. We will have to see how the
Mouvement Desjardins is reviewed. Will it be branch by branch or
as a whole?
The purpose of clause 34 of the bill is to determine the
parameters of the examination mentioned in clause 27. For the
provincially chartered institutions, this is already done by the
provincial authorities. Why the duplication?
Clause 60 of Bill C-15 specifies the circumstances under which
the superintendent may take control of an institution in difficulty.
Moreover, the superintendent has the obligation to notify the
provincial minister responsible of the takeover of a central of a
co-operative credit association which is incorporated under
provincial legislation. Thus, the provincial authorities are
completely pushed aside and the regulatory control a province has
over its co-operative credit associations becomes practically
irrelevant and even null and void.
The Insurance Companies Act is also affected by this bill. Once
again, the bill gives more power to the superintendent to step in if
an institution is in financial difficulty. Provincially registered
insurance companies are not beyond the superintendent's increased
powers of intervention.
According to section 66 of the same bill, the definition of
businesses to which the law applies is also amended to include
fraternal societies and provincial companies. The bill encroaches
upon the powers of Quebec, which already regulates provincially
registered institutions. Consequently, we are opposed to the bill's
measures which apply to companies registered in Quebec and we
are also opposed to all the sections relating to monitoring of
provincially registered companies by the superintendent.
Section 93 will also allow the superintendent to make public the
information gathered pursuant to the new law. It will force
provincially chartered insurance companies to publicly disclose
information concerning the compensation of their executives, as
well as their business and internal affairs. Since provincial
securities commissions already require that information, there will
be more duplication. Furthermore, the federal government has no
legal right to regulate provincially chartered companies.
Moreover, clause 95 provides that the superintendent will have
his say on the composition of the board of directors of provincially
chartered insurance companies in financial difficulty. There is
already such a control system in Quebec. What then is the
usefulness of clause 95?
The main objective of clause 103 is to allow the superintendent
to impose standards of sound business and financial practices to
provincially chartered insurance companies. Another unjustified
encroachment on provincial jurisdiction.
(1625)
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act is
also amended. Clause 105 clarifies the new objectives of the
superintendent, stating in black and white that the purpose of the
act is to ensure that financial institutions in all provinces are
regulated by an office of the Government of Canada. This could not
be clearer; the federal government has decided to gain the upper
hand over the provinces.
As for clause 106, it gives more detail on the federal
superintendent's objectives. No distinction is made between
institutions with federal charters and institutions with provincial
charters. Only federally chartered institutions ought to be covered
by this clause.
Finally, clause 62 indicates that a totally new act, the Payment
Clearing and Settlement Act, is being created here to allow the
federal government to gain control over this area of provincial
jurisdiction. The Canadian Payments Association Act is therefore
done away with.
These amendments and creations of new acts, all of this
legislative process is put into place in order to once again hem in
the provinces. The government's throne speech could not have
been clearer on this. It intends to create a national securities
commission, one which will directly invade the area of jurisdiction
and the activities of the securities commissions in the Canadian
provinces. In this context, Bill C-15 lays the ground work for the
arrival of this national securities commission which the federal
government intends to create.
Once again, the government's firm intent is to establish
wall-to-wall national standards, and financial institutions cannot
escape from this unwavering trend. With Bill C-15, the government
is expanding this principle of national standards to the financial
institutions. It has now come full circle. The federal government
has extended its grasp to the financial institutions, while on the
constitutional level there are making a mockery of the historical
demands of Quebec, by reducing it to the homeland of cultural
survival in America.
1605
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Bill C-15 and to talk about financial
institutions.
This may seem like a fairly dry debate to many people but I think
it is an important piece of legislation and it is important to talk
about it. Perhaps it is important to talk about it in the context of
what Canadians want with respect to financial institutions.
There is a lot of talk today about financial institutions. When the
banks announce their profits we hear a lot about it when we go on
our tours throughout our constituencies.
There are two things Canadians want with respect to their
financial institutions. First is stability. They want to know their
money is secure in those institutions whether they be banks, trust
companies and so on. Second, they want to know those institutions
are accountable, that they are open through the process of
competition. There are a number of reasons for that.
People want to know that service fees for instance are as low as
they possibly can be. They want to know they are getting the best
possible return on their money. They want to know on the other
hand that they are being charged the lowest possible interest rates
when they borrow from the banks.
The idea is to balance the two as best we can so that we do not
end up with the situation which occurred in the United States.
There was the savings and loan debacle where a lot of people
potentially could have lost billions of dollars until the United States
government stepped in. On the other hand we want enough
competition to hold all these various financial institutions
accountable.
(1630)
The one area where Bill C-15 really falls down in my estimation
is that it simply does not offer co-insurance. Co-insurance is simply
an insurance scheme which would replace CDIC insurance as it
presently is now. It would on the one hand still provide insurance
for possibly up to 90 per cent of people's money through the
government but it would leave a certain amount that would have to
be covered by the banks or the financial institutions themselves. In
my judgment this would be very good. It would hold those
financial institutions accountable.
It is interesting to note that before 1967 when CDIC insurance
was put into place this country did not have a single bank failure.
After 1967 when CDIC insurance came in, 30 financial institutions
ended up failing in this country.
What CDIC insurance unwittingly did is it gave people a false
sense of security in those institutions. Consequently, they were not
held accountable. People did not really know what kind of inherent
risk there was in putting their money into them. As a result they
folded. The government was on the hook for them through CDIC
insurance. The result was something like $5 billion being paid out.
In fact at this very point something like $1.7 billion is still owed to
the federal treasury from CDIC insurance. It is a very serious
situation. In the past we have had many failures and it has cost
taxpayers a lot of money.
The really important issue here is that this bill does not provide
co-insurance. There is wide support for the idea of co-insurance.
Several different groups have come out in favour of co-insurance,
not the least of which are the banks themselves. People as diverse
as those from insurance companies, the superintendents of
financial institutions, the chairman of CDIC, the Canadian Institute
of Actuaries and all kinds of academics have come out in favour of
co-insurance, as has the Senate banking committee. There is
widespread support for the idea of co-insurance. That is why it is
very disappointing that Bill C-15 does not have any mention of
co-insurance.
It is important when we are talking about something which is a
new idea or concept that we be able to look either in Canada or
elsewhere in the world for examples of whether or not this will
work. There are some examples right now in the U.K. and Ireland
where there is co-insurance and it works extremely well. We should
use that as an example to guide us. Unfortunately, that is not
available in Bill C-15.
One very positive thing in Bill C-15 is the fact that premiums are
going to be charged on the basis of risk for CDIC insurance. The
negative side of that is the public is not allowed to know which
institutions are being charged higher premiums because of the
degree of risk. If they have a riskier loan portfolio and people's
money is more at risk, unfortunately, for reasons that are not very
apparent to me, the premiums are not made available to the public.
Therefore the public cannot take the proper steps to protect
themselves, particularly if they have an investment of over $60,000
in one of those institutions.
What Canadians really want are institutions that on the one hand
are safe and provide that security and on the other hand are
competitive enough to ensure that all those service fees and interest
rates on charge cards are as low as they possibly can be. People
want to know they are being charged the lowest possible interest
rates on all the various personal loans. This is a hot issue in the
country today and it is an important issue for the government to
deal with.
(1635)
One thing we have been talking about lately is the issue of auto
leasing and insurance and whether or not the banks should be
allowed to move into those areas. The answer has to be no until
such time as we see some real competition in the banking industry.
We have to see some competition in terms of deregulating the
banks and allowing some foreign competition so that there can be
1606
real competition to hold those banks and financial institutions
accountable. This is critical.
When the government looks at this again I do encourage it to
seriously consider the issue of co-insurance. It would bring some
real accountability to financial institutions and hopefully, would
give the public confidence in those institutions.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have heard
Reform members one after the other talking about co-insurance.
The reality is that depositors are not interested in co-insurance, just
the financial institutions. The reason is that co-insurance would
require depositors to have knowledge of the credit worthiness of
the institutions in which they are depositing their money.
That sounds fair and reasonable. But the reality is that the ability
to understand a balance sheet, et cetera, is not well understood by
some members of the public. I know this because my wife runs a
financial company which sells GICs and uses a deposit insurance
corporation for that reason. The average investor or depositor
simply does not have that skill. If we brought in co-insurance, the
reality is that those people would simply make their deposits with
larger institutions and we would end competition in the financial
sector.
Co-insurance is not something that is specifically desired by the
average person, only by the large financial institutions. I would
suggest that is who the member is speaking for. He is not speaking
for the average Canadian who would not understand the concept of
co-insurance and which would probably prevent them from making
deposits.
The member also went on to say how co-insurance exists in a
number of other countries and in Europe. He failed to mention that
in United States the insurance is $100,000 per deposit, not $60,000.
I only say this because the Reform Party is constantly saying how
we should be like the United States, yet in this case the member
decided not to use that example.
I would simply ask the member, can he not see that co-insurance
is not something which is supported by the average Canadian?
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member sells the
public short on this issue. People buy all kinds of insurance for all
kinds of reasons every day. I do not think the hon. member is
saying that the public is too dumb to figure out insurance on their
automobile or their homes or anything else. At least I hope he is not
saying that.
The fact is that people make very sophisticated investments
every day ranging from investing in the stock market where they
certainly have to judge risk to investing in mutual funds. We have
seen a tremendous growth in the investments in mutual funds.
People are very well acquainted with the risk of investing in those
things.
The member is selling the public short on this whole issue. The
public has a very good idea of exactly what they would be getting
into and are quite capable of understanding co-insurance. The
Public Interest Advocacy Centre is a supporter of co-insurance.
The public is very well acquainted with insurance and with putting
money into investments that carry an element of risk. The member
is way off base by making that judgment about the ability of the
public to understand.
(1640)
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 is now at third reading stage. This
legislation is practically a jumble of disparate measures aimed only
at increasing surveillance and regulation of the financial services
sector in Canada. This bill amends several acts relating to financial
services and repeals the Investment Companies Act.
Though we do not oppose the principle of this bill, we have
several concerns regarding the federal government's true intent. In
fact, this legislation brings us one step closer to a control of the
securities sector in Canada. This control will eventually be
exercised by the Bank of Canada.
Bill C-15 uses the excuse of controlling systemic risk to allow
Ottawa to impede on a purely provincial jurisdiction. We have
discussed this point last year when Bill C-15 was Bill C-100. These
are examples reported by the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. This bill impedes directly on an area of
jurisdiction which is exclusively provincial, namely the securities
sector under which come all liquid assets, shares, certificates and
also bonds, to name but a few.
Yet, two sections of the Canadian Constitution empower
provinces to regulate securities. The first one, section 92.13, deals
with property and civil rights in the provinces. In Quebec,
securities are regulated under the Civil Code. The second one is
section 92.16, which states that all matters of a merely local or
private nature fall under provincial jurisdiction.
Quebec is already involved in the area of securities, through the
Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec and the Inspecteur
général des institutions financières. Bill C-15 will create useless
and costly new overlap-goodness knows how many instances we
have reported already-by subjecting Quebec financial institutions
to orders and directives from the Bank of Canada.
In addition, by implementing a Canadian clearing system, the
Governor of the Bank of Canada retains the right to issue directives
not only to clearing houses, but also to participating financial
institutions, regardless of their charter. The bill will therefore
enable the governor to issue orders and directives to institutions
1607
such as the Fiducie Desjardins, and to some extent, this is a strange
twist of fate.
It will be remembered that, if I am not mistaken, before founding
the caisses populaires in Quebec in the early 1900s, Alphonse
Desjardins had served as clerk in this House and later at the
national assembly in Quebec. Alphonse Desjardins decided to start
this co-operative system because there was a problem with the
banking system in Quebec. The banks, which were predominantly
English at the time, refused to make loans to French speaking
Quebecers. Also, there were no banks in rural areas. All banks were
concentrated in major financial centers. That is why Quebecers did
not deposit their money in banks that refused to loan them money,
and how the Quebec tradition of stashing one's savings in a wool
sock came about.
In response to this situation, Alphonse Desjardins decided to
establish a financial institution to provide Quebecers with those
services not provided to them by banks. He came to Ottawa to
apply for a charter, which he was denied, because the banks were
afraid such an institution would be in competition with them. His
application for a federal charter was therefore rejected. That is why
Alphonse Desjardins finally established his caisses populaires
under provincial charter. Banks resisted this idea for years.
I remember that, up until the early 1960s, banks refused to cash
cheques drawn on caisse populaire accounts. It was a long battle
before Quebec got a first-rate economic tool: credits unions, called
caisses populaires in Quebec. We accomplished this all on our own.
I recall that this was achieved with people getting fully involved,
and working out of church basements.
(1645)
A lot of people worked on a volunteer basis for many years to
develop this economic tool. We did it on our own despite early
opposition. Now that this tool is in place, the Government of
Canada wants to regulate this tool we developed ourselves. This, of
course, is unacceptable.
The bust of Alphonse Desjardins is now on display in the CN
Tower in Toronto, since he is recognized as one of 10 great
Canadians. The fact that visitors to the CN Tower can see it has not
prevented the government from trying to regulate this institution,
even though it was almost opposed to its founding.
May I remind you that the bust of Joseph-Armand Bombardier is
also displayed in the CN Tower in Toronto, which did not prevent
the federal government from taking over all his patents in 1945.
Another thing that bothers me in this bill is the concentration of
power in the hands of a few individuals. This is what this bill does.
It amends certain laws, including the Winding-up Act, to give the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions even more powers. This
bill and all the federal bills that have been tabled since this
government came to office are aimed at concentrating even more
power in the hands of those who already have it, be it a minister or
the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
In any case, broadening the powers of the federal Superintendent
of Financial Institutions will only lead to costly duplication, for
which taxpayers will have to pay once again. Considering how long
we have been talking about it, the government should have
understood that federal intrusion in a sector which comes under
provincial jurisdiction only generates inefficiency and useless
costs. Not to mention the debates that will follow between the
federal and provincial governments, at a time when constitutional
talks are scheduled to take place in the months to come, at least
according to the 1982 Constitution. The Prime Minister assures us
that, under these conditions, the federal government is prepared to
withdraw from those fields which come under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the provinces. Is it not true that the Prime Minister
takes with one hand what he is willing to give us with the other?
This situation is unacceptable.
What this government does is to stimulate competition between
levels of government. But let us not forget that such competition
between governments is never beneficial to ordinary citizens. Just
think of manpower training, to which we refer daily because
Quebecers notice it more and more. In Quebec, there is an obvious
consensus regarding the need to patriate manpower training. This
consensus among all the stakeholders goes back several years, but
the issue remains unsettled. Meanwhile, this overlapping of
jurisdictions costs over $250 million every year.
The expanded authority delegated to the superintendent provides
boundless power to a single person and could well trigger a legal
battle between Ottawa and Quebec. Should this be the case, it
would adversely affect financial institutions that are in difficulty as
well as individual investors.
I cannot understand what motivates the federal government.
Why does it want to control a sector which has been very well
monitored in Quebec for a long time now? I conclude that the
federal government wants to find a way to interfere in the
administration of the various provincial institutions, particularly in
Quebec, for it clearly senses that federalism as it currently exists is
about to become uncontrollable.
It is also preparing for the next round of constitutional talks,
which will come along eventually, by seeking out powers it can
later return to the provinces, saying: ``Look how generous we are,
giving you what you want''. They are withdrawing from certain
areas of provincial jurisdiction, while on the other side of the coin
they will in fact have lost almost nothing, because they will have
1608
acquired other means of control, other levers of power, taxation in
particular. Such is the case with the bill we are looking at today.
We can, therefore, predict that there will, in fact, be nothing but
cosmetic changes. The Bloc will never agree to give up an area of
jurisdiction that is, and always has been, exclusively provincial. As
my colleague has already pointed out, even Daniel Johnson, when
he was premier of Quebec in 1994, said there was no question of
the Liberal government in Quebec's accepting encroachment by the
federal government in securities matters.
(1650)
He added that the Government of Quebec would refuse and
would jealously guard its prerogatives in this area. As we saw very
recently, Mr. Johnson is opposed to what is happening in the
House. Today he is dissociating himself from the idea being
promoted in recent days of Quebec's being a homeland.
The government in Ottawa appears to stuck in an impasse where
it cares little about contradicting its allies in Quebec, who, are
increasingly in agreement-and are forced to be-with the claims
of the sovereignists, regardless of what the Prime Minister and his
ministers may say.
But, worse yet, the government is mocking the basic provisions
of the Constitution, the very Constitution it so often preaches and
talks about. The cost of Bill C-15 goes even beyond areas of
jurisdiction. As I said earlier, the financial institutions of Quebec
and investors will be the victims of the duplication of roles Ottawa
wants to impose, because securities officials need coherent and
stable legislation, as in the case of other sectors involved in
financial markets.
Instead of maintaining stability and consistency, two attributes
highly prized by global financial markets, the federal government
tells us, through Bill C-15, that it wants to establish its own
institutions and allow the Bank of Canada and the federal
Superintendent of Financial Institutions to intervene in the area of
securities. The government's attitude is unacceptable.
When the secretary of state responsible for Canadian financial
institutions testified before the finance committee last August, he
failed to answer the Bloc Quebecois' questions about the federal
government's encroachment on the area of securities, which,
according to the Constitution, comes under the exclusive
jurisdiction of Quebec, as we pointed out earlier. He tried to evade
the issue, as can be seen from the minutes of the committee
proceedings. It seemed to us that the secretary of state did not even
know what was in his bill.
The secretary of state denied at the time that his government
intended to encroach on the area of securities. We were sold a bill
of goods, as the recent throne speech clearly referred to the
establishment of a Canadian securities commission.
We opposed the government's amendments, because they did not
meet expectations in any way, just as Bill C-15 does not meet
Quebec's expectations. This bill is written in a very technical
language, of course, because it deals with technical matters, and it
is very thick. This leads us to believe that the government is trying
to confuse the opposition and the public, since the amendments in
this bill, which are supposedly minor in nature, in fact have very
serious consequences.
We can only lament the fact that, almost every time a
government bill is introduced, we in the Bloc are always led to
condemn the same things. The government is using every means
available in an attempt to centralize ever more. There is always a
good excuse: market globalization, international competitiveness,
systemic risks or what not. It is a real shame to see that, at a time
when the government claims publicly that agreements can be
reached with the provinces, it is doing exactly the opposite in
legislation. They are not entering into any agreements with the
provinces, they are centralizing.
Four times already since the last federal budget was tabled,
Ottawa has introduced a bill affecting federal-provincial relations,
without even consulting the provinces. I am referring here to Bill
C-76, implementing the budget and imposing national standards;
Bill C-88, to implement the agreement on internal trade, which
gives retaliatory powers to the federal government; Bill C-91 on
regional development, which enables Ottawa to sign agreements
with local authorities directly, without regard for provincial
governments; and of course the bill before us today, Bill C-15.
It is incredible. The government says agreements can be reached
with the provinces and it talks about decentralizing, while its
actions are to the contrary, and history has taught us these past 30
years or so that actions speak louder than words.
(1655)
We will recall the commitments made by Mr. Trudeau in 1980.
There is no need for me elaborate on this, since we are all quite
familiar with these promises. ``We are putting our seats on the line
to ensure changes take place'', they said. It is now 1996. In the
meantime, the Constitution was patriated in 1982, but nothing
changed for Quebec. These were all empty words and meaningless
commitments. Today, they are talking about decentralizing, but
every bill they introduce in this House contradicts the
commitments they had made.
We all remember the commitments made by the current Prime
Minister in the final days of the referendum campaign, when he
said: ``We will see to it that Quebec is recognized as a distinct
society''. Already this promise has been forgotten. Through all
this, we realize that commitments are meaningless, because there is
never a real will to honour them.
1609
The only things that are decentralized are of course the cuts.
I want to talk about one of them, in the energy sector, since it was
mentioned yesterday and today. Over the last 20 years, the federal
government has invested $12 billion in Ontario for atomic energy
research. It is also investing, of course, a few billions in the
Hibernia project, in Newfoundland. However, in Quebec, the
government cut the Tokamak nuclear fusion research project, in
Varennes, in which $7 billion was invested annually until now.
So, the government invests billions elsewhere, but any cut made
affects Quebec of course. The government uses words which are
meaningless or which say the opposite of what it intends to do.
Remember, in 1980, we were told: ``If Quebec becomes
sovereign, you will end up with a huge debt, high taxation and high
unemployment. You, little Quebecers, cannot achieve
sovereignty''. And what did we get since 1980? That year, the
federal debt stood at $80 billion. Today, it is close to $600 billion,
in spite of the fact that taxes and unemployment have never been so
high. In other words, what we feared we would lose in 1980 by
becoming a nation we lost by remaining in the Canadian
confederation.
Recently, before the last referendum, we were told: ``If you
become sovereign, you will lose all your dairy subsidies''. Yet, we
were just told in the last budget that all dairy subsidies in Quebec
would be eliminated over the next five years.
So, these are meaningless commitments. The government uses
the pretext of a systemic risk to introduce Bill C-15 and get
involved in the securities industry, even though the Governor of the
Bank of Canada himself stated last summer that such risk could be
controlled through increased monitoring of the major payment
transfer system.
Obviously, this bill is totally unacceptable to us, since it merely
seeks to allow federal intrusion in areas which come under
Quebec's jurisdiction.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before moving to questions
and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to
inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time
of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Shefford-Canadian armed forces; the hon. member for
Bourassa-immigration.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask the member about his understanding of the whole area of
international trade, exactly what is the reality of our joining the
WTO and what that means to us in the world for the future.
Obviously our future will be as a trading nation in dealings around
the world.
Whenever I hear somebody talk about the need for supply
management and actually believe that will be something we could
ever hold on to in the future and still be a world trader, I am very
surprised. Does the member not feel the dairy industry in Quebec
would not be able to modernize and become a competitive producer
in the world market without depending on government subsidy?
I would like him to address that in the context of the World Trade
Organization and what that will mean to us as Canadians,
particularly if we have 30 million Canadians dealing in an
international global market.
(1700)
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat taken aback by the
question of my colleague from the Reform Party. Basically, he is
asking me whether Quebec could survive without the dairy subsidy.
We all know the Canadian government announced in its last budget
the elimination of this subsidy. In the last two years, it has already
been reduced by 15 per cent, and it will be completely eliminated
within three to four years.
In the meantime, billions of dollars have been invested in
western Canada, where the elimination of the grain transportation
subsidy has been compensated by other payments.
The hon. member spoke about international relations. When
Quebec becomes a country, it will have to make international
commitments just like any other country, just like Canada,
Singapore, France or Italy. It will then need the necessary tools to
do so.
For the time being, Quebec is under the Canadian Constitution
and is a part of Canada, and it has to abide by federal regulations.
Ever since Confederation, the federal government has felt the need
for a complete centralization of economic and political powers in
Ontario. It may be a fundamental need for Canadians, and a matter
of survival for them. But this centralization is effectively depriving
Quebec of its economic infrastructure and political power.
Surely, my colleague realizes that a country can have, on
international markets, facilities a province cannot have.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I come back to this concept
that Quebec is paying out so much more. In Alberta, for example,
we have paid $145 billion more than we have ever received as a
province.
Talking about the Crow rate being a subsidy, the Crow rate is an
agreement made with the agricultural sector and the farmers now
will not receive any transportation subsidy.
The $1.6 billion was a pay-out of this contract negotiated to be
worth somewhere in the neighbourhood of $18 billion. Therefore
$1.6 billion is simply a one time pay-out. It is gone. They will now
1610
have to compete in the international marketplace in the World
Trade Organization.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, of course, this amount of money,
$1.6 billion according to the hon. member, is to replace a subsidy
previously granted to the farmers, but the milk subsidies will be
completely eliminated in the province of Quebec. They will
completely disappear.
An hon. member: Without any compensation.
Mr. Pomerleau: Without any compensation, as one of my
colleagues puts it. So, 25 per cent of the $1.6 billion paid to western
Canada comes from Quebec. We provide money to pay
compensation elsewhere in Canada, while cuts are being made in
our province, as was the case with the Tokamak project. We paid $3
billion or $4 billion out of the $12 billion granted to the province of
Ontario. We paid 25 per cent of the $3 billion spent on Hibernia. In
the meantime, cuts are made to the Tokamak project. The province
of Quebec is a net loser under the Canadian Confederation.
[English]
A lot of people in Canada believe in those three assumptions,
some for good reasons. If we are a bunch of trouble makers
politically speaking, which is absolutely true, if we receive in
Quebec much more money than we put in, then support the
sovereignty of Quebec because the day we leave will solve the
problem and you will make money from it. That is the reason.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this debate
could very quickly leave Bill C-15 and get on to areas of national
unity. I will refrain from doing that and I will get back to the topic
at hand, recommendations in terms of changes to financial
institutions.
More specifically, I am interested in the CDIC aspect of the bill
and where the bill proposes rate premiums for the CDIC. The
premiums will be according to risk. We, the public, will not be able
to know what the risk rating is at the various institutions. It is
covered by a veil of secrecy. I want to know if this member
believes that is a just action.
(1705)
Also, if it is the objective of the government to make financial
institutions more transparent and hold them more accountable, how
does he feel about the speech I gave earlier this afternoon on
co-insurance? Perhaps there is a need to look at co-insurance.
Rather than having 100 per cent deposit insurance, perhaps there
should be a 90 per cent guaranteed share along with a 10 per cent
share by the investor.
There is a perverse sense of fairness in the current system where
lower risk or more successful institutions that do not go into
receivership, that do not go broke, that do not cost the taxpayers
money actually have to help pay for the ones that do and ultimately
taxpayers end up paying.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, first, on the issue of co-insurance,
I must say that I am not sure I understand what my hon. colleague
meant to say. Unfortunately, I did not listen to the speech he made
earlier this afternoon and I do not feel I have all the information
needed to answer his question.
However, as regards the government's transparency, we have
noticed not only in this document but also in the debate
surrounding the upcoming tax reform, scheduled for the end of the
year, that there is no transparency. For example, tax reform will be
considered behind closed doors by a committee made up of the
biggest users of tax havens in the world, who have institutions in all
of these tax havens.
The hon. member is right to remind us that, where transparency
is concerned, the government has not seen the light so far, if I can
put it this way. It is kind of opaque. You only have to remember the
recommendations made on the Pearson airport, where everything
was to be resolved in the minister's office behind closed doors.
These last few years, we have criticized the government for its lack
of transparency, and I think my hon. colleague has every right to do
the same.
As for co-insurance, I am sure my colleague and I will probably
have the opportunity to meet in the future to review this technical
issue in detail and in private.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the subject of Bill
C-15 certainly is not the area of my expertise. I want to approach
this from the standpoint of the lay person, talking about the
banking system, the insurance system and what they mean to
Canadians.
We all recognize the value of a stable banking and insurance
system. That is necessary in our society. If we look at the disruption
the United States has in its fiscal system, none of us would want to
ascribe to it.
When we look at this bill we find that there are a number of key
problem areas. The key to monitoring our financial institutions and
ensuring their financial health is the question we should be
addressing.
Ensuring Canadians do not get conned into putting their money
into shaky financial institutions which go on to collapse is of
extreme importance to us. Every time one of these financial or
insurance institutions goes under we all feel the repercussions. It
costs millions of dollars to insure this does not happen, and over
the years there have been a great many problems.
The CDIC has often had to step in to cover the $60,000 insured
limit on deposited moneys.
1611
(1710 )
I think back to my experience in Alberta. When the Principal
Group went under the grandmothers, the farmers and the general
public that had put their money into that institution were left not
knowing if they would get 10 cents on the dollar or 50 cents on the
dollar or what would happen to them.
Many people at that time said that was greed, that those people
invested in the Principal Group because it paid one per cent more or
one-half per cent more. I would not call that greed, I would call that
human nature. People will look at institutions with a view to
putting money into them based on what kind of return they can get.
Seniors are most affected, as they were in my community by the
collapse of the Principal Group. That is what we have to address.
We must ask how much information the general public should have
on all our financial institutions.
Let us examine Bill C-15. It seeks to improve the rules regarding
financial institutions. Unfortunately it does not deliver on this very
well. Like so many of the bills we have had before us in the House,
it goes part of the way in doing the job but does not go far enough.
That is either because of political reasons or because of lack of
information. Perhaps there is too much reliance on the bureaucracy
and not enough on the hard work of committees and of the minister.
Anyone leafing through the bill will notice it is quite complex. It
runs 136 pages. When we take this amount of legal jargon and add
it to the existing legislation we get an almost indecipherable
collection of material nobody except a few lawyers really
understand.
Over the three years I have been here I have noticed that when
we do this to bills, we leave things open to interpretation, we leave
things open to confusion. Many people will look at it differently.
The government has to return to communicating with people in
people's language. Lawyers, accountants and bankers have created
an industry out of complexity.
Whether our tax system, our banking system or any of these
systems, we are looking at getting legislation back to the people so
the people can understand it and can deal with it. We should not
have to hire experts. When we do that we leave ourselves open to
the abuse we so often hear about from our constituents.
The bill is very complex. It is an opaque bill and does not
address the fundamental problems surrounding financial
institutions. That is why my colleagues and I are not supporting the
bill. We do not think Bill C-15 is evil or malicious, but we do not
think the government has taken the right approach of putting it in
language people can understand. I do not believe it could be that
difficult to express the bill in a legalese we could understand and
approach.
What is this simple approach we are talking about? It is very
important the system be understandable, open and accountable to
Canadians. This is the exact opposite of what I see when I try to
read Bill C-15.
The current system is so arcane that no ordinary person can make
head or tail of it. Even if some brave soul wanted to find the various
ins and outs, the information simply is not available. It is
confidential, it is off limits, it is out of bounds and it is something
individuals should not have. In other words, there is no
transparency and no accountability. It is no wonder Canadians do
not have much faith in the way things are going and are currently
being done.
(1715)
I come back to the tax laws as an example: 2,100 pages of
gobbledegook. I look at our Constitution and see more
gobbledegook. We have to relate to clause this and clause that as of
this date and that date and so on. Businesses and individuals cannot
understand it. Accountants have to take courses every month just to
understand the changes that are being made.
Let me relate one of the proposals in Bill C-15 that has some
potential. It suggests that risk should be a determining factor in
assessing premiums for the CDIC. That seems to be a really good
idea. Everyone in this House understands that a high risk company
should pay higher premiums. The inverse of this is true as well.
The more secure the institution, the less the premium should be.
This is common practice when it comes to insurance.
Unfortunately though, the CDIC would not make these risk
assessments available to the public. If this were open, transparent
and made available, then people could plan their investments
accordingly. They would know the level of risk they were taking
and it would be totally up front. They would have no one to blame
but themselves if they decided to make that riskier investment with
the higher premium rates.
There is no transparency. The way it is now is secretive which
makes it impossible for Canadians to make informed decisions. I
think we hear that no matter what area we talk about. Canadians
need things to be transparent and open.
I know many of the hon. members on the government side have a
fair amount of money. We have heard that mentioned on occasion.
Many of them are even what we might call wealthy. I would like to
ask those people, if they were putting their hard earned dollars into
a particular bank or trust company and they knew the CDIC had
done a risk assessment on that institution, would they not want to
know what the assessment said? Does it not make common sense
that it would be public information that one institution was riskier
than another?
That sort of thing should be public information. That is why the
public loses confidence and trust in politicians and in politics itself.
We do not seem to open up this information to assessment. The
1612
public has a right to have that assessment and to have it made
public. We need to know who is reliable and who is not.
When there is one of these big financial collapses and the
taxpayer is left holding the bag, would those people who have made
that decision not be angry if they realized that CDIC had known all
along the company was a risky bet? Would people not wonder why
the CDIC had kept that secret?
I think back to what I talked about earlier, the example in Alberta
where the grandmothers, the farmers and so many other people lost
their savings. We heard that the experts knew it was risky, but that
little grandmother out there sure did not know it was risky. How
could she know since that information is confidential? It is secret
information. As I pointed out at the start, if nothing else, just to get
this into the layman's language so the layman understands it we
have to open it up and make it transparent.
I would like to go back to what I earlier called a simple approach
to this. It involves a transparent and accountable system. One of the
best ways to build accountability into a system is through
co-insurance. This has been introduced but has not been followed
up on. It is not part of the bill and was rejected.
(1720)
How can this be? It would seem everyone agrees that we need
transparency, accountability and a right to know when a company
is a risk and when it is not. What is wrong with co-insurance? Why
is it not there? Again it comes back to the fact that we are not going
far enough. We are just touching the edges.
Many of the things we do are little political decisions where we
said we would do a little bit, so we do a little bit. There is no vision,
no long term plan. There is nothing there.
Mr. Silye: Where are they on the GST?
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): A member mentions the GST. Obviously
we had a promise on the GST. A major change was promised, but
what is going to happen? The name is going to be changed. It will
be called the ABC tax and will be 15 per cent. That certainly
sounds like a major change to me. It certainly destroys the
accountability we are all talking about. Again I come back to
mistrust of politicians and the political system.
Canadians are responsible people and they would make sure they
knew about the risks of particular financial institutions if some of
their savings and retirement money was on the line. Under the
current system though the first $60,000 is 100 per cent covered if a
financial institution fails. What incentive is there to find out about
these institutions? We must look at the whole area of co-insurance.
With a 100 per cent guarantee it only makes sense for Canadians
to put their money where they get the best deal and where they will
receive the highest interest rate regardless of the financial health of
the institution. It would only be human nature that when most of
the members on the other side get their MP pensions they will put
them into any kind of institution because of this 100 per cent
guarantee. Believe me, we on this side will have to be much more
careful because we are not getting the MP pension. We are not at
the trough, as are so many others.
With co-insurance we would have a shared risk and it would
encourage accountability. It would force people to choose between
the higher interest rate or the security. Those of us who have been
in business have had to make those choices. We are saying that the
bill should reflect this.
It is not greed that causes people to go for the highest interest
rate. Much of it is a lack of understanding of the system. Many
people risk their life savings. They are not greedy; they are simply
following human nature.
Choice is good. Personal responsibility is also a good thing. I
know some of my colleagues opposite would disagree but I feel
strongly about this. I know the tradition of this place is to legislate
away all choice to protect Canadians who were arrogantly assumed
to be incapable of looking after themselves.
Many of us came here because we got angry. We would send
good people here and they would come back in six months and say:
``We know better than you because the party told us that this is how
we should think''. There is a member opposite who after yesterday
I am sure will go back and say: ``Well, I voted against my party
because I was honourable, because I did what I knew I had to do''.
We often hear this message coming from on high, here in
Ottawa. It is called Ottawa fever. That is where the party runs the
show, not the people; the people do not bring the message this way,
it goes in reverse. We are sick and tired of that.
(1725 )
Canadians say: ``Be accountable. Put in some legislation. Do
some of the real changes we have been demanding''. The people
are ahead of the politicians. They are way ahead of the politicians.
They understand risk. They understand the banking system. They
are where it is at.
Let us get back to the bill. Much of what we have been talking
about is wound up in complexity, the banking industry, the legal
industry, the bureaucracy. We are saying instead of the 136 pages,
we can solve the problems much more easily. Bill C-15 should be
scrapped and the whole issue should be looked at in a totally new
light. The underlying principle for any future legislation should be
openness, accountability and choice.
1613
Some members across the floor will say that I am saying
competition is not good. I am saying that competition is where
it is at but there has to be a level playing field. The problem with
banks is they do not have a level playing field. There is no
openness. There is no accountability. That is why we have the
present problems. That is why the people have such doubts about
banks, about insurance companies and about politicians. They
have those questions because of the lack of accountability.
It is good to go home and realize the support we have is from the
grassroots. It has grown dramatically in terms of membership and
in all kinds of ways. It makes us feel really good because we know
we have taken the message the right way. The message has come
from the people to this place. They are demanding that we put it
into a much simpler, understandable way.
In closing, Bill C-15 is too complex. It does not deal with the
issues of accountability and transparency which people demand.
We are voting against this bill.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I want
to stand in defence of grandmothers. It seems to me that the
members have been castigating grandmothers. I have met many
grandmothers in my life who are very astute investors.
Beyond that, it is getting back to the whole question of CDIC and
the purpose for CDIC insurance. CDIC is not a bond rating
company. Reformers want the CDIC to divulge this information to
the general public. That is not its purpose. If a bond rating is
wanted, they would go to Dunn and Bradstreet.
Finally, I want to quickly say that the whole concept of
co-insurance in the member's argument is in defence of the large
financial institutions that allow them. The junior financial
institutions will not be able to compete if the concept of
co-insurance is brought in.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, that was a fairly confused
question but I will try to deal with it. First, we are all for
grandmothers. We all agree with that so let us clear that away.
With respect to CDIC, we do not expect it to be a bond rating
agency. However when problems are found in a financial
institution, we do expect that to be transparent. We do not expect to
have a situation which occurred in our province with the Principal
group. The company went under and the information was known
but was not made public. It is not fair to the very grandmothers we
are trying to protect. That is what we are talking about. We could
have bond rating agencies. We do not expect CDIC to do that.
CDIC is an insurance company. It is important to get this back to a
transparent and accountable situation.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to compliment the member for Red Deer on his speech. He said
that this was a topic about which he really did not know much.
However, after listening to him I find that his comments and
opinions even improved on the speech which I gave on this topic.
He did an outstanding job. It just shows the quality of the members
over here in the Reform Party.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Red Deer-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre will
be sorry to know that his time is up.
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.
_____________________________________________
1613
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.)
moved:
That this House support the creation of an environment in which agricultural
producers make their own decisions on how their products are marketed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is good to be in the House when
everyone is in such a good mood. I hope that mood continues as we
discuss agricultural issues.
Mr. Speaker, you read the motion but I want to put it on the
record again:
That this House support the creation of an environment in which agricultural
producers make their own decisions on how their products are marketed.
This is a motion, because it deals with a principle rather than
with specific legislation, in which case it would have been a bill.
I want to quote from Reform's agricultural broadsheet which
was printed prior to the 1993 election and which also supports this
principle. It states: ``The Reform Party believes that producer
organizations, including marketing boards, commissions and
co-operatives, should receive their direction from producers who
should structure their organizations in any manner in which they
believe will best serve their interests. In consultation with
producers, Reformers will seek to provide for a viable, self-reliant
market driven industry to create an environment in which
producers make their own decisions on how products are
marketed''.
This was the policy our party membership approved in 1992
prior to the 1993 election. It was these principles and others like
them on which we campaigned and on which we were very
successful in many rural ridings.
This is an issue today with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is an issue in supply managed industries. It is an issue pervading
much of agriculture.
1614
This principle was one Reform took before there were any
plebiscites of producers such as the one in Alberta, before some
of the data that is more scientific was done by polling
organizations. It proves that Reformers have their ear open to the
public, have their ear open to businesses and in this case, have
their ear open to what those in the agricultural sector are saying.
We have been proved to be correct by recent developments in the
industry. Therefore I would hope that the speakers that follow me
will endorse the principle I have put forward in the motion.
The industry sectors which producers are debating are about
having more input and influence over the marketing of grain and
also in the supply managed sector. This includes the matter of pork
marketing. It has become an issue in Manitoba whether producers
should have new marketing options and who actually calls the shots
when it comes to marketing pork in that province.
Far too often the operations of marketing boards and
commissions become removed from the individuals they are meant
to serve. As a result the decision making process is left in the hands
of individuals who do not necessary have the best interests of the
producer at hand or share the need for good timely decisions on
marketing that are required. Many producers feel that they need
more options for their marketing. I want to focus my comments
primarily on the Canadian Wheat Board. One of my colleagues will
follow and spend a bit more time dealing with the supply managed
area.
(1735)
There has been controversy regarding the Canadian Wheat
Board during the past few months even though the controversy in
general has raged on for as long as I can remember. It seems to be
increasing in intensity and often even makes the news today.
A plebiscite was held in the province of Alberta last year. The
results of that plebiscite on the marketing of wheat and barley
clearly indicates a growing trend toward a system in which
producers will have the opportunity to decide how their products
will be marketed.
In the Alberta plebiscite 66 per cent of barley growers voted in
favour of having the right to sell barley to any buyer. That is
two-thirds of the barley producers in Alberta. Sixty-two per cent of
wheat growers voted in favour of having the option to sell wheat to
any buyer. That is a substantial majority and must be taken heed of
and not cast aside. It is an important factor.
The producers were asked: Are you in favour of having the
freedom to sell your barley to any buyer, including the Canadian
Wheat Board, into domestic and export markets? Are you in favour
of having the freedom to sell your wheat to any buyer, including the
Canadian Wheat Board, into domestic and export markets? The
answer was a resounding yes. Participation in the plebiscite was
extremely high with thousands of voters taking the time to cast
their ballots because they felt the issue was important.
That is Alberta and Alberta may not represent the views of all of
Canada. I know that Albertans' views are important but I happen to
represent a riding in Saskatchewan and so the province of
Saskatchewan is important to me. My colleague from
Lisgar-Marquette has to have his ear open to what producers in
Manitoba are saying.
The Government of Saskatchewan did a scientific poll of its
producers, asking their opinions on the Canadian Wheat Board.
From this survey some interesting statistics are available to us.
Approximately 80 per cent of Saskatchewan producers indicated
some level of support for the board. This does not surprise me
because there has always been strong support for the Canadian
Wheat Board in the province of Saskatchewan. I happen to be one
of those 80 per cent. My party is part of that 80 per cent that
supports the Canadian Wheat Board. Some people have indicated
otherwise but that is simply not true, and we have not said that in
this House. We did not say it in our campaign material and we are
not about to change our minds unless our members tell us we are on
the wrong ground and our constituents tell us we are not moving in
the right direction.
On further study of the survey some very interesting opinions are
expressed by Saskatchewan's producers. For example, while a
majority of producers believe that the monopoly powers of the
Canadian Wheat Board give it market power internationally,
producers are divided on whether or not the Canadian Wheat Board
gets the highest price. There is a saw-off on that one.
More significantly, 58 per cent of Saskatchewan producers
believe that participation in the Canadian Wheat Board should be
made voluntary. This is not some cooked up poll. This poll was
done by the Government of Saskatchewan, probably the provincial
government in Canada that most strongly supports the Canadian
Wheat Board. Its survey which it commissioned and paid for
suggests that 58 per cent of producers in Saskatchewan want to see
selling to the Canadian Wheat Board be more voluntary.
A major of producers were in favour of selling grain to the
domestic food markets without having to go through the Canadian
Wheat Board. They were about equally divided but a small
majority in favour of being allowed to make direct sales into the
United States.
A majority of Saskatchewan producers were in favour of the
federal government having less control and influence over the
Canadian Wheat Board.
There was a breakdown of the demographics with regard to this
survey. It indicated that younger producers were more open and in
fact even requesting change than were older producers. It tells us
1615
that those who will be farming in the future are in the majority in
wanting to see changes to the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is interesting that they want to see structural changes to the
board. They talked of discussing a dual market, domestic versus
export and how that would be handled. The primary focus during
the last election campaign was that the Canadian Wheat Board
needs to be made more accountable and it needs to be more
responsive to the producers it is supposed to serve. There is
overwhelming support in this survey for the Canadian Wheat Board
to be made more accountable to the producers that it is supposed to
serve.
(1740)
Currently the Canadian Wheat Board is controlled solely by the
federal government. It is answerable to the minister of agriculture
and, by extension, to the Privy Council. The commissioners are
appointed by the Privy Council. Their term lasts until they reach
the age of 70. Their benefits are extremely luxurious and in their
jobs there is little for which they can be held accountable. It is not
what the producers are calling for.
Two-thirds of the respondents to the survey said that the federal
government should have less control and influence over the
Canadian Wheat Board. That aligns perfectly with the motion I
brought today. The producers should be able to make their own
decisions on how their products are marketed.
Farmers may recommend that certain alterations be made to the
Canadian Wheat Board, but the decision to implement those
changes is still solely at the discretion of the federal government.
Farmers are powerless. The wheat board advisory board is
powerless to make changes to the board, even though it is supposed
to be the elected body which has influence over the board.
The board is a crown corporation and the government retains the
power to direct the board with respect to the manner in which any
of its operations, powers and duties are performed.
More recently, a number of occurrences involving the Canadian
Wheat Board have called into question the ability of the board to
represent the interests of all producers. I could talk about its
mishandling of the fusarium disease in southern Manitoba, its
mishandling of frozen durum in southern Saskatchewan and its
mishandling of the export of barley in the last crop year, just to
mention a few.
This has created a lot of unhappiness in the farming community.
A few farmers want out from under the jurisdiction of the Canadian
Wheat Board. However, the way the wheat board act is written they
are not allowed any freedom whatsoever.
A group of farmers called ``The Farmers for Justice'' has been
formed. I am not in the House to condone some of the things which
that group has done. However, I would say that the reason we have
a group of farmers in the prairies that goes under the banner of
``The Farmers for Justice'' is because they feel they would like to
have the ability to market their produce outside the board.
Currently, the way the wheat board act is written, they are
restricted. They cannot export their wheat into the United States
without a Canadian Wheat Board export permit even though they
might not have a wheat board permit or a contract with the board.
I am not suggesting that farmers should break contracts. If a
farmer contracts with the Canadian Wheat Board, they should live
up to that contract. Farmers across the country accept that. When
farmers make a deal, for the most part, they stick with it. However,
these farmers have no choice in this matter. If they choose not to
contract with the Canadian Wheat Board, their wheat is not their
own. They have no choice in the matter but to apply to the board for
the right to market their wheat.
These farmers are asking that this be changed but they are not
getting any co-operation from the government. They are taking
steps that are beyond what we would like to see. They are doing
things I cannot condone. However, they are frustrated, simply
because there has not been any movement either within the board
or within the Liberal government to correct the situation.
I belong to a political party. Many Canadians support my party.
If they want to get involved they can buy a $10 membership and
they will have a voice in the way my party functions. They can
have an equal vote on the policies which my party espouses and
they can have a choice in the selection of candidates. If they are not
happy with the Reform Party and they want to join another political
movement of lesser quality, such as the Liberal Party, they have the
right to buy a membership in that party. If they are not happy with
my party I would rather they were in the Liberal Party because I
would like to see them involved in a way in which they are
comfortable.
The farmers in western Canada do not have that choice. They are
bound by the Canadian Wheat Board Act to market through a board
in which they have no voice. They have no ability to assist in the
formulation of the board's policies. They have no ability to select
the commissioners who sit on the board. There is no democracy in
the board. It has become a very political institution.
(1745)
There have been some reports and studies done on the Canadian
Wheat Board in recent months. One was recently commissioned by
the board, the Kraft report. This report is called the performance
evaluation of the Canadian Wheat Board. It was commissioned by
the board and paid for with the farmers' money. It was apparently
given confidential information to determine whether the Canadian
1616
Wheat Board was doing a good job. That is fine. The board should
be looking at itself internally and evaluating itself. I do not find
fault with that.
However, the problem is there was another study commissioned
by the board, the Deloitte & Touche evaluation, which was kept
under raps and never revealed to farmers until a copy was made
available through Reform a few weeks ago. This was a 1992 study
which found many serious deficiencies in the Canadian Wheat
Board.
I hear the member for Kingston and the Islands agrees with me.
He is also concerned about these deficiencies in the board because
he seems to be very interested in the matter.
As a result of the hiding of this study, we have no idea
whatsoever whether the board has acted on the recommendations
made by its own auditors.
We had another study commissioned by the Government of
Alberta, pushing for dual marketing in wheat. It is the government
which launched the plebiscite and did a study called the Carter
study. It comes to an opposing position to the Kraft report. The
Carter report suggests the wheat board is a more costly institution
than it has been letting on and it costs more to market through the
wheat board than we have been led to believe.
Because producers do not have any direct say in the board it is
hard for them to determine whether the board is being run
efficiently. Because it is not transparent, they cannot tell how good
a job the Canadian Wheat Board is doing. They also have no option
to market outside the board.
It is good to do these studies but it is much more important to
give this board to the producers it is supposed to serve.
The Ontario Wheat Producers Board serves much the same
function as the Canadian Wheat Board expect that it is controlled
democratically by Ontario farmers. Ontario farmers elect the
directors of the board. They divide Ontario up into districts. They
have an organization and the wheat producers in Ontario choose the
directors who serve on the board.
They do not have to go to the Government of Ontario or come to
Ottawa because they can choose those directors themselves. Prairie
producers do not have that opportunity. They have no voice
whatsoever in selecting the commissioners.
Mr. Milliken: They have a wonderful minister of agriculture.
Mr. Hermanson: I can tell the member for Kingston and the
Islands does not understand prairie agriculture one iota. He
probably would not even know what a sheaf of wheat looked like or
which end of a combine the grain entered.
However, these are issues of vital concern to prairie producers.
There was the experiment with the continental barley market that
was taken at the end of the Conservative term. A very interesting
thing happened. The Canadian Wheat Board members said they can
function under this scenario, a form of a dual market. They said
they were happy because they knew the regulations had been
changed. They were not about to fold up their tents and go home.
They were prepared to compete. That opened a lot of farmers' eyes
to the fact that perhaps the Canadian Wheat Board would not
disappear under a dual marketing system. That again increased
their discontent with not having a voice in how their products are
marketed.
We could argue for quite some time whether a single desk seller
is better than an option or a dual market system. I do not think
members on the Liberal side should be making that decision. To be
quite honest, I do not think members on the Reform side or the
Bloc side should be making that decision. The producers should be
making that decision.
It is very interesting that prior to the last election and prior to the
reversal on the continental barley market the Prime Minister and
his key agriculture people said the producers should make that
decision. The Prime Minister said there should be a plebiscite.
Suddenly the tables are reversed and a plebiscite is out of the
question. ``Well, the farmers may not be able to understand the
question''. Imagine the insult of the Liberals saying farmers would
not understand the question. I would like members opposite to
know farmers are very intelligent and would not have survived this
long in Canada under some of the burdens they have faced had they
not been extremely intelligent. Give them a chance a the tools to do
the job and they will do extremely well.
(1750)
The western grain marketing panel is the tool the minister of
agriculture has set up to review all the marketing of western grains.
The panel members are supposed to look under every rock and find
out what course of actions to recommend to the minister of
agriculture.
Much of the work has already been done and measured through
the plebiscite, the polls and the surveys done by the province of
Saskatchewan.
The member for Lisgar-Marquette did a survey of his
constituents and found the majority of them wanted a plebiscite, no
matter which side of the issue they were on. In the riding of
Kindersley-Lloydminister over 70 per cent of respondents wanted
a plebiscite. That coincides with the scientifically accurate poll
done by the province of Saskatchewan which lends credibility to
the survey we are doing of our constituents.
That survey really bothers the member for Kingston and the
Islands. He does not like to deal with the facts.
1617
I ask the House to seriously look at the motion. I would be
extremely disappointed if any member of the House would not
agree we should support the creation of an environment in which
agriculture producers make their own decisions about how their
products are market.
I appreciate the time to speak on behalf of Canadian farmers.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have the opportunity to respond to Motion No. 176 on behalf of the
government.
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister moved:
That this House support the creation of an environment in which agricultural
producers make their own decisions as to how their products are marketed.
It is not clear from the wording of the motion exactly which
commodities or marketing systems he is referring to. However,
through his comments now and through his statements in the past
we can assume it is wheat and barley he is targeting in western
Canada.
The debate over the Canadian Wheat Board and current grain
marketing systems has been going on for many years, with a wide
range of opinions from status quo to the abolition of the board.
Some are saying farmers are better off dealing with the single desk
of the Canadian Wheat Board while others say farmers would
benefit from being able to market their grain when and where they
want.
The assumption that dual market and Canadian Wheat Board
could co-exist has not been proven. The board says dual marketing
cannot work because it must make an initial payment. If initial
payments are too low compared with spot price, it will not get any
wheat or barley. If the payments are too high, farmers will try to
deliver all of their product to the board.
Furthermore, the free trade agreement and NAFTA both rule out
re-establishing single desk marketing after an experiment with dual
marketing unless United States interests are not hurt.
As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has said, you
cannot put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. If we move off on
an experiment the Reform Party is suggesting, we may endanger
the marketing system throughout the rest of history in Canada.
Those who favour dual marketing want the wheat board to
behave like a grain company. The Canadian Wheat Board cannot be
a grain company like any other. It is a marketing agency. It does not
buy grain from farmers, it sells grain on their behalf. It does not
make a profit. All the revenues from sales are returned to the
producers. If markets fall, the board does not take the loss, farmers
do.
There have also been public demonstrations against both
options. In general, the demonstrators have been shouting at each
other, not trying to persuade each other of the rightness of their
views.
(1755 )
What has been missing from the discussion is a thoughtful, face
to face, factual examination of the issues. There has been a lot more
heat than light spread on the issue. There have been calls for the
federal government to hold a plebiscite. The problem with that
option is that complex questions on marketing structures or
compatibility of different systems is difficult to address with a
simple yes or no that a plebiscite would only allow them to say.
For example, while an Alberta plebiscite produced a vote in
favour of dual marketing, many producers said they would have
voted differently if it meant the end of the Canadian Wheat Board.
It must be recognized that making significant changes to a
marketing system to accommodate the wishes of one group of
individuals may damage the financial returns and continued
operation of a preferred marketing choice of the majority of
farmers.
To help focus this debate, last July the minister put a grain
marketing panel in place to look at all facets of grain marketing in
Canada. That panel has now completed its town hall meetings and
formal hearings and is now preparing its written report. One of my
colleagues will have more to say on this subject later in the debate.
This process is providing grain farmers, industry and other
stakeholders an opportunity to participate in a number of grassroots
discussions. I believe this is far more productive than passing a
vaguely worded motion on this decision.
In a previous debate in the House the hon. member complained
that producers had no say. He also made that complaint today, that
producers have no say in how solutions would be reached in this
problem. The grain marketing panel has given them that input. It
has also allowed other interested parties to be heard.
He appeared before the panel on March 18. I was at the panel the
day he appeared. Usually people take part in a process only if they
believe it is valid. I congratulate the hon. member for recognizing
the minister has the right to appoint a panel and explain his
viewpoints at the table.
I wonder why the member is not prepared to wait for the panel
presentation when it makes its report. To pass this motion would be
to repudiate the grain marketing panel before it is finished its work.
I urge my fellow colleagues and members of the House not to
support this motion. Instead they should allow the grain marketing
panel to complete its hearings and produce its report. Then the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will be able to make a
decision on the future of grain marketing. Then we can all be
1618
confident in the knowledge that producers have spoken and have
been heard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak today on Motion No. 176 put forward by my
colleague for Kindersley-Lloydminster, who is urging this House
to support the creation of an environment in which agricultural
producers make their own decisions as to how their products are
marketed.
First, let me point out the vagueness of the motion. Its purpose is
not easy to identify but I will nonetheless try to bring out what, to
me, are its most important features.
First, I am very proud to quote the example of Quebec where
farmers are largely responsible for the marketing of their products.
Obviously, this is possible because they are well organized and
well represented.
That is why there are, in Quebec alone, 34,600 agricultural
producers who are members of agricultural co-operatives. I think
we, Quebecers, get a great sense of pride from this. The
Coopérative fédérée and Agropur, to name but a few, have a
turnover that is more than 50 per cent of that of all non-financial
co-operatives put together, that is, more than $3 billion. The
mandate of the Union des producteurs agricoles or UPA is to
organize and represent all Quebec agricultural producers, whatever
the size and structure of their farms, the nature of their production
and the place they live.
(1800)
Obviously there is no problem as far as representation is
concerned and members of these cooperatives seem satisfied with
the mandates of their organizations. We could mention as an
example the dairy producers of Canada and Quebec who, after
evaluating changes in international trade, felt compelled to put in
place a market sharing quota for exports in order to take advantage
of new opportunities. This is a good example of producers making
their own marketing decisions. This was made possible by the fact
that the marketing board gave these producers a powerful
marketing instrument: supply management.
Another advantage that marketing boards give the producers is
that not only do they control marketing decisions, they also control
the cost of inputs since prices negotiated for the marketing of their
products are based on production costs.
The motion certainly has the merit of recognizing that producers
must have a say in the marketing of their products but, as I have
demonstrated, it is already the case in Quebec. Therefore, I wonder
if, by bringing forward this motion, my colleague from
Kindersley-Lloydminster wants western producers to be given
the same environment that dairy, egg and poultry producers enjoy
for the marketing of their products. If so, I have to congratulate the
member for recognizing that the Quebec model could be applied to
agricultural products in western Canada.
In this context, it is easy to understand the criticism expressed in
western Canada with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, for
example. Members of the board are appointed by the government
without producers having anything to say about it.
It has often been proposed that the advisory committee be
composed mainly of producers, and that applies to both elected and
appointed members. Maybe it would be interesting to propose that
the appointments be submitted to the standing agriculture
committee. It would certainly give some independence to the
appointment process.
Western producers feel uncomfortable with the Canadian Wheat
Board. Indeed, some argue that the commission does not advocate
farmers' interests anymore because it refuses to change an obsolete
management system that is more than 60 years old. Moreover, the
recent plebiscite in Alberta has shown that more than 60 per cent of
farmers think their ideas are not taken into consideration or are
bluntly disregarded by the commission. That could easily be
explained.
The farmers' concern is easy to understand, considering that the
commission controls or greatly influences all aspects of grain
marketing, transportation and handling, that it controls the price
and sale of wheat and barley, the allocation of cars, the decisions on
storage and shipments by grain companies, the value added
processing and resource allocation. I believe we have reason to be
concerned because the commission, which is not accountable,
could make an improper use of its power. The risk is that an
organization which exercises so much regulating control could be
accused of patronage.
Do not get me wrong, we are not accusing the Canadian wheat
board of incompetence and of misuse of power; rather, we are
trying to show that the risk of abuse exists and that it might be
preferable to review the process of appointing commissioners, who
are designated by the gouvernement, and of members of the
advisory board, who are designated by western farmers, in order to
ensure a more equitable representation of the interests of western
farmers.
Unfortunately, the interests of farmers and producers are often
neglected, and not only in the west. We need only to look at the
consultation process of the government to realize that, more often
than not, the government consults only for show. Take for instance
the recent cuts in dairy subsidies. Of course, the government
consulted dairy producers in Quebec and Canada, but they were
nevertheless faced with a done deal. No more subsidies, period.
1619
Now, what arrangement would be the least painful to you?
Decision: spread the cuts over five years. Conclusion: the
government consults, fine, but does what it wants anyway.
(1805)
Another more recent example is the issue of raw milk cheese. I
cannot resist this little aside, given my background. The
government is preparing to propose that the food and drug
regulations be modified to improve the protection of public health.
The proposed change involves unpasteurized cheese made from
raw milk.
This would involve requiring all cheeses intended for sale to be
pasteurized. This would mean that the specialty cheeses would no
longer be available in our stores. Do you see how absurd this is?
Just from the health point of view, if raw milk cheese were as
dangerous as that, why would we have authorized its sale since
1991? The only case of poisoning linked to a dairy product in
Canada dates back 61 years.
Alcohol and tobacco are hazardous consumer products, yet they
are not banned from our store shelves. Go ahead and smoke two
packs a day, knowing that you are likely to eventually get lung
cancer, but under no circumstances eat raw milk cheese. There is
no sense to this whatsoever, particularly since it hurts a fledgling
industry in Quebec capable of developing products that would
make our European friends green with envy.
In fact, the bulk of the raw milk industry is located in Quebec, as
are most of those who eat raw milk cheeses. We have discovered
that there is more to life than Kraft cheese, so this is not the time to
take the pleasures of the table away from us.
One wonders if, as the hon. member for Frontenac said recently,
some sort of excessive fear of food poisoning, or rather pressures
from large dairy producers afraid to lose their share of the market,
did not motivate the government to act on this issue. It remains to
be seen what results the consultation process will bring.
Who knows, maybe the government will come to its senses and
not go forward with its attack against raw milk chees. Today it is
cheese, but tomorrow it could be chicken salad or tuna which will
be banned. As a matter of fact, there have been in recent years cases
of epidemics caused by the same bacteria as the one found in some
raw milk cheeses.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of this motion is to give Canadians farmers the right which has
been given to others in Canada and around the world to market
their products in the way they choose. We would expect the
government would not have to be asked by farmers for this right,
but that is exactly what is happening.
I will talk briefly before I get into my presentation about one
farmer who is in the third week of a hunger strike to get what we
would expect would be given willingly in this country. Tom
Jackson, a farmer from Fort Saskatchewan, is continuing to try to
force the government to change the Canadian Wheat Board Act
through a hunger strike.
This is drastic action, but he feels this is important enough that
he is willing to take this drastic action to force the government into
the change that he and the majority of Albertan farmers and
probably the majority of farmers across the country want for the
Canadian Wheat Board.
The subject I will deal with in relation to the topic the hon.
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster brought forth today is the
supply managed sectors of the agricultural industry.
Supply managed sectors must be talked about separately because
unlike all other sectors of the agriculture industry many farmers,
probably the majority, do not want to have the supply managed
aspect removed. They are not as willing to have their industry
opened up to competition and to have that freedom to market in any
way they want.
I would concede that probably the majority feel like that. They
have done very well under the supply managed system. The reality
is most likely this will happen anyway. That is, supply managed
sectors will be opened up to competition from outside the country.
It is very likely that will happen.
(1810 )
It is true there are some discrepancies between some Reform
ideas and supply management. Reform members have been saying
for some time that they want what is best for the farmers in the
supply managed sectors of agriculture.
It is important, at least for me, to have those involved understand
what Reform has been saying and what we do want for farmers and
others in these industries. It is important to give this message
unfiltered by the media and by some leaders in the supply managed
sector. So often what Reform MPs actually say and what the media
portrays can be quite different, interesting but quite different.
To relieve stress and anxiety, on Sunday mornings a neighbour of
mine, a farmer who lives down the road from me, takes his little
5-speed and works through the gears, gets it up to 120 kilometres
per hour and accelerates around the curve so he is going out of that
curve at 140 kilometres per hour. That makes him feel good and
helps relieve his anxiety.
One Sunday morning my neighbour drove out to the end of his
driveway and started working through the gears, heading down the
road and saw a car on his road. Then he saw the car swerve. He
said: ``Oh my gosh, a drunk driver on my road on a Sunday
morning''.
1620
As the car came closer it slowed down, and so he slowed down
but did not stop. It was a lady driver. He said: ``Oh my gosh, a
lady driver on my road on a Sunday morning''. The lady stops
the car and opens the window. As he goes by he hears the driver
say ``pig''. He was mad. He said ``sow'' and went speeding down
the road into the curb at 140 kilometres and hits the pig.
This farmer because of his attitude problem refused to notice the
signals that would have allowed him to miss the obstacles, to miss
the pig.
I will talk about some of the signals I sincerely hope farmers in
the supply managed sectors of agriculture will not miss. I am
talking about the warnings of change which would lead to an end to
supply management as we know it, change which will lead to more
access to our markets by other countries, especially the United
States.
There is the possibility of Canada's losing the NAFTA chapter
20 dispute settlement initiated by the United States. If Canada loses
the U.S. challenge our current system of supply management will
undergo radical change. Although many farmers and others in the
industry are confident we will win the dispute, others are less
convinced. In any case they are concerned about their future
regardless of the outcome of the panel hearing.
Another threat to the supply managed industry is the Chilean
accession into NAFTA and the opening up of this agreement. The
Government of Canada has told Canadian farmers again and again
they do not have to worry about that. It will not open NAFTA up to
negotiation even if it wants to let Chile in.
The government said during the election campaign it would not
sign NAFTA unless certain criteria were put into the deal. They
were not put in and it signed it anyway. The government cannot be
trusted when it comes to promises made about these trade deals.
We do not know what will happen.
Looking ahead a little further, what will happen to our current
system of tariffication after the next round of negotiations starting
in 1999? Will the GATT countries continue to allow Europe,
Canada, the United States and others to keep high tariffs on
imported dairy, egg and poultry products? I believe this round of
negotiations will be much shorter than in the past. We are not
looking at a 5 year to 10 year negotiation period, as happened last
time.
The world and particularly the United States will have more
access to Canadian markets in the supply managed sector than they
have now as a result of the negotiations. I believe they will have
much more access.
(1815 )
Another signal that I hope farmers are thinking about, which
might allow them to avoid the pig, is the possibility of bilateral
trade negotiations with the United States. This is a very real
possibility.
There are several different factors that could spark these bilateral
negotiations. It could be the result of a panel hearing. It could be
the result of negotiations with Chile getting into NAFTA. It could
be that the Americans finally are willing to reduce protection in
some of the protected areas, like peanuts, sugar and coffee.
If the U.S. agrees to make changes in its export enhancement
program, will the government agree to lower our protective tariffs?
Who knows? I can honestly say I have more questions than
answers. In the more open trade environment which is building
around the world, I can be quite sure that the change will come
sooner than many would predict.
When I mentioned these possibilities at a meeting in Richmond,
Quebec, the first question was what about another possibility?
What about the possibility of Quebec leaving the country? That
would lead to the end of the supply managed sector overnight.
In closing, I ask the question, what have I left farmers with here
today? Nothing really very positive but that is because I have made
the same mistake that most people make when they talk about the
possible end of supply management. I focused on the threats
resulting from the change. What about the new possibilities and the
new opportunities that farmers in the industry will have? They will
have more competition in products coming from the United States.
However, on the other side they will have the huge American
market open to them. I know Canadian farmers in the supply
managed sector can compete very well with their American
neighbours. They will do well.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the private member's motion of
the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. It is a pleasure because
I know my counterparts from Saskatchewan and Alberta have
farming backgrounds. I am here to represent the point of view of
farming communities.
I come from a rural area in southeast Saskatchewan. The
concerns they raise are valid. That is why the minister of
agriculture set up a mechanism to review that forum. Where are we
going? How will we move into the 21st century if we do not
understand what are the problems that confront us today?
I set up a panel. That panel was allowed to hold hearings in
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The panel is going to come
back and report to the agriculture minister.
1621
Let me say to my friends opposite that as I travel throughout
southeast Saskatchewan, there are those on both sides of the issue.
There are those who would like to see the sale of grains and other
commodities put through dual marketing. But there are also those
who are saying that they want the Canadian Wheat Board to stay
in its present form.
The Canadian Wheat Board has to make some changes. Those
changes have to be done through the proper mechanism, that is,
through the panel set up to review that.
Let us take a look at some of the proposals that the panel is going
to review. They have merit. What are the nature and the
requirements of existent potential markets? What do we have? Let
us review the commodities and products that could be sold into
these markets. Then let us review the marketing systems that are
now available or could be available to exploit such markets to the
maximum possible benefit of western producers.
We had stakeholders. Who did we select as the chairman? We
selected a lawyer from Saskatoon who is well known and well
respected. Along with that where did we go? We took people on
both sides of the issue. The agriculture minister said: ``We want
both points of view''. Those people are going to come forward with
honest opinions. They may not be the opinion which my friends
opposite want, but it will be one which is focused, one which is
right for the time and one which will lead us into the 21st century.
(1820)
There was the suggestion that not every member of Parliament
takes polls. Every time I go home to my riding I take a poll. I take
the opinions of those people who are my farming counterparts and I
listen to them.
The folks from Inland terminal have one point of view on how
we should handle this. The people in southeast Saskatchewan from
the Redvers area look at dual marketing and are concerned. Other
groups of farmers are saying: ``I am old, I am established and I
think the Canadian Wheat Board is doing a reputable job''. It is fine
to criticize if one does not understand.
However, the Canadian Wheat Board is due for some criticism if
it does not change. Does change mean that the whole system should
be thrown out? I do not think so. When all is said and done, we will
find that the support of the people from across the west will be for
the Canadian Wheat Board as the single desk selling agency that
performs very well.
Let us not fool ourselves. If we get rid of it and we go to a
marketing system where everybody goes on their own, I would
venture to say that within five years or less the farmers who wanted
to get rid of the system will be marching back to the door of the
agriculture minister saying: ``What have we done? Let us bring
that agency back''.
A friend of mine recently visited China. He talked to the
agriculture people over there. He said that our producers are to be
commended. They produce the best quality grains in the world.
They have the quantities which China wants and they are delivered
on time. The Chinese people are going to be the largest buyers of
our good quality wheat. However, he said: ``If you move away from
that single desk selling agency, I am telling you now that we will
have to take a second look at whether we will buy from you''.
That is what is happening in the trading world. There are people
who are concerned that we will move away from that single desk
selling agency.
I would like to commend my hon. friend from
Kindersley-Lloydminster for bringing forward this motion. This
is the area in which we want to be able to sit down to discuss
openly, in a wise manner, what are the options and where we are
going.
I also commend the parliamentary secretary. He brought up a
very good point, that is, the vote in Alberta was not really reflective
of the question which was asked.
People were asked if they wanted a dual marketing system. They
said yes. If it means the end of the Canadian Wheat Board they may
very well say no. It is a very serious argument.
I want to say in closing that the results will be reviewed by the
minister of agriculture. He will take a look at both sides of the issue
and I am sure he will recommend those things that need to be done
in the best interests of the farming community right across Canada.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity, in the limited time we have
left, to say a few words about this motion.
I have been listening for the last 50 minutes or thereabouts to
what members opposite have been saying. I guess they did not
understand the motion because we have been talking about two
separate issues. Members opposite are talking about the merits of
single desk selling versus the merits of dual marketing in the
Canadian Wheat Board or some such thing. The hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster simply states in his motion that the
farmers, the producers, should have the right to make the decision
on how they will market. We are not here to decide how it is to
happen.
(1825)
The member for Essex-Kent a few minutes ago questioned the
ability of farmers to deal with such a complex question. As a
farmer I am shocked and appalled that a member of Parliament
would imply that farmers are too stupid to make a decision this
important.
1622
He says ``I will make the decision for you. I know what is best
for you''. Farmers have been living under that system for far too
long and they will no longer accept it.
Let us talk about democracy. Let us look at the history of the
Canadian Wheat Board. It was established without a vote. The
wheat board commissioners are appointed by government without
a vote. The wheat board took barley out of the wheat board and
brought it back in solely without a vote. Producers could only
market their canola and other special crops outside the wheat
board, without a vote.
In the 1993 election campaign the government claimed it would
uphold the high principles of democracy. The minister of
agriculture promised a plebiscite on barley. It is now two and a half
years later and nothing has changed-without a vote.
There is no democracy in the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe
there is a strong place for the Canadian Wheat Board, but by doing
nothing, this producer funded board may well self-destruct from
within without pressures from outside.
I support my colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminister on his
motion. My only disappointment is that the government has
deemed it should not be a votable motion. It has seen fit to stifle
even further democracy by not allowing the House to vote on the
motion, let alone allowing farmers to vote on an issue that has a
tremendous impact on their destiny.
When will the government wake up and realize producers will no
longer accept this kind of dictatorial attitude toward their industry?
A few weeks ago I was travelling to Moose Jaw and I heard a talk
show on the radio featuring Nettie Wiebe, the president of the
National Farmers Union, a strong supporter of single desk, orderly
marketing. I have no problem with that.
She said this is a democracy and the majority of people should
rule in a democracy. I fully support that. When has the majority had
the opportunity to make a decision on these types of things?
I could go on and on about the importance. Let us keep in mind
we are not talking about the value of single desk marketing versus
dual marketing. We are talking only about the issue of producers
having the opportunity.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall we call it 6.30 p.m.?
_____________________________________________
1622
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March
21, I put a question in the House to the Prime Minister regarding
events which had taken place in Gagetown, New Brunswick, and
which included distasteful hazing rituals. These events showed
once again that Canadian forces commanders have lost control over
military ethics: the series of events that occurred in Somalia, in
Petawawa, and at the Citadel in Quebec City clearly demonstrate
that high ranking officers always manage to get away with things
and wash their hands of anything that could prevent them from
being promoted. Being promoted is what matters, often to the
detriment of the truth, even.
Today, in light of all these events, we are wondering who leads
the forces. Why, when there are unfortunate events such as those of
late, is no one responsible at the top of the chain of command? If
this is the case, is there not cause for concern about the success of
armed forces' undertakings at home and abroad?
As you know, before the sad and unfortunate events in
Somalia-I remind you that people died-Canada enjoyed a
spotless reputation in the area of peacekeeping. In a peace mission,
our soldiers represent us. They are our ambassadors and should
behave in a dignified and professional manner. Their behaviour
must be exemplary. They are not allowed to let us down.
Another event that surfaced was the Quebec Citadel
manoeuvres, which were authorized by military leaders and which
could have turned into a blood bath. As elected representatives,
what should we think of such improvised manoeuvres?
At this point, Canadians are increasingly losing confidence in
the integrity of the chain of command of the armed forces. I would
remind you that $10.7 billion will be spent in fiscal 1996-97. That
is an awful lot of money.
I invite the minister to assume his responsibilities. He must do
everything in his power to restore the credibility of the Canadian
armed forces. He must do everything possible to shed light on the
unacceptable behaviour of certain members of the forces and cure
the ills plaguing the army. He must have the courage to go right to
the top of the chain of command. If he fails to fully restore the
forces' reputation, he will have no choice but to leave.
Nothing, as I speak, indicates to me that the minister is going to
succeed.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member opposite has demanded accountability in
the Canadian forces. This is one of the cornerstones of the
Canadian forces.
1623
The Canadian forces have a policy of zero tolerance for hazings
and other related activities which cannot in any way be considered
soldierly. The policy exists and has been disseminated and
Canadian forces members are to act accordingly. Like all
Canadians, they are responsible and accountable for their actions.
If a Canadian forces member chooses to ignore the very clear
direction provided, actions appropriate to the transgression in the
question will be taken. I assure the hon. member that violations of
Canadian forces policy are dealt with firmly and effectively.
As a result of this incident a number of Canadian forces
members face administrative and disciplinary measures. Those
who witnessed the incident will be dealt with administratively,
receiving formal warnings that they should never again be found to
be involved in any activity of this nature and severe career action
will be taken.
The remaining Canadian forces members who are found to be
participants in varying forms and degrees in the events at Camp
Gagetown will be charged under section 129 of the National
Defence Act for conduct to the prejudice of good order and
discipline. A number of punishments are available to the officer
responsible for trying the accused.
The trials of soldiers who were charged will likely be finished in
the very near future and any actions taken as a result will be made
public immediately thereafter. I will not comment any further on
the cases in question, as it is imperative that due process be allowed
to take place.
On numerous occasions opposition members seemingly want to
taunt the government into bypassing due process in the name of
political expediency. While the member opposite has stated in the
House who he believes to be responsible for the incident in
question at Camp Gagetown, justice will be better served by
allowing due process to run its course.
* * *
(1835)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March
11, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question
concerning the alleged payment of what the investigator, Roger
Tassé, calls ``accommodation fees'' and what I call bribes by
removal officers of her department to foreign officials so that they
would let their own nationals back in. The minister never took
action on these very serious allegations, despite our call for a
special inquiry.
The minister should clearly commit herself to following the
recommendations of the Tassé report. The reprehensible methods
used by immigration officers for the deportation of foreign
nationals must not be allowed to continue. It is inadmissible, and
even illegal, for civil servants to alter or forge documents in order
to deport asylum seekers or speed up the process.
Moreover, certain removal officers administer tranquillizers to
deportees. Yesterday, I was made aware of the case of an Algerian
man, Mr. Bedj, who was told he would be given drugs if he made
any trouble when it came time to go. The officer opened his travel
bag and showed him a brand new syringe and some drugs.
I also condemn the police attitude of certain removal officers.
They often use force or unnecessary equipment, without any
reason, handcuffing the persons in their custody, for example. They
sometimes violate their civil rights and liberties. A lot of these
actions are never brought to the public's attention. The CIC should
make available all information concerning removal matters.
As for detention and release of persons in custody, the situation
is totally arbitrary. Nowhere can we find any precise criteria for
detention and release. Sometimes, foreign nationals stay months
and months in detention centres without any justification and very
often in very poor conditions; men, women, adults and children
together. In the Mississauga detention centre for immigrants I met
a Kurdish girl, still a minor, who had been there for more than eight
months, without any charge being brought against her.
I would like to take this opportunity to criticize the people
responsible for the detention centre situated on Saint-Jacques
street, in Montreal for their attitude towards me. Despite a
pre-arranged appointment, my assistant, a representative from the
refugee assistance committee and myself were kept waiting for a
quarter of an hour outside, last December, before we were let in.
We had to wait outside in very cold weather. I have requested an
investigation into that incident. I am not at all satisfied with the
explanations of the minister and of the CIC director for Quebec.
Furthermore, I ask the minister to reconsider her decision to
move the detention centre to Laval because that site is too far for
lawyers, officials and inmates' families.
I would also suggest that the minister review the whole
procedure for escorting deported people out of the country, which
is costly for the public purse. Why must two or three officers escort
an individual who is not a criminal?
For a few years now, the Canadian and American governments
have been preparing an agreement in order to control and reduce
the number of claimants and discourage people from claiming
refugee status. In November 1995, they signed a draft agreement
and the final text was to be signed in February, and then in April.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration held
public consultations on that text. Almost all the organizations and
individuals, both from Canada and the United States, who appeared
before this committee were against this draft agreement.
1624
Now, Canadian and American governments have decided to
postpone negotiations on this agreement until next summer, once
the United States has passed new and even more stringent
legislation against refugees.
I am strongly opposed to this agreement that will keep thousands
of persecuted people from coming to Canada, through the United
States, to file a refugee status claim.
It must be pointed out that a third of the 20,000 or so refugee
claimants go through the United States. The level of refugee
protection offered by our neighbours to the South is considerably
lower than in Canada.
This about-face by the Liberals is incomprehensible and
unjustified. The minister's predecessor, now the environment
minister, said in November 1993, just after being appointed to the
cabinet:
[English]
``But any agreement for me would have to pass the test that the
agreement is on a level playing field that respects our standards''.
[Translation]
As the first member of Latin American origin elected to this
House, I am very concerned about the impact this agreement could
have. In practical terms, persecuted people in Central and South
America will not be able to come here and ask for Canada's
protection. There are hardly any direct flights between Latin
America and Canada.
I ask the government to give up and to purely and simply forget
this draft agreement.
Finally, I ask the minister to grant permanent residency in
Canada to Victor Regalado, a Salvadorian refugee who has been
living here for 13 years now without any status, who works here
and who, with his spouse, a Canadian citizen, has had two children,
born in Quebec.
The minister should settle this case as quickly as possible.
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member put his question as an extension of a question to the
minister with respect to the Tassé report and the issue of why it
refers to them.
However, the member spent most of his time talking about all
kinds of allegations and suggestions of irregularities, in addition to
talking about business that is in front of the committee, as the hon.
member very well knows since he is a member of that committee.
He knows full well that the report is not yet finished and has not
been tabled in this House. Therefore, it is rather difficult to be
debating something that is not here nor part of this House's agenda.
He then brings up individual cases which again are not things one
should get into.
I am going to discuss for a few minutes the hon. member's
question to the minister in the House which is for what I believe
this period is intended. It goes back to the hon. member's concerns,
allegations and suggestions about bribes.
The fact is that where there has been sufficient information to
identify a case we have initiated an investigation. We cannot do
those kinds of things based on general allegations.
The government agrees that the immigration enforcement
program must be carried out with a high standard of
professionalism, respect for the person and within the law. That is
something this government is very committed to. This is why the
recommendations contained in Mr. Tassé's report are being given
very serious consideration as we renew and revitalize the
enforcement function.
As I said the last time we dealt with this issue, any instance of
substantial illegal or improper behaviour is investigated and acted
on by a departmental official. However, one cannot do an
investigation just on the basis of allegations. One has to have some
proof. This is why when the Tassé report was released, the deputy
minister invited anyone with documented allegations of
misconduct to come forward. CIC regional directors general will
investigate and appropriately deal with any matter which does
come forward, as we have said before.
As I have said before, nowhere in the Tassé report is there
mention of bribes of officials or of anyone else. As a matter of fact,
the Tassé report mentions a great many things but not those kinds
of things.
I would like to talk about some of the very good things which are
in the report.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the parliamentary
secretary's time has now expired.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m.
tomorrow.
(The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.)