CONTENTS
Friday, April 26, 1996
Bill C-275. Motion for concurrence at all stages 1993
Bill C-31. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 1993
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 1994
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 2001
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 2003
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2005
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2005
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2005
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2006
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2006
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2006
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2006
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2006
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2008
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2009
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2009
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2009
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2010
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2010
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2010
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2012
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2013
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2013
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 2014
Bill C-276. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 2016
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 2016
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2017
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2017
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 2017
Bill C-31. Consideration resumed of motion, the amendmentand the
amendment to the amendment. 2018
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2018
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2019
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2022
Division on amendment to the amendment deferred 2026
Bill C-216. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 2026
Division on motion deferred 2032
1993
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 26, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the House would give its unanimous consent to
the following. I move:
That a Bill entitled ``An Act establishing the Canadian Association of Former
Parliamentarians'' be now deemed adopted at all stages without debate or
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Consequently, the bill is deemed read for
the first time and ordered to be printed, read the second time and
referred to committee of the whole, deemed reported without
amendment, deemed passed at report stage, read the third time and
passed.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 25, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of
the budget tabled in Parliament on March 6, 1996, be read the
second time and referred to a committee, and the amendment and
the amendment to the amendment.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have an opportunity to talk about the budget bill which is
before us today.
The budget is very much about preserving the future for
Canadians. A major thrust is preserving our social programs and
particularly the pension plans which have done so much to alleviate
poverty among the elderly and provide Canada's seniors with a safe
and secure retirement from an economic point of view. We want to
make sure that we are able to continue to offer that same sense of
security to today's young people when they are retired.
The budget is also about preserving economic opportunities for
Canadians, with a very heavy emphasis on enhancing trade
opportunities, removing internal trade barriers as well as getting
more Canadians out there in the international marketplace trading,
producing jobs and economic prosperity here at home.
It is about recognizing that the knowledge industries are where
the job opportunities of the future will be and investing
strategically what limited resources we have in those areas of
technology that we think offer the greatest potential.
We promised Canadians that we would deliver efficient,
effective government. We have done that through putting Canada's
economic and fiscal position in a much better state and moving
toward a balanced budget and eventually debt reduction. We have
done it with no tax rate increases at all in this budget. In fact, in the
last three budgets there has not been an increase in personal tax
rates.
Part of the plan has been smaller, more effective, more
affordable government, to look at what we do as a government, to
look at how we do it and to look at how we can do it better. Part of
that has been examining the best ways to deliver services. Some
measures involve privatization and the setting up of special
agencies which will operate in a much tighter and more
accountable way.
Part has simply been to stop doing things that we felt
government no longer needed to do and sorting out with the
provinces what is their proper area of activity and what is ours,
especially in those areas of government endeavour where there is
overlap and duplication between the two levels of government.
As we have been going through this change there is no question
at all that it has had a significant impact on employees, many of
them my constituents. The fundamental principles, as we have
gone through this period of change and as we continue through it, is
to be fair to employees, to make changes in a way that will be less
disruptive to them, to their lives, to their careers and to their
families.
I want to put a few comments on the record on areas where we
have achieved that with some success because some comments
were made in the House yesterday that did not quite accurately
reflect things that have been done and things that are planned.
When my colleague from the Reform Party, the hon. member for
1994
St. Albert spoke, I hope he was ill-informed and was not being
mischievous with the facts of the situation.
(1010)
I will put on the record a couple of facts that may correct some
misapprehensions arising from his speech yesterday. He talked
about air navigational service employees. It is important to know
these employees will receive their severance pay when they move
to NavCan. The employer has respected the collective agreement
which was in place at the time the agreement was signed.
Subsequent negotiations have occurred on the treatment of
employees who will be affected by alternative delivery
mechanisms, some of which I have mentioned.
The majority of public service unions, although not those
representing the majority of employees, agreed to changes in the
collective agreement such that severance payments will not be
made at the time of transfer, but the liability for that severance
payment will be transferred to the new employer when the
collective agreement is transferred through successor rights.
This agreement with the unions was conditional on the
government introducing successor rights through amendments to
the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour
Code. While one of the public service unions does not agree, I can
only say to those unions which were involved in concluding this
agreement that they bargained well for their members.
I know the kinds of things they achieved for their members and
this is one measure that would not have been accomplished without
their involvement and without their working and fighting very hard
for their members. The government has honoured its commitments
to the 13 unions that did sign this agreement by introducing these
amendments and legislating them in Bill C-31.
During question period yesterday, the member for St. Albert, the
Reform critic for human resources, pointed out the difference in
treatment of these workers with air navigation services and other
employees with respect to severance pay. The hon. member also
commented that the introduction of successor rights in budget
legislation seems to be the employer's way of avoiding negotiating
with its union on each transfer case.
Our employees want to know exactly where they stand when new
arrangements come into place. I believe their unions have
bargained well for them and have provided the kind of security that
anybody in a climate of significant change in their place of work
would want to have. I do not want to get into the details of that
issue, but this is a continuation of our commitment to the
employees to change government without drastically altering their
lives.
I am pleased to note that the budget has announced that the
Public Sector Compensation Act, which froze federal government
wages for five of the past six years, is due to expire in 1997. The act
will expire as planned. It was introduced under the previous
government. We have let it run its course but we do not intend to
renew or extend it. We intend to get back to collective bargaining
with our employees.
We are also reinstating this June the normal process of
increments and performance pay for government employees. There
is no question that our fellow citizens who work for the
Government of Canada have borne a major portion of the cost of
starting to restore fiscal order to Canada's house.
I hope this return to collective bargaining and the way in which
the reduction of employment in the public service has been handled
has been a signal to them that we value and respect the work they
do. I hope they are looking forward, as the government is, to a
return to collective bargaining.
No budget is perfect, no piece of legislation is perfect. However,
this legislation represents a reasonable balance of many of the
objectives we are trying to accomplish.
(1015)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on the budget
implementation bill. I would not be standing here speaking today if
this government and previous governments had done their jobs.
The situation we find ourselves in today is a very serious one
indeed. It compromises the lives of every Canadian, every social
program and not only the lives of Canadians today but the lives of
Canadians tomorrow.
Today we see, through the budget implementation bill, the facts.
The government is having to borrow on the futures of children of
today and tomorrow to pay for what it is spending today.
Three years ago we gave the government our zero in three plan.
It was a definitive, specific plan to get Canada's economic house in
order. It told the government where to cut, how to cut and how
much to cut. It was not some nebulous plan, not some mythological
plan, but a highly specific plan to get Canada's house in order.
What did the government do? It ignored it. It ignores it at its peril.
The finance minister has repeatedly said ``we will stay the
course because we are doing just fine. Don't worry, Mr. and Mrs.
Public, Canada is doing just fine with out economics. The Liberal
government has a hold on things. We are in control. We are staying
the course''.
Staying the course for what, so the Canadian economy can run
head first into a brick wall? That is not a course the Canadian
public wants to take. It is not a course it wants for its future or the
future of its children.
1995
We have solutions. We put them forth. I implore the government
once again to look at the zero in three plan so that we do not need
to bring forth budget implementation plans.
We have been accused many times by the government and by
members of the public of being a slash and burn party. I would like
to refute once and for all that the Reform Party is the slash and burn
party. We are the only political party that has the plan to save social
programs in Canada. It flies in the face of conventional wisdom. It
flies in the face of what has been put forth by members across the
way. Those are the facts, and I will explain why.
The single greatest compromise to social programs is the
inability to get our fiscal house in order. Why is that so? When we
were first elected three years ago, one-quarter of all the money the
government spent went to interest. It went to service the $550
billion debt which saddles all of us. It is our responsibility.
Today because of government overspending, because of repeated
deficit spending, we have added to the national debt. I am speaking
only to the federal debt. Provincial and municipal debts are another
matter. We have added to the federal debt and the interest payments
have increased.
Imagine the pie once again; one-quarter three years ago and
today that number has moved around to about 35 per cent of that
pie. As time passes the amount of the pie to be eaten up and eroded
by interest payments will increase. It will swallow up the ability of
this government or any government to spend on education, on
health care, on welfare, on pensions; in short, to provide for those
people who need our justifiably laudable social programs.
It compromises not the rich, but those who are poorest. One
thing we pride ourselves on as Canadians is our ability to take care
of those who are less fortunate than ourselves. It is in a sense a
defining aspect of being Canadian.
(1020 )
Therefore it is the inability to get control of government
spending, the inability to get our deficit to zero and attack the true
ogre in this equation, the debt, which compromises our social
programs and our economy. If interest payments rise, the amount
of interest will increase, greatly impeding the ability of the
government to provide those things we hold dear, things Canadians
rely on.
It also crushes the life out of the economy. Why? Repeated
deficit spending and the debt force us to have higher relative
interest rates than other countries.
There was a superb article which looked at relative interest rates
compared with other countries. Although our interest rates are
apparently low, the real interest rates are some of the highest in the
world. It is those interest rates that compromise the ability of our
companies to invest and spend. They also compromise the ability
of Canadians to spend because of the relatively high tax rate on
Canadians in order to service the debt.
There is a terrible vicious circle and the only way to break it,
save our social programs and kick start the economy and get people
back to work, provide for education and for a stronger economy is
to bring the debt down.
The finance minister has said they are doing a great job, contrary
to what the International Monetary Fund said at the end of last year.
It gave a stern warning to the finance minister: ``Stay the course
and your country will hit the wall. The budget projections are
completely inadequate. You must upgrade them in order to have a
strong economy for Canadians in the future''.
We in the Reform Party have absolutely no desire to compromise
social programs for the poor. The reason many of us here gave up
good careers and a comfortable lifestyle was to get Canada back on
track. There is a narrow window of opportunity to do that. As time
passes it will be increasingly more difficult to get the country back
on track.
The failure to address the problem today will produce the biggest
compromise Canadians have seen in the last 75 years. Solutions are
there. We have provided them. I say to the government that its
failure to ignore this will imperil Canadians from coast to coast. Its
failure will show up at the next election. I implore members to
work with us and use some of our ideas. We do not have all the
answers but a lot of them are backed up by Canadians through our
grassroots process. Use the ideas. Do not just talk about them
repeatedly. Do not study them again for the 100th time. Put them
into effect and take action on the problem now.
During the election campaign the Liberals told the Canadian
people they would abolish the GST, knowing full well it is a
financial and economic impossibility. Now they are doing a mea
culpa and eating crow. Some members volunteered to give up their
seats if the GST were not abolished. They know full well they
could not get rid of it. It think it is reprehensible that they have
pulled the wool over the eyes of Canadian taxpayers by this myth,
this illusion that they will get rid of the GST.
The harmonization process they are proposing to the Canadian
people that will somehow get rid, eliminate or decrease the GST is
another illusion put forth by the magicians across the way, bad
magicians at that.
(1025)
The harmonization process is nothing but a gerrymandering of
dollar figures. It is inequitable and unfair to Canadians outside the
maritime provinces. They are asking the rest of Canada to give $1
billion to the maritime provinces. Furthermore, the maritime
provinces do not accept harmonization because they know it will
cost them more at the counter, particularly the poor and the middle
1996
class. As well, the tax base will broaden to include essentials. The
rich will not suffer; the poor and the middle class will suffer.
The government should take a long, hard look at harmonization.
The public will not accept it, which the government will find out at
the next election.
Economically it is fundamentally wrong. There are good
solutions. The government must control spending and decrease
taxes. Once it has decreased the debt it can lower the GST rate.
That is the responsible thing to do.
The debt and the deficit will not go away by themselves. Strong
leadership is required. The budget implementation act will not
solve the problem. However, using the solutions we have suggested
will solve the problem.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to join my colleagues in a few words about Bill
C-31 and the related issues of the March 6 budget.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca made much
about his party's commitment to a zero deficit in three years, the
so-called zero in three program. We heard a lot about that when the
Reform Party introduced it. However, this year as preparations
were being made for the federal budget the promised Reform Party
alternative budget never materialized. We really have to ask
ourselves whether zero in three has gone by the boards. The
program should be renamed zero in one. If the Reform Party
continues to behave as it has recently, in one year there will be zero
members of the Reform Party in the House.
We are here to work together for all Canadians. We understand
the cut and thrust of Parliament and the need to criticize, but that
criticism must be fair. It must not be designed to confuse people so
they do not know where a party is going.
Good government can be best exemplified by the historical
expertise this party has brought to government in Canada. We have
the best country in the world. The Prime Minister has said that
many times. I have said that many times. My constituents know we
have the best country in the world.
In December I spent a few days in Russia observing the
parliamentary elections to the duma. I can confirm that even
though that great superpower has an important political place in the
world, few of us would choose to live there or in many other
countries. Canada is a beautiful country, built on the honest effort
of people around the world who believe that working together and
co-operating is the only way to build a country. I dare say to my
colleagues across the way that we have the best country in the
world because we have had good government for most of the past
century. For that I think we should thank the Liberal Party of
Canada and the excellent leadership it has provided.
(1030)
Good government is not perfect government. During the next
election campaign I will be questioned on certain matters but I
know I will be able to stand proud in front of my constituents and
say that we did a good job in this last term. We did not do a perfect
job but I suggest that nobody could do a perfect job. Anybody who
said they could do a perfect job would be attempting to pull the
wool over the eyes of voters. We have done a very, very good job.
Our approach to the problem of getting Canada's deficit in hand
has been very responsible and reasonable. We have not done it on
the backs of middle and low income Canadians. We have not done
it on the backs of those who can least afford it. We have provided a
transitional means of cutting back on federal expenditures. It is our
commitment to have the federal deficit down to 2 per cent of GDP
by the end of fiscal year 1997-98 which literally is just around the
corner. We will have achieved that without putting the country in a
state of confusion and uproar.
The Minister of Finance reminded us in his budget speech that
we went into our mandate with four very key principles or areas of
concern.
The first is to secure our financial future which means that we
provide stability for those in the business sector who must plan for
the future. We provide stability for Canadians who unfortunately
find themselves out of work, who must themselves plan for the
future. In so doing we have introduced the employment insurance
legislation. As they study it more and more, Canadians will find it
is the right answer to the dilemma this country is facing as far as
balancing the need to protect those who are unemployed against
those who are able to work but who must be more able to respond
to the changing workplace.
The second major principle we must pursue is to secure our
social programs, and Canadians agree with us on this point.
Another signal or sign of a good government is one that does not
sacrifice in this process those least able to take care of themselves:
the handicapped, single parent families, those who find themselves
at the lower end of the economic scale, those who are
disadvantaged for one reason or another. These people will not be
forgotten under a Liberal government. Other parties might not be
able to accomplish what we have been able to accomplish thus far
in this regard.
The third key area the finance minister outlined in his budget is
investment in the future. This is where we recognize the
importance of high technology for the future of this country and for
the future of the world. We must not only engage business and all
1997
Canadians in general, but more specifically our young people who
find themselves facing a workplace that has changed drastically. It
changes dramatically year by year.
When I graduated from engineering school more than a few
years ago there were jobs for all the graduates. The world of work
was more stable, more predictable. One could expect to be with a
company for their full career. It is the nature of the world that this
has changed. With the flow of information, the vast improvement
in the availability of high technology and the fact that these things
change almost every week, it is true that graduates now must be
flexible, adaptable and prepared for a workplace that will require
them to learn throughout the rest of their lives. Our young people
are prepared for that and it is our job to assist them in their
preparation.
(1035)
The fourth significant area, which is the subject of Bill C-31
which we are debating today, is getting government right. I remind
my hon. colleagues across the way that my constituents, and I am
sure Canadians from coast to coast, in expecting good government
do not expect perfect government.
As the Prime Minister outlined the other day, we have already
completed three-quarters of our campaign commitments. I would
expect that by the next election call we will have nearly completed
the balance of those commitments.
I look forward to standing in front of my constituents during the
next election campaign at various all-candidates meetings and
saying that we accomplished the vast majority of our campaign
commitments and the only reason we did not complete the others
was that the opposition parties would not allow us to do so or the
province of Ontario would not allow us to do so. I will be able to
say that the Reform Party was full square behind the idea of
harmonizing the GST and the provincial sales tax but it made so
much to do about the issue it made it more difficult for us to get the
agreements with the provinces. It gave Canadians the wrong
impression about where we were going.
This is a good government for Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my turn has come
to speak on Bill C-31, and I will be better able to concentrate on my
speech as soon as I have some quiet.
This bill is aimed at privatizing certain services and gives the
government the opportunity to dispose of rail stock. It makes minor
changes to the old age pension-until the real thing comes along in
five years-provides for the Canada social transfer, in other words
it combines three transfer programs to the provinces into one. Of
course, it will be transferring cuts to them at the same time. It gives
more power to the Minister of Industry and it modifies the Student
Loans Act. But mainly, the bill enables the Minister of Finance to
give $963 million in compensation to the Atlantic provinces in
exchange for harmonization of the GST.
My colleague, the finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois, has
addressed this at length, so I shall concentrate my remarks mainly
on unemployment insurance.
So Friday has arrived, the end of the week, and what a week we
have had here in the House. A rather special week, since the
government imposed two gag orders, the first on Bill C-31, on
which we are speaking today, and the second on the committee
stage of Bill C-12 on unemployment insurance, in the human
resources development committee. But Bill C-31 also addresses
unemployment insurance.
(1040)
It is a bit odd. With this approach, the government could be said
to be wearing both a belt and suspenders. In other words, the
amendments to the unemployment insurance plan are in two bills
that are being considered at the same time. Different.
Furthermore, Bill C-31 is worse than Bill C-12 in that its effect is
retroactive to January 1, 1996. People should be reminded that,
while we are being gagged and while the time spent by the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development in consideration of
this bill is being limited, as it was this past week, here we are
passing another bill containing two measures: the reduction in the
ceiling on insurable earnings to $39,000 and its effect being made
retroactive to January 1, 1996. This is quite something. They are
not taking any chances. Perhaps they are afraid of protests against
this bill in the Senate, the House or somewhere outside Parliament.
They are not running any risks; they are going at the unemployed
with two bills.
Worse yet, there was contempt of the House this week. This is
why I called this the week of the gag. I am not talking about
yawning but about being gagged. I am talking about being very
wide awake and being gagged. We were very much awake in
opposition, even if we did go to bed very late, even going without
sleep Tuesday night, because we tried to convince the government
and the whip opposite that it did not make sense, at the stage of
considering the bill clause by clause, to allow only five minutes per
clause.
What is more, I showed that clause 5 alone-my only
example-took 12 minutes to read. So, with the time limit the
government wanted to impose this week, it was not even possible
to read the clauses. It was not permitted. It was impossible. So, as
you can imagine, there was no time for answers to our questions,
and we could not complain, obviously. So, they pushed it through.
The government, for the second time in this Parliament, is setting
time limits with this bill against unemployment insurance, as it did
with
1998
the bill sending railway employees back to work, where we sat here
on a weekend.
What is worse, they are so contemptuous that, on January 1, they
issued an employer's guide, a job statement I have in my hands,
asking that contributions be made on the basis of $39,000 instead
of $42,400. Employers were advised to comply since a bill to that
effect would be passed. They said one bill, not two. So this measure
has already been implemented.
We know that this measure, which would reduce maximum
insurable earnings from $42,400 to $39,000, represents an amount
of $900 million that the government agreed to forgo on a
retroactive basis. I wonder what kind of game they are playing.
Then they accuse us of wasting the government's money because
we want to take our time to study the clauses. The government, for
its part, can give a present to business and to people making more
than $39,000 to make them more receptive to its bill. Meanwhile,
people who did not have to pay premiums before will now have to,
including those working less than 15 hours a week, whose
contributions represent another $900 million.
This is the exact opposite of Robin Hood, who tried to help the
poor by robbing the rich-although the means might not have been
the most appropriate. The government, however, gives to the rich
so it can take more from the poor. What is the world coming to?
This is a week of muzzling; nothing makes sense any more.
They send this to employers, thus showing their contempt for
Parliament.
(1045)
I will not say much about the GST. As we know, the Prime
Minister does not want to acknowledge the statements he made
about the GST, although the Minister of Finance admitted that they
indeed made a mistake, that they did promise to kill the GST but
that it was not feasible. I am not talking about the red book, but
about the Prime Minister's statements.
The Prime Minister refuses to acknowledge his comments, but
he may recognize the letter he sent Mouvement action-chômage on
March 26, 1993. I would like to read it, as it is not very long:
Thank you for your fax expressing your opposition to the legislative measures
taken by the government-the Tory government and former minister Valcourt-to
amend the unemployment insurance plan.
I can assure you that the Liberal Party shares your concern about this attack
against the unemployed. We do not believe either that the recent superficial
amendments will change the fundamentally unfair nature of these measures.
Our country is still in the throes of the worst economic crisis it has gone through
since the thirties.
I will skip the next paragraph as it contains figures.
Given how serious the crisis is, the Liberals have urged the government-the
Conservative government-to take steps to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
Yet, the Minister of Finance says not only that he will renew the same fiscal,
monetary and trade policies that have plunged us into this recession, but that he will
go after the unemployed in order to reduce government spending.
The Liberal Party is appalled by these measures. Obviously, by reducing benefits
and further penalizing those who leave their jobs voluntarily, the government shows
very little concern for the victims of the economic crisis. Instead of getting to the
heart of the problem, it goes after the unemployed. These measures will have a
disturbing impact, for they will discourage workers from reporting harassment cases
and unacceptable conditions in the workplace.
Finally, you can be assured that the Liberals will continue to call on the
government-the Conservative government-to withdraw this unfair bill. As Leader
of the Opposition, I appreciate your taking the trouble of sharing your views on this
matter with me.
Sincerely,
Jean Chrétien,
Leader of the Opposition.
This is not a statement but a letter. I will not repeat it. Now,
through Bill C-31, and especially Bill C-12, the government will
reduce UI benefits even further. People will no longer qualify.
In conclusion-you are indicating my time is up, but I know you
are not trying to muzzle me-I deplore this week of muzzling. It is
the end of the honeymoon and the beginning of the end for this
Liberal government.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about
the 1996 budget, the government's third budget.
In October 1993 when the Liberal government took over from
the Conservatives, the country's deficit and debt situation was out
of control and swift decisive action was needed. The deficit had to
be reduced and the role and priorities of the government had to be
clarified.
Steps were taken immediately to get the country back on track. A
comprehensive review of all federal government programs and
services was launched. As a result of that review, some programs
have been eliminated, others have been cut and still others have
been transferred.
By the end of the 1998-99, program review measures will have
reduced program expenditures by $9 billion. In that reduction
process, however, the government is being careful.
Protecting the most vulnerable is paramount. Better targeting of
spending is crucial. While the government is reducing overall
1999
spending, it has at the same time identified its core role and
refocused its resources on priority areas.
(1050 )
I am pleased to note that the needs of the aboriginal people have
been identified as a government priority. Accordingly, while
aboriginal programs are experiencing some reductions, they are
comparatively few compared to other areas of government
spending.
In this regard, I am also happy to say that the government has
decided to maintain the food mail program, which is very
important to the health and well-being of northerners. Under this
program, the government funds the transportation of nutritious,
perishable foods to isolated communities. Without this program,
most people could not afford a healthy, nutritious diet. I am pleased
that the government has recognized the importance of this program
to the future health and well-being of northerners.
Securing the future of Canadians is the main theme of the 1996
budget. Investing in the future is another major theme. The jobs
and growth initiatives of the budget focus on youth employment
opportunities, technology and trade. Protecting the most vulnerable
is another key feature of the budget.
The 1996 budget contains some good measures for families,
particularly low income families. It provides more support for
children, youth, women and the elderly. There are no tax increases
in this budget. Affordable, accessible social programs are being
ensured.
Support for seniors is being maintained and support for low
income seniors is being enhanced. Pensions are being protected.
Under the new seniors benefit to be introduced in 2001, guaranteed
income supplement recipients will get an additional $120 a year.
The spouses allowance will be increased by $120 a year. Seniors
will only have to apply once when they turn 65, although they will
have to continue submitting annual income tax returns.
Support for children is being ensured. New child support awards
after May 1, 1997 will not be considered as income of the recipient
for tax purposes. The age limit for the child care expense deduction
is being increased to 16 years from 14 years.
Support for low income families is being increased. The working
income supplement under the child tax credit will be increased
from $500 to $750 in July 1997 and to $1,000 in July 1998.
The budget contains additional support for youth education and
jobs with an additional $165 million over three years through the
tax system to help students and their families deal with the costs of
education.
Single parents will now be eligible for the same child care
expense deductions as are available to couples. High school
students will now be eligible for the child care deduction.
There will be an additional $315 million over three years to help
create youth employment opportunities, in addition to existing
youth internship and youth service Canada funding. Some of the
funds will go to summer jobs. Funds for 1996-97 student summer
employment are doubled to $120 million.
There is more help regarding the information highway. Every
school and library in Canada will be connected by 1998 and more
rural communities will also be connected.
Federal transfers to provinces and territories for health,
post-secondary education and social assistance, the Canada health
and social transfer, will be secure, stable and will grow.
The budget also contains some cuts. While the budget's positive
measures will benefit my constituents, they are also being asked to
assume some of the restraint in areas of direct concern to them.
Spending on Indian and Inuit programs is being restrained. The
increase in growth of spending will be reduced.
The changes to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
also affect my constituency. The budget indicates that CMHC is
getting out of social housing except for housing on Indian reserves.
Provincial and territorial governments are being offered the
opportunity to take over the management of existing social housing
resources.
I would like to say a little more about the housing situation in my
constituency. There has been no ongoing funding for new social
housing units since 1993. For the Government of the Northwest
Territories, the decision by the former Conservative government to
discontinue funding new social housing units meant a reduction of
$47 million. The Government of the Northwest Territories has been
unable to replace the $47 million lost in 1993, yet it spends more of
its budget on housing than any other jurisdiction in Canada.
Housing need in the NWT is severe. In recognition of this fact, in
October 1994 the federal government announced a special one-year
strategic housing initiative for northern and remote communities.
Seventeen million dollars was made available for emergency
housing needs in northern Canada. The NWT was allocated $9.5
million of this amount.
(1055)
The assistance was gratefully received, but there are still major
outstanding needs, particularly among aboriginal people.
Twenty-five per cent of northern NWT households are in need.
This is the highest proportion of households in need in any
Canadian jurisdic-
2000
tion. Over 87 per cent of the NWT households in core need are
aboriginal people.
In the NWT aboriginal people make up nearly 98 per cent of the
social housing client base. There is only one reserve in the
Northwest Territories and the Inuit do not live on reserves at all.
Therefore, assistance for housing on reserves does not benefit the
vast majority of aboriginal people in the NWT This fact is
important for members of this House to understand.
Most Indian and all Inuit people of the Northwest Territories do
not qualify for the department of Indian affairs' housing program
because they do not live on reserves. Housing assistance for
aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories comes through the
NWT government, so any cuts to NWT housing mean cuts to
aboriginal housing.
Most communities in the NWT are almost totally dependant on
government for shelter. Aboriginal people have moved off the land
into permanent communities only during the last 30 to 40 years.
There has never been enough housing in the NWT to adequately
house all the people requiring shelter.
In addition, the NWT population is young and is growing
rapidly. The birth rate in the NWT is almost twice the national
average. Forty-one per cent of NWT children under the age of 12
are living in overcrowded conditions. This negatively affects their
health, social development and school performance.
In conclusion, housing remains an area of great concern to me
and all northerners. I continue to urge the federal government and
the territorial government to work together to address the serious
housing needs of northern aboriginal people.
The Deputy Speaker: It being close to 11 a.m., we will now
proceed to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
2000
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the area of southeastern British Columbia that I represent
is a great place to visit at any time. When I moved there in 1976, it
was only intended to be a temporary move, but the beauty of the
area and the warmth of the people soon convinced me there was no
better place to be.
This summer there is a further special reason for Canadians to
visit this jewel of the B.C. interior. The cities of Trail and Castlegar
are combining to host the 1996 B.C. summer games from July 25 to
July 28.
Both of these communities and other local surrounding
communities will be pulling out all the stops to ensure that visitors
have a very rewarding experience. In addition to the games, visitors
will be able to experience restored and preserved wild west history,
pristine lake fishing, championship golf courses, hot springs,
hiking trails, areas of breathtaking beauty and much more.
I invite all the members of the House and those watching in the
various parts of the country to visit the west Kootenays this
summer and discover for themselves the reasons we are so proud of
our area.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the upcoming month of May is designated as Army Cadet
Month.
Through their training, cadets are fortunate to acquire a sense of
citizenship, leadership, discipline, comradeship and a healthy
lifestyle which are all hallmarks for success and unique to our
Canadian identity.
Further to this special designation, the Minister of National
Defence will visit Carleton-Charlotte for a special ceremony and
annual cadet inspection at the Border Arena in St. Stephen, New
Brunswick, on May 2.
I also wish to acknowledge the adult leaders who give so
generously of their time, talents and energy in order to guide the
cadets in their training and development.
I thank the Minister of National defence for taking the time to
recognize this important event in Carleton-Charlotte, and further
to congratulate all cadets across Canada for the significant role
they play in our Canadian identity.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
(1100 )
[English]
Mr. Speaker, over the years Inuit have been teaching the rest of
the world their language. Because the rest of the world is awfully
slow, we teach them about one word every 10 years, such as kayak,
igloo, umiak, anorak. Over the years we have taught the world
about 60 Inuit words and it will take a few thousand years for
people to learn the Inuit language.
I would like to teach Canadians one more Inuktitut word which
they can remember for the next 10 years. That is the word ``nanuq''
which in English means polar bear; majestic, strong, powerful and
mysterious, the creature which now graces our two dollar coin.
2001
I suggest we adopt the name nanuq for our two dollar coin in
honour of Inuktitut, one of the original languages of this country,
and the name of a truly northern Canadian animal.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to salute
and thank all of the volunteers across the country, particularly those
in my Elk Island constituency.
Special mention must go to Henry Unrau, Jeanne Frame and the
other community leaders who are managing the Information and
Volunteer Centre for Strathcona County. These special volunteers
in my community have spearheaded a new national initiative
helping to recognize the important contribution volunteers make.
Volunteer Spirit Day exemplifies the motivation and satisfaction
of the millions of people across Canada who give freely of their
time and bountifully of their resources to help others. This is truly
the spirit that makes Canada the outstanding compassionate society
it is.
I am sorry the rules of the House do not permit props because I
have a volunteer T-shirt to present to the Prime Minister from this
group in Elk Island.
Congratulations and thanks to volunteers everywhere.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
October 17, 1996, in the middle of the referendum campaign, the
Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne issued a
press release stating that the assimilation of francophones in
Canada had declined. But the federation made a mistake. Its
president, Jacques Michaud, recently confirmed on the CBC that
indeed an error had slipped through when the announcement was
made in October last year.
It is surprising enough that the federation would make such a
mistake concerning the assimilation rate of francophones, but the
fact that it did not rectify its mistake and make a public apology for
this blunder is inexcusable. This incident has sullied the credibility
of an organization on which francophones outside Quebec depend.
Since it is never too late to acknowledge one's mistakes, what is
the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne
waiting for to apologize?
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April
28 we will commemorate the National Day of Mourning. I urge all
hon. members to reflect on the horrendous tragedy of accidental
death and serious injury of Canadian workers on the job. Our most
recent statistics are for 1994 when over 700 workers were killed
while performing their jobs. On the National Day of Mourning we
are also renewing our determination to reduce and prevent
accidental deaths and injuries in the workplace.
The federal approach to occupational health and safety dealt
with in part II of the Canada Labour Code is based upon the internal
responsibility system. This system recognizes that an employer has
the right to manage its enterprise in an effective manner and at the
same time the employer has a responsibility to protect the safety
and health of its workers.
Governments, workers and employers must continue to strive
toward greater improvement in workplace safety and health.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today,
Canadians from coast to coast share the great pride of knowing that
a fellow citizen has been selected to sing the opening theme at the
upcoming Olympic Games in Atlanta. Canadian composer David
Foster's ``The Power of the Dream'' will be performed by none
other than Céline Dion.
Accompanied by about 100 musicians, the great singer born in
Charlemagne, Quebec, will perform this beautiful song in front of
an audience of 80,000. It is estimated that more than 3.5 billion
viewers worldwide will watch the show on television.
(1105)
Canada is delighted, to say the least, with the honour bestowed
upon Céline Dion and we can assure her right now that, from the
moment she steps on to perform on July 19, the hearts of 29 million
Canadians will be beating in tune with hers.
* * *
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence must take his
responsibilities. Here in this House, he has always defended his
new protégé, Jean Boyle, the chief of staff of the Canadian armed
forces, against allegations of conspiracy to withhold information
2002
from the public and to wilfully deceive taxpayers, the media and
members of this Parliament.
However, based on new documents and testimonies, the chief of
staff may have been more than aware of this dishonest practice and
may even have taken part in it.
Who runs the Department of National Defence? Is the minister
capable of running that department? Is he a mere puppet whose role
is to hide the facts and the unscrupulous actions of some high
ranking officers?
The credibility of the armed forces is at stake and the risks of a
faux pas are obvious. The minister should suspend his chief of staff
until all the facts are known regarding this issue.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to talk about Alzheimer's
disease.
Alzheimer's is a debilitating disease, the negative effects of
which are not limited to the affected individual. Family members
and friends are left helpless in this battle and endure constant
suffering.
The impact of this disease will continue. Seniors are the fastest
growing segment of the Canadian population. With age, the odds of
falling victim to Alzheimer's increase dramatically.
Yesterday I met with a representative of the Alzheimer Society
to discuss this disease. Just recently I had the chance to take part in
Perth county's Alzheimer Society open house in my riding.
I am impressed by the great work performed by the Alzheimer
Society. The work of this organization reaches far beyond care for
the individual. The society works with the community to aid in the
adjustment process for family and friends.
I salute the Alzheimer Society of Canada for all its hard work
and wish the representatives gathered in Ottawa for their annual
conference a pleasant stay.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier
this week the ruling body of the Palestine Liberation Organization
voted decisively to delete from its founding charter all references
calling for an armed struggle to destroy Israel.
This vote, coming on the 48th anniversary of Israel's
independence, is a very important step toward creating a just and
permanent peace for all peoples in the Middle East.
Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres has offered the highest
praise to PLO chairman Yasser Arafat for keeping this vital
commitment.
Canadians and all peoples of goodwill join in this praise for a
courageous act of leadership. We pray for successful talks between
the Israelis and Palestinians as their leaders strive to settle the
permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in a just and
equitable manner.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today marks the
10th anniversary of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. This was the
biggest peacetime nuclear accident, so far. Fully one-third of the
area of Ukraine has been contaminated by nuclear fallout.
Many Ukrainians, especially children, have been affected by
nuclear radiation. Medical scientists are presently studying what
has become known as post-Chernobyl syndrome. It affects all
victims and gives them a distrust of government and a feeling of
being ignored by the rest of the world.
As we commemorate this disaster and send our sympathy to the
people of Ukraine, may it spur us on to co-operate with all other
nuclear nations in seeking better safeguards for the use and
disposal of nuclear materials.
Ten years after the accident in Chernobyl, let us work together to
ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government's inaction regarding the restoration of the Quebec City
bridge is a constant threat to the survival of this structure. Last fall,
Jean Pelletier, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, promised the
Coalition de sauvegarde du point de Québec that the issue would be
quickly settled after the referendum. ``Do not make waves
regarding this issue before the referendum'', he said.
Since October 30, Mr. Pelletier is nowhere to be found.
Moreover, it is just as difficult to discuss this issue with the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, even though the Quebec City
bridge was recognized as a heritage site of national interest by her
predecessor.
Is the Liberal government acting out of revenge in dragging its
feet, given that it did not succeed in getting a single member
elected in the Quebec City region?
2003
(1110)
If this is the case, such an attitude is outrageous. Otherwise, the
federal government should do like its Quebec counterpart and
quickly announce its contribution to the restoration of the Quebec
City bridge.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
recent events show that we can longer ignore the true voice of
federalists in Quebec.
This week 2,500 Quebecers marched on the Fairview Plaza in
Pointe-Claire to protest against Quebec's oppressive language laws
restricting the use of English.
Last night in Hudson, Quebec it was my honour to be in the
company of hundreds of loyal Canadians wishing to remain a part
of Canada should Quebec separate. Those in the standing room
only crowd have a message they want conveyed to politicians in
Ottawa. In the event of a future yes vote on sovereignty, they
demand the federal government recognize and protect their right to
remain Canadian citizens.
I was also presented with a petition signed by 4,400 Quebecers
asking Parliament to act upon their concerns. I call upon the
member for Vaudreuil to join me in tabling the petition and asking
the Prime Minister to personally respond to these petitioners'
concerns.
Reformers stand solidly behind these Canadians from Vaudreuil.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year
the Fédération des caisses populaires de l'Ontario is celebrating its
50th anniversary. Since the establishment of the first caisse in
1912, the concept of a bank belonging to the community and
serving the community rapidly spread to all of Ontario. Today, the
Fédération includes 42 caisses, 65 service centres, close to 200,000
members and assets in excess of $1.6 billion.
Franco-Ontarians are rightly proud of their institutions and the
central role they play in the development of their community. I
invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Fédération
and its directors, who are meeting in Ottawa this weekend to plan
the successes of the next century.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April 21
to 27 is National Physiotherapy Week, marking an annual
campaign sponsored by the Canadian Physiotherapy Association to
increase public awareness of physiotherapy. The theme for 1996 is
``All the Right Moves-Entre bonnes mains'', highlighting a
profession in motion.
For more than 75 years, physiotherapists have helped Canadians
achieve their highest level of physical functionality. As frontline
health care workers, they help patients enhance their mobility,
strength and well-being. Physiotherapists will continue in this
important role and will become increasingly involved in promoting
good health. Physiotherapists play a key role in restoring health to
Canadians in the post-operative care they provide. They also
provide preventive health remedies for many Canadians.
I join Canada's 10,000 physiotherapists in reminding Canadians
of the important role they play as members of the health care
system in their community.
[Translation]
I congratulate physiotherapists for their devotion to their
profession and their contribution to the establishment of a system
of modern medicine in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, April is cancer campaign month. During this month
thousands of Canadians across the country have generously
donated their time, energy and money to rid us of this terrible
scourge. Last year more than $45 million was raised.
The Canadian Cancer Society spearheads this campaign. Its
mission is the eradication of this disease and the enhancement of
the quality of life of people who are suffering from it.
All of our lives have been touched in some way by cancer. I
know we all stand shoulder to shoulder in wishing our colleague
from Windsor West a speedy recovery in his battle with this terrible
disease.
In 1996 it is estimated that 129,000 Canadians will be diagnosed
with cancer and 61,000 will die. For almost 60 years the generosity
of Canadians has enabled important cancer research and education
to occur.
2004
I congratulate and thank all Canadians from coast to coast who
have generously donated their time and energy to this worthy
cause. I know that through them cancer can be beaten.
_____________________________________________
2004
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in Montreal, Vera Danyluk, Chairperson of the
Montreal Urban Community, Patrice Simard, President of the
Metropolitan Montreal Chamber of Commerce, and Serge Ménard,
ministre d'État à la métropole spoke out, on behalf of all Quebec
industries dependent on marine shipping, against the government's
intentions regarding new fee scales for aid to navigation.
Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans realize that he will be
placing American Great Lakes ports at an advantage over Canadian
and Quebec ports, since a ship taking the seaway en route to
Chicago, for instance, will not be subject to the new fee scale,
whereas one taking the same route but stopping at Montreal will
have to bear the burden of the increased charges the minister
proposes?
(1115)
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that marine services fees are
user fees that pay for the use of public facilities which taxpayers
pay for right now. He also knows that the charges are applied fairly
across the country. The system was developed over a period of five
months, stemming from recommendations made by the Marine
Advisory Board.
With respect to being fair and equitable, 850 consultations were
conducted in this period of time. I believe the standing committee
itself looked at 26 industries.
I can assure the hon. member that the fees levied in Montreal are
as fair as those levied in any other part of the country, including the
Great Lakes area. If there is a difference in the total cost, it relates
to the volume of traffic.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the answer I am being given is unbelievable.
What I am saying to the minister is that a ship going to Chicago,
U.S.A.-it is not in this country, it is in the U.S.-will not pay. Our
jobs are being exported to the U.S. Yesterday those in charge of
metropolitan Montreal, speaking on its behalf, were asking what
the ministers, the Liberal members for Quebec, were waiting for
before criticizing this policy.
The minister speaks of integrity, equity. He is also proposing that
part of the costs that ought to be borne by Newfoundland, and all of
the costs paid by the northern ports, including Churchill, Manitoba,
be assumed by the other regions. How then can the minister justify
the fact that the user pay principle is not applied in these two cases,
unless it is to favour those two regions? I would point out to you
that, just by chance, one of the two is Newfoundland, the minister's
own province.
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not in the position nor will I ever be in the
position of pitting one region of the country against another. I
simply want to say two things to the hon. member.
First, he asked why the opposition in Quebec would not go along
with the concern which he has expressed. I do not know the full
details, but I believe its reasoning was that it would be prepared to
look at these fees if indeed the Quebec government would look at
some of the fees which it is contemplating for the little guy, the
small taxpayer, for bridge tolls and that kind of thing.
Second, if the member is looking at one region against another, I
will tell him one more time that the fees that are paid are based on
the level of services provided. To make sure that this will work
properly there are two impact studies in place which will show
what is in fact happening.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the regions pay for their traffic. Is that the principle? How
can it be, then, that the other regions pay for part of the traffic that
goes to Newfoundland? This proposition represents a precedent,
and one that makes no sense. He will have no reply to that, since he
knows very well that this is true.
Capt. Tremblay, the Trois-Rivières port administrator, has
estimated that the coast guard could save up to $90 million if the
icebreaker fleet were better managed.
Does the minister not realize that it would be wiser to declare a
one-year moratorium, as three-quarters of the witnesses have asked
the committee to do, and to wait for the impact studies to be over in
September, rather than to impose his policy before they are ready?
In the meantime, some housekeeping could be done in the coast
guard, for there are savings to be made there.
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member in response to his concern
that if he is suggesting Newfoundland is being subsidized, he
2005
should get in touch with the premier of Newfoundland who
yesterday suggested that Newfoundland was paying more than its
fair share.
Everybody thinks they are paying more than their fair share.
Everybody believes in user fees, but nobody wants to pay one cent.
I will tell the hon. member that the taxpayer of Canada can no
longer assume the cost of these kinds of services. We have to move
forward.
We are moving forward with the lowest possible tariff: 10 per
cent of what it costs to do this. We have to move forward at this low
level. At the same time we have to reassure ourselves and those
companies that are saying they are going to lose everything that
paying less than 3 per cent of the port cost at the taxpayers'
expense, paying less than 3 per cent of a voyage cost and paying
less than 10 per cent of the cost of the services is fair and equitable.
I believe it is fair and equitable, as do most people in the country.
* * *
(1120)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in response
to a question by the official opposition, the Minister of National
Defence said yesterday that the military police had reopened its
investigation of allegations of document falsification and
destruction against the chief of staff, General Jean Boyle. New
documents submitted to the commission of inquiry have rekindled
serious suspicions against the chief of staff.
How can the Minister of National Defence justify the chief of
staff's remaining in command of Canada's armed forces, when the
military police are investigating him in a matter involving the
falsification and destruction of documents?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the military
police are investigating events in the division of our department
concerned with documents. They are not investigating an
individual.
It is usual for military police, as it is for the RCMP or any other
police force in Canada, to reopen an investigation if there are new
witnesses. It is standard procedure.
As regards the chief of staff, I have confidence in him. I met with
him this morning. Canadian forces operations are going smoothly.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is crazy.
When an enlisted man is involved, he is relieved of duty during the
investigation, so is a police officer, so is a public servant. The
minister is waiting and doing nothing.
What sort of credibility does the minister think our forces have
with our allies, when serious allegations weigh against the chief of
staff, who is being investigated by his own military police?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has heard my answers in the last couple of weeks on this
issue. There is a commission of inquiry that is looking into all these
matters, and the answers will be forthcoming.
With respect to the military justice system, it is a system of
justice that is upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of
Canada. As the chairman of the commission, Justice Létourneau,
said a few weeks ago, the hearings will go on and if there is any
wrongdoing, either the military or the civilian authorities will then
take their responsibilities.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the acting Prime Minister.
Millions of Canadians who thought the Liberal government
would scrap, abolish and kill the GST are disappointed and
confused. The finance minister said on Tuesday he is sorry the
Liberal government broke its election promise.
Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said she had loose lips and
regrets her promise to resign if the government failed to scrap the
tax. But the Prime Minister, reading chapter and verse from the red
book, maintains his government has honoured its commitments.
Which is it? Is the government sorry or is the government not
sorry for breaking its 1993 campaign promise to kill the GST?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the year or two
run-up to the 1993 election there were many conferences, including
the Aylmer conference, developing policies for the election. Those
policies were instilled into a book called ``Creating Opportunity''.
Some words of mine made it into the book and some words did not.
However, every one of the 295 Liberals who ran in the election
in 1993 ran on ``Creating Opportunity'', the red book. That
includes page 22 in the English version and page 20 in the French
version which says we would replace the GST with a system that
generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and small
business and minimizes disruption to small business and promotes
federal-provincial co-operation and harmonization. That is what
we did.
2006
(1125 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
response fails completely to answer the basic question troubling
Canadians who place their trust in the government: can voters
count on politicians to keep their word?
The Deputy Prime Minister blames her pledge to resign on loose
lips. Far from it. Her comments were deliberate, calculated and
repeated over and over again on the campaign trail.
Will the government keep at least one promise? Will the Deputy
Prime Minister, the member for Hamilton East, do the honourable
thing on her word to Canadians and resign?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the
previous answer, every one of us who ran for the Liberal Party ran
on ``Creating Opportunity'', and those were the words. Never was
the Canadian public better informed as to what a government
would do in advance of an election.
I had in my riding alone some 2,000 copies of the red book
handed out from my campaign office. We stand by what we said in
the red book.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the acting
Prime Minister is not speaking for two Liberal members, certainly
not for the member for York South-Weston.
With the Prime Minister's promise to kill the GST the
government has called into question the basic integrity of all
politicians on both sides of the House. The Deputy Prime
Minister's claim that the Liberal government has fulfilled the
essence of its GST promise leaves Canadians to believe that
campaign promises are completely worthless.
Despite the Deputy Prime Minister's contention, voters cannot
take the government out of context. They counted on the Liberals
to keep their word.
Will the government keep its promise to drop its scheme to
spend $1 billion to hide the GST in Atlantic Canada, go back to the
drawing board and come up with a plan to honour its pledge to
Canadian voters and scrap the GST?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was listening with great interest to the hon. member
strong protestation for the need for consistency because I had taken
the time to look back at what the Reform Party had said about the
GST.
In 1990 the Reform Party leader said ``let's rip up the GST''. In
1991 he said ``oh, no, we cannot repeal the GST because it would
affect the deficit''. Then in 1992 he said ``what we need to do is
reduce it in stages''. In 1994 in front of the finance committee the
Reform Party said ``let's harmonize the GST and congratulate the
government for moving toward harmonization''.
If there is any example of inconsistency on the position on the
GST, the hon. member should be asking questions of his own
leader, the leader of the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
would appear that Israeli army shelling of southern Lebanon has
finally stopped, as reports of a ceasefire between Israel and
pro-Iranian Hezbollah fighters are reaching us this morning. For
the first time in 16 days, it would seem that peace has been restored
to the region and there is every indication that a peace agreement
could be negotiated after all.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirm that a ceasefire
agreement was indeed reached by Israel and Hezbollah fighters
and, if so, could he tell this House what the terms of this agreement
are?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to point out this morning how important
the agreement between the parties to the conflict in southern
Lebanon is. This is a preliminary agreement whereby both parties
agree to put an end to their show of force. A task force will be
formed to explore avenues for peace and at the same time efforts
will be made to develop a plan to rebuild those areas of southern
Lebanon that were affected by the fighting.
I think that all members of this House will be very pleased with
the efforts made to reach this agreement.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
official opposition also rejoices at the news of a preliminary
ceasefire agreement.
Now, could the minister tell us what contribution the Canadian
government intends to make in support of the ongoing peace
process, so that a lasting peace agreement can be implemented in
this region?
(1130)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, along with many other countries we did, during this past
week or 10 days, add our voice to the efforts of developing a
ceasefire.
We have also committed, this past week, close to $500,000 to
give direct assistance to the displaced populations in Lebanon so
they can do some reconstruction. We also have over 200
peacekeepers in the area. There is a consultative group that has
been established under this new agreement.
2007
We are quite prepared to participate and co-operate with any
efforts in those areas. I welcome any proposals or ideas put
forward by members of the Chamber, including members of the
opposition, as to how Canada can play a constructive role in this
very important effort toward a peaceful solution.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the ``get over it'' Deputy Prime Minister announced amendments
to the Copyright Act, introducing a new tax on blank audio and
video tapes. This measure is in direct violation to the finance
minister's boastful misleading claim that in his budget this year
there are no increases on personal taxes, no increases on corporate
taxes and no increases on excise taxes. He bragged about no new
taxes.
Now the government cannot even keep a promise for two
months.
Does the Minister of Industry have special permission from the
finance minister to implement this tax and how much is it?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will correct at least a few of the errors in that question.
First, the home copying charge will apply to audio tapes.
Second, it is not a tax. It might be useful if the government could
retain that revenue but the levy will be established by the copyright
board and will be distributed on behalf of the producers, the
performers and the composers who, after all, are entitled to it.
If the hon. member wishes to countenance the unauthorized
copying of artistic works then perhaps he should explain his
rationale for why he feels those who compose, produce and
perform artistic works should have their works randomly copied,
easily copied, with no compensation whatsoever for the economic
value they have created.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
saddened by a response like that, that they have no compensation
altogether.
The minister knows full well there is a system of royalties in
place for artists and producers. Some in the industry think they
even get too much. It has nothing to do with that. His definition that
this is not a tax leaves a lot to be desired.
Why does the government insist on breaking election promises
and now even breaking a budget promise?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is really convoluted. Of course there are private
royalty arrangements. The very reason one would impose a home
copying charge is so that one can ensure producers, performers and
composers receive compensation for their work.
Unauthorized home copying is a way to avoid people being paid
for what they have created. Does the hon. member think that is
unfair?
They do not pay attention to what is written in the red book but if
they did they would see a clear, explicit promise to introduce
copyright reform in this Parliament, and that promise we are
fulfilling.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On March 20, in response to a question from the Leader of the
Opposition and following the tabling of the Yalden report, the
Prime Minister pledged to introduce, before the next election, a bill
to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, so as to include sexual
orientation among the prohibited grounds for discrimination.
Can the minister tell us if he intends to introduce his own bill to
finally fulfil the promise made by the Prime Minister during the
last federal election campaign, or does he intend to support Bill S-2
introduced by the Senate?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we intend to introduce our own bill
and to do so soon.
(1135)
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, can the minister tell the House when he will introduce his
own bill, and can he make a clear commitment that he will not
water down the provision on sexual orientation as a prohibited
ground for discrimination, as proposed in Bill S-2?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have always said, we intend
to amend the act by simply including the words ``sexual
orientation''. We also intend to introduce the bill in the next few
days.
2008
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is little wonder the government appointed General Boyle. He
shows all the traits of being part of the Liberal family.
He admitted he did know about plans to tamper with documents
but he forgot that his own signature was all over the memos linking
him with the cover-up.
These are the sorts of things we expect to hear from the Deputy
Prime Minister, but Canadians deserve better from our top military
man. When will the minister demand accountability and relieve
General Boyle from his post?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have answered
this question many times. I have also addressed it in question
period in reply to a question from the Bloc Quebecois.
There is a commission of inquiry looking into all these matters.
There will be a lot of testimony given, including the testimony of
the chief of defence staff. He will be going in a couple of weeks. He
will have his opportunity to put all the facts on the table.
I am surprised the hon. member opposite, himself a former
general officer in the Canadian forces, does not recognize the
system of fairness in our justice system which allows people to
give their side of the story.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
recognize a lot of unfairness in the whole set-up within national
defence these days.
The military police are reopening their investigation of General
Boyle, but the military police report to General Boyle, the chief of
defence staff, the very person they are supposed to investigate. This
is a very patent conflict of interest and is quite unacceptable. Boyle
has already admitted he has mislead one investigation.
Will the minister show some leadership, act responsibly and call
in the RCMP to get to the bottom of this mess?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier,
the military police investigation is on a series of incidents that
happened in the public affairs branch of national defence, not on
one individual or another.
For all police, whether municipal, the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police or the military police, if new evidence surfaces, an
investigation has to be reopened. This is what has happened in this
case. This has also happened with respect to Mr. Grace, the
information commissioner.
I ask the hon. member to allow all individuals concerned in this
matter, including the chief of defence staff, the basic Canadian
right to express their views to an impartial commission before he
draws conclusions and perhaps casts aspersions on their character
in the House of Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
On April 2, the Canada-Cuba Friendship Group, whose members
include Liberal members of Parliament, sent the Minister of
Foreign Affairs a letter which said, and I quote: ``We trust that your
department will not accept the American version of events and that
it will intercede with the American authorities as quickly as
possible''.
What is the government waiting for to react to this blockade,
which is hampering the efforts of humanitarian aid organizations to
get medical supplies to the Cuban people.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's question might be a little more
specific. Could she give me an exact reference as to what she is
talking about. I know about the letter. The hon. member also knows
that the government has taken very strong action protesting the
application of extraterritorial legislation.
(1140)
My colleague has introduced actions under NAFTA to protest
against the Helms-Burton bill. The first meeting is being held
today. We are taking very strong action in those areas that are under
our control and maintenance.
Third, the Prime Minister and the minister of trade have been
very actively working out alliances and collaborations with a
number of other countries to protest against the U.S. action in
Helms-Burton. All those efforts are designed to protect Canadian
interests as effectively as we can. I can assure the hon. member that
we will continue to do so.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs earlier told my hon. colleague from
Verchères that he had spoken out against the conflict in Lebanon.
As we speak, however, and the minister is perfectly aware of this,
Brian Rohatyn, a young student from Regina, is in the 66th day of a
hunger strike to protest against the American authorities and
against the seizure of humanitarian supplies from Canada destined
for Cuba.
2009
We are still at an impasse and I would like to know what, other
than protesting, the minister intends to do to get us out of it.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for defining her question more
directly.
In the case of the young man who was protesting in Washington,
quite legally, my office is in touch with him every single day to
determine the state of his health and condition.
We are working actively with American officials to try to find
some resolution of the problem. That issue is under negotiation at
this time. We are also ensuring the full weight of our counsellor
services to make sure that proper medical attention and legal
protection is being applied.
We are very aware of the case. It is a very serious case. We take it
seriously. We are in touch with both the young gentleman and his
family on a daily basis to make sure that we can provide the best
protection possible.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in an
earlier answer, the House greeted with tremendous relief the news
from the Minister of Foreign Affairs that there was an interim
ceasefire agreement in the Middle East.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. How will
Canada play a constructive role to ensure that this ceasefire is more
than just an interim agreement so that the people in that area can
live in safety once again?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish I had an easy answer to that but I do not. It is an
issue of enormous complexity and difficulty for generations.
I want it understood this is an interim agreement. It stops the
fighting. It gives all countries, including Canada, time to take
measures to begin to work on those difficulties. We have to make a
very concerted effort for the implementation of resolution 425 at
the Security Council. That is an important legal basis that the
international community has established.
At the same time, we have to work as part of this new
consultative work in the reconstruction areas. Third, we have to
support those individuals, those governments and those groups in
the Middle East.
There was a sign of it yesterday with the decision by the PLO
and by the Labour Party in Israel to pursue the peace process, to
give every support to those who are interested in peace and to stand
up against those who are interested in terrorism or disruption. That
is the major contribution we want to make.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.
Yesterday, the finance minister rejected tripling CPP
contributions from 5 per cent of worker's income to 15 per cent.
Does that mean he intends to double them now and take only 10 per
cent of worker's income?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CPP is a joint
federal-provincial arrangement set up with the provinces. It has
been that way from the beginning.
The consultation committee is out consulting right now and no
decision will be made until the provinces and the federal
government have both agreed to those changes.
(1145 )
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the minister that his worker in the field
has already mentioned this doubling of CPP contributions so we are
concerned about the issue.
You cannot expect the workers to pay an additional 5 per cent or
more of their income without reducing benefits to seniors. Will the
Minister of Finance tell the House how much the CPP payment to
seniors is going to come down? Will it be 50 per cent or more?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister
answered that question yesterday.
Unlike the Reform Party that is going to destroy pensions for low
income Canadians, we are sure that we can maintain a public
pension system for the benefit of Canadians and that is what we
intend to do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State responsible for the
Status of Women.
Ann Raney is an engineer. Until quite recently, she had a job
repairing the Peace Tower. The victim of sexual harassment, she is
now without a job, as are the colleagues who supported her. Her
harasser, however, still has his job.
Can the minister tell us when the Canadian government will
decide to terminate its contract with Fuller Construction, which is
responsible for hiring the subcontractor, Colonial, by invoking the
clause which states that a company committing discriminatory
actions breaches that contract?
2010
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
answer to this question is quite straightforward. There is an
agreement already between the general contractor and the
subcontractor.
When issues of this kind come to our attention of course we are
concerned. At this time there are discussions between our
department and Labour Canada to work toward strengthening
anti-discrimination clauses in contracts. An agreement has already
been reached between the general contractor and the subcontractor.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it seems clear that the government is taking full advantage
of an out of court agreement. The problem nevertheless remains
unresolved. It also seems clear that the government does not wish
to take any action against sexual harassment committed by
subcontractors. Would this by any chance be because the
government thinks that the Canadian Human Rights Act is worth
no more than the paper it is written on?
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to reiterate what I said before. An agreement is already in
place between the general contractor and the subcontractor. That
settlement does not speak to any sentiments that we have with
respect to human rights legislation.
Let me also point out that there are a couple of outstanding
issues in this regard having to do with moneys owed. The
government is concerned about that. It has appointed a facilitator to
try to work out a settlement so that all parties can be satisfied with
the outcome.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
web of deception coming from the government now covers Atlantic
Canada as well. In addition, it involves provincial Liberal
governments.
The cost to this government in terms of its credibility is
mounting, not to mention the $1 billion it tacked on in out of
control debt.
Would the finance minister please explain to us beleaguered
taxpayers listening from coast to coast why he considers it good
financial planning to spend another $1 billion of their money to
rearrange a tax, simply to bail this government out of an election
promise it had not intended to keep in the first place?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is simply
nonsense. The government has never pitted one region against
another.
When the government enacted tax reform in 1972 every single
province received compensation over a five-year period. When
Ontario was hard hit by the recession in 1991 and 1992 it received
$1 billion in stabilization payments. When grain marketing dived
in the late eighties the federal government provided $7 billion in
assistance to western farmers.
(1150)
I could go on, but all of these things are compensation. This is a
further example of the federation working properly.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
doubt whether a response like that would be acceptable in British
Columbia where I come from.
If the finance minister will not explain to Canadian people how
deceptive Liberal governments can be, I would be glad to do so.
The tax grab is under way in Nova Scotia already. Yesterday it
announced the first new tax to help cover the inevitable shortfall
which harmonization has created.
How could the finance minister sit there yesterday and say
nothing when the people in Atlantic Canada demanded an answer
to this question: Why did he tell them they were going to get a tax
break during the election when it is plain that taxes will increase in
Atlantic Canada, not decrease?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true.
Taxes will be reduced in Atlantic Canada. Taxes will be lower. The
sales taxes will be considerably lower in Atlantic Canada. Our
calculations show that in each of the provinces in Atlantic Canada
that have harmonized individual families will be paying lower
taxes. They will be paying as much as $400 less in Newfoundland.
It is less than that in the other two provinces, but there will be
substantially less taxes in each one of those provinces.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
public attention has recently been focused on the issue of air
quality in urban centres. The coming summer brings concern about
rising smog levels and ozone depletion. Vehicle emissions are a
major contributor to air pollution.
What is the government doing to promote alternative methods of
transportation with a view to addressing air quality issues?
2011
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to thank the hon. member for his question.
Those of us who live in large urban centres are all very aware of
the effects of summer air pollution. I am very pleased to announce
to the House that the federal government will contribute $200,000
to the establishment of a centre on sustainable transportation in
Toronto.
This centre of excellence will provide leadership in achieving
sustainable transportation systems in Canada. It will contribute to a
cleaner environment. It will improve health for Canadians. It is a
tremendous opportunity for Canadian business and another fine
example of many levels of government working together.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
With the tabling of his crab fishery plan, the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans has spread confusion, once again, by
allocating part of the quota to other categories of fishermen. In so
doing, the Minister has sown division in the ranks of the fishermen
and thus weakened the industry.
Since the traditional crabbers are taking twice the available
resource, does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans intend to
finally speed up and improve the plan for buying back permits, as
in the B.C. salmon fisheries?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, but I think
there may be some confusion as to what is happening.
I would like to set the hon. member straight. The total allowable
catch was 16,100 tonnes. The traditional catch was basically
divided between the traditional crabbers, the large crabbers, and the
non-traditional crabbers, those smaller ships and boats of the
inshore fleet. Therefore, 77.5 per cent went to the large crabbers
and 22.5 went to the inshore fleet.
(1155 )
Essentially this was done in the years when we had larger than
traditional quotas in such a way so there would be a balance
between the inshore fleet and the large crab fishermen at a time
when fishermen have a great deal of difficulty coping with the
situation.
I think the tenor of his question is that he may have been against
the inshore fishermen. I am sure that is not his intent.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard a lot this morning about Liberal
consultation. Unfortunately, Liberal consultation means either
stack the meeting and get people who agree with you or else ignore
what they say.
Recently at a meeting of the fisheries and oceans committee, 35
of the 42 users who came in said: ``We accept the user pay concept,
but let coast guard first rationalize their costs and do a
socioeconomic impact study so that you do not destroy the surface
of the ocean the way you have destroyed what is underneath it''.
Can the minister explain to the House why expensive hearings
are held if the wishes of the 35 of the 42 of those people who came
forward are ignored?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let us put this in context.
First, the study of the fees is a decision of the Government of
Canada passed by Parliament. The system fee was put forward by
the marine advisory board that controls what happens in this regard
in Canada. There were 850 consultations with members of the
industry and there was a final look by the committee, as the
member suggested. The majority report of the committee said that
the fees should go forward with the system which is very complex
and developed.
The premise of the hon. member that their views were not taken
into consideration is very wrong. It is for that very reason that I am
still studying the minority report as well as the majority report. He
is wrong.
* * *
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister for International Trade who has already
distinguished himself in this role since his appointment in January.
In view of Canada's important role on the world stage, can the
minister advise the House of the progress that has been made as a
result of the recent quadrilateral meetings in Japan?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
The meeting of what is called the quad recently took place in
Kobe, Japan. The quad is made up of four major trading entities in
the world, the United States, Japan, the European Union and
Canada.
2012
At that series of meetings we were able to advance the cause of
world trade, greater market access and more of a rules based
system in quite a number of ways. It means jobs for Canadians. It
helps to provide more secure access to markets, more security for
investment and that means jobs for Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform
Party, courier businesses, advertising businesses and others have
long held that the government dominated tax advantaged crown
corporation, Canada Post, should be privatized.
Now the government's own bureau of competition policy is
recommending that Canada Post should be stripped of its
monopoly.
My question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services. Will the government begin planning to take this old and
long overdue step?
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for his question.
Members of the House know that the Radwanski commission is
in progress right now, hearing ideas, concerns and proposals from
all Canadians. This particular proposal has been heard. The work of
the commission will continue. According to the current schedule,
Mr. Radwanski will report mid-summer, approximately.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Last week, Jean Martel, the president of the Commission des
valeurs mobilières du Québec and former national board member
of the Investment Dealers Association of Canada, voiced his
vehement opposition to the creation of a Canadian securities
commission. His comments backed up the equally vehement
criticism of the minister's plan by the president of the Montreal
stock exchange.
The government is constantly claiming that it enjoys the support
of the industry for its planned Canadian securities commission.
Will it finally admit that the only consensus in place in Quebec in
this connection is around opposition to the creation of such a
commission?
(1200 )
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon.
member that the proposal is not a federal one. The proposal was
brought forth by some of the provinces that asked us whether we
would arrange a Canadian securities commission.
The objective of this was to improve the efficiency of Canada's
capital markets, to reduce investment barriers and costs to
Canadian issues and make Canadian companies more competitive,
which means more competitive for Quebec and more jobs in
Canada. That is the objective of this and if any province-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Saskatoon-Humboldt.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who
recently travelled to the former Yugoslavia to see firsthand the
tragic impact of this war on human lives.
Given the importance of fostering respect for human rights and
building a lasting peace, can the minister tell the House of
Canada's role in the prosecution of war criminals?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, about two weeks ago I visited Bosnia. One of the major
questions was how we can support the whole civil reconstruction.
The key to peace in Bosnia is to have a proper implementation of
the whole war crimes procedure. Canada is making a major
contribution. As we know, Justice Arbour is now the chief
prosecutor.
My colleague, the minister for international development, has
made a major contribution on the economic and social investment,
much of which will go into supporting the work of the war crimes
tribunal.
As a government and as a country we have offered every
assistance we can to the parties within Bosnia and Serbia to help
them ensure the rights of those individuals are protected and that
we provide full security for all investigations taking place in that
area.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
can I have a two-part question? I decline.
_____________________________________________
2012
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
2013
table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is the 10th anniversary of the disaster of the
Chernobyl nuclear station. On behalf of all Canadians I express
anew our profound sympathy and condolences for the survivors of
this tragic accident, for those who lost family and friends, for those
who lost health and peace of mind and for those who lost their
homes and their livelihoods.
We pay particular tribute to the courage, commitment and
competence of the many Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusans and
others who took determined and effective action to contend with
the costs and impact of the accident, often at the risk of their own
lives. Many have since perished.
Chernobyl symbolizes the necessity for the operators of nuclear
reactors worldwide to put safety first. We must all learn the lessons
of Chernobyl so that such a tragedy never recurs.
The Moscow nuclear summit contributed to this goal by
highlighting the absolute priority of the safe use of nuclear energy
and by strengthening international co-operation in security and
safety issues.
Both the Canadian government and the Canadian private sector
have provided assistance through many channels to the victims of
the accident. We have committed some $32 million to projects
aimed at relieving the suffering caused by the accident and to
nuclear safety projects aimed at ensuring such an accident will not
happen again.
Canadians have shown their solidarity with the citizens of the
affected areas in many different ways, from inviting to their homes
young people living in areas exposed to radiation to participating in
projects setting up systems to monitor the environment in radiation
fallout areas.
(1205 )
Canada has been particularly active in the G-7 to enable Ukraine
to meet its energy needs while closing the Chernobyl nuclear
station and containing its lingering dangers. As the chair of the G-7
last year, we led the successful negotiation of the memorandum of
understanding on the closure of Chernobyl signed with Ukraine in
Ottawa last December by the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime
Minister was also active at last week's Moscow summit in
reaffirming the mutual commitment to the implementation of this
agreement.
Our decision to organize and host the Winnipeg conference on
Ukraine's economic transition has served as a catalyst for the
subsequent efforts of leading industrialized nations to come to the
assistance of Ukraine.
We intend to continue our political and economic co-operation
with Ukraine in nuclear safety and energy sector development and
other vital fields both bilaterally and multilaterally. We will work
to help Ukraine lend meaning to its precious new independence and
to win a better life for its people. That is the best way to help the
victims and to honour the memory of those who lost their lives.
Today, the 10th anniversary of the disaster at Chernobyl, I speak
on behalf of all Canadians in expressing our support and friendship
for the people of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus who have all suffered
the consequences of this accident. Let us keep working together to
ensure a similar tragedy never happens again.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with
respect to the motion just tabled-
The Deputy Speaker: I will hear your point of order after the
minister's statement.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, April 26, 1996 marks the 10th anniversary of the tragedy
in Chernobyl. According to the Ukrainian authorities, this tragedy
has, in the ten years, killed over 4,220 people, more than half of
whom had been assigned to decontaminate the site after the
explosion.
The official opposition wishes to offer its most heartfelt
condolences to the survivors of the tragedy and to all those who lost
someone near to them in this accident.
In addition, it is estimated that more than 3.5 million people,
including thousands of children, have been seriously affected by
radiation, which continues to wreak its devastation. We wish all
these people the courage they need to get through this terrible
ordeal.
The members of the Bloc Quebecois, on behalf of all their
constituents, wish to thank all people and governments providing
technical and financial assistance and comfort to the Ukrainians
affected.
Chernobyl is a tragedy with a lesson for us all. It must lead to a
tightening of standards and safety requirements for nuclear power
plants. However, most importantly, we must not forget that no
technology is perfect, however sophisticated it may be.
Political decisions compounded the effects of the catastrophe at
the time it occurred and subsequently. While the events at
Chernobyl may be due to a technical error, they were due just as
much to political error, from which no government can claim to be
exempt.
2014
The recent incidents at Pickering, Ontario, although of a very
different scope, show that the Government of Canada is not above
trying to hide information from people on the potential dangers
they face.
We hope that the minister's speech today will encourage the
heads of this power plant to respond to the pressing questions of
people in the region and of environmental groups, who are entitled
to answers.
Today we are recalling the 10th anniversary of Chernobyl. May
it be an event that is the last of its kind.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party I extend to the victims of
Chernobyl our deepest and heartfelt sympathy to them and their
families on the 10th anniversary of this nuclear disaster.
We express our commitment to working with the former Soviet
Union states and Russia in working with the international
community to clean up Chernobyl and get it under control.
(1210 )
Chernobyl is only the tip of the iceberg. Massive dumping of
nuclear waste into the Bering Sea has occurred in Russia, twice the
amount of the other 12 nuclear countries in the world. Western
Siberia is an ecological disaster. The people themselves have called
western Siberia an ecological disaster as there are massive levels of
long lived radionuclides, cesium-137, carbon-14, strontium-90.
They have all existed and they are affecting humans with radiation.
The fallout is affecting our arctic regions and is found in our
indigenous peoples.
The result is that over the last 25 years there has been a 75 per
cent increase in cancer rates and a 250 per cent increase in birth
defects in children in this area. Our arctic does not have similar
amounts and yet, as the minister well knows, the cancer and birth
defect rates of aboriginal people living in the arctic are higher than
they ought to be.
On the Kola Peninsula there has been a massive nuclear waste
dump. Large parts of the peninsula are contaminated beyond what
we have seen virtually any where else. There are high levels of
these radionuclides found in the tissue of animals, plants and
indigenous peoples
Russia is decommissioning its nuclear submarines. Over the next
10 years it will have to decommission 200 nuclear submarines and
ships. Historically it has dumped most of its nuclear waste into the
environment. This is not isolated in the former Soviet Union but it
is something that affects us all.
We have to push together with the international community for a
comprehensive test ban treaty and the enforcement of its
principles. We have to push the non-signatories to the nuclear
proliferation treaty, those with nuclear capabilities, to sign it.
International co-operation will be required to do this.
We have to work with the former Soviet Union states to
catalogue and identify these waste dump sites and also have
international groups to monitor the clean-up and the fallout.
We must encourage trade and economic ties with the former
Soviet Union states. By doing this we will push forward trade
liberalization, movement toward democratic principles. We will
dampen the rise of ethnic nationalism occurring with the likes of
Mr. Zhirinovsky and dampen the rise of the Communist Party in the
former Soviet Union. By increasing ties we do much for increasing
international co-operation between our countries.
We have in the former Soviet Union an ecological and nuclear
disaster which most of us do not know much about. It is the
Chernobyls of the future that are waiting to occur. They will affect
the former Soviet Union and our people through the ebb and flow
of waters and through the movement of air masses. These nuclear
materials will affect all arctic countries. Because these
radionuclides spend so long in the food chain they it will affect
Canadians with higher levels of birth defects and higher cancer
rates.
I implore the minister to work co-operatively with the
international community and the former Soviet Union states to
develop methods to get this under control to avoid the Chernobyls
of the future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as hon. members know, April 28 is the National Day of
Mourning. Every year, we pay tribute to Canadian men and women
who were killed or seriously injured in the workplace.
Since, this year, April 28 falls on a Sunday, I would like to take
this opportunity to draw attention to this commemoration.
In Canada, work accidents requiring workers' compensation
benefits to be paid out happen every 39 seconds on average. Every
day, one worker out of every fifteen is injured at work and two die.
These figures speak volumes. The loss of lives sustained, and the
ensuing pain and suffering of family, friends and coworkers, are
unbearable. Such losses are simply unacceptable.
In economic terms, work accidents cost the Canadian economy
more than $15 million per day, or 10 times the total number of days
lost to strikes and lockouts.
2015
(1215)
In 1994, the direct and indirect costs of work accidents amounted
to more than $10 billion.
[English]
The good news is that occupational injuries, illnesses and
fatalities in Canada have declined substantially over the past
decade. While we are making progress, these tragic incidents are
still far too high. It is imperative that we improve occupational
safety and health.
[Translation]
That is why, on the occasion of the National Day of Mourning,
we pay tribute to those injured or tragically killed in the workplace.
We reiterate our commitment to reducing the incidence of
accidental death and injury.
We can be proud of Canada's occupational safety and health
expertise, which is recognized worldwide. I believe that to a large
extent we owe our success to the approach we have taken. Canadian
occupational safety and health legislation is based on the internal
responsibility system.
[English]
I believe it is important for hon. members to note that the federal
occupational safety and health system has three partners:
employers, employee and government. All three have rights and
legal responsibilities to ensure safe and healthy working
environments.
This is the continuing challenge we are facing. This is what the
national day of mourning accomplishes. It raises our awareness
about these issues, the awareness of all Canadian employers and
employees who must address occupational safety and health
concerns on a daily basis if we are to reduce work related injuries
and deaths.
This challenge must be met by strengthening our effectiveness,
developing innovative measures to prevent loss of life, and finding
viable alternatives to increase efficiency. To that end we must
consider the impact of new technology, frequent changes in duties
and the international competitive market.
The foundation upon which this system functions is evident in
the roles of the federal, provincial and territorial authorities. They
are responsible for helping to ensure compliance, to monitor how
responsibilities are fulfilled and to address matters of
non-compliance.
[Translation]
It is clear that occupational safety and health concerns are
always on the minds of Canadian workers and employers. We all
share in this responsibility. And the Government of Canada
recognizes and fully appreciates the vital role played by unions and
employee representatives in that regard.
I now urge my hon. colleagues to join me in paying tribute to
Canadian workers who paid such a high and tragic price. They will
not be forgotten. Their memory will act as a constant reminder of
our duty to preserve and to work together to substantially improve
occupation health and safety conditions across Canada.
If you do not mind, after my hon. colleagues are through with
their remarks, we could observe a minute of silence in memory of
all those killed in the workplace.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the official opposition wishes to join with the government
and the other parties in this House in paying tribute those who died
or were seriously hurt in the workplace.
These injuries were undoubtedly an important, a disturbing
moment in the lives of those concerned, and it is our duty as
members of Parliament to remember, so that such accidents do not
happen again.
We are fully aware that, despite the laws now in effect across the
country, two workers are killed every five working days in Canada.
(1220)
Every two minutes, a worker is seriously injured in one of
Canada's workplaces. In total, each year, 57,000 workers are
involved in sometimes fatal accidents. On an economic level, $100
million in compensation is paid to workers who can no longer earn
a salary as a result of an accident; last year, 860,000 work days
were lost to accidents, which could have been prevented in some
cases.
Let us hope that we can work together to improve health and
safety in the workplace. The best way to do so is to co-operate so
that the workers, unions and employers can arrive at the wisest
decisions and work on prevention together. In this regard, the
official opposition wants to work on improving the existing
legislation.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada, the national
opposition, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to
the victims of work related accidents and to those suffering from
occupational injuries or disease.
Work conditions and occupational health and safety have
evolved greatly since Confederation and are now fundamental to
managing the workplace. The rights and duties of employees are
now embedded in our laws and regulations.
It is one thing however for Parliament and legislative assemblies
to pass occupational health and safety laws but it is another to
ensure they are followed. The time to become safety conscious is
not after an accident occurs. Prevention has to be foremost in our
minds.
Laws, regulations and governments play an important role in
accident prevention. In the final analysis however, it is the employ-
2016
ers and the employees who are responsible for preventing,
eliminating or controlling hazards in the workplace. This is a
responsibility no one can shun.
Preliminary statistics for 1994, the last year for which I found
them available, show that there were 709 workplace related
fatalities, 152 of which occurred in my home province of British
Columbia. That is an increase of 124 from the previous year.
Workplace fatalities, whether they claim one life or 26 as was the
case in the 1992 Westray mine disaster, are devastating not only for
the family and friends of the deceased but for co-workers and
employers as well.
Workers make this country productive. We have to do our utmost
to ensure that the workplace is health and safety conscious, that
those are necessities, not options.
The world economy is becoming increasingly competitive and
technologically advanced. New challenges abound and workers
face previously unheard of hazards. Labour and management must
work together to provide a healthy, safe and prosperous workplace
necessary to secure and maintain a competitive edge.
Let us use this national day of mourning to promote awareness of
the vital role that health and safety play in the protection and
preservation of our Canadian workers.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the minister has proposed
that we observe a moment of silence for those killed or injured in
the workplace. Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the House stood in silence.]
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present in both official languages the third
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development regarding Bill C-12, an act respecting employment
insurance in Canada, which as agreed to is reported with
amendments.
(1225 )
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present in both official languages the first report of
the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development concerning the main estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1997.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-276, an act to amend the Canada Elections
Act (registration of political parties).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to amend the
Canada Elections Act to allow the registration of political parties
by the chief electoral officer only when the party nominates
candidates in at least seven provinces that have in aggregate at least
50 per cent of the population of all the provinces and in at least half
of the electoral districts in each of those seven provinces.
For the purpose of the Canada Elections Act, the provinces
include the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
There are four principal aims of this bill. First is to ensure that
those parties entering into federal elections are nominating
candidates in a majority of ridings across Canada so that their
support and point of view will be national in scope. Second is to
ensure that each party provides a platform which is reflective of
national interests and not of regional scope. Third is to provide
greater access to the majority of Canadians to pass judgment via a
national convention or a general election on a party's political
platform. Fourth is the aim to keep Canada as one, united and
indivisible.
I ask all members of the House to support my private member's
bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following
motion:
That this House support the truth, integrity and ethics in politics and the
belief that a politician's promise should be upheld, including a promise to
resign.
I would like to hear individually from each party as to how its
members feel on this motion. The Reform Party certainly supports
the motion. I would appreciate unanimous consent to proceed with
debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois certainly agrees to debate the
motion. If there is a debate, we deeply regret the absence of the
Deputy Prime Minister, who would certainly give her consent
regarding this motion.
2017
[English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at this point we cannot give unanimous consent to the
motion. The hon. member who moved the motion is the House
leader of the Reform Party. He knows very well that there are other
appropriate channels where we discuss on a daily basis how the
business of the House is conducted. If he is serious about this
motion he should use those channels and then maybe we could have
a debate.
There is not unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The question becomes academic, but I
will ask it anyway.
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions to the
House today.
One petition contains 161 signatures of individuals from across
British Columbia. The petitioners request that Parliament not
increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and that it strongly
consider reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's
crumbling national highways.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains 1,305 signatures.
(1230 )
The petitioners would like to be added to the growing list of
petitioners calling on Parliament to enact legislation against
serious personal injury crimes being committed by high risk
offenders by permitting the use of post-sentence detention orders
and specifically passing Bill C-240.
Bill C-240 has been renumbered to Bill C-254 in this session of
Parliament.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I present a petition which
calls for Parliament to declare and confirm immediately that
Canada is indivisible, and that the boundaries of Canada, its
provinces, territories and territorial waters may be modified only
by a free vote of all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or through the
amending formula as stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.
This petition is signed by 27 people from the West Island area
and parts of my riding.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I present
two petitions today on behalf of constituents of Simcoe Centre.
The petitioners request that the Government of Canada not
amend the human rights act to include the undefined phrase sexual
orientation. Refusing to define this statement leaves interpretation
open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set. Parliament
has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure legislation cannot be
misinterpreted.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition concerns the age of consent laws.
The petitioners ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18
years to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present the following
petition which has 449 signatures. I present it on behalf of the
petitioners and on behalf of a very concerned constituent, Mrs. Lori
Smith.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament proceed
immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code that ensure
the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired
or causing injury or death while impaired reflects both the severity
of the crime and zero tolerance toward the crime.
This is certainly a commitment and concern of my constituents
they would like the Government of Canada to meet.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that, because
of the ministerial statements, government orders will be extended
by 20 minutes.
>
2018
2018
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion, the amendment
and the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to such a full house today on such an important
issue as the budget of the country.
Several comments were made by my colleague in the Liberal
Party which bear repeating. One is ``we have done a very good
job''. Having been here for two and a half years, I sort of missed
where the good job came in and so have a lot of people where I
come from in British Columbia.
``We cannot expect perfection in this country''. It had to do with
the remarks on GST, which I will get into a little later. Canadians,,
although disappointed with the lack of perfection, are probably just
as disappointed with the mediocre performance we have seen thus
far.
The Minister of Finance made a great deal of his claim in the
budget speech: ``We are not raising personal taxes, we are not
raising corporate taxes, we are not raising excise taxes. In fact, we
are not raising taxes''.
Unfortunately in this country we tend to get duped with that kind
of statement. When people think they are safe this year with no
more raising of taxes by the government they miss some important
points. Since this government came to power two and one-half
years ago, it has overspent an accumulated debt of $100 billion.
(1235)
I could ask people sitting in the gallery or anyone else in this
country how much that is. I speak to a lot of high schools and I ask
them how much $1 billion is. How much does the country owe in
debt? I have yet to go to a classroom that can tell me.
The young people in the country have no idea what is coming at
them and I think a lot of adults have no idea what is coming at us,
particularly when the finance minister stands up in the House and
says we have not raised taxes. They think they are safe for today.
Since I have been in the House the debt has risen from
approximately $450 billion to $575 billion. That is five hundred
and seventy-five thousand million dollars. When you ask students
they say $5 billion, $10 billion, but when you say five hundred and
seventy-five thousand million dollars they look at you with this
blank stare and say ``I guess somehow it will go away''. It will not
go away.
Taxes will increase under this government. We have to deal with
the annual borrowing of the government. This year it will likely be
around $30 billion. Overspending one's budget by that much is
almost criminal when the debtload is $575 billion. Somehow, some
way we have to make people aware exactly what is coming at them.
There are all kinds of places to cut budgets. The Liberals say
they have done a very good job, but they have made no cuts in some
areas. These are the kinds of things they are spending money on.
When you are overrunning a budget by $30 billion plus every year,
do you really need to give $33,000 in grants to promote and
develop music in alternative spaces? Grants of $280,000 are given
to various professional small ensembles to produce or rehearse for
special events.
Lots of people would say we need that, we have to keep our arts
going and so on. However, in view of the fact we are collecting and
overspending by $30 billion plus a year, must we continue to do
this at this point? The Axis Mime Theatre got $65,845. The
Buddies in Bad Times Theatre got $65,000, and on and on it goes.
I have negotiated many collective agreements in my day. I
negotiated at the other side of the table with the Canadian
conference of Teamsters. I find it ironic the government gave them
$138,000 last year with a membership as large as theirs. When we
are running this kind of deficit and debt one wonders hello, is
anyone home over there? Today it does not look good.
The Canadian Federation of Labour got $297,368; the Canadian
Labour Congress, $3.7 million. What is wrong with the
government that in the face of borrowing all of this money it is still
throwing it out the door like there were no tomorrow?
I would think a message would have been received by the way
we dismantled the Tory organization, but I guess not. Do we have
to give $500,000 to complete a nine-hole golf course in
Newfoundland? Is that a necessary expenditure of the taxpayers
who contribute their hard earned money from where I come from? I
do not think so. Do we have to pay $5,400 for somebody to travel to
Tennessee to gather information on sprout farming?
(1240)
I could go on. There are books full of this stuff. I bring it up year
after year but no one is home. No one is listening. That is sad. They
will listen when young people are short of jobs, as they are today,
and when their taxes are so high they cannot afford to live in some
areas of the country. They are going to say ``what have you baby
boomers done? You have borrowed enough money to sink a fleet of
ships and now you expect us to pay it back''.
I have two children in university. One is graduating this summer.
What will he do with his engineering degree? He is looking at
leaving Canada for a job, and that is really sad.
2019
I believe we have an uncaring government when it cannot make
as its top priority balancing the budget and paying down the debt.
Are there any other areas where we could save money? I could
list a host of them. I do a lot of work in the criminal justice system,
especially in the solicitor general's department, and I can think of a
host of things we could do there.
A couple of weeks ago I found out that in one of our maximum
institution, where all the real bad guys are going, they are now
allowing prisoners to buy rollerblades. They spent $4,000
refinishing the pool tables for them.
They are provided legal aid at the expense of taxpayers to sue the
crown. For those who do not already know, Clifford Olson has
approximately 32 litigation cases against the crown. I wonder if the
government has thought a minute about that, about the kind of
money we are spending on this creep when victims have to wait
their turn in court behind this guy to get their day of justice.
Are we spending any more money in prisons? I found out
something this morning I would have loved to raise in question
period. I could have had a lot of fun with it. I have a real problem
with a prison system that talks about zero tolerance for drugs and
gives one ounce bottles of bleach to prisoners to sterilize their
cocaine needles so they will not spread HIV. Talk about convoluted
messages. It is a contradiction, much like saying ``we did a very
good job but we overspent only by $100 billion in the last two and a
half years''.
I knew about project bleach a year ago and I have been hollering
about it ever since. I did not know about this little memo that just
came from the commissioner's office which says a bleach kit pilot
project has been operating successfully in Matsqui institution since
June 1995. That institution is in my riding and I happen to know
that success is somewhat over rated. Even the staff disagrees with
it. The staff in many prisons disagrees with it. What does the
government do? It is giving bleach to sterilize cocaine needles
belonging to prisoners for cocaine intake at the same time as it has
a zero tolerance for drugs.
If that member leaves, I am calling for quorum. I will not stand
in the House talking to some television across the country with an
embarrassing crowd like this in here.
(1245 )
The government has frozen the RRSP dollar contribution limit at
$13,500 until 2003. What does the government do? It gives itself a
gold plated pension plan. Congratulations. There are 51 out of 52
Reformers in this House who refused that plan. While these people
fill their fat faces with their own pension plan, they tell the rest of
Canadians sorry, but you do not get much for yourself. Talk about a
contradiction in terms. Open the doors and let the rest of these
people come in. Hello, is anyone home?
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege today of taking part in the debate on
Bill C-31. It is a privilege since the debate at second reading began
late Wednesday and will already end today. Obviously, the Liberal
government prefers to gag the Bloc Quebecois in the House
regarding Bill C-31, just as it did when the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development considered Bill C-12 on
unemployment insurance reform.
The Liberal government is in such a hurry to pass these bills that
it resorts to undemocratic measures rather than taking part in the
debate and explaining the real objects of these bills, as well as their
negative impact on Canadians.
Bill C-31 seeks to enact a series of controversial measures which
will hit Quebecers and Canadians hard, and which will result in the
continuing deterioration of their living conditions. All this in the
name of the fight against the deficit.
Sure, order has to be restored in public finances. We are all
aware of the situation. However, this must not be done on the back
of the poor and the unemployed. Shovelling into the provinces'
backyards is not a solution either: winter is over.
Part III of Bill C-31 amends the Unemployment Insurance Act so
that maximum weekly benefits will drop from $445 to $413. This
change will make claimants even poorer, and this means young
people and single mothers mostly.
Moreover, the maximum insurable gains are being lowered to
$39,000 per year. This means that it is primarily high income
earners who will make lower contributions to the unemployment
insurance fund. The change will result in tax savings of $900
million for high income earners. These measures directly affect the
unemployed and will be applied retroactively to January 1, 1996.
Oddly enough, these two provisions are also found in Bill C-12
on unemployment insurance reform. Is the government trying to
use the back door, in case the UI reform does not go through soon
enough?
Despite all the demonstrations against this reform, particularly
in Quebec and the eastern provinces, the party in power, the Liberal
Party, is reiterating its intentions and including measures that will
penalize the unemployed in Bill C-31.
This bill also affects the Canada social transfer, especially in
Quebec. Unfazed, the government will continue to cut social
program funding, which in Quebec will mean a shortfall of $5
billion over the next four years. The government is cutting but, in
the same breath, maintaining national standards so that it can tell
the provinces what to do. We have said this over and over: the
government must withdraw from social program funding and give
2020
the provinces what they need to fund these programs. All that the
government is doing now is reducing the deficit on the backs of the
provinces, by cutting transfers and continuing to call the shots on
standards.
What is more, social program transfers will now be based on the
population of provinces, instead of taking real needs into account.
It is therefore the richer provinces who will benefit from the social
transfers. Finally, with this bill, the red book government is
reforming the GST.
(1250)
The announcement by the finance minister this week concerning
the agreement reached between the federal government and the
provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
showed us without a shadow of a doubt how this party really
governs.
During the last election campaign, the Liberals made the
abolition of the GST one of the main planks in their electoral
platform. Back then, the Prime Minister told the public that the
GST had to be scrapped.
The Deputy Prime Minister, for her part, was heard on CBC on
October 18, 1993, just a few days before the election, saying, and I
quote:
[English]
``I have already said personally and very directly that if the GST
is not abolished I will resign''.
[Translation]
This morning's newspapers show that, surprisingly enough, the
Deputy Prime Minister herself admitted talking through her hat
when she made that statement. In this morning's Le Devoir, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage gives her own version of history
with respect to the GST: ``I never said it would be scrapped without
being replaced; no one ever said that''.
Barely six months after being elected, the Prime Minister
repeated on May 2, 1994: ``We hate this tax and we will kill it''. I
think the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Deputy
Prime Minister could not be any clearer. As recently as last
Wednesday, the Minister of Finance himself admitted that
promising to kill the GST had been a mistake. In fact, the real
mistake is not that the Liberals promised to kill the GST, but that
this government, which has no qualms about reneging on its most
important election promises, was elected.
The hon. members for York South-Weston and for
Broadview-Greenwood did not hesitate to condemn the
government's refusal to honour its commitments. There were at
least two members on the other side of the House who did not
suffer from collective amnesia.
No matter what is written in the famous red book, all the people
in Quebec and Canada heard key government figures promise to
kill the GST. Not only does the agreement between the three
Atlantic provinces and the federal government not kill the GST, it
reinforces it.
The Minister of Finance talked about harmonizing provincial
and federal sales taxes; in fact, provincial taxes will not be
harmonized with but absorbed into the GST to become a national
tax fully administered by the federal government, depriving the
provinces of their autonomy in controlling their own tax rates.
To add insult to injury, the Minister of Finance is making the
other provinces pay for this agreement. In fact, $960 million will
be paid to the three Atlantic provinces concerned, including $250
million taken directly from the pockets of Quebecers. And this is
only the beginning, as this measure will be implemented in the
same way after the federal government negotiates agreements with
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island.
To top it all, the government is paying to renege on its promises
while pretending to honour them. The GST stays, and the
government continues to dump its deficit onto the provinces.
Obviously, things could not be any better.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to
be able to stand in Canada's Parliament and talk about the one issue
which is probably more important to Canadians than almost
anything else.
Canadians are concerned about the justice system and its
failures. They are concerned about the fact that these days they are
not represented in Parliament by their MPs because the rules of the
party do not permit that to happen. Undoubtedly what hits people
the most across the country is the problem of jobs, of balancing
their budgets and paying their bills. With that comes that greatest
of all expenses for most Canadians, the largest single expense that
they incur, their monthly tax bill. That is the biggest item in family
budgets.
(1255)
We are in this House today debating on behalf of the Canadian
people whether or not their money should be spent wisely or
foolishly and how it should be allocated. I am somewhat appalled
that there is little accountability here.
I do not know exactly how to put this. I need to stay within the
rules of debate. I will studiously attempt to do that. It is totally
unconscionable for individuals, for citizens of this country, to go
around during an election campaign laying out their plans so that
the voters can presumably make a decision on who to send to
Ottawa to represent them while during that campaign, the words
they use cannot be trusted. We have heard so much rhetoric these
2021
past days about what we meant, about we said and about what we
wrote. Frankly, those three should coincide.
We should write what we intend to do. We should communicate
what we intend to do and we should intend to do what we say and
write we intend to do. How can the voters during an election make
an informed decision if they cannot trust the words that are being
used?
That is really the crux of the matter. There are 295 members of
Parliament. I am very honoured to be one of those. We have that
awesome responsibility of being, in essence, the board of directors
of this giant corporation called Canada.
Some people say that government cannot be run as a business. I
am afraid in some areas there is no choice but to run it as a
business. That is when it comes to budget.
We can certainly debate what we want to spend our money on.
That is a legitimate debate. How much should we spend on
welfare? How much should we spend on health care? How much
should we spend on education?
I am appalled that the governments of the past 30 years have
arranged our affairs so that right now Canadians from coast to coast
to coast are being cut down at the knees. There is no longer
sufficient money to support education. There is no longer sufficient
money to support a proper level of health care. There are cutbacks
all over the place.
Every week I get letters and phone calls from people who say
that my son cannot get a job, therefore he will not be able to
continue his education. I get others who say that mom is in the
hospital and if we were not there to care for her, she would have no
care at all because all of the nurses have been let go. That is not
acceptable.
Our predecessors in this place over the last 30 years have not
been honest with Canadian taxpayers. They kept telling them
election after election: ``We will do this. We will do that. Elect me
and you will have this in your community especially if I become a
cabinet minister. There will be all sorts of grants and special
privileges available. If I am already a cabinet minister, be sure to
re-elect me. Those goodies will continue if you do''.
Meanwhile the government is spending $1,000 each second
more than is taken in. That is unconscionable. To add the greatest
insult of all to Canadian taxpayers, at election time, when their
candidates say that they are going to do this and this with taxation,
that they will eliminate the GST or whatever the issue of the day is,
the word, eliminate does not mean eliminate.
Usually in the English language, we have come to a consensus. I
am sure it is the same in French. There is a consensus on the usual
meaning of words. In the fall 1993 election campaign not once did I
hear the Liberal candidate for Elk Island tell the people in our
constituency that if elected the Liberals would harmonize the tax. I
do not recall hearing that word once, yet the Liberals are now
saying that eliminate means harmonize. A new synonym. A change
to the dictionary.
(1300)
The poor taxpayers do not have any input which is not right. It
has happened year after year. The taxpayers are given a choice, but
once elected the people sent to this place do whatever they want.
There is no accountability. I do not want to hang my head in shame
because I have done everything I could to resist this. I will have to
exclude myself, members of my party and frankly, some members
of the other parties in the House.
I have spoken to some government members in private
conversations. I will not divulge names but they have said: ``Keep
hammering the budget. You guys are right on''. Liberal members
have said that to me, yet they are not permitted to rise in the House
of Commons to speak against the budget or to move amendments.
How can taxpayers, through their elected representatives, ever
get control of the spending of their hard earned money if we are not
going to permit members of the House to speak and to vote
according to their own conscience and according to the wishes of
their constituents? If that does not happen, I do not hold out much
hope for Canadians. It has to happen.
I am very proud to be a member of the Reform Party of Canada
which, since its inception, has endorsed this as part of its
principles. In fact it is one of the things which drew me to the party.
I will stand here and try to communicate as forcefully as I can for
as long as I can that what this country needs is a system whereby,
like in the Reform Party, members not only have the right to
represent their constituents when they debate and when they vote,
but they also have the obligation to do so.
I would be out of step with my party if I went against the wishes
of my constituents. I do not know whether my party would kick me
out of the caucus; we have not discussed that. I really doubt it.
Although it might because I would be breaking a very fundamental
principle of what Reform stands for and also what is right for the
country.
I will say one more thing about the budget and the fact that the
government is overspending so greatly. The government proclaims
how wonderful it is because it has brought the amount of
overspending from $40 billion to $35 billion, from $35 billion to
$30 billion, and down it goes. The present number it is projecting is
somewhere in the area of $17 billion. Some Canadians, because of
the way the words are spun and because some people do not bother
to explain the difference between the debt and the deficit, really
think that the debt is being eliminated.
I do not wish to embarrass him, but it just so happens that last
week I hauled out the campaign literature from my riding and I
looked at the Liberal literature to see what that candidate said.
Believe it or not, in the brochure which he distributed to the voters
of Elk Island, his statement was that a Liberal government would
bring down the debt to 3 per cent of gross domestic product. The
debt. Of course, the official platform of the Liberal Party was to
bring the deficit, the amount of overspending per year, to 3 per cent
2022
of the gross domestic product. I will forgive him. I think it was a
legitimate error. He did not know any better. However, I think it is
unconscionable.
When there are deficit budgets it means the debt is still growing.
I want every member of the House and every Canadian to
understand that the debt is not decreasing under this government.
The debt is still increasing. Admittedly it is increasing at a slower
rate than it did before. If I can give any commendation to the
government I will give a reluctant one on that issue. At least it is
not putting us into the hole as fast as it could.
(1305)
When the government continues to add to the debt, right now at
$17 billion per year, that is premised on a very important
assumption. Those who have lent Canada the money it is
borrowing, whether they are foreign investors or domestic
investors, all expect their money back. That is based on the
assumption that sometime in the future we will have a surplus of
over $50 billion a year for 25 years in a row before we can pay off
that debt.
Mr. Speaker, you do not know how much I regret that my time is
up because I am just starting, but thank you.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak on the government's third budget. In
speaking against it I hope to ring the alarm bells across Canada that
this is not the budget which is being portrayed by the government
as a be happy, do not worry, go back to sleep budget, this is a
budget that all Canadians should be alarmed at.
There were two major election promises made by this Liberal
government which are not even mentioned in this third budget. The
first is jobs, jobs, jobs which Canadians were so desperately
looking for and the second of course is the GST. The words goods
and services tax do not even appear in the budget. The only
reference is to a federal sales tax. In this budget two major election
promises that were broken are not addressed. All Canadians should
be deeply concerned about that.
A third promise has been destroyed in this budget and has been
magnified this week. It is the promise by this government to do
something about the level of cynicism across the country today
which has developed between the voters and the politicians. There
was an opportunity for the government to do something about it.
As a matter of fact the Liberals alluded to it in their famous red
book under the chapter ``Governing with Integrity'' on page 90. At
the beginning of chapter 6 it states: ``The most important asset of
government is the confidence it enjoys of its citizens to whom it is
accountable. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it
must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be
restored''.
Instead of restoring it in this budget, what has happened in the
House today has shattered it. What the government once described
as sleaze by the Conservative Party is now depicted as an honest
mistake: ``We did not know what we were doing''.
At least there is some disagreement here between the Prime
Minister and the finance minister. The finance minister says it was
an honest mistake but the Prime Minister does not agree. He still
says it was not a mistake, that the government is living up to its
word in the red book.
To suggest that government members do not know what they are
doing, they are not new members of Parliament; most of the people
in cabinet have been here for many years. To suggest that all of
those years in opposition have been wasted and that they have
taken over the reins of government and do not know what they are
doing is an absurdity Canadian voters will not accept.
(1310 )
When our current finance minister was in opposition he was very
much opposed to harmonization of the GST; harmonizing the GST
with the PST would entrench it forever and we would never be able
to do anything about this hated tax. How the rhetoric changes when
one moves from opposition to government. One wonders which
statement to believe, the statement that was made in opposition or
the statement being made by the government today.
This is the old style politics of saying one thing to win votes and
doing whatever once elected. The promise to scrap, abolish, get rid
of the GST was a cold and calculated vote grabber. It was made
with every intention to win votes. When we consider that some of
the ridings were won by as few as two, three and eleven votes, the
promise that was made in less than good faith could very well have
swung those seats to enable the government to win its mandate on a
policy of deception and not one of being honest with the voters.
When the Deputy Prime Minister, a veteran politician and by no
means a rookie to this House, said that she would resign if the GST
were not abolished, it was done in a cold and calculated way. She is
currently suggesting it was done in the heat of the moment but that
is not a fact. The videos of past press conferences will prove that. It
was said more than once. It was said repeatedly during the 1993
campaign.
Canadian voters will not miss the glaring contradiction this week
in the Prime Minister's reaction to two members of this House.
2023
There was his reaction to the member for York South-Weston who
stood on principle and said: ``This is not what we said to the
Canadian people. This is not what I said to the people in my riding
and in all conscience I must resign from this government. I must
step aside. I cannot face my people on anything less than that''.
The member for York South-Weston was reprimanded for
being honest with the voters he represents in this place. I should not
have said he resigned. The Prime Minister removed him from
caucus on the basis that the member should not represent his voters
and be honest to himself but that he must do as he is told.
Contrast that situation with the situation of the Deputy Prime
Minister who said to the voters: ``I will resign''. The Prime
Minister sees no problem there. She did not really mean it and she
will remain as a member of this House.
That contradiction, that double standard has not been missed by
the voters across Canada. The public has lost confidence in this
place and in their politicians. On the basis of what has happened
here, that loss of confidence is certainly with good reason.
I mentioned in question period that all of us will pay because of
the lack of integrity displayed by the government in not living up to
and honouring a promise that was made to the voters. Members on
both sides of the House, federal, provincial, municipal, all
politicians will be tarred by this brush that the voters cannot trust
what politicians say when they are out seeking their votes. We will
all pay very dearly for that, which is the tragedy of what has taken
place here this week.
The Prime Minister referred to the red book and said: ``There is
not one promise I will not keep. Point to any page, any time and ask
me''. Let us take a moment to do that.
We have covered the GST. Compensation is now being offered to
provinces to come onside at the expense of all of the provinces.
Pressure is being put on Ontario. Ontario's finance minister has
made it clear that the province of Ontario is not in the tax
increasing business, it is in the business of decreasing taxes and
giving some relief to taxpayers.
Concerning NAFTA, the government promised to renegotiate,
although that promise was not kept.
MP pensions were not dealt with. There was some minor
tinkering but the overhaul Canadians were looking for was not
done. I am very proud to say that 51 out of 52 members of my party
opted out of it where 97 per cent of government members stayed in.
The government has lost all credibility in not dealing with that
issue.
(1315)
Freer votes were promised in the red book. I believe three private
members' bills had free votes but not one government bill in two
and a half years has been put to a free vote.
The Liberals promised that old age security would not be cut and
yet 25 per cent of seniors are going to be cut by 10 per cent.
Universality, as they had promised, is dead.
Let us go to the infrastructure program. Let us quote from page
60 exactly what was outlined in the red book on infrastructure.
The term ``infrastructure'' refers to undertakings for the common benefit,
such as transportation and communications links, and water and sewage
systems.
Nowhere is there talk about boccie courts. Nowhere is there talk
about a canoe museum. Nowhere is there talk about trade centres or
hockey arenas. It talked about benefiting all citizens.
That program was a $2 billion shell game that was played on the
voters across Canada. What a great offer, a two for one. How could
anyone resist it? The one taxpayer was being bribed with their own
tax dollars?
Finally, the ethics counsellor. On page 95, getting right to the
core of returning integrity to government, the red book says:
The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of
all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.
That did not happen.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to tell the member his time has
expired. Is there unanimous consent to let him continue?
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on this legislation
which will allow the enactment of certain provisions of the budget
for this year.
It distresses me somewhat when I talk to people who do not seem
to understand the serious financial situation in which this country
finds itself. I believe it was a Liberal government about 30 years
ago that started us on some very serious deficit financing and that
was carried on by the Conservative Mulroney government which
preceded this Liberal government.
Canadians felt that when we entered into the election debate in
1993 that the people who now represent this government
recognized that this trend to go into serious deficit budgeting had to
stop. It distresses me that although we hear them talking about
lowering the deficit from $40 billion to $38 billion or $36 billion
that they seem to believe that is going to solve the problem. It will
not.
Canadians are looking for a government that is committed to
reducing government spending in very serious and real ways.
2024
Speaking for voters and taxpayers of British Columbia, I know it
concerns them when they see that the government seems to deal
differently with different parts of the country.
The Liberals talk about things like equalization payments. There
is a program which is supported by most if not all provinces where
those provinces that do not have the ability to provide some of the
basic services for their people that the taxpayers in those provinces
who are in a better position economically are more than willing to
add financial support to see that the basic services are provided to
those have not provinces.
Not only is there this equalization payment act that allows for
this up front, but we are also finding, over and over again, that in
different government policy programs there continues to be special
financial considerations for these other provinces above and
beyond the equalization payments that fall under the equalization
payment act.
The people in British Columbia are getting a little bit tired of
carrying not only the additional burden under the equalization
payments but a continual added burden in various legislation,
whether it is the regional development grants, whether it is in the
infrastructure program or whether it is the billion dollars that is
going into Atlantic Canada to convince them to co-operate with the
federal government in its harmonization of the GST and the
provincial sales tax.
(1320 )
The people of British Columbia are getting tired of having to pay
for these programs in order to convince the have not provinces to
co-operate with the federal government. To be quite honest, it is not
fair to the taxpayers of British Columbia to have to support the
equalization payments which give money to the have not
provinces. It is not fair to the taxpayers of British Columbia to have
to support Quebec's $90 million grant for settlement services for
their immigration program.
British Columbians know that the number of immigrants and
refugees that province is going to be taking in is a very small
portion of the total number of immigrants and refugees coming into
Canada. It is not fair for taxpayers outside of the have not provinces
to not only be hit with the equalization payments, but to continually
support government programs which favour one region over
another.
The west coast fishery is struggling. It is proposed that the
fishing fleet be cut in half. Hundreds and hundreds of west coast
fishermen will be put out of business. They will not be able to
afford their boats, their homes or look after their families. What is
the response of the federal government? To throw a few pennies in
that direction compared to the financial and other support that went
to the east coast fishery when it was in difficulty.
It is these inconsistencies in how the country is operated which
promotes questions about being part of this country. Canadians do
not understand the differences. Canadians do not understand why
they pay for the equalization program, the Canada-Quebec accord
and again for the billion dollar buyout of Atlantic Canada. They
have paid for programs which built hockey rinks and boccie courts.
I do not know what boccie is, but that is okay. I do not have the time
to play it anyway.
Canadians do not understand how the government with a
national debt I believe of $575 billion and growing, knowing that it
is going to be $600 billion in debt in 1997, can continue to spend
money for these programs at the expense of three provinces of the
country.
It is also difficult for Albertans to understand how it could be hit
with the national energy program, where it put $900 billion more
into confederation that it has received. It is continually being asked
to spend more and more to support government programs such as
the billion dollar expenditure to convince some of the have not
provinces to let the federal Liberal government walk all over them
one more time.
I would suggest that with the exception of a few of the younger
members of the House, the real tragedy is for the future
generations. The real tragedy will be the young people of today
who are having a difficult time affording a post-graduate education
and when when they do get that education they are not able to find
work. When they do find work it is at minimum wage which does
not allow them to buy a house, buy a vehicle or establish a base to
start a family. That is the real tragedy.
Part of the tragedy is that the federal government continues a
process which expects those individuals who are already struggling
to make their place in Canadian society to pay for programs and
policies which they are not going to receive any benefit from. It is
my children and my grandchildren who are going to see most of
their income going to pay the debt of the federal government, the
debt of the provincial government and to pay the cost of municipal
government.
(1325)
That is not fair. It is not fair to these young people who are
looking to the future with some hope and excitement to find out
that all they are doing is paying for programs of which I and my
parents have had the benefit.
In my two and one-half years in this House I would like to say I
have seen some change in attitude from the government side, but I
cannot honestly say that I have. I do not see any difference between
the Liberal government of today and the Brian Mulroney
Conservative government of days gone by. It has an attitude of
largesse when spending money, of not understanding that the
government's money comes from the taxpayers and that the
government does not have this great big money tree growing
outside of Centre Block.
I can honestly say I do not see any difference in attitude and that
is the greatest tragedy of all. We are no further ahead now than we
were three or four years ago when the Canadian people said they
2025
wanted something different. They wanted a government to take
control of government spending.
The Deputy Speaker: I might indicate that I have to interrupt
the debate 1.35 p.m.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to start off by doing something just a little
different. I have to offer the House a correction of what my own
colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe Centre said.
He pointed out that the Prime Minister had said: ``There is not
one single promise I will not keep,'' and he suggested that he did
not live up to that. I have to point out to my hon. colleague that the
Prime Minister, in fact, did. The Prime Minister said there was not
one promise that he would not keep and he is absolutely right.
There is a whole pile of them.
The Prime Minister likes to twist things around and use
semantics. By doing that, he is technically correct but it is a bigger
shame to say that he did not keep one promise. He did not keep any
of his promises, relatively speaking.
I am the Reform Party's transport critic. I might add the national
transport critic. I would like to focus my comments on those
transport issues that relate to this budget.
One in which I have had a lot of involvement is probably one of
the bigger and more scandalous pieces of legislation that this
Liberal government has been involved in, and that is the Pearson
airport development contract.
I did not see anywhere in this budget proposal money allocated
for the cost that this government is going to incur because of its
unwarranted interference in the private marketplace and its
overturning of the rule of law in the mess that it has started with
this Pearson airport legislation.
There are all kinds of costs involved in that legislation and one
cost which is huge and growing daily are legal costs. I see nothing
under transport that shows the cost of defending this absolutely
unconscionable legislation originally called Bill C-22. Now I
believe it is Bill C-28. It was hardly worth giving it a new number
when it came through the House again. It only took one minute and
35 seconds. Nobody was allowed to speak on it. I do not think it
was worth the costs for that second time around.
The government had to involve its legal and justice departments
in order to draft this terrible piece of legislation. Then when justice
did seem to prevail a bit and it could not get this bill through the
House and through the Senate, the consortium, as is its right in
normal society, took the matter to the Supreme Court of Ontario.
First the government used the might of the tax dollar, the
Canadian taxpayers' money, and mounted first a legal challenge to
try to prevent it from going to court.
(1330)
That cost us a bundle of money right there. There is nothing in
the budget about that. When they lost all their stalling tactics and
ran out of things they could do, they finally went to court.
The court case was dealing with whether there was a contract and
if so was the government in breach of that contract. The
government mounted a tremendous defence with a battery of
justice department lawyers and lost.
There were big costs involved in that. There is nothing in the
budget dealing with that or future legal costs. Having lost it and
having the unlimited resources of Canadian taxpayer money, they
mounted an appeal.
They did all their preparation, it went to court and through the
whole appeal process. They lost again. Millions and millions more
of taxpayer dollars were wasted. Now they are in court for a third
time, with the court having recognized that there was a contract and
that the government was in breach of that contract.
The government, having exhausted its appeal rights, is now in
court asking what compensation should be given. When we get the
compensation, the consortium that had a contract, which the courts
have said was a legal and binding contract breached by the
government, is asking for over $600 million in compensation.
Most of this is lost opportunity for profit. This is a normal thing
to sue for when one unjustifiably has a contract taken away. Once
again, the government has its battery of lawyers trying to defend
the terrible piece of legislation the Liberal government brought
forward.
Again it is costing untold amounts of taxpayer dollars. This is in
this fiscal year, but nothing in the budget. There is nothing in the
budget about the compensation package either.
Are we getting our money's worth for all these millions of
dollars in legal costs? Here in the House the government said for
two years while this bill was going through that this was a terrible
contract, that it was far too rich and that the developers would make
too much money. That was the justification for the cancellation.
What have these lawyers done with all the money they are
spending, money that is not in the budget? What are they using for
a defence? They are saying to the court there should not be any
costs awarded to the contract holder for lost profit. It was such a
bad contract with such a likelihood of the contractors going broke
that they probably would not have made any money at all.
It seems like one side of the justice department lawyers should
get together with the other side and get their stories straight. If the
2026
government is then to squander millions of dollars on legal
defence of this legislation, at least we might get something by way
of some value for our money.
Let us look at the financial impact of the contract. Thousands of
jobs were involved in this contract at not $1 cost to the Canadian
taxpayer. One of the many utopian schemes the Liberal government
came out with is jobs, jobs, jobs; it would create jobs.
Before the government started running on this, there were
studies done that indicated that it cost the government $75,000 to
create a $35,000 job. For this, it gets $10,000 worth of economic
benefits, tax revenues versus paying out on social programs, for a
net loss of $65,000 a job. That is the cost to the Canadian taxpayer
of the government's buying jobs.
Now that the government has run through its infamous job
creation program dealing with infrastructure, if we take the number
of permanent jobs the government claims it created and divide it by
the amount of money spent, we find $75,000 a job. Is that not
interesting?
Thousands of jobs could be created by the contract the
government cancelled with not $1 of cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
The contract holders were to spend over $800 million at not one
dime cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
I do not see anything anywhere in the budget dealing with
replacing those jobs at Pearson airport at the cost of hundreds of
millions of dollars.
Because this construction is not going on, we have tax loss of all
kinds.
(1335 )
The government specifically banned passenger facility tax to the
consortium to build this. Now it has to build the facilities itself at a
cost now of over $1 billion. There is nothing in the budget for that.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.
Pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the
House.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment to
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Under Standing Order 45(6), the division
stands deferred until Monday, April 29 at the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment.
_____________________________________________
2026
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from March 27, 1996 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act
(broadcasting policy), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-216
entitled ``An act to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcasting
policy)'', which was introduced by the hon. member for
Sarnia-Lambton, gives me an opportunity to rise in the House
today to address this issue.
I am doubly pleased to do so since I share the hon. member's
concerns, and I congratulate him on supporting the protection and
preservation of cultural industries in Quebec and Canada.
The bill before us proposes to amend section 3 of the
Broadcasting Act to protect consumers against the questionable
practices of certain cable companies and to question the almost
abiding role played by the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC.
We will recall that, over a year ago, cable companies were
authorized by the CRTC to increase their revenues through
negative option billing. What is this high handed method used by
cable companies?
In 1994, the CRTC licensed eight new specialty services,
including the Réseau de l'information, or RDI. These services were
available starting on January 1, 1995. That is when the new
channels were added, in most cases, to the basic service provided to
subscribers, who then had to pay a monthly surcharge without ever
having been notified or consulted.
Cable companies had introduced negative option billing before
finding themselves confronted to angry subscribers. They have
since had to backtrack and apologize to their customers, promising
that, in the future, when they introduced new services, they would
give subscribers a choice.
Is it not paradoxical for the CRTC, whose mandate includes
looking after the interests of television service consumers, did not
say a thing and that circumstances led the cable companies to
self-regulate? In light of the CRTC's neglect of duty, Bill C-216
proposes to legislate to prevent this kind of situation from ever
occurring again.
2027
(1340)
We agree with the spirit of Bill C-216, which seeks to give
consumers greater control over the programming services they get
and, of course, over the costs of such services. We certainly hope
that Canadians and Quebecers can enjoy adequate protection, so
that no company can demand from them money for programming
services that they never requested or accepted. TV viewers must
pay for the services they want, not for those a cable distributor or
the CRTC wants to impose on them.
That being said, we wonder, as the hon. member for
Sarnia-Lambton did on March 27, about the federal government's
authority to legislate on this matter. As the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe pointed out, Quebec already has a consumer
protection act to prevent abuse such as negative option billing.
The member for Richmond-Wolfe also said that such bill
tabled in this House is very clearly a duplication of regulations and
an intrusion of the federal government into the jurisdiction of the
state of Quebec. It is not ill will on the part of the member for
Sarnia-Lambton, added my colleague, it is because his own
government has not taken its responsibilities and he is calling it to
order. He is also reminding the government that many provinces
have no consumer protection legislation and that the present
government, with the CRTC, is sending a very clear signal to cable
distributors to take whatever action they see fit.
This bill reminds us once more of the ineffectiveness of
Canadian federalism. The Consumer Protection Act is a provincial
law, while broadcasting is regulated by federal legislation. The
result is that when consumer rights need to be protected in the
broadcasting sector, there is overlap.
Even in the case of something as simple as consumer protection,
regarding which there seems to be a consensus, the whole issue
turns into a federal-provincial tangle. Last year, the former heritage
minister himself thought that broadcasting was a field of provincial
jurisdiction. A few days later he revised his position and stated that
broadcasting came under federal jurisdiction. If the former
Minister of Canadian Heritage had trouble making sense of all this,
how can ordinary citizens figure out these contradictory signals?
Let us be clear, Quebec, just like Nova Scotia, has already passed
legislation to protect its consumers against negative option billing.
The problems experienced by Canadian subscribers in January
1995 did not happen in Quebec. Quebec has, for some time now,
assumed its responsibilities with its Consumer Protection Act.
What Canadians and Quebecers want is a government that is
effective, able to act rapidly in the interests of the public, not
governments that overlap, contradict each other and duck issues. In
the area of consumer protection, we believe that the provinces can
best meet these needs. If people in the other provinces are not
happy to find themselves subscribing through negative option
billing, they must urge their provincial governments to take action.
Incidentally, when all this happened, at least three provinces,
British Columbia, Ontario and Manitoba, indicated their intention
to step in to prohibit commercial practices such as negative option
billing. Why does the federal government now want to bring in
legislation, unless it is to duplicate what the provinces are doing or
make up for others' failure to act.
The other question raised by Bill C-216 concerns the
appropriateness of adopting such a measure at this time. The
disputes in question took place over a year ago and were resolved
subsequently, under pressure from consumers. Well after everyone
else, when the problems are a thing of the past, when the provinces
are beginning to assume their responsibilities, when the cable
companies have regulated themselves, the federal government
would now like to pass this bill today. Why? The Liberals know
why and we have a good idea.
(1345)
We repeat that the provinces are best placed to regulate the
business practices of cable companies, including negative
optioning.
The member for Sarnia-Lambton and the federal government
should, instead, look at the new challenges created by
technological developments in telecommunications, which will
increase in both number and complexity. We already have a pretty
good idea of what to expect at the turn of the century. It is only a
matter of time before consumers have broadcasting services on a
pay-per-view basis. Apart from a few common interest channels,
people will make their own choice and pay only for the services
they want.
The choice available to consumers will be ever more vast, and
government control will be increasingly difficult. This is where the
government will have to be more vigilant than ever before in order
to ensure the survival of Canada's cultural institutions.
The Bloc Quebecois shares the concerns of the member for
Sarnia-Lambton and, as we said earlier, the principles underlying
Bill C-216. However, for the reasons given earlier, including the
duplication of provisions of the Quebec consumer protection act,
we cannot support this bill.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to speak
to you briefly, you and those assembled here, on bill Private
Member's Bill C-216 on negative option billing.
2028
First of all, I wish to congratulate my colleague from
Sarnia-Lambton for his unflagging, and finally successful,
efforts over recent months to get this question onto the Order
Paper.
Most Canadians will recall the launching of the new Canadian
specialized services some 15 months ago. It is unfortunate that this
excellent opportunity to discover these Canadian programs was
overshadowed by the issue of what is called ``negative option
billing''.
The public did not criticize the choice of programming, but
rather the fact that they were trying to force subscribers to pay for a
whole package of programs and then burdening them with the need
to reject the options they did not want.
My colleague's proposal will amend paragraph 3(1)(t) of the
Broadcasting Act on distribution undertakings, making use of the
negative option approach illegal.
It is important to point out that the Minister of Heritage and
myself, as well as the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, are all
vigorously opposed to the practices that were common early in
1995, and we hope that the committee debates will cast more light
on the optimum way of solving this question once and for all, so as
to implement an approach that is better suited to the concerns of the
Canadian consumer.
You may be aware that the Broadcasting Act is mainly concerned
with key principles and objectives in the area of culture, and not
with trade practices such as negative option billing.
Therefore it might be worthwhile if, during their discussions on
the matter, committee members considered referring it to the
CRTC with a view to amending its regulations or the mechanisms
governing the licensing process.
By changing the regulations, the commission might set new
requirements for negative option use, or make the standards
imposed upon industry for customer service more stringent.
(1350)
[English]
Perhaps it is time for a national approach to the rights of
consumers. Despite the need for Canadians to know about the
diversity of quality Canadian programming on the newer specialty
channels, it cannot be done at the expense of consumer choice. It is
the right of Canadian consumers to have Canadian choices but not
to have these forced upon them.
New information technologies are transforming the traditional
parameters between producers and consumers. New players can
offer an ever increasing range of viewing choices that transcend
territorial boundaries and pose new challenges for the
dissemination of our cultural products. Canadians know this.
Therefore, it is important that all distribution undertakings follow
the same rules and recognize the consumers' right to be consulted
before subscribing to new services.
The CRTC is preparing to re-examine a wide variety of new
applicants ready to deliver to Canadians new and exciting program
venues. Previously the CRTC has expressed its concern about
negative option marketing. The minister is strongly behind the end
of negative optioning and is prepared to support measures which
ensure that all future programming entries are evaluated on their
own merit without resorting to a marketing instrument such as
negative optioning. This point will be made clearly to all persons
concerned with broadcasting regulations.
This reminds me that the issue of Canadian content and
programming which underlined this episode provoked some very
strong views, particularly from the western provinces. In my view,
the past 25 years or so of Canadian content regulations have
allowed us to grow from a fledgling music and television industry
to one that has gained international acceptance and recognition. We
should take great pride in everything that has contributed to forging
our identity.
The competition will be fierce for the specialty channels that
want their programming to go to the largest possible number of
Canadian households. However, we know the CRTC has received
as many as 40 proposals for its May hearing on new specialty
devices or services. This large number of proposals demonstrates
that Canada's creators and broadcasters still contemplate original
concepts and remain optimistic about the Canadian public's
reception of their offerings.
At this critical time when tensions and divisions loom to tear us
apart, we must call on the ideals and values that bind us. We must
affirm our commitment to Canada's cultural objectives which
define our national identity.
In the era of a multichannel universe and the information
highway, the challenge to keep our domestic content on the
airwaves can be both frightening and exhilarating. The new
opportunities created by technical advances also translate into
global consumer empowerment, making McLuhan's global village
a reality. McLuhan could also have said that in this global village
the Greek democratic ideal is resuscitated in a modern form in
which the consumer is poised to become a pivotal player in a newly
emerging marketplace.
I personally support the project put forward by the hon. member.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will also speak in favour of Bill C-216.
Bill C-216 is interesting in that it deals with regulating the
broadcasting industry so it cannot bill somebody for something
they really do not want. It cannot force somebody to take a service
and then charge them for it unless that person indicates they do not
want the service.
2029
During the debate when this actually happened I was taken
aback by the consumer response. My riding has two cable
companies. One of the cable companies chose to use negative
billing while the other company chose not to do so. It reminded
me of when I was in municipal politics and was phoned at all hours
of the day and night about barking dogs, garbage not being picked
up, and all those other issues that hit so very close to a person's
home and environment. This issue really seemed to catch
consumers and get them up in arms trying to find some way to
change the policy.
(1355)
The amount of animosity from these individuals when they
phoned my office, came to see me or wrote letters was interesting.
What most concerned them was that the concept was supported by
the regulating body. The CRTC supported it then and as I
understand it the CRTC continues to support the concept of billing
individuals for something unless they indicate they do not want it.
The consumers had a feeling of helplessness in trying to deal with
the issue. I find it a little distressing that a Canadian licensing body
would support such a concept.
I heard the argument from across the way that it is important to
protect Canadian content and our Canadian heritage through the
broadcasting industry but I do not buy it. If Canadian content and
Canadian culture is done properly, it will sell itself. People will be
more than willing to pay for that programming and will want to
watch it. Canadian artists do not need a regulating body which is
forcing consumers to pay for something they do not want.
The Bloc member mentioned that Quebec and Nova Scotia had
legislation in place which prevented this kind of negative option
billing. What she failed to mention is that British Columbia also
has legislation which prevents this kind of negative billing but only
in some services. Unfortunately broadcasting falls under federal
legislation and therefore the provinces do not have control over the
broadcasting companies, such as the cable companies.
With the new conversation of today, the information highway,
and the competition among the telephone companies, the satellite
companies and the cable companies as to who is going to control
the information highway, we should be looking at how they
practise business. If there are companies in the cable industry
which choose to exercise their monopoly and control over
broadcasting and the delivery of this service to the consumer by
using these kinds of practices, there are Canadians other than
myself who would be very concerned about allowing them to
control the new technology of the information highway.
We would be very uncomfortable with a company which thinks
nothing of providing people with something they do not want
without asking them, billing them for it and then hiding behind the
federal regulatory body saying that it agrees so it is okay. I have
extreme difficulty in suggesting that the Canadian government
should be supporting cable companies having control over the
information highway.
I want to get back to the two cable companies in my community,
the one which chose to use negative billing and the one which
chose not to do so. The reaction and attitude of the consumers to
those two companies was interesting.
One local company chose to offer the new programming at an
extra cost but provided it to the consumers I believe for a period of
60 days so that they could see what was offered on the new
channels. The consumers appreciated that. They could decide
whether or not they wanted to purchase the service. Consumers
appreciated and supported that approach. I would imagine many
consumers chose to take on these new channels.
(1400)
On the other hand, consumers were outraged at being billed for
something they did not want. However, if they asked not to have
those new channels they would also lose channels they had
previously and still wanted but which were tied into these new
channels.
I do not think that is right. Consumers indicated to the
companies which did this that they did not think it was right.
Unfortunately the biggest voice consumers can have is to cancel
their service or refuse to buy the product. That was precisely what I
presented to them, that if they did not like what was happening, the
consumer has a choice. That choice is to say they no longer want
the services because they do not appreciate what you are doing.
These people will not have the choice anymore because, as in
many other communities, one cable company has bought out other
cable companies. In my community now there will be no choice.
There will not be two cable companies to provide different ways of
dealing with these situations. There will be a monopoly, a cable
company with no competition to do whatever it wants.
Members of the Reform Party caucus will be quite interested in
supporting Bill C-216. The bill proposes to amend the
Broadcasting Act to disallow this type of negative billing. It will
amend section 3 of the Broadcasting Act by providing in the
context of broadcasting policy that a cable distributor or other
distribution undertaking should not demand money from a person
for the provisions or sale of a new programming service where the
person has not agreed to receive the new service.
It is important that it will include other distribution
undertakings. We have competition for control of the information
highway. There are telephone companies and satellite companies
that want to move into this new field.
2030
This bill and the amendments it suggests would include any
other companies coming into the system, be they telephone
companies, satellite companies or more cable companies. I believe
this is an important consideration for us today. It is clear to anyone
who has taken an interest in this that there will be distribution
companies outside of cable companies. This is very important,
knowing what happened last year, to make sure it does not happen
again by anyone involved in providing those services.
We are pleased to support this effort. We feel it will be an
important contribution to the Broadcasting Act, even though many
of us question whether the CRTC even has a place in Canadian
society. It would put some controls on it. I believe that is important.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in support of Bill C-216.
Negative option billing has been used by cable companies in the
past to the consternation of tens of thousands of Canadians. As
parliamentarians we face a clear choice on this issue. We can lead
Canadians into the 21st century by creating laws to regulate the
manner in which cable companies market their increasingly vast
array of channels or we can leave it to the industry to formulate
these policies.
Parliamentarians are accountable to citizens. The industry is
accountable to its shareholders. It is up to us to determine whose
interests are paramount. We must take a leadership role and ensure
Canadians are presented with clear choices from cable companies.
Our decision on this matter will send a clear signal on the manner
in which parliamentarians view the role of government in the large
communications revolution sweeping Canada and the world. The
cable industry is part of this phenomenon, which includes the
Internet and soon direct to home satellite television.
(1405)
The emergence of these new technologies has evolved to a level
where we can truly say we are witnessing the evolution of a new
frontier. It is a frontier without political or geographic boundaries,
a frontier which offers infinite choices to consumers and a frontier
where entertainment and productivity share the same medium.
We must be mindful that it is also a frontier in which the roles of
government and large corporations remain largely undefined. We
are faced with the choice of how to approach this frontier. We have
demonstrated we are not afraid to act in the best interests of
Canadians with respect to the Internet.
The Minister of Justice has indicated that he intends to introduce
legislation to deter the promotion of hate propaganda in
cyberspace. I applaud the minister for this initiative which
reinforces the principle that government should become involved
in an issue when it is in the best interests of Canadians.
From an ethical perspective this is certainly the case with respect
to negative option billing. The notion that a consumer can be
charged for a product which they have not explicitly indicated they
wish to purchase contradicts the principles of the free marketplace.
Specifically, the principle of consumer choice which is central to
our economy is threatened by such schemes.
The unprecedented consumer protests of early 1995 against
negative option billing strongly suggest Canadians support the
salience of consumer choice. Bill C-216 recognizes this reality.
Canadians joined together to protest negative option billing. Now
is not the time for parliamentarians to abandon them to cable
companies.
There is certainly a great need for clarity among the billing
practices in the cable industry. A poll by Compass Research in
1993 found that 66 per cent of cable subscriber recipients believed
they are receiving basic cable service, the lowest priced channel
package. The reality was that only 8 per cent of the subscribers
actually received basic services. Ninety-two per cent of cable
subscribers received extended services of some kind but only 34
per cent were aware they were paying more than the basic rate. This
is unacceptable.
I am confident it would have been remedied if we had been
dealing with any other industry. In all fairness to the cable industry,
there is currently a lag between the technology available to allow
consumers to pay for only those channels they want and the
technology which offers a virtual universe of channels.
Cable companies are feeling pressure from consumers to expand
the choices available to them. In response to these demands they
have assembled packages of specialty channels. The element of
choice which cable companies are trying to promote through this
scheme is lost with negative option billing.
The president of Rogers Cablesystems stated that without
negative option billing subscriber acceptance rates would be cut
and new channels would have difficulty surviving. While I have
only the best wishes for new speciality channels, this cable
company is pinning its survival on successfully deceiving
Canadians into make a purchase they otherwise would have
refused.
It is time for a new plan. It is not acceptable to implement a
billing regime whose purpose is to deceive consumers into making
a purchase. The cable industry has admitted this the main appeal
and function of negative option billing. In the interests of Canadian
consumers it is time we put an end to this practice.
I congratulate the member for Sarnia-Lambton for introducing
this much needed legislation.
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure and with the confidence and backing of my
constituents that I stand in support of Bill C-216.
2031
This bill is about protecting the consumer's right to choice and
the banning of a marketing practice which should have never been
allowed to take hold in this country.
Negative option marketing is a practice by which a company can
automatically add a service and its related charges to contracts
without the prior consent of the consumer. The service and charge
remain as long as the consumer does not notify the company that he
or she does not want the new service. It is like someone dropping
off a package at one's door and demanding payment unless it is
returned. The difference is that the consumer who receives the
package at the door can call upon laws to protect his right as a
consumer. No such protection is available to the consumer of
broadcasting and telecommunications services.
(1410)
We know we are here today debating Bill C-216 because of the
cable revolt in 1995. It is regrettable it took a revolt to bring us to
the point of debating legislation that guarantees basic protection for
cable subscribers. For all of us, that revolt served as a real eye
opener as to the true consideration given to consumers by the
CRTC and the cable companies.
The CRTC in pursuit of its mandate and the cable companies in
pursuit of profit forgot the consumer who did not want new
channels, new packages, or new fees. Hundreds of people called,
wrote and faxed my office to protest the changes and the practice.
My response was simple. As consumers, we hold the ultimate
power. If one is dissatisfied with a cable company, cancel the cable
or reduce it to basic service. Send a strong message. They did and I
did. Within a few days, our local cable distributor announced new
packages, new fee schedules and new trial periods for new
channels. Consumers were successful, but should they need to
resort to a revolt to protect their interests? No.
It is our job as responsible parliamentarians to listen to
consumers and implement a ban on negative option marketing.
This is only common sense. A company should not be allowed to
introduce a new service into an existing agreement unless the
consumer expressly consents to accepting the new service.
The legitimacy of a contract depends on mutual intent and
agreement: an intent to enter into a contract; an agreement on the
subject matter of the contract, an agreement on the party's
respective obligations to one another and an agreement on the
consequences for failing to meet those obligations.
A reasonable consumer would not agree to let another
unilaterally modify the conditions of the contract without prior
consent. Nonetheless, the courts allow negative option marketing.
The CRTC accepts it as a necessary evil and the Government of
Canada permits its continuance.
Recently I read media reports that stated a government
preference for industry self-regulation and market solutions to deal
with negative option marketing. I truly hope this is not the case.
Canadians know and appreciate the advantages of competition and
the discipline of the markets, but we are not dealing here with open
markets. We are dealing with cable companies that have CRTC
sanctioned monopolies.
Consumers do not have a choice as to their cable distributors.
This represents a significant disequilibrium in power in favour of
the companies, unless of course consumers revolt from coast to
coast to coast. Such astute market based solutions are not a viable
option for protecting subscribers.
Recently Canadians witnessed the CRTC approve the
introduction of the V-chip as an effective tool to empower parents
and to combat violence on TV. It is ironic that the CRTC did not
extend this support for consumer empowerment to the elimination
of negative option marketing.
Certainly, the logic behind the power to choose what programs
we view applies to the channels we want to receive in our homes.
Bill C-216 does just that. In the heat of the cable protest, the
experts told us that yes, the situation was regrettable and yes, the
CRTC was the broadcasting regulator but it did not have the power
to eliminate the practice. We were told that the responsibility for
the regulation of marketing practices was couched in the legislative
powers of the provinces, presumably under section 91(13), the
provincial jurisdiction over civil rights in a province.
The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton has proven the experts
wrong. The member must be congratulated for his determination
and ingenuity in devising constitutionally valid legislation that will
stop negative option marketing. I know the hundreds of Canadians
who called my office in January 1995 to protest against the cable
companies and the thousands of others who felt powerless faced by
the decision of a monopoly support, thank and commend the
member for Sarnia-Lambton.
(1415 )
It is said that negative option marketing is a necessary evil, a
necessary tool to assist the introduction of Canadian broadcasting
services. Few question the need or desirability of Canadian
programming nor the urgency to establish a strong presence prior
to the inundation of American programming in the 500-channel
universe.
However, we must question the method of achieving those
objectives. The CRTC will not win over supporters for Canadian
programming by permitting cable companies to introduce new
channels without obtaining the prior consent of subscribers.
2032
Equity and fairness is at the heart of this bill. It is our duty as
responsible parliamentarians to respond today to a situation that
has for too long been tolerated. Consumers have not only asked,
but demanded, an end to negative option marketing. Protecting
subscribers from an unconscionable marketing practice is central
to this bill. It establishes a legislative framework in which the
consumer matters despite a monopolized marketplace. Protecting
the consumer does not only benefit the consumer but it benefits
the industry. It sets out the rules for commercial transactions in
the sale of broadcasting services. This creates stable and
predictable rules and a more level playing field.
However, more importantly, it ensures the long term viability of
the industry by guaranteeing that the consumers will determine the
success and failure of new channels. If this is not done, consumers
will turn away from cable and embrace new mediums that better
reflect their choice of programming. I do not believe that such a
situation would benefit Canadian programming and the Canadian
film and television industries. We must seek a balance between the
recognized need for Canadian voices on our airwaves and respect
for the consumer.
I believe that banning negative option marketing is an important
step, not by far the last, in re-establishing this balance.
I stand in support of Bill C-216 and invite all my colleagues to
join me in that support. After all, it is a bill that was demanded by a
vast majority of our constituents. In closing, I would like to once
again thank the member for Sarnia-Lambton for his efforts on
behalf of all Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sarnia-Lambton has
the right to briefly summarize the debate.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the sponsor of this bill it is my pleasure to be the last speaker.
I will speak very briefly. I hope that all members of this place
will support this bill. As many members have stated, people want
this bill because they want control over what comes into their
homes. People do not want to give control to the CRTC. The CRTC
can determine who will be on the airwaves but people want some
mode of governance of what they see on their televisions and what
they are going to pay for.
This, to me, is not a question of Canadian culture. It is a question
of choice for Canadians. That is the reason I brought in this bill and
why I am going to ask all members of this place to support it.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: That was a close one. May I do it again,
and please put your energy into this time. All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: I will say that very narrowly the yeas had
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Under the standing order the division
stands deferred until Monday, April 29, at the ordinary hour of
daily adjournment.
The House stands adjourned until Monday, April 29, at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.20 p.m.)