CONTENTS
Thursday, December 5, 1996
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7109
Bill C-71. Motion for second reading 7112
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 138; Nays, 49 7125
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 172; Nays, 15 7126
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee.) 7126
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading; and of the amendment
7127
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7127
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7131
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7133
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7139
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7143
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7143
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7144
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7145
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7146
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7146
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7147
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7147
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7148
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7148
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7148
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 7149
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and amendment 7149
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 7155
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7159
Division on amendment deferred 7165
Bill C-297. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 7166
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7166
Division on motion deferred 7171
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7172
7109
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, December 5, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of
the Standing Committee on Finance.
[English]
The report is entitled ``The 1997 Budget and Beyond: Finish the
Job''. I would very much like to thank members from all parties
who worked so diligently and with such-
[Translation]
All members showed great co-operation in producing this report.
[English]
I would also like to thank out staff from the House of Commons
and all others who worked with us in such a professional and
diligent way.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I wish to point out to you that there is a dissenting report
by the Bloc Quebecois appended to the Liberal majority report. The
main points in this dissenting report are a recommendation to the
Minister of Finance to stop dipping into the unemployment
insurance fund surplus to reduce his deficit, to rebalance the
monetary policy to ensure that job creation is made a number one
priority, and to immediately reform the corporate taxation system,
which, in the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, could make $3 billion
available annually for job creation.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[English]
Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, June 10, 1996,
your committee has considered Bill C-27, an act to amend the
Criminal Code, child prostitution, child sex tourism, criminal
harassment and female genital mutilation, and your committee has
agreed to report it with amendments.
I would like to thank our researchers for their diligent work and
the many witnesses who appeared before us. Their testimony is
reflected in the amendments our committee has made.
Congratulations to members on all sides of the House for their
efforts in this very important issue to women across the country.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Madam Speaker, I
rise to present yet another petition from constituents in Calgary
regarding parents who are concerned for the safety of our children.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets
safer for their children. They are opposed to the current status quo
in the screening of pedophiles within the community. The
petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile registry be
established in order to better protect our children.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today signed by 200
residents from British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. The
petitioners feel that the GST on reading material is unfair and
wrong. Education and literacy are crucial to the development of our
country.
7110
The petitioners call on Parliament to zero rate books, magazines
and newspapers and ask Parliament and provincial governments
to zero rate reading materials under the proposed harmonized sales
tax.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased this morning to add to the 30,000 signatures already
tabled in favour of abolishing the Senate in conjunction with the
motion of my friend and colleague from
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, the names of 1,100 petitioners
from the riding of Terrebonne, who also wish to see this unelected
chamber abolished.
I am therefore pleased to table in the House this morning a
petition signed by 1,100 of my constituents.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions today. The first comes from Garibaldi
Highlands, B.C. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House
that our police and fire fighters place their lives at risk on a daily
basis as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians. They also
state that in many cases the families of officers who lost their lives
in the line of duty are left without sufficient financial means to
meet their obligations.
(1010 )
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish
a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and
bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition comes from Calgary, Alberta. The petitioners
draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home
and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession
which has not been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families that choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I table a petition signed by 1,520 people, in
addition to those signed by 12,000 people that I have already tabled
on behalf of my constituents. Altogether, 30,000 signatures were
collected.
As an editorialist at La Presse wrote yesterday, Senate
obstruction, particularly on issues like the constitutional
amendment regarding Newfoundland, do bring grist to the mill of
those who want to see the Senate abolished.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, this petition has been
certified correct as to form and content.
[English]
The petition is signed by thousands of Canadians.
Delegates attending the 1996 general council meeting of the
Canadian Medical Association draw to the attention of the House a
series of factors related to tobacco and tobacco related illnesses
which kill over 40,000 Canadians every year and that cost Canada
something in the order of $15 billion a year.
The petitioners implore Parliament to enact new tobacco control
legislation based on the elements outlined in the government
document ``Tobacco Control: A Blueprint to Protect the Health of
Canadians''.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have two other petitions from Canadians from across the
country. One relates to the synthetic milk hormone.
The petitioners ask the government to introduce legislation and
regulations to ensure that this product is not employed in Canada.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the third petition is signed by several hundred Canadians
from various parts of the country.
The petitioners call on Parliament, the Prime Minister and the
government to declare Canada indivisible and that the boundaries
of Canada's provinces, territories and territorial waters be modified
only by a free vote of all Canadian citizens, as guaranteed by the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or by the amending
formula as stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
Question No. 61 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 61-Mr. Simmons:
With respect to the management of hazardous wastes, what action has the
government taken in response to the following findings of the auditor general in his
May 1995 report: (a) there is ``no national plan or federal fund-for cleaning up--
7111
contaminated sites that pose risks to human health and the environment'', (b) ``the
department has not proposed amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act (1988) or developed regulations under the act that could help ensure adequate
control of environmental risks associated with federal facilities and lands, including the
clean-up of federal contaminated sites'', (c) ``comprehensive and consistent
information on the number and characteristics of contaminated sites in Canada is not
available'', (d) ``the department has not provided Parliament with adequate
information-'', and (e) ``the government's ability to ensure safe and cost-effective
storage and timely destruction of federal PCB wastes-could (be) seriously
impede(d)'', given that the ``federal PCB destruction program-ended on 31 March
1995''?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): (a)
The national contaminated sites remediation program (NCSRP)
was a mandated program and, as such, ended as scheduled on
March 31, 1995. Subsequent to its termination, Environment
Canada reallocated $7.8M from its 1995/96 A-Base to assist the
provinces in remediating selected outstanding high priority orphan
sites.
Significant progress was made in regard to one of the primary
purposes of the program putting the necessary infrastructure,
scientific tool and institutional frameworks in place. The federal
government provided a strong catalytic role recognizing the
program was not designed to continue forever.
The infrastructure which was developed provides provinces with
the required scientific tools to address their sites, as well as the
recommended principles for implementing ``polluter pays''
legislation. Through the NCSRP, provinces have put, or are putting,
in place new legislation with the authority to enforce clean-up or to
recover costs.
The government will continue to get its house in order. Federal
departments are responsible for their sites and will continue to
clean up their sites as per the code of environmental stewardship,
greening of government policies and Treasury Board guidelines.
Furthermore, as part of recent amendments to the Auditor
General's Act, departments will be required to table their
sustainable development strategies to Parliament by 1997. These
strategies will outline each department's goals and action plans for
integrating sustainable development into its operations. It is
expected that the (new) Commissioner on the Environment will
hold other government departments (OGDs) accountable for their
actions with respect to further assessment and clean up.
Until the end of FY 1996/97, Environment Canada will assist
OGDs with contaminated sites through the contaminated sites
management working group (CSMWG). This interdepartmental
committee is chaired by EC and the Department of National
Defence (DND) and is working toward ensuring a consistent
approach to the clean up of federal contaminated sites. The
CSMWG is planning workshops (to be prepared by EC) which will
inform custodial managers about the tools developed under the
NCSRP, as well as focus on risk assessment, risk management and
available technologies. The CSMWG also plans to explore legal
liability issues and prepare a best practices and pollution
prevention manual.
Environment Canada will continue to provide technical
assistance to federal departments, resources permitting.
(b) No direct amendments to the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act (CEPA) are currently being proposed in this area
although guidelines on the management of federal underground and
aboveground fuel storage tanks, a common source of
contamination, will be issued shortly.
Progress on federal contaminated sites will continue to be
ensured through existing government policies (code of
environmental stewardship, greening of government, Treasury
Board secretariat increased ministerial authority and accountability
policy (1986), federal government guidelines (EC, TBS)) and
through interdepartmental committees such as the contaminated
sites management working group.
(c) Although the department supported the development of an
inventory in 1990, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment (CCME) members were unable to reach an agreement
and it was decided that individual members would be responsible
for reporting on the number of sites within their jurisdiction.
As per the intent of the code of environmental stewardship and
under greening of government initiatives, federal departments have
a responsibility to properly manage land under their custody. It is
the responsibility of individual custodial departments to ensure that
accurate inventory information is recorded and maintained.
Through the interdepartmental committee on contaminated sites,
Environment Canada, in conjunction with other federal
departments, is currently scoping the size and nature of the federal
problem. Furthermore, to ensure consistency in reporting the
CSMWG is currently developing a template for reporting
information on contaminated sites.
(d) It is important to understand that the NCSRP is a joint
federal-provincial program. Progress has been reflected in both the
main estimates and annual reports to CCME.
Although the program did lapse funding in the initial years, this
is a reflection of the time required by some provinces to gear up to
full capacity and in terms of finding matching funding.
Cabinet and the Treasury Board Secretariat were aware of
reallocation of funds from the NCSRP to other high priority
initiatives (such as the Great Lakes action plan and the North
American waterfowl management plan).
(e) Recognizing that funding for the federal PCB destruction
program was to end on March 31, 1995, the interdepartmental
committee on federal PCB destruction, under the leadership of
Environment Canada, devised an alternate plan for the destruction
of federal PCB wastes.
7112
Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC)
agreed to act as service agent for federal departments and agencies,
and contracted nationally with the Alberta Special Waste
Treatment Centre for the destruction of federal PCB wastes.
More than 1,100 tonnes of federal PCB wastes have been
destroyed to date, and negotiations continue between PWGSC and
its federal clients to dispose of the remaining PCB wastes.
[Translation]
Mr. Zed: I suggest that all remaining questions be allowed to
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7112
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-71, an act to regulate the manufacture, sale, labelling and
promotion of tobacco products, to make consequential
amendments to another act and to repeal certain acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to begin the second
reading debate of Bill C-71, what is known as the tobacco act.
This bill is a central element in our government's comprehensive
tobacco control strategy. It complements the tobacco tax increase
and the anti-smuggling initiatives announced last week, as well as
the education programs designed to make Canadians more aware of
the health consequences of tobacco use.
The focus of the bill is simple: health. Let there be no doubt on
this particular point. While there are many interests involved in this
debate, health, especially the health of young Canadians, is of
paramount concern.
(1015)
The government recognizes the complex and pervasive nature of
tobacco use in our society. It designed a balanced and an integrated
strategy that takes into account the various factors that influence
the smoking decision process, particularly how these factors affect
young Canadians.
This bill addresses the environment, messages and opportunities
that affect attitudes, beliefs and behaviours about tobacco use. It
does so by restricting the access young people have to tobacco
products. It places reasonable limits on the marketing and
promotion of these products. It increases health information on
tobacco packaging and it establishes powers needed to regulate
tobacco products.
Canadians want us to take these steps. They expect us as
parliamentarians, regardless of our political ideologies, to do our
job.
According to a recent Angus Reid poll, 91 per cent of Canadians
support efforts by governments to discourage young people from
becoming addicted to tobacco. Seventy-three per cent of Canadians
support efforts to discourage smoking among people who smoke
already. In short, Canadians want us to do the right thing.
This debate is about people and about the impact tobacco has on
their lives. There are seven million smokers in Canada. Far too
many of them and their families must deal with the tragic health
consequences of tobacco use.
Each and every day in this country more than 100 people die of
tobacco related causes. How many of us have lost loved ones to
heart disease brought on by years of tobacco use? How many of us
have watched friends die of cancer that could have been prevented?
Those deaths stand in stark contrast to the glamorous, exciting and
often healthy images that tobacco promotions invariably portray.
Yet those are the true faces of tobacco use.
The human toll of tobacco use is immense, not only in Canada
but throughout the world. In 1991 the most recent year for which
we have had full data on tobacco related mortality, 41,408
Canadians died of diseases attributed to smoking, one of every five
deaths that year. That is more than three times the number of deaths
caused by murder, automobile accidents, AIDS, suicides, and drug
abuse combined. Those are startling figures.
In one year tobacco use killed more than 14,000 people in
Ontario, almost 12,000 people in the province of Quebec, some
6,000 people in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and more
than 5,000 people in British Columbia and close to 4,000 people in
Atlantic Canada. This is a human toll that cannot be ignored and
stands alone as the primary reason why we as parliamentarians
must take action on tobacco.
Tobacco use also generates a significant financial burden on the
economy. To begin with, it is a drain on medicare. In 1991,
smoking cost our health care system about $3.5 billion. I invite
7113
hon. members to think of the health priorities in their communities
which could have been addressed with that money.
But where did the money go? It paid for 3.1 million extra visits
to doctors and the four million days that people were in hospitals
for smoking related reasons. It also covered the cost of the 1.4
million drug prescriptions that were required to treat smoking
related illnesses.
Smoking costs the economy in other ways as well. Canadian
smokers are absent from work for 28 million days a year because of
tobacco related causes. Lost productivity arising from smoking
related deaths amount to $10.6 billion in 1991.
The simple reality is that the harmful effects of tobacco use are
not restricted to smokers alone, despite the rhetoric that we might
hear about smoking being a matter of individual choice. Smoking
costs Canadians approximately $15 billion a year, a staggering
figure.
(1020)
As alarming as those numbers are, the data suggests that matters
will probably get worse before they get better. Tobacco takes years
to exact its toll. We are now only seeing the results of the smoking
surge among women during the 1960s and the 1970s. Lung cancer
has overtaken breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer deaths
among women. Researchers predict that deaths due to smoking
among Canadian women may equal or even exceed the level among
men by the year 2005.
Of particular concern is the pattern of youth smoking.
Approximately $250,000 Canadians each year take up smoking.
Eighty-five per cent of these new smokers are under the age of 16.
Right now-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Could we have
some order so that the minister could complete his debate?
Mr. Dingwall: Madam Speaker, 29 per cent of young people
between the ages of 15 and 19 smoke. Fourteen per cent of kids
between the ages of 10 and 14 smoke. Half of these smokers will
die prematurely of tobacco related illness. The need for action is
clear.
Over the last 25 years governments, committees and individual
members in the House have proposed and acted on measures to
reduce tobacco use. Through it all the focus has consistently been
on protecting the health of Canadians and young people in
particular.
In 1971 the federal government introduced a bill to restrict
tobacco advertising. That legislation was still on the Order Paper
when the House prorogued. In 1986 the House debated a private
member's bill sponsored by a new Democratic member, Ms.
McDonald. Her bill, the Non-Smokers' Health Act, mandated
smoke free workplaces in areas under federal jurisdiction and
banned smoking in common areas under federal jurisdiction.
Let me quote from Hansard dated November 20, 1986, page
1382.
Society has a stake in the health of its citizens. When a person is ill, absent from
work or dies leaving young dependents, society must pay. Society pays for medicare,
society pays for dependents, and society pays for pensions''.
In 1989 the government of the day brought in the Tobacco
Products Control Act. This act banned the advertising and
restricted the promotion of tobacco products. It required by law
health messages and information on toxic constituents to be
displayed on tobacco product packaging.
The health minister who was responsible for that bill, the Hon.
Jake Epp, said:
This is not a moral crusade. It is not a case of some over-zealous individuals
attempting to force their lifestyle on others. It is responsible government action in
reaction to overwhelming evidence-If tobacco were discovered tomorrow, no
government would permit its sale, let alone its advertising''.
I want to remind the House that the minister was a member of the
Progressive Conservative Party. His initiative, as well as that of
Ms. McDonald, a member of the New Democratic Party and
minister John Munro, a member of my party in 1971 were
supported by members of all political parties in the House.
The government knows that the members from all sides of this
House may choose to differ on many different issues, but we have
common interest when it comes to protecting the health of
Canadians, especially young Canadians, from a lethal product.
Our challenge once again is to work together to reduce tobacco
use. We accept this challenge with an increased knowledge and
understanding about the physiology and psychology effects of
tobacco use. We have learned more about the factors that influence
the decision to start and continue to smoke, and about those who
are most affected in encouraging people to quit.
We are better equipped today to respond to the judicial standards
and expectations that must be reflected in any law that we draft.
(1025 )
The result is a bill that is balanced and reasonable and that
responds to the factors that lead far too many Canadian children to
smoke. About two-thirds of all young people try cigarettes. For
about half of them, experimentation leads to a habit that becomes
regular and addictive over a two or three year cycle.
At the outset, they think addiction is something that happens to
other people, not them, and that the prospect of heart disease or
cancer is far removed from them. Most believe that they will be
able to stop whenever they want, but the facts are something
7114
different. That is what hundreds of thousands of young people say
each and every year. However, the fact is that half will never quit.
Restricting youth access to tobacco products as much as possible
is therefore critical. Restraining access and making it difficult for
children ages 10 to 14 and teenagers to purchase cigarettes
decreases the likelihood that those experimenting with tobacco will
graduate to addiction. The tobacco act will introduce such
restrictions.
Photographic identification will be required when proof of
minimum age is requested by retailers. As corner stores and gas
stations become less viable as a source of supply for young
smokers, they will turn to other avenues.
In order to further reduce youth access to tobacco products
through such sources, vending machine sales, and mail order
distribution of tobacco products will not be permitted.
Self-service displays of tobacco products will also be prohibited.
These displays enable underage youth to quickly and easily help
themselves to tobacco products, regardless of age restrictions, thus
beginning a purchase transaction that retail staff are less likely to
challenge. Duty free stores will be exempted from this provision.
The exemption is reasonable and will not undermine the
achievement of our health objectives, given that these outlets
operate in a controlled environment which unaccompanied youth
generally do not frequent.
In order to enhance public awareness of the hazards of tobacco
use, this legislation will increase the amount of health information
to be displayed on tobacco product packaging.
Studies confirm that cigarette packaging is second only to
television as a key source of health information about tobacco. A
1996 survey conducted for Health Canada revealed that 75 per cent
of smokers want health warning messages to remain on cigarette
packages as a reminder of some of the health consequences of
tobacco use. Half of these smokers who tried to quit or cut back
confirmed that labelling on the packages contributed to their
decision.
In another study that same year, the majority of Canadians
favoured expanding the amount of information on tobacco
packages about the presence and effects of some of the toxic
constituents in tobacco and tobacco smoke, such as arsenic, lead
and others.
This bill will require that information. The tobacco act will also
address the role that promotion plays in the decision to smoke.
Promotion does much more than just convey factual information
about a product. Through associations with people, objects, events
and ideas, promotion creates a brand identity or image that
influences and shapes the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of
consumers and potential consumers.
Clearly it is not the exposure to one ad, one display in a
convenience store or one tobacco sponsored event that triggers the
decision to smoke. People do not get up in the morning and decide
suddenly to take up smoking, as some people may have suggested.
As I have said before, the decision to smoke, which includes the
decision to start and the decision to continue, is a gradual one.
Tobacco promotion contributes to that decision and hinders the
quitting process by conveying as many positive and reassuring
impressions as possible that smoking is desirable, socially
acceptable and more prevalent in society than it actually is, that it
is sexy and cool. One should do it to be part of the game.
It is the cumulative effects of tobacco promotion that we as
legislators, not members who are bound by political ideology, but
those of us as legislators transforming the political ideologies that
are in the House, that we must address.
(1030 )
Tobacco promotion is pervasive all across this country. Our
environment is literally papered with it from coast to coast to coast.
Brand name promotions appear in magazines, on billboards, on the
sides of buildings, buses, gas stations, airports and sports stadiums.
Retail stores display tobacco brand names on clocks, countertop
displays, life size cutouts of sports celebrities and even in ads
laminated on the floors of different stores.
The tobacco industry insists that its marketing campaigns do not
target youth but that is not the issue here. Whatever the ostensible
intent of the tobacco companies, their rich promotional campaigns
reach youth. Kids cannot help but be exposed to the images of
tobacco that appear on every possible medium in every conceivable
location across this country. Being more aware of promotional
activities than other age groups, they are susceptible to it. An
Ontario study showed that they can name the tobacco sponsors of
sports and cultural events. In a Canada-wide survey, 88 per cent
could name the country's two most popular brands of cigarettes.
That is alarming.
It is not possible to promote a particular brand of a cigarette
without at the same time promoting smoking. Our objective is to
diminish the prominence and the exposure of tobacco promotion in
order to diminish its reach and its influence.
The bill will therefore prohibit tobacco product advertising such
as broadcast advertising and billboard, bus panel and street
advertising. It will permit tobacco companies to communicate
product and brand preference information in print ads in
publications that are primarily read by adults, in direct mailings to
adults and in places where children are not permitted by law, for
example premises that are licensed to sell various alcoholic
beverages.
7115
Under the bill the use of tobacco brand names or logos on youth
oriented products or those with lifestyle connotations will not be
permitted. Young people should no longer serve as walking
billboards for tobacco products by wearing ball caps or backpacks
emblazoned with cigarette brand names or symbols.
This bill will also regulate the use of tobacco brand names and
other brand elements in the promotion of events sponsored by
tobacco companies.
Allow me to emphasize an important point. This legislation will
not ban tobacco sponsorship nor will it prohibit sponsorship
promotion. Tobacco companies remain free to sponsor events and
activities of their choosing and will continue to have scope to
associate their brands with those events and activities. What the
bill will do is limit the extent to which tobacco brand names and
other brand elements can be used in the promotion of sponsored
events.
Accordingly the display of tobacco brand names and brand
elements will be restricted to the bottom 10 per cent of sponsorship
promotional material. Such materials will only be permitted in
publications that are read primarily by adults, in direct mailings
and on the site of the sponsored event. The size of on site
promotions and the length of time they can be displayed will in fact
be regulated.
What does this effectively mean? It means that tobacco brand
names can continue to be used in the name of an event, such as the
Craven ``A'' Just for Laughs Festival, or in the location of the
event, such as stade du Maurier, but it also means that the display
of the brand names would be confined to the bottom 10 per cent of
the promotional material. This is reasonable and it is balanced and
it is fair. It enables the tobacco companies to continue to
communicate brand information while at the same time
contributing to the government's overriding health objectives.
Finally this legislation will give government the authority to
regulate tobacco products. While we do not plan to exercise this
authority right away, it is important that we have the flexibility to
respond quickly to new products that may be introduced on to the
market, as well as the developments in social and scientific
knowledge as it evolves.
If and when it becomes possible to make tobacco products less
hazardous without inadvertently creating new health hazards or
triggering negative economic effects, we will have the means to do
so.
(1035 )
The legislation will also ensure that we have the information we
need to effectively monitor and enforce the production, promotion
and sale of tobacco products. Tobacco manufacturers will be
required to provide the government with product and sales
information as well as information about their manufacturing,
distribution and promotion practices.
Great care has been taken to ensure the measures contained in
this legislation reflect the guidance provided by the Supreme Court
of Canada and respect the charter of rights and freedoms.
In its September 1995 decision the Supreme Court of Canada
confirmed that the federal government has the criminal law power
to control the advertising of tobacco products. It recognized that
the detrimental health effects of tobacco consumption are both
dramatic and substantial, and that in fact tobacco kills. As Justice
LaForest wrote: ``Parliament can validly employ the criminal law
to prohibit tobacco manufacturers from inducing Canadians to
consume these products, and to increase public awareness
concerning the hazards of their use''.
Moreover the court unanimously held that the purpose of the
legislation, which is to reduce the health effects of tobacco
consumption, is a valid and important legislative objective
sufficient to warrant limiting freedom of expression. That is
precisely what we have done. Justice McLachlin, who wrote the
majority judgment, said: ``Even a small reduction in tobacco use
may work a significant benefit to the health of Canadians and
justify a properly proportioned limitation of the right of free
expression''.
Contrary to what the tobacco industry may suggest, the Supreme
Court of Canada recognized a link between certain forms of
tobacco advertising and consumption. In particular the court stated
that lifestyle advertising may as a matter of common sense be seen
as having a tendency to discourage those who would otherwise
cease tobacco use from doing so.
The court identifies options which would be a reasonable
impairment of the right of free expression, namely: a partial ban on
advertising which would allow product information and brand
preference advertising; a ban on lifestyle advertising; measures to
prohibit advertising aimed at children and adolescents; and
attributed health messages on tobacco product packaging. These
are precisely the measures that are incorporated in this bill. These
clarifications are important because they set the context for the
comprehensive and integrated set of measures that are contained in
the legislation before us.
This legislation is a product of a deliberate and thoughtful
process. We have taken the guidance of the Supreme Court of
Canada. We have studied the results of the research conducted by
and on behalf of Health Canada as well as the extensive body of
international data on tobacco promotion and tobacco use.
We have consulted with the tobacco industry, with arts, cultural
and sports groups, with health groups, with retailers and
distributors, with tobacco growers and with festival organizers. We
have consulted but consultation does not mean that we have to
agree with each and every thing that the party across the table is
putting
7116
forward. I resent to a certain extent those who are now saying that
there has not been sufficient time for consultation.
When the blueprint was tabled in November 1995 over 3,000
interventions and representations were received from a variety of
Canadians including those in the province of Quebec. These
representations were in regard to a strategy for tobacco
consumption. For them to come forward now and say to
parliamentarians that they need more time, that they need to have
additional consultations, I say that that is the recipe for the deferral
and delay of the legislation which I do not believe is acceptable to
any reasonable Canadian.
There is no magic solution to the public health epidemic of
tobacco use in our society. There is no law that can turn this
problem around overnight, but we can take steps to make tobacco
less acceptable and less accessible to youth. We can take measures
to counter the positive aura that so often contributes to kids'
decisions to smoke. We can ensure that people have the
information they need to understand what smoking does to their
body and to those exposed to tobacco smoke. We can strike a
balance between the reality of tobacco use, the charter of rights and
the health interests of Canadians.
(1040)
Our first priority is the health of Canadians and young Canadians
in particular. We have proposed steps which should reduce their
tobacco use and lessen the encouragement to smoke they encounter
all around them. The bill will help to reduce the sense that tobacco
use is just a right of passage for young people on the way to a
glamorous adult life.
I imagine that very few of us can think about tobacco use without
being able to name someone who has lost their life to it. We must
persuade young people not to get on the treadmill that will see
some 40,000 of our fellow citizens die early, unnecessarily and
often painfully.
I close my intervention at second reading with a thank you. Since
I have become Minister of Health, I have sustained opposition
attacks from a variety of sources, but I want to congratulate the
health critic for the Reform Party. He has put aside our partisan
differences and has looked at the substance of what we are
attempting to do. Because of that I have said to him privately,
publicly and now on the floor of the House of Commons that that is
the true test of those who take our oath in this House that we will do
our utmost to try to improve the lives of ordinary Canadians. I am
very appreciative of the hon. member's support. I look forward to
hearing his speech and to meeting him at committee as we proceed
with this legislation.
I wish to say to the Bloc critic I understand that Bloc members
have legitimate concerns and complaints. They should be given the
opportunity to air them here today and also to express them at
committee. However, I would hope that he could join not with me
as a minister but with young Canadians from coast to coast to coast
to try to move on this legislation so that it can be passed by
Parliament as soon as is humanly possible.
Perhaps that is the best gift that members of the Bloc, the
Reform, the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party and my
party could give to young people in this country: a message of
health, a message of hope, a message of caring, caring about their
futures.
I appeal not in an ideological sense, but I appeal to my
colleagues in the Bloc man to man to take their responsibility
seriously, which I know they will. Let us move expeditiously to put
the legislation through the House as soon as possible.
I wish to apologize to my colleagues in the Bloc and the Reform.
I am requested to be in cabinet as I now speak. I must leave the
Chamber but I will return as soon as is humanly possible. I hope
they will not look at my departure in any way as suggesting that I
am not concerned or do not want to be here to listen to their
remarks.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, as a member
of the Standing Committee on Health and the official opposition
critic on tobacco, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-71, the Tobacco
Act, at second reading.
Before the minister leaves, since I know he must leave us, I
would like to tell him that I noted the kindness and appreciation he
expressed to the Reform Party critic. Unfortunately, I will
disappoint him somewhat, remaining as objective and non-partisan
as possible.
(1045)
I cannot go as far as the Reform Party critic, who, at a press
conference, even before reading the bill clause by clause, spoke in
favour saying that, for once, his party would support the bill to
have it passed as quickly as possible, perhaps even before
Christmas. He was satisfied with the information sheet provided by
the minister some five minutes before the press conference.
I will disappoint the minister, but this sort of intervention is not
in the style of the official opposition. Before we agree to, support
or oppose a bill, we take the time to read it. We have read it and
have reservations, which we will make known to the minister as
positively as possible.
As all my colleagues are aware, at second reading, the practice in
this Parliament is for the parties to vote primarily according to the
principles and objectives of a given bill. It will perhaps surprise the
minister, but the official opposition will vote in favour of this bill at
7117
second reading, because we agree with most of the minister's
objectives. The first part of my speech will focus on this.
I would point out right off that the opposition cannot support the
part concerned with the request by the Minister of Health for
unusual-and I stress unusual-powers to regulate tobacco
products, sales and advertising.
My colleague from Chambly is ready to rise on this matter and
will give the minister a hard time. In our opinion, these powers are
really unusual. Regardless of how noble the cause, the official
opposition will never let the rights of parliamentarians be trampled
by a minister who wants to give himself just about every power.
Our strongest reservations relate to the sponsorship provisions of
the bill. I am pointing this out now, but I will elaborate later on.
The Bloc Quebecois will not support the bill at third reading if the
federal government keeps refusing to compensate organizers of
cultural and sporting events.
It may be that, given his mandate, the Minister of Health cannot
do so. However, the heritage minister was unequivocal about this.
We will try to make her change her mind, but she did say that she
would not compensate the organizers of cultural and sporting
events that are sponsored in Canada. You will hear from us on this
issue, in committee and in the House.
Since we agree with most of the government's objectives
regarding a reduction in health costs associated with tobacco use,
we will support the bill at second reading because, as I said earlier,
the vote at second reading usually relates to the objectives and
principles of the legislation.
It is appropriate to point out the minister's objectives. Clause 4
reads as follows:
4. The purpose of this act is to provide a legislative response to a national public
health problem of substantial and pressing concern and, in particular,
(a) to protect the health of Canadians in light of conclusive evidence implicating
tobacco use in the incidence of numerous debilitating and fatal diseases;
(b) to protect young persons and others from inducements to use tobacco products
and the consequent dependence on them;
(c) to protect the health of young persons by restricting access to tobacco products;
and
(d) to enhance public awareness of the health hazards of using tobacco products.
(1050)
With respect to the first subsection, concerning the seriousness
of the problems in question, mention should be made of the
publication, in the October 18 issue of the American weekly
Science, of the results of the first study to determine conclusively
that there is a direct genetic link between tobacco smoke and lung
cancer.
According to this study by researchers at the University of Texas
and the Beckman Institute in California, one of the chemical
components present in tobacco smoke, a carcinogen, causes
damage to the cells of human lungs that is comparable to the
damage observed in most malignant lung tumours. According to
the study results, this carcinogen damages gene P53, a gene that is
critical to health, because it blocks the growth of cells that cause
tumours. According to the study's authors, damage to gene P53 is
linked to half of all cancers in humans, and to almost 70 per cent of
lung cancers.
To date, no one has challenged this study. It provides conclusive
evidence of a link between this carcinogen and lung cancer.
The minister has a second objective that we support, that of
protecting young persons from inducements to use tobacco
products and the consequent dependence on them. I could
immediately mention the third objective of protecting the health of
young persons by restricting access to tobacco products.
I was youth critic before I became health critic. For three years
now, the official opposition has expressed its support for these
goals and has even accused this government of not doing enough to
attain them. More on that later.
The following are a few statistics on smoking by young people.
At the present time, 29 per cent of young persons between the ages
of 15 and 19, and 14 per cent between the ages of 10 and 14, smoke.
Smoking among adolescents 15 to 19 years of age has gone up 25
per cent since 1991. It has gone up, and part of the reason is the
present government's inaction. It is not the only reason, but is
certainly one of the reasons.
Approximately 85 per cent of smokers took up the habit before
they were 16. This is where attention must be focused. Efforts must
be made to try to convince adult smokers to stop, but, more
importantly, these people must make up their own minds to do so.
Without a decision on their part, it will not be possible. But we in
the official opposition agree with the minister that everything must
be done to discourage young people who have never smoked from
starting.
Thirteen- and fourteen-year-olds are particularly vulnerable,
because the daily consumption of tobacco products increases
steadily during that period and tends to stabilize by the age of 15.
See how young they start smoking. It is estimated that 80 per cent
of smokers have seriously considered quitting and that 80 per cent
of them have tried to quit at least once.
Cigarettes are bought mainly at convenience stores. In 1994,
nearly half the young people in the 10 to 14 age group who tried to
buy cigarettes in a store-I repeat, half of those in the 10 to 14 age
group-were never asked how old they were or refused the
cigarettes they were asking for. That is what a study commissioned
7118
by Health Canada showed. According to 91 per cent of young
people, and I think it is important to point this out, tobacco is habit
forming. That is what we must work on.
I emphasize the federal government's ineffectiveness in
enforcing the existing legislation regarding the sale of tobacco
products to young people. Elsewhere in that study, it was reported
that, across the country, 50 per cent of retailers did not enforce the
law in this respect.
(1055)
No wonder tobacco use among young people has increased by 25
per cent since 1991. In fact, the percentage is even higher among
young girls. With only 40 or so federal inspectors to monitor
convenience stores throughout Canada, does this come as a
surprise? No.
The fourth objective pursued by the minister is to enhance public
awareness of the health hazards associated with tobacco use.
Again, we in the official opposition have taken every opportunity
to press the current health minister and his predecessor to do more
in terms of public education.
Why? Because it has been demonstrated time and time again
that, for every dollar invested in prevention and public education
on health matters, between seven and ten dollars could be saved in
the long term. I find that previous Health Canada initiatives have
proven, as I said, extremely ineffective. The minister is urging us to
spread information. He has distributed documentation and we
agree with some of what it says. This is a good opportunity to go
over the statistics.
In Canada, in 1991, smoking caused an estimated 27,867 deaths
among men and 13,541 among women, for a total of 41,408 deaths.
Twenty one per cent of all deaths in Canada that year were caused
by smoking. Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable
death and disease in Canada. It is estimated that more Canadians
die prematurely each year from smoking than from car accidents,
suicide, drugs, murder and AIDS combined. In 1991, deaths related
to tobacco use accounted for about 62 per cent of the total increase
in the number of deaths since 1989. In that same year, there were
11,841 deaths in Quebec.
Lung cancer accounted for respectively 31 and 26 per cent of
smoking related deaths among men and women. Ischemic heart
disease, or heart attacks, accounted for 25 and 20 per cent of the
deaths among men and women, respectively. The number of deaths
relating to tobacco use increases more rapidly among women than
men. The number of such deaths among women went from 9,009 in
1985 to 13,541 in 1991.
Given the considerable increase in the number of female
smokers in the sixties, the number of smoking related deaths
among women is expected to continue to rise until the end of the
nineties, and could equal, if not exceed, the number of such deaths
among men by the year 2005.
In 1991, the costs of tobacco use in Canada were estimated at
some $15 billion. Smokers spend more time in hospitals than
non-smokers do. In 1991, they spent 4 million days in hospitals.
That same year, the treatment of tobacco related diseases resulted
in a total of 1.4 million medical prescriptions being issued.
Still in 1991, 38,000 people spent time in long term care
facilities because of tobacco related diseases. Overall, the use of
tobacco results in annual health care costs of some $3.5 billion in
our country. On average, smokers missed four days more than
non-smokers at work, for a total of 28 million days.
We should also mention the 40,000 plus deaths that are related to
the use of tobacco and that will result in a $10.6 billion loss in
future revenues.
(1100)
That covers the main points of the health department's
informative approach. Some may find it morbid.
Although I think the harmful effects of tobacco have to be
mentioned, a more positive approach could also be developed,
something more all-encompassing than the approach the
department is now taking, and has been taking for a number of
years now.
Before entering politics, I worked in recreation and sports. In
fact, the reason I stopped smoking was because I was so interested
in sports. I smoked next to nothing because I quickly realized that it
was not possible to run a good marathon or 10 kilometre race as a
smoker.
Do you know any marathoners, any Olympic athletes who
smoke? They know only too well that it is not good for their
performance.
Madam Speaker, I know you like singing. I am sure you know
that most singers, Céline Dion comes to mind, do not smoke,
because it damages the vocal cords. I think we should make the
public more aware of these examples, through advertising or some
other means.
The whip, who used to be a professional referee and came into
contact with professional hockey players, could surely confirm that
he has seen very few professional hockey players smoke. In any
event, those who did cut short their career. I digress.
In Quebec, Kino-Québec used an extremely positive approach
focusing on sports and health. A ``play outdoors'' theme was used
to encourage people to participate. The theme targeted everyone,
not just Olympic athletes. The idea was to get out and about in the
fresh air, go mountain climbing. When you have made it to the top
of Mont Jacques-Cartier in the Gaspé and you see caribou, and the
air is crisp in your lungs, do you crave a cigarette? No, you do not,
Madam Speaker. That would be an all-encompassing positive
approach. But no.
7119
Instead of that, what does the federal government do? It cuts
funding for sports and recreation; it is even cutting back on
funding for Olympic athletes.
Once upon a time, this department went by the name of Fitness
and Amateur Sport. Those days are long gone. Now they are happy
to take a more regulatory approach. They ban this, they regulate
that. This has become the trademark of the Liberal government.
Despite its adopting strict legislation on young people three years
ago, it is not even capable of applying it. Legislation is only good if
it is enforceable.
A law that is good but unenforced is not necessarily a bad law,
but it is an rather ineffective one. This is what we are seeing with
the federal government at the present time in the area of health,
smoking in particular. This government has been humming and
hawing for three years, and has not been enforcing its legislation.
The minister even complemented the RCMP for its
anti-smuggling efforts. I shall not go into that episode, for lack of
time, but I believe that the outcome in 1994 was disastrous. It was
disastrous. I am not prepared to congratulate them. I will wait until
there is a real change, before I follow his example.
We believe that the government, if it wishes to take a positive
approach, and if it recognizes that smoking is the top-ranking cause
of death, ought to be prepared to take action and to put its money
where its mouth is. If it believes that advertising is contagious and
strongly influences consumers' decisions, why would it not do
more positive advertising, illustrating the benefits of being healthy,
being fit, and in particular being a non-smoker? Why does it not do
this?
(1105)
We do, however, acknowledge that the government's efforts
relating to advertising are praiseworthy, and correct, where radio
and television and so on are concerned. We are going to vote in
favour of the objectives and principles of this bill.
Because we have so many reservations, however, and
particularly because our major objection concerns
sponsorships-we are opposed to the minister's interference in this
area-we shall be proposing a great many amendments to him in
committee. If he sticks with his policy, we are going to invite him,
once again, to compensate the organizers of sporting and cultural
events. We are going to insist he do so. We are going to criticize his
approach.
Clearly, the minister is applying the decision of the Supreme
Court and the fact that the court rejected the government's position,
and so he cannot completely prohibit sponsorship. He is therefore
proposing something I would consider rather ridiculous. He is not
prohibiting sponsorship entirely, but limiting it to 10 per cent.
Sponsors are entitled to 10 per cent of the advertising space at the
event provided the advertising is at the lower level.
The bill before us does not indicate how the minister will close
certain loopholes, including one obvious one. Imagine a sign four
feet by ten feet that was allowed on the site of an event in the past.
Under the 10 per cent rule, how is the sponsor going to go about
maintaining the space he had in the past? He has only to multiply
the size of the sign by ten. It is not uncommon to see huge signs at
such events. He has only to do that and will achieve the same result.
As we can see, then, this rule is hard to apply.
The minister says he will regulate this. He says the only thing he
cannot prohibit apparently is the use of colour. This is his only
reservation. As for the rest, he says we will see how tobacco
companies react. There are fewer restrictions in this rule of 10 per
cent than in the old bill, which was thrown out by the Supreme
Court.
If the bill is not amended, with this 10 per cent multiplied by 10
arrangement, it would be possible to portray Céline Dion and
Jacques Villeneuve or an Olympic athlete in the process of
smoking, so that young people see that smoking would not be a bad
thing for their career. I am not saying these two people smoke. It is
unlikely such famous people smoke. Others, however, might be
tempted to smoke by the lure of money. Nothing in the bill prevents
this.
The minister's approach is strange. He appears to be a severe
man wanting to prohibit smoking, but, his bill has a hole in it. If the
tobacco companies were to operate in bad faith, they could easily
put it to use.
More than 300 Canadian organizations count on tobacco
companies to sponsor their events. These sponsorships represent
more than $60 million, some estimate them to be as high as $65
million for Canada as a whole, with $30 million for Quebec.
Without compensation, many of these sporting and cultural
organizations may well disappear.
(1110)
The reputable SECOR management consulting group, which
specializes in the analysis of economic benefits, selected 20 of
these events and compiled studies on their many ramifications to
show the important impact these events have on the Canadian
economy at a time when funding from the various levels of
government is becoming scarcer and scarcer. The 20 events
examined by the SECOR group produced $240 million in spin-offs
and created approximately 5,000 jobs. We have a government that
pays lip service to job creation but takes little action in this regard,
while these events actually generated 5,000 jobs.
According to the SECOR group, the events also produced at least
$66 million in income for individuals, $34 million for businesses
and $18 million for, guess who, the various levels of government.
7120
This is $18 million in government revenue that will disappear
along with the events that generated it.
In addition to their cultural interest, events sponsored by tobacco
manufacturers promote the economic development of various
industries, thereby benefiting society as a whole. I am still talking
about cultural and tourist events.
We also disagree with the regulatory aspect. We have concerns
and, unless changes are made, we will vote against the bill at third
reading. If no changes are made in committee and the government
closes all doors regarding regulations, we will have to oppose the
bill.
My colleague from Chambly will address this in greater detail
later, but with this legislation, the minister gives himself the power
to regulate just about anything in areas that usually fall under
provincial jurisdiction. Health is clearly identified as such in the
Constitution.
Reference was made to advertising at the provincial level. That
is an area of provincial jurisdiction as well. As for trade, it too
normally falls under provincial jurisdiction. But here comes the
minister saying that there is no problem, that he is prepared to
regulate.
Clauses 7 and 17 were mentioned, and there are many more, but
what worries me the most is clause 53 in Part VI, which reads in
part as follows:
-the burden of proving that an exception, exemption, excuse or qualification
prescribed by law operates in favour of the accused is on the accused-
This is reversing the burden of proof in a way that disadvantages
the accused. This would mean that, after a preliminary case has
been made by the crown, a retailer charged with any offence will
have to prove that an exception, exemption or other excuse exists to
justify his action.
Reversing the burden of proof is a very exceptional measure in
penal and criminal law, since it violates the presumption of
innocence under the charter of rights and freedoms.
I also want to discuss the issue of seizure. The bill provides that
inspectors may seize any tobacco product or other thing by means
of which or in relation to which they believe on reasonable grounds
that the act has been contravened. This gives the inspector a lot of
discretionary power.
A very broad discretionary power is given to the inspector, who
has authority to seize just about anything. This could lead to some
abuse. For example, imagine that cigarettes are seized from a
retailer, who is later cleared of the charge against him. This person
could end up with an outdated stock of cigarettes and suffer a major
financial loss.
I also want to say something about the Supreme Court. The hon.
member for Chambly will discuss it in greater detail, but we
Quebecers are somewhat leery of the Supreme Court. My office is
close to the Supreme Court. I look at it every day and it reminds me
of certain things. It reminds me, among other things, that most
Supreme Court judges are from Ontario. Not only is it located on
the Ontario side, but Quebec is also under-represented. This
situation has always been deplored by Quebec premiers, even those
who were federalists, like Robert Bourassa.
(1115)
Both the minister and his Justice colleague are leaving it up to
the Supreme Court to determine the constitutional future of the
country, to decide whether or not we will have the right, following
a positive result in a referendum, to achieve sovereignty.
Every day, I hear ministers rise in this House and say: ``We
cannot compensate the 80-year-old retired Singer employees under
POWA, because we need to get an opinion from the court''. The
issue has to be heard by the Supreme Court, and people must wait
years for a decision. Given that these people are now 80 years old,
some of them may not be around long enough to get a settlement.
The Supreme Court invalidated three sections of the Tobacco
Products Control Act on September 21, 1995, seven years after the
act was passed. The legislation had been ruled unconstitutional by
Quebec's Superior Court, in 1991. However, that decision was
overruled by the Quebec Court of Appeal.
At every stage of the legal challenge, the courts ruled on whether
or not the legislation violated the freedom of expression provided
under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We all
remember that famous document. We support the basic rights
provided under the charter, which is now part of the Constitution,
but now the issue is left in the hands of the Supreme Court.
However, since we still fear the Supreme Court, which has always
been partial to one side, we are understandably suspicious.
The Supreme Court finally decided in favour of the tobacco
companies in a very close judgment, five judges in favour and four
against. The ultimate aim of this case was to determine if there was
a causal link between a total ban on tobacco advertising and a
decrease in the number of smokers. All judges agreed that, with
this law, the government was infringing upon the freedom of
expression guaranteed in the Charter. Four of the nine judges,
however, believed that this violation of freedom of expression,
under section 2(b), was justifiable under section 1 of that same
Charter, which allows reasonable limits on certain freedoms. Five
judges, however, found that the government was going too far.
With its new legislation, the government claims to be prepared to
win any future court challenge. Health Canada employees told us
they had obtained an opinion from the Department of Justice to that
7121
effect. If this legal opinion exists, let it be made available to MPs
so that their work is not in vain, should this opinion not be as
obvious as the Minister of Justice would have us believe.
At any rate, we can sense some uncertainty in the very structure
of the bill. That is unusual. In each section of the bill we can clearly
see that the minister is giving himself the power to regulate, as if he
were, basically, expecting not only challenges, but a possible repeat
of the loss in the Supreme Court. He could say: ``We cannot apply
that part, but we are continuing to apply the rest''. We can see that
the minister is unsure. It is all very well for him to put on a
flamboyant act, but the structure of his act indicates some
uncertainty and worry.
There may be more than a few challenges. Perhaps the
government will be caught unawares by many different challenges,
which could result in so many sections being invalidated that it
might be forced to bring in new legislation.
At a press conference on December 3, Bob Parker, the president
of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, stated that, if the
federal government's bill were not substantially amended, dozens
of challenges could be expected.
Obviously, I could have a great deal to say on this. We will save
our breath for the work in committee. I would, therefore, like to
end here, allowing some time for other members to express their
reservations and objections about sponsorships, the regulatory
aspect and the non-respect of certain individual rights.
(1120)
I am sure that a number of my colleagues will, as I am doing,
express their approval this morning for the objectives, particularly
as concerns young people under 18. The official opposition
supports these objectives. It does not agree, however, with the
means to achieve them. In some respect, we wonder whether things
have not got a little out of hand.
We would certainly have liked the opinions of the provinces as
well, of all the provinces, because this involves health. The
minister makes no mention of working with his provincial
counterparts.
Another element concerns us as well. It is the minister's timing
in introducing his bill. This is not unimportant, although we are
somewhat used to it. I am a member of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development. The government did the same
thing last year with the Employment Insurance Act, in the same
circumstances. It tabled its bill at the beginning of December.
Why chose this point in time to introduce bills that may well be
controversial or criticized? The answer is that the ministers of this
government hope people have already started their Christmas
festivities and that they will be more kindly disposed. They hope
that people in general will be more docile, I would say, or less
attentive to the debate on a bill, because we know how distracted
people can be during the holiday season.
This is unacceptable. The bill has not been passed yet, but we are
assuming that the government will want to move quickly. It is no
assumption, as we have already been asked to co-operate. Even
before the bill was tabled, all members of the Reform Party, who
were probably in a hurry to leave on holidays, agreed that the bill
should go through the various stages quickly-second reading,
study in committee and then third reading-before Christmas as a
Christmas present for Canadians. Some presents turn out to be
nasty surprises, as you know, so we have to be careful.
At Hallowe'en, little children are told to be careful with candies.
They look good, but sometimes they contain needles. We have to
take the time. We are asking the government to be careful. It must
not succumb to the temptation of going too quickly, because a bill
passed too quickly is often flawed and does not contain enough
amendments to improve it, so that it ends up being criticized by
people and businesses. It may suffer the same fate as the last bill,
which was challenged in court and eventually invalidated, forcing
the government to introduce another bill.
In the meantime, years go by. The objectives of a minister or a
government cannot be reached, because the government's action is
ill- considered. We do not want the government to act
thoughtlessly. We do want to help it achieve its objectives, as long
as it respects the rights and freedoms of individuals and groups and
avoid doing more harm than good, that is depriving organizations
trying to improve the well-being of the public.
I could go so far as to talk about the gross national well-being,
because festivals are not simply festivals. Cultural and sporting
events provide a positive setting for people in hard economic times.
We need such events; they create jobs. We are talking of 5,000 jobs
for only 20 events.
The minister requested our co-operation earlier. He will have it,
but he must not push to have his bill rushed through the House,
because we will object. We will defend the rights of
parliamentarians. We will not allow our powers to be taken away
and given to a minister who wants to move too quickly.
(1125)
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
speaking today on Bill C-71, an act to regulate the manufacture,
sale, labelling and promotion of tobacco products.
I have quite a personal interest in this subject. In my 25 years in
medical practice literally every day I faced people who were ill
from smoking related diseases. I have also faced over and over
again people who wanted to quit. I have tried nicotine gum,
7122
nicotine patches and I have had patients go for hypnosis,
recognizing full well that there is a big problem with tobacco in our
country.
On a personal note, when I set up my practice I watched a
number of my senior colleagues who smoked. In medical staff
meetings when I started my practice, 50 per cent of my colleagues
were smokers. By the time I resigned my position in the hospital to
run for Parliament not one colleague smoked. I use that as an
example. There has been a change in thinking in the medical
community on tobacco as new evidence came to the fore. It became
quite obvious that smoking was not just a benign activity.
I would like to express today the expectation that people at home
have of an opposition politician. Opposition politicians
traditionally find fault and criticize everything. That is part of the
job of an opposition politician. In some cases it can be destructive
rather than constructive.
I have had constituents say to me: ``Surely there is something
that those government MPs bring to the floor that you can
support''. And a specific quote: ``You all fight like children rather
than improving legislation co-operatively''. I have taken that to
heart and have tried to approach this bill with that idea. This should
not be partisan. Partisan considerations should take a back seat
when health issues are being considered.
To that end I am not going to nitpick about this bill. I will make a
couple of broad comments about some deficiencies in it, but I will
save my concerns for the committee stage. However, I think there
are significant shortcomings. I hope that I will get the same
constructive spirit of co-operation from my colleagues.
Reform asked to fast track this bill and I would like to explain to
the House and to Canadians why. For over a year after the blueprint
was presented which basically laid out where the tobacco measures
would go I waited for action. The major press conference that was
called over a year ago was followed by silence. Some promises
were made but no action. During that period of time a new
generation of smokers started smoking at an unprecedented rate.
I had my staff do a graph for me because I do not always trust
statistics that come from various groups. This graph showed the per
capita cigarette consumption in Canada and the United States
between 1970 and 1994 which were the last figures that were
readily available to me.
This graph was very interesting. It showed the U.S. and
Canadian experience with per capita cigarette consumption
following very closely. If the two lines were drawn it looked like
the two were in lock step together. Because I cannot use this as a
prop I have to describe what I have in the graph. It actually looked
like a ski jump with a real nice downward slope, both the U.S. and
Canada following that downward slope with per capita cigarette
consumption a little bit better in Canada than in the U.S.
That lock step, that drop down, stopped in Canada quite abruptly
in 1993. It actually then looked like a ski jump where it goes
upward. The same thing does not happen in the U.S.
(1130 )
Here we are back from 1970 to 1994 with the two countries
moving together with excellent reduction in per capita cigarette
consumption.
Then boom, there was a change in 1993 which did not happen in
the U.S. Two things happened in Canada to change our cigarette
consumption, the tax rollback and the supreme court shut down of
the legislative measures that Canada had in place.
Second, I looked at a chart on Canadian tobacco consumption.
Because tobacco consumption can be measured in many ways I
chose one that looked to be the most accurate. It included domestic
sales of tobacco and also the contraband market. It showed the
number of Canadian cigarettes smuggled into Canada as best could
be ascertained and all the contraband. It included other forms of
consumption like consumption by returning residents bringing
back their imports.
The figures were really interesting. In 1991 compared to 1990
there was a drop of 6.16 per cent in Canadian tobacco consumption.
In 1992 there was a drop of 0.39 per cent, not as big a drop. In 1993
there was a drop of 3.49 per cent. This is the same downward trend
in total tobacco consumption in Canada. In 1994 there was a break
in the trend with an increase of 9.2 per cent.
With those independent studies in mind I determined that there
was a vacuum in Canada that was being filled by the tobacco
companies with glee. I looked at the tobacco companies' profit
picture, which was very very good. There was a new group of
youthful addicts and a new market for the tobacco companies.
Because I believe in small government, the least intrusive
legislation that is effective and enforceable and clearly specified
regulations in legislation, I paused for a long time over legislative
measures in this area. But the health of our youth is more important
than restrictions on activities that are solely profit driven. That is
why I have recommended to my colleagues that we push hard to see
this legislation on the floor of the House of Commons.
What do tobacco manufacturers do that every Canadian should
know? I have spent a lot of time on this issue. I have listened very
plainly to tobacco manufacturers say that they do not, want not and
will not conscript youth to smoking.
I have an internal tobacco company document that talks about
the objectives of looking to sports as a mechanism of advancing the
tobacco companies' interests. I will read part of it: ``To brand the
7123
events''-sporting events-``we sponsor via media advertising so
as to increase the level of awareness particularly among smokers
and potential smokers''. The document goes on to say that these
major world class sporting events and artistic productions will be
the mechanisms.
Off to the side there is a little note on the groups being targeted
by these proposals. The first target group is composed of males age
12 to 24. The second target group is composed of females age 12 to
17. This is from a lobby group that says it will not, cannot and must
not target youth for smoking. That document directly and
completely makes that comment inaccurate. I could use much
stronger words.
(1135)
On cancer, I have listened to the tobacco industry for years and
years saying that there is no direct connection with cancer, that no
direct connection has been proven. New genetic research has just
surfaced which is conclusive: tobacco causes cancer. In fact, the
member for the Bloc has actually mentioned the specific research.
I have waited, watched and hoped for a retraction from the
tobacco companies of this long held statement that tobacco does
not have a direct link to cancer. I have waited and will continue to
wait because that retraction has not and will not come.
Another thing I pay attention to is the argument that sponsorship
will cease and plunge the art groups into the wilderness if this
legislation goes through. I went back to the record of the last round
of tobacco legislation and found that this very argument was used.
Without going into a long discussion on this, I extracted from
hearings on Bill C-51 some information. The Royal Canadian Golf
Association stated it would not be able to replace the tobacco
sponsor of its Canadian open men's golf tournament if Bill C-51
came in. Today those members who are interested golf would know
that the event continues very successfully and the sponsor today is
Bell Canada, which stepped in on the issue, very comfortably
taking up the sponsorship vacuum.
On the international experience, I am a real keen race car guy.
Car races are sponsored by tobacco manufacturers. I have
personally have competed in a big event where my car bore tobacco
advertising. There is quite an international change away from
allowing this type of advertising. Because I like racing, I watched
the Formula I circuit. Jacques Villeneuve here in Canada has a very
specific logo on his driving suit and on the wing of his car. I will
not give the company extra advertising by saying what the
company is. In France and Germany on the Formula I circuits there
are no logos on the cars or on the suits.
Can Canada do the same? Will the Formula I circuit, the Indy
circuit and the rest of motor racing fall into an abyss because the
sponsorship will be reduced? Not a chance.
I have also watched the international moves by the U.S. It has
taken some very dramatic steps on nicotine to recognize nicotine as
an addictive drug and to call the cigarette a drug delivery device.
This is intellectually consistent and a very powerful way of
changing the way tobacco is looked at in North America.
So why fast track this bill? I would like to talk for a moment
about the bill. We have pushed this legislation to the floor of the
House of Commons by saying that we would fast track it. I believe
there were some internal division in the government and I believe
they were actually paralyzing the government. It took 18 months
for Jake Epp to bring Bill C-51 through the process. If it had taken
18 months to put this bill through the process, I could not face
myself with a new generation of youthful smokers. I think Jake Epp
went through a legislative process which was awful.
I said I would not try and nit pick on the bill, but I have a couple
of criticisms. The undefined, unspecified powers granted in the bill
are too broad. This is in the regulatory component. I and my
colleagues will work to define and specify those powers.
We do not always have to be serious in the House of Commons.
There are a couple of things in the bill that are a real chuckle. I am
going to read this for the Canadian public. Clause 10(1) states: ``No
person shall sell cigarettes, except in a package that contains fewer
than 20 cigarettes'' and it goes on ``or fewer than a prescribed
number of cigarettes, which number shall be more than 20''. I hope
there is a wording mess-up in the bill because I have asked as many
of my colleagues as I could what that clause means. I figured
maybe I had gone senile. I hope it is a misprint.
(1140)
There is a regulation which appears on page 12 of the bill: ``The
governor in council may make regulations''-and then we flip over
to paragraph (i)-``prescribing anything that by this part is to be
prescribed''. We are talking about big powers. The governor in
council could turn aircraft into land machines with that sort of
power.
As I say, I believe those regulatory powers must be defined and
specified. I would like to see and have continued to hope for the
health committee, when regulatory powers come in, be the actual
spot where these things are reviewed by elective representatives so
the governor in council will not be able to just steamroller things
along.
Finally, I would like to say something to my smoking audience. I
know they enjoy smoking. I know they accept the risks of smoking.
This is to my colleagues as well. I do not believe this bill is
directed to them. It is directed mostly to the kids. However, I want
to say to them that the most poignant quitters I have been involved
with in my years of trying to get people to quit smoking are those
who quit because of a comment made by little Johnnie, who comes
home from school and says something like: ``Daddy, please don't
smoke. I love you. I want you to quit smoking. I need you nearby''.
Those smokers quit because a little one they love cares for them
7124
and says``please quit smoking''. I have very little trouble with
those smokers. When they wanted to quit, they quit quickly.
This bill should now go to committee. Reformers will still work
hard for specific improvements in committee. Consequently, I
move:
That the question be now put.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent for the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
(1145)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
(1220)
[English]
Before the taking of the vote:
Mr. Speller: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you
know I was on the list to speak next on this subject. Unfortunately
the Reform Party of Canada decided to deny me my right to speak
on the matter by putting forward a motion in this House to delay the
voting on this.
I am wondering if I could then get the consent of the House to
allow me to put forward the views of my constituents. As you
know, Madam Speaker, there are 1,200 farmers in my area who are
in the tobacco industry and are affected every time a tobacco bill is
brought forward in the House. I wonder if I could have that
consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Does the hon.
member have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member does not have unanimous consent.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member from
the Reform Party moved the previous question, I was on my feet,
ready to speak on debate. However, I obviously did not manage to
catch your attention, because I was not recognized. We then started
the process of voting, which is the stage we are at.
I would respectfully suggest, Madam Speaker, that you
reconsider your decision and allow this House to continue debating
the main motion. I would like to quote, if I may, Beauchesne's
citation 521, which states that the previous question is moved when
the original question is under debate. Its purpose is to force a direct
vote on the original motion, thereby preventing any amendments to
the original question to be proposed. Clearly, what we are doing is
not serving the intended purpose of the motion, as the normal
procedure was not followed.
I would respectfully suggest that you bring us back to where we
should normally be.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In response to
the point of order made by the hon. member for Portneuf, the Chair
did not recognize the hon. member and called a vote, which will
now be taken.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, the member for
Haldimand-Norfolk said that the Reform Party had denied him
his right to debate. I would just like to point out that-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Hon. member,
is this a point of order on the process?
Mr. Speller: Yes, Madam Speaker, on that same point. As with
the hon. member from the Bloc Party, I also rose to speak at that
time and unfortunately you did not recognize me nor did you
recognize the hon. member either. I am wondering if we can go
back to the point.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has a point of order. Is
this a point of order the Chair has already ruled on?
Mr. Crête: No, Madam Speaker.
7125
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): No? So I
recognize the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, yesterday, a whole day was
allocated to a debate on a matter we had already discussed two or
three months ago. The House spent a whole day on that. Now, we
are debating a bill that has been under discussion for months and-
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The Chair will
now go to the question.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 196)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bélair
Bélanger
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chatters
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gilmour
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Meredith
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Paradis
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-138
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bélisle
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Bryden
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Hart
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Ménard
Marchand
Mayfield
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Serré
Solomon
Speller
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Venne-49
PAIRED MEMBERS
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Canuel
Caron
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crawford
Eggleton
Gauthier
Kirkby
Lee
Loney
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(1235)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
The next question is on the main 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.
7126
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Should the bells not be sounded for half an hour, Mr.
Speaker?
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think so. It seems pretty clear cut
in Standing Order 45. Paragraph 45(8) states, and I quote:
45.(8) If, pursuant to any Standing or Special Order of the House, two or more
recorded divisions are to be held successively without intervening debate, the
division bells shall be sounded to call the members only once.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 197)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chatters
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Ménard
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mayfield
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Paré
Paradis
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-172
NAYS
Members
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Bryden
de Savoye
Hart
Jacob
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Rocheleau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne-15
PAIRED MEMBERS
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Canuel
Caron
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crawford
Eggleton
Gauthier
Kirkby
Lee
Loney
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(1245)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Consequently, the bill is deemed referred to the Standing
Committee on Health.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you again.
Now that you are back in the Chair, I am convinced our debates will
be conducted with objectivity and serenity.
7127
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would
submit to the House that the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie does not have a point of order. I do not
think it is becoming of any parliamentarian to demonstrate any
favouritism or otherwise toward any occupant of the Chair. All
occupants of the Chair enjoy the same privileges, the same
authority, the same courtesies and the same respect from all
parliamentarians.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I did not accuse anyone, I
congratulated you.
Mr. Kilger: I take this opportunity to congratulate you, to
congratulate the Speaker, Mr. Parent, and all the members of his
team.
The Deputy Speaker: It goes without saying that I agree with
the opinion that all those who sit in the Chair are equal.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from December 4 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-70, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act,
the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act and related acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this bill today. It includes
changes to the Excise Tax Act which would remove the notional
input tax credit of the GST from the used good sector.
Prior to April 1993 registered dealers in used goods were eligible
to apply for and receive the notional input tax credit. However, the
government is choosing to remove that tax credit. That will kill
jobs because it will embed the GST into used good services. It hurts
those who are most under privileged in our society because it
affects used goods and used goods more often than not are
purchased by those in the middle class and the lowest
socioeconomic classes.
(1250)
Let us take a broader look at this picture because it has
implications in terms of job losses and costs to the consumer. It is
really just another tax charged by this government which has
claimed repeatedly that it has not raised any new taxes.
We are concerned because this is going to affect between 4 to 6
per cent of our gross domestic product. It is going to affect tens of
thousands of individuals who sell used goods. There are 20,000
used car dealers in this country. By removing this notional input tax
credit, the NITC, the people who are selling these used goods are
having to embed the cost or pass it on to the consumer. That means
either the seller is going to swallow it or more likely the consumer
is going to pay. Many used car dealerships function on a very low
profit margin.
In effect, the government is increasing taxes. It will cause job
losses and push up the cost of living for people, particularly those
who are most disadvantaged in our society.
The removal of the NITC is something called tax cascading,
something that the government repeatedly said it would not do. Yet
once again the government is embedding the GST, that tax that it
said it was going to remove, and enshrining it into these goods that
affect 6 per cent of our GDP, which is not a small number.
It is illogical for the government to do this in view of its repeated
assertions that it would not raise taxes to the consumer.
The number of jobs that will be lost is unknown right now. We
imagine that the number will be somewhere in the order of 6 to 8
per cent in the groups which are dealing with used goods. It also
encourages the underground economy. Any time taxes are
increased the underground economy goes up. In fact, members of
the government, including the Minister of Finance, said that the
GST is going to increase the underground economy by increasing
the cost to the consumer.
All we have to do is go back to our ridings to see that the
underground economy is alive and thriving, in large part because
the consumer and the producer feel that they are being taxed to the
hilt. People are not imagining that they are being taxed to the hilt.
The reality is that our taxes are some of the highest in the
industrialized world.
As I said before, it is a tax grab. As it is going to affect the used
goods market it is going to affect those people who rely on that
market. Generally those people are in the lowest socioeconomic
classes. We did a few studies in the maritimes. We found that in one
business alone the removal of the NITC will cost them nearly
$90,000 which is going to translate into job losses.
This whole concept belies a much more insidious problem and
that is the GST. The government came to power on the promise that
the GST would be abolished. It staked its reputation on it. The
Deputy Prime Minister had to resign over the issue and many other
members said that they were going to scrap the GST.
The Minister of Finance said that the goods and services tax is a
stupid, inept and incompetent tax. The Prime Minister said that
public and private libraries will have to reduce their purchases of
books, periodicals and newspapers by about 10 per cent annually
because of the GST. The Minister of Labour said the following:
``We created a monster. Now we have an underground economy so
big that no one can even account for it. It affects people, human
beings''. While government members were in opposition they
7128
emphatically stated they were going to remove this tax. Have they?
No.
(1255)
It really grates when the government repeatedly says that it has
not increased taxes at all. The facts are that it has increased taxes
22 times since it came to power by embedding taxes such as the
removal of the NITC, and by harmonization which I will get to in a
moment.
It has also increased gasoline taxes, yet it says to the public: ``We
have not increased taxes''. All one has to do is go to the pumps to
find that taxes have increased. The way the government is doing
this will hurt those on fixed incomes and those in the lowest
socioeconomic groups. When taxes are embedding into goods that
are consumed by everybody, everyone is not hurt equally. Those
who hurt the most are on fixed incomes with the least flexibility.
Another thing the government did to increase the taxes was the
harmonization of taxes in the maritimes. This was a $1 billion deal
subsidized by taxpayers outside of the maritimes. Even within the
maritimes there was great rancour over this. It is going to increase
the cost to the consumer. This blended sales tax will do the
following to business.
The three major retailers in Atlantic Canada do not find this
acceptable at all. In fact, they figure that their net annual retail
deficit will total $27 million when harmonization is implemented.
That means jobs are lost.
The Retail Council of Canada said that by forcing stores to bury
the new tax prices, the harmonized taxes regime will cost retailers
at least $100 million per year. That is absolutely staggering. That is
not a benign figure. One hundred million dollars translates into job
loss.
Reform came to the House not to merely criticize the
government but to put forward good solutions. My colleague for
Medicine Hat has done a superb job on finance and has made a
number of good suggestions, as has my colleague from
Capilano-Howe Sound.
Reform proposes that the GST be lowered and ultimately
scrapped after the debt is under control. Reform has put forward a
plan to get that debt under control in two years. We are also going
to provide tax relief to Canadians. Why? Because money in
people's pockets will enable them to take care of themselves.
People do not have the money in their pockets today to even
provide for their basic needs. That is why we see children going to
school hungry. There are people who cannot buy the basic
necessities for their families. Given the current tax burden on our
society is why companies are unable to hire people.
In 1992 when the Conservative government decreased taxes,
income and revenue to the federal coffers actually increased. What
did the government do? The Conservative government of the day
went on an orgy of taxation, introduced the GST and then
government revenues fell off. That is a real life example that shows
that making a tax cut will actually stimulate the economy and will
increase moneys in the public coffers. I think that is an important
thing to realize.
We have a responsibility to Canadians to provide them with a
fair taxation system. My colleagues in the Reform Party have made
proposals for a flat tax system that provides for equal taxation to all
people, and most importantly it greatly diminishes the taxation on
the lowest socioeconomic groups. Those who are poorest in our
society will be better off under Reform's financial proposal than
they currently are with the government. I encourage the
government, in fact implore it, to look at Reform's policies on
finance because they are going to save our social programs. It is
going to provide more money for the poor and the underprivileged.
It is going to stimulate the economy, create jobs and provide a
stronger and healthier Canada today and in the future for all
Canadians.
(1300)
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
also want to speak on this motion. It is important for Canadians to
know what this motion is about. This motion is essentially a-
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
apologize to my hon. colleague. I understood that on resuming
debate we were into normal debate followed by questions and
comments. Is that what we are doing?
The Deputy Speaker: That is a reasonable question that the
parliamentary secretary is putting. The five hours have expired so
we are now down to 10-minute speeches and no questions or
comments.
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, it is important for all Canadians to
understand the motion. We refer to it has a hoist motion, meaning
that the member who put this motion forward would like Bill C-70,
an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, to be now read a second time
this day six months hence. Essentially it would delay the whole
issue.
Taxation and excise taxes are things which are very well known
in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk. There are a number of
farmers and other people in my riding who contribute to the tax
system. Specifically, there are a number of tobacco farmers in my
riding. Taxes like the GST and the Excise Tax Act the Minister of
Finance has now put on tobacco products affect the people in my
riding. I want to talk a little bit about how this happens.
A study was done in my area, called the ``Economic
Contribution of the Tobacco Industry in the Tobacco Growing
Region of Ontario'' by Deloitte & Touche. Essentially it was found
that in terms of taxation the tobacco industry in the area studied
provides $453 million in income and 70 per cent of that money
stays within
7129
the area and of the 9,423 full time equivalent jobs, 76 per cent of
those stay within the study area.
The study comprised an area in my riding in southwestern
Ontario. It dealt with the economic contributions of the tobacco
industry in that area. It also dealt with the taxation question we are
dealing with today. This is an important study. I want to ensure that
all Canadians know the importance of this industry in a small
concentrated area in rural southwestern Ontario.
My area is also home to the largest native reserve in the country.
The whole question of how natives are taxed is always on the lips
of Canadians. It is important to know the impact of taxation on the
smuggling industry and how smuggling has been cut back as a
result of the fact that our government lowered the excise tax on
tobacco products some two years ago.
It was interesting to hear some of the comments in the earlier
debate. Some comments of Reform Party members cut off debate
on that very important issue. I know we are not talking about that
debate now, but it is important to note that the Reform Party did cut
off debate on that issue.
The issue we are dealing with now is the six month hoist on Bill
C-70 which is a GST matter. Those three letters concern a number
of Canadians, as does the whole question of excise taxes and taxes
specifically in my area on tobacco products. One hundred and
fifty-seven million dollars in tax revenues, including GST, come
into-
(1305 )
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order.
For those people out in TV land, I would like to clarify what the
hon. member is saying. We had a process which unfortunately
came a bit unravelled a while ago on Bill C-71, the tobacco bill. In
fact it was not the Reform Party that shut down debate. We put
forward a motion to allow the question to be put and the Speaker
was the one who shut down debate, not the Reform Party. I would
like that clarification on the record.
The Deputy Speaker: That will not come out of the hon.
member's time.
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note from the hon.
member's comments that the Reform Party which supposedly calls
for total debate on these issues put forward a motion to essentially
cut off the debate.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Why do you not speak on the
merits of an issue?
Mr. Speller: Reform put the motion forward and I think it is
shameful.
On Bill C-70 and the hoist motion, it is important to understand
what it means for a rural area such as mine. In my area there are a
significant number of tobacco farmers. On this whole question of
taxation and excise taxes their point of view should be heard,
whether or not the Reform Party wants it heard.
Getting back to what I was saying about the importance of
taxation, of the GST and the legislation, in my area $14 million
goes to local governments. The whole tax question is important to
the local economy. An enormous amount of work has been done by
a group in this area. It breaks down specifically some of the
percentages of the total effect on employment in the area and the
impact of taxes such as these on a farming community like mine.
These farmers were encouraged by previous governments to
come to my area of southwestern Ontario to grow tobacco and
build communities such as Delhi, Tillsonburg and Aylmer.
Throughout this area the tobacco farmers pay taxes. It is important
to put their point of view forward here today.
In terms of the legislation the hon. member referred to, I do not
think most farmers in my area will have a problem with that bill.
Even though it addresses some questions in terms of dealing with
how young people get access to tobacco, I do not think it is
specifically directed at the tobacco industry. However a taxation
bill, an excise tax by the Minister of Finance and the tax he put on
tobacco companies will have a direct impact and I will explain how
this relates to the House.
In 1994 when we put on the tax the major companies did not take
that tax out of their profits. In fact, it came out of the pockets of the
farmers in my area. The price the farmers got kept going down as a
result of governments applying taxes. I am sure it will be similar in
this case also.
Most Canadians, especially the people in my area of
Haldimand-Norfolk do not like the idea of more government
taxes. It is important for us as a government to put forward
programs which do not require more taxation. I congratulate the
Minister of Finance for not raising taxes in that regard. It is
important for the government to show that it can live within its own
means. If we are going to provide services in the country, they
should be provided in such a way that they do not add to the debt or
the deficit and that the cost does not come out of the pockets of
Canadians. The Minister of Finance has done that very well over
the last number of years.
(1310 )
We made a promise to Canadians to do something about the
GST. Whether or not, as the opposition likes to say, we promised to
scrap it or to reform it, one of the most important things we did in
bringing in this tax was to ensure that Canadian small businesses
were not hurt as they were when Mr. Mulroney and the
Conservatives brought in the original tax. The Minister of Finance
has made
7130
over 100 changes which will help small businesses. Canadians
especially in the eastern part of the country will be proud of that.
Hopefully one day Ontario will have a system which requires us
to pay only one tax so that when people go to the till the tax will not
be staring them in the face. That more than anything else will help
to turn people's opinions around in terms of what they purchase.
Harmonization will help all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-70, which seeks to amend
certain aspects of the GST. My initial reaction when I reviewed this
legislation was: ``Poor Canadian federalists. The more things
change, the more they stay the same''.
Over the years, all kinds of programs were created to try to buy
peace in some part of Canada, and this is the case once again.
Before talking about the unfair benefits and the special status being
granted to the Atlantic provinces, we must first pass moral
judgment on this government.
For three years now, the government has systematically done the
opposite of what it promised. In the case of unemployment
insurance, it implemented the reform that the Conservatives had in
mind, but only after condemning it throughout the election
campaign. As for the GST, it was supposed to disappear. Such was
the position of the Liberals, and also one of their major
commitments.
Today, three years later, the government comes up with a
proposed amendment which, instead of eliminating the GST,
makes it even worse. We never promised to kill the GST, because
the principle of a tax on goods and services is not necessarily bad,
but the Liberals did so when they formed the opposition. During
the election campaign, they said the GST was bad and that they
would make fundamental changes to it. The Liberals did not fulfil
their commitment. This is how governments lose their credibility.
What really gets members from Quebec is this government's
double standard. On the one hand, the Government of Quebec has
harmonized its provincial sales tax with the GST for a number of
years now, and it has done so without asking for compensation,
because there was never any talk of any. Plans were made so that it
would be done properly, it was and it works.
Suddenly, in the last year, we learned, when all was said and
done, that the maritimes were going to be paid $1 billion to
harmonize with the GST. There is no reference to this in the bill,
not a trace. But the facts are there. There is the fact that, in a
shameless display of window dressing, harmonization with the
GST will cost $1 billion. Is this how the Liberal government is
going to try to make Atlantic Canadians forget their anger over
employment insurance reform? I do not think this is the way to go
about it.
They had an opportunity to come up with a truly dynamic
employment insurance reform that would allow a community to
take responsibility for itself, to develop, but they preferred to base
their reform on the following principle: ``If there are no jobs where
you live, you must move somewhere else'', rather than the
following principle: ``The government has a responsibility to
ensure that an area's resources are used in the manner most
conducive to its development''. This principle was ignored in the
employment insurance reform and another substituted for it.
But then, with an election looming, we are suddenly hit with the
news of this wonderful $1 billion in compensation. Imagine what
this does for competitiveness. It means that Quebecers will pay
$250 million in taxes to help the maritime economy harmonize
with the GST. It is completely unacceptable.
(1315)
It is as though you suddenly decided to pay the heating costs for
a third of the town by billing the rest of the inhabitants, but not
supplying them with any heat, and using their wood in the bargain.
This leads to major problems that are unacceptable.
Perhaps it is a political gift, so that the maritimes will be more
receptive to UI reform, but I have to say that $1 billion in
compensation to the maritimes over the next four years is a large
amount.
Furthermore, in future, all Canadians will have to pay more in
equalization payments to the maritimes. That is why I say that, the
more Canadian federalism changes, the more it stays the same.
Time and again, we see that it is an uncontrollable beast, which
tries to balance things artificially rather than allowing the various
components to evolve naturally.
Canada-wide harmonization is not for tomorrow. The proof lies
in the way in which each province guards its jurisdiction, the
responses from the west. We are facing a situation that will go on
for several years. This compensation sets up a double standard in
Canada. It is completely unacceptable.
The Liberal government, and particularly candidates in Quebec
ridings, will have to answer about this in the next election. They
will be asked why they gave $1 billion in compensation to the
maritimes, but nothing to us, who did our work properly. How will
they see that we are compensated? There will probably be a number
of proposals on the table, but that will not deal with the fact that we
have a double standard here.
The procedure being implemented is somewhat insulting to the
maritimes, even if they are getting compensation. Ways could be
found to improve the economy other than by giving them special
7131
status in this respect, compared with other Canadians. This will
make for unfair competition.
Part of my riding is right next door to New Brunswick. Consider
the following: we have two regions, Madawaska in New Brunswick
and Témiscouata in Quebec, and a decision by the federal
government has changed the rules of the game. The same side has
all the advantages. The next thing you know, some Quebec
federalists will say it is up to the Government of Quebec to deal
with the problem. The lack of fairness in federalism is one of the
major drawbacks of our system. It may be egalitarian, but it is not
fair. The Liberal government will pay the price in the next election.
During the few minutes I have left, I would like to emphasize the
positive impact of the battle fought by members of the Bloc
Quebecois in the last Parliament. I am referring to the members for
Richelieu, Lac-Saint-Jean, Saint-Hubert, Longueuil, Hull-Aylmer,
Rosemont, Shefford and Laurier-Sainte-Marie. They fought
non-stop to remove the GST on books.
Today we see the results, although is a partial, not a complete
success. The Bloc Quebecois always wanted the tax on books
removed altogether and to have the whole book industry exempt
from the GST because this has a major cultural impact. We have
won at least half the battle.
We fought for this from the very beginning, and now all books
purchased by institutions engaged in literacy training, schools and
public libraries will be exempt from this tax. This is quite an
achievement. Congratulations are in order for the members who
worked unceasingly from the word go to obtain this exemption.
The government could have gone further by accepting the Bloc's
request that books not be taxed. Books are a jewel in the crown of
our cultural industry.
This is how Quebecers and Canadians often have a chance to
make a name for themselves. It is what gave Quebec and Canadian
culture a chance to take its place in the North American market, the
world market and the francophonie and do so in a way that is
financially profitable.
The battle fought by Bloc members, and there were only eight at
the time, has finally produced results. Since we formed the official
opposition, we continued the struggle, and now we have won half
the battle.
You may rest assured that we will continue our fight to have the
tax on books removed altogether, which will have a real impact on
the cultural industry, so that our authors will get the recognition
they deserve and be proud of what we are doing.
(1320)
This then, in short, is legislation that exempts certain books from
taxation but that creates incredible inequity for Quebec and the
regions bordering on Quebec, especially as far as the maritimes are
concerned. For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois can never
vote in support of this bill as it now stands. It creates two types of
citizens, of taxpayers: those who live in the maritimes, who pay
less sales tax thanks to the federal government's contribution, and
the others. It in fact encourages governments to adopt a certain
laissez-faire approach to managing their affairs. It encourages them
to say: ``We will be able to spend a little more; the federal
government will compensate us for it''. It is as if the government
was trying to use a tax measure to reduce differences in income and
in quality of life in Canada. This is not how to go about it.
The way to do it is to establish the principle that we will allow
each region to develop its economy to the best of its ability, using
its natural and human resources to the fullest, and that Canada's
entire political and economic system will be based on that. No
problem can be resolved by providing under the table
compensation on sales tax. This creates an unnatural situation in
the market, which goes against all current economic trends where
the thrust is to emphasize the quality of our resources through
ability and the possibility of competing on an equal footing.
Now, with the new law, there is no equal footing. The Atlantic
provinces are told: ``You will have a special advantage''. Why do
the people in the Atlantic provinces enjoy this advantage, when
eastern Quebec, the Gaspé, the Lower St. Lawrence, the North
Shore and the other regions of Quebec face the same economic
difficulties as the maritimes? Why give Madawaska an advantage
and not compensate Quebec in order to give Témiscouata the same
advantage? This is unacceptable. This could in fact encourage
Quebec consumers to go and buy in the maritimes. I think the
federal government is once again not playing fair, to the advantage
of the maritime provinces. In the past, it was to Ontario's
advantage, particularly in research and development.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this
bill and will put the following question to all federal Liberal
candidates in Quebec in the election campaign: ``Do you think it is
fair to give the maritimes $1 billion in compensation for the GST?''
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to be speaking to this bill today on the harmonization of
the-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Actually we are supposed to
alternate across the floor. It should be the turn of the hon. member
for Lambton-Middlesex. Would the member for Fraser Valley
West wait 10 minutes to give his intervention?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I will do a penance of 10
minutes.
7132
Mr. Silye: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. members
from the government side are not ready and prepared when they
should be, why should we be allowing them to speak? They should
wait for us for 10 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is quite right. I did see
the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, but in fairness it was also
known to all of us that it should go by rotation an my zeal at seeing
the hon. member for Fraser Valley West caused me to recognize
him instead of remembering that very important principle of
alternates. The hon. member for London-Middlesex.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know it is hard to have peripheral vision but I too was
standing when my hon. colleague was standing, and I thank the
hon. member for letting me speak.
I do not want to take up valuable House time with further
justification of restructured, harmonized federal-provincial sales
tax. The facts have been clearly and convincingly addressed by my
colleagues regarding Bill C-70.
The HST will eliminate hidden taxes that inflate prices and hurt
exports. It is a simpler, more transparent system for consumers and
business. An integrated approach makes possible a lower overall
sales tax rate.
What I want to focus on today is an aspect of this legislation that
has too often been attacked by those who place partisan politics and
narrow regionalisms ahead of clear objective thought.
(1325 )
This issue is a decision by the government to provide a formula
for short term adjustment assistance to provinces when they face
significant structural costs to participate in the new system. Under
this system adjustment assistance becomes available to the
provinces that experience a revenue shortfall in excess of 5 per cent
of their current retail sales tax receipts because they moved to a
single harmonized sales tax system.
For qualifying provinces, in this case Newfoundland, New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the formula means that the federal
government will provide full compensation for the revenue
shortfall. That is the shortfall over 5 per cent of the current retail
sales tax in one year, the same full compensation for the shortfalls
in year two, half the amount of the shortfalls in year three, and 25
per cent of the provincial revenue shortfalls in year four.
This is a short term measure designed for the period of
significant transition these provinces will be going through. It will
end after four years, providing the provinces with sufficient time to
adjust to the harmonized system.
It is important to note this is truly a joint program, not a one way
gift. Under this formula there is near equal sharing between the
federal government and qualifying provinces of the adjustment
costs harmonization will entail over the four years.
Over the four year period the total adjustment assistance under
the harmonization agreement with the three Atlantic provinces will
be $960 million. I remind the House of what the finance minister
has emphasized. This spending has been incorporated into our
financial planning and will not jeopardize the federal deficit targets
we have set out.
Some Canadians have asked why provinces cannot phase in full
harmonization over several years, thereby eliminating the need for
assistance. This approach has been tried in Quebec over the last six
years. Unfortunately the result runs counter to making the new
simpler for business. While it allows the provinces greater fiscal
flexibility, the business community, especially small business, has
made it clear that it prefers a one step approach to harmonization
rather than the approach taken by Quebec.
The Quebec approach resulted in significant complexity and
compliance costs for business. It meant adjusting to a new system
and new rates in each of the transaction years. This greatly reduced
the economic benefits of harmonization for the province as a
whole. Because of Quebec's experience the three participating
provinces have chosen to move to a single tax system all at once on
April 1, 1997.
I am disappointed that some Canadians have attacked the entire
concept of this adjustment assistance for a harmonized sales tax.
They have a mindset that ignores history, misreads the present and
lacks vision for the future.
Canadian history makes clear that government has played an
essential role in our economic evolution and adjustments. Some
examples of this role are tax and land grant support for the national
railway system, negotiation of our Autopact, development of the
St. Lawrence Seaway, megaprojects from Lloydminster to
Hibernia, special tax conditions for oil and gas, research and
development and small businesses. The list is long and honourable.
Many of these government actions and investments respond to
opportunities but there is also a long and proud list of federal
assistance for sectors and regions that face economic difficulties
and dislocations or that must confront core structural change.
Equalization payments are an essential part of our constitutional
framework. They recognize that all of Canada is stronger as a
society and as a marketplace when we help less affluent provinces
provide a basic level of public support and service.
In 1972 when the federal government instituted the income tax
reform, every single province received adjustment assistance
which totalled more than $2.7 billion over a seven year period.
More recently the federal government has provided assistance to
7133
farmers following the collapse of world grain prices. It is now
providing compensation for the elimination of the Crow rate.
We have provided bottom line support for the maritime fishers
who were confronted with the tragedy of the decimation of fish
stocks. We shared equally in the cost of solving the tobacco
smuggling problem in Ontario and Quebec.
These actions were neither charity nor partisan politics. These
were actions of fairness, equality and the principles this country
was built on. They are an essential reflection of the contract
Canadians have struck with themselves, a nation building contract
that says a critical role for government is to help when help is truly
needed and where it can be truly effective. That takes me to the
present.
Today we have to manage the commitment to assistance with
more vigour, innovation and insight than ever before.
(1330)
The world of global competition for trade, for investment,
business opportunities and jobs demands that government remain
constant and conscientious of the bottom line. A government that
squanders resources imposed on the nation, the cost of high deficit,
high taxes and high interests, these are job killers, future killers,
hope destroyers.
It is this same challenging competitive environment that
demands government continue to play a role in helping citizens,
sectors and regions to meet their global challenge. It has to be a
role in applying methods that work with today's resources in ways
that will deliver effective, efficient advantage for future success
and economic benefit. That is exactly what the government is doing
with adjustment assistance for sales tax harmonization.
As a member from the province of Ontario, I believe it is a
shame that the Harris government at Queen's Park has missed this
opportunity to get onboard with Canada's harmonized sales tax. Let
us not forget that on June 7, 1995 during Ontario's election
campaign, Premier Harris said he was prepared to work with the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance toward a simpler
unified tax, that it seems ludicrous to have two different taxes, two
bureaucracies to collect it and more paperwork.
Regrettably the Ontario Tories are now arguing that
harmonization would shift taxes from businesses to consumers.
They have also claimed that adjustment assistance is a bribe to
other provinces. As I have just shown, it is nothing of that sort, and
indeed Ontario regularly benefits from adjustment assistance of
various kinds paid to Ontario such as stabilization payments each
year.
The door is still open for Ontario to join this new harmonized
federal-provincial sales tax. The advantages for business would be
tremendous. Ontario is Canada's major manufacturer and exporter
and since harmonization means improved competitiveness that
means more jobs. I am convinced that no province would benefit
more from harmonization than Ontario. The longer Ontario waits
to harmonize, the more business and consumer loss will be.
If we work together through the format in the approach our
government has set, the result will be a tax system that makes it
stronger, that helps deliver more jobs and is fairer to all of us. I
support the compensation formula this legislation provides and that
is why I urge all hon. members to put aside political grandstanding
and join the government in supporting this legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West,
with apologies to him.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
recall a couple of weeks ago when a similar thing happen to me.
The Chair at the time did not afford me the opportunity to speak,
but I thought I would not do the same to my Liberal colleague.
Before we get farther down the road on the harmonization of the
tax, several comments were made here earlier with regard to Bill
C-71 and how that debate was cut off. The fact is my colleague
from Macleod basically introduced a motion that the question be
put. The intent was that we could be debating one motion and not
have an introduction of numerous amendments. It was the
Speaker's responsibility at that time to decide whether the debate
was to be cut off and go to the question, not the responsibility of my
hon. colleague.
The member for Haldimand-Norfolk, who has been
complaining about not having representation here in the House
because the Reform Party did something, should look toward the
Chair for the guidance in future occasions. Far be it from any
Liberal here in this House to complain that they have not had the
opportunity to speak when, after all, they invoke closure in this
House so many times one can hardly recall if it is the race between
the Conservatives or the Liberals for cutting off debate in the
House of Commons. I think the hon. member should look at that
and consider where his own party stands on cutting off debate in
this House.
With regard to the GST and the harmonization of the GST in the
Atlantic provinces, having spent some time there this year the GST
in many cases is really not a concern to many people because there
is such an underground economy there, as there is in other places
across this country. It is really a moot point at times.
(1335)
In reading through the papers from Halifax in particular and
reading editorials, I found some very realistic comments. I would
like to give a few. Nova Scotia finance minister Bill Gillis had no
business signing the deal of BST, the blended sales tax. The public
7134
did not see the details and the MLAs did not debate it. Just like that,
it was done overnight behind closed doors.
This is kind of typical. I know the folks in Nova Scotia want the
Liberals out and the Conservatives out but they do not know who to
bring in because the Conservatives and Liberals in that province
have not really served them well, much like the Conservatives and
Liberals federally in this country have not served Canadians all that
well. If they had we would not have situations like an enormous
debt of $600 million and trying to service that debt with $47 billion
a year, crime that is not being addressed, the situation in the House
of Commons where we feel democratic principles are really amiss
and even to a large extent not here.
We have to look at the whole issue of taxation, why we are here,
how we got here, who got us here and why all of a sudden we are
talking about three provinces out of this whole federation which
made a deal to blend or to harmonize the GST with the provincial
sales taxes.
One has to only look at the type of governments those three
provinces have. Surprisingly, if anyone can believe this, they are all
Liberal governments. For those at home listening, from British
Columbia and other provinces, I truly wonder what my home
province would have been sitting on today had that province been
Liberal. We should think about that because if that is the kind of
provincial representation we get in this country, that we make a
deal with the senior party of the Liberals, regardless of the cost to
the people in that province, then something is terribly wrong in this
land.
I would suggest that the harmonization of the GST is not the
problem but a symptom of the problem. It is a deal made at the cost
of the people in those provinces because there is an affiliation
between the provincial Liberals and federal Liberals that is so
strong that it overrides the good of the people. That is wrong.
So they are going to take a combined rate of 18.77 per cent and
apply it on a different basis; now the 15 per cent overall tax. They
say it is good because it has gone down three percentage points.
However, what they did not bother to tell people is that they will be
paying it on things that they have never paid it on before.
I know parts of my family in Nova Scotia and parts of my family
in Newfoundland are waking up to the same realities. None have a
lot of money but they have the same realities that many people in
this land are waking up with. It is just another disgusting tax by a
government that really does not care. It is cash starved and it is
going to get it any way it can.
BST, blended sales tax, HST, harmonized sales tax, GST, PST,
ST, S, whatever we want to call these things, the taxpayer is sick
and tired and fed up. If there is one thing I can forecast in this
country it is that the Liberal government will fall on its inability to
understand that people are sick and tired of taxes for the sake of
money going to the wrong places in this country.
(1340 )
The real effects of blending the provincial tax and the GST will
put people in Atlantic Canada through the blender. That is the
problem. They do not seem to understand. That is all right. We will
make a change.
The Metropolitan Halifax Chamber of Commerce does not
support this without changes.
It is interesting when members opposite say ``it is supported, we
talked to all kinds of people''. I do not recall anybody in my family
ever being asked about it. I know for a fact that the provincial
government in Nova Scotia did not even debate it. That is kind of
sad.
I think of issues like child poverty, which this government
expounds on time after time without thinking that if we have child
poverty, how did we get there. I will tell the House why we have
child poverty in Canada today, poverty of any kind. We got there
because of governments' inability to understand that the more they
borrow, the more they owe. Over the last 25 years both the federal
Conservatives and the federal Liberals have borrowed well beyond
their means and ability to pay back. That is why we have poverty in
this country.
That is why, rather than looking at cutting back on the GST, they
are looking at irresponsible and ridiculous ways to hide it. They are
not getting rid of it. Out of sight, out of mind; that is their idea.
There is no courage to cut it back.
For all those listening, I sincerely hope they will remember that
this is the government which started borrowing. This is the
government which is trying to hide the GST. The other
government, which is no longer a party, is the government that
brought in the GST. Think about that when walking up to the ballot
box.
It is time for a big change in this land. The Achilles' heel is here
in the GST and in the government's inability to understand that
more taxes will mean further debt and less ability to pay.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-70.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West conveniently forgot
about the fact that the Atlantic premiers right now are going across
Canada telling Canadians that because of the harmonized sales tax
they have created a competitive advantage for companies which are
located in Atlantic Canada. The harmonized sales tax will reduce or
eliminate the embedded provincial sales tax which is already part
of the cost structure of companies in provinces other than those
which have harmonized their sales tax.
It is curious that the hon. member for Fraser Valley West also
ignored that Canadians are saying they want the tax included when
7135
they go to the cash register. They want it included because they are
tired of going to the cash register, having the tax added and not
knowing what price they are going to pay. Again the Reform Party
is just not listening.
Until now the GST has had a bewildering array of complicated
and sometimes contradictory rules for complying with the federal
sales tax system in this country. Bill C-70, with its 130 or more
amendments to the federal GST, goes a long way toward sorting out
the confusion and easing the compliance burden. This bill responds
to the views of Canadians across the country. Their message is very
simple: Keep it simple and make the rules clear. I am very pleased
to support the bill in the House today.
(1345)
We have already heard why a value added tax is needed in
Canada. Again the Atlantic provinces are taking full advantage of
harmonizing their sales tax. It is creating a competitive
disadvantage for companies in provinces like Ontario and other
provinces which have higher costs. Over the medium and long run,
companies in provinces that have not harmonized their sales tax
will be competitively disadvantaged. I too have some concerns that
the GST creates some anxiety for consumers, but in the medium
and long run we will be more competitive if we harmonize our tax.
Others have spoken about the efforts made to implement the
value added tax to make its rules more fair and simple. I would like
to take this a step further by emphasizing some of the specific steps
we have taken to clarify the more confusing aspects of the federal
sales tax system in Canada. In many respects clarity is the source of
simplicity and fairness. Once the rules, procedures and rationale
are clear, Canadians will have a better understanding of both how
and when the value added tax system applies to them. In the short
history of the GST this has not always been the case.
We have heard how confusing the current tax legislation is
regarding municipal services, with some services being exempt but
similar services being taxable, depending on the circumstances.
This situation has led to confusion and a perception of unfairness.
By making most municipal services tax exempt, the government
will clarify the situation and create a more level playing field. The
compliance burden will be eased since municipalities and their
appointed bodies will no longer be confused about when and if a
service is taxable.
Specifically the situation regarding recyclable products will be
cleared up. Under existing legislation there is confusion about the
appropriate tax treatment for collecting these products. Are they
garbage and therefore tax exempt, or are they not? Bill C-70
clarifies that the collection of recyclable materials and their
delivery to a recycling facility is included in the exempting
provision for garbage collection.
The treatment of public utilities has also been a source of
befuddlement. Under current rules, services provided by a utility to
a municipal government are tax exempt if the utility is owned by
the government but taxable if it is not. This no longer will be the
case.
Bill C-70 stipulates that the sale of gas, electricity, steam or
telecommunications services by a public utility will always be
taxable, even if the municipality receiving the service owns or
controls the utility. This consistency across the board will make
complying easier for municipalities. It may not please everybody,
but on balance I think it is fair. Those municipalities that have their
own utilities hopefully will be provided a transition period so they
can provide for these costs in their budgeting procedures in
advance.
In telecommunications services, this sector will also benefit
from the measures we have taken to clarify the sales tax legislation
as it applies to this sector. We will remove the confusion by
defining more clearly what a telecommunications service is and
when this service is defined as being performed in Canada.
This ease of compliance is reflected in other steps we have taken,
steps that apply to the business community as a whole in Canada.
We have heard about new rules that simplify the treatment of used
goods and employee and shareholder benefits. These rules will
benefit consumers and businesses alike.
Businesses will also find it easier to comply due to changes in
the way GST registrants report and pay GST on some purchases of
real property. Starting in 1997, registrants who have to self assess
GST on a taxable purchase of real property that is primarily for
commercial use will not have to complete a separate return to
report the GST on that transaction. Instead they will report the GST
on their normal GST returns. Anything we can do to reduce the
paper burden and reduce the complexity for businesses is a very
positive step forward.
Similarly this bill will clarify the rules for export services by
Canadian services. As the current legislation is structured,
Canadian businesses have a hard time determining if services they
provide to non-residents qualify for zero rating. This is because the
general zero rating provision includes a test that is often difficult to
apply. That test asks the question: Where is the service primarily
consumed, used or employed?
(1350)
For example, what is the answer for a collection agency that
provides services to a non-resident client? Where are the agent's
services being used or consumed by the client? Or training services
provided by Canadian businesses to employees in Canada of
non-resident businesses. Where are these services consumed or
used, inside Canada or outside when the employee returns to work
at home? By clarifying when these services qualify for a zero
7136
rating, we will make it easier for Canadian businesses to comply
with the rules for export services.
The amendments we are proposing will also make business in
Canada more competitive in both domestic and international
markets. I touched on that earlier. While the current legislation
does provide a favourable environment for domestic suppliers of
goods and services, there is room for improvement.
We propose to make improvements in a number of ways. First
services provided by Canadian sales and purchasing
representatives through non-resident or foreign businesses will be
zero rated. Second, a rebate will be provided for GST charged on
installation services supplied in some non-resident businesses.
Third, a broader range of goods and services relating to
international transportation will be zero rated. Fourth, a zero rating
provision for goods delivered abroad will be expanded.
These and other provisions will make Canadian business
suppliers more competitive with non-resident suppliers who do not
pay GST on their business inputs. These provisions are
complemented by the steps we have taken to make Canada a better
and more attractive place to do business. For example, we have
extended the visitors' GST rebate beyond tourists to include
non-resident businesses with employees who travel to Canada.
These businesses will now be able to claim a rebate for GST they
paid on short term accommodations. While these changes may not
ease compliance for businesses directly, they will make the tax
easier to bear.
We have taken steps with charities that will simplify the
situation for them and also ease the weight of compliance. This is
especially true for the smaller registered charities that only have
basic accounting systems. For those organizations the current
requirement that they apportion inputs between taxable and exempt
supplies has proven onerous. It forces them to review all the rules
and determine whether each of their activities is taxable or exempt.
In some cases the judgment is purely arbitrary. Bill C-70 introduces
a new streamlined method for charities to collect and remit tax on
their taxable supplies.
We have heard from my hon. colleague about the amendments
that apply to education. These changes too are designed to ensure
that the GST is clear and less complicated in this area. The changes
address inconsistencies in the eligibility criteria that apply to
schools, universities and public colleges for claiming rebates. They
make the definition of vocational schools more specific to exclude
those institutions which do not primarily offer educational training.
It is fair to say that the amendments we are proposing to the
value added sales tax system in Canada will make it easier for
everyone to comply with their GST obligations. This lack of clarity
in the current legislation has been among the biggest complaints
from those Canadian citizens who honestly are trying to meet their
sales tax obligations. We have heard these complaints and we have
responded by introducing the amendments I have mentioned along
with scores of others.
We have designed a sales tax system that is more user friendly, if
I may use that term. It is a system that is easier to comply with and
at the same time increases compliance and much needed revenues.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will speak
to Bill C-70, as my colleagues have, but I would like to start by
drawing the attention of the House to a number of little problems.
For instance, we find it regrettable that the Minister of Finance
tabled these documents less than 24 hours ago. We are talking of a
300-page document. You will understand that, given the
importance of the subject, such a document cannot be flipped
through any old way.
I would not raise this question, I can assure you, if this were an
isolated case. A few weeks ago, however, during the firearms
debate, I recall that the minister provided journalists, at noon on the
dot, with documents I received only at a quarter to three, and the
press conferences took place after question period.
(1355)
You will understand that, in the public interest, the opposition
must be given enough time to read documents in advance so they
can react in an informed manner, in order to enrich the debate and
to lead to better decision making.
I would also point out that, in connection with the tobacco
legislation, the Minister of Health called a press conference last
week in the press gallery, and it was only once I was there that I
was able to examine the documents the minister was just about to
discuss. We are not talking about 24 hours here, or even 2 hours, we
are talking about 15 or 20 minutes notice.
One might say that the government has acquired the bad habit of
sidestepping debate. Again today, through procedural
manoeuvring, a worthwhile discussion was cut short. There are
times, mind you, when I wonder what is the use of having a debate
in this House. Anyway, I am told this is the best system around.
Perhaps, but when this system fails as it did today, it acts as a
muzzle and no longer serves public interest, as if that was not
already difficult enough.
That is why I felt the need to start my remarks by submitting to
you and to this House that acting this way is not in the public
interest, and that the official opposition, with all the good will in
the world, can only make as useful a contribution as the
government will allow it to make by distributing documents in a
timely manner. We have to rely on them for that.
7137
That said, Bill C-70 is about the GST, the sacrosanct GST,
which, while it was supposed to be abolished, not only still exists,
but will now be harmonized. Will it be harmonized harmoniously?
That is the question.
The most challenging problem facing us is the fact that the
government agreed to pay approximately $1 billion in
compensation to the maritimes if they harmonized their sales taxes.
Naturally, this enables them to cut their taxes from 19 to 15 per
cent. If I lived in the maritimes, I would probably think this is a
great idea. The problem is that, for the time being, Canada includes
not only the maritimes, but also Quebec.
And Quebec's contribution to this effort amounts to about $250
million. A few minutes ago, I heard the Liberal member say that
this will give a competitive edge to businesses in the maritimes. It
undoubtedly will. But when he said this, he was saying to
Quebecers, not to mention Ontarians, that they are taking a loss so
people in the maritimes can benefit.
If it were possible to use Quebec and Ontario resources to help
other provinces, it would be fine. But Quebec is having financial
problems.
Are you asking me to conclude now? Then I will have a few
minutes to speak at three o'clock.
The Speaker: Certainly, dear colleague, you will have three or
four additional minutes after Oral Question Period. The House will
now proceed to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
7137
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
received a letter recently from two Manitobans who are concerned
that Canadians no longer value the military. Like myself, they think
that this must not be allowed to continue. As a result of this they
have begun the invisible ribbon campaign.
The ribbons, one of which members see me wear, are made out
of plastic wrap. This is symbolic of the invisible uniform warn by
the partners, spouses and children of military personnel. They are
as committed to the military way of life as the personnel who wear
the uniform. So too their morale is affected by negative media
attention and public opinion.
I urge all members to join me in wearing an invisible ribbon to
demonstrate that Canadians do appreciate military personnel and
their families.
(1400 )
This campaign will help reaffirm pride in the military and let
military personnel and their families know that Canadians
recognize and support their vital contribution to Canada.
Please join with me in urging people across Canada to wear the
invisible ribbon. Let's have a visual thumbs up for the military.
[Translation]
Please join me in wearing this ribbon.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberals promised Canadians jobs, jobs, jobs, but what
Canadians have received are pink slips, pink slips, pink slips.
Nowhere has this been made more clear than in the chaos created
by the Liberal government when it signed the softwood lumber
agreement with the United States. This agreement is killing jobs
and destroying job security across Canada.
The softwood lumber agreement is problematic for another
reason. It replaces an open lumber market with the problems of a
marketing board. Already I am hearing stories of lumber quotas
being for sale to the highest bidder, while mills are being shut down
and employees are being laid off because of a lack of lumber quota.
Will this Liberal government stop micro-managing the lumber
industry and do something for the people of one of Canada's largest
industries? I challenge the Liberal government to defend the jobs of
Canadians against U.S. interests by referring the softwood lumber
issue to the World Trade Organization.
People are hurting-
The Speaker: The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we are offended by yesterday's decision by the Minister of
Labour to force a vote of CAW members at Canadian Airlines. This
is an unprecedented and shocking attack on workers' rights.
At the same time we recognize the minister's attempts to use the
Canada Labour Code to protect the bungling of the Minister of
Transport, who seems not to understand the real crisis facing
Canadian Airlines or has chosen to ignore it.
7138
New Democrats recognize that the real issue is the stability of
the industry which it has demonstrated cannot regulate itself.
We care about the jobs of Canadian Airlines. We care about the
future of the industry. However, we are concerned that by focusing
only on the concessions being demanded of working people that the
job and industrial security we all desire will be lost in the long
term.
If the federal government wants to be involved in Canadian
Airlines restructuring, it should leave collective bargaining to the
affected parties and go to the table with a real package that
addresses the real problems of the industry.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, a
NAFTA panel ruled that the Canada's supply system for dairy
products, eggs and poultry did not violate the rules of that treaty,
nor those of the World Trade Organization. This decision is an
important victory for Canada over American claims.
However, we should have no illusion about the spirit that drives
our neighbours to the south. Just last week, U.S. farmers asked
their government to amend NAFTA if the panel did not rule in their
favour.
It is very likely that this lobby will continue to put pressure on
the American administration to get the changes it wants.
Consequently, the Minister for International Trade must remain
firm on this issue.
The Bloc Quebecois remembers very well the mess created by
this minister regarding the softwood lumber issue. We hope that,
this time, the minister will show determination and will protect our
fellow citizens.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the eighth
anniversary of the tragic Armenian earthquake on December 7,
1988. On that day over 25,000 lives were lost and hundreds of
thousands of people were left homeless and injured.
The Armenian people will always remember the response of the
Canadian government to this horrible tragedy. Over $6 million in
aid was provided by the government to the people of Armenia and
an additional $2.5 million in humanitarian relief was raised by
Canadians.
On Sunday I will join Canadians of Armenian origin and
Armenians everywhere in church services to mourn the loss of
family members and friends. I urge my fellow members to reflect
on this horrible tragedy and join with me in this commemoration.
* * *
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if you
ask Canadians what they associate with Prince Edward Island,
many will say Anne of Green Gables. Some might say amazing
golf courses and others will say that it is a small, wonderful place
to visit.
If I were to be asked the same question I might say call centres.
Yes, that is right, I said call centres. We have a highly advanced
telephone network.
Listing a few companies that have already set up shop on the
island are Cows, Island Tel, the GST Centre, HookUp
Communications and Watts Communications.
(1405 )
In fact we foresee such a growth in the industry that Holland
College has set up a call centre and customer service excellence
program to train call centre workers. The program will be the
benchmark for high level training standards in the industry.
The call centre industry will provide year round full time jobs for
Islanders. It is an excellent niche that has great potential for
employment opportunities. Islanders are taking full advantage of
their strength in carving out specialty niches, and eventually they
will break the seasonality of the island economy.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
1995 Environics poll estimated that one in seven households in
Canada own air guns that shoot BBs or pellets or both. These
weapons can penetrate flesh and thin bone at just 348 feet per
second.
More than 25 people have been killed by air guns in North
America since 1980. Canadian hospitals report a growing number
of non-fatal accidents involving such weapons. For example,
Amanda Noseworthy of St. John's lost an eye when shot by a young
boy who was playing with his rifle in a friend's home. Amanda is
now losing the vision in her good eye and may become totally
blind.
I have spoken to the federal justice minister on behalf of
Amanda and her family and told him I support the inclusion of air
guns as a real firearm under the Criminal Code of Canada, and
therefore, should be subject to the same controls and safeguards.
Air guns are not toys. They are dangerous weapons that can kill.
They must be regulated for the protection and safety of our
children.
7139
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week, the heritage minister was wondering why RDI did not cover
an event in which she participated, and which was sponsored by the
Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du
Canada.
The Deputy Prime Minister suggested that RDI did not provide
adequate coverage of issues concerning francophones outside
Quebec. However, the fact is that RDI gives them long periods of
coverage every day. Could it be that the heritage minister does not
watch RDI?
The problem with RDI is not that it does not talk about
francophones outside Quebec. The problem is that hundreds of
French speaking households in English Canada do not get that
channel, because the government agreed to make it an optional
service for cable operators.
The question is: Does this government truly care about
francophones outside Quebec, considering it did not deem
appropriate to give them real access to RDI?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my fall
householder survey is generating hundreds of responses, with 787
so far. I will share the results with the House.
The first question dealt with the Liberal plan for harmonizing the
GST with provincial sales taxes. When asked if they would support
this in Ontario, 64 per cent said no while only 24 per cent said yes.
When asked if tobacco products should be placed under the
Hazardous Products Act to give the government increased power
over advertising and chemical contents, 72 per cent of Simcoe
Centre voters said yes while 21 per cent said no. When asked if the
federal government is justified in spending $20 million a year on
the Canada Information Office, a whopping 90 per cent said no and
only 8 per cent said yes.
The message is clear. The government needs to deal seriously
with the tobacco issue, forget about a GST harmonization tax grab
and stop wasting money on propaganda. When are the Liberals
going to get the message? They just don't get it.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
province of New Brunswick and my riding of Miramichi take great
pride in our leading role in the field of computer technology and
communications.
The premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, together with
the New Brunswick Telephone Company and Fundy Cable have
co-ordinated their efforts to provide services and opportunities for
the people of our province. The New Brunswick Community
College, Miramichi, has received national recognition for its
leadership in developing programs in multimedia technology,
imaging, animation and virtual reality.
There is no secret to New Brunswick's success in attracting
leading edge companies and call centres. NB Tel has digital
equipment and some of the best fibre optics communications
systems in the world. Our province has the economic environment
to pursue and attract industries in the 21st century. I would like to
inform the House that New Brunswick and the Miramichi are
opened for business.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow is the national day of remembrance and action
on violence against women. It is also the seventh anniversary of the
massacre of 14 women at the École Polytechnique in Montreal. On
that occasion, Marc Lepine, a deranged young man without a
criminal record, not a professional criminal, was able to obtain a
semi-automatic rifle and kill these innocent women. He was able to
do this because there were gaps, weaknesses in our gun laws.
(1410)
Parliament has now closed these gaps and tightened the law, but
the provinces of Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are
contesting this law in court, supported by the Conservative and
Reform parties.
This law may not be perfect, but whenever access to guns is
limited, the rate of crime with guns is reduced. The charge that
guns do not kill, people kill, is ludicrous. It is much easier and
effective to kill with a gun.
With more restrictions on guns there would be fewer homicides.
Canadians should send a message to their provincial governments
on this issue.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 1989, 14 young women were killed in
Montreal. Today I wish to reflect on the struggles of all women
affected by violence.
7140
December 6 is Canada's national day of remembrance and
action on violence against women. Violence against women has
serious economic, health and social costs attached to it for
individuals, families and society.
The Government of Canada is committed to working to
eliminate violence against women. Everyone in society must
become more involved, be it in their homes or communities in the
fight against women's inequality. Violence against women is
clearly a direct result of women's inequality in society.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday two members from the other side attempted to
justify the government's status of women portfolio.
The member for Halifax mentioned the department's
commitment to women's health. But at the recent Canada-U.S.
health forum, Canadian breast cancer advocates found themselves
unaware of the conference's objectives and were shocked to
discover their American counterparts had not even been invited.
The member for Halifax also spoke of the role status of women
played at the UN Conference on Women in Beijing. What she did
not mention was Canada's support for the marginalization of many
Canadian women in order to advance its narrow agenda.
The official Canadian facilitating committee report classified the
Vatican, pro-life groups and REAL Woman as fundamentalist
groups and went on to say that: ``Constant criticism of
fundamentalist discourses is a collective responsibility because
they endanger the rights of women all over the world''.
I would like to know if the Secretary of State for the Status of
Women, while standing on Canadian soil in front of Canadian
citizens, including her own constituents, will defend this statement.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
next Saturday, December 7, an extraordinary event will take place
in my constituency, when the highway between Havre-Saint-Pierre
and Natashquan will be officially opened. After several years of
hard work by the offices of both politicians and local
administrators, the communities of Baie-Johan-Beetz, Aquanish,
Pointe-Parent and Natashquan will finally be linked to the rest of
the North American road system.
The poet, songwriter and singer Gilles Vigneault, who made this
small area of our country famous, will honour us with his presence.
Natashquan is now a tourist destination accessible to everyone.
With its breathtaking scenery and the warm hospitality of its
residents, the region is now ready to share its beauty and its
treasures with the rest of the world.
Everyone is welcome.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
December 6 always reminds us of the 14 young women who were
robbed of their future and brutally killed at the Ecole Polytechnique
on this day seven years ago.
[English]
This tragic incident will serve as a constant reminder of the
violence that is inflicted on women. In order to ensure safe homes
and safe streets for all Canadians, and in particular women, the
government has passed important legislation on issues like gun
control, high risk offenders and other amendments to the Criminal
Code.
But we need to do more if we are to honour their memory and
eradicate violence against women.
[Translation]
May their deaths not have been in vain. Let us get to the roots of
the problem of violence against women, first by increasing our
social education efforts and by constantly promoting fundamental
values, like respect and tolerance.
I encourage all my colleagues in this House to light a candle
tomorrow in memory of the young victims of the massacre at the
Ecole Polytechnique.
* * *
(1415 )
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to those 14 young
women who died tragically seven years ago at École Polytechnique
in Montreal.
This day reminds us that we must continue to take action to
eliminate violence against women in all its forms in all of society.
Statistics show that 51 per cent of Canadian women have
experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence
since the age of 16. We must remember that all violence is an
assault on the sanctity of human life. Violence against women not
only violates the body, it robs women of their dignity and scars
their souls.
7141
That is why the government has worked extremely hard in the
past three years to introduce measures that address not only
violence against women but violence against all persons.
Still, there is more work to do and we must all work together, in
government, in communities and in homes across this country to
ensure that women, men and children are truly free from the threat
and fear of violence in Canadian society.
_____________________________________________
7141
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we realized that the Minister of Human
Resources Development excelled in French composition, seemed
to revel in discussing the philosophy of social reforms but had
trouble answering specific questions. He seemed to have a poor
grasp of his subject. Today, since people are interested in
philosophy but also in their immediate future, I want to ask him a
very simple question.
There are people who had weeks of insurable employment in
1996. I would like to ask him how these weeks of insurable
employment, which made them eligible for benefits, will be
converted into hours so they can qualify for benefits as of January
5? On what basis will these weeks be converted? This is a very
simple question. I expect an answer, and easy on the philosophy.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public is also
interested in the quality of a reform, in the spirit behind it, in
modernizing a system that has become obsolete. I am always very
grateful to the Bloc for giving me a chance to talk about this
excellent employment insurance system.
To answer the hon. member's question, this was in the legislation
from the very beginning. In the case of any person who worked a
certain number of weeks during the last 26 weeks of 1996, each
week will be deemed to have been a 35-hour week.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): That took
some doing. Mr. Speaker, I imagine the minister consulted one of
his officials who has a good head on his shoulders, and there are
always a few. However, I have a problem for him, since he is in an
answering mood today.
A person who, for instance, worked eighteen 40-hour weeks
qualifies for benefits, not only under the former legislation, but
also under the legislation that will come into effect. So if a week is
supposed to be worth 35 hours, does this mean that under the new
standards, this person will not be able to receive benefits? I would
appreciate an answer.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reform will encourage this
person to go on working a little longer in order to have the number
of hours required. In the case of a new entry, provided the number
of hours totals 420, that person will be covered or, in the case of
re-entry, eighteen 35-hour weeks will bring him to the 420-hour
threshold.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Things are
getting better all the time, Mr. Speaker. I think we have got the
minister into the habit of consulting his officials. Obviously he had
not done so yesterday. Maybe on our third try, we will get a third
answer.
Yesterday the minister referred to a father in East Montreal who
had three jobs, in each of which he worked a 14-hour week, and
who will now be covered under the new standards.
(1420)
However, I have the following question. Since according to one
of the standards under the new system, someone who quits his job
loses all his privileges, will this father from East Montreal, if he
quits one of his jobs, meaning he would no longer work 42 hours
but 28, qualify for unemployment insurance, and I will let the
minister consult his parliamentary secretary who seems to have all
the answers.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this employment insurance
reform makes it far more attractive to go back to work, compared
with the old system which the opposition is so keen on preserving,
an opposition that voted against coverage for part time workers, an
opposition that voted against modernizing a system to adjust it to
the modern labour market. I think that is entirely unacceptable.
Under the new system, the same presumptions will apply, that is,
someone who quits his job for no valid reason is not insured, but if
someone quits his job for a valid reason, a decision is made on a
case by case basis. We can then determine whether he qualifies for
benefits.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
I would start off by saying that our laughter is not because there
is anything funny. For more than three weeks now we have been
asking questions of the minister and he has been responding like
someone who was not familiar with the issues-and, indeed, he is
not. We are delighted to have played a part, on behalf of all
Canadians and Quebecers, in getting him to consult others.
Can we be sure, then, that the minister will be in agreement with
the recommendations of the employment insurance commission,
7142
which, contrary to what he says, have not been adopted, and are on
the agenda of the employment insurance commission?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this opposition provides me
with one surprise after another. These things are part of the reform
as soon as they are in the act, so I cannot understand why suddenly,
three weeks later, they wake up and notice a subject that has been
very widely covered, as they well know.
On this matter, I can assure you that the minister is totally in
agreement with this interpretation, and we shall be on the workers'
side. Each of the weeks worked in the last 26 weeks of the year
1996 will be deemed to have been 35 hours in length. We are giving
them the benefit of the doubt, taking the workers' side.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here we
are with one surprise after another for, in reality, everyone in the
employment centres is waiting for the decision to be made. What
was set out in the act was for there to be transitional arrangements,
and we have been calling for these for weeks, so there is no reason
to make fun of us.
My question to the minister is this: In these transitional
measures, will someone who has worked more than 35 hours, say
40 hours, in 1996 be credited for 40 hours weekly, or for a
maximum of 35?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the weeks worked in 1996 will
be deemed to have been 35-hour weeks. Starting January 5, 1997,
we start with the new system, which is in the workers' best
interests. It will cover a potential 500,000 additional workers not
covered at present. The hours-based system starts on January 5,
1997, and this is a system the opposition voted against.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister claimed yesterday in question period that the laws
of the land prevent him from releasing documents to Justice
Krever. That is simply not the case. The office of the information
commissioner says that the Canada Evidence Act does not stand in
the Prime Minister's way.
Michael Pitfield, a former clerk of the privy council, says that
the cabinet can release whatever it wants to release.
(1425 )
Perhaps I will ask the Minister of Health. Why is the Prime
Minister choosing not to release these 30 documents that Justice
Krever is asking for?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my understanding that there is a constitutional convention that
a current government does not have access to nor does it release the
cabinet confidences of a previous government. This is a well
established practice and therefore a convention in the Canadian
system of parliamentary government. It is also well established in
other countries with similar systems of parliamentary government.
In that sense what the Prime Minister is talking about is part of
our law. This convention is specifically backed up by section 39 of
the Canada Evidence Act. Therefore what the Prime Minister said
is quite consistent with our system of parliamentary government.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
fine for the minister to hide behind that, but I think the evidence
shows frankly that this is discretionary in that the Prime Minister
can do that if he chooses to do.
This looks weak. This looks like flimsy excuses. It looks like
nothing more than a cover-up. There are people dying because of
this and we need to get to the bottom of it. The only thing that
stands in the way of Krever's quest for truth is the Prime Minister
and the Prime Minister alone. He has the power to release the
documents. He has the power to explain why legislation was
shelved under the leadership of Mr. Turner and Mr. Mulroney in
1984.
Again, what is this Prime Minister trying to hide? Why will he
not simply do the right thing and the honourable thing and let these
documents be released to Justice Krever so he can do his work and
get to the bottom of this?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I categorically reject the unwarranted assertion that the Prime
Minister is hiding something that he should be releasing. I want to
further say, and I can be corrected if I am wrong, that the Deputy
Prime Minister said she had been informed that none of the
documents sought by Mr. Justice Krever were produced during the
government of the Right Hon. John Turner.
The Prime Minister is in fact doing the right thing. He is
following and acceding to the constitutional convention which is
part of our parliamentary government that a current government
does not have access to the confidences of a previous government
nor does it release such confidences.
The hon. member, as in so many other instances where she has
been wrong, is wrong on this one.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
easy for the minister to say that he categorically rejects my
argument here, but frankly there are thousands of people in this
country who have been infected with hepatitis C or have died from
7143
AIDS who categorically reject this kind of nonsense from this
government.
Justice Krever and the victims of tainted blood do not have time
for the Prime Minister and this minister to keep waffling on this
issue. Michael Pitfield, a former clerk of the privy council, said:
``The government that wants to is the government that can''.
For some unknown reason, the Prime Minister and his
government are lacking the political will to help these 15,000
victims discover why the blood supply and the federal government
have failed them for years and years.
I ask the minister once again, let us not play games here. This is
far larger than a political or a partisan issue. Will the government
release the documents to Justice Krever so that this full inquiry is
something more than a sham? Let us get to the bottom of it. Release
the documents.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am advised that the only exception to the convention I have
mentioned is where specific criminal charges have actually been
laid against a minister or a former minister.
I want to further say that it is my understanding that Mr. Justice
Krever has other means to get at the information by summoning
before him previous ministers.
Miss Grey: They refuse to go.
Mr. Gray: The hon. member says previous ministers refuse to
go. I am advised that Mr. Justice Krever has the power of subpoena
and if he wishes to use it then he is in a position to question former
ministers. The only thing wrong here is my hon. friend's attempt to
exploit this tragic issue in a way which is not founded on
convention or the facts.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on Tuesday, in response to a question on the possibility of
a family trust being transferred abroad without payment of capital
gains tax and without interest on tax owing, the Minister of Finance
declared in the House, and I quote: ``The Bloc Quebecois critic is
wrong. As soon as taxes are due they have to be paid. If they are not
paid, interest will be charged''.
(1430)
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the minister
still hold to his Tuesday version of the facts, that a millionaire
transferring a family trust abroad must pay taxes to Revenue
Canada and interest owing on unpaid taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
repeat what I said last week. When taxes are due, they must be
paid. If, for one reason or another, a tax due is not paid and the tax
is duly levied, interest accumulates.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we have a problem. We have a Minister of Human
Resources who does not know his business, a Deputy Prime
Minister brandishing flags at all and sundry and a Minister of
Finance who is uninformed about the tax system he claims to
manage.
In the technical document he tabled with his ways and means
motion on October 2, he said that when a family trust is transferred
abroad, and I quote: ``The person transferring must provide
Revenue Canada with a guarantee of future payment without
interest costs''.
He says there are interest costs, and his document says there are
none. We just do not understand this government any more.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately it is the member opposite who does not understand
the tax system.
The change we made to the system means that, when someone
leaves the country, it is quite likely the tax is not due, since the item
in question was never sold; so there is no capital gains tax. We want
to be sure that, when the item or shares are sold, the tax will be paid
by someone who is now a non-resident. So we insist on a
debenture.
Unfortunately, the situation is clear enough for the member to
perhaps have some difficulty understanding it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister has said very clearly that no documents that are
being hidden from the Krever commission came from the
administration of John Turner. That means she knows, the Prime
Minister knows and the cabinet knows where those documents
came from.
I would like to ask the solicitor general, very plainly, could he
state for this House that these documents did not come from the
administration of Pierre Elliott Trudeau?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was simply repeating to the House my recollection of what the
Deputy Prime Minister had said as to what she had been informed
by the clerk of the privy council. I have no further information that
I can convey to the hon. member.
7144
If he would like to specifically indicate what documents he is
talking about, if he has any such knowledge, I will see if I can
obtain further information on a proper basis for him.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the excuses
continue.
It is interesting that the cabinet has called these documents draft
regulations, every one of them. It is also interesting that the draft
regulations were given to Krever. In fact, I happen to have those
draft regulations with me today.
I ask again, since these regulations are not draft regulations that
they are hiding, exactly what documents are they? I ask again, did
they come from the administration of Pierre Elliott Trudeau?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I see no way to answer my hon. friend's question unless he
precisely identifies the documents he is talking about. If he is
talking about documents of which he has a copy, which he said Mr.
Justice Krever already has, why is he wasting the time of the House
asking his question?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Industry.
We have learned that a record number of people in Canada and in
Quebec are experiencing financial difficulties and are being forced
to dip into their registered retirement savings plans. At the same
time, banks and major department stores are charging exorbitant
interest rates on their credit cards and the government is refusing to
assume its responsibilities with respect to this issue of public
concern.
Does the Minister of Industry realize that the low interest rate
cards being touted by the secretary of state the day before yesterday
are available only to clients who are well off financially, and that it
is those in the middle class who are paying for others through the
elevated rates still in effect on regular cards?
(1435)
[English]
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, the whole matter of credit cards is one of the
market dealing with matters. When there are lower interest rate
cards which are available to some, others can be cut out who may
want cards and who are eligible now for the higher rates.
It is a matter of the marketplace taking care of the situation as it
exists at the present time.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, an Industry
Canada report that came out last September stated that interest
rates charged credit card holders are still too high, given the fall in
the Bank of Canada rate. The Minister of Industry himself said at
that time, and I quote: ``The president of the Bankers' Association
does not perhaps understand that consumers are fed up''.
How can the Minister of Industry take the completely
unacceptable approach of doing nothing, while interest rates are
dropping everywhere but on credit cards? Why does the minister
not join the coalition of 150 MPs who are trying to improve the
situation for the average member of the public?
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the minister has always
taken the position that he encourages banks to reduce credit card
interest rates. In dealing with a group who had signed the requests,
he was certainly supportive of the group in dealing with the high
interest rates that are being referred to.
Again, there must be encouragement by the public to the banks
to reduce the rates. This can be done in many different ways. One
way is by not utilizing the cards and another way is by applying for
the lower interest rate cards.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today six working people pay taxes to support one
pensioner. Twenty years from now there will be only three. Their
CPP taxes will be double and on top of that they will have to pay
interest on the $600 billion debt the Liberals are leaving them.
Reform of CPP must come soon to prevent serious
intergenerational conflicts.
Will the minister break the log jam preventing agreement with
the provinces on CPP by agreeing to match increases on CPP
premiums with long overdue decreases in EI premiums?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no linkage between CPP premiums and EI premiums any
more than there is between CPP premiums and other payroll taxes
such as imposed by the provinces, workers compensation, health or
education levies. In fact, each has to stand on its own feet.
The member's question is very pertinent. One would really hope
that the joint stewardship of the CPP between the federal
government and the provincial and territorial governments will
lead all
7145
parties to deal with the immediate need for financial stability of the
plan.
I am, I must say, quite optimistic that we will arrive at a solution.
I would prefer to have done it by January 1. We may go beyond that
but I believe there is goodwill on all sides to arrive at a solution.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a poll confirmed what financial institutions have known
for some time. Canadians are cutting back on their RRSP
contributions. They just do not have the money after the Liberal
policies reduced after tax family income by $3,000 on average.
Will the minister help Canadians by giving them tax relief in the
next budget, financing it by more spending reductions and giving
Canadians the smaller federal government they want?
(1440 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member knows, we have brought in selective tax benefits
for Canadians in all of our budgets and we intend to continue in that
vein.
The hon. member put his finger on it when he said that if there
are going to be further tax cuts they will have to be accompanied by
cuts in social spending. I congratulate the Reform Party for at least
having outlined those areas where it believes ongoing cuts in
spending should be made. I encourage the Reform Party to speak to
their other extreme right wing cousins, those in the Conservative
Party, and ask them to outline where they would make the cuts.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the government House leader.
Amendments to the Canada Elections Act proposed by the
government allow the chief electoral officer to use only the Quebec
civil register and Quebec driver's licence information to establish
the list of electors for the next federal general election.
In view of the representations made by the official opposition as
well as by the Quebec government and Quebec's chief electoral
officer, is the minister now ready to reconsider his position and to
allow the use of the permanent list of electors established by the
Quebec government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would be happy to examine the representations made by Quebec's
chief electoral officer, but the bill is now being considered in the
Senate. Therefore, I cannot give a more detailed answer at this
time.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government has a choice: since it controls at least half of the other
place, it could act immediately by having Bill C-63 amended, or it
could do so in this House.
Since we know that taxpayers in Quebec and Canada would save
at least $15 million if Elections Canada used Quebec's permanent
list of electors, why are the government and Elections Canada still
refusing to use that list?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think this House passed an amendment regarding the use of
Quebec's and other provinces' lists of electors.
As I just said, the bill is in the other place. I do not think it would
be wise for me to comment on what goes on in the other place.
Again, I will consider the representations made by my hon. friend
and by Quebec's chief electoral officer.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
It was reported in 1994 that radioactive waste dumped nearly 50
years ago at the Chalk River nuclear site is polluting local
vegetation, swamps, lakes and wildlife. This waste is now seeping
into the Ottawa River and is posing a possible health risk to area
residents.
What is the minister doing to stop this leakage immediately and
to ensure the future safety of our natural resources and human
health?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I want to reassure the hon. member and those
who live in Chalk River and along the Ottawa River in relation to
the story that appeared today in the Ottawa Citizen, the leak in
question was reported to the AECB some number of years ago.
Since that time the AECB has been monitoring the situation and
taking whatever steps that have been necessary.
I want to reassure the member that the atomic energy board has
stated that the leak in question presents no threat to the public or to
the public health. The level of contamination is well below limits
set by the AECB in relation to health and safety.
I also want to reassure members of the House that this leak is not
from radioactive waste streams. The leak comes from water from
7146
the bays in which the used fuel from the reactors is stored. It is
important to reassure people that we are not talking about
radioactive waste in this context.
* * *
(1445 )
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I must
say in response to the previous question to the finance minister that
an extremist is anyone who happens to be winning an argument
with the Liberals.
The Certified General Accountants have produced a study that
confirms what Reformers have been saying all along, that lower
taxes create jobs, real permanent jobs, not the McJobs that the
infrastructure program allegedly created. The CGA say a $4 billion
personal income tax will create 108,000 new jobs by the year 2001.
Given the overwhelming evidence that lower taxes create jobs,
will the finance minister agree to start lowering taxes so that
Canadians can have those jobs that they really do deserve?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
under those circumstances it is quite clear that I will have to change
my definition of an extremist.
Whether it be a $4 billion tax cut or whether it be as the Reform
has suggested a $15 billion to $20 billion tax cut, the fact is that one
has to pay for it. The issue is not whether one would like to see a
tax cut. There is nobody in this House who would not like to see a
tax cut. The question is: What programs would have to be cut,
would have to be given up, in order to pay for that tax cut?
The government is not prepared to see health care impaired. The
government is not prepared to see old age pensions impaired. This
government is going to stand behind the basic social fabric of the
nation and under those circumstances, we will stay the course.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fact
is that Reform would put more money into health care. We would
fix the programs that the government has destroyed, the $7.2
billion in cuts to transfers. Reformers believe by the way that real
compassion is not putting money into welfare; it is getting more
people off welfare.
The CGA says the 20 per cent reduction in UI taxes would create
68,000 jobs by the year 2001. As a matter of fact, the Reform plan
calls for a 28 per cent cut in UI premiums. Imagine how many more
jobs that would create. Today the Liberals on the finance
committee are saying that UI taxes cannot be lowered. Will the
finance minister ignore the recommendation of the finance
committee and lower payroll taxes to create the jobs that Canadians
so desperately want?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
dealing with the last part of the member's question, I would like to
thank all members of the finance committee for the report which
came out today. I say to the chairman and the members who wrote
the majority report, it appears to be a very good document, very
constructive and worthwhile.
[Translation]
Although I have not had the opportunity to read the minority
reports in full, I would like to mention to the Bloc finance critic
that-
[English]
I would like to thank the financial critics from the Reform Party.
I am sure the work they have done will be of the same quality as in
the past.
The hon. member said that the Reform Party does not intend to
cut health transfers. Let me simply-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We will call you offside for using a prop. The hon.
member for Bourassa.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the immigration minister.
At its last convention, the Liberal Party of Canada passed a
resolution calling for the lowering or the outright elimination of the
$975 head tax immigrants must pay when they apply for residence
in Canada. This tax which is particularly outrageous, unfair and
discriminatory for refugees comes on top of the $500 processing
fee for each application.
(1450)
Can the minister tell us whether she intends to comply with the
request put by members of her party and what exactly she is
considering doing in response to their demand?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe I have a better
knowledge of my party's resolutions than the member for
Bourassa. I was at the convention when this resolution was passed.
Clearly, my department will follow through with it.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I believe the
minister is not a loyal member of the Liberal Party since she has no
intention of complying with her party's resolutions.
The vast majority of people working for agencies involved with
assisting immigrants, labour unions, a number of community
groups, the Bloc Quebecois and now members of her own party are
asking her to change the rules. What more does the minister need to
take action?
7147
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member for
Bourassa who is questioning my loyalty to my party to come and
join our ranks. The least we can say is that the House is not
unanimous on this issue.
I say again that we are going to look into it very seriously.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Liberals
and airports are like drinking and driving: they should not be mixed
and if they are, the consequences can be horrendous.
First Mirabel, now Pearson. Mirabel cost taxpayers billions.
Unbelievably we are heading in the same direction with Pearson.
Taxpayers may have to pay $662 million in compensation to the
former developers of Pearson. The government has been found at
fault but has been stalling settlement since February.
Will the government commit to settling with the Pearson
Development Corporation before the next election so the voters
will have a clear picture of this whole sorry mess?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the transfer of Pearson to the local authority, the Greater
Toronto Airport Authority, took place on December 2 and was very
successful. I am delighted that we now have Pearson in the hands of
local people from the greater Toronto area who represent all facets
of the municipalities and the people involved in operating the
airport and using it. They will be able to exploit all the advantages
for Pearson.
We want Pearson to be the premier airport to the east of the
Mississippi, the central point for connections from Europe and that
entire region of North America. To achieve this, approximately $2
billion of expenditures and upgrading at Pearson airport are needed
over the next few years. I am confident that the new administration
we have put in place at Pearson and the transfer of the airport to
that new authority will result in Pearson taking its rightful place as
the gateway to Europe for all that part of North America.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I never did
find out about the $662 million.
Since the new corporation was introduced, the new Pearson
airport authority has indicated that it will cost $2.5 billion to redo
Pearson. It has ruled out user fees to pay for that. It claims that the
$2.5 billion can be raised solely from bonds, increased volume,
and-wait for it-restaurant fees.
Has the government studied the Pearson authority financial
plan? Will it assure this House that the taxpayers will not pay one
cent for the renovations at Pearson airport?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member started off by making references to
drinking. When he talks about $662 million to be paid by the
people of Canada to buy out mythical profits of a Tory corporation,
perhaps he is in the area where something is affecting his judgment.
(1455 )
Let me now go to the issue of fees at airports. Vancouver
International Airport, our newest airport, is occupying the same
relative position for Asia which I hope Pearson will be in for
Europe. Forty-two per cent of the revenues of that airport come
from the stores and restaurants which are operating on airport
property. It is that which provides a great impetus and money so
that it is not necessary to have large increases in landing fees.
I admit to the hon. member that in Vancouver the local authority
in its wisdom saw the need to put on a departure tax which ranges
from $5 to $15. The local authority in Toronto in its wisdom is
choosing a different financial formula. That is what I mean by
using local people's knowledge and initiative and local people's
entrepreneurship to make the local decisions which suit local
conditions.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It
concerns the recent trade agreement with Chile.
Members of the aquaculture industry are concerned that a
subsequent NAFTA agreement will allow low cost Chilean
aquaculture salmon products into Canada and the U.S. due to
Chile's low hourly wages and virtually no environmental standards
requirements.
Can the minister ensure Canada's aquaculture industry a level
playing field in Canada's agreement with Chile and in any
subsequent NAFTA agreements?
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the
member's question, I wish to say that there is no history of
dumping measures between Canada and Chile. We are not aware of
any evidence of the dumping of salmon by Chile into Canada. As
the member knows, Canadian imports of salmon have been duty
free for a number of years.
I wish to assure the member that if there is evidence of dumping
we will use the appropriate mechanisms in the agreement to seek a
proper remedy, up to and including countervail duties which are
still permitted under the agreement.
7148
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
One week after it was announced that a consensus had been
reached among 20 countries on the disputed food drop mission over
eastern Zaire, the multinational force has not been given the green
light yet to help some 300,000 refugees who are still stuck in that
area.
We were also informed this morning that a political meeting
would be held this weekend to set the date for the operation to
begin.
Since the situation over there is not getting any better with the
new offensive by the rebels and the incursions of the Ugandan
Army into the Zairian territory, which makes the dispatching of
assistance even more tricky, what does the minister now intend to
do to ensure that the humanitarian assistance can be delivered
efficiently?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, we must distinguish between the two aspects of
the problem: the humanitarian dimension and the presence of
serious political turbulence in the area.
The mandate of the multilateral forces is limited to delivering
humanitarian assistance and, as you know, we have taken several
initiatives. General Baril has developed an action plan with the
help of our partners. We have supported the refugees.
Yesterday, I attended a meeting with Sadako Ogata, the High
Commissioner for Refugees. We discussed how the multilateral
forces and the partners could work together with the United
Nations and other organizations to ensure the refugees' safety.
If is very important to ensure now that the mandate is still to
protect the refugees, but we must also encourage the movement of
refugees in order to solve the problem.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, at the Liberal convention in October the Minister of
Health said that the problems with our health care system have
nothing to do with money and that better management is the
answer.
(1500 )
In British Columbia hospitals, patients are being fed by
volunteers because of cuts to nursing staff. Sick patients are being
dumped out to home care and home care budgets are frozen.
We are going to put in $4 billion to restore health care funding.
What is the minister going to do to ensure that these essential
health care services will be funded properly?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has made reference to statements I made at a
convention of our party. I wish to share with the hon. member some
statements: ``Saskatchewan has a stronger health system today than
it did four years ago. The provincial health spending has stabilized
and better health services are now being provided''. This was from
the provincial minister of health in Saskatchewan.
In the province of Quebec, Mr. Rochon said on May 28, 1996 in
the Medical Post: ``Less money can be devoted to health care while
maintaining the same level of population health''. Dr. Rochon set a
target of 8.5 per cent of gross domestic product as the level that
Quebec's health care expenditures should not exceed. ``We can
devote less money to that sector while maintaining accessibility of
care in the level of the health of the population''.
These are provincial ministers of health who have the direct
responsibility to deliver health care. It is not the Reform Party that
should stand in this House and condemn provincial governments
for the hard work they are trying to do to protect and enhance the
health of Canadians. Shame on the Reform Party.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I am
appealing to the Secretary of State for Veterans to replace two
memorial cross medals received posthumously during the second
world war. The original medals were stolen in 1988 and the Will
family in my riding is seeking to replace them.
I ask the Secretary of State for Veterans to demonstrate
compassion for this family, to do the right thing and replace these
medals given in recognition for two brothers who died on the
European front in World War II. Will he do so?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State
(Veterans)(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to get the details from the hon. member. If it
is possible, I will see that the medals are returned to the family.
7149
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question relates to the plight of Canadian Airlines.
Yesterday the Royal Bank announced record profits of close to
$1.5 billion, the largest profit of any corporation in Canadian
corporate history. The Royal Bank is also Canadian Airlines' lead
banker. It has literally made tens of millions of dollars from
Canadian Airlines.
Why are the workers at Canadian now being asked to kick in $15
to $20 a week? Can the government indicate what sacrifices the
Royal Bank of Canada is making? What is the Royal Bank of
Canada's contribution to the survival plans? Does he not believe
the Royal Bank and other bankers and lenders have a social
responsibility to ensure the viability of Canadian Airlines?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the difficulty of restructuring Canadian Airlines and
turning it from a corporation which has had chronic losses year
after year, totally $1.3 billion over the last decade, to a profitable
corporation in the black requires corporate restructuring.
It also requires of course the creditors, including the Royal Bank,
to take their share of that restructuring. It also requires to get the
credibility of the corporation in front of those corporate creditors to
have all in the Canadian family showing their willingness and
determination to make the restructuring work.
That is why last week I went to Vancouver with two other
governments, the Government of Alberta and the Government of
British Columbia, with five unions and the company. We were
working together to get to a common front to show that we were
determined to allow restructuring to work.
Now that we have-
The Speaker: That concludes question period.
* * *
(1505 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, I draw to your attention the presence
in our gallery of His Excellency, Eduardo Stein, Minister of
Foreign Affairs, the Republic of Guatemala.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, could the government tell us what is on its legislative
agenda for the coming week?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, tomorrow and Monday, if necessary, we will continue the
second reading debate of Bill C-70, the sales tax harmonization
bill. When this is concluded we will call Bill C-60, the food
inspection legislation, followed by Bill C-23, the nuclear safety
bill.
On Tuesday we plan to have the first day of the prebudget debate
during normal sitting hours of the House. But discussions are
taking place to permit a special debate in the evening on the United
Nations Declaration of Human Rights on what I believe is its 50th
anniversary.
The remainder of the week will be taken up by the second day of
the prebudget debate and the legislation I have already mentioned.
If there is an opportunity to consider other matters, we will discuss
the agenda on the other side of the House. This concludes my
weekly statement of government business.
* * *
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice
of ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the
Income Tax Application Rules and another act related to the
Income Tax Act. I am also tabling explanatory notes.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of
the motion.
_____________________________________________
7149
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-70,
an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and
Reduction Account Act and related Acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
7150
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-70
which deals with the GST harmonization in Atlantic Canada. The
word harmonization reminds me of the song ``I said it but I didn't
really mean it'', a very famous song.
It also gives me an opportunity to remind the Liberals in the
House and, most important, their constituents, the Canadian
taxpayers, of what was said on the campaign trail about the GST by
the very Liberals who are sitting as the government today.
This is a little game called recall. First, let us recall the words of
the Prime Minister when he was a candidate for the Liberal Party.
He said: ``We hate it and we will kill it''. He did not say: ``We hate
it and we will harmonize it''.
The Minister of Finance when he was campaigning as a Liberal
candidate said: ``I would abolish the GST''. Pay careful attention to
the word abolish. That means to get rid of, to lose sight of, to bury.
That does not sound anything like: ``I would harmonize the GST''.
Our very own minister of defence said when he was a candidate:
``The GST is a regressive tax. It has to be scrapped and, by golly, if
we are elected to government, we will scrap it''.
(1510)
All across this country as the campaign went on Liberal
candidate after Liberal candidate knocked on doors, spoke at public
meetings and said in unison: ``We will kill the GST. The Liberal
Party will kill the GST if we become government in the next
election''. That is what they said. Everyone heard it. I was on radio
shows with Liberal candidates and they could not wait to say ``we
will kill the GST''.
It is sort of fun to go back in time and reminisce about what
happened in the 1993 election. But there is a very serious part to all
this. The bottom line is that the Liberal candidates in the 1993
election, prior to it, deliberately misled the Canadian people about
what they were going to do with the GST. They deliberately misled
the Canadian people.
The Speaker: I am sorry, I was otherwise disposed. Did the hon.
member actually say ``deliberately misled''? Did I misunderstand
that?
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the Liberal
candidates prior to the 1993 election when they went campaigning
and they were saying they would kill the GST, they would scrap or
abolish it. That is a deliberate misrepresentation.
The Speaker: I wanted to make sure that I heard what I hoped I
had not heard, but I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the
words ``deliberately misled'', because that is just not
parliamentary. Would the hon. member do that?
Mr. Harris: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I have a great deal of
respect for the Chair.
During the 1993 election the Liberal candidates went coast to
coast and they mis-
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I listened to the
recent comments made by the member from the Reform Party. I
can tell you that he is not accurate and not factual with his
statement and by so doing-
The Speaker: Let us get back to debate now. The hon. member
for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, in venue after venue in the 1993
election the Liberal candidates across the country told the Canadian
voters that they would scrap, kill, abolish the GST. That is the fact.
Taxpayers across this country are going to remember because we
are going to keep reminding them that they are going to pay for this
Liberal promise, this yet another Liberal broken promise. They are
going to pay for this harmonization scam of the Liberals that will
hurt every Canadian taxpayer because to get the Atlantic Canada
provinces, the ones that agreed to harmonization, the Liberals will
give the Atlantic Canada provinces a cash payment to induce them
to come on to this scheme.
This payment to Atlantic Canada provinces, the ones that have
joined on, that have been duped into it by the Liberal Party, is going
to amount to about $1 billion a year just to satisfy the whims of this
Liberal government to make it look not quite so bad. They can once
again try to fool the Canadian people but they will not get away
with it.
Taxpayers in every other region of Canada will be offering tax
relief to Canadians in just a few provinces, the provinces that have
been coerced into joining this GST harmonization plan.
Canadians in certain regions of the country I do not think should
be asked to subsidize a tax cut for maritime provinces that came in
on this plan because of this Liberal harmonization scam. But the
Liberals are using $1 billion from taxpayers to buy a buried GST in
Atlantic Canada so that they can say they kept their election
promise. That simply is not going to sell to the Canadian people.
This is truly despicable and Canadians will not be hoodwinked by
this Liberal trickery, this Liberal sleight of hand.
(1515)
Atlantic Canadians will also suffer because while they may pay a
lower tax rate in this harmonization scam, they will pay taxes on a
larger range of goods and services. You do not get something for
nothing, particularly when a Liberal government is running the
country. If people think they are actually getting something from
this government, they should keep their hands on their wallets and
watch their back pockets. The government will not give you what it
has not first taken away from you.
7151
The harmonized tax will apply to children
clothing-wonderful-books, hair cuts, funeral services, heating
oil, home renovations, gasoline and new homes. New home prices
will rise by about 5.5 per cent and municipalities will be forced
to raise their property taxes.
It will cause an increase in gas taxes that will cost Atlantic
Canadians as much as $100 million a year. It will cost them more to
heat their homes and funerals will cost more. The Liberals have
even managed to make dying more expensive. When will the
Liberals begin taxing births? That way they could get you coming
and going. We should talk to the Minister of Finance and the
revenue minister about this.
In all, this harmonization package is a bad deal for Atlantic
Canadians and the maritime provinces generally. It is a bad deal for
Canadians. Let us see what some of the other provinces said about
this Liberal harmonization package which the Liberals are peddling
as this huge great deal.
Ontario said that the plan would cost its consumers between $2
billion and $3 billion extra a year if the harmonized tax were
implemented in Ontario. Ontario's premier said that giving the
subsidization package to the maritimes represented nothing more
than a bribe. That was his word, not mine.
Alberta's premier, who also runs a good fiscally responsible
province, said that the compensation component was a bribe put
forward to get the Liberal premiers in Atlantic Canada to sign on to
the deal.
It will surprise the Liberals that Saskatchewan's minister of
finance said that the plan would mean a massive tax shift on to the
province's consumers. Who said NDP finance ministers do not
know what is going on? Congratulations to Saskatchewan's finance
minister.
Manitoba also said that the cost to consumers would be too high
and that it would not sign on to it.
This deal will not only hurt consumers, it will hurt business in
Atlantic Canada. Three major retailers have said that their net
annual retail deficit will total $27 million once this plan is
implemented. The Retail Council of Canada knows what it is
talking about. It stated that the harmonized tax will cost retailers
$100 million a year.
We are talking about a massive extra consumer tax. We are
talking about deception. I urge Liberal members who have integrity
to stand up in this House, stand behind their campaign promises
and say no to this deception.
The Speaker: The member is quite agile on that tightrope.
Please do not push your Speaker too far.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will start where the previous speaker left off, with election
promises. I remember very well what I said to my constituents
during the election campaign.
(1520 )
First, one cannot get rid of $16 billion of revenue without adding
$16 billion to your annual deficit, and taking $16 billion away from
what needs to be spent on other things that are important to
Canadians.
I made it clear to my constituents during the election that
replacing the GST meant replacing the revenue in some other way.
That is quite consistent with the promise the Liberal Party made
that it would replace the GST with a system of taxation that
generated equivalent revenues, that was fairer to consumers and
small business, that minimized disruption to small business and
that promotes federal and provincial co-operation and
harmonization.
There is no way that any of us on this side of the House will
pretend that what we have in front of us today with the harmonized
sales tax is a complete fulfilment of that. We know it is not.
However, it is a first step to a national harmonized sales tax which
would be significantly more efficient, fairer to consumers and a
cost saving to businesses and taxpayers. It would significantly
reduce costs of administration.
I answered a lot of questions about the GST during the election
campaign. First, was it not supposed to help bring down the debt
and the deficit? No, it was intended to be revenue neutral but in fact
it lost $3 billion a year in its first year of operation. In effect, it
added $3 billion to the deficit in its first year and it has continued to
be a grossly inefficient tax to administer and to collect both for
government and for the businesses who do the collection.
I explained to people during the last election campaign that the
GST had replaced the manufacturers' sales tax which was
collecting $20 billion and netting $18 billion. It was replaced by
the GST which was collecting over $33 billion and netting only $15
billion, a net loss of $3 billion in revenue but a 50 per cent increase
in the amount we were actually collecting from consumers. There
are clearly inefficiencies in the GST.
The very first commitment made by the government as soon as
Parliament resumed was to task the Standing Committee on
Finance with reviewing all possible means of replacing the GST.
The committee did that. It held months of hearings, it heard from
close to 100 witnesses and received many more briefs from right
across the country. It heard the views of Canadians. I believe it
looked at over 24 options on how to generate similar revenue and
try to meet the other criteria of being more fair, more efficient and
promoting federal-provincial co-operation.
Both the finance committee in an all-party report and the Reform
Party endorsed the idea of a national harmonized sales tax as the
best answer to the problems of the GST and that is what the bill
7152
before us today does. It starts the process of implementing that for
three of the provinces.
The government did commit to try to bring in a tax that
minimized disruption to small business. I want to take a few
minutes to talk about some of the concerns that businesses in
Atlantic Canada have about the implementation of the harmonized
tax and how they have been addressed. I believe this is a pattern
that if adopted across the country would help business, would help
consumers and would reduce the costs of government.
Let me remind people that we are talking about one tax
administration instead of two, one set of books for businesses to
keep instead of two, one point of paying the sales tax instead of, as
they now have in the provinces, at many points throughout the
production process.
Let me focus on how it is being implemented at the cash register
because Canadians, including businesses, have told us again and
again that they want to know the price before they get to the cash
register.
(1525 )
How many of us have talked to small business people in our
ridings who have said: ``My consumers come to the cash register,
they see the total price and they leave the goods there and walk
away''. Under the new system people will know the price of the
good when they see it on the shelf. It will be the same price they
will pay at the cash register.
Potentially that could cause problems for businesses which may
receive pre-priced goods or which may already have pre-priced
goods in their shops. The legislation allows them to simply indicate
on the shelf what the tax inclusive price will be. Their customers
will know, but those stores will not have to absorb the cost of
re-ticketing and re-costing every item on the shelf.
[Translation]
The government is doing all it can to minimize the disruptive
effects of these measures. Businesses will have to adapt their
operations, but we have prepared rules that will minimize problems
for businesses and meet the needs of consumers.
[English]
Let me highlight some of the initiatives with respect to tax
included pricing.
Business will be able to include two prices on pre-priced goods,
one showing the HST inclusive price in harmonized provinces and
the other indicating the price elsewhere, which may have been put
on by the manufacturer when the goods were shipped. They will be
able to re-ticket items to show tax inclusive prices in harmonized
provinces. Magazines are a good example of how rules are being
developed to minimize business disruption. Magazines are
different than other pre-priced goods due to their time sensitive
nature, high volume and rapid turnover.
The new pricing requirements are consistent with the pricing
practices that businesses need to continue to operate with minimum
disruption and efficiency.
The provincial governments have obtained a point of sale rebate
for the provincial component of the HST on books. The price of
books, used or new, will not rise as a result of the HST.
Administrators will work closely with business to ensure that tax
inclusive pricing is implemented smoothly, with minimal
disruption to normal operation. We believe that businesses will
conform to the flexible rules so consumers can know the full price
of their purchase in advance. Where businesses are trying to
conform, they can certainly expect full co-operation and assistance.
Receipts and invoices will disclose either the amount of tax paid
or the rate at which the tax has been charged. We will continue, as
this is implemented, to work with retailers and businesses to ensure
the new tax inclusive pricing system works effectively and
efficiently.
I have listened to the speeches of other members of the House. I
would ask the members of the Reform Party to go back and review
their comments at the time the finance committee recommended
the harmonized tax. They endorsed it fully at that time. I would
never question the motives of other members of this House, but one
has to wonder whether their position now that reality is in front of
them does not have more to do with politics than good taxation
policy.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it funny the
way things change over time. Today, the Liberals are being quite
touchy. Reform members are telling them that during the 1993
election campaign, they openly condemned the GST. Liberals are
now raising questions of privilege and using every tactic in the
book, suggesting it is unparliamentary to remind them that they
condemned the GST during the election campaign.
But we have seen a minister in this House, the Deputy Prime
Minister at that, who was forced to resign or felt she had to resign
because she had stated that if the GST was not abolished, she would
resign.
(1530)
She did resign, and she was re-elected. It is as if I, a sovereignist
member, said: ``If Quebec does not secede some day, I will get
re-elected as a Liberal member''. God forbid. It would be
unthinkable. If I did that, you would say I was dishonest. I do not
mean to apply this word to my colleagues. I simply want to remind
you that the Deputy Prime Minister said during the election
campaign: ``If this tax is not abolished, I will resign''.
7153
During the 1993 election campaign, the Prime Minister said:
``We will scrap the GST''. Then, on May 2, 1994, he said: ``We
hate this tax, and we will get rid of it''.
The bill before us today is even more underhanded than the
scheming of those who claimed they would abolish it. Not only are
they keeping it and pushing it in the western provinces, they are
redeeming themselves for the next election by harmonizing it in the
maritimes.
The hon. member for Beauséjour is puffing up his chest, but he
was not so proud, not so long ago, when the people in his riding
were angry. I even saw on television someone roll up his sleeves
and invite him to step outside the assembly hall. He was not puffing
up his chest then as he is doing now. He let that guy speak, I am
telling you, I saw it on television.
But if we dig a little deeper, we see that this government is trying
to buy back the maritimes after closing some military bases there.
That decision was not very well received. Now, they are giving
them a present valued at $920 million for a start. That is to buy the
coming election, to try to buy relative peace, because the people
there nonetheless understand to a large extent that the government
is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. This gift is a sort of Trojan
horse, but for many people, it is something that seems, for the
moment, acceptable.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary who just spoke. She
presented the GST as something completely harmless; she said it
was simply replacing the old manufacturers' sales tax. Yet they did
call it the goods and services tax, since it not only replaced the old
9 per cent federal manufacturers' tax but extended it to other
economic sectors that had not been affected until then. The new tax
now applied to legal services, for example, or to any other kind of
service for that matter.
That is probably why, acting in good faith that proved
short-lived, the Prime Minister, then leader of the official
opposition, rose up against this tax. He expressed outrage in public,
as he did in his red book and during the 1993 election campaign.
This famous tax shows that the government in place, just like its
predecessors-and it is a Liberal government that was responsible
for the first deficit in our history-claims that cutting the heart vein
just before the blood gets to the heart is good for the taxpayer and
for all aspects of our economy and allow the patient to live longer.
In so doing, the government is revealing its inability to find other
ways of collecting taxes and generating government revenue,
which is disastrous. It is tragic.
Mr. Robichaud: Oh, oh!
Mr. Lebel: I would invite the member for Beauséjour to breathe
through the nose. I do not know who will take over his riding after
the next election, but he may have to let it go given the
performance of his party over the past three years.
The member for Beauséjour should stop shouting at the official
opposition, his peers who still live on Canadian soil after all, and
are looking for ways to improve the taxation system, increase
public revenues without choking people to death. I could very well
make some suggestions.
(1535)
I will offer one suggestion, if he is considerate enough to listen
to me; the idea just came to me.
Take the example of a worker. First, 57 or 58 per cent of his
paycheque is deducted at source. On his paycheque stub he can see
the word ``net''. What it means is that his paycheque is trimmed
down to the minimum, because there is not much left. He then goes
home with the 42 or 43 per cent that is left, but he is not out of the
woods yet. The government thinks, dreams, racks its brains and
says: ``How could we grab most of the 43 cents on every dollar
earned that actually he brings home?'' It thinks about all kinds of
things and talks about harmonization, but it never thought that,
because of the economic multiplier, the less money people have,
the less they will contribute to making the economy work, the less
they will invest in our society and the more this economic
multiplier will tend to move toward zero, towards nil.
Then, the government ponders and finds that it is not getting
enough revenues. It must trap people again, somewhere else. That
is the Liberal philosophy.
I will give an example. If it were willing, one day, to see things
differently. We are all taxpayers and, at some point, we have to
paint the interior of our house. What do we do? On a nice Saturday,
we go out and buy gallons of paint, two rollers and one pole. With
our wife and children, we do the painting ourselves. It takes one
weekend. This has cost us $300 or $400 in paint and we have saved
money on a job that would have cost $800 in total.
If the government had examined that sort of thing and had
allowed the taxpayer, instead of wearing himself out on the roller
one weekend, to officially give the contract to someone else, thus
thwarting the underground economy, the taxpayer could say:
``Instead of wearing myself out on the roller, I will give the work to
my neighbour who does not have a job. He has a social insurance
number and will declare his income. In reality, this will cost me
$800, but I will get a tax refund of about $200 and the paint will
have cost me $400. Fine. It is worth my while to spend a whole
weekend painting my house to save $200? Perhaps I would have
given the contract to someone else.'' To save $800, it is worth it, to
save $400 also, but not to save $200. This is the kind of thinking
they are incapable of doing.
7154
This might mean at the outset some kind of tax break, which
is unthinkable for those on the other side. They prefer to raid the
piggy bank greedily, a bit more every day, and they will go almost
as far as the highwaymen of the last century, who would lay in
ambush for travellers and rob them. Whether the hon. member for
Beauséjour likes it or not, this is the situation we are facing today.
These people show no sign of compassion for taxpayers nor any
willingness to provide some relief and get the economy rolling.
We could get rid of the underground economy; it could yiled
interesting results, but they refuse to do so.
Even if I suggested such a thing, I would be afraid that they
would turn around and tax capital gains from the sale of a
residence. That shows are crooked they are.
Personally, I expect nothing from this government but I hope it
will be able to tell the truth to the people and tell them it paid out
$920 million to the maritimes to buy the support of voters there and
make them forget the terrible things it did there. But we cannot be
sure of that, because we have just seen one province change
governments unexpectedly.
Their bill contains nothing which allows them to pat themselves
on the back. We see how well they are holding promises made in
1993. We should expect nothing from these people, not even the
honesty to admit that they broke their promises and that their word
is not worth more than the ink of the red book.
(1540)
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to follow up on my colleague's comments and start out
by asking what is a promise. A promise is an assurance that one
will or will not undertake a certain action. A promise is a statement
of integrity, a statement made with integrity. It is a commitment
that is not to be broken. When we talk about keeping promises we
talk about building trust.
On the campaign trail the Prime Minister said: ``There is not one
promise that I have made that I will not keep''. That has now
become a joke. This government has broken more promises in the
past three years than it has kept.
Regarding the GST, the Liberals promised to scrap, abolish, kill,
eliminate, get rid of GST. This is a promise they took from door to
door. This was a major cornerstone of the Liberals election
campaign.
On October 29, 1990 the current Prime Minister said: ``I am
opposed to the GST. I have always been opposed to it and I will
always be opposed to it''. The current Minister of Finance stood in
the House of Commons on November 28, 1989 and said: ``The
goods and services tax is a stupid, inept and incompetent tax''. On
April 4, 1990 he said: ``I would abolish the GST''. On November
6, 1991 the current Deputy Prime Minister asked the Tory
government why it was pursuing a GST policy that ``kills Canadian
jobs and puts a heavy burden on our tourist industry''. On March
24, 1994 the current revenue minister stated: ``As Liberals we were
elected to change the tax, abolish the tax, scrap it''.
The Deputy Prime Minister campaigned that she would resign if
the GST were not abolished under a Liberal government. Rather
than resign, she stepped down and ran a second election in her
riding which cost Canadian taxpayers $.5 million.
Last March Reform put forward a motion to abolish the GST.
One hundred and thirty Liberals, including the Prime Minister and
Deputy Prime Minister, all voted to keep the GST. Their vote
against the motion proves that they have absolutely no intention of
keeping their election promise.
Clearly, killing the GST promise is just another broken promise
in a long string of broken promises. The Liberals claim to have
fulfilled 75 per cent of their 1993 campaign promises. We checked.
We found that they have fulfilled only 22 per cent of their
promises. Some record. That is a record of shame.
The red book says there is little room to raise taxes and that long
term goals should be tax relief. The Liberals also claim they have
not raised taxes. In fact, the Liberals have increased taxes 30 times
in the past three budgets as well as instituting higher sales taxes for
Atlantic Canadians.
The government made many campaign promises to scrap the
GST. During the campaign Canadians did not hear anything about
harmonizing the tax with the provinces. Rather than scrap the GST,
the Liberal government is in the process of harmonizing the GST
with the provinces to create a new sales tax, a harmonized sales tax,
HST. Instead of removing the GST, the Liberals are now trying to
hide the GST by including new harmonized taxes in the price of
goods.
I cannot wait until the next election when Canadians will show
the Liberals what they think of this broken promise, the same as the
Canadians did with the Conservatives regarding the GST. Three
Atlantic provinces have signed on to this deal, this harmonization
deal. GST harmonization in Atlantic Canada merges provincial
sales tax with the 7 per cent GST to create a single tax of 15 per
cent to be implemented on April 1. It is odd that it should be
coming on April Fool's Day.
The provinces that have signed on are Newfoundland, Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick. The harmonized tax, the HST, is
nothing more than a super tax grab on consumer spending. It is
simply another tax grab.
From the last 13 years of Liberal and Tory rule, on average
Canadian taxpayers now pay an extra $1,126 a year simply in
7155
increased sales and excise taxes. The HST if applied right across
the country will raise these taxes even higher.
(1545 )
In addition, the harmonized sales tax will apply to more goods
than are currently taxed on retail sales. Consumers in the Atlantic
provinces that signed on to the deal will pay higher taxes on
children's clothing, gasoline, books, funerals, new homes, heating
oil, haircuts, used goods and even postage stamps. This simply
means higher taxes for Atlantic Canadians.
For example the HST will push the price of a new house up by
5.5 per cent. Some deal. Higher operating costs for landlords will
mean that renters will pay higher rents.
There are also concerns that the tax included pricing will cause
chaos not only in the Atlantic provinces but in the rest of Canada.
According to the Retail Council of Canada, national retailers will
be forced to change computerized inventory systems and separately
price goods bound for the Atlantic region. This alone will cost $100
million.
With harmonization, Canadians will have one tax included price
in Atlantic Canada while the rest of the country will function with
prices that do not include GST or sales tax on the label. There will
be two separate systems.
The harmonized sales tax is not only unfair to Atlantic
Canadians who will pay higher taxes on many items, it is also
unfair to the rest of Canada which will be paying $1 billion in
compensation to the Atlantic provinces for lost tax revenue. Once
again the west is financing the east with a $1 billion transfer of
wealth to Atlantic Canada.
The combined sales taxes in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
are currently 18 per cent. In Newfoundland the combined rate is 20
per cent. A 15 per cent combined rate is a deal for Atlantic Canada.
The rate will be reduced. That is the reason for the $1 billion
transfer.
There are no advantages to provinces that pay a combined sales
tax which is less. For example, Alberta has no provincial sales tax
and only has the 7 per cent GST. Why would it want to enter into
harmonization and go from the 7 per cent GST and no provincial
tax to a 15 per cent tax? Try to sell that in Alberta. Tax systems
across the country should be equitable, yet this deal is hardly
equitable for Canadians outside the Atlantic provinces.
Furthermore there are concerns that revenue shortfalls as a result
of lowering the tax rates may be made up by changes in
equalization formulas. Canadians could see an increased
redistribution of wealth from western Canadian taxpayers to the
maritime provinces for nothing more than what are purely political
reasons. Because the GST promise was not fulfilled, the
government is now going to the HST. The result is that a transfer of
wealth is going right across the country to fix the deal. It is strictly
political and it is absolutely wrong.
Harmonization will not work in central and western Canada
because as I stated earlier, at present the combined rates are less
than 15 per cent.
Furthermore it does not make any sense for Ottawa to adopt a
policy that calls on all Canadians to pay the same taxation rates
regardless of where they live. Provincial taxation rates are based on
provincial needs. There is no reason for a national tax rate right
across the country.
All provinces simply will not come onside with this agreement.
Some provinces have no sales tax, such as Alberta. Other provinces
have a provincial rate that is less than 8 per cent, so the combined
rate of 15 per cent simply does not make any economic sense for
those provinces to buy on. Alberta, Ontario and B.C. are simply not
willing to discuss the federal proposal. Support is very weak in
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and P.E.I. The HST simply does not work
and it will not work.
It is my understanding that in the beginning the government was
going to call this the blended sales tax. Perhaps it should have done
that. Now it is the harmonized sales tax, the HST. Of course a
blended sales tax would be a BST. Many Canadians are seeing that
a BST is very much what this bill is creating.
When will the government understand that tax increases mean
job losses? If the Liberals are serious about getting our economy
back on track and creating jobs, then they must start by giving
business incentives to create employment. That means lowering
taxes, not raising them, as they are doing with the HST.
(1550)
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to speak on this GST bill, especially since I was a
member of the ruling party at the time of the federal tax reform. I
can clearly remember the whole process, and it is really funny
today to see how the Liberals are going about it.
Let us not forget that, in 1988-89, we had a federal tax that, from
a consumer's point of view, was a hidden tax. It was known as the
manufacturers sales tax and it was charged by manufacturers to
retailers. When manufacturers shipped their products to retailers,
13 per cent of the products' sale price went to the government to
cover the federal tax.
At the time, there were reportedly some 22,000 exemptions.
Many products were neither taxed not taxable. It had been decided
that food, drugs and educational material and health products
should not be taxed. Many products became tax exempt; there were
reportedly 22,000 exemptions.
7156
A large number of manufacturers also argued before the courts
that the federal tax should not apply to their products. They felt
it was unfair for their products to be taxed when an equivalent
product was not. Every manufacturer claimed that his product was
similar to a product that was not taxed.
This prompted the federal government, a member of which I was
at the time, to reform the federal sales tax, not to create a new tax in
addition to the old one, but to reform the old tax, because it was no
longer manageable. There were so many court cases, it was just a
nightmare. That tax was really not manageable any more.
The federal tax has been in existence for a long time. It used to
be a tax on products only, which the manufacturer himself would
charge to retailers and then pay to the federal government. Because
it was no longer manageable, the federal government, of which I
was a member, decided to reform that tax, which generated about
$18 billion in revenues.
Today, it is said to bring in about the same amount, perhaps a
little more. So, the idea was not to increase federal revenues, but to
reform the tax to make it easier to manage and fairer to everyone.
The federal tax was also difficult to administer in the case of
exports. Now that it is directly charged to consumers, it is easier to
manage in the case of exports, since these products are shipped
before the tax applies. Indeed, most export products are not taxed,
which promotes exports and creates jobs at home. This was quite a
reform, as you will remember.
However, the official opposition of the time led Canadians to
believe that it was a new tax, and that the government wanted to tax
them more. I remember that this issue generated heated debates in
the House. The Liberals convinced Canadians that it was a new tax
when in fact it was a tax reform. But they did convince people that
it was indeed a new tax.
(1555)
They worked very hard. The issue was debated for months. They
kept us in the ropes until Mr. Wilson, who was finance minister at
the time, finally agreed to make several exceptions.
Some products are exempt from the federal tax. Today, we are
still stuck with a tax that does not apply to many exceptions. For
example, if you buy an item at a convenience store you pay tax on
it; however if you buy a six-pack of yogurt, it is tax free. Similarly,
if you buy a cupcake you pay tax on it, but if you buy the same
cupcake in a box of 12, there is no tax.
All this is to say that, when the Liberals formed the official
opposition, all they succeeded in doing was to further complicate
this federal tax, when all we had wanted to do was simplify it.
I sat on the committee responsible for the GST and I was in
agreement up until the last minute. I remember very clearly that we
met with the Minister of Finance almost every two weeks to
discuss the issue and hear how things were progressing. I always
supported it, because there was a GST refund for those earning less
than $30,000. There was a refund for the neediest, the most
disadvantaged, to offset the effects of this tax on goods and
services. I always felt, and I still feel, that everything should have
been taxed, without exception. All goods and services should have
been taxed, whether they came under health, education or
whatever, because we had simultaneously introduced a means of
compensating poorer Canadians through a GST refund.
You know that thousands of people receive GST refund cheques.
So there was a system in place to compensate the poorest members
of society. Why then was there a need for exemptions in this case?
No, exemptions were not necessary, everything should have been
taxed, without exception, because we had seen that the preceding
federal tax with its 22,000 exemptions was no longer manageable.
In the not too distant future, in a few years probably, we are going
to find ourselves facing the same problems as those we had with the
other tax.
The difference is that the previous federal tax was 13 per cent on
goods, and now we have a federal tax of 7 per cent, or 6.5 per cent,
on goods and services, that is services received and goods sold.
Before, it was just on goods. It was 13 per cent on goods, now it is
6.5 per cent, but on both goods and services. You can see, then, it
comes out just about the same.
During the elections, we saw the Liberals attacking the
Conservatives in a deceitful way, if you will, cheating a bit with the
whole thing. They had already been very successful as the official
opposition in convincing people that the Conservatives had created
a new tax. It was, however, not a new tax, but a tax reform, which
was completely legitimate and fair. However, when you are in
politics and want to get into power, you can say just about
anything; you lie to the public. I have always thought, since I
started in politics, that the winners in an election campaign are the
ones who are the biggest liars. Afterwards, they do exactly what
they feel like, and this is obvious to everyone.
I will give you a couple of examples of this. The Prime Minister
said ``I will scrap this GST'', I will do away with the federal tax.
This would have been no mean feat. In 1993, during the campaign,
the Prime Minister said ``I will do away with the federal tax''. He
tried to convince people once again that this was a new tax, not a
reform of the tax created by the Conservatives, no, but a new tax in
the mind of the Prime Minister, who said ``I will scrap it''. And did
he? No, on the contrary, he is maintaining it and intends to dump
others on us as well.
He said: ``We hate this tax. We will get rid of it''. Those are the
Prime Minister's words. The Deputy Prime Minister said: ``I will
resign if the tax is not eliminated'', and she did.
7157
All of this to tell you that it is somewhat sad for democracy when
all manner of things are said during a campaign, and then exactly
the opposite is done afterwards.
(1600)
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased participate in the debate today and to register my
opposition to this bill to harmonize the GST in Atlantic Canada.
I am surprised that we have to register our opposition to this bill
because while the bill has been introduced by the government, it
had all kinds of opposition to this type of legislation back when it
was on this side of the House. I refer to the Commons Debates,
page 4554, November 5, 1991, when the member for Willowdale
who is now the chairman of the finance committee said: ``How can
Canadians have faith in this government's ability to lead us into
prosperity when the GST, according to all these studies, is working
against small business?''
This is from the current chairman of the finance committee who
has done a complete and absolute about turn on the legislation
currently before us. He opposed it when he was on this side of the
House and now be has bought into the entire Liberal agenda and is
endorsing and supporting the Minister of Finance in the
introduction of this divisive tax which is going to kill jobs.
He was not the only one who did not like the GST. How about on
May 10, 1993 Commons Debates page 19170, where the member
for Winnipeg North stated: ``The Liberal party, in contrast, is
committed to changing and abolishing the GST within 12 months''.
The Liberals won the election in October 1993 and 12 months
from that date was October 1994 and by that time we knew that the
government had reneged on any promise it had made regarding the
GST. Here we are today debating its enhancement rather than its
elimination. The member for Winnipeg North said that within 12
months be assured that this Liberal government will get rid of that
hated tax which all Canadians would dearly love to see gone.
Even the member for Edmonton Southeast-and it is not often
that I go into quotes in Hansard from the member for Edmonton
Southeast-on June 7, 1993, page 20483 said: ``It is one of the
reasons why we are proud to say we will repeal that tax and ask
Canadians how we can best replace the missing revenue''.
We are not talking her about missing revenue. We are talking
about adding to the revenue, and that is the ultimate insult.
On it goes. How about the Prime Minister, June 13, 1991, page
1632: ``With the GST this government has created an unfair and
unacceptable tax''. He said that and he endorses the initiative of the
Minister of Finance to introduce legislation to bring us the
harmonized tax.
The Prime Minister again, page 6046, December 10: ``On the
GST we have a very clear position. We say that we want to kill the
GST''. That is from the current Prime Minister, not the prime
minister of that day. I quote his words from the Commons Debates.
The member for Halifax, page 6406, Commons Debates,
February 4, 1992: ``What I refer to is a general suffering from our
goods and services tax''. And what did it do? The government
harmonized, increased and took more money.
One final quote from the member for Greenwood: ``My leader
three weeks ago said that this GST will be scrapped. Make no
mistake about it, the GST will be scrapped if we are given the trust
to run the Government of Canada''. This was said in Hansard on
March 12, 1993 page 16902.
(1605)
Make no mistake about it, they were given the trust to run the
Government of Canada and what did they do? They abused the
trust. They let Canadians down. They have destroyed the
confidence that the people gave to them in October 1993. That is
why we have no faith in this country for politicians with those
kinds of speeches when in opposition. They said ``give us the trust,
put us in power, we will deliver''. What do we have? A harmonized
sales tax for Atlantic Canada and a GST remaining for the rest of
Canada.
The GST by the way has been increased for the rest of Canada
because it now applies to used goods as well as new goods. Every
time a car trades hands the government collects GST on that
automobile even though there was a serious commitment by the
government that goods would be taxed only once when they were
brand new. This Liberal government has expanded the tax to cover
everything every time it changes hands.
The Minister of Finance tells us he is not increasing taxes.
Hypocrisy from this government that it would say such things.
There are quotes upon quotes. In the Toronto Star dated October
29, 1990, the Liberal government said it will scrap the goods and
services tax if it wins the next election. The current Prime Minister
said: ``I am opposed to the GST. I have always been opposed to it
and I will always be opposed to it''. I could go on forever slamming
this government but let us talk about something positive for a
change.
We heard the hon. member for Medicine Hat today in question
period when he was talking about the Certified General
Accountants Association which came out yesterday calling for a
tax reduction, which I wholeheartedly endorse and let it be noted
for
7158
the record. I happen to be a certified general accountant and
therefore I fully endorse the report it issued yesterday.
It said if we drop the UI premiums by 20 per cent that would
create about 60,000 jobs. As the member for Medicine Hat said,
Reform wants to drop it by 28 per cent which will create even more
jobs. That is the commitment by the Reform Party. I assure
members that after the next election when Reform trades places
with the Liberals we will honour that commitment. Have no fear,
we are not mincing our words, we are not saying beautiful things to
win elections. We are talking about Reform policies where we say
we will deliver.
We have talked about reducing taxes to families. People today on
small incomes are struggling to raise their families and before they
get that small pay cheque that is made even smaller by this
government they have to get by. And yet we find that this
government would rather try to tell us about programs that pick up
the pieces of broken families rather than focusing on keeping
families together.
I have an interesting story. I was going through the airport while
heading back to my riding one day. One of the security personnel
spotted my badge as a member of the House of Commons. He
stopped me to tell me that he does not make a large salary as part of
the security personnel at the airport. He has a wife and three
children. Yet his family is so important to him that he makes sure
that his wife stays home even though they have to do without many
things. Yet on his small single salary he makes ends meet even
though it is quite difficult.
The current taxation policies by the Liberal government deny
him a deduction because he wants to raise his own children by
himself and have his wife at home. The parents are denied tax relief
because they want to raise their own children. He could send the
children next door and have the next door kids come to his house
and have his wife look after them and they would each get a tax
deduction. But this government's policy is to deny a tax deduction
for anyone who wants to raise their own children. What is fair
about that?
(1610)
That is no more fair than the way Canadians have been misled by
this government when they were told that the GST will be axed,
scrapped and abolished; not harmonized, not increased, not
expanded, not to collect more money. That is the deception this
government has imposed on the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
absolutely must take advantage of the government's motion to
point out how both the parliamentary process and Liberal promises
have made a laughingstock of democracy. The official opposition
received a 300-page bill, with 24 hours to look at the text and no
explanatory notes.
This is hardly a democratic or a parliamentary way of doing
things and shows little respect for the role and the duties of the
official opposition and the third party. Their role is to ensure that
the government discharges its duties in accordance with its
program, the commitments it has made and its legal obligations.
We can hardly say that receiving a 300-page bill on which we are
expected to make recommendations the next day is conducive to a
serious process, a process that will reassure Canadians. That is the
real issue. This government behaves as though it were the only
party in this country. No wonder it has stopped showing any
concern for human rights in its international relations.
I also want to point out, and we cannot help but repeat this now
that an election is in the offing, that the Liberal Party was elected
last time thanks to at least two false representations: jobs, jobs,
jobs, emplois, emplois, emplois, while the results, despite all the
Prime Minister's bragging, are nowhere near meeting existing
needs and nowhere near the level reached in 1990.
Two thirds of the drop in the unemployment rate, which is still
close to 10 per cent, or as the Prime Minister would say, is no
longer 12 per cent, is due to the fact that unemployed workers have
left the labour market and have given up looking for jobs.
So the unemployment rate has gone down, but the number of
unemployed workers has not. It is worse than that. According to a
recent Statistics Canada publication, what happened between
December 1994 and December 1995, a period the government likes
to brag about in terms of its performance? The bulk of the jobs
were created by independent workers, in other words, people who
had to start their own business, and of course, we do not know how
long that will last, and meanwhile, these people are cut off from all
social insurance programs.
(1615)
``Jobs, jobs, jobs'' came with a promise by the government to get
rid of the unpopular GST. What do we see? Not only does the
government not get rid of the GST, but it busts its britches because
the Deputy Prime Minister, who agreed to resign, was re-elected,
and the government is now absolved. Well, that is far from the case.
We remind the government, the Liberal Party, that it was elected on
promises it knew it could not keep.
The example came from way back in the history of the Liberal
Party. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how old you are, but you must
remember that Prime Minister Trudeau, in his time, ridiculed the
Conservative government, which, in a period of high inflation,
talked of imposing wage and price controls. Poor JoeClark suffered
the slings and arrows of the opposition of the day.
7159
What did Prime Minister Trudeau do a few months later? He
imposed wage and price controls. There is a lesson there. It should
be repeated in the coming months. The Liberal Party gets elected
on promises it does not keep and I dare to suggest that it knows
it cannot keep them.
A couple of words to say that this promise will cost Canadians
and Quebecers dearly, because in order to appear to keep it more or
less, the government reached an agreement with the Atlantic
provinces to have them integrate the GST, make it disappear,
something it has always opposed. But they will receive, in
compensation, $961 million coming out of the pockets of the other
provinces. Not only were the promises made deceptive, but it is
costing a pretty penny to hide the fact that the government is unable
to deliver the goods.
I take some solace, however, in the thought that, in the upcoming
election campaign, the Liberal government will probably promise
to resolve the Canada-Quebec issue. That is what the government
will say, but everyone will know that it will, in fact, be paving the
road to Quebec sovereignty. It will promise what it cannot deliver
and knows it cannot deliver, but will run on that platform anyway.
We, on the other hand, will be able to remind voters of this fact
over and over again and to count on the Liberal government
helping us win the next referendum. We want to reassure you
however that what we want is to negotiate a partnership with
Canada. Our offer remains on the table because we count on your
co-operation in the next election.
(1620)
The Liberal Party is giving a really poor example of democracy,
a poor example of the parliamentary system at work.
If I have a moment, I would like to add that the measure adopted
by this government that has promised to eliminate the GST on
books is in fact mere window dressing so the government can say it
eliminated the GST. The truth of the matter is that this government
is not going as far as Quebec by extending the tax exemption to all
books, not only those bought by organizations involved in literacy
programs but also those bought by consumers, but it is once again
trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House this afternoon
on Bill C-70.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Inasmuch
as we members are outnumbered by the pages, I would suggest we
probably do not have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
(1625 )
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I see a quorum. Resuming
debate, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it is
good to have an audience at last. I am always torn between having
absolutely no Liberals in the House and having so many Liberals in
the House making so much noise that I cannot hear myself think.
We are always betwixt and between whether we want to have one
or two government members to hear our remarks or whether we
would rather have a whole bunch and be unable to be heard.
Before I begin my remarks on Bill C-70, the harmonized sales
tax legislation, I have a few brief remarks on what transpired in this
place this morning. There seems to be a misconception on the part
of some government members as to exactly what happened. It is
important for the viewing audience out there in TV land to
understand the process and the procedure which took place this
morning and why that got out of kilter. It is necessary to correct the
record.
This morning during debate on Bill C-71, the tobacco bill, my
colleague from Macleod put forward a motion that the question be
now put. What happened was that I believe there was a
misunderstanding on the part of the Speaker who was in the Chair
at the time. She elected to call the question immediately, but that
was not the point at all.
(1630 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. The hon. member
knows it is improper to reflect on decisions of the House or on
decisions of the Speaker once rendered. I would caution him in his
remarks to avoid such references. I think he has other matters he
will want to discuss in relation to the bill before the House and I
invite him to approach the subject in that vein.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I was
endeavouring to clear up a misunderstanding, not cast negative
aspersions on anyone, let alone on the Chair of the House. I think it
is incumbent on all of us as members of Parliament who are trying
to represent our constituents to clear up any potential for a
misunderstanding.
It certainly was not the intent of the Reform Party of Canada to
limit debate. That was not the intent of the motion and the motion
indeed did not do that. I want to make it very clear for the people
out there who are watching that the motion in no way limited
debate on Bill C-71, the tobacco bill.
I make reference to that because of the chain of events which did
take place which prevented some members from speaking. The
7160
member for Haldimand-Norfolk made an intervention in that
regard. I can sympathize with that because a number of members
had intended to speak to the legislation and had important points to
bring forward on behalf of their constituents. Certainly the member
for Haldimand-Norfolk was one of those individuals, as he
indicated, who wanted to make some strong points and represent
the people in his riding. The Reform Party certainly did not limit or
prevent him or any other member in this place from doing that.
I sympathize with the member. I believe that all of us in this
place get tired of preparing presentations only to have some
procedural thing prevent us from presenting our views to the
House. Indeed from time to time the government elects to enact
closure or time allocation and prevents members from all parties
from speaking to important legislation. That too is tragic. It is very
unfortunate that this morning we had a process which did not fall
into place the way it was intended to allow people to speak to that
legislation. That was unfortunate for all members concerned.
I want to say that I have a personal point of view on that very
important issue. I am a father of three young children and
unfortunately my middle child has taken up smoking in this last
year or so. I wanted to bring the personal perspective as a parent
and that I have struggled for the last 12 or 15 years to try to quit
smoking. I know how addictive nicotine is.
I wanted to bring forward how tragic it is for all parents who
have to deal with children who have taken up cigarette smoking. I
know we are all concerned about that. It is certainly why the
Reform Party endeavoured to assist the government in fast tracking
the legislation and to do all we could to assist the government in
helping the youth of our country who unfortunately are taking up
cigarette smoking despite all the education about it.
I will now move on to Bill C-70, the harmonized sales tax. Never
before has a particular government initiative, the goods and
services tax, caused such fury in our nation. Anyone in Canada can
reflect on the debate which took place inside and outside the House
of Commons during the days, weeks and months that the Mulroney
government was bringing forth the GST. It tried to ram it through
despite the polls which consistently showed time after time after
time that roughly 85 per cent of Canadians were opposed to this
tax.
(1635 )
Why were they opposed to the tax? Obviously people are
opposed to any tax, but the reality goes much deeper than that. I
made the remark a couple of years ago when we were debating gun
control in this place that I believed that Canadians had reached the
same point with gun control as they had with taxes. They had
reached the breaking point.
They reached that point with the GST. That is why there was
such an uproar all across the country against the Mulroney Tories,
the Conservatives, and the much hated GST they were attempting
to implement. It was so much so that as will be recalled when
looking at the history of this tax, Mulroney had to actually go to the
extraordinary step of appointing eight additional senators to the
other place in order to ram through that legislation against the
wishes of the vast majority of Canadians.
What have we got now? I recently wrote an article for the
newspapers back in my riding of Prince George-Peace River in
which I briefly detailed the history of the GST. I find it more than a
bit ironic that this tax caused a couple of Conservative MPs to be
thrown out of their caucus because they dared to represent their
constituents and that last spring this same issue caused the Liberal
Party, which is now the government, to throw a member of
Parliament out of its caucus.
Despite the fact that this Liberal government would like to pull
the wool over the eyes of Canadian voters that the Liberals are
different from the Conservatives who came before them, what we
see is that they are exactly the same. And they wonder why
Reformers and Canadians from coast to coast are saying Liberal,
Tory, same old story. Nothing changes.
On the subject of the member of Parliament for York
South-Weston, it is more than interesting that in a speech to the
Rotary Club of Toronto he addressed the topic ``Honesty, Ethics
and Accountability: Does it exist in Canada's political system''. In
the little time I have left, I would like to quote one thing from his
remarks that day:
Removing me from the Liberal caucus accomplished two things. Firstly, it
accomplished the government's main objective. It sent a very clear message that the
PMO is intent to maintaining control over members of the Liberal caucus. But in
addition, separate and apart from the Liberal Party or the GST, it sent a second larger
message to the Canadian public. The action taken by the government on this issue
has reinforced Canadians' worst suspicions-that political parties will promise
anything to be elected, and once in power will not fulfil that promise. That message
is the reason people question whether there is honesty or ethics in our political
system.
That is a direct quote from the member for York South-Weston
on how he was treated by the government on this very issue of the
GST and his stand against it.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I also
want to address Bill C-70, which is basically a series of
amendments to the GST.
Three years ago, the Liberal members opposite promised to
abolish the GST. You will remember that, every day during the
1993 election campaign, Liberal candidates would canvass their
ridings, all over the country, telling people to vote for them,
7161
because they would eliminate the GST. The Liberals were even
more vocal outside Quebec. They said: ``We will scrap the GST''.
(1640)
I will use polite words and define ``to scrap'' as the equivalent of
to abolish or to eliminate. The Prime Minister even repeated that
statement in the House on several occasions, in response to
questions from Bloc members and members from other parties as
well.
Three years later, we have before us a few proposed changes here
and there, and what amounts to some kind of political compromise
to compensate those maritime provinces that have harmonized
their tax structure.
Over these three years, abolishing the GST gradually became
synonymous with harmonizing the GST. To my knowledge, the
dictionary does not mention ``to harmonize'' as a synonym for ``to
eliminate'' or ``to abolish''. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. In any
case, voters will not be fooled.
As for the Deputy Prime Minister, she went even further than her
colleagues and said she would resign if her government did not
abolish the GST. She said that because she thought her party had
made a commitment-after all she is now the Deputy Prime
Minister-to abolish that tax. She did resign, but only to
immediately run again in a byelection that cost Canadian taxpayers
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Indeed, her constituents were not
the only ones who had to pay. Everyone in this country had to pay
for this political circus by the Deputy Prime Minister.
If she was so convinced that her government had not kept its
promise, why did she not resign and go back to private life, period?
Probably because she missed the limousine, her position as Deputy
Prime Minister and all the advantages she enjoys every day.
Having missed all that for a few weeks, she naturally came back,
resumed her duties, and was taken back into the fold as though
nothing had happened, and nothing more was said.
It is a rather sorry saga, but there is more. The Deputy Prime
Minister's political adventure was a costly one, but there was more
to come, so that she could go to the voters and say: ``Look, we have
kept our promise'', because they harmonized the tax in the
maritimes and everyone knows perfectly well that right now the
Liberals are strong in that area of the country. So they gave a
political gift, because we must call a spade a spade, of $1 billion so
that the maritimes would accept harmonization. Not just so that
they would accept it, but also to sweeten the bitter pill of
unprecedented unemployment insurance cuts in the Atlantic
region.
These cuts were condemned by the same members who today are
on the other side of the House, let us remember. These people
thought the Conservative agenda with respect to unemployment
insurance was scandalous and shocking, and made no bones about
it. When they came to power, they cut benefits, and later reformed
the system twice, both times for the worse, further cutting benefits.
As well, there are still a number of technical problems that have
not yet been worked out in this reform, but we have been raising
them in question period every day.
Therefore, this political compensation of $1 billion for the
maritimes is aimed at softening up voters so that Liberal members
and the few ministers can go back to their ridings and say: ``Yes, it
is true we did not keep that promise, but look at the $1 billion we
got for the maritimes''.
But who is paying this billion dollars? The taxpayers in Quebec
and in Canada. They are all paying for this billion dollar political
compensation package. And that is not all, because the way it has
been set up, with respect to the compensation and reorganization of
the tax in these provinces, there will be further compensation when
it comes to equalization payments for the maritimes, given that the
rate of taxation has gone down.
This could be the result. There is a possibility that equalization
payments to these provinces will increase. In addition, as if that
were not enough, we could keep paying for this harmonization
indefinitely, all so as to avoid keeping this ridiculous promise.
(1645)
Everyone saw just how impossible it was for the government,
when it came to power with a deficit of around $37 billion or $38
billion-padded, of course so as to be able to say it had reduced it
afterward-to deprive itself of $17 billion in revenue and yet
eliminate the deficit just like that, overnight?
That is what the Liberals were telling people. Some MPs were
taken in. I remember, I was sitting on the finance committee. To
continue the drawn-out GST circus, they had the Standing
Committee on Finance tour the country to consult Canadians on
their ideas for a replacement formula. When they came to office in
1993, they started looking at the alternatives, as if they had just
realized, after the election, that they could not deprive themselves
of some $15 billion to $17 billion without finding an alternative.
Consultations were held, and witnesses appeared one after the
other, those who wanted to see the tax done away with, and those
who said ``Listen here, that was a dumb promise, you cannot keep
it''. All this just to produce a report, which was probably already
written right from the start, which stated ``Yes, but it would be
7162
preferable to harmonize the GST with the provincial taxes''. I will
get back to that, as behind this tax harmonization is a strong desire
to centralize. It was already obvious in these recommendations that
the tone had changed, that they were singing a different tune.
What was going on in Quebec at the same time? In Quebec, the
provincial sales tax was adjusted annually. Finally, Mr. Campeau,
who was the minister of finance, harmonized his tax with the
federal sales tax. Without any compensation whatsoever, Quebec
harmonized its tax.
The maritimes, which followed suit, got compensation. Now
they have a problem on their hands. What will they do if Ontario
harmonizes now? What will they do if the western provinces
harmonize now? Are there likely to be other billion dollar gifts?
This may be the promise that will have cost Canadian taxpayers the
most in a very long time. How far will they go with this madness of
very dubious promises that weigh heavily on Canadian taxpayers?
Where are they going? They do not really know. Moreover, there
is an injustice. If one province receives compensation, why not all
of them. Those who acted first are penalized. The little measure to
sweeten the pot is the removal of the tax on books. Just a minute.
That is not the case. It is for institutional purchases. Individuals
must not think that there will be no more tax on books. They will
get a surprise. With Christmas coming, they will discover there is
no change.
What harmonization with the federal government means is that
the federal government will collect taxes for everyone, including
Quebec. The federal government likes to collect money, make the
provinces dependent on transfer payments and then say: ``Yes, we
will give you so much money''.
If things are not going well with federal public funds, transfer
payments are cut. The provinces have to make painful cuts,
because they manage the daily fare of health, education and social
programs, which affect the public. The federal government is
above all that and continues to waste money left, right and centre
and to spend it, as we have seen in the case of the Deputy Prime
Minister, on endless political spectacles. I have no doubt that
voters, and I will conclude here, will remember this come the next
election campaign, and there will be talk of the famous Liberal
promises.
I will be keen to see how they go about trying to be credible the
next time. Everyone will remember the GST and everyone will
remember the other promise not kept, the one that is even more
important, that of the jobs they never delivered. We can hardly wait
to meet them along the next election campaign trail.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-International Court; the hon. member for
Frontenac-asbestos industry; the hon. member for the
Battlefords-Meadow Lake-child poverty.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, October 1993 was a significant time for all Canadians. It
was when a majority of Canadians elected a Liberal government
after nine years of the Tories.
The Liberals promised this and they promised that. At every
campaign meeting Liberal candidates would be waving their red
book, saying a Liberal government would fulfil all its promises and
put the country back on its feet.
(1650)
Historically the Conservatives are known as the Tories and the
Liberals are known as the Grits. With respect to the GST and all of
the governance in fact that we have ever had from this country it is
Grit or Tory, same old story.
Canadians elected the Liberal government because it promised
to scrap, kill and abolish the GST. Now we have Bill C-70 which is
not about scrapping the GST but about harmonizing it.
In the 1993 election campaign the Liberals were desperately
searching for that one hot button item to woo the voters. They
found it. It was the GST. When a Liberal candidate spoke about
getting rid of the GST they always received a positive reaction
from the audience. Unfortunately-
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that what my Reform
colleague has to say is interesting, therefore I believe we should be
as many as possible to listen to him, and I call for a quorum count.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I will ask the Clerk to
count the members present.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Indeed we do not have a
quorum. Call in the members.
(1655)
[English]
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I see a quorum. Resuming
debate, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, before the last election the Liberals
knew full well what they would do with the GST. They knew that
scrapping the goods and services tax would not be an option. They
knew they would not be able to come up with an equal amount of
revenue, yet true to Liberal form they said that they would abolish it.
7163
Now members of this government are trying to say they never
said scrap, abolish or kill the GST, that they said harmonize or
streamline. If this government never used the words scrap, abolish
or kill then why did the Deputy Prime Minister resign her seat?
Why did the member for York South-Weston leave the Liberal
caucus? Why did the member for Broadview-Greenwood support
the member for York South-Weston for sticking to his principles?
Because they all knew they were wrong. They knew full well that
their constituents did not elect them to harmonize the GST.
The member for York South-Weston did the right thing by
keeping his promises to his constituents. As is the true Reformer
style, that member voted the wishes of those who elected him. Now
it seems this independent member wants to walk back across the
floor to join his Liberal colleagues.
Today it was reported in the Montreal Gazette that the same
member said: ``That issue is over and done with. I've made my
point and I don't intend to speak to that issue again''. I remind the
member that the issue of the GST will not be over as long as the
Liberals are in power. And they confirm it again today with Bill
C-70.
Liberal members and all Liberal candidates will have to go into
the next election and explain to all Canadians why the GST is still
there.
(1700 )
In Ontario, Liberals are going to have to sell the electorate on
harmonization when Ontario premier Mike Harris says he has no
interest on harmonizing the GST with the provincial tax. Whenever
Harris has been asked about the possibility of harmonizing the
taxes, he firmly states that the federal harmonization plan would
cost Ontario consumers between $2 billion and $3 billion a year.
Ontarians are not going to buy the Liberal harmonization promises
no matter how it is sugar coated.
Manitoba premier Gary Filmon says that the harmonization is ``a
bad deal for Manitobans''. He also says what the government
``cannot do is help us with the transference that takes place off the
backs of businesses and on to the backs of consumers. Consumers
in Manitoba would have to pick up $300 million a year of the
burden. It just doesn't work. It is a bad deal''.
The same words are echoed by the Governments of
Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. In fact, these
provinces are not even willing to discuss the proposal with the
Prime Minister.
Bill C-70 is a bill that deals specifically with the provinces on
the east coast. This bill is not going to change the tax in my home
province of British Columbia so when and if Bill C-70 is given
royal consent, my constituents are still going to be paying the GST.
This bill is not about harmonization or streamlining. It is about
failing to follow through on a promise. With Bill C-70, the Liberals
need the support of provincial governments. If they had proposed
this plan in the last election, Canadians would have soon
discovered that such a plan would not work. Had the Liberals
followed through on their election promise, provincial support
would not have been necessary. I guess that provincial
governments would have loved seeing an abolished GST.
Canadians were cheated in the last election concerning that kind
of promise. There is no other way to say it. Putting everything into
practical terms, the Liberals promised that they would give back
money to Canadians to alleviate a personal tax. Now, over three
years later, Canadians have not received their share.
However, there is a solution and the solution is not too difficult
to achieve. What Canadians need to do is get rid of the party of
dead promises and elect a party that will follow through on what it
says. The Reform Party is the only party that will make promises
which can be kept. We are not about using hot button issues simply
to attract a vote for the short term.
I really wonder if the east coast residents know what they will be
getting with a harmonized tax. Do they know that they will be
paying more for children's clothing, funerals, books, auto repairs,
electricity, gasoline, home heating fuel and even hair cuts?
Probably not. Consumers are going to be hit hard by the passage of
Bill C-70.
I was told recently that the Investment Property Owner's
Association tabled a report in the Nova Scotia legislature which
states that renters can expect to shoulder some of the higher
operating costs that will hit landlords with a harmonized GST.
Again the government is going to go after those who have lesser
incomes, all for the sake of some political expediency. My only
hope is that the east coast media gives these people the facts about
the implications of harmonization. However, my fear is that the
Liberal media will say very little about it leaving the east coast
residents in the dark.
The Canadian Real Estate Association says that a harmonized
sales tax will push up new housing prices on average by about
$4,000 in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. In New Brunswick, new
housing prices are expected to climb as much as $3,300. In fact, the
Halifax Chamber of Commerce is predicting that municipalities are
going to raise property taxes all because the eastern provinces were
bribed into the harmonization deal.
The Liberals have been speaking about how they never said this
and never said that during the campaign. I am not going to stand
here and accuse individual members of what they said because I
was not present during each of their campaigns or following them
door to door as they went knocking. However, I will tell constitu-
7164
ents in each federal riding to make their own accusations. They
remember what was said.
I want to offer the House some comments by members with
regard to the GST. I think Canadians will get the idea of what the
majority of Liberal members meant during the 1993 election.
For example, the member for Mississauga West, referring to a
reply from a Department of Finance letter which said that
Canadians were getting used to the GST, said: ``If anyone believed
that I do not think they are in touch with reality''.
The member for York South-Weston commented that: ``I hope
we do not try to hoodwink people into thinking our commitment
was contingent on the provinces agreeing to harmonize their taxes
with the GST. A good number of my colleagues feel the same way.
The gun control protest will appear to be a nursery school tea party
if we do not fulfil that commitment on the GST''.
Bill C-70 will not be accepted by Canadians. The only bill that
Canadians will accept is the one that completely gets rid of the
GST. But the government does not have what it takes to follow
through on its promises. The Prime Minister expelled the member
for York-South Weston for voting no confidence. I hope that the
Prime Minister and his party will be prepared to have the Canadian
people vote no confidence in the next election and instead vote for
a party that will bring integrity and honesty back into government.
(1705)
The Minister of Finance has publicly admitted that the
government made a mistake in promising to scrap the GST. Yet
government members continue to say that no mistake was made.
Government members are going in all different directions. The
government is unstable and unfit to run this country. Bill C-70 is
two inches thick of smoke and mirrors.
The finance minister is only fooling himself if he thinks that this
bill is going to solve the GST problem. As the member from
Mississauga said, if the government thinks that people have got
used to the GST, then the government is out of touch with reality.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, before I get into
my remarks, my colleague from Swift Current reminds me that the
official opposition is going into a leadership race and that the
member for Vegreville may be resurrecting his campaign for that
position.
In talking about the goods and services tax and the
harmonization that Bill C-70 represents, it is obvious to anyone
who has been paying attention to what has been going on for the
last few years, particularly since the run up to the 1993 election and
since, that this bill is a cruel hoax perpetrated on the people of
Canada, particularly the people of Atlantic Canada.
It is a political ploy designed to provide the illusion that the
government and the Liberals are doing something about the goods
and services tax. It was an issue in the last campaign. My
colleagues have gone on all afternoon highlighting the statements,
promises and remarks that were made by government members
when they were running in the 1993 election.
The bill is designed to give Canadians the impression that the
government is trying to make good on an irresponsible promise it
should never have made and ought to have known better. I certainly
believe that there are many members opposite, including the Prime
Minister, as the evidence shows, and including the finance
minister, who knew better than to make a promise they could not
keep. They knew at the time they could not keep that promise but
they went ahead and made it anyway in order to attract electoral
support and to convince Canadians to vote Liberal in the last
election.
They knew full well the deep resentment that Canadians held for
the Conservatives for bringing in the goods and services tax. They
knew what a hot button issue it was. They said: ``Vote for us, folks,
and we will get rid of it''. They had no intention of doing that. As a
matter of fact, they knew it could not be done. Any responsible
Liberal knew it could not be done, but they went ahead and
promised it anyway.
Now we have shifted away from kill, abolish and scrap, which
was the election promise of so many current MPs who were
running for the Liberal Party, and now it is replace.
When I thought about what I might say today, I knew I would
have to choose my words carefully. I do have respect for the Chair
and for this institution. I do not have a lot of respect all the time for
what the government does in the House and what certain members
opposite try to say to Canadians.
I have a friend in northern B.C. who has a rather laconic way of
describing people who habitually cannot tell the truth, or who
habitually lie. He says that somebody who does that would rather
lie on credit when they could get cash for the truth. I think that is
what we are faced with here. We are faced with a government and
high profile cabinet ministers who would prefer to mislead
Canadians in an election campaign in order to attract electoral
support when they know full well that they cannot live up to the
promises they have made. It also shows that the government, time
and time again, will put political interests ahead of the best
interests of the country. A case in point is this harmonization bill. It
is designed to create the illusion that the government is actually
doing something about the GST. In fact, it is a billion dollar rip-off
for the rest of Canada, those people who live outside Atlantic
Canada, and it will hurt the people who live in Atlantic Canada.
Many of them have already come to that conclusion.
7165
(1710)
How many stories have we heard in recent weeks about small
businesses having to close? They are telling the government not to
proceed. They cannot possibly live with this additional tax.
Consumers in Atlantic Canada know this means an additional tax
burden on them. It is a hoax. It is not going to make anything better,
it is going to make things worse.
Why is the government proceeding with it at this time? Why
does it not come clean with Canadians and say: ``We made a
mistake. We should not have said that we were going to kill, scrap
and abolish the GST because we cannot do it. Now, in the best
interests of the country, let us balance the books. Let us get rid of
the deficit and after that we will slowly start to reduce the GST
until we can phase it out altogether''. That is the responsible thing
to say to Canadians. It is certainly what my colleagues in the
Reform Party are saying to Canadians. It is what we believe.
If the justice minister will let us keep our guns, we will find a
way to hunt that GST down a couple of years after we balance the
books and we will kill it, but not before we balance the books and
not before we eliminate the deficit.
This relates to other taxation issues, in that the government
collects taxes and fees for services for specific commodities and
services with the unwritten promise that those moneys collected
are going to be used for the purposes which the government has
identified.
For example, 60 cents out of every dollar that a Canadian spends
at the gas pump goes to taxation of one form or another. A lot of it
is road tax. A lot of that is collected on the basis that the moneys
are going to be used to build new infrastructure or maintain
existing roads and bridges. You do not have to be a rocket scientist
or an engineer to see the state of Canada's infrastructure at the
present time. You do not have to drive a great deal to notice the
state of Canada's roads and bridges. Yet the government continues
to collect hundreds of millions of dollars in fuel taxes designed for
roads and bridges. Where does the money go? It goes into the big
black debt hole here in Ottawa.
We cannot forget that the government of the day, that wonderful
Progressive Conservative Party, which introduced the GST in the
first place, said: ``We are making a solemn promise. When we
introduce this tax we are going to use it to reduce the deficit.'' Does
anybody remember that? By how much did that government reduce
the deficit? I do not think there is a Canadian who believes that the
Progressive Conservative Party ever intended to reduce the deficit.
I do not think there is a Canadian who, at this stage of the game,
believes that the Liberals intended to kill, scrap and abolish the
GST, even though that is what they solemnly promised to do in the
last election.
Mr. Mitchell: There is no question that you cannot read. Read
the red book. Read what it says.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I hear a bit of noise coming
from across the way. I see a sea of agreeable faces, but there are
two or three who do not agree with me over there.
There are other issues. The fishing licence fees that were
imposed on Atlantic Canadians was nothing more than a $50
million cash grab on the part of the Liberal government. The
Liberals say this is an access fee. It is in return for the services that
are provided to fishermen. What services have they provided? It is
nothing more than a tax grab to feed this black debt hole here in
Ottawa. There is no intention to match the funds that are received
for specific purposes and actually see that those funds are spent in
those areas.
(1715)
In closing let me say one more time that it is time for this
government to come clean. It is time for this government to tell
Canadians ``we should not have made this promise, we are sorry
that we have lied to you, we are going to abolish this idea of
harmonization''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): At the request of the
opposition whip, the vote on this matter is deferred until Monday at
the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Would
the House agree to call it 5.30 p.m.?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent for calling it 5.30 p.m.?
7166
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7166
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 22, 1996, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-297, an act to revoke the conviction of Louis
David Riel, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured and humbled by this opportunity to speak to Bill C-297,
the purpose of which is to revoke the conviction of Louis Riel for
high treason.
When I studied the history of Quebec and Canada, one of the
saddest events was undoubtedly the conviction and subsequent
execution of Louis Riel.
Members will recall that this happened shortly after Canada
became a confederation, the Canadian Confederation, at a time
when it had decided to expand its borders.
(1720)
It was feared that the Americans, who had just bought Alaska,
would take possession of western Canada and that Canada, as it
existed at the time, would not be able to connect with British
Columbia, a new province at the time, to form a country.
As is often the case, the whole issue started with a deal between
Canada and the Hudson's Bay Company. In order to extend its
territory, Canada reached an agreement with that English company,
for a certain amount of money. There were individuals living in
western Canada in those days, but they were mostly Metis. They
had formed a people. John A. Macdonald's central government
wanted to retain control at any cost.
Louis Riel is a great Canadian, a great patriot, a man who fought
for his people and his language in that environment. Louis Riel
heard the cry of his people and defended them. We all remember
that Louis Riel was born in St. Boniface, on October 22, 1844. He
was born in western Canada. His father, Louis Riel, was a Metis,
and his mother, Julie de la Gimonière, was the first daughter to be
born in a family of white settlers in western Canada. In 1858, he
studied at the Montreal seminary, so he knew French very well.
Then he went back home. They say he did not have the calling to be
a priest, even though he came from a very religious family.
In those days, the federalists, the Ottawa centralists, wanted
western Canada to remain a territory, under the control of Ottawa,
for as long as possible. People who lived in that region did not
agree. Louis Riel founded Manitoba as we all know.
The Ontario Anglo-Protestants wanted to see Louis Riel hang.
Louis Riel surrendered in 1885. After several battles, he
surrendered on May 15, 1885. His trial was riddled with
irregularities, everybody agrees on that. The trial was held in
Regina and the jury was made up of six English speaking jurors.
Had the trial been held in Winnipeg, the outcome would have
been different. In Winnipeg the jury would have consisted of six
French speaking jurors and six English speaking jurors. At that
time Manitoba was already a province.
In Winnipeg, the presiding judge would have been a Supreme
Court judge, whose independence is guaranteed by law. The Regina
judge could be removed at any time by the federal government, and
that government wanted Riel's head.
On November 16, 1885, at the age of 41, Louis Riel,a hero of the
Metis people, was hanged. In December, after much effort by his
family, his body was moved to Saint-Vital, in Manitoba, and buried
in the cemetery of St. Boniface cathedral. Less than a week after
the hanging, on November 22, 1885, a crowd of some 50,000
gathered on the Champs-de-Mars in Montreal and demonstrated.
This was the start of the two solitudes in Canada.
(1725)
While people in Ontario were delighted because a common
criminal had been executed, the Premier of Quebec, Honoré
Mercier, was saying in Montreal: ``Our brother, Louis Riel, is
dead''. There were riots in Montreal, despite the fact that people
were very religious, strong believers. There were riots and
speeches. The government had been asked to show mercy, but hed
refused. Even the six jurors had said: ``Guilty, yes, but we request
clemency''. They were ignored.
This sad event was probably the beginning of the end of the good
relations between the two founding peoples of Canada. In 1867, the
Fathers of Confederation and the others who seemed to agree soon
realized that Canada had misled them, because it was expected at
that time that the new territories, the new future provinces would
be bilingual. We know this is not what happened.
Now, rights are given when it may be too late. But, at that time,
Honoré Mercier of Quebec, and people believed that Canada would
be bilingual.
In concluding, I would like to read you the last letter that Louis
Riel wrote before he died. This is Louis Riel's will. Of course, I
will read it to you, and we have to go back to that time to fully
understand that Louis Riel held no grudges.
This is Louis Riel speaking: ``May my burial be simple. May it
be attended by the comforts of religion. Far from me, far from my
mortal remains are the desires for revenge, the reprisals. I forgive
those who have committed so many injustices against me. I pray
that my heart will be filled with the perfection of forgiveness and
that all my trespasses will be forgiven, as I forgive all my enemies,
7167
my adversaries, my opponents, my antagonists of all allegiances
who trespassed against me. I therefore name Reverend Father Blais
André as executor of my wishes as to my burial, so that my body
may be carried through his care to the hospital to be laid in state,
and from there to St. Boniface, to be buried beside the beloved
remains of my dear beloved papa. May my body rest beside his''.
And it is signed: Louis David Riel.
This is an injustice done a very long ago. But I think that, when a
society has the courage to admit the errors of the past, that society
is progressing. Louis Riel was undoubtedly the founder of
Manitoba. He was a man who left his mark on his time. He was a
man who fought against the government in Ottawa, a centralizing
government even in those days.
I think that, today in this House, we, on all sides, must recognize
the greatness of that man, the man who defended francophonie in
America.
[English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak on this
private member's bill. While I very much support the idea of
honouring Louis Riel and would be happy to participate in
ceremonies and other ways of honouring this great man, I do not
support the premise of this bill.
Many Canadians do not appreciate that Louis Riel was an
educated man. He was educated in theology and in law. He was
fluent in English, French, Greek and Latin. He was an eloquent and
polished orator and a statesman who directed the negotiations with
the Government of Canada on the entry of Manitoba and the
Northwest Territories into the Dominion of Canada. Louis Riel, in
spite of what the Bloc seems to suggest to us, was a great believer
in Canadian unity and in one country which would include, of
course, the province of Quebec and the western provinces. I take
great pleasure in addressing the House on this very important issue.
I believe that all members of the House would agree that Louis Riel
made an important contribution to the building of this great nation.
(1730)
The government has not ignored the importance Louis Riel has
played in our nation's development. We have taken steps to
advance the interests of Metis and off reserve aboriginal people and
to honour Louis Riel's place in history.
The Constitution Act of 1992 recognizes the existing aboriginal
and treaty rights of the Metis. The government has issued
commemorative stamps to honour Louis Riel, through the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada it has funded
the publication of the collective writings of Louis Riel which was
published in 1985 by the University of Alberta Press to
commemorate the anniversary of the North West Rebellion.
On March 10, 1992, the House of Commons passed a special
resolution honouring Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba and
recognizing his contribution to the development of western Canada
and, therefore, to the development of the entire country. This
resolution recognized the unique and historic importance of Louis
Riel.
The government has funded cultural performances over the
years, including the very successful Batoche Days in Batoche,
Saskatchewan. That festival has been held annually for over 25
years in memory of Louis Riel.
In May of this year a statue of Louis Riel was unveiled in
Winnipeg on the grounds of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly.
The statue was funded by the federal government. It is situated
along the Assiniboia River, just west of the fork where the
Assiniboia and Red Rivers meet. This is a perfect spot for a statue
commemorating Riel, a statue that I visited recently when I was in
Manitoba. He was a founding member of western Canada and these
two rivers represent the major trading routes to the west.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and member for Winnipeg South
Centre, when unveiling the statue, proudly announced Louis Riel as
a father of Confederation for all Canadians. The Metis people can
be proud of Louis Riel's accomplishments. We cannot and will not
forget the importance place of Louis Riel in Canadian history.
This place is not diminished by his conviction. He is
remembered as a builder of our nation. He had a vision of the
proper place of Metis people and other people who settled in the
west in Confederation. He represented all people of the west. He
directed the negotiations with the Government of Canada of the
entry of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories into the Dominion.
Many things have already been done and there are many more
positive things which can be done to carry on the work started by
Louis Riel. Discussions will continue with the Metis through
existing processes such as the bilateral process with the Metis
National Council and the tripartite self-government negotiations
with Metis organizations at the provincial level.
I cannot accept the premise on which this bill was put forward by
the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, when she asserted
the Louis Riel was hanged: ``because he was a Metis, because he
was a francophone and because he stood up for a distinct society''.
This statement and the sentiments behind the tabling of this bill do
not do justice to the memory of Louis Riel. They are incompatible
7168
with this purpose and to use his memory as an excuse to stir the pot
in terms of national unity is in my view, unacceptable.
Louis Riel was not only an eloquent, articulate defender of Metis
rights, but he was a defender of the rights of all members of the
community, including aboriginal, non-aboriginal, anglophone and
francophone. He defended the rights of all people. Louis Riel did
not just defend the rights of his own group, of the Metis. He
championed the rights of all minorities as well.
Riel would not agree with the premise behind the tabling of this
bill and we should find other methods to honour the memory of
Louis Riel. We must look for solutions with the support of the
Metis people of Canada.
Louis Riel had a vision of a unified country in which all people
would participate equally. Along with the Metis people, we will
continue the work of Louis Riel in ensuring that all people are
equal members have an equal say in our society. When we
contemplate honouring Louis Riel we must keep in mind the
society that he fought hard to protect, a society where all people
would live in shared dignity and mutual respect.
(1735 )
I urge the government to continue to work closely with Metis
leaders and the family of Louis Riel to find appropriate and
meaningful ways to celebrate his contribution to Confederation.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise in this House today to speak to Bill C-297, an
act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel.
The Bloc Quebecois is once again addressing this issue in the
House because we believe it is crucial to resolve the historical
injustice sullying to this day the memory of Louis David Riel. It is
important to put an end to the paradox surrounding the status of
Louis Riel.
In fact, still today, in 1996, Riel legally remains a criminal who
was sentenced for high treason in 1885. But at the same time, the
House of Commons recognizes Riel as one of the Fathers of
Confederation, since unanimously passing a motion on March 10,
1992.
I think we have to render to Riel what is Riel's. Quebecers and
Canadians must be made aware of Riel's initiatives, since they
reflect the courage and the will of this man to fight for the basic
rights of his people.
Of course, this bill will not bring Louis Riel back to life, but
justice would have been done, because after being sentenced for
high treason by a kangaroo court, Riel was hanged in November
1885, at the age of 41.
Hon. members will have to agree that we cannot in all decency
acclaim Louis Riel as a national hero while ignoring his
ignominious conviction for high treason that has yet to be revoked.
If I could, I would like to give the hon. members some historical
background so they can better understand the scope of the injustice
done to Riel. By reviewing the 1885 events, we can see how
important this conviction was for the relations between central and
western Canada.
First, it is, of course, important to realize that the majority of
those who were called Metis at the time were a mix of aboriginal
people, coureurs de bois, employees of the fur companies and
European-born trappers who had as their main characteristics the
fact that they were French speaking and Catholic.
Representing more than 80 per cent of Manitoba's total
population in the 1870s, the Métis had their way of life disturbed
by the arrival of successive waves of settlers from the east. With
the help of an unscrupulous Conservative government, these new
settlers kept the best lands for themselves and took political control
of the whole region.
From that moment on, the Métis started to mobilize against the
invader. They followed a man known for his commitment to the
cause of the Métis people. That man was Louis David Riel. Riel,
who had studied law and had been secretary of a national Métis
committee in 1870, was known for having worked on the
establishment of a list of rights that set out the terms for
Manitoba's entry into the Canadian Confederation.
Confrontations between Ottawa's envoys and the Métis people
culminated with the death of a land surveyor killed by order of a
national council then headed by Riel. The militant Anglo
Protestants never forgave Riel for that.
However, in Quebec, Riel became a mythical figure, a hero and a
defender of the French culture and the Catholic faith.
Despite being exiled, Riel was elected to this House for the first
time in 1873 in a byelection and was re-elected in 1874. He was
expelled from the House by means of a motion brought forward by
an Orangeman. That was the start of many years of wandering,
depression and confinement for Riel.
I want to say this because our goal is not to change or correct
history, but to show all the nuances that will help people better
understand our history. Louis Riel did not lead an exemplary life.
Like everybody else, he made mistakes. In March 1885, in a last
attempt to defend the rights of the Métis people, he and his men
rose up in arms to form an interim government in Batoche and
demanded the surrender of Fort Carlton.
After a battle that lasted a few months, he was forced to
surrender. He was executed in November 1885, and his execution
gave rise to the heated debate that is still going on today and
created a very deep gap between francophones and anglophones.
7169
(1740)
The francophones who had strongly supported Riel
demonstrated against the decision, which they considered
revolting. Over 50,000 Montrealers, a third of the city's population
at the time, took to the streets of centre town to express their
outrage.
But the harm was done: by putting the Metis leader to death, the
central authorities of the day had managed to silence the claims of a
whole nation. These details are important, especially in view of the
4,000 page report just released by the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples.
It contains recommendations relating to Metis claims. In the
fourth volume, on page 244, the commissioners recommend
actions aimed at preserving and developing the Metis culture which
is becoming extinct. Considered today as being among the poorest
of aboriginals in Canada, the Metis have no territory nor political
representation. Seen in that perspective, the elimination of Louis
Riel certainly allowed the Canadian authorities of the day to reach
their despicable goal.
This injustice to Louis Riel must be put right. Let us remind the
Liberals who are now the government that the Liberal leader of the
time, then the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier
himself, had supported Louis Riel and the cause he was standing
for. He stated, and I quote: ``If I had been on the shores of the
Saskatchewan river, I too would have raised my rifle.''
The status of Louis Riel is so ambiguous today that even the
Department of Canadian Heritage has recognized him as a person
of national historic importance since 1956. He is described in the
records of that department as ``Metis leader, the Father of
Manitoba, and leader of the Northwest rebellion in 1885''. But in
the eyes of the law, he is still a traitor.
In 1985, the one hundredth anniversary of Riel's execution,
several leading political figures in the House and in the Senate
spoke, and I would like to quote some of their remarks. Liberal
senator Joseph-Philippe Guay said: ``Riel has become a symbol,
first of a linguistic and cultural minority whose rights to survive
have long been ignored and are, to this day, still in jeopardy-''
Senator Guay acknowledged: ``Riel was not beyond reproach'',
but he added: ``If we remember him today, it is because the fight to
which he devoted his whole life is largely still ours today''.
In 1985 also, the present heritage minister and Deputy Prime
Minister made a statement on this occasion. I quote from the
November 28, 1985 of Hansard:
-I now ask that this Conservative Government exonerate the victim of the
conspiracy of another Conservative Government-Letters and diaries of the
participants and observers indicate unethical tactics to obtain political benefits from
the rebellion-The reason for the Macdonald Government's promotion of a
common riot to a full blown rebellion was to win additional funding for the near
bankrupt Canadian Pacific Railway. Louis Riel, who died unnecessarily, deserves to
be exonerated by the Government and recognized as a victim of wrongdoing.
That is what the current Deputy Prime Minister of Canada said.
Today, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Deputy Prime
Minister has to face up to the principles she was advocating then,
since her party now forms the government. If the government is
really serious in wanting to act to settle the Riel issue once and for
all, as a great number of members tried to do throughout the history
of this country, it must do so now.
I want to reassure members of all sides that the only reason the
Bloc Quebecois introduced this bill today is to put an end to this
injustice, to give this House an opportunity to be consistent and to
allow Louis David Riel to finally rest in peace, more than 110 years
after his death.
Since Riel was hanged, Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats
as well as Bloc members have spoken in this House to have Louis
Riel's conviction revoked.
Concerning this bill that we introduced today, we were very sad
to read all the news reports, and the letters which were brought to
our attention.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to clarify for everyone that the Bloc
Quebecois has not proposed this bill in order to make partisan
political gains. Nor is this an attempt to rewrite history according
to one bias, ignoring everything else. No, the objective of Bill
C-297 is simple. It is to clear the name of Louis Riel and give him
the recognition he deserves.
(1745)
[Translation]
Consequently, I urge all members of this House to support Bill
C-297. The ambiguity surrounding this Metis leader has existed for
too long now. Now is the time to give him the recognition he
deserves for being the hero he was and still is.
Too many young people are still learning in school that Riel was
nothing more than a rebel and an outlaw. This is tragic and
appalling. This great man, who helped found Manitoba and
defended the rights of his people, will get the recognition he truly
deserves in the history of this country only if we revoke his
conviction.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak as a
westerner for a few moments about Louis Riel.
A lot of people do not realize that Louis Riel was born in the
west and spent most of his life in the west and that he was a staunch
federalist, which makes me wonder to some extent why members
7170
of the separatist party in the House are taking this opportunity to
press their motion.
He was not a violent man but was caught up in the whirlwind of
events that were beyond his control. Actually he partially
controlled them. Had it not been for Louis Riel's influence on
Gabriel Dumont, there would have been a lot more deaths in the
north-west rebellion. It was Riel who restrained Dumont from
using guerrilla tactics against Middleton's troops. On that basis
alone, the man should have been shown more mercy and
compassion when he was tried.
There is no question that the trial was unfair. However that was
110 years ago. I do not believe that any good purpose is served by
this attempt to fudge over one of the darker episodes of our history.
It happened. It is over. I would take this same attitude to any
historical event. It serves no purpose. It does not help Louis Riel in
any way for us to stand in this House and say he was not guilty. The
deed was done. History is history. I think there are other things that
this House could attend to.
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with pleasure that I respond today to Bill C-297.
Bill C-297 would revoke the conviction of Louis Riel and that is
why I support the bill. History has shown that the conviction of
Louis Riel was wrong in law and it was wrong in fact.
Let me say at the outset that I view Louis Riel as an important
contributor to Confederation. His conviction for high treason in
1885 has been the subject of controversy for many years. Louis
Riel was an important figure in the development of our country and
to the nation that it is today. He worked endlessly for the Metis
people of the west. He also worked for all settlers of the territories
that have now become the provinces of Manitoba and
Saskatchewan in our fine country.
During the late 1870s to the mid-1880s the west was going
through significant changes. Aboriginal people, English speaking
and French speaking Metis, and many other settlers from various
parts of the world resided in the west. These people of diverse
backgrounds banded together to advance their request to the
government for the maintenance of their rights. These settlers felt
that either there was no response to their needs or the response was
too slow. Occasionally similar feelings are advanced by various
organizations and groups even today.
(1750)
They were right to believe that the government of the day was
slow in responding to the requests of the residents of the west who
asked for reasonable matters to be addressed, such as appropriate
surveys for their settlements, improved transportation so they
could move products to and from markets, and other useful
services normally provided by a government to its citizens.
The French speaking and English speaking Metis, along with the
settlers of many nationalities, sent numerous petitions and
delegations to Ottawa to ask the government to carry out its
responsibilities. After what the people of the west viewed as many
years of neglect and without recourse against the encroachment of
others, the people asked Louis Riel for his assistance in negotiating
with the government.
Eventually the Metis of the west led by Louis Riel took action to
secure their interests. Several military expeditions were dispatched
to the west by the government which led to an unfortunate turn of
events and indeed loss of life. As we know, Louis Riel eventually
was hanged.
Riel was an eloquent and articulate defender of Metis rights as
well as those of all members of the community, whether aboriginal,
non-aboriginal, anglophone or francophone. Louis Riel was an
educated man. He was fluent in English, French, Greek and Latin.
He was once a polished statesman who directed the negotiation
with the Government of Canada on the entry of Manitoba and the
area then known as the North-West Territories into the Dominion of
Canada.
Under the leadership of Louis Riel the Metis of Red River
adopted a list of rights in 1870. It is important to recall that this list
of rights was the primary basis upon which Louis Riel guided the
negotiations with the Canadian government for the entry of the
territories into the Dominion of Canada.
Louis Riel negotiated the terms for the admission of Rupert's
Land and the North-Western Territory into the Dominion of
Canada. A delegation of three was sent by the provincial
government to Ottawa to present the terms to the Canadian
government. This list was essentially the terms of union and
formed part of the Manitoba Act.
The list provided for guarantees for Metis people who were then
in the majority, including schooling and religious rights as well as
recognition of the French and English languages. The rights of
other citizens were also clearly set out. This was Louis Riel's
vision of a united country with each citizen participating on an
equal basis.
After the province of Manitoba entered into Confederation the
citizens of the riding of Provencher in the province of Manitoba
elected Louis Riel on three occasions by acclamation to the House
of Commons. Because of the circumstances, Riel was unable to
take his seat in this House.
Louis Riel devoted his life to the interests of the Metis people.
He understood their concerns. He had a vision of the proper place
for the Metis people and other westerners within Confederation.
These people blended together to advance their request to the
government for the maintenance of their rights.
In introducing the bill, the hon. member commented that Riel
was hanged because he was Metis, because he was a francophone
and because he stood up for a distinct society. That was not Louis
7171
Riel. If he were here today I do not believe he would agree with that
statement.
Louis Riel stood for equal rights for all Canadians. He believed
that the Metis were entitled to equal rights and full participation
within Confederation. The Metis at that time in history formed a
substantial part of the population. Louis Riel championed for the
rights of the minority groups. He would be saddened today by the
divisive approach taken by members of the Bloc on this issue.
Louis Riel's contribution to this country has been recognized by
the government over the years in a number of ways. I support the
efforts of the government in seeking ways to recognize his positive
achievements.
(1755)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recall that in
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, in a house that belonged to Sir
John A. Macdonald, we can see the telegraph on which the
telegram was sent to order the hanging of Louis Riel. The telegram
said simply: ``Hang Louis Riel''.
Today, the House of Commons has an opportunity to make
amends for this blot on our history, and I hope we will make it
unanimous.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent to defer the division until Tuesday at 5.30 p.m., after
Government Orders?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent that we call it 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7171
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on November 8 I asked the government when it would
amend Canadian legislation to facilitate the establishment of an
international criminal court which is under active consideration at
the United Nations. Such an international criminal court would try
individuals who commit serious violations of human rights and
crimes against humanity, including genocide and ethnic cleansing.
I acknowledge that the Canadian government is a strong
supporter of the international criminal court, but as I said, the
establishment of such a court requires amendments to our domestic
law to permit the referral of accused Canadians who might be
indicted by the new court.
Ever since the Nuremberg trials following World War II, which
tried and judged Nazi war criminals, there has been a movement to
establish a permanent international criminal court. Such a court
should not be confused with the International Court of Justice at the
Hague, known as the World Court, which judges disputes between
nations.
The international criminal court would deal with individuals
charged with massive violations of human rights, such as the
accused at the Nuremberg trials and now those accused before the
special tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda. A permanent
international criminal court would give credibility and provide
deterrence to the process.
The Nuremberg court and the special tribunals in Yugoslavia and
Rwanda were set up post facto. In the case of the Nazi war
criminals, the court was set up by the victors of the conflict. It
would be much better to have such courts and their rules set up
permanently in advance as is now proposed at the United Nations.
(1800 )
I await the government's answer. I know it supports the
international criminal court but I would like to know when it will
bring
7172
forward legislation which would give impetus and give some
movement to the whole issue at the United Nations.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has asked whether the government intends
to amend Canadian law to permit the referral of an accused person
to the new proposed international criminal court which is currently
being debated by the general assembly in New York.
Canada has been a leading advocate in support of the
establishment of a permanent international criminal court that
would try major international crimes, such as war crimes and
crimes against humanity, and which would obviate the need to
establish ad hoc tribunals as has been done for the situations in the
former Yugoslavia as well as Rwanda.
In order to answer the question posed I believe that it is first
necessary to review the history of this issue before talking about
the need or timetable to enact legislation in Canada.
In December 1994 the general assembly established the ad hoc
committee on the establishment of an international criminal court
to review the major substantive administrative issues arising out of
the International Law Commission's draft statute for an
international criminal court. The report of the committee was
considered by the 50th session of the general assembly in 1995
which decided that a preparatory committee should be struck with a
view to preparing a widely acceptable consolidated text of a
convention for an international criminal court. This would be the
next step toward holding a diplomatic conference of
plenipotentiaries to finalize the convention.
The preparatory committee on the establishment of an
international criminal court found many major issues that remain
to be resolved. The general assembly is currently considering the
interim report of the preparatory committee. It is likely that the
general assembly will reaffirm the mandate of the committee to
continue its work in 1997 and 1998 with a view to having a
diplomatic conference in 1998 to conclude the final negotiation.
Canada has been a leading advocate of a permanent international
criminal court but it is only after a final text of a convention is
concluded, when we will know what is legally required of us, that
Canada can enact legislation designed to implement the convention
that will establish the court. At present the UN does not even have
the complete comprehensive draft convention.
When the time comes to enact legislation in order to implement
the future international convention that would establish the court,
let me assure this House that Canada intends to enact the necessary
legislation quickly. However, at this time it is premature to be
enacting legislation. We are still at least two years away from the
final negotiations that would conclude the international convention
on the creation of the court.
There are many complicated questions to be resolved by the UN,
not the least of which are defining what surrender process will be
used and defining the role of national laws in relation to obligations
to assist the court.
On the domestic level Department of Justice officials are already
considering what amendments would be necessary in future to
provide the requisite assistance to the proposed international
criminal court. Internationally we are playing an important role on
the UN preparatory committee.
At the preparatory committee Canada is attempting to ensure
that the scheme that is eventually adopted will be flexible enough
to accommodate and promote co-operation to the court from all
legal systems.
In summary, this government is working toward the creation of
an international criminal court domestically and at the United
Nations. I would like to thank the hon. member for his question on
this important issue at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday, I questioned the Minister for International Trade about
the Liberal government's plans regarding the filing of an official
complaint with the World Trade Organization.
For months and months, this government has been boasting
about everything being under control. It certainly looks like this
attitude is taking away any hope the industry may have had to see
France reconsider its decision to ban asbestos on its territory.
This will have an tremendous impact on my riding, not only on
the asbestos industry, but also on the development of the
community as a whole. The government does not seem to realize
how worried people are in my riding; all it does is send us ministers
on a purely election-oriented mission. Could the minister tell us if
cabinet issued some secret directions not to go to the WTO? We all
know about this government's inclination to turn to the courts when
in a tight spot.
Beyond the rhetoric and lip service we have heard from the
minister and the Prime Minister, does the government have any real
plan of action?
(1805)
I would like to know the profound convictions of cabinet on this
unique mineral, not only because of its extraordinary properties,
but also because it constitutes one of the jewels in the crown of the
Canadian mining industry.
It is high time the federal government made amends to the
citizens of Thetford, Black Lake and the whole asbestos mining
region. It made a commitment to intervene on the international
level to rehabilitate asbestos, particularly chrysotile asbestos.
7173
Perhaps the time is ripe for it to start promoting it on its own
territory, even here on the Hill.
How can it be assumed that the asbestos that is sealed inside the
walls in the buildings on Parliament Hill is dangerous? Yet that is
what is suggested in the numerous internal memos we receive in
our offices concerning the major renovations that are scheduled,
including decontamination of the buildings.
Despite all the respect I have for this House and for cabinet, this
whole scenario suggests to me that the Liberal government's
famous action plan is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The
government, and its Minister for International Trade, are
improvising daily in this matter, inventing things as they go along.
In this connection, I could produce before this House numerous
documents setting out the position of the current government and
the previous one concerning the government's true psychosis about
the harmful effects of asbestos. My predecessor, the hon. Marcel
Masse, was one of the most vocal supporters of chrysotile fibre
during his entire political carrier in Ottawa. His statements in
favour of asbestos were decisive for our industry.
Personally, I strongly condemn the lack of leadership shown by
the Minister of Natural Resources, who proved unable to convince
one French MP, Christian Daniel, of the safety of asbestos when
used properly. Imagine, if she is unable to convince one lone MP,
how could she hope to influence the position of a whole
government?
In conclusion, I would ask the minister to apprise us of the
government's intentions regarding the promotion of chrysotile
fibre, especially with regard to the use of asbestos ore in Canada.
The minister should take note of my question, I intend to follow
through with it. People in the asbestos producing area are tired of
ministers coming to Thetford with empty promises. As far as I
know the election campaign has not started yet. The government
was elected to govern, and so it should.
I hoped the international trade minister himself would answer
my question. Does he not consider this issue important enough to
be present in the House and respond to my comments?
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the comments made by the member and I have to say
that the comments are simply not factual.
The member knows full well that the Canadian government, the
Minister of International Trade, the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Natural Resources have taken the lead in trying to
convince the French government, with respect to crystallite
asbestos, that the ban it is seeking to impose is not one that is based
on any internationally accepted view of the health risks associated
with the asbestos.
The member should know, because it is of concern to his
constituents, that the Minister of International Trade actually
visited Thetford Mines to meet with municipal officials and hear
firsthand from individuals who are working in the industry and
from all the stakeholders what would be the best concerted
approach that the Canadian government could take, working with
the Government of Quebec, the industry and the communities to
come up with a concerted game plan in order to convince the
French that this particular ban should be reversed.
The member also knows full well that the Canadian government
is looking at its options under the World Trade Organization. We
believe that the French ban may violate commitments of WTO
members that ensure that technical regulations are no more trade
restrictive than necessary in order to fulfil a legitimate objective.
While France may have legitimate health and safety concerns
about asbestos products, a ban on such products may be more
restrictive than necessary, particularly if other-
(1810 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I regret to interrupt the
hon. parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, there was a major conference in Ottawa last week. It
brought together people from all across Canada who are interested
in finding ways to relieve child poverty. They left knowing that the
problem was well documented, but frustrated because there is little
being done to deal with it.
However, there was one bright note and that was the award
presented to the province of Saskatchewan and accepted at the
conference by Premier Roy Romanow. The award acknowledged
Saskatchewan's commitment to investing in children as a key
priority and its co-ordinated approach to policy development and
delivery.
Premier Romanow was also a featured speaker at that
conference. He reminded us that it is the responsibility of all of us
to value, protect and support Canada's children, to guide them in
becoming healthy, functioning adults because it is the health and
the strength of our children that will determine the future health
and strength of our country.
He also reminded us of the most recent report of the Canadian
Council of Catholic Bishops which said: ``To think that almost one
Canadian child in five lives in poverty in one of the richest
7174
societies in world history is nothing less than a damning indictment
of the present socioeconomic order''.
In Saskatchewan, the province's action plan for children was
designated in 1993 to provide a model for the development of
programs and services for children and families. It not only brings
together community groups, agencies, individuals and
governments to collaborate and deliver services, but also links
activities between Saskatchewan's human service departments.
This interlinking of departmental initiatives enables the province to
better target limited resources and to develop programs that more
effectively meet the overall needs of children and families.
It was this action plan that captured the attention of the child
poverty community and was the impetus for the award presented to
the premier last week.
But more needs to be done and Premier Romanow and most of
Canada knows that the federal government must play an important
role in this regard.
First, on the premier's national agenda to help reduce child
poverty is a commitment to strong social programs. He emphasizes
programs which address child and family poverty, but at the same
time he stresses the necessity to preserve medicare and accessible
quality education.
I might add that a major problem today is the federal Liberal
government's insistence that $7 billion be cut from its transfers to
the provinces for health and education programs. To me this $7
billion must be reinstated immediately.
The premier also believes that Canada must undertake a
comprehensive review of the taxation system which is seen as
being unfair, ineffective and not representative of current Canadian
priorities. Obviously this fits well with the federal NDP's call for a
fair taxation system which would see the banks and large
corporations paying their fair share of taxes.
It goes without saying that our nation's children represent our
nation's future. We have to take their needs into account as we plan
for today's activities.
In 1989 a resolution brought forward by the then NDP federal
leader Ed Broadbent to eliminate poverty by the year 2000 was
passed unanimously by the members of the House. Since then 46
per cent more children are living below the poverty line.
Obviously, the status quo is not working. Some aggressive action is
required.
My question for the federal Liberal government is simple: When
the premier of Saskatchewan and all those who care about children
call for a different approach to dealing with poverty, is the minister,
on behalf of the government prepared to heed that call?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. Minister of Human Resources Development
and the hon. Minister of Health have indicated on many occasions,
the Government of Canada is extremely concerned about the
challenges facing low income families with children.
Poverty exacts an unacceptable toll on children. It often means
that their physical needs for food, shelter and clothing are not met.
It can result in their cognitive development being delayed
compared with children in families with adequate incomes and it
has long term costs for our country.
Poor children have poor health outcomes. They reach lower
educational levels. They live in riskier environments and engage in
riskier behaviours.
The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake is calling
for immediate action for children, but this action is already under
way. The Prime Minister, along with other first ministers, has
agreed that child poverty is a priority. The government is working
with the provinces, including Saskatchewan, to identify ways to
prevent and reduce child poverty.
To this end, a federal-provincial ministerial council on social
policy renewal, co-chaired by the Minister of Human Resources
Development, recently met and agreed to closely examine options
for a national child benefit. A federal-provincial working group is
meeting on an ongoing basis.
In addition, many provinces have demonstrated a commitment to
fulfilling their responsibilities for children. British Columbia has
just restructured its children's benefits and Quebec has announced
its intention to refine its system. New Brunswick raised the issue in
its recently delivered speech from the throne and Saskatchewan has
announced its intention to introduce a provincial child benefit.
The Government of Canada is already providing important help
to low income families and it is working toward finding solutions
to the complex problems poverty presents. For example, the
government now spends over $5 billion on child tax benefits that
are paid to over three million Canadian families and has also
doubled the working income supplement provided to low income
families.
In addition, the government announced in its 1996 budget a child
support strategy that will protect the interests of children and
ensure parents live up to their responsibilities for child support in a
manner that is fair and consistent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): A motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.)