CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 20, 1996
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6485
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6487
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6487
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6488
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6488
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6488
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6490
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6490
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6491
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6491
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6491
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6494
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6495
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6495
Bill C-350. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6498
Motion for concurrence in fourth report 6498
Point of Order on Rules of Dress 6502
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 70; Nays, 126 6502
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 61; Nays, 124 6504
Bill C-66. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 6505
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 148; Nays, 42 6506
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee.) 6507
Bill C-42. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading of and concurrence in Senate
amendments;and of the amendment 6507
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 26; Nays, 164 6507
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 6511
6483
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 20, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Thursday the Waterloo Region Community Safety and Crime
Prevention Council released its report on making Waterloo region a
safer and more secure community. The report is the result of 14
months of hard work by over 80 members of the task force who
represent a cross-section of my community.
The report states that crime prevention is everyone's concern and
challenges the community to imagine a community in which all
members can be safe and feel safe. The report notes that while
Waterloo region has a low relative crime rate, residents have an
increased fear of crime.
The 50 recommendations of the report challenge the community
to fight crime and be involved in crime prevention by dealing with
the root causes of crime. The report notes that the offender of
tomorrow is the vulnerable child of today, and that physically
abused children are five times more likely to be violent adults.
I salute the council for its valuable work. It will help in
maintaining Waterloo region as one of the safest and most secure
communities in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the mining
industry plays an important role, not only in my riding of Abitibi,
but also in the whole economy of Quebec and Canada. I am pleased
to welcome the delegates of this industry, who are here in Ottawa
on the lobbying day of the campaign to support the mining
industry.
This industry unquestionably plays a key role in Quebec. It
employs over 17,500 people, pays $889 million in salaries, and
generates over $3 billion in mining shipments.
The scheduled meetings with members of Parliament will
provide these delegates with an opportunity to clearly state their
needs regarding the regulatory reform that is required to promote
investments in the mining sector. So far, the federal government
has made nice promises, but taken little concrete action. I hope the
representations made by industry officials will prompt the
government to quickly take action.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I welcome the Keep Mining in Canada group to
Ottawa. Today has also been declared National Day of the Child.
Some of the most important factors in a child's life are: whether
their parents have a well paying job; whether children grow up in a
stable community with adequate health care and education; and
whether they can look forward to getting a good job when they
finish school. Keeping the successful mining industry flourishing
in Canada will help provide all those things: good jobs for today
and tomorrow; a sound tax base to pay for hospitals and schools;
and stable communities, especially across rural Canada.
Therefore, I urge the government to deliver quickly on its many
promises to streamline environmental regulations and other red
tape which affects mining. If mining industry dollars are to remain
in Canada, this government needs a fresh start to convince
international investors that Canada once again wants mining jobs
with their many spin-offs that benefit every sector of this nation's
economy.
6484
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
federal NDP caucus is pleased to congratulate Dr. Herb Dickieson,
the leader of the Prince Edward Island New Democrats. On
Monday Dr. Herb became the first New Democrat to be elected in
P.E.I. We are confident that his presence in the legislature will
make a big difference for the people of P.E.I. I first met Dr.
Dickieson when I spoke at his nomination meeting in 1995 and
sensed at that time that he was going to make history for the NDP.
Atlantic Canadians have demonstrated they are sick of having
their votes taken for granted by the Liberal Party as they receive
bash after bash from Liberal policies. The federal Liberals will
experience a similar fate in Atlantic Canada when the next federal
election rolls around. Atlantic Canada is not a Liberal colony but a
free and democratic region of Canada where real political choices
are available and real political choices are embraced.
With Alexa McDonough as our leader, the choice for many
Atlantic Canadians in the next federal election will be the NDP.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the
last decade the Canadian mining industry has become an example
to the world in making sustainable development an essential part of
its activities.
The Mining Association of Canada was the first mining body in
the world to develop a national environmental policy based on the
concept of sustainable development. In addition, Canadian mining
companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on environmental
related projects, more than $300 million in 1993 alone.
(1405 )
One key example of the mining industry's commitment to the
environment is its accelerated reduction and elimination of toxics
program. Already Canadian mining companies have come close to
meeting their emission reduction targets for the year 2000. This is
almost five years ahead of schedule.
On behalf of all members of the House, I congratulate the
Mining Association of Canada and its member companies on this
outstanding achievement. I encourage them to expand upon their
commitment to sustainable development with new and innovative
initiatives.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to
tell you about the government's new policy on minerals and metals,
and the renewal of the federation.
[English]
This government is committed to a flexible and dynamic
approach to federalism. The new minerals and metals policy is
based on a fundamental recognition by this government of
provincial ownership and management of mineral resources. The
policy describes a sharply focused role for the government in
minerals and metals that is tied to core federal responsibilities such
as international trade and investment, science and technology and
aboriginal affairs. Through the policy the government commits
itself to building effective and durable partnerships with the
provinces and territories.
[Translation]
By promoting the establishment of partnerships, the new policy
on minerals and metals will help renew the federation and make
sure the industry continues to make a major contribution to the
economic and social well-being of Canadians, right into the 21st
century.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of the fourth annual
Canada Forum and Canadian Aboriginal Minerals Association
joint conference which is taking place today in the gateway to the
west, the wonderful city of Thunder Bay.
The conference, sponsored by Placer Dome Canada and Inco
Ltd. among others, will focus on maintaining a mutually beneficial
relationship between mining companies and aboriginal
communities. It demonstrates the willingness of these two
communities to share in the economic and employment
opportunities offered by Canada's mineral resources while
simultaneously respecting our environment.
This event truly demonstrates how different stakeholders can
work together effectively to their mutual benefit and to the benefit
of the Canadian economy. I commend the conference organizers
and participants for setting such an excellent example for all
Canadian industries.
6485
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today marks the fourth anniversary of National Child Day.
This day was proclaimed by the Canadian government to recognize
two initiatives taken by the United Nations: the 1959 Declaration
of the Rights of the Child and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of
the Child.
I have the honour of being the grandmother of two. I feel it is
essential to tell our children that our future is their future since,
some day, they will take over from us.
In Canada, one child out of five lives in poverty. This day
reminds us that we have a lot of work to do to ensure a better future
for these children.
We are overjoyed by the energy and the spontaneous love
displayed by our children. Today, we are telling them that we love
them.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Transportation and the
Prime Minister will attend the opening of a new power plant in
British Columbia. They think that because this government has
provided $30 million to this plant it will deflect some of the
criticism they have received for giving $87 million to Bombardier
while refusing to provide support to Canadian Airlines.
There has been a total of $117 million in giveaways. No wonder
Canadian Airlines employees feel there is a double standard.
If Canadian Airlines fails, it will cost the taxpayers almost $1
billion. It appears that the Liberal government would rather see
Canadian fail than reduce some of the taxes that are bleeding the
company dry.
The solution to saving Canadian Airlines and thousands of other
businesses is simple: bring government spending under control,
balance the budget, reduce taxes, and let companies remain
profitable so their workers can keep their jobs.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
new restrictive language policy unveiled by the Quebec
government last week is shocking and counterproductive to say the
very least.
The Parti Quebecois in its attempt to appease party hard liners
before its policy convention this weekend has come out with a
frontal attack on the rights of the English minority in Quebec,
making access to services in their own language more difficult.
(1410 )
This exclusion act can only exacerbate tensions, erode social
cohesion and heighten differences between Quebecers. This narrow
minded policy comes at a time when the Quebec government is
trying to polish its image by promoting the province as a tolerant
and open society in order to attract foreign investment.
The rights and freedoms of all Quebecers should not be held
hostage by the governing party in its appeasement of some of its
rank and file ideologues. It is obvious that the spirit of Centaur
needs to be revived. Please try to live it at the convention. Show
openness to diversity, for these acts do not reflect the Quebec
society that we love.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
National Child Day. It is a day to recognize the importance of
children in our lives and to celebrate their accomplishments.
This morning I had the honour of presenting the ``You Made a
Difference'' award to four distinguished youths who unselfishly
risked their lives to save the lives of others. Mark Zuccala, Mike
Nicolitsis and Kevin Albert were recognized for rescuing three
young children trapped in an automobile. Another true hero,
six-year old Christopher Ings sustained injuries himself as he
attempted to protect these small children with his own little body.
The actions of these kids is truly remarkable. On behalf of my
colleagues I would like to thank and congratulate them on a job
very well done.
I would also like to thank Janis Machin and Bernard Muzeen of
Our Kids Foundation who played a key role in establishing
National Child Day and who continue to work tirelessly on behalf
of Canada's children.
I invite all Canadians to join in celebrating National Child Day.
Please make it a very special and memorable day. And for those
who are celebrating their birthday today, Happy Birthday.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is the International Day of the Child. Since it was elected, our
government has taken a number of concrete measures to improve
the quality of life of our children and our families.
6486
These measures have included, for instance, establishing the
prenatal nutrition program, proposals for changes in the system
for collecting support payments, an increase in the maximum
annual contribution to the registered education savings plan, and
so forth.
At its biennial convention, our party also adopted a number of
high priority resolutions in which we made a commitment to fight
child poverty and do everything that is necessary to put an end to
the exploitation of children.
Our party and our government are already committed to this
cause, and our work will not cease until all children will be able to
enjoy freely the days of their childhood.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
they came to power, the federal Liberals suddenly became
proponents of free trade, a position which has always been
defended by the sovereignist movement.
Last summer, Canada signed a free trade agreement with the
state of Israel. Trade between Israel and Canada is worth about
$450 million annually.
This week, Canada signed a free trade agreement with Chile. In
1995, trade between the two countries was worth $666 million.
In light of these agreements, we conclude that the Canadian
government should have no reservations about reaching an
agreement with a country with which trade is worth more than $60
billion annually, while also helping to maintain of 800,000 direct
jobs.
Therefore, we have every reason to believe that a sovereign
Quebec will be one of Canada's trading partners par excellence.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the best interests of children should be a benchmark
against which government policies are measured. There is no better
way to ensure the well-being of children than to make families a
priority in our society and in our decision making starting right
here in the House, this home of Canadian values, if you will.
Today is National Child Day. I remind this House that in 1989
the United Nations passed the convention of the child which gave
children around the world access to their families. Canada
recognized that convention in 1991, so why do Canadian children
not have access to their families?
The best interests of children reside in the family. The first step
was taken in October when the House supported my motion to
recognize the family as a building block of society and then
unanimously agreed to protect and enhance family interests.
Now is the time for the government to fulfil this commitment on
behalf of children, to commit to a fresh start for children. Surely on
National Child Day it is not only time to acknowledge each child's
right to his or her family, including grandparents, but also time to
act on it.
* * *
(1415 )
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
too wish to comment on this the fourth anniversary of National
Child Day.
National Child Day was designated to commemorate two
historic United Nations events: the adoption of the Declaration of
the Rights of the Child in 1959, and the adoption of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child in 1989.
This convention, ratified by Canada in 1991, is aimed at
ensuring the survival, protection and development of children. It
provides a framework to value and respect children and youth as
full-fledged human beings. The convention addresses many aspects
of the lives of children and youth: proper nutrition; access to health
care and education; protection from exploitation and abuse; and the
right to express their opinions and to participate in matters that
affect them.
Children are our future. As a society we must do everything we
can to ensure their happiness, their good health and their ability to
lead full and productive lives.
I call on all members of the House to join in the celebration of
National Child Day.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our major
newspapers reported today that federal and provincial environment
ministers are expected to sign an agreement very shortly on
environmental assessment.
Under this national agreement on environmental harmonization,
the Canadian government will transfer major responsibilities to
provinces.
This agreement, which was the subject of arduous negotiations
during the past two years, is especially important because it will
help improve environmental protection while eliminating
duplication and jurisdictional conflicts.
6487
In the throne speech in February, our Prime Minister launched
an appeal to all Canadians to work together to protect the
environment. This agreement is the appropriate response to this
appeal and is a reflection of the many agreements concluded
between our government and provincial governments to make our
Canadian federation more efficient.
_____________________________________________
6487
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Bloc Quebecois released its analysis of the
federal government's corporate tax expenditures. Of the $9 billion
to $10 billion the federal government sacrifices annually in taxes
not collected from major corporations, primarily, we estimate that
the Minister of Finance could easily recover some $3 billion to be
used in promoting job creation.
With the government going after the unemployed, cutting
transfers for social assistance, transfers for health care and
transfers for post-secondary education, how can the Minister of
Finance justify still failing, after three years in power, to
systematically evaluate all corporate tax expenditures, which have
not been reviewed in years, and keeping them as they stand.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Bloc Quebecois tabled a sober report yesterday. I consider it a
very professional one. I thank the Leader of the Opposition and the
members here for their work.
There are many things in the report we agree with. They are
either things we are looking at or things that we are in fact currently
working on. There is certainly material for debate, and this is a
good start.
To my understanding, in response to the Leader of the
Opposition's specific question, it is not $3 billion that we can
recover, if I understand the report correctly, but $3 billion that can
be put into job creation, which is the very aim of the Mintz
committee currently looking at the situation from the same point of
view.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I in turn would thank the Minister of Finance for his
objectivity in recognizing that the work of the Bloc represents a
very substantial contribution to public finances. Certainly, it is the
most substantial contribution made by an opposition party,
especially in opposition.
(1420)
Despite these kind words for my friend, I am nevertheless
obliged to say to the Minister of Finance that he is hiding behind
his committee because everyone knows the report will be released
only next year, after the federal elections. People want to know now
what the government will do.
Should the Minister of Finance, who seems to recognize reason,
not make substantial changes in tax expenditures right now, as we
are suggesting he do and use this money for other tax measures that
would help create jobs in small and medium businesses, for
example? That is what it means to be proactive in creating jobs.
This is what the people are expecting and not getting from the
government.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
received the report favourably first, because the reports of the Bloc
Quebecois have changed in the past three years. Second, I must say
the quality of the report is very similar to what the Liberal Party
submitted on the environment, the economy and other areas when it
was in opposition.
That said, the aim is to ensure that the basic impact of
government spending, be it tax credits, tax exemptions or other
incentives is to promote job creation. This has been our philosophy
from the start. This is why we have eliminated a list of loopholes
three pages long. These loopholes did not promote job creation. We
are going to continue the job, I hope with the co-operation of the
Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have to say once again to the Minister of Finance that we
will of course co-operate with him when he is reasonable. When he
wants to save taxpayers' money, of course we will work with him.
When he repents and finally is prepared to collect taxes from those
who should be paying, of course we will co-operate and we will
co-operate with him. He may rest assured, the Bloc will co-operate.
Since he is in good humour, I will go a step further. In our
document, we established that a sample of 27 major Canadian
corporations with profits of $7 billion in 1994 paid income tax at a
rate barely above 6.5 per cent, whereas the corporate rate is usually
around 30 per cent.
This does not concern the minister of defence, so I would ask
him to allow me to ask my question of his colleague.
Mr. Loubier: Let us ignore him in any case.
Mr. Gauthier: He is well versed in defence matters, but not in
things financial, unfortunately. Can the Minister of Finance set up a
mechanism guaranteeing Quebecers and Canadians that business
and especially big business will pay the government the taxes it is
supposed to within a reasonable period of time, while maintaining
intact the concept of deferred income tax? Some simple
adjustments need be made. We would like to know from the
Minister of Finance whether he would agree to act quickly in this
matter as the Bloc asks him to?
6488
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as regards deferred taxes, I think the Leader of the Opposition is
going a bit beyond his report, which was more subtle. In the report,
the Bloc acknowledged there were advantages to having taxes
deferred. This is our position exactly.
On the other hand, this is why there is a tax on major
corporations. We want to be sure they pay their fair share, and this
is the case.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I too will have to accept the congratulations of the
Minister of Finance. It must, however, be admitted that the official
opposition does some good, as the minister admitted today.
But enough polite remarks directed at the Minister of Finance,
for I have no congratulations for him. With all the resources at the
disposal of the finance department, he could, in three years, have
conducted the same in-depth study done by the Bloc Quebecois
with its meagre resources and realized that he was wasting $3
billion a year in tax revenue.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1425)
Mr. Loubier: Speaking of deferred taxes, when the auditor at
Consolidated Bathurst was asked ``When will you pay your
company's deferred taxes?'', he replied ``Never''. Right now,
deferred and accumulated taxes represent a total of $36 billion, 5
per cent of the Canadian GDP, and nobody in the finance
department, starting with the minister himself, seems to be
concerned.
Given the size of this tax expenditure and its unwarranted use by
certain large corporations that are making a profit, will the Minister
of Finance not admit that he should immediately issue rules so that
one day these corporations will pay their fair share?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately the finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois is raising
his voice; gone are the measured and professional tones of
yesterday. In addition, he is also misrepresenting the report.
I can tell you that as far as the notion of deferred taxes is
concerned, we have looked, and will continue to look, for
loopholes.
I would just like to quote one other person with almost the same
philosophy: ``As for taxing corporations more directly, as
recommended by the Bloc Quebecois's finance critic, this cuts their
profits, reduces their interest in investing and results in fewer jobs.
Furthermore, the higher Quebec's tax burden, the less foreign
companies will be interested in investing in that province and
creating jobs there''. This statement was made by Bernard Landry,
Quebec's finance minister. He is right, and the Bloc Quebecois's
finance critic is wrong.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister is taking the Canadian public for a
ride. What we are saying in our document is that the majority of
Canadian SMEs are paying their fair share of taxes. But a few are
taking advantage of tax loopholes, with the knowledge of the
Minister of Finance, to avoid paying taxes.
We humbly ask him this: Will he, or will he not, assume his
responsibilities and demonstrate professionalism as Minister of
Finance, by looking out for the interests of all Canadian taxpayers,
and not just those of large Canadian corporations?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are times when debate in this House takes on a form that does
Canadians proud, particularly when we deal with issues in a
fundamental and profound way.
No doubt the question of taxation, which is in constant
evolution, is something that should not lend itself to partisan
speeches, but should lend itself to real study.
Under those circumstances I did say to the Bloc Quebecois that
their report which came out yesterday will make a valuable
addition to the debate, as did a great number of the reports done by
the Liberals in opposition help advance the yardstick.
All I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition is that he ask
his members to continue in the same vein, so that the debate can be
responsible, can advance the yardstick and not simply play politics
with a very important subject.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is in British Columbia today to
hand over $30 million to Ballard Power Systems in the hope that
western Canadians will forget about the $87 million he gave to
Bombardier.
It will take more than $30 million to even the score. Bombardier
has just received an untendered contract from the Department of
National Defence worth over $216 million.
Does the government really think that a $30 million grant in
British Columbia will hide the fact that it gave another $216
million to Bombardier for the CF-18 maintenance contract?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am astounded
at my hon. friend's question.
I would think the announcement that he alluded to which is to be
made today or tomorrow by the Prime Minister respecting an
investment in western Canada is one that would be welcomed by
many people.
6489
(1430 )
What I am really concerned about is the tremendous effort we
have become involved in to make sure that facilities in western
Canada are used in new and innovative ways, in new partnerships
with the private sector and with our allies in western Europe.
If the hon. gentleman is suggesting that we should not pursue the
air training program for western Canada I wish he would say so.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister very much but he did not answer
the question. This $216 million to Bombardier is for the CF-18
maintenance contract.
On October 31, 1986 Brian Mulroney gave this very same
contract to Bombardier even though Bristol Aerospace of
Winnipeg had the best bid. In opposition these very same Liberals
cried blue murder over that contract. Now that they are in power,
the Liberals have done exactly what the Tories did.
How can the Liberals justify giving this lucrative $216 million
contract to Bombardier without tender? Even the Tories tendered
the contract before they rigged it.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make
sure because the hon. member and members of his party have been
very careful and responsible in dealing with a number of issues that
relate to the military elements we have to deal with at this time.
I want to make sure I understand what the hon. member is
saying. Is he saying that he wishes to begin again the process of
trying to determine how we can strike a deal with our allies from
western Europe who require training facilities in Canada? Does he
want us to start from scratch when we are into a tough competition
with other parts of the world to get the very same contract?
My information is that people in western Canada hope we can
conclude this deal. Our allies hope we can conclude this deal. What
is good for western Canada is very good for the military forces of
this country. It is also very good for Bombardier which not only
operates in Quebec, as the hon. member seems to think, but also in
many other parts of the country with which he may not be familiar.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister's answers are very interesting.
In opposition the Liberals called the CF-18 contract ``blatant
political pork barrelling that went completely against the merit
principle and the bidding process''. In 1986 the current Minister of
Foreign Affairs accused the government of saying one thing and
doing another. It looks like the shoe is on the other foot now.
Why did the Liberals say one thing in opposition and do exactly
the opposite when in power? Why did they give Bombardier the
$216 million untendered contract for CF-18 maintenance?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member speaks about saying one thing and doing another.
He must at some point come to grips with whether or not his
party is interested in creating jobs, with whether it is interested in
protecting jobs, and it will have to decide where it wants those jobs.
The unfortunate situation here is that the hon. member and
members of his party day after day in this House get up and say one
thing, then turn around and ask the Minister of Finance or the
Minister of Human Resources Development why we are not
creating jobs in the country. Is the hon. member for or against jobs?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
According to a Toronto morning newspaper, the federal
government was to announce this week if it is going to intervene in
the Libman case, in which the Quebec referendum act is being
contested before the Supreme Court.
Can the Minister of Justice confirm to us that the federal
government is seriously considering contesting the Quebec
referendum act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of taking part
in the Libman case, because we are convinced that all points of
view on the matter will be before the court.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, are we to conclude from this clear response by the
Minister of Justice that the minister recognizes the full and total
legitimacy of the Quebec referendum act, and consequently
disapproves of the actions of certain of his colleagues who
deliberately violated the referendum act during the last referendum
in Quebec?
(1435)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Not in the least, Mr. Speaker. It is not our
intention to take a position on the matters before the court. We have
simply decided not to take part.
As I have said, the reason is clear. All points of view on these
matters will be before the court. This is not, however, a federal
government position which indicates our agreement with the act. It
6490
is merely a decision to not take part in the appeal before the
Supreme Court of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal government's policy of high taxes and big
government means that more and more Canadian families need a
second income just to make ends meet. The average Canadian
family will have to pay $27,000 this year in taxes alone. Too many
Canadians are working for the government instead of their
families.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Reform will give
Canadian families a $2,000 tax break by the year 2000. What does
the government have to offer to Canadian families?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Reform will withdraw $4 billion from the Canadian health and
social transfer. We will not. We will protect the Canada Health Act.
We will protect health care in this country. Reform will not.
Reform will gut equalization payments to those provinces which
require them. What Reform is saying, according to its philosophy,
is that there are families in Newfoundland and Saskatchewan who
are not worthy of receiving government help. We do not believe
that is the fabric of this country. It is not the philosophy on which
this country was built.
I have a list of measures that the government has brought in to
help Canadian families, to help Canadian children. Reform voted
against every single one of them. Stand up and defend your record,
not what you do in the future, but what you have done in the past.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, may I say that the government has nothing to brag about
with respect to transfers to the provinces.
Today is national child day. Reform's fresh start directly helps
families and their children by reducing taxes dramatically. We will
reduce taxes by 89 per cent for families with incomes of $30,000
and free over one million Canadian families from the tax rolls
altogether.
In recognition of the importance of our children, will the
Liberals commit today to increase the spousal deduction and
extend the child care deduction to all parents, including those who
care for their children at home?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the member of the Reform Party could explain, given her
interest in child care, that when the government broadened the
eligibility for the child care expense deduction and when we
extended the age limit for children, why did Reform vote against
it?
When the government increased the working income supplement
for working families, why did Reform vote against it? When the
government enriched the tax credit for infirm dependants, why did
Reform vote against it? When the government improved child
support awards, why did Reform vote against it? When the
Minister of Justice brought in the new guidelines, why did Reform
vote against it?
Why has Reform voted against every progressive piece of
legislation brought by the government into the House to help
Canadian families?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Yesterday, the minister announced on behalf of the
government-for the second time, given that the Minister of
Finance had made the same announcement earlier-a five cent
reduction in unemployment insurance premiums. Perhaps he thinks
that by announcing a five cent reduction twice, people will think
the total reduction will be ten cents. But no, five cents it is. In fact,
he is maintaining the special deficit reduction tax on workers
earning under $39,000 and their employers.
(1440)
How can the minister ignore the disastrous situation of the job
market and be content with announcing marginal measures that
will have very little effect on employment?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would suggest to
the hon. member for Mercier that the announcement was not made
twice; the Minister of Finance and I did it jointly, in front of the
same cameras.
We did announce-and the Minister of Finance may want to
comment on this later-a five cent reduction. For the third
consecutive year, our government has reduced employment
insurance premiums, which is absolutely remarkable since they had
risen for years.
I would also submit to the hon. member for Mercier that another
program, a program for small business, was announced yesterday.
Some 900,000 eligible small businesses will not have to pay any
employment insurance premiums on behalf of new employees in
1997. This means that any small business in Canada that hires a
new employee will not pay employment insurance premiums in
1997 and only 75 per cent of the premiums in 1998 for that
employee. That is what we are doing to promote employment. That
is what we announced yesterday.
6491
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the same
government will, for the first time, this coming January, impose
a payroll tax on all the employers who hire part time employees
working fewer than 15 hours per week.
Since premium rates represent in fact a tax on jobs-and we are
not alone in thinking so-and since the employment insurance fund
is forecast to grow from $5 billion this year to $10 billion next year,
what is the minister waiting for to substantially reduce premium
rates, as requested by the official opposition, the business
community, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, instead of
using the fund to artificially reduce the deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the Minister of Human Resources Development just said-for the
third time-we have reduced employment insurance premiums,
after a decade of increases by the previous government.
To give you an idea of the philosophy behind this, I would like to
quote the response of Quebec finance minister Bernard Landry to
the same question. He said: ``Pursuant to the commission's
regulations, but also in response to repeated requests from several
socioeconomic partners, the government plans to lower payroll
taxes. We will do this, however, with the expectation that real job
creation will ensue''.
That is precisely why we have targeted small and medium size
businesses, since they are responsible for the vast majority of new
jobs created in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has
not even come into affect yet and already the harmonized GST is
killing jobs in Atlantic Canada.
Today we learn that five Greenberg stores in New Brunswick are
closing as a direct result of the harmonized GST. Seventy-nine
people and their families will no longer receive a pay cheque. This
company alone will lose $695,000 in the first year and $563,000
each year after because of this crazy deal.
I quote the president of the company: ``Somebody needs to
listen. These are real people in New Brunswick with real jobs that
are going away''.
The Reform Party is listening. Why are Liberal MPs not
listening?
My question is to the finance minister. Why is the government
insisting on pushing through this insane legislation that is killing
jobs in Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
far from insisting, what we are doing is co-operating with the
provincial governments of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland whose major purpose is to make sure that
employment is created in their own provinces. That is why the
three premiers are going across Canada, across North America,
explaining what has happened, the tremendous reduction in taxes
for their small and medium size businesses.
(1445 )
That is not the issue. The real issue is why is this member of
Parliament so against Atlantic Canada's benefiting itself? Why is
this member of Parliament so against small and medium size
businesses in Atlantic Canada being able to compete? What kind of
vision does the Reform Party have when it cannot understand the
legitimate ambitions and desires of an important part of the
country?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
amazing to me that the finance minister can be so callous about the
loss of 79 jobs in Atlantic Canada. However, this is just the
beginning. This one company alone says that at least another 71
jobs are on the line, and this comes after repeated warnings to the
finance minister from the Canadian Real Estate Association, the
Retail Council of Canada, the Halifax Chamber of Commerce and
even Nova Scotia finance officials. They are saying that these
changes will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and will kill even
more jobs.
Will the finance minister please set his pride aside for a moment,
for the sake of saving some jobs in Atlantic Canada, and kill this
legislation before it kills even more jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
us be very clear. The Reform Party recommended harmonization.
The Reform Party at the finance committee came out full score in
favour of harmonization. Why is the hon. member standing up here
now and arguing against harmonization? There can be only one
reason. It is an abysmal lack of knowledge of Atlantic Canada. It is
the fact that he does not understand the ability and the desire of
Atlantic Canadians to take control of their own future. That is the
problem.
The Reform Party supported harmonization but it is against it for
Atlantic Canada. What are its real motives?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Yesterday, the minister said, and I quote: ``-we have been in
touch with counsel for the retired Singer employees, and our
lawyers are reviewing with them the implications of these
contracts''.
Based on our information, it appears that, at the time the minister
made this statement yesterday, no one from his department had yet
6492
contacted, either by telephone or by letter, the lawyers for the
retired employees, or their spokesperson.
How can the minister state that his department is having
discussions with the lawyers representing these retired employees
when, according to them, they have not heard anything from the
department?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was given information to the
contrary. I was told that, by the end of the week, I would receive a
report from our lawyers regarding this issue. I will be pleased to
inform the hon. member accordingly.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
excerpt I just quoted is taken directly from the Hansard. Those are
the words said by the minister yesterday. He clearly told us that his
lawyers had contacted those of Singer, which is not the case. I even
phoned the lawyers for the retired employees 30 minutes ago, and
they still have not heard anything.
I have some advice for the minister: if he wants his actions to
reflect his words, he should immediately go to the telephone
located in the lobby, contact Mr. Desautels and deal with the issue
because the people involved have been waiting for years for a
settlement. Mr. Desautels can be reached at (514) 948-1888.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said exactly the same thing a
moment ago. I do not see why the hon. member claims I changed
my tune since yesterday.
I said that I was told the department's lawyers had had
discussions regarding this very important issue, which we care
about. Following these discussions, they are to report to me by the
end of the week. I will then be pleased to report to you, Mr.
Speaker, and to the hon. member.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour. Next Monday the national
capital region faces a public transit strike that is going to cause
chaos on the roads, disrupt the economy and hurt workers, students,
the elderly and people with disabilities. Will the minister act to
appoint a federal mediator to try to resolve this dispute and avoid a
bus strike?
(1450)
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, about two hours ago I received a request from the
company and the union to appoint a mediator. I will be appointing a
mediator later this afternoon.
I have also been informed that negotiations with the new
mediator can start early tomorrow morning. I urge both parties to
take advantage of the mediator and get back to the negotiation table
and solve this dispute so that citizens can have normal, good
transportation service in the capital region.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister with big fanfare said that there would be a big
announcement made tomorrow at a national press conference.
Suddenly that national press conference has been cancelled. I
would like to ask the minister why.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all the details are not finalized.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the tobacco
legislation has been long awaited. Too many kids have started
smoking in the meantime. There is a vacuum. Reform has waited
for that legislation and we are now ready to move.
The minister said: ``Judge me by my legislation, not by my
oration''. Reform is ready. We will go through the legislation in a
fast track. When can we expect it?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to say how pleased I am that the hon. member stood in his
place and gave support to the government to bring in tobacco
legislation.
However, I do wish to share with the hon. member and with
members of the House that the hon. member did say that Reformers
see the answer to reducing tobacco consumption in education, not
in legislation.
If this is a change of the mindset of the Reform Party I want to
say congratulations. I am glad it has seen the light.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The mining industry in Canada and Quebec, like so many other
industries, is still affected by overlap and duplication between the
federal government and the provinces. In its throne speech, the
Liberal government made a commitment to withdraw swiftly from
this sector. But with the introduction yesterday of its policy on
minerals and metals, the government has clearly reneged on its
commitment.
6493
Why is it taking so long for the government to withdraw from
the mining sector, as this contributes to greater uncertainty and
reduces Canada's chances of attracting investments?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
We are a government that acknowledges that primary
jurisdiction over mining rests with the provinces. However, we are
also a government that acknowledges the increasing globalization
of the mining industry and consequently there is a role for the
federal government as it relates to the mining industry.
Industry respects that, most provinces and environmental
stakeholders respect that position.
The issue of regulatory reform was specifically raised, avoiding
regulatory overlap and duplication. I was very pleased to receive
the final report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources,
of which the hon. member is a member. My department and I will
be reviewing that report. The hon. member knows that we
responded to the interim report. We are working with departments
such as fisheries and oceans, my colleagues in the Department of
the Environment, the Department of Transport and others.
Our goal is shared by the hon. member, to ensure an efficient
regulatory regime for this important sector of our economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier this
week, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources tabled a
report supported by the Liberal majority, which calls for the
elimination of overlap in mining regulations.
What is the minister waiting for to implement the
recommendations of her own Liberal colleagues and meet her
government's commitment to the mining industry?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that we are not
waiting for anything. We have been working for the past number of
months and in fact years with our colleagues in key departments
such as fisheries and oceans, transport, environment. We have been
working with the provinces to ensure that we have the necessary
regulatory regime but one that does not contain within it expensive
and inefficient overlap and duplication.
(1455)
I must say that my department works closely with the province
of Quebec and its mining department. We have a very positive
relationship with my colleagues in the province of Quebec and we
will continue to build on that relationship to ensure the kind of
regulatory regime in this country that will attract foreign
investment and will attract jobs in the mining sector.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
intergovernmental affairs minister has announced that he will soon
be off again trying to sell Canadians on the idea of entrenching the
distinct society clause.
He must know that rather than drawing Canadians together with
his efforts he is either unwittingly or otherwise actually playing the
politics of division. People in Canada do not want this distinct
society and they do not want it from coast to coast.
Given the recent poll results that show that even Liberals do not
support the idea of distinct society, will the minister put concrete
proposals on the table that benefit all provinces rather than pushing
the distinct society clause when it has no receptive audience in
Canada?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today the support for the distinct society clause is
about 40 per cent in polls. It is lower in this poll because it was
connected with a kind of question that looks like a threat: ``If you
don't recognize Quebec, then Quebec may leave''. Instead of
increasing support, it decreased it.
I urge the hon. member to look at the recognition of Quebec on
its own merit, why it is good, why it is bad. I think it is good. It is
good for our country. It is good for Canadian values. It would not
endanger the charter of rights and freedoms. It would not endanger
equality between citizens. It would be a great thing to recognize
Quebec distinctiveness as a fundamental characteristic of our
country.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
idea was wrong in the Meech Lake accord, it was wrong in the
Charlottetown accord, it was wrong when the Prime Minister
promised it last year, it was wrong when the government pushed it
through the House of Commons, it was wrong when it was adopted
as policy at the Liberal convention. The Tories of course followed
suit but they just do not get it.
Canadians say realign the powers of the federation if need be,
put other proposals that affect all the provinces on the table if need
be; it is a good idea, but this distinct society idea is dead. It will not
sell.
Will the minister put proposals on the table that treat all
provinces and Canadians equally and that bring us together as a
6494
country rather than pushing the distinct society clause which, I am
warning him, is driving people apart?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear. This government has said that we
do not want to make a change in the Constitution if it is not
supported by Canadians.
So we will try to convince Canadians that in order to reconcile
Quebecers and other Canadians it would be a fair and good thing to
recognize that in this anglophone North America there is a
province of Canada that is francophone and this is an asset for
Canada.
If it were the province of the hon. member that was francophone
we would recognize this province without any problem and we
would be proud of it.
* * *
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The Canadian mining industry contributes over $23 billion to the
Canadian economy annually and employs more than 340,000
people who work to develop our mineral resources in an
environmentally sustainable manner.
The minerals and metals policy was announced yesterday. Can
the minister please explain to the House how this new policy will
affect economic growth and job creation in the Canadian mining
industry?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it was the Liberal Party
and only the Liberal Party that during the last election campaign
acknowledged the importance of the mining sector to the Canadian
economy and promised a new minerals and metals policy within
the federal government.
(1500 )
Yesterday it was with great pleasure that I announced this new
minerals and metals policy. Let me reassure all my friends on the
other side of the House that this policy delivers on an important red
book commitment which is to affirm and reaffirm the primary role
of the provinces as it relates to jurisdiction over mining.
In addition, it acknowledges the increasing globalization of this
industry and the importance of ensuring that we continue to attract
foreign investment, that we continue to have access to foreign
markets on fair terms and that we produce the science and
technology that permits this industry to continue to be such an
important contributor to the economy.
That is what this policy is about and it is one that I think we
should all be very proud of.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Credit card debt now accounts for 20 per cent of record levels of
personal debt which stands at 90 per cent of family disposable
income in Canada. On top of that, bankruptcies are up 20 per cent
from last year. The Bank of Canada prime rate is at 3.25 per cent
while bank credit cards, oil company cards, department store cards
charge usury rates, some as high as 28.8 per cent.
Will the Minister of Finance consider bringing back the Usury
Act that used to outlaw this kind of immoral interest rate policy
which was repealed by the Trudeau government, or what does the
government intend to do about this kind of legalized robbery?
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the best ways to deal with matters such
as credit cards and interest rates on credit cards is by the consumers
to indicate whether or not they wish to accommodate such an
industry.
When interest rates were high, generally consumers in other
areas did not borrow money and did not make purchases, and
recently we had it in the housing industry. When interest rates were
reduced through the very fine policy of our finance minister, then
consumers gained confidence and started to buy houses.
The same can apply in the credit card industry. It is best to leave
it to the marketplace. Already there are changes by some of the
lending institutions where in certain cases they are instituting
credit cards with lower rates. It is best to leave it for the
marketplace and Canadian consumers. If the consumers do not like
the policy and the high interest rates, they do not have to use the
cards.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for quite some time now I have been asking about the
responses I have been waiting for on two questions that I have on
the Order Paper. It is becoming quite a serious concern for me and
possibly it is becoming a great embarrassment for the government
but I want to raise it anyway. We are soon going to be recessing for
the Christmas break. The two questions are-
The Speaker: I wonder my dear colleague, because I do not
know the answers that are going to be given today, would the hon.
member raise his point of order after we find out which questions
6495
are going to be answered today. Perhaps his questions will be
answered. I will allow the hon. member to raise his point of order
as soon as we find out what is going on for today.
_____________________________________________
6495
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways
and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax
Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the Cultural
Property Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Employment
Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Old Age Security Act, the
Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the
Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition
Payments Act, and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act.
I also table explanatory notes and ask that you designate an order
of the day for the consideration of the motion.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in making this statement I am also speaking on behalf of
the hon. government House leader and solicitor general who had to
leave the Chamber for personal business.
I am here today on behalf of the government to mark the fourth
anniversary of National Child Day. This day is designated to raise
awareness and to help Canadians celebrate the special meaning that
children bring to our lives. It is also a day to reflect on the special
needs of children and to think of ways we can improve their
well-being.
[Translation]
Again this year, the United Nations announced that Canada has
the best quality of life in the world. We are proud of this, but it
must not lead to complacency.
[English]
Where child poverty exists in a country as rich as Canada, it
must be a concern for our entire society. The Government of
Canada is acting on a number of fronts to address this problem. For
example, we have doubled the working income supplement
provided to low income families, and the new employment
insurance program contains measures to enable Canadians to get
back to work and to provide a basic income guarantee for low
income families.
We also want to see children grow up in the most secure and safe
environment we can possibly make. All too often children fall prey
to criminal victimization and exploitation. As members know we
are now discussing in a parliamentary committee Bill C-27 which
provides major protection against child prostitution. It also attacks
the horrible scourge of sexual exploitation of children by tourists
abroad and gives us the right to prosecute Canadians who engage in
these practices.
Another area of special concern to many families is the plight of
children who are reported missing. At any given time there are
about 1,500 to 2,000 reported cases of missing children across
Canada. Most are runaways but a considerable number of these
children are victims of parental abduction. Child abductions are
difficult and complex to deal with when they occur in Canada.
They become even more difficult when other countries are
involved.
Since 1986 the RCMP's missing children registry, Revenue
Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which form our
missing children initiative, have come together to become a
powerful force in returning missing children to their homes. This
partnership has resulted in a significant increase in the recovery
and safe return of missing children in Canada and abroad.
I am pleased to inform the House today on National Child Day
that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is
joining the RCMP's missing children registry and its partners in
our missing children initiative.
(1510)
[Translation]
Along with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade in the Our Missing Children program, we are able to trace
missing and abducted children throughout the world. This
co-operation is vital to our efforts to ensure the safety of our
children within their families, in the home and on the streets.
6496
[English]
For example, the RCMP's missing children registry, in operation
since 1986, is a major source of computerized information on
missing children in Canada. In 1995 alone the registry assisted in
the safe recovery of almost 400 missing children.
With the help of Canada Customs and Immigration, critical
border points are alerted when a child is reported missing. This
alert system has reduced the chances of children being taken out of
the country where their recovery may become much more difficult.
With foreign affairs officers in Ottawa and in embassies and
consulates around the world bringing their considerable expertise
to this program, Canada has the strongest national system in the
world to return missing or abducted children to their parents or
guardians.
I must stress however that the government is not alone in this
partnership. Without the help of private sector partners, police,
searching agencies and non-government partners, our success rate
would not be where it is today. In fact, every part of society has an
important role to play in this partnership.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and
the our missing children program have prepared a booklet and fact
sheet to provide the most accurate and current information on what
to do in cases of child abductions, especially for cases involving
out of country abductions.
Members of Parliament are often the first point of contact when
constituents do not know where to turn when faced with a problem
that requires the help of these specialized services. That is why I
am pleased to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that these information
documents will be distributed today to all members of the House.
[Translation]
Together, we can do something to ensure that our children are
safe at home and elsewhere.
[English]
I call on all members of this House to join me in applauding the
efforts of the men and women of our police, customs, immigration
and consular services for their daily efforts to combat the problem
of missing children.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak on behalf of the official opposition on this,
the fourth anniversary of National Child Day. I would like to take a
few moments to point out that the minister may have been
requested at the very last minute to speak on this issue in the
House, but I would like to remind him that every time a minister's
statement is made with just a few minutes' notice, it is very hard
for us to prepare an appropriate response. I just wanted to make the
minister aware of the situation.
Having said this, I want to take this opportunity today to say how
much the Bloc Quebecois is concerned about this issue.
Let me digress for a moment. On this National Child Day, I
cannot help but think about the thousands and thousands of
children who live in poverty right here in Quebec and in Canada. It
is appalling to see such a disturbing number of children go to
school hungry, unable to learn in suitable conditions.
The minister is asking us to address the issue of missing children
today. Can you for a moment imagine what the parents of missing
children go through? Can you for a moment imagine all the distress
these children have to face?
If more than 1 million children are sexually abused throughout
the world every year, how many children have to go through this
same ordeal right here in Canada? True, the 1989 bill of rights for
children condemned child sexual abuse, but it ignored its
international dimension.
The Dutroux scandal, in Belgium, gave a graphic example of the
horror of this situation. Right here in Canada, just a few days ago,
major pedophile networks on the Internet were dismantled. This
represents a huge challenge at the legislative level. I think we need
to develop an appropriate legislative framework to take efficient
measures in this area.
As everyone knows, it is hard to gather evidence against sexual
tourists, which means that very few of them get convicted.
(1515)
We therefore feel that one of the government's priorities should
be to establish information centres and data banks on victims and
those exploit them, in order to improve co-operation among
countries and specialized agencies. We must look for concrete
solutions to the problem of missing children and those who are
victims of sexual exploitation.
Belgium is not the only country where the justice system fails to
apprehend dangerous criminals. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs
said earlier, between 1,500 and 2,000 children are reported missing
in Canada at any given time. And among these are many complex
cases of abductions involving other countries, since the children
are simply taken abroad, where the Canadian government can do
nothing at all. Canada will therefore have to take a long hard look
at this situation and act accordingly.
We must have mechanisms for tracing Canadian and Quebec
children who have disappeared abroad. That being said, we can
only applaud the minister's decision to have his department join the
6497
missing children registry of the RCMP and its partners in the our
missing children program.
As I said just now, we must set up information centres and data
banks. Since the missing children registry is an important source of
computer data on missing children in Canada, I think its
association with the Department of Foreign Affairs cannot be other
than positive. The next step is to connect with computer data in
other countries and co-ordinate our activities with these countries.
Where are we now in that respect? I would like to know.
I realize it is always reassuring when the minister is optimistic. I
am quite prepared to believe him when he says that Canada will
have the most powerful system in the world to bring missing and
abducted children back to their parents or guardians.
I agree that the program will benefit from expertise provided by
Foreign Affairs officers in Ottawa and in our embassies and
consulates. However, abroad, in spite of all the expertise of our best
officers, Canada cannot act alone. Hence the vital importance of
the role played by all partners involved, both in the public and
private sectors.
Canada should, for instance, put pressure on those international
partners who have not yet signed The Hague convention that would
provide for close co-operation between the judicial and
administrative authorities of the contracting states.
We therefore urge the government to continue to work on all
these fronts. We must ensure that our collective determination is
converted into concrete action.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak on national child day on
behalf of Canada's children.
It is not an exaggeration to say that for most Canadians children
are our greatest and our most precious resource. Children are an
investment. In the short term they are an investment in dollars and
cents; in the long term in the very future and success of our country.
According to the Canadian Council on Social Development, the
total monetary cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is
$157,000, and that only represents the short term financial
commitment.
One cannot think about the commitment of time and energy or
the emotional commitment involved in raising children without
recognizing how important these young people are in our lives. For
many families they are indeed what makes life worth living. They
are our future and we want the very best for our children.
We commend a good initiative like the attempt to return
abducted children to their homes, as announced by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs today.
In my riding the threat of unaddressable fears of child abduction
became only too real just this year. A parent there was faced with
the reality of having no assurance that a child, under a Canadian
court order to join a parent overseas, would be returned or could
return to Canada. As the custodial parent he faced the uncertainty
of the cruel reality of international child abduction.
For the sake of all parents and children in Canada, I urge the
foreign affairs department to press forward and actively encourage
all countries to sign on to The Hague convention.
The stresses and fragility that exist in families are reflected in
the tragic statistics of runaways today. Too often these kids run
from a home barely coping with increasing pressures and they run
right into situations of danger, abuse and violence.
(1520)
Today on national child day we must underline the importance of
addressing not just the symptoms but the causes of such tragedy.
The tragedy in Canada in 1996 is that government policy today is
constantly working against children and their families. Child
poverty, which is a reflection of family poverty, has not improved
under today's tax and spend Liberal government. How can it if 49
per cent of the average family's income is taken from it in taxes?
Canadian families need tax relief.
Canada's low and middle income families need to keep more of
their own money that will be used to alleviate their financial
pressures, money that will be used on behalf of their children.
On the weekend we read another report about the tragic increase
in suicides among Canada's young people. That rate has
quadrupled in the last three decades. Experts say that one of the
primary reasons for this increase is hopelessness and fear of the
future. And that we see in our present economic situation.
The unemployment rate is hovering around 10 per cent while it is
half that in the United States. The government has cut transfers to
provinces dramatically without offering any substantial strategy for
securing the access of Canadians to higher education and health
care over the long term.
Despite the fact the government can no longer offer the security
it once did, this same government refuses to allow Canadian
families to keep more of their own income so that parents can fill
this gap by making their own provisions for the security of their
families and especially their children.
Presently there are about 30 federal programs which target
spending toward children or issues that impact children most. The
government has never done a substantial evaluation of those
programs to see if they are producing the desired outcome. Yet its
philosophy is simply to create more programs and throw more
money at the problems.
6498
What is needed is for Canadian families to keep more of their
own earnings and use those earnings on behalf of their own
children.
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of
the Standing Committee on Transport with respect to Bill C-44, the
Canada Marine Act.
Since this is the first bill I have tabled, I would like to thank
members from all sides of the House who worked so hard to create
the unanimity that supports the bill.
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 46th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food and the associate membership of the Standing
Committee on Health.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 46th report later this day.
* * *
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-350, an act to provide for a national
referendum to authorize the government to negotiate terms of
separation with a province that has voted for separation from
Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, polls of the participants in the Quebec
referendum showed that many were unsure what a yes vote meant.
This government's sole response has been to ask the supreme court
to rule on a unilateral declaration of independence.
I therefore want to table my private member's bill aimed at
reducing the uncertainties surrounding Quebec's separation by
spelling out the consequences of a yes vote, including becoming a
foreign country with resulting loss of rights to travel and work
freely in Canada and to elect representatives to Parliament.
My bill also protects the rights of areas where the majority of
people vote to remain Canadian. This bill challenges separatists to
agree on basic rules before any future vote.
In the terrible event that 50 per cent plus 1 of Quebecers say they
want to become a foreign country, my bill requires Parliament to
authorize a binding national referendum within a year on
negotiating terms of separation. My bill would ensure this issue is
decided by the will of the people and not the decision of the courts.
(1525)
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved that
the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, tabled
Thursday, October 31, 1996, be concurred in.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 43(2), I want to advise the House that my colleagues of the
official opposition will share their time in two periods of ten
minutes.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon.
member for Saint-Jean.
I am happy to discuss the Fourth Report of the Standing
Committee on Finance, which was submitted on October 31, 1996,
particularly the dissenting opinion tabled by the official opposition
in this regard.
It is unacceptable that the Liberal majority of the Standing
Committee on Finance even thought for one moment, after
analyzing all the arguments for and against federal interference in a
matter of provincial jurisdiction, to basically recommend that a
national securities commission, a Canadian securities commission,
be established.
We debated this issue in committee, we received briefs, we
solicited the views of various parties across Canada, in particular
the Quebec government, the players in the Quebec securities field,
and we found that there was a consensus to the effect that a
Canadian securities commission should not be established, for
three reasons.
First, pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1982, which Quebec
never signed and was forced to swallow, even against the will of the
great majority of the members of the National Assembly, the area
of securities is exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction. The federal
government is violating its own Constitution Act. Is this normal?
The second reason is that, if the government creates a national
securities commission, it will cause all the expertise in the area of
taxation, accounting, portfolio management and stock exchange
management to move from Montreal to Toronto and also from
Vancouver to Toronto.
If the federal government's vision is to centralize all financial
activity in Toronto, it must tell us. We need to know because the
decision to create this national securities commission would make
6499
Toronto the financial and securities capital of Canada, to the
detriment of other regions.
In Quebec alone, we are talking about the survival of 15 000
registered dealers and advisors. We are talking about an annual
trading volume of 2.9 billion shares. We are talking about $39
billion worth of shares that are traded each year.
It is unacceptable that, because of a decision based on the Liberal
Party of Canada's bad habit of wanting to centralize everything at
all cost within the federal government or through federal
regulation, all that will be abandoned in order to meet the partisan,
political and incomprehensible objectives of the Liberals. There is
unanimity in Quebec with regard to the securities sector.
(1530)
I would like to quote some excerpts from the five-year report
tabled by the Quebec government in December 1993 regarding the
implementation of the Securities Act. It was a Liberal government,
and the minister responsible for securities was Mrs. Louise Robic,
a good Liberal without a doubt.
An hon. member: Liberal, yes; but good?
Mr. Loubier: A true Liberal. That is what I meant to say.
History will tell if she was good or not.
I would like to quote some excerpts from the five-year report
tabled by Mrs. Robic in 1993. On the topic of federal regulation of
the securities sector, she said, and I quote: ``Regulation in this
sector, if it ever comes about, would be completely ill advised for a
number of reasons, with effectiveness topping the list. It will lead
to a duplication of rules and monitoring, as well as the inevitable
increase in administrative and financial costs for issuers, investors
and brokers. The competitiveness of institutions, their fair
treatment under regulation, and the quality of monitoring of the
securities sector would suffer''.
This is Mrs. Robic, a Liberal, speaking. She has just told us that
if the federal government were to interfere in the securities sector,
it would be completely inappropriate constitutionally, but it would
also be completely ineffective, because the provinces have already
developed the expertise, they already have the networks and the
institutions to manage the securities sector.
I have often heard the Minister of Finance come up with ideas so
ridiculous they verge on the surreal. When he talks to us about the
Canadian securities commission, Picasso comes to mind, it would
be so chaotic. And for some time now, we have been getting used to
this sort of fuzzy thinking from the finance minister.
Basically, this is what he said: ``No problem, we will establish a
Canadian securities commission and if a province does not want to
join it, it will keep its own provincial commission and we will have
our federal commission''. This reasoning is so ridiculous that I
cannot make head or tail of it.
How can you improve efficiency by increasing the number of
players in an area that is already heavily regulated? How can you
improve the economic efficiency of sucirities management if you
add one, two or three players, because there are other institutions
apart from the Canadian securities commission? How can you
create certainty and stability, which the securities sector has an
urgent need of?
You know as well as I do that the financial community is very
sensitive to any sudden change. So you can imagine how the
financial community will react if faced with two players in Quebec:
a Canadian securities commission and a Quebec securities
commission. The financial community would no longer know
where it stands. With whom would it deal? Faced with two
contradictory decisions regarding an application to issue shares,
which one would they accept?
Everything the government is doing will increase inefficiency,
bickering and court challenges.
The only winners in such a situation, sadly, would be lawyers
because the establishment of a Canadian commission would create
a mess.
Speaking about a consensus in Quebec, recently the Commission
sur le travail et l'économie of the Quebec government took a close
look at the future of the securities industry. One of its mandates
was to evaluate the appropriateness of the federal plan to establish
a Canadian securities commission.
Some very serious and qualified experts on securities came
before the commission, and every one of them voiced opposition to
the establishment of such a Canadian securities commission. The
president of the Montreal Exchange said no, as well as the
president of the Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec.
(1535)
The representatives of the Barreau du Québec said no. The
Mouvement Desjardins said no. Ogilvy Renault said no. The
Investment Dealers Association of Canada questioned the
appropriateness of establishing such a commission, as did various
groups, such as the Investors Group.
Recently, to the great embarrassement of the Minister of
Finance, in the Globe and Mail or in the Financial Post-I think it
was in the latter-some players in Ontario and in British Columbia
also voiced their opposition to the establishment of a Canadian
Securities Commission. What a blow.
There are no two ways about it, since the speech from the throne,
the Minister of Finance has repeatedly said that there is a broad
consensus in Canada for establishing such a commission. That is
6500
not true. The minister or his advisers are ill informed, very much
so. Nobody wants this Canadian securities commission.
Why? Because the decision to establish one would be totally
illogical. Provinces have total jurisdiction over this area and are
used to working together, without the tutorship of the federal
government, without the paternalistic attitude of a federal Liberal
government. They have improved relations, they have improved
SEDAR, which stands for System for Electronic Document
Analysis and Retrieval.
They have improved and continue to improve the system so that
someone issuing securities in Canada does not have to file three
different prospectuses, one in Vancouver, one in Toronto and one in
Montreal. With this improved system, only one prospectus will be
automatically issued from coast to coast. This would increase
efficiency, instead of adding another player.
Above all, what needs to be said on this is that the federal
government should mind its own business. If it had done so in the
last three years, our tax losses would not add up to $9 billion.
Because of the federal government's indulgence, all Canadian
taxpayers had to pay higher taxes to make up for this $9 billion in
lost revenue.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to participate in the
debate on this issue.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois finance critic has very eloquently just stated the
government's motivations for creating a new Canadian securities
commission.
This raises the same old debate. Later on I will ask him to
elaborate on this. The Bloc Quebecois has always called for an end
to administrative duplication. The federal government claimed it
was willing to look for ways to reduce duplication. This time,
however, there is no duplication.
In Quebec, we have our own securities commission. The federal
government has decided, according to its own logic, to create a
Canadian securities commission, thus creating a duplication which
did not exist before. The federal government will then say: ``Since
we agree that duplication should be avoided, the solution would be
to eliminate the Quebec Securities Commission. Since duplication
is to be avoided, there should be only one commission''.
This is what the federal government's centralizing policy is all
about. This is what will happen. Whenever there is duplication, the
province, especially Quebec, is asked to withdraw from this area of
jurisdiction, and duplication is created where there was none
before. Then the federal government tries to justify its action by
saying that the province should withdraw in order to avoid
duplication.
I believe this is a red herring, and we join with the official
opposition critic in demanding that the federal government
withdraw from this area of provincial jurisdiction. I would like my
colleague to add something on this matter, if time permits.
(1540)
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member
for Joliette, for his excellent comments and his remarkable analysis
and I also want to congratulate him for his speaking skills.
You are quite right dear colleague. How peculiar it is that
whenever the federal government talks about eliminating
duplication, overlap and inefficiency, it never looks in its own back
yard, but always in the provinces' back yards.
It is quite amazing. On the one hand, it creates inefficiency. On
the other hand, it says that we, as sovereignists, should respect the
Canadian Constitution, but it does not even do so itself. In 1982,
when the Prime Minister imposed the Canadian Constitution on
Quebec, the present Prime Minister was there. He was one of those
who forced Quebec to accept this unacceptable Constitution.
He tells us we should respect the Constitution, but when the time
comes for him to respect the jurisdictions stated in that
Constitution, he pays no attention whatsoever to it. Double
standards. Whenever it suits him, he goes ahead, and when it does
not, he puts aside all his beliefs and his constitutional convictions.
As I said earlier, it seems the government is annoyed whenever
the provinces agree on something and live in harmony, whenever
they implement a sophisticated system, which is constantly
improving, an efficient protocol for the issuance of securities.
It seems the federal government does not like that and feels it has
to interfere. But when it does, the quarrelling goes on. It is easy to
understand. If things are so wrong, if it is so hard for us to agree in
so many areas, very often it is not our fault. It is often due to
provocation from the other side. We were used to a system which
constantly provoked Quebec, something that is still going on under
this Prime Minister, who was an important player in 1970 and
1980, one of those who forced Quebec to fall back into line.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from La Prairie,
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and Trois-Rivières. As you know, being
the Indian affairs critic, I am not well-versed in economic matters.
Having read the dissenting opinion of my colleagues, I told myself
that I had to speak on this issue. That is why I asked my
parliamentary leader to put my name on the list.
6501
The first thing I must say, after reading the dissenting report
and seeing what the finance minister was getting at-and I take
over from my colleague from Joliette-is that the federal
government is once again intruding in areas of provincial
jurisdiction, especially in Quebec.
Members on the other side of the House say all kinds of things
and use all kinds of words to redefine the Canadian Confederation.
They are constantly talking about decentralization and using many
terms like ``flexible federalism''. These fine words are inconsistent
with their proposals.
It seems to me that the federal government is once again being
inconsistent because it is promoting a certain decentralization, a
certain flexibility, while at the same time advocating the creation of
a national commission that would oversee all other securities
commissions. Naturally, that was quite obvious to me right from
the beginning.
What the finance minister is suggesting, with the support of his
government colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance, is
that the federal government take over some of what the Quebec
securities commission is doing in Montreal. As you know, this
commission is located in Montreal. I believe this is another attack
against the great city of Montreal. Montreal is already grappling
with many problems. Some of them were pointed out in
discussions, speeches and questions.
We notice, among other things, that the unemployment rate is
always higher in Montreal than anywhere else in Quebec and in
Canada. Montreal has become the capital of unemployment.
Finally, the minister's proposal would aggravate the
unemployment problem by transferring to Toronto the financial
resources associated with securities.
(1545)
This is unacceptable. The poverty rate is also quite high in
Montreal. This is terrible. The waiting lines at food banks are
getting longer and longer and the only thing the minister does is try
to cripple a provincial commission located in Montreal, in the
Province of Quebec. What city stands to benefit? Toronto.
Naturally, Toronto is always chosen for the establishment of a
national securities commission. We in the Bloc Quebecois must
oppose this measure proposed by the finance minister.
I was telling you that it is an important economic lever for
Montreal. Here are some statistics that prove it. The Quebec
Securities Commission means 120 permanent jobs in Montreal,
15,000 registered brokers and advisers, an $8 million annual
budget, and the issuance of some 1,570 prospectuses and visas per
year. Moreover, $2.9 billion in shares and $39 billion in securities
were traded there in 1995.
One can easily understand our eagerness to stand up for
provincial securities commissions, including the Quebec
commission. We often hear about Quebec's financial and other
resources being siphoned off in favour of large municipalities, of
major centres like Toronto, and of Ontario, but this is not the first
time we are being unfairly treated.
We have often denounced injustices in research and
development. The situation is the same. It is the same thing for
National Defence. I keep reminding the House that, in the case of
armoured vehicles, the minister unilaterally decided to give the
whole contract to London, Ontario, while Oerlikon, which is
located in Quebec and which is a centre of excellence for turrets,
got absolutely nothing.
Contracts are very often awarded directly to Ontario companies
as well as to western concerns, but rarely to Quebec companies.
Quebecers never get the equivalent of what they contribute as
regards these lines of activity.
The same goes for Public Works Canada. We mention it
regularly. There are hundreds of millions of dollars that should go
to Quebec but are allocated elsewhere in Canada. The minister
keeps following the same pattern, which is to yield to the pressures
of Toronto's major financiers, even though he is from Quebec. It is
sad to see that he approves this measure, which will undermine
Quebec's efforts and those of its securities commission.
The minister uses an argument which I find somewhat fallacious
when he says: ``Listen, if provincial securities commissions want
to remain in place, so be it. Let them remain in place''. However,
we know that the national commission will take precedence over
any other securities commission. This will result in an exodus of
financial advisers and brokers, who will all move to Toronto. This
is why I think the government's argument is fallacious.
We will definitely not let the federal government interfere in a
field that comes under Quebec's jurisdiction, and we will do our
utmost to make sure this does not happen. The Minister of Finance
should commit himself to other pursuits than trying to drain off
Quebec's own resources.
My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has tabled an
excellent paper on corporate taxation. I find it abnormal that the
middle class and the disadvantaged are always the ones who have
to foot the bill in Canada. There are 29 large corporations that pay
only 6.5 per cent tax on their profits. Normally, the rate should be
much higher. They should play a part in putting government
finances on a healthier footing. However, it is always the same
people who end up paying: the disadvantaged through cuts and the
middle class through excessive taxes.
Also, they rarely talk about closing the tax loopholes enjoyed by
high income earners. These people continue to take advantage of
6502
loopholes, and those making over $100,000 often shirk their
responsibilities.
As for family trusts, the Minister was slow in tackling this
problem. Can we believe today that he has solved it? I doubt it very
much.
(1550)
Instead of going after performing Quebec institutions like the
Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec, the minister should
tackle the real problem, that of taxpayers who still use loopholes in
the tax system, of companies that still escape paying taxes, and of
family trusts that are still in existence. The finance minister
himself has admitted he has a family trust, so he does not want to
touch that, but the middle class and the underprivileged are still the
ones who foot the bill.
I wish to move an adjournment motion. I move, seconded by the
hon. member for Laval Centre:
That this House do now adjourn.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1625 )
[English]
Before the taking of the vote:
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, on a point order. It may be my military
background but I do believe that we should abide by dress
regulations. I believe we have a member in the House who is
improperly dressed.
The Deputy Speaker: Without forcing the poor Speaker to have
to go down every row, the member might indicate who is the
improperly dressed member.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, the member for Davenport.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, my eyes can barely see but I
gather that the member for Davenport is not wearing a tie. There is
a ruling, surprising as it may sound to a number of members, that a
member not wearing a tie is not in fact entitled to vote. Nobody
gets thrown out but the member for Davenport accordingly will not
be able to vote.
(1630 )
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification. I am
not wearing a tie. Will I be entitled to vote?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes. With my having three daughters, you
are putting the Speaker in a very bad position. In fact, I think the
unfortunate answer is that if a member is of one gender she does
not need to wear a tie, but the other gender does.
Somebody can challenge that or take an action for a declaratory
judgment in one of the courts.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 168)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grubel
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Loubier
Mayfield
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wayne
Williams-70
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
6503
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Whelan
Young
Zed -126
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bélisle
Boudria
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Guay
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Venne
Wells
Wood
(1635)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion negatived.
(Motion negatived.)
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I got here late, but I would like to
be recorded as having voted with my party in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I move that the House
do now proceed to the orders of the day.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary is not
able to move that motion on a point of order. Resuming debate, the
hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. On a
point of order, the hon. member for St. Albert.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the member for Medicine Hat be now heard.
(1640 )
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is not debatable.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, you called debate and since we are
going back to debate, the opposition had its turn and it is now our
turn. You should have recognized the parliamentary secretary to the
House leader.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, all members of this House know that
there is no list of speakers and that the first member to stand up is
the one who gets to speak. No one stood up on the government
majority side. I recognized and saw it was indeed a Reform
member who stood up.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit to you that you may
remember I did stand and I was recognized on debate. You
indicated that under a point of order it would not be appropriate to
move a motion so you moved to debate. When you moved to
debate, I stood and you recognized me. I was about to speak on
debate. You then took a motion on a point of order which you said
was not appropriate when I had done it. Therefore, I would submit
to you, Sir, that I am on debate and I have the floor. I respectfully
request the floor.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you call the
question on the motion that I put forward.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, this will seem like Greek to
many people. In fact what happened, the parliamentary secretary
quite correctly points out that he was recognized on debate. He was
not able to move the motion on a point of order. In fact, there is
only one motion that can be made on a point of order and that is the
motion that was made by the member for St. Albert.
6504
Accordingly, if anybody is interested, had the member spoken
and said a single word after he was recognized-
An hon. member: He did.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair did not hear him say a single
word. Because he had not spoken, the motion put on a point of
order by the member for St. Albert is in order. Accordingly, we will
now have to vote on that motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 169)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
Mercier
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wayne
Williams-61
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Easter
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Young
Zed-124
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bélisle
Boudria
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
6505
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Guay
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Venne
Wells
Wood
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
(Motion negatived.)
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to be a nuisance, but I
came in late. I would not want you to think ill of me. This is the
first time this has happened since I have been in the House, but I
did not feel well. I was feeling weak. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
(1735)
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if you
would find agreement from the parties that we now would take the
deferred divisions on Bill C-66, the Canada Labour Code, and Bill
C-42, the Reform amendment on the Judges Act.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege.
I feel that my parliamentary privileges are in the process of
being breached, notwithstanding this afternoon. It is a serious
question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to give you
the normal advance notice of one hour, but we have to raise these
issues at the first available opportunity, and that is now.
I have been advised that tomorrow members of Parliament will
not be given a copy of the report by the royal commission on
aboriginal affairs. It will be given to the press, to the media, but not
to members of Parliament.
The royal commission was created by this House and therefore I
would ask the government to ensure that all parliamentarians have
access to that report.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would submit to you that this is not a point of order or a question of
privilege but in fact is total fabrication and speculation at this time.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member will appreciate
the word inchoate. It will not happen until tomorrow. If the matter
does not happen tomorrow, as he indicates, please let the Chair
know.
6505
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 19 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code
(Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred recorded division on Bill C-66.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion-
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Kilger: If it is helpful to the House, it is the government's
intention that after we have dealt with the recorded divisions we
would move to private members' hour. We are only trying to
facilitate everyone's work here. There are committees still pending
and while members are here I thought we could possibly be
efficient and effective by taking the recorded divisions now,
moving to private members' hour after.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I think applying the votes may work.
We will have to be careful because there was voting in different
parties in different ways, but we can apply the vote as long as that is
taken into account.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement and
we will indicate how we will vote.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-66, Liberal
members will be voting yea.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition will be voting nay.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be
voting yes on this bill unless instructed to do otherwise by their
constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party members
present in the House today will vote no on this matter.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to be recorded as voting yes.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was not here for the previous vote
and so I would like the Table to know that I am here for this vote
and am voting with my NDP colleagues on this against the motion.
6506
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I am feeling better and I will be
voting with my party, that is to say, I will be voting nay.
(1740)
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, I was absent and I would like it noted
that had I been here for the last vote, I would have voted with the
government.
[English]
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, just to be absolutely clear, I
am voting in support of this motion.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded
as opposing the motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of the
motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of the
motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 170)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Easter
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Whelan
Williams
Young
Zed-148
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Rocheleau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-42
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bélisle
Boudria
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Guay
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Venne
Wells
Wood
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
6507
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee.)
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from November 19 consideration of the
motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill
C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential
amendments to another act; and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member
for St. Albert to the motion of the Minister of Justice concerning
Senate amendments to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act
and to make consequential amendments to another act.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition will be voting nay.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be
supporting this amendment unless instructed by the constituents to
do otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members
present this evening will vote no on this issue.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, the PC members will be voting nay.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, just for further
clarification, I will be voting yes on this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as I almost always do, I will vote
with the government on this matter.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 171)
YEAS
Members
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Mayfield
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-26
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Easter
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Whelan
Young
Zed-164
6508
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bélisle
Boudria
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Guay
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Venne
Wells
Wood
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
It is my duty to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is: the hon. member for Saint
John, taxation.
It being 5.45 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business.
_____________________________________________
6508
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of amending Canada's system of arms export controls by requiring that
export permits for military products be granted only after the Department of Foreign
Affairs has conducted and tabled in the House of Commons a Security Impact
Assessment determining that the proposed export will enhance international security.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House to support
Motion No. 290 which calls on the government to consider
improving Canada's regime for controlling arms exports. I am
proposing that the government should be required to determine that
a particular export of military equipment would improve
international security and table that security impact assessment in
the House of Commons before granting an export permit.
This motion addresses the continuing threat that the international
arms trade poses to international security over so much of the
developing world. The persistence of the trade in arms at
unacceptable levels in the aftermath of the cold war is creating a
residual harvest of death that must not be overlooked in the sigh of
relief that comes from not being as close as we were for years to the
nuclear abyss. The arms trade today is fueled both by the hangover
of the cold war and by the unabated addiction of the developed
economies to the economic spin-offs of military spending.
The hangover is the need to get rid of stockpiles of outdated
weapons and equipment while retrieving some economic benefit.
In Canada we have seen this aspect of the problem in the
government's attempts to peddle Canada's fleet of CF-5s, first to
Namibia and now reportedly to the Philippines through some
American broker that wants to barter the planes for a gold mine.
Elsewhere, as highlighted recently in a Veterans Against Nuclear
Arms newsletter, the American government has recently sold off
large quantities of inventoried advanced weaponry to more than 60
countries at bargain basement prices, worsening arms races
between Turkey and Greece, Israel and Egypt and Chile and
Argentina.
Equally ominous, the Russian arms industry is reported by the
International Institute for Strategic Studies to be accumulating
large stockpiles of military equipment and supplies that were
ordered by the Russian armed forces but for which the Russian
state is now in no position to pay.
The arms industries resist the shrinkage of military spending in
the wake of the cold war through attempts to persuade governments
they still need the ``baroque arsenals'' of the cold war, to borrow a
term from the prominent British disarmament expert, Mary Kaldor,
or that they need to continue to invest large sums of money in R and
D for new weapons.
They also resist the shrinkage in their opportunities by
cultivating new markets in developing countries. In a report
released earlier this month, the International Institute for Strategic
Studies has shown that the post-cold war decline in the
international arms trade has reversed this year as arms suppliers
eagerly seek out growing markets in the Middle East financed by
rising oil prices and in east Asia, where there is a nascent arms race
beginning to spiral into dangerous proportions.
As Oscar Arias, Nobel peace prize winner and former president
of Costa Rica, has recently pointed out, there is something perverse
in the fact that the five permanent members of the security council
who are supposed to be promoting peace are also the five largest
arms exporters and hence promoters of war and insecurity.
(1750 )
In Canada, we certainly conform to the perverse trend that Arias
points out. There seems to be little indication of a fundamental
rethinking of Canadian security policy. At the same time, as
reported in recent issues of the Ploughshares Monitor, Canadian
exports to non-NATO countries are going up with aggressive
marketing in the east Asian region.
Potentially the most dangerous component in the cold war's
harvest of death is the continued threat posed by the existence of
6509
stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons grade nuclear material.
Our cautious optimism about the steps taken recently toward a
comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty should not lead us to
underestimate the scale of the dangers that will persist until the
nuclear genie is put back in the bottle.
There is the environmental problem of storing plutonium which
remains highly toxic for thousands of years, a problem that directly
affects Canada because the Liberal government has expressed
support for the idea of burning the world's weapons grade
plutonium in Candu reactors and presumably burying the waste
somewhere in the Canadian shield.
There is the possibility of nuclear terrorism, either through the
theft of a nuclear weapon or through the construction of a nuclear
device by a terrorist organization or rogue state.
I found Walter Lequeur's conclusion in a recent article in
Foreign Affairs that such an event, far from a remote possibility,
was better described as ``apocolyse soon'', to be highly unsettling.
Not to mention that if Candus in Canada begin to use plutonium it
will only be a matter of time before other Candu possessing
countries argue that they too could have access to plutonium, with
all the danger that such a development would involve for nuclear
weapons proliferation.
The Liberal government's decision to go ahead with the sale of a
Candu reactor to China, with no environmental assessment or
public consultation, and in the full knowledge of China's
willingness to help some countries develop a nuclear capability,
gives Canada little moral authority to preach to the world about
nuclear responsibility.
The flourishing of the arms trade and the persistence of the
nuclear threat, despite the end of the cold war, has been a matter of
immense disappointment, if not surprise, to those who thought that
there were grounds for optimism at the end of the cold war in 1989.
For one thing, the collapse of the communist regimes came
about in large part as a result of the mobilizing of popular
democratic movements. If people power could bring down the
military industrial complex in the east there was the prospect that
the much more developed democracies could so in the west,
especially since the military contest which had legitimized
grotesque levels of public expenditures on the military had
disappeared.
There were, therefore, high expectations that the end of the cold
war could bring a large peace dividend to the former contestants in
the cold war and to the international community at large. Military
budgets could be greatly reduced and public spending could be
redirected to more socially useful ends. International assistance
could be given over entirely to legitimate development programs
rather than military assistance.
This optimism rested on the assumption that with the end of the
cold war and its horrifyingly surreal definition of international
security as residing in the nuclear balance of terror, it would open
up some political space for an authentic conception of international
security as residing in the elimination of poverty, respect for the
environment, respect for basic human and political rights and the
notion of common security as opposed to collective security based
on nuclear terror.
Governments could spend on international development and
engage constructively in the political development of many
developing societies as a way of achieving genuine international
security rather than propping up authoritarian regimes as cold war
stooges and militarizing their regional conflicts.
This assumption has not proved true. In the first place, the
madness of the nuclear arms race and balance of terror has not
given way to the hoped for conception of common security based
on strengthening the international community through poverty
reduction and environmental protection. It has instead been
replaced by a vision of international society in some powerful
circles which attaches no meaning or value to the international
community at all, and which prefers a world where the U.S. plays
the role of global policemen picking and choosing what merits
intervention and concern. The jobs can sometimes be contracted
out to countries like Canada as long as there are no vital strategic
interests at stake.
In this dominant, neo-liberal vision of the world as a giant,
unified marketplace, a playground for the few hundred
multinationals that dominate international trade and where states
are increasingly becoming marginal actors, the idea of common
security is as scarce as the idea of the common good.
Globalization usually figures centrally in criticisms of the drift
of the world economy. However, it must also be of great concern to
those concerned about international conflict and the arms trade.
The proponents of globalization offer no prescription for the
deep poverty and social and institutional underdevelopment of so
many societies rooted in the accelerated polarization that is taking
place as the market becomes the only forum for the international
community. The resulting poverty and environmental degradation
will be the main source of international conflict in the coming
years.
(1755)
A second danger posed by globalization is the complete absence
of a moral compass for public policy generally and foreign and
defence policy particularly. The growth of the notion that states do
not have responsibilities that may interfere with the commercial
interests of companies has led to the neutering of the state as a
morally proactive agent in the arms trade as in so many other areas
of public policy.
6510
When the president of the Aerospace Industries Association of
Canada says, as quoted in the June issue of the Ploughshares
Monitor that ``it is not for those who manufacture or assemble
weapons to grapple with the moral issue of who the arms should
or should not be sold to'', we are not surprised.
However, it is outrageous for the Liberal government to adopt
such a position. When the Minister of Industry says, quoting again
the same issue of the Ploughshares Monitor, that ``We need to
recognize that there are and always will be conflicts-that we have
Canadian defence firms with expertise, we have Canadians who are
employed in these businesses, and we want them to succeed''.
When we hear that kind of quote we know that the moral handicap
which I talked about is now epidemic and metastasizing throughout
the body politic.
The ethos of globalization has not offered a new vision of
international security. It not only offers no solutions to the
development problems that fuel international conflict and hence
the arms trade, it offers no moral regime in the context of which
governments could regulate the arms trade, which like all other
human endeavours in the dominant market paradigm is seen as a
market opportunity rather than as an ethical challenge.
Let me now turn to the particular problems of Canadian
involvement in the international arms trade and propose a way
forward to meet the challenges of developing a responsible public
policy in response to the arms trade.
The Canadian defence industry is, according to the 1995 report
of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agent, the
10th largest exporter in the world. Since the end of the cold war it
has experienced a loss of American orders and has become
proportionately more dependent on Canadian government orders.
However, it has managed to catch the international trend and
capture a growing export market in non-NATO countries.
One of the defining characteristics of Canadian exports is its role
as a supplier of parts and components to American suppliers, a trait
that led a recent Ploughshares Monitor article to label the Canadian
industry as a bit player.
These exports are unregulated and unreported, making it
difficult to trace the end user of parts. This has not stopped others
from reporting on how often Canadian exports end up in the hands
of regimes with appalling human rights records or who are engaged
in destabilizing defence policies.
It also means that the policy decisions about where our military
exports should be permitted is handed over to the Americans, not a
very reassuring situation. When the Pentagon advises the Clinton
administration, as it recently has, to lift the ban on exporting high
technology weapons to Latin America, Canada becomes a silent
partner to such a disastrous policy. To allow Latin American
militaries access to high tech weapons threatens to turn back the
clock on the process of democratization. It will reinvigorate the
military establishments, whose past excesses are contained only
under very fragile truces with civilian authorities in many Latin
American societies, and will siphon moneys badly needed for
social development into the sinkhole of growing military budgets.
What needs to be done to improve this situation? At the most
fundamental level, Canadians need to insist on at least a little
intellectual consistency in Canadian defence and foreign policy
from the Liberal government.
The government cannot take a leading role in the movement to
abolish anti-personnel mines, a commendable course of action, and
turn a blind eye to the export of arms or components through
American intermediaries to human rights abusers.
The government cannot take pride in the peacekeeping
operations of the Canadian Armed Forces and at the same time
allow Canadian arms exporters to supply arms to the same local
conflicts which the peacekeepers might be sent to address.
Look at Canadian military exports to Turkey, which totalled
close to $26 million from the years 1990 to 1993, and may include
a potential sale of CF-5s to the Turkish air force. Why should a
government that otherwise professes to be seeking a peaceful
solution to the conflict between Turkey and Greece, or the Turkish
government and the Kurdish community in Turkey for that matter,
be arming the Turkish government?
(1800 )
The same could be said of the dramatic cuts in Canadian
development assistance under the Liberals. They are part of the
international trend to abandon the poorest of the poor to the
mercies of the global market, a policy which will only engender
more international and civil conflict and the need for even more
peacekeeping missions.
You should not boast of your skills as a firefighter if in your
spare time you are an arsonist, or at the very least play a lot with
matches.
The motion I am putting forward today is a proposal for a
concrete improvement to the Canadian regime for arms export
controls. It is inspired by Ernie Regehr's proposal published
recently in the Ploughshare's Monitor.
The proposal set out in the motion would require the government
to prepare a security impact assessment before granting any export
permit. It would have to table the report in the House of Commons.
This measure would bring two major improvements to the current
regime.
6511
First, it would place an onus on the government to show not
only that the receiving party met certain standards of not being
on a particular blacklist of sanctioned states, but the government
would have to demonstrate that a particular export would enhance
international security. This would force the government to pause
before allowing an export to a country or region that might
otherwise have an acceptable bill of health in terms of human
rights performance or not being in a particular conflict at the
present time but which in any case could be destabilized by an
emerging arms race.
For instance, the government would be forced to demonstrate
how particular arms exports to east Asia or the Middle East, where
destabilizing arms races are now escalating, would serve the
interests of regional or global security.
The second benefit would of course be increased transparency, a
chronic problem in the international arms trade which is habitually
conducted under the table. The tabling of the security impact
assessment in the House of Commons would in itself add to the
transparency of this secretive trade. Greater transparency will in
and of itself assist in the task of building responsible behaviour in
the arms industry.
This proposal is not of course the only improvement needed to
our public policies on arms exports. One of the main problems
remains the export of components to American manufacturers of
weapons systems and other military equipment. Because there is no
export control or even reporting at all for the export of arms or
components to the United States, Canadians have no way of
knowing who the end users of Canadian exports are, or more to the
point, who is killed or terrorized by such weapons and by whom.
Without some regime to bring this problem under control,
Canadians remain in the hands of American policy makers for the
moral decisions about to whom lethal instruments made in Canada
should be sold. Clearly this is not an acceptable situation.
This motion, had it been chosen to be votable and debated and
voted on, would have been an opportunity for the House of
Commons to have expressed itself on what I regard as a morally
urgent matter. Unfortunately it was not so chosen, so we only have
this hour of debate before us today and we are not really in a
position to seek unanimous consent for the passage of the motion at
this time.
I hope this might be one small step toward moving the
government in this direction. I recall when the Liberals were in
opposition many suggestions were put forward in the spirit of this
private member's motion, in particular by the member who is now
the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Liberal government.
I am hoping for a sympathetic hearing from the government on
this. It is an opportunity to follow up on the goodwill created by the
government through its actions with respect to the banning of
anti-personnel land mines. If that stands alone, if it is not followed
up by meaningful action on the arms trade, then certainly the
community within Canada which concerns itself with the arms
trade will not be deceived. It will not think that the government's
actions will suffice if the government does not go beyond the land
mines strategy which it has now and seeks to do something about
something we can do right here in Canada now.
We do not have to wait for an international consensus on how
Canada regulates its exports of arms. This is something we can do
ourselves. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is very good at creating
international discussions. He is very good at creating the image of
something being done or something about to be done. We wish him
well in all that.
However here in our own backyard, here in our own regime with
respect to how we regulate the export of arms, the government can
act now. It could have acted today by facilitating the passage of this
motion. Certainly many Canadians are with me at this time in
hoping that the government will soon act on this issue.
(1805 )
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome
the opportunity to participate in the debate on the motion of the
member for Winnipeg-Transcona.
We share his concern for the need to reduce global arms and the
need to prevent as much as possible arms from entering the hands
of people in countries that systematically abuse human rights and
which use the arms to terrorize populations, and to proceed on the
whole scale of the arms reduction agenda. However, the proposal of
my hon. colleague would make major alterations to Canada's
export control system. I remind the House that Canada's export
control system is already one of the strictest in the world.
Also our government is constantly reviewing regulatory
restrictions such as export controls and making adjustments when
needed to ensure that we maintain the strictest possible system. I
would like to explain to the House what makes our system of
military export controls the strictest in the world.
[Translation]
Canada was one of the first countries to set precise criteria for
arms export permits. It remains one of the few countries to include
the respect of human rights among its criteria. We played a lead
role in this, setting an example for other countries.
[English]
Our criteria enable us to: protect the national security of Canada
and its allies; abide by all UN economic sanctions; avoid situations
6512
involving hostilities or threat of hostilities; and take into
consideration the human rights conditions of the recipient country,
including the possibility of goods proposed for export being
involved in cases of human rights abuse.
Last June 18 the Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed the House
on this very issue. He reaffirmed his commitment to strict, tough
controls. In fact he told the House that he had further tightened the
implementation of export permitting to ensure that Canada's
policies were fully met.
The new measures put in place in 1996 include more rigorous
analyses of security issues and threats of hostilities, fully
considering (a) the regional stability and security relationships; (b)
relations between neighbouring states; and (c) internal conflicts
such as civil wars. Also included is a stricter interpretation of
human rights criteria, including increased requirements of end use
assurances to minimize the risk that Canadian equipment would
fall into the hands of those who might use it to abuse human rights.
They also include even stricter controls where firearms are
concerned, including examining the gun control laws and practices
in recipient countries to satisfy ourselves that Canadian firearms
would not slip into the illegal arms trade or fuel local lawlessness
or violence.
[Translation]
Canada's export control system includes one other aspect which
makes it one of the world's best. I refer to its transparency. Every
year we issue a detailed report of our military exports to countries
other than the United States, and have done so since 1990. This
report shows the value of our military exports in 21 separate
categories of goods for each country except the U.S.
Canada was one of the first to be in favour of such detailed
reports and played a significant role in creating the U.N. Register
of Conventional Arms in 1992. Today, we are taking further steps
toward ensuring better compliance with reporting requirements by
all countries, as well as the exchange of more detailed information
in this area.
(1810 )
[English]
In its level of detail, Canada's annual report on military exports
goes far beyond the public reporting done by even our closest
friends and allies internationally.
Most Canadian made military goods go to the U.S. under
defence production sharing agreements which date back to the
second world war. Of the rest, over 87 per cent support close allies
in NATO and those with whom we have defence research,
production and security arrangements, such as those on the
so-called automatic firearm country control list.
[Translation]
It seems to me that Canada, however modest its role, is already
highly successful in supporting its allies where security is
concerned, while severely curtailing its exports in situations which
might give rise to strategic concerns of one kind or another. In
addition, by declaring our exports, both large and small, we are
demonstrating more transparency than any other country.
[English]
Our government has worked tirelessly for peace, international
security, and to support social development. We will continue to do
so.
I would like the House to note the following Canadian
initiatives: to bring about a worldwide ban of antipersonnel land
mines, which is currently gathering very good momentum
internationally; to gain world recognition of the problem of
excessive military spending in some less developed countries that
might leave little public funding for education, health and other
social needs.
There is the initiative to help found a new export control regime.
The Wassenaar arrangement is dedicated to increasing
responsibility and transparency in conventional arms, an
organization that for the first time embraces former cold war
adversaries and new industrial economies in Asia and Latin
America.
Another initiative is to direct large proportions of our
development assistance expenditure to building institutions that
promote human rights and democratic development, including a
free media and civil policing.
This government has taken an extremely active role
internationally in peace building, in conventional arms control and
in ensuring that Canadian military trade is conducted at the highest
level of responsibility and transparency, a model for the rest of the
world. We will continue to expand these efforts and will keep
looking at ways to update and enhance our export control systems
to ensure they fully adhere to Canadian values of international
peace and security.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity today to speak to Motion M-290
presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.
If the Canadian government were to agree to make export
permits for military goods conditional on a security impact
assessment, there is no doubt that military goods produced in
Canada could no longer be used for inhuman and immoral
purposes.
This motion could make a vital difference to many people who
today are suffering the horrors of war, a war that is often, too often,
waged with weapons produced here in Canada.
The last review of the current legislation, the Export and Import
Permits Act, dates back to September 1986, when the Conservative
6513
Party was in power. One wonders why this policy has not been
revised and amended for more than ten years, although the world
situation has changed considerably during that time. Consider, for
instance, the fall of the Berlin wall, the breakup of the former
Soviet Union and of course the drastic shift in the geopolitical
balance.
Does the Liberal government truly believe that this legislation
does not have to be adjusted to the current situation? Actually, a
praiseworthy attempt was made in 1992. At the time, the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade had
appointed a sub-committee to examine more specifically the issue
of arms exports.
This study produced some 20 recommendations which are now,
unfortunately, gathering dust. This is because the Conservative
government at the time decided that arms export controls were
already strict enough and it was unnecessary to tighten up the
regulations. The most troubling aspect here is that the current
Minister of Foreign Affairs was among those who signed this
report.
(1815)
Furthermore, in a speech he had noted that Canada was moving
more and more towards a peacekeeping role. Arguing in favour of a
much tougher control register that would contain a list of the
countries to which Canadian arms were sold, the present minister
said this: ``We want to make sure there is a system in which there
could be a clear requirement that exports would only go to
countries on the list and that there would be a transparency to that
list so we would know who they are. We want to make sure that it
would not be decided inside the bowels of External Affairs and all
of a sudden an announcement would be made and before anything
could be done it would be over. Furthermore, and it is a very
important principle, we felt it crucial that Parliament should have a
role and that the elected representatives of the people of Canada
should be given some opportunity to determine whether we want to
sell arms to country A or country B. Therefore, there is a
requirement for tabling the name of any country that would go on
this list to be reviewed by Parliament if we so decided''.
The current minister concluded by saying: ``The point of the
matter is that we believed it was time for Canada to take some
leadership''. You will agree with me that, if the current Minister of
Foreign Affairs wants to be consistent with the position he held
when he was the opposition's critic on foreign affairs, he has no
choice but to support Motion M-290.
The official opposition, that is the Bloc Quebecois, believes the
Liberal government is once again using double talk. Indeed, it
announces, in an official speech, that it is calling for restrictions
and for the non-proliferation of weapons considered to be a source
of instability but, at the same time, it refuses to tighten controls
over exports of Canadian military products.
In a speech delivered in June, when the sixth annual report on
Canada's military exports was tabled, the minister said he would
tighten exports of military products even more. How can we
believe the minister considering that, so far, there has been no
concrete proof of any tighter control. There is no conclusive
evidence that measures were actually taken by the government
since that speech.
Will the minister give us concrete guarantees about the measures
he truly wants to implement? We even read in the newspapers that
the OECD was going to hold an international symposium in Canada
next winter, and that several studies were planned as background
papers for discussion about stepping up control of sales of arms to
third world countries.
The Bloc Quebecois thinks it would be ridiculous if these studies
served only for discussion purposes. Action is long overdue. With
each passing day, more innocent people die, too often women and
children, killed by these arms, which have been bought by dictators
or militia bent on imposing their rule by force.
Canada has, or should have, enough political maturity that it can
now stop producing studies on this issue. It has now reached the
stage where it should be able to take action.
Why does the government not simply take the opportunity of the
upcoming symposium to table and have adopted, during a House of
Commons debate, a new policy on arms export control. It could
then show leadership by proving to all participating countries that
it is possible to implement a law that has teeth but that also has a
moral component, something which is too often missing in today's
world.
Recent events in Haiti, Rwanda, Burundi, Zaire and Afghanistan
show once again how true it is that military products can be used
for the wrong reasons.
It is distressing to see how the western world too often forgets
the use to which these arms can be put. We read yesterday in the
newspapers that, just between April and July 1994, a British
company sold $7.3 million worth of arms to Rwanda. Now we
know to what use they were put.
What is the Canadian government waiting for to take, without
further delay, the lead of the international community and
introduce tougher regulations on arms sale to very unstable parts of
the world?
(1820)
I repeat, the Minister of Foreign Affairs would waste no time
taking action if he acted in a way that is consistent with what he
said in 1993, and I will quote him again: ``We must do a better job
than we are doing to give a message to the world that the
proliferation of arms must come to a halt. That is the reason for the
recommendation to have a much tougher munitions control
register. It was designed to say that we would not be party tosending arms to any area, region or country in which there are
6514
human rights abuses, civil conflict, or dictatorships using those
arms to suppress people or create violence or conflict''.
However, Canada has knowingly sold arms to countries where
respect for human rights is no more than an illusion. The
Vancouver Sun reported last September that Ottawa had approved
sales of military equipment to Indonesia for a total estimated at
more than $362 million. This, although it is common acknowledge
that Indonesia has occupied East Timor for more than 20 years and
that more than 200,000 Timorese have been killed.
As far as China is concerned, Canada has apparently sold more
than $50 million worth of military goods to that country in the past
three years. Does the minister really believe that the Chinese
government would never use those arms against opponents to the
regime or against the Tibetan people who are now under Chinese
occupation?
Yes, the Bloc Quebecois supports this motion and believes that
the motion presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona
is a sensible one and should be an incentive for the Canadian
government to review the Export and Import Permits Act. We hope
that the Liberal government will be of the same opinion, even if all
it can say is trade, trade, trade, in the process forgetting about the
most elementary notions of human rights.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
a privilege to speak to Motion No. 290, the motion proposed by the
member for Winnipeg Transcona dealing with military exports.
The motion has been read already, but for the benefit of those
just joining us I would like to read it again. It is quite a mouthful:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of amending Canada's system of arms export controls by requiring that
export permits for military products be granted only after the Department of Foreign
Affairs has conducted and tabled in the House of Commons a security impact
assessment determining that the proposed export will enhance international security.
I suppose my concern is whether there is a demonstrated need for
what the hon. member is proposing. I question whether there is.
I would like to approach this question by comparing the motion
to what the process is for export permits currently. Presently every
exporter of a military product must apply to the Departments of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade for an export permit. The
procedure is handled by the export's control division of the
department and takes anywhere from a few days to a few weeks.
The division consults with other areas of the department such as the
geographic region to which the sale is being proposed and the
Canadian embassy in that country. It also consults with other
interested government departments such as the Department of
Industry and the Department of National Defence.
The consultation process, from the information I have received,
is a fairly careful one. It is done in such a way as to protect the
commercial confidentiality of the proposed sale. Making this
process public in any way could result in the loss of that sale not
only to another Canadian company but to a foreign competitor.
If there were public money involved, if this were a crown
corporation, maybe the need for that type of transparency would be
necessary, but we are talking about private companies here.
I am not sure what information the member for Winnipeg
Transcona intends to be divulged when a security impact
assessment is tabled in the House of Commons. After being tabled
in the House of Commons, such an assessment would be part of the
public record. It would be information out there for any competitor
to use.
(1825 )
Even after sales have taken place the department has been
careful to group all sales into categories. This is done so that
precise information regarding the product and destination cannot
be linked back to one particular company. This has to do with
commercial confidentiality.
I have often had problems dealing with the department's hiding
behind a veil of commercial confidentiality, but this particular case
involves Canadian companies that are not receiving export
subsidies on credit, unlike some of the ones that we have going
through organizations like the Export Development Corporation.
This is one of the ways in which the motion differs substantially
from what is occurring presently, and I have not heard anything this
evening which would justify making company information public.
Another way that this motion differs from the present procedure
is the objective of the security impact assessment. The motion
states that the assessment should determine that the export will
enhance international security. The consultation which presently
takes place only establishes that the sale will do no harm and will
not have any negative impact.
We need to examine what we are exporting. Our military exports
are mostly in the area of parts and components for aircraft vehicles
and electronic equipment. We sell things like aircraft simulators
and landing gear for military aircraft. We are careful not to sell
military goods and technology to certain types of countries. For
instance, we do not sell to countries which pose a threat to Canada
or to our allies. We do not sell to countries involved in or under
threat of hostilities. We do not sell to countries under UN security
6515
council sanction. Furthermore, we do not sell to countries whose
governments have a persistent record of serious human rights
abuses. We are attempting to determine what an export sale will not
do in terms of harming. Therefore I believe we have met the
qualifications necessary.
I am not convinced there is a demonstrated need for flipping the
criteria on their head and asking that it be proven that the sale will
actually enhance international security. I would assume that many
of the companies that produce military parts, components and
technology for export are also furthering Canada's capabilities in
producing goods and technology for civilian use. This is often the
case. As long as our military exports are doing no harm, I believe
their production and sale should be allowed to continue in the
present format.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a speech delivered on June 18
of this year, stated that Canada's controls are among the toughest in
the world. We have heard that stated a couple of times this
afternoon. Nonetheless, he said that he was tightening up the
controls further to ensure that exports did not end up in the wrong
hands and were not used for unacceptable purposes. He instructed
his officials to carry out more rigorous analyses of the regional,
international and internal security situations of the countries where
these exports were destined. Furthermore, we are applying a
stricter interpretation of human rights criteria. We are also
exercising strict controls to ensure that Canadian firearms do not
end up in the illicit arms trade and that they do not fuel local
violence.
Some people might argue that there is no need to be selling
military parts or exporting them at all. I would make the case that
many of these military exports that Canada develops and sells end
up in things like CF-18 jets which Canada buys back from the
United States. We use those jets to enhance our internal security.
We use those jets as part of our NATO forces and NORAD forces to
deliver security in regions such as Bosnia, Somalia and areas where
Canada is asked to be police persons for the world. We could make
the argument that these military parts which are being developed
and exported actually enhance world security and Canada's
security.
I want to deal for a moment with the ironic situation which we
heard about this evening from the hon. member for Winnipeg
Transcona as well as the hon. member for Verchères. They talked
about what the position of the present Minister of Foreign Affairs
was when he was the critic for the Liberals when they were in
opposition. They said that he has certainly flip-flopped on his
position. I believe he has probably discovered, in much the same
way the Liberals did when they opposed free trade in opposition,
that now that they are in power it is a pretty good deal for the
country. I believe they found in this area of security for the export
of military parts that things are not as bad as they seem. We have a
pretty fair process in place and unless there is a demonstrated need
to change it, it should not be changed.
(1830)
Like most Canadians, I want to ensure that our military exports
are not destroying property or injuring people. I believe that our
government's export permit system balances the need to ensure
that our military goods and technology do not end up in the wrong
hands while protecting the commercial confidentiality of our
companies and allowing them to advance their capabilities and
know how. There needs to be a much stronger demonstration of this
balance before that can be undone.
I would be the first one to say that if that need can be
demonstrated, that Canada should review this and have a more
open process and have it reported to the House of Commons, if that
need can be demonstrated, we would fully support it. But I do not
believe the case has been made here this evening by the
presentation that I have heard that would cause us to look at this
and change the system. I would invite the members who have
brought this forward that if they can show us convincing evidence
otherwise, we would be prepared to have another look at it.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, our government shares the concern of the member
for Winnipeg Transcona about peace and international security.
As my colleague for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso has
outlined, we have taken many concrete steps in this direction. We
have also taken our responsibilities very seriously to ensure that
Canadian military exports are helpful in supporting our allies and
do not fall into the hands of those bent on disrupting peace and
security in other parts of the world.
I would like to take a few moments to outline for this House
some of the steps that are taken behind the scenes to fully meet this
commitment.
[Translation]
All applications for arms export permits, unless they involve
NATO countries or a few other similar countries, are subject to an
exacting consultation process within the department and with other
departments. This primarily involves assessments of each specific
situation.
[English]
Officials look at a range of factors affecting international and
internal peace and security. First of all, are the goods in question of
similar, lower or higher technological level than the recipient
country already has? This closely helps determine whether a sale
would have a destabilizing affect on a region.
Would the goods help the recipient contribute positively to
security arrangements in the region in question or to existing or
6516
planned UN peacekeeping activities? Are there any risks that the
goods proposed for export would threaten any UN or other peace
efforts in or near the recipient country or any Canadian or friendly
military peacekeeping or humanitarian effort?
[Translation]
These assessments are made by the Department of National
Defence and the Regional Security and Peacekeeping Division of
the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in
conjunction with some of the geographical divisions. This averts
any risk of diversion or deception concerning use or final
destination.
[English]
As this House can see, we take our responsibility to protect
peace very seriously. A second part of this same process is our
strict policy against military sales to countries with less than
perfect human rights records as well. In the area of human rights,
the Department of Foreign Affairs human rights division and the
country desks with their political, economic and social
development experts perform a thorough analysis. They look at
annual reports prepared by our embassies abroad on the human
rights performance of each country for the proceeding year,
including areas of deterioration as well as improvements.
They look at reports from such eminent international human
rights watchdogs as Amnesty International, the UN human rights
commission as well as reports received from like minded
governments including the U.S. They look at, on a country by
country basis, reports of Canadian and foreign based
non-governmental organization offering factual or anecdotal
information on human rights conditions in different countries.
They also look at concrete steps being undertaken by the
Canadian government and by Canadian NGOs to improve the
country's democratic and good governance institutions such a free
press, democratic political institutions and an independent
judiciary and civil police force.
(1835)
[Translation]
Together, these elements give us a good idea of the human rights
and security situation virtually anywhere in the world. If any doubt
persists, because our information is incomplete or contradictory,
our embassies investigate and report back to us. All of this is done
prior to any recommendation concerning an application for an arms
export permit. What is more, when the proposed recipient is a
country with a potential for strategic concerns, the Minister of
External Affairs himself looks at the situation in detail and decides
whether to issue the permit or to deny it.
[English]
It can be seen that we already undertake a lengthy procedure to
vet military exports. It is difficult to see how the member's
proposal would enhance this analysis and scrutiny, but it is quite
easy to see that the proposal would make a good system
unworkable and make export control permits subject to unrealistic
criteria. How could one possibly prove that a given export would
enhance international security?
I think it is worth noting the common misconception that
military exports are all arms or lethal weapons that figure centrally
in conflict. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Canadian so-called military exports are made up almost
completely of parts and components, electronic elements, repair
and overhaul and protective and support systems.
Let me provide the House with a few illustrations. Canada is one
of the world's foremost manufacturers and suppliers of bomb
disposal suits and helmets used for disarming terrorist bombs and
dangerous anti-personnel land mines. We also make and export to
many countries bullet proof clothing and armour plating often to
protect civilians.
Canada's aerospace industry is composed mainly of repair and
overhaul and electronic subsystem manufacturers. We make no
combat military aircraft in Canada at all. Yet aerospace makes up
roughly 70 per cent of Canada's defence exports.
What else do we make and export? Devices to help land
helicopters on to the heaving decks of ships at sea and radios and
optical sights and flight simulators and even pellets used for target
practice. Though misnamed as arms, these Canadian defence goods
are vital to supporting Canada's own armed forces and to pulling
our fair share internationally in our military alliances with the U.S.
and NATO. The companies that make these goods also employ a lot
of Canadians, between 60,000 and 80,000 directly and indirectly,
independent studies tell us.
[Translation]
Our government is committed to peacebuilding and
peacekeeping. Also, through various positive measures, we have
encouraged the Canadian defence industry, including the aerospace
sector, to gradually convert to civilian uses. Our initiatives in this
respect were designed to maintain quality and highly paid jobs in
Canada, while doing everything we could to support the conversion
of goods and services in the areas of aviation, transportation and
telecommunications to commercial uses.
The technological partnership program announced last year by
my colleague, the Minister of Industry, ensures that the risks
associated with research and development are shared with the
industry, especially where businesses convert to new civilian
applications.
6517
[English]
The Canadian government is taking all responsible steps to
prevent Canadian made military goods from being sold to
destinations and end users that threaten peace and security
internationally. In fact, our current level of in depth study and
analysis is equal to any in the world. But we are doing more. We are
supporting industry in its efforts to strengthen the civil commercial
side of its business when converting from traditional military
production and in this way retaining companies, jobs and
invaluable high technologies in Canada.
(1840)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Since no more
members wish to speak and the motion was not selected as a
votable item, the hour provided for consideration of Private
Members' Business has now expired and the item is dropped from
the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
6517
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, on
November 4 I asked the finance minister if he was aware of the fact
that thousands of jobs in the Atlantic provinces are in jeopardy
because of his harmonized sales tax.
The minister responded by saying that retailers will be able to
take advantage of the input tax credit. Their costs would be lower
and they would be in a position to pass their savings on to
consumers.
Contrary to what the minister has stated, retailers will not pass
along any savings to consumers because there are no savings to be
had. Jobs are already being lost.
Today in my local paper in Saint John, New Brunswick, the
MMG Management Group which operates Greenberg and MetMart
stores announced the closure of 12 stores and the loss of 150 jobs as
a direct result of the HST in New Brunswick. Seventy-nine people
have been told that they will be laid off and the stores closed by the
end of 1996, that is at the end of next month.
MMG's New Brunswick stores face over $1 million in annual
costs to accommodate the harmonization. The input tax credit the
minister spoke of amounts to $495,000 but this still leaves the
company with a shortfall of $563,000.
The HST is nothing more than a blatant attempt by our present
government to fulfil an election promise. I have to say that the only
reason it went through was because of the three Liberal premiers in
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. None of the
other provinces have agreed to this.
It is not good for Atlantic Canada and puts the three Atlantic
provinces out of sync with the rest of Canada. It is being forced on
us to pad the Liberal version of a red book promise kept.
Under the agreement New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland must include or hide the 15 per cent HST in the
ticket price of the item, known as in-pricing. However in the rest of
Canada the provincial sales tax and the GST must still be added at
the cash register.
The incentive for New Brunswick was a $364 million pay-off
which the province has already received from the federal
government despite an April 1 deadline for harmonization. This
money already is being used by the provincial government and this
was their incentive to sign this agreement.
The main problem is the patchwork approach to harmonization.
The retail sector came here to see me. The Retail Council of
Canada representing Sears, Eaton's, Canadian Tire, Shoppers Drug
Mart and Hudson's Bay has stated these stores can operate with a
single rate sales tax system either tax inclusive or tax extra across
Canada. The retailers cannot manage a tax inclusive in a partially
harmonized system.
A report prepared by Ernst and Young for the Retail Council of
Canada makes reference to the Department of Finance
announcement of April 23. The announcement promised that
partial harmonization would bring about a simpler tax system for
both consumers and business, lower costs and less paper work.
Further it promised harmonization will also help lower prices
through a reduction in the cost of doing business.
The retailers state the exact opposite will happen. The system
will not be simple and the costs will increase. The software used by
many companies will have to be altered to accommodate the
regionalized pricing system and in the six major retailers this
means changing over 132 software systems.
All of those retailers rely on catalogues and their catalogue
business will now be forced to print an English and French
catalogue for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and
then an English and French catalogue for central Canada and the
western provinces. National TV and radio advertising will also cost
more. The Ernst and Young report states that the annual cost to
retailers in the harmonized provinces is expected to be in excess of
$100 million. I have to ask what all this means to the consumer. It
means that we will pay more. Why? In order to remain profitable,
businesses and retailers must recover their conversion expenses.
6518
The pride of this government is going to cost Atlantic Canadians
dearly. It will hit us in our wallets and it will-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member's time has expired.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question. Hon. members will know that Canadians have expressed
a strong preference to know the full price of goods and services in
advance of making their purchases.
I had the privilege of travelling with the finance committee on
the GST consultation. If there was one refrain we heard from one
end of the country to the other it was: ``We want to know what
things are going to cost. We don't want sticker shock, counter
shock''.
Tax inclusive pricing under the harmonized sales tax agreement
with the three Atlantic provinces responds directly to the
preference that has been expressed by Canadians across this
country.
With tax inclusive pricing consumers in New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador will know before they get to
the cash register what their intended purchases will actually cost,
and as such they will make better informed purchasing decisions.
As noted in the HST technical paper-
Mrs. Wayne: They're going to close the stores.
Mr. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I am responding to the hon.
member's question. I did not interrupt as she asked her question,
tempted though I was. I would ask her to respect the answer.
As noted in the HST technical paper, beginning April 7, 1997,
businesses in the three provinces will be required to price their
products on a tax inclusive basis. The participating governments
have consulted extensively with business in this respect and
recognize it will require some operational adjustments.
Accordingly, rules have been developed that will minimize
disruption for business while still addressing the desires of
consumers.
That being said, we must bear in mind that removing embedded
provincial sales tax from business inputs and moving to a single
administration will entail significant economic benefits for
businesses in the participating provinces, benefits which they can
pass on to consumers.
The participating governments believe consumers will benefit
which is why they have moved to tax inclusive pricing.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)