36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 203
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 24, 1999
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CAREGIVERS
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| CANADIAN PUBLICATIONS
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| ST. MARY'S CHILDREN'S CHOIR
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| ELIMINATION OF RACISM
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1405
| SOCIAL PROGRAMS
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| HARRY FLANDER
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| BILL C-440
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
|
| OFFSHORE DRILLING
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1410
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| CARREFOUR DE L'ENTREPRISE ET DE L'EMPLOI
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
| SOCIAL PROGRAMS
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| YASSER ARAFAT
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| YASSER ARAFAT
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1415
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CANADIAN EMBASSY IN BERLIN
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1435
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| APEC SUMMIT
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1440
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. John Manley |
1445
| AUGUSTO PINOCHET
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. John Manley |
| BULK WATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1450
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| POVERTY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1455
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| DAIRY PRODUCERS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1500
| Hon. John Manley |
| BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Question Period
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| KOSOVO
|
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1510
1515
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1520
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1525
| Mr. René Laurin |
1530
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1535
1540
| Mr. David Price |
1545
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| PETITIONS
|
| Natural Health Products
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Taxation
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| The Senate
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Firearms Registry
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1550
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Ted White |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BANK ACT
|
| Bill C-67. Second reading
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1555
1600
1605
1610
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1615
| Mr. John Bryden |
1620
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1625
1630
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1635
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. John Bryden |
1655
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1700
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1705
1710
1715
1720
| Mr. John Bryden |
1725
| Mr. Ted White |
1730
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1735
1740
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1745
| Divisions deemed demanded and deferred
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| TRANSIT PASSES
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1750
1755
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1800
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1805
1810
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1815
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1820
1825
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1830
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1835
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1840
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Shipbuilding
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1845
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1850
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 203
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 24, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Souris—Moose Mountain.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CAREGIVERS
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the struggles and joys of Canada's home caregivers
and those to whom they give care for reasons of infirmity,
disability or illness reflect the eloquence of our societal
values.
André Picard and his team at The Globe and Mail are to
be commended for drawing attention to this issue, the magnitude of
which is staggering. Over one million Canadians need
help—flexible work time, training, financing, respite and basic
services—to cope with the demands of caregiving for their loved
ones, most of whom are their parents or spouses. Indeed,
governments at all levels have a duty to act and to act promptly.
May the issue ignite and the new social union framework
facilitate the creation of a national home care program. To
ignore its urgency is to surrender Canadian values at our own
peril. The challenge to do good is at hand. We cannot long
endure.
* * *
CANADIAN PUBLICATIONS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, in an attempt to
protect Canadian magazines, introduced legislation to limit foreign
split-run publications.
Now, in a bizarre turn of events, the minister is creating a
split-run policy for Canadian publications, taking away the
favourable postal classification from a group of Canadian
religious publications. The Catholic Register and regional
catholic publications, the New Freeman of New Brunswick,
the Prairie Messenger, and the B.C. Catholic all lost
their favourable postal classifications because they use material
from Canadian Catholic News, a news service they jointly
finance. For the past 10 years, these publications have pooled
their resources in order to report on national issues, something
they could not afford to cover individually.
These catholic magazines are Canadian at their heart and soul.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage should be a supporter of such
publications rather than trying to kill them with friendly fire.
Canadian magazines are not protected by singling out catholic
publications for destruction. I would ask the minister to
reinstate these catholic publications under the publications
assistance program.
* * *
ST. MARY'S CHILDREN'S CHOIR
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to
congratulate the St. Mary's children's choir on its continued
fine performance at regional, national and international
competitions.
In 1998 the choir won its seventh provincial title in eight
years, and the 10 and under category won both the provincial
championship and the national trophy, first place award,
receiving the Margaret Wharton Memorial Choral Trophy for
outstanding choir work.
The choristers are divided into two choirs: the brio, the junior
division, and the presto, the senior and touring division.
The choir has recently finished recording its second
professional CD. In addition, the choir also travels
extensively throughout Canada and the U.S.A. and as far as
Scandinavia and Great Britain.
My congratulations, once again, to the St. Mary's children's
choir and its outstanding director, Eileen Baldwin, for the
standard of excellence they achieve year after year.
* * *
ELIMINATION OF RACISM
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past Sunday Canadians recognized the International Day for
the Elimination of Racism. To mark this important occasion,
grade 6 students in Kitchener Waterloo were invited to design a
brochure on the effects of racism.
This contest is sponsored by the Kitchener Waterloo
Multicultural Centre. It has been funded in part by the
multiculturalism sector of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The winning brochure will be printed and distributed across the
Waterloo region. The best five entries will be posted on the
multicultural centre's website. The grand prize is a brand new
computer.
This competition allows young Canadians to articulate their
thoughts and feelings about racism, as well as encouraging them
to work with their peers in the fight against racism.
1405
Some of the slogans that have been submitted include “Be
smart, don't start”, “Racism is for fools”, and “Racism is
like a computer virus, shut it down” .
I am pleased to be a judge for this project and I look forward
to reviewing the entries of the 15 finalists who have been chosen
by the women of the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian government cares about the plight of our poor.
By maintaining a network of accessible and universal health and
social services, the government shows that it cares about
Canadians' quality of social life.
Moreover, the Prime Minister asked the federal Minister of
Labour to co-ordinate government involvement in improving the
plight of the homeless, who have not been as lucky as others in
life.
Everyone applauded this initiative on the government's part, and
this is to the credit of the Prime Minister, who was acting on
behalf of all Canadians when he made the decision.
The Liberal government is fulfilling its social commitments and
it strives every day to improve the plight of those who have had
some misfortunes in life.
* * *
[English]
HARRY FLANDER
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Harry Flander joined the Canadian army during World War II so he
could do his part for his country.
He completed basic training and was one of dozens of soldiers
transferred to the Suffield Experimental Station where he
underwent chemical weapons tests.
Mr. Flander had to swear secrecy about the tests and was told he
would go to jail if he ever told anyone. Military scientists
placed mustard gas on Mr. Flander's arms. They instructed him to
walk through gas chambers. They drove him into a field and
dropped gas all over him. These experiments left Mr. Flander
with chronic chest pains and egg size blisters.
For more than 50 years he lied to his doctors and his family
about the cause of the scars on his body. His mother and two
sons died without ever knowing what caused them.
Now that the Suffield experiments have been declassified, Mr.
Flander and hundreds of other Suffield victims are free to speak.
So far they have been rebuffed by the government for recognition
and compensation.
I hope we can agree that Mr. Flander and other Suffield victims
deserve our thanks for their sacrifices. This government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
* * *
BILL C-440
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday Reverend Ilce Miovski was tragically killed
by a stolen vehicle as the driver was trying to evade the car's
owner and the police.
Reverend Miovski was a constituent of mine and his loss will be
deeply felt by the congregation of St. Clement Church.
His death adds to the carnage across Canada resulting from
someone using a motor vehicle to evade police.
Police officers also put their lives on the line and are placed
in the unwinnable position of trying to apprehend the driver or
withdraw. In some cases the police are subject to legal action
for the pursuit even though they were only carrying out their
direct duty to the public.
Current Criminal Code provisions dealing with dangerous driving
and criminal negligence causing death are not appropriate
sanctions for this crime. A specific provision is needed in the
code, with severe penalties for the offender.
I call on the Minister of Justice to incorporate Bill C-440 into
legislation to make those who evade police pay for this act and
for the senseless death and injury it can cause.
We cannot wait for more innocent people to die and for their
killers to evade justice in the same way they tried to evade
police.
* * *
[Translation]
ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, 10 years ago today, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker struck
a reef and leaked 41 million liters of oil along the Alaska
coast. That tragedy came to symbolize the major risks shipping
held for the environment.
In Quebec, two million people live right along the shores of the
St. Lawrence River and see similar oil tankers go by,
particularly in the Quebec City area, where Ultramar's piers are
located.
As members know, the St. Lawrence River is one of the world's
most difficult rivers on which to navigate. An inexperienced
captain is exposed to many dangers.
At the eastern tip of Île d'Orléans, in my riding, a supertanker
is only 30 centimetres from the riverbed at low tide.
It is easy to imagine the devastating effects of an oil spill in
the river. Half of Quebec's population gets its drinking water
from the St. Lawrence, and there would also be irreversible
damage to wildlife and plant life.
Luckily, inexperience is not tolerated on the St. Lawrence
River. Pilotage is compulsory. It is experts from here, who know
all the dangers of the river, who take over as soon as ships
enter the estuary.
Through their work, the St. Lawrence pilots help prevent
accidents such as the Exxon Valdez. Today I want to thank these
pilots and to salute them.
* * *
[English]
OFFSHORE DRILLING
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 10
years ago the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska,
spilling more than 40 million litres of crude oil. More than
1,900 kilometres of shoreline were polluted and hundreds of
thousands of fish, birds and mammals lost their lives.
Scientists say eight species, including killer whales, harbour
seals and loons, have failed to recover since this accident.
1410
A U.S. report says oil still remains in many stream beds and is
dispersed into waterways when tides change. Although Exxon will
pay over $1 billion in penalties, money cannot compensate for the
damage to the ecosystem and the loss in wildlife.
The Exxon Valdez lesson is that preventing pollution
through strong legislation, good rules and effective enforcement
is far better than reacting and curing. Therefore the moratorium
on offshore drilling should continue.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we go
about our business here today, conflict continues to escalate in
the lands of the former Yugoslavia.
Four years ago it was civil war in Bosnia. Today it is civil
war in Kosovo. In both cases Canada and its NATO allies have
determined that these conflicts are incompatible with our shared
desire for European stability. The concern that the war in
Kosovo might spread beyond the borders is very real. The fear of
yet another humanitarian disaster in the Balkans is pressing upon
us.
Under these conditions NATO interventions are necessary. We all
know that efforts to resolve the war in Kosovo through peaceful
means have so far failed. We cannot turn aside from the task
that is before us, lest the flickering of this small war becomes a
firestorm that engulfs the entire region.
I know the House will join me in telling the members of the
Canadian forces that the hopes and prayers of all Canadians go
with them as they once again are called on to serve our country.
* * *
[Translation]
CARREFOUR DE L'ENTREPRISE ET DE L'EMPLOI
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
coming April 24 and 25, in my fine riding of Verdun—Saint-Henri, a
job fair will be held at the polyvalente Monseigneur Richard, on
rue Rhéaume, in Verdun: le Carrefour de l'entreprise et de
l'emploi. All job seekers are welcome.
This fair will be a job finding opportunity where more than
1,200 positions will be available. As well, it will focus on
building people's self-confidence and dignity, both of which are
essential for success.
I have accepted the position of honourary chair of the event.
On Saturday, April 24, at 2 p.m., the Minister of Human
Resources Development will officially open the Carrefour de
l'entreprise et de l'emploi.
My congratulations to the team of organizers at Cible retour à
l'emploi.
* * *
[English]
SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the phony debate between the Liberals and Reform Party
on productivity has nothing to do with productivity at all.
Reform, the Liberals and their right wing friends at Nesbitt Burns
and the Fraser Institute just want to cut taxes for the rich and
gut wages and working standards for everyone else.
If we read the KPMG study of business costs carefully, it makes
another, altogether different point: “Canada and the United
Kingdom both enjoy a significant labour cost advantage over the
third place United States, where relatively high costs for
employer sponsored benefits drive up total labour costs”.
In other words, Canada's social programs give us a leg up on the
competition.
Our public health care system, our public pensions and other
benefits all help make our workers and our businesses more
productive and competitive.
No wonder Regina and Saskatoon are listed in the KPMG report as
better places to do business than Calgary or any of our American
neighbours in the midwest. In fact, better public programs for
income support, child care and training would further reduce the
cost of doing business and thereby continue to improve our
productivity in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
YASSER ARAFAT
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today Canada
welcomes the President of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser
Arafat, on the occasion of his first official visit to this
country.
It is worthy of mention that, in addition to numerous
humanitarian aid projects in Palestine, Canada has recently
signed a free trade agreement with the Palestinian government.
We hope that this agreement will pave the way for a mutually
advantageous relationship and a more diversified economic base
for the territories administered by the Palestinian Authority.
I would point out as well that, with his participation in the
peace process by signing the Oslo agreements, President Arafat
has joined the ranks of middle eastern peacemakers, along with
Anwar Sadat, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin. We can only hope
that the Palestinian identity and autonomy will grow over the
coming years within an overall context of peace between the
Palestinian people and their Israeli and Arab neighbours.
* * *
YASSER ARAFAT
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today, the government and parliament welcome a
political leader with an extraordinary record.
Reaction to the President of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser
Arafat, by either adversary, supporter or international public
opinion is never one of indifference.
For the past 30 years, under his guidance, the Palestinian
people have fought heroically against oppression and repression.
1415
It was under his guidance that the Oslo agreement was signed
enabling the Palestinian people to enjoy a form of recognition
and political autonomy and providing for the establishment of
the Palestinian Authority in some of the land occupied by the
Israelis since 1967.
[English]
The Palestinian people have a long road ahead of them toward a
global, just and sustainable peace that will provide them with
security, a complete state, the return of refugees, and normal
economic, social and cultural conditions.
[Translation]
I hope this visit will provide an opportunity for officials in
our country to assure the Palestinian Authority of our support
in its people's struggle to recover its rights and territory.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Canada has joined its NATO allies in war with
Yugoslavia and Canadian CF-18s and their crews are now about to
engage Yugoslav military targets. The governments of the United
Kingdom and the United States have been fully briefed and have
debated issues prior to the attack.
In the press we have heard statements from the minister of “soft
power”, who now sounds a lot more like the minister of war,
talking about military action in Kosovo, but no debate, nothing
from the Minister of National Defence, nothing from the chief of
defence staff, nothing even on D-NET. Even when the Prime
Minister decides to go skiing instead of attending state
funerals, we see the chief of defence staff.
Now that Canada has gone to war, we still hear nothing from the
military responsible. There have been no briefings to parliament
and no debates. After our party pressed the government, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs agreed to make a ministerial
statement.
Will the real minister of defence please stand?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, NATO air strikes in Yugoslavia have begun. We
understand that Canadian CF-18s will be involved. On behalf of
the official opposition, and I am sure all members, we want to
offer our support to our brave men and women who will be in
danger.
So far Canadians have been provided with very little information
on the role that our CF-18s will be playing. I wonder if the
Prime Minister would tell Canadians what specific functions our
CF-18s will be playing in the NATO air campaign.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say thank you to the Leader of the
Opposition in wishing luck to the brave Canadians who will be
involved in the operation. I can tell him that they will be very
satisfied to know they have the support of the Canadian
parliament in a difficult time.
With respect to the particulars of the activities of these
soldiers, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is supposed to make a
statement about it at 3 p.m.
I discussed this issue with President Clinton this morning and
we agreed—and all NATO partners are in agreement—that the time
has come to tell the leader of the Republic of Yugoslavia that we
cannot tolerate the activities that he is imposing on the people
of Kosovo, as I said in my statement last night.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, by all accounts the Serbs may well offer serious
military resistance to the NATO strike. Unfortunately, this
military campaign could turn into a long one. Canada's defence
budget, as we all know in this House, is already seriously
strained.
Can the Prime Minister pledge today that any Canadian personnel
sent into that conflict will be properly equipped and supported
throughout? Will he also agree to fully brief and consult with
parliament before any new commitments are considered?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy with the question from the Leader of the
Opposition. I can assure him, the House and the Canadian people
that everything that is needed will be provided for our troops
who will be involved in this very difficult action.
For a new development we have initiated, with the collaboration
of all parties in the House, to have a debate on foreign affairs
before taking action. That did not exist before 1993. We will
have a debate in this House. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and
the Minister of National Defence have been invited to brief and
have discussions with the critics on these issues during the
process of the operation.
1420
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the disintegration of the Yugoslav federation has been
characterized by bloody military conflict in Slovenia in 1990
and Croatia in 1991, in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995, and now in
Kosovo.
Will the Prime Minister tell us what action is being taken on
the political and democratic diplomatic fronts to halt this
disintegration and what role he sees for Canada in that process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very keen and hopeful that these activities by
NATO will lead Mr. Milosevic to come to his senses and negotiate
to find a political solution. We are available if we can play a
role. There is already a mechanism established for that.
If more activity by the Canadian people is requested we will be
happy to participate, but we hope that the strikes which started
a few minutes ago will tell Mr. Milosevic that if he has any
concern about human lives and respect for civil liberties he will
come to a political resolution to this difficult situation.
* * *
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister could have ended the Shawinigan scandal long
ago. The way this whole mess could have been cleared up would be
very simple. It would be for him to table all documents and
information about loans.
There is no one else to blame. There is no inquiry to hide
behind.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to let any light shine on
this shady deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again these are tactics of the opposition to use words
and innuendoes and run away when they are out of this House. But
that is their way. When they were elected a few years ago they
said they would create a new spirit in the House of Commons, and
we know the result.
Yesterday I gave all of the answers I could. Today I can give
more that I was not in a position to give last night because I
asked my trustee to tell me, to reply to some questions. And she
told me that when my partner sold it in 1993, it was paid in
1993, cash. I sold my share in 1993. I have no share. I will
not receive any shares. We do not want the shares. The trustee
is running it, but there is not a cent, as I said yesterday, that
has been owed to me or my former partners by that person since
the spring of 1993.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the Prime Minister is personally responsible for giving
loans and grants to former business associates, it would be so
simple to clear that up. He could table all the documents and
the information that is available. That is the only thing
standing between all of these questions that are being asked and
the truth.
There are so many questions and so few answers. He could clear
his own name now by tabling all of the documents and details
relevant. If he is so proud of those deals, where are the
details?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has answered all of the questions in
relation to what happened in my riding, with the work I have done
as the member for Saint-Maurice, who worked for his electors just
like the members for Prince George—Peace River,
Okanagan—Shuswap, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Cariboo—Chilcotin,
Kootenay—Columbia and others. They all do that for their
ridings. I do that for my riding because it is my duty. I will
not apologize to anybody for being a good member of parliament.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN EMBASSY IN BERLIN
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs added a new piece of
information to the issue of why the contract to build the
Canadian embassy in Berlin was awarded to a consortium, one of
whose firms is based in his riding of Winnipeg South Centre.
He said that four separate committees had come up with an
independent evaluation of the various proposals and that their
reports were merged to arrive at a final decision.
So that we may understand his decision to overturn an almost
unanimous recommendation, could the minister tell us who was on
these four committees?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, is that not a very sad commentary on the Bloc?
At a time when we are facing a crisis of war in the Balkans, they
are arguing over the petty question about which firm may have won
a contract to build an embassy. It is an awful demonstration of
the low levels to which the Bloc has sunk in terms of its
consideration of the public interest.
1425
[Translation]
I find the Bloc Quebecois' actions regrettable.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is a good attempt to divert attention, but if the minister
behaved in a manner worthy of his office, we would not have to
ask him such questions.
Since we know the composition of only one committee, since only
that committee's recommendation was made public, and since the
minister, for reasons unknown to us, ignored that
recommendation, if the minister wants us to believe him when he
talks about an objective decision, can he tell us who sat on
these four committees so that we can get to the bottom of this
murky affair? How many points did each of the proposals
receive? What did each of the committees recommend?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the technical review was conducted by officials from
my department, from public works, from the Fire Commission of
Canada and outside private sector experts who deal with security
matters. The area of costs was done by professional cost
planning, an estimating firm, which also indicated that the
winning design would have a substantial saving for taxpayers in
Canada.
The investor and the heads of programs involved in Berlin also
valued the proposals according to the function. In other words,
four separate procedures, four separate evaluations, were all
brought together to make the best decision for Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs set out in a draft document to elicit people's
interest in the Berlin proposal, a broad view of what Canada's
embassy in Berlin should be.
He defined it as a place that invites those approaching it.
Those are his words.
How can the minister justify the choice of firm from Winnipeg,
when the juries concluded that this proposal, and I quote “tends
to erect a barrier to the public, is not a very inviting
proposal”. As a contradiction, is—
The Speaker: The Minister of Foreign Affairs.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, let us clarify one thing. Let us get rid of
the big lie tactics of this—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. That is not acceptable
parliamentary language. I would like the minister to withdraw,
please.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: I will withdraw, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the
man feels a little at odds, he is insulting those around him.
Are we surprised at the minister's reversal in the matter of the
embassy in Berlin, given that the proposal he favoured was
assessed as follows by the experts “It does not suit either the
decor or the architecture of the new Berlin”. How does he
explain that?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple explanation. There was no
reversal.
It was simply a decision based upon technical criteria, security
criteria, cost criteria and design criteria. The evaluations of
those four separate evaluation teams were all brought together.
We wanted to provide the best kind of access for the public, the
best security for Canadians, the best functionality for the
people working there and the best presentation of the Canadian
showcase for the country.
It surprises me very much for a separatist party to be so
concerned about the Canadian embassy in Berlin.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
fall the Prime Minister insisted again and again that the RCMP
were responsible for security at the APEC summit. Yet RCMP
documents reveal that the Prime Minister was deeply involved in
security planning and in fact directed the RCMP to do everything
possible to cater to Suharto's sensitivity.
It is clear that the dictator's paranoia was about political
embarrassment. Is that why the Prime Minister gave the RCMP the
green light to muzzle demonstrators?
1430
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware this is
before the public complaints committee. Mr. Hughes will evaluate
the evidence and issue a report.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, no
wonder the government does not want to answer these pesky
questions, but I would like to return to the Prime Minister.
Was it not only yesterday that the PMO was roundly condemned for
unfounded attacks on a CBC reporter for his APEC coverage? We
now learn from the APEC transcripts that the Prime Minister was
on the phone to Indonesia 28 times. What were those phone calls
about? Did the Prime Minister promise to spare Suharto any
political embarrassment?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, any problems should be brought to Mr.
Hughes of the public complaints committee, a very qualified
individual. He will issue a report and that report will be
available to my hon. colleague and all Canadians.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
comments by the Minister of Transport and others show that the
real reason for the appointment of the minister of homelessness
is nothing more than a cynical attempt by the Prime Minister to
intervene and to try to manipulate the results of the pending
Ontario election.
Will the minister of homelessness admit that her role is not to
help the poor and homeless but to help Dalton McGuinty?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member from my province of New Brunswick, I
realize, is very concerned about poverty and homelessness. I am
a little surprised with his question.
I have lived with homelessness every day of my life for 30
years. I have been with these people every day of my life for 30
years and I want to assure everybody in Canada that I am in this
for the long run and I am in this to work with Canadian people to
find the right solutions so that every child in Canada will have
a safe bed to sleep in.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is hard to fix the homeless problem when government is unwilling
to dedicate resources to it. Since 1993 the Liberals have cut
funding for affordable housing, they have relinquished their
responsibility for social housing to the provinces and now they
are phasing out funding for most housing programs completely. The
new minister says she has no idea how to fix the homeless
problem. Let me help her out.
Will this government show some leadership and re-establish a
lead role in social housing?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we continue to work
with the provinces on social housing. Some provinces have
accepted and negotiated the transfer of social housing to avoid
duplication. Avoiding duplication has created savings and we
were able to invest it in a program that everybody, the provinces
and all Canadians, like. It is the RRAP and this government
invested $300 million in one year.
* * *
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the more we learn about the money that was given to the
Prime Minister's friend, the more questions are raised.
I have in my hands documents which show that the Minister of
Human Resources Development signed off on $200,000 to Mr. Duhaime
over three months before Mr. Duhaime even filled out an
application. It is these kinds of discrepancies which have to be
cleared up quickly.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to have the auditor general
conduct an inquiry and lay this thing to rest for once and for
all?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member the
process followed with this file was absolutely appropriate.
1435
The file was recommended to me by my department following the
appropriate consultation done with the local member of the Quebec
national assembly and with a number of business partners, as we
do all across Canada. What we want is to create jobs where
unemployment levels are too high.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is a political answer but it does not answer the
tough questions. I also have documents showing that the
registered head office of the Prime Minister's numbered company
is Mr. Duhaime's hotel. Does the Prime Minister not see the
conflict here? We will never get to the bottom of this affair
and the hundreds of questions it raises short of a full inquiry.
Why is the Prime Minister delaying getting this thing cleared up?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, only the opposition from the
Reform Party sees problems where there are none. This is a
project that has been widely supported in the region before the
member for Saint-Maurice looked after it. They like to speak
about the government giving money to friends of the Prime
Minister. That is not the case. This is money invested by the
Government of Canada in business partners to create jobs in
regions where the unemployment levels are too high.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of National Defence.
The situation in Kosovo is extremely tense, and a major conflict
between NATO and Yugoslavia is imminent.
Could the minister give us a progress report on the current
situation and indicate to us what the nature and scope of any
potential Canadian participation in this conflict would be?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister indicated earlier,
the air campaign in Kosovo in the Yugoslav republic is under way.
It is hopeful that this air campaign will bring about the
Milosevic government's coming to the table and agreeing to a
peace agreement. That campaign is now under way and it does
involve Canadian air force squadrons. Four of the six CF-18s are
currently in the air and currently engaged in that air attack.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in light of the
civilian suffering, does Canada plan a humanitarian aid program
for the needy?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is all about humanitarian needs.
This is to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. Canada can be proud
along with its NATO allies to be there to try to bring about
security and safety for the people in Kosovo. Our people are
well trained and equipped. They are professional people. They
are proud to be there in this humanitarian cause and are
dedicated to serving Canada.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the Prime Minister will confirm that he called
President Suharto 28 times in a few months prior to the APEC
situation in Vancouver?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not talk in one year 28 times with President
Clinton, President Chirac or Chancellor Kohl, and I never called
President Suharto.
How ridiculous to think that the Prime Minister of Canada would
talk 28 times with President Suharto. I do not talk 28 times
even with the president of the United States or the leader of the
Democratic Party.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I quote from RCMP documents: “The PMO has made it very clear to
do anything to ensure the president of Indonesia attends APEC”.
Why was the Prime Minister putting so much pressure on the RCMP
that it suppressed the rights of Canadians at the APEC situation
in Vancouver?
1440
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the information that should be
before the public complaints commission.
As I said many times in the House, let the public complaints
commission do what it is suppose to do.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, Liberal members themselves are beginning to
realize that the EI system is not the eighth wonder of the
world. They are calling for the withdrawal of the intensity
rule, which unduly penalizes seasonal workers.
What does the Minister of Human Resources Development have to
say to his Liberal colleagues, who are asking him for the same
flexibility as the Bloc Quebecois members are? Will he tell
them they are behind the times, that they do not want what is
best for unemployed workers, the same tape he has been playing
for us for three years?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I have been trying to
explain to the Bloc Quebecois for three years is that the best
way of looking after unemployed workers is to
give them training and development tools and the means to get
into the labour market.
For three years, Bloc Quebecois members have done nothing but
ask us to go back in time and hand out EI. They are never
interested in creating jobs. They never ask us to take action to
give the economy—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouta—Les Basques.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is always right, even when we can
prove he is wrong. It is like maternity benefits: the minister
said on Monday that these benefits remain unchanged, despite a
4.6% reduction in the birth rate.
How does he explain that, according to Statistics Canada, the
number of women receiving maternity benefits dropped by 7.4%
while the number of births dropped by only 4.6%? Where are
these thousands of mothers who are no longer entitled to
benefits?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's birth rate has gone
down by 4.6% and maternity benefits have gone up by 1%.
There are certainly not enormous problems in this regard.
In addition, a very large number of women have benefited
from the growth in the job market. In 1998, two out of three
jobs went to women, that is 300,000 new jobs. What members on
this side of the House want is to help women get into the job
market and enjoy the benefits to which they are—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is so determined to hide the truth about Canada's
declining standard of living that yesterday it blocked two
separate damning reports produced by StatsCan and Industry
Canada, one of which was called “The Relative Performance of
Canada and the U.S.: A Gradual Slide Toward the Bottom”.
Why is the government hiding the truth about Canada's declining
standard of living?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware of the fact that the
numbers released by Statistics Canada in the last few days have
indicated that Canadian productivity has done better than had
been previously estimated by Statistics Canada.
Consequently, whether Statistics Canada, an arm's length agency,
or Industry Canada, a government department, when we are
discussing these numbers it would be useful if we could agree on
exactly what they are. It was for that reason it was suggested
the paper should be written again in light of the current numbers
from Statistics Canada.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot believe what I am hearing from this minister. He is
admitting they have interfered in the business of Statistics
Canada.
This is the government's approach to information. First it
attacks Terry Milewski. It fires the chief actuary of the Canada
pension plan. Now it goes around telling people who are supposed
to be independent what should be in their studies.
Is this the government's new approach to information management,
censorship?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): There is
a thought loose over there somewhere, Mr. Speaker.
Industry Canada is not independent. Stats Canada is independent
and the numbers it released in the last couple of days indicate
some information which should be encouraging for Canadians that
our productivity performance has been better than was previously
estimated.
I do not think anyone should lose sight of the fact that if we
are to continue to increase our prosperity, if we are to build
our standards of living, then we need to continue to focus on the
things that will contribute to productivity.
That includes investment in research and development, learning—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.
* * *
1445
[Translation]
AUGUSTO PINOCHET
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Justice said she was waiting for the
decision by the House of Lords in England before deciding
whether to call for the extradition of General Augusto Pinochet.
Since the House of Lords today refused to give immunity to
General Pinochet, does the Minister of Justice now, finally,
plan to officially request his extradition on the basis of a
complaint by a Montreal nun who was a victim of the Pinochet
regime?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct
that the House of Lords this morning confirmed their original
decision to the effect that General Pinochet cannot call to his
aid the state immunity doctrine to prevent his extradition from
Great Britain. We are at this very moment reviewing that
decision. We will be discussing this matter with the Department
of Foreign Affairs. I will be discussing the matter with the
Minister of Foreign Affairs. We will decide at that time
whether further investigation should be undertaken by the RCMP.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1981 Health Canada adopted the World Health Organization's code
for the marketing of breast milk substitutes. The code
prescribes no samples to mothers or health care workers, no
pictures of infants on packages, no free supplies to hospitals,
and no advertising of breast milk substitutes.
Does Health Canada still support the WHO code? If so, what
steps does the Minister of Health propose to take to assure
compliance with the code in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada still very much supports the code. As the hon. member may
know, it was in 1981 that the World Health Assembly met and
discussed this matter. Member states were instructed to adapt
the principles of that code to their own domestic situations.
Here in Canada we had unanimous agreement between the Government
of Canada and the provincial governments that that should be done
through promotion, education and collaboration. That is what we
have done. Over the years Health Canada for its part has done
everything it can to promote breast feeding as the most natural
and appropriate way of infant nutrition.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the industry minister found himself in hot water
recently by admitting that Canada's standard of living is lower
than Mississippi's. Since then his own department's economists
wrote a paper verifying those facts.
Why did the minister block the distribution of that report?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): There is
trouble with the facts over there, Mr. Speaker. I recommend that
speech to the hon. member. It is still available on the website.
The member will see that we never did say that the standard of
living was lower in Canada than in Mississippi. We were
expressing concerns about the level of productivity in Canada
compared to the U.S. In recent days we have had more favourable
numbers from Statistics Canada than had previously been the case.
It would be important for the hon. member to take those numbers
into account and perhaps to help us all work together in order to
make sure that our standard of living continues to increase.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, those same industry economists said “Basically, we
were told not to distribute the paper”. The Canadian Chamber of
Commerce said that productivity remains a problem, that Canada is
falling behind its major trading partner.
Why is the minister blocking the reports he does not like?
Hon. John Manley (Ottawa South, Lib.): That is bizarre,
Mr. Speaker. In fact the report is not something we do not like.
We want to make sure the facts are consistent. I know the hon.
member does not want to let the facts stand in the way of some
good political rhetoric, but I suggest to him that he review the
daily from two days ago from Statistics Canada and take into
account what they are saying about levels of productivity.
* * *
BULK WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The House will recall that on February 9 we passed a motion in
this House calling for a national moratorium on bulk water
exports and for legislation that would prohibit bulk water
exports. Yet on an Environment Canada website under the section
“A Primer on Fresh Water”, we find the following sentence for
consumption by high school students and others who will be using
this for educational materials: “Bulk water exports by ocean
tanker await the development of foreign markets”.
1450
What is going on? Does the motion that was passed in this House
stand, or is Environment Canada—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the floor draws to my
attention a statement that I am not aware of and it certainly
does not follow the policy of this government.
We have announced and it is very clear that we are developing an
accord at this moment with the provinces and territories to
prohibit the bulk export of freshwater from this country. That
is the position of this government. We will be introducing
legislation to prevent the withdrawal of bulk water from
international bodies. We will continue to work to develop a
freshwater strategy.
I will clarify what is on the web and make sure that the web
reflects the position of this government.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, if the minister is not aware of what is on the website,
she should be. Do we have a commitment from her that when we turn
on the website tomorrow, this statement will be out of there for
good?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are thousands and thousands of
pages of information from my department on the website. I can
guarantee that statement will be removed today.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, at the end of
the opposition day when we invited the government to take steps
to relieve poverty in Canada, the Liberal members denied us the
unanimous consent we needed to establish a joint parliamentary
committee to study this matter of national urgency.
Since it appears that the Prime Minister has finally seen the
light on this, I would ask him once again whether he intends now
to agree to the establishment of a committee that would benefit
from the expertise and participation of all opposition
parties.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is now very
familiar with parliamentary procedure. She knows that, first,
members are not to comment on a vote in the House and, second,
under Standing Order 108(2), a parliamentary committee is master
of its own proceedings.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is hard to
believe the Prime Minister feels compassion toward the poor in
this country. Even yesterday he thought it a good idea to make
fun of them as he tried to explain his unsuccessful dealings in
Shawinigan.
This flagrant lack of respect for the most disadvantaged casts
doubt on the reasons behind the appointment of a minister for
the homeless.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that this appointment,
occurring as it does two days before an important conference on
the homeless in Toronto is nothing more than a publicity stunt
intended to camouflage his inaction to date in this matter?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member opposite,
because she has worked very hard for the poor.
Homelessness is a national problem. It is true that I will be
going to Toronto tomorrow. We took part in a symposium on
Dr. Golden's report. I believe it is important for me to go
tomorrow to discuss these issues. I will also be going to
Vancouver to have a look at our programs there. I intend to
travel throughout Canada, not just to Toronto.
* * *
[English]
WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for
International Trade.
A new report by the trade research coalition notes that Canadian
women are starting new businesses at twice the rate of firms in
general. What is the government going to do to help business
women take part in Canada's active export market?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the government's attempt to expand the
trade culture to include small and medium size businesses, the
women entrepreneur constituency is one of our main priorities.
That is why we led a women's mission exclusively to Washington.
That is why we established the women's research coalition so
that we can understand not only what is happening with women led,
women owned companies in Canada, but what their needs are from an
export market perspective. That is why in May the United States
and Canada will be holding the first women's trade summit. We
very much look forward to these initiatives.
* * *
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we keep hearing all sorts of political evasions to the very
simple question about whether or not the government will table
all documents relevant to the Grand-Mère Hotel grant from the
transitional jobs fund.
Why in the world, given all of the unanswered questions that are
there, would the government not release this information in the
full public light so that people can see for themselves whether
or not this grant was made according to proper procedure? Will
the government release those documents without the whiteout. Yes
or no.
1455
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this case is absolutely
clear. It has followed the usual procedures absolutely. The
opposition knows very well that there is a standard procedure for
access to information. There is a very good access to
information law and the member knows how to use it. We will
absolutely respect it as we always do.
* * *
[Translation]
DAIRY PRODUCERS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, dairy
producers are concerned about the future of their sector. A
recent unfavourable World Trade Organization ruling on export
milk pricing has done nothing to allay their concerns.
My question is for the agriculture minister. Can the minister
guarantee that he will do everything in his power to support
dairy producers in their approaches to the WTO, and that greater
diligence and competency will be applied than in the case of the
butter oil mixtures?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained to all members
and to the House before that the WTO panel ruling last week had
nothing to do with the domestic supply management system in
Canada. It did address how the industry exports less than 5% of
the milk into the export market and that is very clear.
As well, I had the pleasure yesterday at the Consensus 2000
conference here in Ottawa of meeting with all the supply managed
sectors in Canada. I assured them that the government and I will
work fully on their behalf for the support of supply management
in the next WTO—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today's Globe
and Mail and National Post report that Liberal backbenchers
finally want to see changes in employment insurance.
They have come on side with the United Nations, the report of
the minister himself, and the thousands of workers whom I have
met in my travels in condemning the changes to employment
insurance.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
When is this government going to heed the established consensus
and to change employment insurance so as to meet the needs of
workers?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, several years ago our government
undertook an in-depth, and extremely necessary, reform of the
employment insurance program.
The member speaks of a very considerable consensus, yet every
time solutions are found for certain problems, ones which are
regularly overrated, they always want us to revert to the old
system, which did not serve Canadians well.
We are constantly being called upon to go back to passive
assistance. We are aware that we must continue to help this
country's unemployed. We believe that the best help is to give
them assistance in getting into the workforce.
* * *
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I learned
today that the auditor general plans to act on the request by
the member for Markham and investigate the dubious dealings
involving Mr. Duhaime and Mr. Thibault.
Section 11 of the Auditor General Act allows cabinet to order an
independent inquiry into the granting of government funds to an
individual.
If the Prime Minister has no doubts about the honesty of the
$2.3 million in subsidies and loans given Mr. Duhaime and Mr.
Thibault, why does he not use his own authority and order—
The Speaker: The Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General of Canada is
free to investigate what he likes, when he likes. My department
will put all the documents at his disposal, should he so wish.
I can assure this House and the Canadian public that in this, as
in other cases, the transitional jobs fund is an excellent
program intended to create jobs in regions where unemployment is
too high. The strength of this program lies in consultation
with the people in the community. It is precisely because it
reflects the community's priorities that it has created over
30,000 jobs.
* * *
[English]
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 1991-92 the current Prime
Minister and the current industry minister were in opposition
chastising the then Conservative government over the lack of an
industrial strategy for a shipbuilding policy. After six years
in government, the industry minister has failed on all counts to
deliver an industrial strategy for a shipbuilding policy. What
is worse, he absolutely refuses to meet with the marine workers
federation and other interested groups to develop a strategy.
1500
Will the Minister of Industry commit today to meet with the
marine workers federation to sit down and discuss their concerns
over the future of shipbuilding?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reality is that there have been over the last couple
of years, in fact as recently as 1998, additional improvements to
the measures that are available to assist shipbuilders. The
Export Development Corporation has enhanced the benefits which it
provides. In addition, we continue to have favourable tariff
rules as well as rapid depreciation for ships that are built in
Canada under the Income Tax Act.
However, in response to a request from the shipowners'
association, it was my intention to meet with them—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.
* * *
[Translation]
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has intervened in a situation involving one of his
former properties and a person with a police record who did not
reveal this when asked. He later met with, and provided support
to, an individual who misused close to $1 million and is now
under criminal investigation.
It is not a matter of determining whether the Prime Minister is
a good MP, but rather whether there has been a misuse of
taxpayers' money. I challenge the Prime Minister to give the
auditor general the chance to clarify this matter.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General of Canada is
free to investigate anything he wishes. My department will be
completely at his disposal if he so desires.
I can assure you, however, that this is absolutely unnecessary,
because this matter, like the others, has been stringently
subjected to extremely clear processes, that are transparent,
wide open, and discussed in the House.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in our gallery of the Hon. Zhang Zuoji, Minister of
Labour and Social Security of the People's Republic of China.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during question period, in reply to a question from my
colleague from Edmonton North, the Prime Minister referred to me
by riding and he referred to my involvement in the transitional
jobs fund request.
Since this request involved absolutely no conflict of interest
on my part, and I have the relevant documents with me, I
would be pleased to table them today.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the consent of the
House to table the documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations
among all parties represented in the House, and I believe that if
you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion, which has been circulated to my colleagues
opposite. Therefore, I move:
That for each of the following items of business, at the
specified times, all questions necessary for the disposal of
specified stages shall be deemed to have been put and divisions
requested and deferred to the end of consideration of Government
Orders on Tuesday, April 13, 1999:
1. Second reading stage of Bill C-67, when debate concludes or
at the end of the time provided for Government Orders on March
24, 1999, whichever is earlier;
2. Motion M-360, when debate concludes or after 45 minutes of
debate, whichever is earlier.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the Government House Leader have
the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
KOSOVO
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me and let me at the
outset indicate that I will be making a joint statement today
with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence. Because the
situation in Kosovo has such a shared responsibility we thought
it would be appropriate for both of us to take the time available
to give the House a full explanation of where we stand.
I believe it is proper to begin with an expression of some
sadness and disappointment concerning the events that are taking
place, as we speak, in Kosovo. We all regret the need to have to
use force, but at the same time I want to make it clear that
Canada is very determined to play a proper role in ensuring that
we can help to right the wrongs that have taken place so
tragically in that area over the last year or two.
The international community has been faced with a deteriorating
situation where the government of that area has been denying the
most basic rights to its people, using force to quell any form of
dissidence, sending tanks and artillery to destroy villages,
murdering innocent people and forcing thousands upon thousands of
people from their homes.
[Translation]
For 10 years now, the world has witnessed the tragedy unfolding
in the Balkans: first in Slovenia, then in Croatia and then in
Bosnia. In the last year the same extreme violence against
civilians from a targeted ethnic group has appeared in Kosovo.
The international community has spared no effort to encourage
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to find a peaceful
arrangement with its Albanian Kosovar population.
[English]
As members of the House know, there have been many diplomatic
missions sent to Belgrade. The security council, acting under
chapter VII, adopted crucial resolutions identifying the threat
to peace and security in the region. Council resolutions 1199
and 1203, and the following October agreements between the
federal republic and NATO and the Organization for Security and
Cooperation, imposed a clear legal obligation on the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia to respect a ceasefire, to protect
civilians and to limit deployment of security forces in Kosovo.
1510
We also participated, along with many other nations, in a
verification mission created to monitor the ceasefire and to
build confidence in that area.
Following that, the parties were convened at a negotiation
conference in Rambouillet and were asked to give up their
maximalist positions and accept an honourable compromise for
peace.
The Kosovars at that conference demonstrated a degree of courage
and vision by signing on to the agreement. It was only the
President of Yugoslavia who refused to depart from his
intransigent position.
Over the past year, I want to underline to the House that Canada
has made every effort to push for active engagement of the
security council on this issue. I have instructed Canadian
diplomats to urge the council to act in accordance with its
mandate. As council president in February, our ambassador
chaired many sessions dealing with the situation and crisis in
Kosovo.
We have supported the peace negotiations and we have been an
active participant in the OSCE efforts, at one point having close
to 68 Canadians as part of the verification mission.
In addition, in March and June 1998 I announced
measures to prompt the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to resolve
the Kosovo issue by imposing a degree of economic sanctions. We
suspended EDC credits. We denied landing rights to airplanes. We
had discussions on bilateral agreements on certain economic
programs. We placed a ban on investments in Serbia and a freeze
on the assets of the Serbian and FRY governments in Canada.
I also want to point out that the Minister for International
Cooperation was very active in providing humanitarian efforts.
Close to over $3.8 million have been given to UNICEF, to the High
Commissioner of Refugees, the Red Cross, CARE Canada and the
World Food Program to help the humanitarian suffering in that
particular area.
Diplomacy and civil effort have been given every possible effort
and every chance to succeed, but to no avail. The looming
humanitarian disaster caused by President Milosevic's
unwillingness to come to any kind of accommodation to protect his
own people leaves us with very few options. Every day the
situation has grown worse and more and more civilians suffer.
It has been estimated that, as I speak today, over 450,000
Kosovars have been displaced from their homes. Since last week
it is estimated that in that week alone 25,000 people were
displaced. We have no way of counting the number of people who
have been forced to experience the worst indignities, in some
cases the loss of their lives, their precious possessions and
their homes.
As long as it remains unresolved, as long as we do not find the
willingness to come to a solution, the conflict in Kosovo
threatens to precipitate a humanitarian disaster and destabilize
the entire region.
The time has come to act and Canada is ready to play its part.
As the Minister of National Defence said in question period
today, already there are CF-18s of the Canadian Armed Forces
participating in air actions. He will explain in much more
detail the exact nature of our commitments in the military area.
I want to explain to the House that NATO's foremost objective is
to avert a humanitarian crisis by enforcing compliance by the
federal republic with the obligations which it has undertaken to
respect, including respect for a ceasefire an end to violence
against civilians, full observance of the limits of force and
police action in that area and trying to bring again to the
table Milosevic and his government to come together to finally
sign an effective peace agreement that will provide full
protection to civilians in that area.
I also want to point out that while we have had to take this
action, we do so knowing the full consequence that it carries.
We debated this in the House of Commons three weeks ago when all
members had an opportunity to participate.
I also want to say that we have acted to ensure the safety of
Canadians.
All members of the verification mission of the OSE, including
the 68 Canadians I mentioned, have now safely left the area, as
well as the Canadian staff at the embassy in Belgrade.
We have advised Canadians to defer all travel to the area and we
have given proper advisory notice to any Canadians contained
within that country.
1515
[Translation]
Humanitarian considerations are the main impulse for our action.
We cannot stand by while an entire population is displaced,
people are killed, villages are burned and people are denied
their rights because of their ethnic background.
We remain very concerned about potential atrocities. Those
responsible for any action against civilians should be aware
that they will be held accountable.
[English]
I want everybody in the House to understand that one of the
primary objectives of Canada in pursuing things like the
international accord, supporting the work of the tribunal in The
Hague, is to make sure that someday, somewhere and somehow Mr.
Milosevic and his cohorts will be held accountable for their
actions. Make no mistake about that.
Canada wants a world where rights are respected, where peaceful
solutions to regional conflicts are negotiated, where war
criminals do not act with impunity, a world free of land mines.
We want to consolidate a multilateral international system, which
was created to make the world a better place, and institutions
such as the United Nations, the OSCE and NATO.
Our actions today in Kosovo are guided by these humanitarian
concerns, a clear defence of these goals and real representation
of the interest of Canadians to make sure that the rule of law
and the safety of civilians are preserved and protected around
the world.
I close my remarks by saying that all our prayers go with the
brave members of our armed forces who are now carrying out
Canada's mission in this regard.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the Chair understand that the
statement by ministers will be considered one statement given by
two ministers? Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today our Canadian forces are taking part
in NATO air operations over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
We have said all along, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has
reiterated today, that we wanted a negotiated settlement to end
the crisis in Kosovo, to end the human tragedy. Unfortunately
efforts to achieve a peaceful political solution have failed to
this point.
Continued Serbian aggression presents a challenge,
to NATO's resolve, and the time has come for military action. We
are not taking this step lightly but, as the Prime Minister said
last night, inaction in the face of oppression only invites
further aggression.
The aim of NATO's military action is clear: to prevent further
violence by the Yugoslav security forces in Kosovo and to avert a
large scale humanitarian disaster. To this end, Canadian forces
are working alongside and in partnership with the forces of our
NATO allies.
Make no mistake. NATO has assembled a powerful force, one that
is fully capable of meeting its military objectives.
Canada has roughly 130 Canadian forces personnel and 6 CF-18
fighter aircraft stationed in Aviano, Italy. All our CF-18s are
equipped with air to air missiles and precision guided munitions
for a ground attack role.
Our air task force is well equipped and well prepared. Our
people have been well trained for the role that they are taking
on right now and in the days ahead. Our CF-18s have been in
Aviano since June of last year. We also have Canadians with the
NATO airborne early warning group in Germany. They are also
taking part in the air operations over Kosovo.
This operation is not without risk. The Yugoslav military
possesses a sophisticated air defence system, but we are
satisfied that the NATO commanders have taken every step to
reduce that risk as much as possible.
There are escort aircraft, for example, when our jet fighters are
out on missions.
1520
I have confidence in our people. They have the equipment, the
training, the professionalism and, I said earlier, the dedication
to the cause and to their service to Canada. They have what is
required to make a significant contribution to the alliance's
efforts.
I am sure that all Canadians will join with us in the House
in extending our support and encouragement to our CF members
involved in this operation. Also, our support and thoughts are
with their families in Canada. We wish them a safe return.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs has given a detailed overview of the situation
in Kosovo. We have been provided with an explanation of Canadian
policy toward the conflict.
We have seen much evidence over the last few weeks and months
about the issue. I do not believe I need to repeat most of
that. Indeed we agree that there is an international crisis in
Kosovo. As I said earlier today, we support our involvement in
that crisis.
As well, the tragedy of Yugoslavia and Kosovo as it has unfolded
lends itself to our stopping a moment and looking at the crisis
that war creates. The many comments that have been made and the
reasons for intervention allow us to support this, but I do not
think it should be a blind support. I want to state very clearly
that I believe I am as patriotic as anyone in this country. I am
here because I believe in this country. I think, though, that we
need to stop for a moment and ask a few other questions about our
intervention in Kosovo and what it might mean.
Let me very briefly address those points. As the days and the
bombings unfold, we will probably have to evaluate just how long
this sort of action can be sustained. The first question is what
if Mr. Milosevic does not give in to this bombing. Obviously the
reason for the bombing is that he will see the light and say he
will come to the table and stop what he has been doing in Kosovo.
That will be good for us and for the Serbian people, and that
will certainly be good for the Kosovars.
We should remember, however, that the Serbs have a long history
of war and of fighting anything they disagree with. They are not
Iraqis. They are quite different in how they might respond.
History tells us that. We have to ask what will happen if, at
the week's end, bombings have not brought the reaction we want.
What will happen next?
My second question concerns the degree to which Canada will be
involved in further NATO missions in Kosovo. The House has never
freely debated what would happen if we had to send in
ground troops in an escalation of this event. We have already
made a commitment to provide 700 or more troops to a NATO led
peace monitoring mission in Kosovo should that become necessary,
and we hope of course that it does.
Will this engagement go further than that? If it does go
further than that and we are asked to send combat forces on a
ground invasion, will we come back to this House to discuss that
issue? I believe it is our job here to ask that question and to
receive assurances that it will happen. I am concerned for the
safety of our men and women in the Canadian forces, as all of us
are. We need to ask ourselves if the armed forces are equipped
to handle a sustained attack in a situation like that. No one
doubts the courage of our men and women in uniform, but we do
have to question whether they are prepared for what they might
face in that invasion.
1525
We also have to ask about the role of parliament in this whole
issue. This is the House of Commons. This is the place where
elected representatives should take this issue very seriously. We
are talking about the sons and daughters of many of our
constituents. The Commons must be consulted before this country
undertakes any further serious foreign affairs action in this
event.
I do not believe that the debates on Kosovo that took place in
November and February dealt with a future escalation. It is not
satisfactory to simply have a statement and to have the sort of
debate that we have had.
As we and our NATO allies attack Yugoslavia, we are now at war.
Some might call it peace enforcement. Others assert that it is
simply forceful diplomacy. Let us not mince words. We are at
war, and while we find that word distasteful, I believe that is
the word we need to use. This is the reality of the international
system. Military force is required to deter and punish
aggression or to alleviate human suffering. The rhetoric of soft
power cannot hide these simple facts.
I want to express my hope for a speedy resolution to this crisis
and to extend all of our prayers to the men and women of the
Canadian forces. May they all return safely.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to speak about NATO's imminent intervention in the
former Yugoslavia.
Yesterday, the secretary general of the Atlantic alliance,
Javier Solana, gave the go-ahead for NATO bombing, after one last
attempt by American envoy Richard Holbrooke to negotiate an
agreement with Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. The
Serbian leader has categorically refused to sign the Rambouillet
accord, which would have resulted in a ceasefire in Kosovo.
This peace accord was negotiated in a suburb of Paris under the
supervision of the contact group for the former Yugoslavia, a
group made up of the United States, Russia, France, the United
Kingdom, Italy and Germany. Only the Kosovar separatists
signed. The accord would have given them substantial autonomy
for a three year transition. The peace plan also would have
allowed the deployment of 26,000 NATO troops in Kosovo to ensure
enforcement. This is the main stumbling block for Serbian
President Milosevic. Even faced with imminent allied air
strikes, he repeated on Serbian television only a few hours ago
his firm opposition to what he considers to be occupation of
Serbian territory by foreign military forces.
It must be kept in mind that from the onset of the conflict
between the Yugoslav forces and the Albanian separatists more
than a year ago now some 2,000 people have been killed and more
than 200,000 people made refugees. For 10 months the
international community has tried every possible approach to end
the war and repression in Kosovo. Kosovo has not respected UN
security council resolutions 1199 and 1203, or last October's
agreements between the Organization on Security and Cooperation
in Europe, NATO and the former Yugoslavia. Belgrade has not
complied with its obligations to limit the deployment of its
forces in Kosovo, protect the population and bring about a
ceasefire.
It must be kept in mind that Yugoslavia has,
moreover, been involved in bloody conflict for 10 years.
There was Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slovenia, and now Kosovo.
Faced with this intolerable situation in which defenceless
civilian populations are being fired at by the ex-Yugoslav army,
the international community cannot remain indifferent. The
international community will lose all credibility if it does not
act immediately. Otherwise, it will find itself encouraging the
various abuses being committed by the Serbian government.
1530
In order to protect the civilian population of Kosovo, it seems
that the armed solution is the last plausible option. It is
unfortunate that it has to be contemplated and supported, but
the situation as it stands renders it necessary.
That said, we understand and support Canada's desire to act with
NATO forces to help the civilians of Kosovo. However, the
minister did not tell us what would happen should the forces of
the former Yugoslavia, with President Milosevic at their head,
refuse to give in to NATO.
Indeed, what will happen if the NATO air strikes do not make
Yugoslavia bend? What will happen if the conflict drags on?
What are the long term objectives of the alliance and Canada in
this conflict?
The Minister of Foreign Affairs' speech did not provide answers
to this question. However, the hostilities with the former
Yugoslavia are real. While we know when the adventure begins,
who can claim to know when and how it will all end? Obviously,
this is all the more true if the Serbs feel they have nothing to
lose.
In closing, the people of Quebec and Canada are entitled to know
whether Canada will become more involved in this conflict should
it continue. What will Canada contribute in terms of
humanitarian aid to the thousands of civilians who are in need
and obliged to leave their homes?
In this regard, I invite the minister and his government to
inform this House of the latest developments in the former
Yugoslavia and to hold here a debate on possible changes in the
nature of Canada's involvement in the former Yugoslavia.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, last October members of the House debated the serious
humanitarian crisis that was unfolding in Kosovo. At that time
my colleague, the member for Halifax West, the New Democrat
defence critic, and I rose in the House to say that there are
times when the global community must respond to serious human
rights violations, not just with words but with action. I
profoundly regret to say that we have now reached that point of
humanitarian tragedy.
It is clear that diplomatic attempts at a negotiated settlement
to the Kosova crisis have failed. The Serbian government has
refused to sign a peace agreement that would provide Kosovo with
autonomy within the Yugoslav federation, a plebiscite in three
years on the future status of Kosovars and the presence of a NATO
peacekeeping force in Kosovo. The Albanian Kosovars have signed
and accepted this settlement.
The present situation in Kosovo is indeed unacceptable. We see
villages in flames and refugees fleeing in terror. Serbian
offences against the Albanian Kosovars continue as we speak. More
than 40,000 Serb security forces are poised in and around Kosovo,
with additional units on the way. In January the bodies of
almost 40 ethnic Albanians were found at the scene of fighting at
Raca in southern Kosovo in what appears to have been a mass
execution.
The last time this type of ethnic violence erupted in the region
was in Bosnia in the early 1990s. It took three years and
200,000 deaths and too many warnings before the west finally took
action in August 1995. It was not unfortunately the United
Nations at that time, it was NATO.
I visited Vukovar in Croatia and saw firsthand the terrible
effects of Serb aggression against Croatia and its people there.
I have often wondered since then if the international community
had acted sooner in these conflicts a great number of civilian
casualties could indeed have been prevented.
Since the horrors of World War II, the international community
has spent many years trying to develop covenants and treaties
that focus on respect for international human rights. Yet too
often, while we have these human rights norms, the international
community has failed miserably in enforcing them. It has only
been recently that we have begun the difficult process of
developing mechanisms to enforce international human rights. I
note that the creation of the international criminal court, a
creation in which Canada played an important role, is a step in
the right direction to ensuring that dictators and tyrants will
face prosecution for the crimes they commit while in office.
Yet the Yugoslav government, the Milosevic government, has
shamefully refused to allow Judge Louise Arbour to enter Kosovo
to investigate crimes against humanity there.
1535
On the subject of crimes against humanity, I note today how
pleased my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I are at
the decision of the House of Lords to allow for the extradition
of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to Spain to stand
trial for crimes against humanity. We urge the Government of
Canada to seek his extradition as well. I know there is a case
of a Canadian nun who is seeking that extradition and others, and
we appeal to our government to take that action.
The possible NATO air strikes against the Serbian government are
unprecedented. It will be the first time since the alliance was
founded 50 years ago next month that NATO has prepared to go into
action collectively against a sovereign state. Certainly we in
the New Democratic Party have not reached the decision to support
this military action without much anguish and much soul
searching. Our party has a long and honourable tradition of
opposing NATO's military structure and doctrine, of calling
for Canadian withdrawal from NATO and of strengthening the United
Nations and regional security mechanisms. This is particularly
the case when NATO continues to cling to a neanderthal cold war
doctrine of first use of nuclear weapons.
The type of political will that has led to the decision for
military action in Serbia has certainly been lacking in other
parts of the world. We need only look at the humanitarian crisis
in Africa, stretching from the Horn to Angola, to see these kinds
of inconsistencies.
The minister in his statement to the House said: “We cannot
stand by while an entire population is displaced, people are
killed, villages are burned and looted, and a population is
denied its basic rights because it does not belong to the `right'
ethnic group and we remain very concerned about potential
atrocities”.
Precisely those conditions apply in the NATO ally of Turkey with
respect to the Kurdish minority and yet the Government of Canada
and the world stand by. Similar conditions apply in East Timor
and elsewhere. To those who say there is a double standard, I
say they are right and certainly we opposed Washington's
unilateral bombing of Khartoum, of Afghanistan and of Iraq. To
point out these inconsistencies and to suggest that NATO is not
the most desirable international institution to enforce human
security is at the end not enough. We are left with the
humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and the question of what Canada's
response and what the global community's response should be.
Slobodan Milosevic has systematically refused to engage in
dialogue and compromise. He has continued his reign of terror in
Kosovo against ethnic Albanians.
The New Democratic Party supports military action against
selected Serbian military targets to address the humanitarian
crisis facing Albanian Kosovars. Certainly there are significant
risks in taking this military action, risks to the lives of
Canadian service people and to the lives of civilians in
Yugoslavia and in Kosovo itself.
I certainly want at this time to indicate on behalf of my New
Democrat colleagues that our thoughts are with Canadian forces
personnel stationed in Italy and their families in Canada,
particularly those who are in the air at this time in the four
CF-18s. They deserve the support of all members of the House. As
well we want to take this opportunity to salute the 63 brave
Canadians who took part in the OSCE Kosovo verification mission
and did their part to ensure compliance with UN resolutions for
peace in the region.
Certainly any military action has to be taken with the greatest
possible care for the lives of civilians and of those in the
armed forces. We must do everything in our power to bring
about, even at this late stage, a peaceful settlement with
Milosevic.
I recognize there are those who approach international security
challenges from a pacifist position of opposing the use of force
in all circumstances. A former leader of my party, J. S.
Woodsworth, took that position. These are strong, deeply held
views and they must be respected.
As well, I understand and frankly I share many of the concerns
of groups like the Canadian Peace Alliance, Veterans Against
Nuclear Arms and End the Arms Race which oppose the use of force
in this situation.
1540
They have raised legitimate questions, legitimate concerns that
such strikes would be a violation of state sovereignty and that
the UN security council should be the only body to authorize such
use of force. We in the New Democratic Party have recognized
that without reform of the veto powers, of the permanent members
of the security council, the UN is too often paralysed in an
action.
Concerns have been raised as well that the state of humanitarian
objectives cannot be reached by military means. There are valid
concerns of escalating the conflict in a region that is already
historically a powder keg, that this may draw in Albania and
Montenegro. What next? Will Milosevic simply use this as a means
of consolidating his support for standing up to the international
community?
We in the New Democratic Party accept that the use of military
force as a last resort is sometimes necessary in grave
humanitarian crises when all efforts at diplomatic settlement
have failed, and we believe this meets that test.
As Canada is prepared to back up our concern for human security
with military action, we must be equally prepared to provide the
necessary financial and personnel resources for humanitarian
relief as a result of the conflict. This action will certainly
create a large refugee crisis, and Canada should play a very
generous and constructive role in addressing the needs of the
refugees.
The minister underlined in his comments earlier the truth that
Canada wants a world in which human rights are respected. May
this be a turning point for the international community to accept
that our present international institutions are incapable, sadly,
of ensuring those human rights for all. We must all come
together and reform these institutions to put peace and respect
for human rights at the forefront of relationships between people
and relationships between nations.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and I want to see an
end to the humanitarian tragedy taking place in Yugoslavia in
Kosovo.
I also want to make it clear that we support our soldiers,
sailors and air crew who have now been placed in harm's way and
also those of our allies.
Canada and the NATO alliance made up of sovereign states have
just gone to war with a sovereign state, the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, over a civil war with the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo.
We have done this without a declaration of war and without the
support of the United Nations. The minister quotes security
council resolutions 1199 and 1203, but they do not specifically
give NATO the right to use military force against Yugoslavia. He
might want to brush up on his international law and his long lost
text of realpolitik. We as a country and an alliance may have
broken the codes of international law.
In Bosnia in 1995 NATO was directed by the United Nations to
keep the peace and to intervene in a bloody civil war, but NATO
is now engaged in an offensive military operation outside its
own territory. We are quickly subscribing to the view of NATO
as a global policeman. Let there be no mistake. We have just
launched an air attack with our allies on a sovereign state.
The Canadian government has said by its actions that the United
Nations and the soft power are not up to the task of ensuring
global peace and security. We have just heard the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Mr. Soft Power, state that the use of force is
the ultimate guarantee of peace and security. I hope this act of
violence will not tarnish his Nobel peace prize, the one he wants
so bad.
Let us leave the minister of war or foreign affairs for the
moment and the fact that we may be violating international law. A
minister of the crown just stood in the House and made a
statement as the attack is going on. After the first weapons
have impacted on our opponent's territory, the saddest thing for
Canadians and the parliamentary process is that this country has
slipped into war without briefing its people through parliament
and through meaningful debate.
It is very sad indeed to see what little regard the government
has for the principles of parliamentary democracy and the House.
It obviously did not support the Somalia inquiry recommendations
for a vigilant parliament and that is very upsetting to
Canadians.
1545
In conclusion, parliamentarians deserve honest and open answers
from this government of self-proclaimed transparency and
accountability, from its ministers, and we must hear from the
chief of defence staff and his commanders immediately. Let us
have a chance to ask the real questions that need to be asked on
behalf of Canadians.
I also want to thank the Minister of National Defence for at
least keeping the defence critics up to date on the military
action that was taking place.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
section of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie, as
well as the related financial report. The report has to do with
the meeting held in Saint-Denis, France, from January 19 to 21,
1999.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
Pursuant to its order of reference of Thursday, November 26,
1998, our committee has considered Bill C-56, an act respecting
an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the
settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land, and
respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province
of Manitoba, and has agreed to report it without amendment.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
NATURAL HEALTH PRODUCTS
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from a number of constituents who add
their signatures to the thousands, if not tens or even hundreds
of thousands who have already written in concerned about their
lack of access, or their potential lack of access to natural
health products. They wish to have that freedom of choice.
They call on the government to not only support the German
delegation and the World Health Organization Codex delegation,
but any other move by a government that would take away their
right of free choice to make decisions on health products for
their own health care.
TAXATION
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table two petitions in the House
today.
One is signed by what appears to be hundreds of people who ask
the House of Commons to pass a private member's motion on the
Tobin tax. Of course, we did that yesterday in the House of
Commons.
The petition deals with the notion that we have a financial
transaction tax in concert with the world community because of
the tremendous flow of capital around the world, over $1 billion
a day. I want to table this petition. Of course, the motion
passed yesterday by a vote of 164 to 83, with some members of all
parties supporting it.
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): The other
petition is one that will probably surprise you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition signed by 104 Canadians calling for the
abolition of the Senate. They say the Senate costs $50 million a
year, that it is undemocratic, unelected and
unaccountable. I can even see the Liberal whip shaking his head
in acknowledgement of that. The petitioners say it should be
abolished. With great pride I table this petition. Mr. Speaker,
I hope you will consider it very sincerely because you have
tremendous influence on policy in this country.
FIREARMS REGISTRY
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to present a petition on behalf of people of the
Bonnyville-Cold Lake area. These petitioners are concerned with
the increase in violent crime in their communities. They are
also concerned with the hundreds of millions of dollars that
are being spent on the whole gun registry program. They are
suggesting that this money instead of being wasted on gun
registration and licensing of gun owners should be spent
on crime prevention programs.
They have listed several crime prevention programs which they
feel would be much more beneficial than the gun registry program.
1550
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two
petitions today signed by a number of Canadians including from my
own riding of Mississauga South.
The first petition is on the subject matter of human rights. The
petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that
human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world in
countries such as Indonesia.
The petitioners also point out that Canada continues to enjoy
respect in the international community as being a champion of
human rights. Therefore the petitioners call on the Government of
Canada to continue to speak out against human rights abuses
around the world and to seek to bring to justice those
responsible for such abuses.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION FUND
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition has to do with our public safety officers,
police officers and firefighters.
The petitioners want to draw to the attention of the House that
our police officers and firefighters place their lives at risk on
a daily basis as they discharge their responsibilities and that
when one of them loses their life in the line of duty, the
benefits available to the family often are very modest.
Therefore the petitioners would like to call on the government
to establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of families of public safety officers who are killed in
the line of duty.
* * *
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Questions Nos. 120, 143 and 156 could be made orders for return,
these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 120—Mr. Mike Scott:
Can the government provide a list of all band
elections held from January 1996 to the present, including in each
individual case: (a) the name of the band; (b) the date the
election was held; (c) the names of all the candidates; (d) the
final vote distribution; (e) the number of eligible voters; and
(f) the number of eligible voters who voted (i.e. voter turnout)?
Return tabled.
Question No. 143—Mr. Paul Forseth:
With respect to
grants or loans awarded by the federal government for building restoration,
such as awards made under infrastructure and regional development programs,
in each of the last five years, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998: (a)
how many have been awarded; (b) what specifically have they been
for; (c) what was the geographic location; (d) what was the
amount of each award, including whether or not it was on a matching basis;
and (e) under which federal department or program was each award
made?
Return tabled.
Question No. 156—Ms. Wendy Lill:
With regard to the October 1996 Report of
the Task Force on Disability, entitled “Equal Citizenship for Canadians
with Disabilities—The Will to Act”, what actions has the government taken
to implement recommendations nos. 1 to 9 (including 9a), b) and
c)), 10 to 13 (including 13a) and b)), 14 to 18
(including 18a) through f)), 19, 20 (including 20a) and
b)), 23 (including 23a) through d)), 24, 25 (including
25a) and b)), 26, 27 (including 27a), b) and
c)), 28b), 29b), 30b), 31 (including 31a)
through e)), 32 (including 32a), b) and c)), 33
(including 33a) through e)), 34, 35 (including 35a) and
b)), 36 (including 36a), b) and c)), 37 to 43,
44c), 45 (including 45a) through d)), 46a), 47 to
51 (including 51a) through f)) and 52 (including 52a)
through g))?
Return tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order.
On January 28 of this year I submitted a Notice of Motion for
the Production of Papers in connection with section 31 of the
Elections Act and the Communist Party of Canada.
A week ago in this House I brought this matter to the attention
of the parliamentary secretary who said, and I quote from
Hansard, “I will certainly look into that matter as soon
as possible”.
Could the parliamentary secretary please tell the House what he
has found out by looking into the matter? Exactly how long will
I have to wait to get the answer to this question?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I did look into that matter
and I assure the member that it it is being pursued vigorously.
With regard to the second part of the member's question, I
cannot tell him exactly when we will be presenting that.
[Translation]
I ask that all notices of motion for the production
of papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that
because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be
extended by 38 minutes.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BANK ACT
The House resumed from March 19 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-67, an act to amend the Bank Act, the Winding-up and
Restructuring Act and other acts relating to financial
institutions and to make consequential amendments to other acts,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on
Bill C-67 as the official opposition party's critic for banks and
financial institutions.
We have been following the government's lack of progress on
bringing in changes to the financial services sector that would
put us on a level playing field with other countries around the
world, specifically with the OECD countries. Of the OECD
countries, only Canada and Mexico do not presently allow foreign
branch banking.
For the information of Canadians viewing this debate today, I
will give a little description of what this bill is about.
1555
Until now, a foreign bank that wanted to establish an operation
in Canada was required to set up an autonomous separate
corporation in Canada with its own board of directors, its own
accounting firm. It would operate for all intents and purposes a
Canadian company with an asset base that was established at the
time of its being set up. In many respects this presented a lot
of difficulties for foreign banks that wanted to do business in
Canada and participate in the economy through lending, deposit
taking and various other operations that banks pursue.
As far back as 1996 the then secretary of state for banks and
financial institutions, Mr. Peters, told the House that the
government was going to make provisions for what we have come to
know as foreign branch banking. A change in the Bank Act through
legislation would allow foreign banks to simply establish
branches here once they have met certain criteria. Their branches
would have the benefit of being able to operate in Canada, plus
be able to draw on the full asset base of their parent company.
That was 1996. It is now 1999. The question to ask is why it
has taken the government so long to bring this plan to fruition.
In our opinion, not only has the government been dragging its
feet on this issue, but it has been doing some pretty heavy foot
dragging on the whole issue of the changes to the financial
services industry. This has created a lot of confusion. Quite
frankly, it has left the Canadian owned banks that are operating
in Canada as well as consumers at somewhat of a disadvantage. The
banks' point of view is that they have not been able to pursue
opportunities on a global basis to the extent they would like to.
Our consumers of bank services have not had the choices they are
entitled to and which they deserve.
In November 1998 I produced a report for the Reform Party
entitled “Competition: Choices You Can Bank On”. It was quite
a lengthy report. We went through most every phase of the
financial services sector. We examined it and we put forward
recommendations which our party supports.
I am happy to see the Liberal government is following one of our
recommendations which deals with foreign bank entry. We said
very clearly in the report that the federal government must end
its long delay in allowing foreign branch banking. Foreign
branch banking legislation must offer foreign banks that wish to
have a branch in Canada the same regulatory and taxation regime
encountered by domestic banks.
We also said that foreign branch banking must be in place before
the government considered the merits of any merger proposal. As
we saw last year when four of our major domestic banks put
forward their merger proposals, because the government had been
dragging its feet on introducing changes that would allow for
more competition in the banking industry in Canada, it had no
choice. The government dug itself into a hole with its foot
dragging and had no choice but to turn the mergers down.
Had we had changes in this country's financial services sector
where Canadians had more choices on where they did their banking,
perhaps the mergers could have been looked at in an entirely
different light, in a more competitive light, in a more
competitive environment here in Canada.
1600
There are going to be basically two types of foreign branches in
Canada. One will be what they call a full service branch, which
will be able to operate primarily in the commercial sector, in
the business area. I am sure that will be their target. They
will not be permitted to take deposits of less than $150,000, but
they will be able to lend money to Canadian companies, to small,
medium and large companies that wish to start up or expand their
operations in Canada. I am sure that this new access to
financing will be of huge value to the Canadian business sector.
The other type of banking they will be able to do is what they
refer to as a lending bank, in which there will be no deposit
taking. It will simply be a branch of a foreign bank that will
be lending money primarily to businesses that want to expand,
develop or otherwise increase their services in Canada.
We do not want to mislead Canadian consumers, the retail
consumers. It is very clear that foreign branch banking will
really not have much of an impact on their lives. They will not
see foreign branches established on different street corners in
their communities or in their cities.
Foreign branch banking will primarily be setting up in Canada to
service the commercial business. There may be a trickle down
effect on Canadian consumers, because by providing increased
access to financing for business, perhaps there will be some new
start-ups of businesses for which individuals may not have been
able to get financing from existing domestic banks or other
sources. There may be easier financing available for companies
that wish to expand in Canada, and this will create more
competition in the marketplace. Whenever competition is
thriving, consumers always do well. We see it in the big
megastores that have been established in Canada, the big box
retailers, the grocery stores, the superstores. Consumers are
really, in my opinion, getting a huge benefit from having more
competition in Canada at stores and in places where they want to
spend money.
We will support Bill C-67. Not only do we think it is good
legislation. We cannot go without saying that it is about time
the Liberal government brought it in. We also question why this
government took so long to bring in this legislation, which was
promised back in 1996 when the former secretary of state talked
about it in this House.
The current secretary of state for banks made some comments in
his speech that I think bear response. He said, for example,
that a considerable number of foreign banks have cut back on
Canadian activities or have pulled out of Canada altogether, that
between 1990 and 1998 the number of foreign banks with
subsidiaries in Canada dropped from 57 to 45. It is no wonder.
The government has been negligent in making changes to the
legislation that would allow these foreign branches to come into
Canada and service the needs of Canadians who require their
services. That legislation simply was not in place.
I did a survey among some 30 very large foreign banks and
asked them what changes to the environment in Canada would make
this marketplace most attractive to them. The number one answer
was to bring in the long overdue legislation that would allow
foreign branch banking.
1605
I am happy to see, finally, that the government is doing
something that is truly needed in this country. That is a rarity
in itself. I can certainly say that.
In our opinion, all the supervisory checks and balances of the
regulatory structure are in place to ensure that this is to be a
secure system for foreign branch banking in Canada. We are
satisfied that Canadians who deal with these new institutions
will be able to deal with them in a very confident fashion,
considering the criteria that these banks must meet before they
are allowed to establish here.
The secretary of state also said “I want to put on the record
very clearly that I could not be prouder than to be the secretary
of state dealing with Canada's financial institutions”. I am
sure he is very proud of that. I suggest that we could all be
prouder of him if he would keep encouraging the Minister of
Finance to take some of the steps that have to be taken to make
Canada a leader in the world banking industry, not just a
follower.
For example, we believe that there should be a regular review of
the regulations put in place by the Office of the Superintendent
of Financial Institutions and the Competition Bureau, the
guidelines they operate under and the demands they make on the
financial services business, to ensure that the regulations are
effective and cost effective. Canada, as we know, can be best
described as a very overregulated country to do business in. In
so many cases overregulation costs Canadian consumers and
businesses a lot of money.
About three years ago a survey was done on all the types of
regulations that were in place in Canada. The bottom line of the
survey was that overregulation and useless regulations in this
country cost Canadians about $5 billion a year. Cost
effectiveness in regulations is something that we should
look at.
There is another thing the government has been dragging its
heels on. We talk about the constitutional division of powers as
we deal with the regulations that govern the financial and
securities sectors. There is a profound overlapping of federal
and provincial regulatory structures, where the regulations are
exactly the same but there are two different bodies doing the
regulating. This is very costly and very confusing to people who
operate under these regulations.
The government can take a giant step by getting rid of the
overlap. One regulation covering the same subject, with two
different bodies administering it, can be very costly and very
annoying to Canadian business. In the banking system, there is
overlap and there is regulatory structure that can be made a lot
simpler. Maybe it could be overseen by either the province or
the federal government. It would be a cost saving step.
One of the things that a lot of politicians will not dare talk
about is the subject of taxation and how it applies to banks. I
am not afraid to talk about that for two reasons. Canada is
an overtaxed country, whether you are a worker or have a business
or a large megacompany like a bank.
1610
The New Democratic Party constantly talks about banks not paying
their fair share of taxes. Incidentally, for the interest of the
New Democratic Party, banks are a business, a business like any
other business in Canada, and they are required to pay a fair
share of their taxes, but they alone are one of the most
overtaxed segments of Canadian business.
For that reason, in the November report that I presented to our
party I recommended that a comprehensive review of the taxation
regime encountered by Canadian financial institutions be required
with the aim of improving competitiveness. The Canadian
financial institution taxation regime must be brought in line
with the taxation levels of their domestic competitors and other
Canadian businesses. That has to be done.
This government also has to take some very serious steps to
examine alternative financial institutions, like the
proliferation of credit unions. The government could make a lot
of changes that would allow credit unions to expand and to serve
Canadian consumers' needs. Eliminating provincial trade barriers
in that area would be great, as would allowing credit unions to
pool their capital so they can take advantage of financing
opportunities.
One of the other ways the government can take some steps to
improve the industry in Canada is in the area of the clearing and
settlement of cheques, better known as the Canada payment system.
We need to have the Canada payment system opened up to more
players than simply those that we know as banks. Large
securities companies do not have access to the payment clearing
system and must deal second hand through a bank in clearing their
cheques.
I want to talk briefly about improving the role of the national
ombudsman, who oversees all banking operations. We believe that
when the ombudsman investigates an alleged infraction by a bank,
he or she should have increased powers to go in and do a very
thorough investigation and, if that institution is found to be in
contradiction to the regulations, to actually name names and
assess penalties. There is a system like that in the U.K. which
we understand works very well. We would like to see that
addressed as well.
We are supporting Bill C-67. We think it is long overdue and is
needed. The only question we have about the bill is what took
them so long. What took this Liberal government so long to bring
in this bill that will allow foreign branch banking? It talked
about it in 1996. The then secretary of state he said he would
do it. It is 1999, almost four years later, and we are finally
seeing it. We are happy about that.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like the ask the hon. member a brief question.
I was probably one of the few members in the House who were open
minded on the bank mergers. I said to the banks and to all who
would listen that as long as bank mergers did not reduce
competition and did not reduce the rights of Canadians to have
access to free and competitive business in the banking circles, I
was willing to support them.
I look at other things that have happened with mergers since
then, like the consolidation of the grocery business in eastern
Canada. In Newfoundland and all through Atlantic Canada all the
reports show that through the merger of a couple of large grocery
retail outlets, grocery costs for every family in Atlantic Canada
will go up by an average of 7% a year. We allow mergers in one
sector when we will not allow mergers in another sector.
Now that we are allowing foreign banks to come into Canada and
increase the competition, maybe they will just come into the big
cities. Maybe they will come in and take the cream of the crop
and just open branches in bigger places, in the places that are
more profitable.
1615
Equally now that we will have a more competitive banking system
in Canada which will give better access to all Canadians, should
we not reassess the bank mergers which were rejected
primarily upon the basis that we would have a less competitive
banking system?
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. It is a good one.
The fact is that when the merger proposals were put forward,
because of the government inaction in making changes that would
allow more competition in the financial services sector, the
Minister of Finance basically painted himself into a corner.
Under the current regime the merger of the banks would have
indeed created a lessening of competition because the Minister of
Finance and Liberal government have not taken any steps since
1993 to allow the opportunity for more competition in the banking
industry.
With this step, this very important but still small step, we
will have foreign branch banking in Canada that will be able to
compete head-on with the big banks for commercial business. It
may fill a void. There may be some switching of business between
domestic banks and new foreign banks. Yes, this is more
competition indeed.
There are a few more steps, and this is a good one, that the
government could take to increase competition. Then we should let
those bank merger proposals come forward to be viewed in an
entirely different light, in a more competitive environment.
The banking industry is going to go through a number of changes
to compete in the global economy in the next few years. It has
been doing it now, but there are some big changes to be made.
One of those changes may very well be that our domestic banks
will have to get together in some sort of marriage to take
advantage of all the opportunities there are in the global
economy.
Yes, this is a good step and it will create more competition,
but there is more to be done. This government is the only thing
standing between a fully competitive banking industry in Canada
and what we have right now. It is time that it stopped its
foot-dragging and brought Canada into the 21st century where we
can compete with big foreign banks in other countries.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity pass without making a
comment.
My read on the bank merger was that the danger of having the big
banks merge at this time was the amount of exposure to Canada's
economy that would be incurred if our banking institutions
merged. In the context of a world economy where we have major
disasters like the Asian flu, I think the Minister of Finance
showed genuine prudence in putting off, at least for now, the
prospect of a merger. If there were to be a major loss with
these merged banks it could have a catastrophic effect on the
economy.
I point out to the member opposite that the CIBC experienced
this past year a major downturn and very significant losses. I
suggest that we keep our comments closer to the truth. It is not
just a matter of competition; it is a matter of the safety of our
fiscal and economic nationalism.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the
member is completely wrong in that assessment.
I believe that our big Canadian banks are among the finest
bankers in the entire world. They are leaders in the way they
run their operations. They are leaders in making prudent
business decisions that will benefit not only their companies but
also the Canadian economy.
I think it is irresponsible to compare our Canadian bank
structure and our Canadian bank expertise with those of the banks
that ran into trouble in Asia and in some third world countries.
We can compete and we can lead in the industry with any bank in
the world. I do not believe for a moment that our Canadian banks
are in any danger of making decisions that would lead to anything
like what happened during the Asian flu.
1620
The fact is that the finance minister and this government since
1993 have been dragging their feet on making changes to the
financial industry that would allow Canadian banks to get even
stronger and have more opportunity to be leaders in the global
economy. That is what they have to do. They know it, and this
is just one small step.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into the merits
or the pros and cons of whether we should allow foreign banking.
However, if foreign banks were allowed in and allowed to compete,
as he and his party wish,
would he not agree or take under advisement the
private member's bill of my hon. colleague from
Regina—Qu'Appelle which would force banks to have more community
investment, similar to the credit union movement, where they
would have to reinvest so much of their profits in the community
so that we could have regional development, especially in the
rural areas? I know that he comes from a rural area. Would he
not agree that would be one hell of an idea and would he not
agree that his party should support that initiative?
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, if I was a rabid
socialist I probably could support that idea very well, but the
fact is that I am a free enterpriser, always have been and always
will be.
To place those types of requirements on Canadian business of any
kind, whether it is a bank, Magna Industries or Bombardier, is a
profound intrusion of government into free enterprise and I could
never support that.
Let me point out to this member that it is Canadian business
which provides millions and millions of jobs in this country.
Those members may think that it is government that should employ
everyone, but the fact is that Canadian business
is the number one employer, always has been and always will be.
As this economy grows we can look to Canadian business, which is
employing workers who support that party and other parties.
Canadian business writes the cheques for this
country and keeps the economy going.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to stand in the House today to speak in favour of
Bill C-67, an act to amend the Bank Act. This bill is very
important, not in itself necessarily, but because it begins the
process of creating a more competitive financial services sector
in Canada.
As a member of the 1998 national Liberal caucus task force on
the future of the financial services sector, which was chaired by
my colleague from Trinity—Spadina, I met with Canadians and
listened to their concerns about the financial services sector.
Canadians of all walks of life are concerned with both the
accessibility and the affordability of financial services in
Canada.
For example, seniors and seniors' organizations shared with the
task force many of the same concerns about banking services as
did other Canadians. Seniors are concerned about reduced choice
in banking services, tied selling, poor service in rural areas,
access to capital for small businesses, high levels of profit and
privacy issues. Seniors also brought forward issues regarding
the cost of banking services, reduced teller services, fewer
branches, reduced pedestrian access and a lack of information
about basic accounts.
Although many seniors are having their banking needs properly
met, the multitude of different banking options now available can
be very confusing. Banks have a tendency to promote the most
expensive service packages, which may include features seniors do
not need. It is particularly important that services available to
seniors and basic low-cost service packages in general be
advertised prominently at bank branches and automated teller
machines.
The trend toward automated services cuts costs for banks and can
provide a convenient service for many customers. Many seniors,
however, are uncomfortable with some of the new technologies and
prefer to deal with a person rather than a machine.
Further, not all branches have lower counters for persons with
limited mobility or provide areas where seniors and others can
sit while waiting for service.
1625
For many seniors dependent upon public transportation, a visit
to a bank branch a few kilometres away can cause significant
travel time while waiting for buses.
Low income Canadians and ethnocultural communities in Canada
have also raised concerns about the accessibility and
affordability of financial services in Canada.
[Translation]
As well, small and medium size businesses, which are the driving
force behind economic growth, also need affordable and
accessible financial services. There are 2.4 million SMBs in
Canada. Half of all private sector jobs are in these
businesses. They are also responsible for 45% of the production
in the private sector, and 95% of all new jobs.
[English]
Small businesses are highly dependent on the chartered banks for
financing. This dependence has been increasing over the past few
years. The Conference Board of Canada has shown that domestic
chartered banks held 50.3% of the total SME financing market in
1996, compared to 48.4% in 1994. In addition, they held 72% of
outstanding commercial loans to SMEs in 1996, up from 66% in
1994.
With such a large share of the SME lending market, the chartered
banks face little competition from other institutions. This
absence of competition is even greater in some regions of the
country and in rural areas where small businesses may be totally
dependent on one or two banks that operate in their communities.
The situation is even worse in areas located outside financial
centres. Women, young entrepreneurs and aboriginal people in
particular have poor access to debt financing. Small and medium
size businesses are an integral part of our economy, yet they
have only limited access to bank capital.
In the gallery are two business people from Alberta, Darrell
Toma and Tom Clark, who have a very good entrepreneurial idea
involving innovation in the agricultural and agribusiness sector.
Capital is an issue that is constraining them. For that reason I
am hoping they are successful in their visit to Ottawa.
It is for these reasons that our caucus task force made it a
priority to offer solutions to ensure that affordable financial
products and services are available to all Canadians and their
businesses, regardless of where they live. We, the members of
the task force, concluded that the most effective way to make the
financial services sector more affordable is to encourage more
competition.
Among other measures, the task force recommended the
introduction of foreign bank branching into Canada. Our
government again has responded.
[Translation]
At the present time, foreign banks wishing to operate in Canada
must open distinct Canadian subsidiaries. For foreign banks not
wishing to receive retail deposits in Canada this constitutes a
needless regulatory requirement, which adds to their costs of
doing business in the country.
[English]
Since reaching a peak of 59 in 1987, the number of foreign bank
subsidiaries in Canada has declined to just 45 in 1998. Their
share of total banking sector assets, which stood at about 12% in
1990, fell to just under 10% by the end of 1998. Almost all of
the foreign banks in Canada operate solely as investment banks
specializing in financing large corporations.
Foreign banks have publicly stated that they currently find the
cost of trying to compete head to head with Canadian chartered
banks for personal and small business lending to be so high as to
make it futile. These banks cite tax, regulatory issues and the
delay in introducing branching as factors inhibiting the entry of
foreign banks.
I am pleased to note that earlier this year our government
announced measures which will ensure that Canadian branches of
foreign banks, Canadian subsidiaries of foreign banks and
domestic banks are all taxed on a similar basis. Bill C-67
further levels the playing field for foreign banks. At the same
time, however, no advantage has been provided to foreign banks
over our domestic banks.
Compared to other industrialized nations, Canada is falling
behind. The 1998 world economic forum on global competitiveness
ranked Canada 39th in the ease with which new banks can begin
operation and 40th for the participation of foreign banks in the
Canadian financial sector.
1630
There is no question there are significant barriers to entry for
foreign banks and that is why this bill is so important. It is
also why our national Liberal task force encouraged the
government to move expeditiously to allow foreign banks greater
access to Canada, and our government has responded.
Bill C-67 will bring Canada's foreign bank entry policies into
line with practices in other major industrialized countries, all
of which allow foreign bank branching. The new rules will give
foreign banks the option of establishing one of two types of
branches, a full service branch or a lending branch. Full
service branches will not be allowed to accept deposits of less
than $150,000 from Canadians. Lending branches will not be able
to accept any deposits or borrow except from other financial
institutions.
[Translation]
Since the branches of foreign banks will not be accepting retail
deposits, they will be subject to slightly less stringent
regulatory requirements in Canada than the subsidiaries of
foreign banks.
The restrictions applicable to deposits ought not to discourage
the arrival of any new banks, since most foreign banks want
primarily to provide commercial banking services in Canada.
Those wishing to accept retail deposits will still be able to
establish a distinct subsidiary in Canada for that purpose.
[English]
The proposed banking regime will permit foreign banks to use
their larger capital base to support lending activities in
Canada. Over time this should allow foreign banks currently
operating in Canada to increase their lending activities. This
will provide new sources of capital for small and medium size
businesses.
Bill C-67 is the first step in a process to encourage more
competition in Canada's financial services sector. I encourage
our government to unleash the power of our domestic financial
institutions such as the credit unions, near banks and some of
our very own crown corporations through further legislative and
regulatory change. This will further encourage greater
competition in Canada's financial services sector.
[Translation]
In conclusion, the bill benefits all consumers of banking
services. It will, in particular, help small businesses to
create still more jobs in the 21st century.
[English]
It is for this reason that I am proud to support Bill C-67 and I
hope my colleagues will do the same.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the NDP in the debate today on
Bill C-67, basically a bill which implements an agreement the
current federal government signed at the World Trade
Organization. Interesting that it signed it a day before the
banks announced their plans to merger.
I always remember being struck with what I thought was the
simulated shock on the part of the Minister of Finance that the
banks had not told him this, that he had no idea what was
happening. He was appalled and yet surely to goodness the
Minister of Finance must have realized that by signing this
agreement he created some of the significant conditions that led
to the banks feeling they had to merge. We did not agree with the
proposal to have the banks merge.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Agriculture; the hon. member
for Churchill River, Agriculture; the hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Shipbuilding.
1635
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I
was so procedurally interrupted, the Minister of Finance feigned
surprise when the banks said they wanted to merge. It is not a
coincidence as far as I am concerned and as far as many other
people are concerned that they made this announcement a day after
the signing of this international financial services agreement of
which we are now debating the implementation.
What this will do is introduce an element of competition at a
certain level in the Canadian banking industry and obviously the
banks felt, wrongly, that they had to merge in order to meet the
new conditions. These new conditions whether or not the banks
merge still should be of concern to Canadians. What I think will
happen is that these foreign banks will be allowed to compete at
the high end of the banking industry. They will be able to deal
with the people who have $150,000 to deposit. These foreign
banks will not have anything to do with sort of ordinary folks
who cannot keep $150,000 in their account.
The Canadian banks if they do not win this competition with
these foreign banks and begin to lose money, where will they look
for more profits in order to meet the inquisitive instincts of
their shareholders? They will look to ordinary Canadians who are
still captive customers of the Canadian banks. I see more and
higher service charges ahead, more of all the little ways the
banks have devised to take a little money off people here and
there and everywhere and nickel and dime them to death.
There was a time when people actually had the feeling that
banks, although it was probably an illusion, were there to serve
them. When I was a kid the bank used to come to our school every
Monday. This is what we would call capitalist inculcation or
something like that. Nevertheless people from the bank would
come to this school on Mondays and we would all have our bank
books and we would put a dime in or whatever. This was to teach
us to save. It was also to create sort of a lifetime brand
loyalty to this bank which I will not name because I would not
want to give it a free advertisement.
That was service. Teller did things for people. There are
still some banks that do that, some individual bank locations.
Certainly what the banks would like us to do is not have anything
to do with a teller at all, not having to do with any human
being. If we need something to do with a human being we are
supposed to stand there and fill out all the forms while they do
something else.
I went the other day to pay a Visa bill for somebody else. There
is a special charge to pay somebody else's Visa bill. Pretty soon
they will be measuring people's footsteps from the doorway to the
teller and they will charge by the footstep or how long they are
in there using up air. They will have a long line-up and then
they will be charging so many bucks per cubic inches of oxygen.
I do not want to get too ridiculous but the banks have in my
judgement become ridiculous in the manifold ways in which they
find new inventions to charge people money for things they used
to do for nothing.
I want to move on to the larger issue, the WTO, and this
international financial services agreement. There are two things
here. There is the way the WTO works and the way the government
allows itself to be worked over by the WTO, and the fact that
these agreements are signed without any input from parliament.
1640
There is no debate before the government signs these agreements.
Then what we get here is an agreement that is already signed. It
is a fait accompli and we do not really have any say in the
matter whatsoever. I do not think that is right and it shows up
the undemocratic nature of the WTO. Governments sign these
agreements and then they simply expect them to be ratified.
It is part of a larger trend, particularly on the part of this
government, which we see unfolding that I find objectionable not
just in terms of the WTO but in terms of some of the other
significant decisions it has made.
Just today, for example, people were commenting on the NATO
operations in Kosovo. NATO was recently enlarged. Three
countries were added to NATO. Every other NATO country had a
debate in its parliament about the enlargement of NATO. Most of
those other NATO countries, I think 13 out of 15, were required
by their constitution or statutes that when such a significant
decision would be taken there would be a real debate in
parliament about the merits of that expansion, because a treaty
was being changed. Certainly it was mandatory in the United
States.
The only other place like Canada where it was not mandatory was
Westminster, United Kingdom, but it did have a debate. Its
parliamentary tradition is stronger and it would not make such a
significant decision without having a debate in parliament.
What happened in Canada? We just issued a press release. The
Minister of Foreign Affairs just issued a press release saying
that the Government of Canada had ratified the expansion of NATO.
Not a take note debate, not ministerial statement, absolutely
nothing, no consideration by the standing committee on foreign
affairs. Zippo.
Whether it is the WTO or NATO, we see a pattern on the part of
the government that it simply signs agreements and expects
parliament to ratify them or expects parliament to be silent
about the ratification, depending on whether there is legislation
required. When it came to the NATO expansion there was no
legislation required so it did not have to go parliament a year
later for implementation purposes. It never has to go to
parliament. I think it is a shame.
With the WTO sooner or later it has to go to parliament, but
then we are debating things a year and a half after the fact.
That is inadequate also because what we find with respect to
international financial services is that there is a great need
for reform.
We are not having that debate about reform of the international
financial services and system, although we did make progress
yesterday. We made progress when the private member's motion of
the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was passed in this House,
not unanimously but nevertheless by a significant majority,
calling for the enactment of a tax on international financial
speculation, sometimes called the Tobin tax after Professor Tobin
who invented it.
I sometimes think that for years we have been trying to get the
Minister of Finance to agree to the Tobin tax and then finally
somebody got to him and told him that the tax was not named after
the Premier of Newfoundland. Then he was willing to go along
with the idea. I do not know if his feelings about the future
Liberal leadership were getting in the way of his relationship
with the Tobin tax. Anyway, at some point the Minister of
Finance decided that it might be okay to support something called
the Tobin tax.
It is not inconsistent with some of things the Minister of
Finance has been saying over the last little while about the need
for a new global architecture for the international
financial system. We need a Bretton Woods agreement for the 21st
century, not an imitation in any way of the Bretton Woods system
that broke down, but something that has the same principles and
goals, not just the goals of creating an unfettered global free
market in capital movement and speculation.
1645
At least the world leaders after the second world war had some
kind of vision of what kind of world they wanted. They were not
afraid to talk about a world in which the systems they devised
were there for the purposes of creating employment. They were
there for the purposes of bettering the social conditions of
people in all countries of the world. These sort of uncritical,
brainless mantras about trade investment and liberalization as if
this would be the salvation of mankind were not for them.
Mr. Speaker, it might be a good learning experience for you to
go to a WTO meeting. People get up and speak about trade
investment and liberalization as if it had salvific qualities;
whatever problems humanity experiences, a little more
liberalization of trade and investment will do the trick. It is a
quasi religious experience to be at a WTO meeting. It is like
being at some kind of revival meeting where a guy gets up, like
Ruggiero, the head of the WTO. I am not kidding. They talk about
liberalization of trade and investment as if it is the solution
for everything; if there is a problem, all that is needed is a
little more investment liberalization or trade liberalization.
It is not working. We are in a world in which there is a
greater gap between the poor and the rich countries, and a
greater gap between the poor and the rich within countries. It
is creating a world which is very unjust, very unstable and very
unsustainable environmentally.
Not so long ago some of us in the House rose on jubilee 2000 and
the call from the leaders of many of the churches in Canada for
forgiveness of debts for the poorest nations in the world. Are
we doing this just because we want to be nice guys? Partly I
hope.
We recognize the situation in which these countries have found
themselves. Many of these countries are in these situations as a
result of decisions taken by previous authoritarian dictatorship
unelected governments. They are in a hole which they have a hard
time getting out of. The churches have said that we need to have
some debt forgiveness. We need to realize in our own time the
insights of the biblical teaching about the year of jubilee in
which debts are forgiven, slaves are freed, captives are
liberated and people have a chance to begin anew, to start over.
Many of these countries need to have that. It is not just for
that. It is also in our own interests that we do this,
particularly from an ecological point of view.
What do these countries do? This is part of the problem with
the international financial system. They have to pay these debts
in hard currency. In order to get hard currency they have to
export. In order to export they have to do things that are not
necessarily good for the population or good for the local
environment. They have to stop doing all the things they might
normally do to provide food for the local population. They grow
coffee, or they have to burn down the rain forest and turn it
into pasture, or they have to harvest the rain forest and turn
it into exportable hardwoods or other wood products. Acres and
acres of forest in southeast Asia are being turned into
chopsticks as part of a growing export market.
We are not being very smart in the extent to which we make these
people destroy our common environment in order to pay these
debts. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face. Penny
wise and pound foolish. There are an infinite number of morals
which we are not paying attention to when we ask people to do
this.
Imagine a world in which all the debts are paid, but we cannot
breathe the air. We cannot drink the water. We cannot enjoy a
stable political relationship with other countries because
everything is in absolute violent chaos.
But the banks will be okay. The debts will be paid. And that is
the important thing because that really is our god, is it not?
1650
What is a god after all, at least in the sense of a false god,
an idol? That which has this power over human life, that is a
false power, that is there only because we give it that power and
we pretend that it has that power over us in some objective way
rather than realising that it has that power over us because we
give it that power. That is one of the commandments. Thou shalt
not make a graven image. Thou shalt not have false gods before
me. It means that we give power to something which has no power,
except that power which we give it.
What we do here over and over again is we give power to systems
over us, as if they have some kind of objectivity and reality
apart from our acquiescence, apart from our own participation in
giving them that power. What I am saying here today is that we
need to name those idols, those false gods for what they are, as
just that: something over which we should have more control as
human beings instead of them controlling us. Because when we are
controlled by something other than ourselves, when we are captive
to something, we are captive to a particular point of view or to
some power.
That is what they meant in the old days by the demonic. If you
had a demon it meant you were not in control of your own life,
that something else was controlling your life.
What we have here now is the elevation of the free market to the
level of the demonic. We cannot control anything. We want to
have a decent drug system in this country, generic drugs. We
cannot do it. That would get in the way of the free market and
intellectual property rights. We would like to have our own
culture and protect it through split-run magazines, but we cannot
do it. That would get in the way of the free market. The list
goes on and on.
Soon it will be, we would like to keep our water and not export
it to a country that is irresponsible in its use of water, like
we ourselves are but nevertheless, we cannot do it. It will be
NAFTA and free market principles that will keep us from doing
that. The list goes on and on of the ways in which we have ceded
the power that we should rightly hold individually and
collectively, politically, over our own lives to this thing that
we call the market.
That is what this bill is about and what many other bills that
come before this House are about. That is why the NDP is against
it.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the member opposite. He brought up the
issue of the Tobin tax. I have to say it is terribly typical of
members of his generation in this House who talk about issues
long on sentiment but very short on practicality.
Yesterday we passed a private member's motion with respect to
supporting a Tobin tax, which is a global tax on financial
transactions. I have to say that many of the members on my side
of the House supported the motion. I did not.
I did not because anyone should realize that the only way this
financial transaction tax can ever work is if every country that
has a financial transaction market gets on side, everyone. The
United States, Europe, the Cayman Islands, everyone has to get on
side otherwise the money, the transactions will just flow to
wherever there is no tax.
I suggest to the member that here again we have a do good notion
that raises expectations. Just as the member said, it is such a
great thing, it will solve the world's problem, but he ignores
the fact that it can never be implemented. We in parliament
should be dealing with issues that are possible with things that
can be done, not with simple dreams that look good in the public
and perhaps will win the member a few votes. That is not where
we should be at.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the member is
free to say what he just said, but the record should be clear
that what he said obviously applies to 95% of his own caucus.
They voted for that particular motion by my New Democratic
colleague. It was not my motion. It was the motion of the member
for Regina—Qu'Appelle.
1655
What if we took that attitude toward everything, that it cannot
be done, that it cannot be done until everybody does it? There is
some truth in that. We are talking about an international tax.
We understand it is not going to have the effect we want it to
have if only Canada does it.
We are talking about Canada showing leadership in international
fora, trying to get such a tax to be imposed not just by Canada
but by other countries. The member has set up a straw man and
then conveniently knocked him down. Unfortunately for him, I am
not a straw man.
I never said it would solve everything. I never said anything
of the kind. I said it would be a step forward in trying to set
up an international financial system that was not driven by the
greed of international money speculators. If he is for that,
good for him. He should go out and get a job as a PR agent for
the money speculators. As for me, I would rather drive them out
of the temples.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
very briefly for anybody who might be following the debate, the
motion dealt with by the House last night was to consider the
advisability and in fact to study, not to approve a tax and to
move forward with it. Obviously, this needs a starting point. I
wanted simply to clarify that. I am sure the member would also
want to confirm this is a starting point for consideration of the
advisability.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, that is the way all
motions read, but we all know, in spite of the fact that they
read that way, politically they are taken as approval of the idea
that is contained in the motion.
That is why the government so very often resists motions. If
the government were to take the member's comments, technically
speaking the government should vote for everything because it is
only considering the advisability of it. But the government does
not vote for everything. Some things it does not want to
consider the advisability of because it is against them. When we
get to the point that the government wants to consider the
advisability of, this is a step forward and should be recognized
as such.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know whether the discussion has now moved back to the Tobin
tax, but I was very interested and I did support that. It is a
step in the right direction.
I listened to the member with some interest. Unfortunately, for
me, the member paints a very gloomy picture of the state of the
nation state as we move into the 21st century. If we look at the
works of Joseph Frankel or Hans Morgenthau on the role of the
nation state in the international system, what we have seen is
that over the years the nation state has become more important
particularly in terms of its relationship between the citizens
and government.
In listening to the member, the member gives me the impression,
and hopefully it is a wrong impression, that we as
parliamentarians and indeed as a government are losing our
ability to act on the international stage. Certainly anything
which would infringe on an issue, whether the issue is water—and
I certainly concur with my colleague across the way about the
export of water—one of the things we have to be very careful
about in Canada is the loss of sovereignty both in economic and
political terms.
I just want some clarification from the member with regard to
the picture he was painting. Does he feel that we have lost our
ability, again in dealing with this bill, to serve our citizens?
Will we become not only slaves to the market but to other
international organizations to the point that we might as well
just close up shop, because at the end of the day it will be
those international bodies, both in an economic and political
sense, that really will be dictating our future?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, yes, I was painting a very
gloomy picture. I do feel that parliament has a lot less power
than it had certainly when I arrived here 20 years ago this May.
A lot of the power that parliament had in 1979 it has since ceded
through various international trade agreements, depending on how
we want to describe it, either to the marketplace or to the
culture of those particular international organizations.
1700
I am talking particularly about the WTO. Things that this
parliament has done have been literally struck down by these
international organizations. The member from Kamloops was
talking about the MMT decision. Thanks to the investor state
dispute settlement process in NAFTA, we now have a situation in
which various decisions taken by governments can be challenged by
corporations in the courts. Governments are suffering what is
called the chill effect, that is, they are very reluctant to move
on certain environmental matters because they may be sued in the
courts.
I already mentioned the drug patent and property rights thing
and the split-run issue. There is a long list. I say to the
hon. member that there is a long list of things that parliament
can no longer do. We in this place have lost a lot of power, not
just to the international marketplace. We have lost it to
executive federalism. We have lost it to the charter of rights.
We have lost it in at least three different ways. We have lost it
to polling. We have lost it to the media.
There is a lot to be gloomy about as parliamentarians.
I think we should be concerned and I do not think we should puff
ourselves up with a sense of false importance. We should be
concerned about how unimportant we are in this place and about
how many decisions that used to be made in parliament are no
longer made here, for a variety of reasons.
I was concentrating on those national economic decisions that
used to be made in this place but which now cannot be because of
the free trade agreement. I cite a recent speech by the member's
own former leader, Mr. John Turner, former Prime Minister of
Canada, who spoke in the Canadian Club of London in January.
I circulated a copy of that speech to every Liberal member just
a week or so ago and I recommend to the member that he read that
speech by Mr. Turner. It certainly does not read like anything
that anybody in this Liberal government has ever said since they
were elected in 1993. One of the reasons why we do not have the
power we used to is the total betrayal by the Liberal Party of
the position it took on the FTA in 1988 and on the NAFTA in 1992.
If there is something to be gloomy about, most of it can be
attributed to that betrayal. At least the Conservatives had the
decency to run on the free trade agreement. At least you always
knew where the Tories were coming from. They were coming right
at you with a machete.
These people say one thing and do another and they continue to
behave in that same deplorable way. I feel a little gloomy about
it. I have a lot to be gloomy about when our country is run by a
pack of people like the members opposite, who say one thing and
do another.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed the spirited discussion between the member for
Winnipeg—Transcona and the members opposite. When I hear the
member for Winnipeg—Transcona, I have a great deal of respect
for him. This House is a better place due to his presence. As he
was saying, he has been here for 20 years.
One of the things I respect about the New Democrats, even though
I disagree with them on particular issues, is their consistency
on these issues. There is a set of core values. Even though I
disagree with them fervently on a number of them, it is like the
quotation that was falsely attributed to Voltaire: “although I
disagree with what you are saying I will fight to my death to
protect your right to say it”.
I will also say that the member for Winnipeg—Transcona has a
terrific oratorical flair. I guess that comes from his time in
the clergy. He makes me very proud to be a member of the United
Church of Canada. If he ever decides to leave this political
life and re-enter the clergy on a full time basis, I would
probably move to his community just to hear him on Sunday
mornings. He is a terrific orator even though I disagree with an
awful lot of what he says.
The legislation before us today on the liberalization of the
regulations for foreign banks in Canada is a very important piece
of legislation. It is part of Canada's compliance with the WTO
agreement on financial services.
1705
It is also part of an ongoing trend, a global trend of
significant changes in the financial services sector and in every
sector. Much of this change that is occurring is technologically
based. For instance, in the financial services sector and in the
banking sector, many of the changes have been developed through
technology. There has been the death of distance as a
determinant in the cost of telecommunications. There have been
the advent of the bank machines and the automation in banking,
which have changed and revolutionized banking.
Some would say, and there is some credence to the argument, that
it has depersonalized banking, that it has made banking services
less friendly, that there are not as many tellers in the
communities. Others are saying that in fact there are some
positive developments: we can now
withdraw money at a grocery store with a bank card, which
effectively makes a grocery store like a bank, to a certain
extent, due to the fact that we can withdraw or deposit money.
One of the members opposite in the Liberal Party says this can
be done at liquor stores too. I do not frequent those
establishments, but I certainly would not speak judgmentally of
anyone who does.
In any case, the fact is that there are many changes occurring
in terms of trade and commerce and there are changes that are
technologically driven.
In the banking sector, we have seen a great deal of merger
activities around the world over the past several years. This
week there were announcements coming out of Italy, where there
has been significant merger activity. There has been activity in
Switzerland and in the U.S. Banks are getting larger, partly to
develop economies of scale in order to afford the types of
technologies necessary to be competitive in the global
environment.
In the Canadian banking sector, one of the difficulties that has
occurred over the past 50 years is that there has not been enough
competition in the Canadian banking sector, particularly in terms
of lending to small business.
I spent some time living in the U.S. One of the things I noted
when doing business there was that the banking sector was far
more entrepreneurial. For instance, if you lived in Maine and
were turned down as a small business person by the Bank of Bath,
one could go to the Bank of Bangor. If one lived in Georgia and
were turned down by the Bank of Loganville, an actual bank that
has been there for about 150 years, one could go to the Bank of
Snellville, an actual bank in Snellville, Georgia.
In Canada, the banks used to do something called character
lending, which was very positive in some ways. They would lend
to people because they knew them and trusted them. They knew
they would get their money back, regardless of the financial
situation. Banks stopped doing that a few years ago. Effectively
it is all ratio lending in Canada now. If we do not match one
bank's ratios, we do not match any of them. It is very
difficult for small business to attain financing.
We do need to move to increase competitive factors in Canada in
the banking sector, in particular to improve lending to small
business. In this legislation, the government has made a baby
step to address this. Having more foreign competition in the
Canadian banking sector, for instance creating more competition
in small business lending, will help somewhat. The fact is even
before this legislation we have seen players like Wells Fargo
introduce services in Canada. In 1997 Wells Fargo had about
10,000 customers in Canada. By 1998 that had grown to 120,000.
Much of that is in small business lending.
It is occurring and the competition is growing. We would argue
as well that part and parcel of the government's response to the
MacKay task force recommendations should be that we allow the
credit unions to compete more directly with banks. Changing the
co-operatives act to allow credit unions to compete directly with
banks would help as well.
It is very important that while we do these things to allow more
competition in Canada we do not do things that hurt the Canadian
banking sector too much.
It is very easy to pick on banks. It is like picking on
politicians. One of the nice things about the bank merger
discussions was that there were a lot of bankers in Ottawa
and they made politicians feel more
popular.
1710
It is very easy for us to attack banks, but one thing we have to
realize is that over 50% of Canadians own bank shares, either
directly or indirectly through their RRSPs and pension funds. We
have an RRSP policy that basically forces Canadians to invest 80%
of their retirement savings in the Canadian equities markets or
in Canadian investments, which represent about 1.5% of global
equities markets. At the same time, it is hard to invest in
Canadian equities markets without buying Canadian bank shares.
They dominate the TSE.
We have to be a careful that we do not, in the interest of
short term political gain, make decisions that actually hinder
the long term growth of Canadian retirement savings plans. All
these things should occur as parallel initiatives.
I am looking forward to the government's response to the MacKay
task force, which I believe will be a white paper—I hope it is
not a whitewash—on the Canadian financial services sector.
We are advocating greater competition in the Canadian financial
services sector through more foreign competition and through
changing the co-operatives act. It is important to recognize
that more competition in the Canadian financial services sector
and more efficiency in the Canadian financial services sector,
with better services for Canadians, is a productivity issue.
I spoke earlier about small business. For small business access
to capital is critical to growth and to getting started. That has
hindered economic growth in Canada relative to the U.S., because,
frankly, it is easier for a small business person to raise money
in the U.S. than it is in Canada.
One of the strengths of the Canadian banking system is that we
have five very strong banks that will never go broke. The fact
that they never take risks with small business people is one of
the weaknesses we have. There is a risk and reward question
here.
The U.S. banking system is more entrepreneurial and does contain
higher elements of risk, which results in more capital being
available to U.S. small businesses when they want to grow and
prosper. That does have a significant impact on our productivity
in a competitive sense, particularly with our largest trading
partner, the giant to the south.
This bill will help facilitate more small business lending.
This bill will help foreign banks currently participating in the
Canadian market to expand their operations. It will also help
attract more foreign banks to initiate lending to Canadians.
During the bank merger discussions, some people who were opposed
to the mergers said that foreign competition is really not a
factor in the Canadian banking sector, that this was a red
herring being used by the proponents of the mergers. The fact is
that foreign competition has had and does have a presence in
Canadian industry. It has not had a strong presence because the
regulatory framework was not conducive to it or supportive of it.
That had to be changed. It is changing. This is one step.
There are what I think are some reasonable arguments for the
government to move quickly on liberalizing and allowing more
foreign competition in Canada. At the same time, it is very
important that while we increase foreign competition and allow
more small business lending from foreign competitors, co-ops and
others, we do not, by some shortsighted political decisions,
handcuff Canadian banks or Canadians who are saving for their
retirement with their investments in the equities of Canadian
banks.
The types of decisions I am talking about can have a significant
impact on the savings of Canadians. For instance, the gap
between the Dow Jones index and the TSE has grown by about 500
points since December.
Part of that had to do with the performance of the Canadian banks
in the past several months. Part of that had to do with the
decision the minister made in December.
1715
When Canadian bank stocks fall, it is not without an impact on
the average Canadian, on ordinary Canadians who through their
pension funds, mutual funds and union pension funds have their
investments. It is very important. The fact is some of these
decisions by this government do threaten the future standards of
living of Canadians.
For instance, since 1993 the Dow Jones in the U.S. has grown by
about 180%. In Canada the TSE has gained by about 60%. Wealth
being a relative thing, we have to realize that if our largest
trading partner is getting richer, we are getting poorer. When
it gets richer, the price of goods and services due to
competitive factors actually will increase and we, as Canadians,
can less afford to have them.
I believe now the best selling car in the U.S. is the Toyota
Camry and the best selling car in Canada is the Honda Civic. I
believe that is the latest factor. I would think that if the
government is in much longer the best selling car in Canada will
be perhaps one of the old Austin minis or maybe it will be a
bicycle.
We have to be very careful because with public policy the law of
unintended consequences can wreak havoc. When we do not really
realize it, sometimes the decisions we make here can really have
a tremendous impact on Canadians.
One of the things we felt very strongly about and we were not in
support of was the bank mergers. What we were in support of was
the government's using an opportunity that it had from the merger
proponents who were seeking approval for something to engage in a
discussion and negotiate on behalf of Canadians, to stand up for
Canadians and to get from the banks commitments on things like a
reduction in service charges, more customer service staff,
continued service to rural Canada, creation of new banks for
small business lending, increased bank branch access and that
sort of thing. Those are the types of things that are very
important to Canadians.
There was a Maclean's poll done in November that indicated
that 53% of Canadians were opposed to the mergers based on the
information they had. Some 57% said they would be supportive if
the government were to negotiate commitments from banks and the
banks were to make specific commitments on particular areas.
The fact is that the MacKay task force actually recommended
making these commitments legally binding so that the banks would
have to make good on these commitments. It could not just be a
marketing ploy. They would have to actually keep the commitments
or ultimately directors would end up going to jail or facing
legal penalties.
What was interesting was that during that process some of the
bank merger proponents, for instance the Royal Bank and the Bank
of Montreal, said they would reduce service charges by 10%. They
would increase customer service staff and they made specific
commitments in numbers. They would continue their services to
rural Canada.
For instance, they committed to doubling their small business
lending. I believe it was from $25 billion to $50 billion. That
is $25 billion more for the Canadian small business sector as a
result of this and a new bank for small business.
One of the terrible things about being in small business,
particularly in small town Canada, is that they change the bank
managers every few years. We just get to know one manager and then they
switch him or her. It is a real problem. That was one of
the things they were willing to address with a small business
bank where they would keep people in the same area for longer and
it would create better relationships. I think that a lot of that
stuff was positive.
Unfortunately we kind of lost our opportunity to get these
commitments because we sort of shut the door before the
negotiation even began. Now we are seeing banks closing
branches. It is happening all the time. Last week in
Nova Scotia I believe two communities lost bank branches, their
only bank branches. We are seeing on an ongoing basis services
threatened.
1720
Right now in some ways the banks are trying to do the right
thing because they have a responsibility to their shareholders
and when they were willing to make those kinds of commitments the
minister kind of shut the door. I hope the minister has not made
a shortsighted decision that would prevent Canadians from having
received the best possible banking services that they could have
achieved and at the same time not necessarily handcuff our banks.
We will see how well that decision ages.
I suggest that the Dominion Bond Rating Service's downgrading of
the Canadian banks a few weeks ago is one of the indications that
the minister's decision was a little shortsighted.
Unfortunately when that kind of downgrading occurs it means that
for Canadians there will be higher borrowing charges ultimately
for banks. The cost of the banks' money for capital goes up.
The banks will pass that on to consumers. When Dominion Bond
Rating Service downgrades the Canadian banks and the cost of
capital for the Canadian banks goes up that means for Canadian
consumers the cost of services will face increased pressure and
interest charges will face increased pressure. The effects could
be quite significant. I am quite concerned that we in the future
study these issues as parliamentarians and do not just
make shortsighted decisions that may be politically expedient in
the short term but in the long term are very deleterious to
Canadians.
On the legislation to reduce the regulatory impediments to
foreign banks in Canada we are supportive of this direction. We
believe that if we are serious about increasing and improving
competition and services for Canadian consumers as a parallel
initiative we need to ensure greater access to the markets by
foreign competition.
We believe there should be greater efforts by the government to
make it possible for more domestic competition to grow through
changing the co-operatives act so that the credit union can
compete with banks or through what the MacKay report suggested in
terms of changing the ownership rules such that small banks could
actually start up in Canada as long as they meet the safety and
soundness regulations of OSFI. We could actually see more small
banks start up for instance by changing the ownership rules.
All these things have to occur quickly. The government has had
since 1993 full knowledge of the global competitive forces in
this very important sector and has sat on its hands for a
long time not doing a whole lot. There were two things
that pushed the envelope. One was the WTO financial services
agreement that the government signed on to. The other was
those proposed bank merger announcements. It kind of pushed the
envelope and brought this debate forward.
Unfortunately it is another example of where the government only
deals with these complex long term issues that are on the horizon
when they are directly in front of the government and they have
reached a crisis proportion. We need to develop these issues or
these policies a lot more quickly in response to issues not as
they evolve today but as we see them evolving tomorrow and well
into the future and into the next millennium.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member for Kings—Hants for his
excellent speech which in comparison to the New Democratic MP who
preceded him was a full glass of thought versus an empty glass.
I draw attention to one item in his speech. He commented that in
the United States banks much more aggressively chase small
business. I suggest to him that part of this is
because in the United States there is a whole galaxy of small
banks. There is tremendous cutthroat competition and there are a
great many failures in the United States banking system because
there are so many small banks.
As he said, we enjoy because of our five banks much greater
security in the banking system. The price we pay is less
aggressiveness in terms of providing a competitive environment
for getting the business of small business.
1725
Given that we have five large banks that should be competing for
the small business and yet we feel they are not, not effectively,
what makes him certain, and maybe he is not certain, these new
foreign bank branches will competitively go after small business?
Are the competitive incentives there?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his typically erudite intervention. The foreign banks have
significant incentives in the Canadian market and there
are opportunities. As I mentioned earlier, Wells Fargo in a one
year period went from 10,000 customers to 120,000 customers. One
of the ways Wells Fargo succeeded or is succeeding in Canada is
by lending to small businesses and individuals with fairly wide
margins, fairly wide spreads, for instance lending sometimes
at prime plus four or five. A lot of small business people can go to
a bank and the banks in Canada are reticent to that type of high
margin lending because I think part of it is the political stigma
of doing it. They do not want to be seen as loan sharks.
For a lot of small business people if they cannot get any
capital they will pay a premium to get capital. Wells Fargo has
discovered a niche in that area.
The differences between the Canadian banking system and the U.S.
banking system have had a real impact on the growth of our
economies. I read a study about 12 years ago that compared the
concentration of wealth in Canada to the concentration of wealth
in the U.S. In the early 1900s in Canada wealth was fairly
concentrated with a few families. In the U.S. it was
concentrated similarly, the Duponts, the Kelloggs, the
Vanderbilts.
Since then in the U.S. wealth has become very much disbursed,
whereas in Canada it remains fairly concentrated. This study was
basically positing that the Canadian banking system had played a
role in that because frankly it is awfully difficult in this
country to get capital to grow our business without actually
being a part of one of those families or knowing somebody who is
or getting a guarantor. Banks are not that entrepreneurial.
I believe there is a significant market in Canada for more
entrepreneurial banks if these foreign banks will pursue quite
aggressively. I have heard from a number of constituents in
small business who have been receiving letters from Wells Fargo.
Probably every member of parliament has received letters from
MBNA on credit cards. Maybe members of parliament typically do
not receive those types of solicitations because we are
considered a bad credit risk with no job security and that sort
of thing. In any case, I think foreign banks will grow
their markets in Canada because they will pursue them
aggressively and smartly.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member mentioned a number of ways government actions can
cripple the activities of Canadian banks. That takes me back to
the previous speech from the NDP member who was talking about
the Tobin tax and how it would solve the problems of the world
because it would get those nasty speculators.
It is true that the government side did vote for that Tobin tax
last night. The only reason I can think for doing that is that
it is a tax and Liberals like taxes. They voted for it because
it is a tax. There simply was not any logical reason to do it.
An NDP speaker earlier was talking about how these dreadful
speculators had to be stopped. If there is one way to cripple
our Canadian banks it is to introduce a Tobin tax and remove from
their possession all the major international transactions and the
major corporate business that would be going on. It would all be
transferred to different countries.
When I came to Canada 20 years ago, 1979, the Canadian dollar
was worth more than 90 cents U.S. Today it is down to about 67
cents U.S. I ask who caused that. Overspending, overtaxing,
oversized government caused that. It did more damage than all the
speculators we could name.
Can the hon. member think of any case, any example where
speculators did more damage than overspending, overtaxing,
oversized government?
1730
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, to explain the
government's position on this, the Minister of Finance has been
very busy lately. He has had a lot of things on his plate. He
has this leadership thing coming up and everything. He was
walking along one day and one of his staff asked what he was
going to do about this Tobin tax. I think the minister thought
it was a Tobin attack. He was thinking of the premier in
Newfoundland and he said, “I support any attack on that guy
because he is going after the same job I want” and ultimately
this changed things very quickly.
On the issue of speculation, the southeast Asia meltdown
occurred partially because governments were operating monetary
policies that were inconsistent with their fiscal policies. They
had pegged currencies, and that could exist only for so long. The
speculators saw a huge opportunity. The only time there is a
huge opportunity for speculators to make a lot of money is when
governments operate fiscal policies inconsistent with monetary
policies, and that is not sustainable anyway.
Effectively, if the speculators had not done what they did in
southeast Asia, it is kind of like someone who is injured and is
lying on the sidewalk bleeding to death. The difference would be
getting hit by a bus and being taken to the hospital as opposed
to lying on the sidewalk and slowly bleeding to death. Those
economies ultimately were not sustainable with that.
The way that kind of speculation occurred, sometimes can be
considered to be very negative. The other kind of speculation
that occurs every day and is an operating mechanism for floating
exchange rates is not a negative speculation. Even the Prime
Minister who calls the speculators the guys in red suspenders
would probably agree that it is not so bad.
The bad thing about a Tobin tax is that it would punish the good
speculation, but would not inhibit the bad speculation because
the margins on the good kind of speculation that we need if we
are going to have floating currencies, or floating exchange
rates, are minute. The margins are very small. The Tobin tax
would discourage that, but it would not stop the Soros type of
speculation because the margins are so big.
The only way a Tobin tax would ever be able to work is if every
jurisdiction in the world signed on. Even if we had every OECD
country sign on, and for instance a Singapore or a Cayman Islands
opted out, we would be creating havens there or increasing the
level of tax havens those countries would have. With the death
of distance as a determinant in the cost of telecommunications,
we cannot afford to do that to our Canadian financial services
sector because there would be an exodus.
The other issue is these new financial instruments. For
instance, derivatives have become so complex that they cannot be
traced. It is almost impossible. One of the issues we have in
terms of safety and soundness issues in Canada is how the heck
can OSFI which is already overburdened deal with all these
financial complexities in the global environment, plus the
complexities in the instruments?
Look at what happened in Orange county, California. I think the
treasurer of the county was actually a hero for years because he
had been investing in derivatives and making copious quantities
of quid on behalf of the people of Orange county. Ultimately,
when the derivatives he was participating in went down, Orange
county faced bankruptcy.
It is very difficult and we have to be very careful to watch
those kinds of things. When there are failures, those are not
failures of speculators; those are failures of regulatory
authorities within our countries.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wanted to ask a question of the member for Kings—Hants.
Since the time has expired, I want to put on the record a couple
of points which he may wish to consider.
With regard to this debate, one of the important areas that has
not been discussed as much as it probably should have been is the
whole issue of consumer protection. Members and Canadians should
know that the government is working on a consumer protection
package, particularly with regard to issues such as coercive tied
selling and other business practices of the banks. Canadians need
to understand better what their rights are and what the situation
is with regard to their options within the financial services
sector. I wanted to make that point.
1735
The member for Kings—Hants also spoke, as many members did,
about the access to capital issue for small business. There is
no question that this is an important area. Canadians want to
know that the accessibility issue is going to be addressed, and
that foreign competition is going to provide some additional
competition and access to capital.
The member for Kings—Hants gave a speech with regard to the
small business sector, which was very much reminiscent of what
Brian Mulroney spoke about in this place when he introduced a
$100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption. The whole discussion
was with regard to how we could put some incentives for Canadians
where they could start to invest in small business and get a tax
break by doing that.
The flaw and the big flaw of the Conservative government of the
day, and I recall raising it with the then leader of the Liberal
Party, John Turner, was that there was no grandfathering of the
provisions. In other words, the capital gains exemption was
applicable not just to gains that would be earned on investments
made from today forward, but they were eligible even for holding
gains, gains that people had made on investments and other assets
that they had held from wherever.
When capital gains taxes did come in, there was a V-day, a
valuation day on which any gains or appreciation in the value of
investments and assets were not going to be captured under a
capital gains provision. There was prospective legislation so
that capital gains tax would only be applied on gains from the
point at which the tax was brought in to the time of disposition
or deemed disposition.
If members are very serious about access to capital issues, they
also have to be very realistic about the risks that face lenders
when they are dealing with small businesses. When there is a
smaller capital base, when there is less ability to take that
financial hit, there is a risk premium associated with it. That
is one of the contributing factors to small business.
Certainly the other is that most small businesses are not having
difficulty getting capital for capital expansion purposes where
there would be collateral assets for the loan. One of the
biggest problems they are having is with regard to getting
working capital loans. This is where businesses need the cash
flow to finance their receivables, their inventories and their
general float of cash requirements.
Capital gains taxes and the lifetime exemption have gone away
now. They have been basically eliminated except for those who
have made declarations that were permitted when it was phased
out. Maybe it is time we reconsidered some sort of a tax benefit
or a capital gains exemption for small businesses, where equity
investments made in small business would get the kind of support
from the taxpayers of Canada who pay for all tax expenditures, to
the extent that we could stimulate the investment in small
business equity financing. Canadians would have an opportunity
to support the biggest job generator sector in the country, that
being small business.
I wanted to raise those issues because as we deal with
legislation, whether it be opening up the foreign banking and
amending the Bank Act et cetera, there will be many complex
issues and collateral issues to deal with.
For instance, Wells Fargo is in the business of electronic
banking over the Internet. It does not pay tax to Canada on
profits because it is not resident here. It has no physical
building that it is a resident in Canada and has to register that
company. In fact, it has an arrangement with Revenue Canada
whereby when it pays interest to the depositors of Wells Fargo
for instance, a withholding tax on payments made to non-residents
would have to be remitted.
There are some significant anomalies or challenges to be
addressed in terms of the banking sector.
1740
The MacKay task force report obviously has raised a number of
important issues. I think the member from Kings—Hants well knows
that the finance committee has not finished its job. In fact, we
have just started our job with regard to assessing how we can
continue to promote consumer protection and consumer confidence
in the banking sector, regardless of whether it is provided
domestically or through foreign bank facilities.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I hate to let the member for Mississauga South off
the hook that easily. He has not given a complete speech. I
would like to have his comments on a couple of the items that
were mentioned by the member for Kings—Hants and the member for
North Vancouver.
The member for North Vancouver has indicated how bad the
Canadian dollar is and that his native country, New Zealand, is
so much better because of its political system. Actually this
afternoon a New Zealand dollar can be bought for 65 cents
Canadian, so that should be on the record. The actual
parliamentary system in New Zealand has almost collapsed because
of MMP.
I wonder if the member for Mississauga South could comment on
the assault right now on the Canadian public and the almost
misleading advertising from the foreign nationals that are trying
to come in here, the foreign banks, Bank One and so forth. They
are assaulting Canadians with massive credit card applications.
Almost nothing is required to get on the list. The lists are
sold to them by veterinary clinics and all kinds of
organizations.
My dog received an application for a MasterCard. I am sorry to
say my dog probably has a better credit rating than I do. I sure
hope there is never a big sale at the dog food store.
Could the member for Mississauga South comment on those items?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question. I do not know his dog, but I am sure the member's
credit rating is quite healthy.
One of the things we did learn of in the review of the MacKay
task force report was the increasing control of the credit card
business of the financial services sector by foreign banks. Our
big five banks have basically admitted they cannot compete in the
credit card business. Virtually all organizations now have their
own marquee card. This is a very large business.
Our banks are dealing with the issues. They are not going to
compete in an area in which others can compete through economies
of scale, can provide services and are prepared to take risks
which maybe are not very commensurate with the returns but they
are still prepared to do it. Who knows what happens after this.
That is why we have to be more vigilant in moving to expand our
financial services sector.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today it was announced that 20% of
Bell has been purchased by the Americans. The other day we lost
the Canadarm from Spar to the Americans. The member for
Winnipeg—Transcona indicated in a question a couple of days ago
that almost $63 billion of what used to be Canadian is now gone.
Would the member not agree that if foreign banks are allowed
into this country, with the power and the size they have, they
would eventually not only gobble up our own financial
institutions, but also would intrude into areas of auto leasing
and insurance? Would he not think that would not be a good thing
for Canadians?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, it would be an interesting
debate, but the member fails to realize there is a non sequitur
here. It is not the foreign banks that are buying Canadian
corporations; it is other corporations. Maybe if the member has
another opportunity at a later date, he could phrase the question
in a way in which it could be answered.
1745
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this
day, the question to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill
C-67 is deemed put and a recorded division is deemed demanded and
deferred until Tuesday, April 13, 1999, at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
It being 5.45 p.m., does the House
give its consent to proceed with Private Members' Business at
this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
TRANSIT PASSES
The House resumed from February 8 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, once again
we have an opportunity to debate an issue of considerable
importance put forward by the member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys.
The member has put forward an interesting motion. He is
proposing that we influence human behaviour by the manipulation
of the tax code. The member is saying that if we want a person
to do a, then we tax that less and the person will do
a. If we do not want the person to do b, then we tax
that more and b will happen less often.
There is a deep philosophical question here: To what extent are
governments justified in using the tax code to manipulate
behaviour?
In this particular case the argument is fairly strong that this
may be a valid use of the tax code. The proposal is that if
employers want to provide a benefit for their employees they can
do so by providing them with free transit passes in the various
urban communities of our country. In return for that the company
will presumably use the benefit as a tax write-off because it is
a part of doing business. On the other hand, the employee would
receive it as a non-taxable benefit. That is the way I
understand the motion.
Immediately when we look at this we can see that these are
pretty laudable goals. It forgoes a bit of government revenue,
but one can immediately turn around and argue that it saves a lot
of government expense.
It helps us to meet our emission goals. It helps the
environment, presumably, by reducing the number of vehicles on
the road. Instead of having 100 vehicles with one person in
each, we may have two or possibly three buses to haul the same
number of people. If we ignore the black smoke that comes out of
the diesel buses, then we have made an environmental gain.
Certainly we have made a gain with respect to the amount of road
infrastructure required, since 100 cars require more road space
to move the same number of people per hour than a couple of buses
on the same road. This looks like a good, laudable motion which
has been put forward.
However, I have a few problems with it. They are not serious
problems, but I have a few problems with this whole idea. I have
a prior aversion to using the tax code to manipulate human
behaviour.
When I lived in Edmonton I took the bus to work. I am one who
thinks it is important to do our part environmentally. I know
members will appreciate this. I could hardly wait until spring
so I could ride my bicycle to work and did not have to use the
bus any more.
1750
I was a real pioneer in this area because I rode my bicycle to
work, a total of some 6.8 miles, and I rode it before there were
bike racks. I was the only one and people looked at me as if I
were still a child because only children rode bicycles in those
days.
However, I found it very convenient. It was an excellent
physical workout. It was, except if a guy rode too close behind
me, essentially pollution free. It was very enjoyable to be out
in the fresh air. I always felt very good making my contribution
to reducing the amount of pollution and the rate at which we were
using up our non-renewable resources. I always thought that was
a worthy goal. When I speak the way I am now, being in at least
tentative favour of this motion, I am simply carrying through
with the commitment that I have had for a long time.
I do not know how many millions of dollars we spend as taxpayers
building roads and bridges. In fact, between here and the
airport in Ottawa, in the last two or three years, the road was
constricted while they were extending it, adding another lane to
one of the bridges. It must have cost millions of dollars.
I am annoyed at that because when I look at the traffic on that
bridge not only are there very few buses, not only are there
many single passenger vehicles, there are thousands of vehicles
with only a driver.
We have an insane rule which says that only those who pay the
money can actually go to the airport to pick up passengers. So
every taxi that takes a passenger to the airport is not permitted
to pick up a passenger and bring one back. Therefore, half of
the cabs are going empty in one direction and, of necessity, the
others are coming back empty.
Just by the stroke of a pen we could have changed this and saved
the taxpayers an awful lot of money, and basically cut the amount
of traffic on that road in half.
I would have changed it so that at least the cabs would be
permitted to take passengers both ways. In fact I might have
even gone so far as to say it was required. But that is too much
common sense for a government town, Canada's capital.
In principle the motion contains some very worthy goals. There
would be a reduction in the amount of taxpayers' money required
to build roads. It would certainly make a contribution to the
reduction of pollution. However, I have a bit of a problem with
respect to the application of it. As I said earlier, there are
many people who either cannot use public transportation because
of their location or, in some cases, because of the nature of
their work.
Therefore, this would become a tax break to only one group of
people, and I am a strong advocate of saying that everybody in
this country needs a tax break. I would like to see tax breaks
or tax reduction on a large scale because we end up having
approximately half of our income confiscated by the various
levels of government in this country. Every dollar that our
citizens earn is cut in half. They get to keep only half of it.
I have mentioned before in the House that when I was a young man
and we had a young family we decided that my wife would be a full
time mom. In order to make ends meet, as expenses went up, I
took an evening job teaching night classes. I used to teach
Tuesdays and Thursdays. I always said that Tuesdays I worked for
Trudeau and Thursdays I worked for my family. It was pretty well
a 50:50 split on my incremental income. We are overtaxed in this
country.
When the motion was proposed to have public transportation
provided to employees without making it a taxable benefit I liked
that. However, I would like to see that principle expanded and
broadened in a very major way to apply to the millions of
Canadians who are overtaxed in a very great way.
The other problem that I have is with respect to accessibility.
1755
For many years now my wife and I have lived approximately 20
miles from the nearest bus. I know I need the exercise. It
would be good for me to walk to meet the bus I am sure, but it
would take quite a big bite out of my day. As a matter of fact,
after we moved out into the country I had been riding my bicycle
for many years and I was in fine condition. I put over 4,000
miles on my bicycle just driving it to work and back. I decided
to drive my bicycle to work from our new country place, but
unfortunately it took me two hours each way and I just could not
spare four hours.
Perhaps we should be looking at that as well. Perhaps we should
look at ways in which we can encourage our citizens to walk and
to use bicycles. From a physics point of view, the bicycle is
the most efficient form of transportation.
I regret that you are giving me the signal, Mr. Speaker, because
I am just getting warmed up. However, I do appreciate this
member's motion and I think that we should probably support it.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me tremendous pleasure to
rise in the House on behalf of my most hon. colleague from
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys who has introduced this
motion.
I should say for the benefit of all those listening that when
this member, with close to 20 years of parliamentary experience,
brings forward a motion, we can guarantee that it is a good one
and well thought out. With minimum debate we should support it
because he is such a great member. In fact, this member is so
highly respected in the House that I expect to see a statue of
him when he retires so I can come by and remember him every day.
We are discussing Motion No. 360 which would make employer
provided transit passes an income tax exempt benefit. This is
probably one of those motions in the history of the House of
Commons where it is a win win win situation for absolutely
everyone.
Millions of Canadian children every day go to school on a bus
and return home on a bus. However, when these kids get older,
what do we teach them? To drive a car. They forget about
transit services and the fact that they have been riding a bus
for the last 10 or 12 years. Now they are going to drive a car.
It is absolutely insane that they stop using the bus once they
finish their schooling.
By the year 2000, 80% of the Canadian population will live in
urban areas with access to public transportation. Our trade
minister said this in Ottawa in 1997. By increasing public
transit use, all transit users will benefit: lower income
families, women, students and the elderly. By increasing transit
revenues and service, all taxpayers benefit from health care
savings, infrastructure cost savings, and so on. Very few tax
policies impact so favourably on so many people.
The other day in Nova Scotia the gas companies, in their
relentless attack of greed on the people of Nova Scotia, raised
the price of gasoline by 6 cents a litre. It is absolutely
abominable that these corporations can get away with that.
I always say that the best way to get back at these corporations
is to use the transit services. More people would love to ride the
buses, but unfortunately in many areas, as my hon. colleague from
the Reform Party has pointed out, there is no access to transit
services.
Many employers would love to give this benefit to their
employees. One of the reasons they would love to do that is that
it makes a happier employee. They do not have to worry about
getting into their car in the morning. They do not have to worry
about finding a parking space. The employees would save a
tremendous amount of wear and tear on their vehicles.
We would also, as a community of communities,
save a tremendous amount and actually get to fulfill a promise
now and then. This government could actually fulfill a promise,
many of which it has broken. It could meet its commitments to
the Kyoto agreement. It would be an absolutely wonderful thing
for our environment.
When building new infrastructure in cities we would not have to
build massive parking lots, which are always ugly. I do not
think I have ever seen an attractive parking lot.
I have been through a good part of this country and I have not
seen one yet.
1800
We have been getting a lot of occurrences of road rage.
In areas like Vancouver, for example, every hour is
rush hour. As my colleague from the Reform Party said, from here
to the airport, 95% of the vehicles have just one driver. They
then put in an exit sign to Red Hill Road or whatever it is and
there are huge lineups. I have even missed a plane because of
it. It is insane. There should be rapid massive transit in this
country, especially in areas like this, but of a more frequent
nature. That would benefit all of us.
It would also be a drastic decrease in our dependence on fossil
fuels. We would not have to destroy the planet. Maybe we could
actually leave something for our great-grandchildren. They would
know that we did not have to burn every fossil fuel just so we
could make it easy for ourselves to get from point A to point B.
It would also bring a lot more safety to our streets.
Unfortunately, in Halifax, for example, there is an increase in
incidents of people being hit at crosswalks. I noticed it here
when walking from the hotel to Parliament Hill. A lot of people
just narrowly miss getting hit because people in their vehicles
are in a rush to get somewhere. I watch people get off the buses
and they are happy and generally more easygoing because life has
been good. They sat down and read a book or spoke to their
colleagues in the morning. They are much happier employees. I
believe most employers would honour this type of motion.
I should put in a plug now for all the transit workers in this
country who wholeheartedly agree with the member for Kamloops,
Thompson and Highland Valleys that this is an excellent motion.
It would create employment in the transit field. It would create
employment for their long term security. It would also help out
our elderly, those who are disadvantaged and many of our students
who cannot afford to get from one area to another, who could then
spend the money they have on more important things like their
books or tuition. Maybe they could even go and have a glass of
beer now and then. Who knows what students do these days? We
would have to ask the pages.
If this motion is passed this House will have
shown a terrific responsibility toward the future of this
country and toward all citizens by showing leadership, the
leadership that the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys has just displayed by bringing forward this motion.
I am very happy to hear that our colleagues in the Reform Party
will be supporting it. I understand that our colleagues from
across the House may be supporting this motion as well.
An hon. member: It is an individual decision.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Exactly. It is an individual
decision. We know that the hon. member has an awful lot of
influence with the leader and many other members of his party
even though he sits on the backbench like me.
I wish to concur with the member. This an honourable and very
good motion. It would do an awful lot of good for this country.
It is one that should get the unanimous consent of everybody in
this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to begin by congratulating the member for Kamloops,
Thompson and Highland Valleys on his November 4, 1998 motion.
It as important than it is topical.
In fact, greenhouse gases represent one of the greatest
challenges facing the planet for the next 100 years. They cause
adverse climatic changes affecting all nations, not just Canada,
but every country in the world.
In Canada we have quite a challenge ahead of us. We undertook
in Kyoto to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 6%. We were
already over 13% behind target.
We will therefore have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by
20% over the coming years.
Transportation generally accounts for one quarter of all
greenhouse gases. If we can concentrate on the issue of
transportation and public transit, together we will make a huge
contribution to the debate on climatic changes.
In fact, public transit has become a key issue. In all our
urban centres—whether larger centres where the problem is even
more serious, or smaller ones—all our roads today are completely
clogged with traffic during rush hour.
1805
North Americans have a real love affair with automobiles. But,
more and more, urban stress, the stress of taking one hour and
sometimes two to get to work in the morning, is beginning to get
people thinking about the whole issue of public transit.
[English]
We have to provide them with a means to be able to shift from
the personal automobile to massive public transport, because, as
I mentioned, the issue of public transport is closely tied to
climate change.
Under the climate change secretariat, the government has set up
16 issue tables that are looking at all the various questions,
including transportation and fiscal and economic incentives. The
various stakeholders, the federal government, the provincial
governments, the municipal governments and Canadians at large,
have joined these issue tables. Therefore my colleague's motion
is timely and topical. The issue tables are going to report in
the fall. It is important that we consider the question of mass
transit, of providing tax benefits for transit passes.
It is interesting to know that in 1993 a study by the U.S.
General Accounting Office showed the drawbacks and benefits of a
tax transit program. In the drawbacks, is the whole
question of cost, of whether we should give tax exemptions for
this particular program or another particular program. It
seems from the study that the benefits far outweigh the downside.
Out of 150 U.S. federal agencies, 75% now have a transit benefit
program. Among those agencies, which represent thousands of
employees, the people who are using mass transit are encouraged
to continue to do so. In that crucial 25% of agencies, where the
employees use personal automobiles to get back and forth to work
from large urban centres, the transit benefit pass system showed
that nearly a quarter of them shifted from using personal
automobiles to mass transit.
The study showed that if the program shifted from half of the
federal agencies to all federal agencies, if it shifted into the
private system and if tax benefits were given to corporations to
encourage workers to take mass transit, we could wean at least
50% of the total personal automobile population from private
transit to public transit.
What a tremendous goal, for all kinds of reasons: the
declogging of our roads, the reduction of pollution in our cities
and in all our centres of population, and the social benefits,
especially the health benefits.
This motion is timely. It is important. It has to be carried
out. It is an incentive for the government, as the issue tables
are now in place and are discussing these various subjects, to
pick up the motion, which I hope will be supported the great
majority of members of parliament, and to give more momentum to
the benefits of transit passes.
I believe that all of these various issues that touch on the
environmental question are not just environmental issues. They
are also cost cutting issues. As I mentioned, they touch on
health side and the social side of our lives and on the economic
benefits as well. As a country, one thing we never do is to add
up the massive cost of keeping our roads in shape, especially
given our climate, and of keeping our individuals in single
driver cars day in, day out. There are massive costs to the
country as a result of pollution and of road repairs, as well as
social costs. These costs are never accounted for in our
taxation system. We should put back some of that money into a
productive and constructive system of transit passes.
1810
I believe the motion before us is a cost cutting issue that is a
quality of life issue. It is fitting and propitious that it is
before us today. We should consider with great seriousness the
motion before us, both the pluses and the minuses. I think we
are going to find that the pluses are going to greatly outweigh
the minuses.
Again, I congratulate my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys for having brought this before us. I hope we
support it with a massive vote when it comes up for a vote.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am happy to rise today to speak on this private member's motion
presented by my colleague from the NDP, for whom I have great
respect.
We will support this motion because this is a win win win
situation. The only gamble the federal government takes is a
potential loss of revenue which to my knowledge would be
small. It is the responsibility of other levels of government
and individual transit properties to market their services
according to this new policy.
Revenue losses can occur only if transit properties are
successful at encouraging businesses to participate. The impact
of success on ordinary Canadians, economically, environmentally,
and on our health, will be tremendous. Also, it is a real window
of opportunity, because the balanced budget has increased the
finance department's ability to examine and invest in new
strategies that promote sustainable transportation practices.
This is a rare opportunity for the federal government to effect
public policy at a local level. This tax exemption is one of the
few financial instruments available to support transportation
demands and management efforts and is one of the easiest to
implement. This measure is supported by social, environmental,
business, labour, health, transit, political and municipal
organizations across Canada, representing a wide variety of
interests.
Forest fires, floods, ice storms, cyclones, extreme
temperatures, smog days, high UV reading days and children with
asthma have opened Canadians' eyes to the dangers of climate
change and greenhouse gas emissions. The tax exemption would be
an immediate concrete action, proving that the federal government
is serious about working toward a sustainable future.
It is a reality. The federal government is unable to meet its
international obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Provincial governments are struggling with the high cost of
health care due to pollution related illnesses. Municipal
governments do not have the resources to maintain and expand
transportation infrastructure. Canadians can no longer afford to
support an indefinite increase in single occupancy vehicles and
yet they have little incentive to use public transit.
Transportation is the largest single sector source of Canadian
carbon emissions, 32%. It accounts for 30% of energy used and
65% of petroleum consumed. In cities where public transit is
available, 50% of transportation related emissions occur due to
cars and light trucks. Only 10% of Canada's 9.1 million
commuters use public transit. This was reported by Statistics
Canada in 1994. Today the number might be a little higher, but I
do not think it is really that much higher.
Support for this initiative continues to grow steadily.
Encouraging the use of public transit is no longer viewed solely
as a transit issue. It is a health issue, a social issue, a
pollution issue, an environmental issue and an economic issue.
At a national level this proposal is a solid foot forward in the
battle to meet our Kyoto obligations. It is a proposal that
makes sense. It is cost efficient and has been proven to be an
effective incentive in other countries, most notably the United
States.
New riders are defined as those changing their primary commuting
behaviour, but current riders were also found to increase their
transit use by 25% to 30% after receiving transit benefits.
1815
The bottom line is that single occupancy vehicle use is reduced
when an employer provided tax exempt transit benefits. The same
GAO report quoted by finance discusses the limitations of the
report in following paragraphs. Employees surveyed were
receiving an average of $21 per month in transit benefits.
It should also be noted that because employers are not currently
supplying transit passes except in some rare instances there is
no existing revenue to be lost. The revenue can only be lost if
the transit pass is substituted for taxable wages. All other
revenue is not lost but forgone.
This is a huge difference when we look at the cost of other
initiatives that may require immediate funding from existing
budgets. This revenue that is forgone does not happen
immediately but will be spread over many years as transit
properties begin marketing these incentives.
Taxation is already effectively used to discourage some
behaviour while encouraging others. We have taxes increased on
alcohol and cigarette use, tax credits to all companies for land
replenishing costs, tax reduction for charitable and political
donations. This tax exemption is a proven incentive in the U.S.
to use public transit.
Ground level ozone, the smog, has increased by 20%
and that was from a report on advancing the dialogue on
sustainable transportation in Canada, 1996. Four hundred Toronto
residents die prematurely each year due to poor air quality.
Ozone is a pulmonary irritant that results in inflammation of the
lungs, decreased lung function and decreased resistance to
infection.
Transportation related air pollution is particularly harmful to
people at risk, young people, the elderly, those with asthma or
chronic lung and heart disease.
By 2010 the number of cars on the planet will double and the
number of vehicle miles travelled will triple. Again this is
from a report on moving the economy from a conference held in
Toronto in 1998.
One of the greatest economic and environmental challenges now
facing the world is control of carbon dioxide, CO2, and other
greenhouse gasses that threaten to destabilize climate and lead
to global warming. Rising sea levels, regional aridity, drought
and extreme weather events cause human displacement, severe
regional food shortages and losses that exceed the financing
capabilities of the insurance industry.
Government response to date will not meet our international
obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Kyoto
protocol. That is why I am urging members from both sides of the
House to support this motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am always pleased to speak to private members' initiatives. I am
a very big fan of private members' bills and motions because they
provide the ordinary member of parliament, most of us, an
opportunity to raise issues which we feel will promote and
stimulate dialogue and discussion on issues which we otherwise
might not deal with in terms of government business.
It gets people thinking. It gives them an opportunity to
demonstrate the thinking behind and the philosophy behind some of
the things we are doing. It is very easy in this place to argue
why we should not do something.
I think the strength of Private Members' Business is it gives
people an opportunity to argue why we should do something and why
we should find ways. Do not tell me why we cannot, tell me how
we can.
I am very pleased to speak to this motion because we could certainly
argue it on an environmental basis. However, if we wanted to
speak against this motion, we could clearly deal with it totally
on a tax basis and come to a different position in the context of
only taxation or in the context of only the environment, or in
terms of any other impacts this may have.
There is no question this proposal has some merit and should be
considered by the House. Motions are not binding on the
government. They are simply to consider the advisability of an
idea, in this case that the government should consider making
employer provided transit passes an income tax exempt benefit.
It is quite straightforward. As has been clearly laid out by
other speakers, the proposal contained in the motion is not
simply a taxation matter. It is also very much an environmental
matter related to climate change, an issue which is extremely
important to the House and which will be a major item as we enter
the new millennium because of our commitments under the Kyoto
agreement.
1820
I wanted to deal with this motion on behalf of the member from
Kamloops in the affirmative. I want to speak in favour of this
motion. The Government of Canada has announced the establishment
of a climate change secretariat. We have done a number of things
which I think will advance the issues. I know the government is
working on a comprehensive approach to the environmental aspects
of the matter before us. It is part of the solution. It is not
part of the problem. It is an interesting perspective to raise.
There is no question as we adopt strategies and move toward
implementation the important strategies will be those that are in
a co-ordinated fashion so that there is an efficiency and an
effectiveness in terms of making changes in policy. It would be
very easy to say this is premature, that it pre-empts somehow the
process in place on the environmental side. Any time is a good
time to talk about ideas. That is exactly what this motion has
done.
I am aware of a couple of arguments that could be opposed. The
one about being premature is a valid argument. In the context of
advancing the dialogue, advancing the knowledge and kind of
raising this issue, maybe even getting it to committee where we
can have experts to further evolve the thinking and the knowledge
on the issue that has been raised, in all its broad context I
think it is a good thing. It is a good thing for the House. It
is a good thing for Canadians.
There is an argument that one could make that the proposed
measure would be unfair to individuals who are not supplied with
employer paid passes. That is quite true. I was mentioning to a
colleague that this is an issue which tends not to be as
inclusive as we would want simply because there are not public
transit systems in all parts of Canada which would even allow
businesses to take advantage of some sort of tax exempt status.
It does raise the interesting point about philosophy of
providing benefits or supporting consensus initiatives or
objectives of government. Do we have to treat everybody the
same? Does everybody have to be treated exactly the same? Or, is
it that we are trying to promote equity or equality of benefits?
If you had two children you might give one a book because they
are a good reader. You might give the other a chemistry set
because they want to get involved. You treated them equally
because they both got something that maybe brought out the best
of their talent but you did not treat them the same.
I think in this context we have an item which admittedly may
have more of an urban thrust to it. Yet it has some linkages
which make it important for us not to dismiss it simply because
it is not universally accessible and relevant to all Canadians.
I think it is one of those arguments we could go either way on. I
think we as parliamentarians always want to be as open as
possible with regard to broader implications and maybe the
philosophy of approach to dealing with issues that Canadians feel
are important as we enter the new millennium.
Another argument brought to my attention was that the bulk of
the assistance of non-taxation of employer paid transit passes
would accrue to individuals who already are using the transit
system and therefore it would not be an efficient way to increase
the ridership of our transit systems in our major centres.
I suspect that is the case. I think it would be somewhat
difficult to determine how many employers would start providing
tax exempt passes, if this were to come to pass, and whether it
would have the impact on people.
1825
Maybe people have made up their minds. Maybe there is a price
elasticity here when using one's car. There are really not very
many options. I think we have cases right across the spectrum.
The real point is there is a broad range of issues that would
have to be balanced. A motion like this helps to probably
identify the circle of issues to be considered not only on this
motion but generally the thinking we have on a lot of matters
that come before the House. There are conflicting interests or
there are competing interests with regard to almost everything
that comes before us.
The laws of Canada are by their very nature discriminatory.
They have to be discriminatory. If there were no discrimination
in the law then there would be no need for the law because
everybody would be treated the same, and we do not have laws and
policies which try to treat everybody the same.
We have certain benefits, for instance employer paid health care
benefits, which are not taxable benefits in the hands of
employees. Dentists et cetera have brought this to us. There are
so many people who are directly or indirectly covered by employer
paid plans that to make that taxable may have an adverse
consequence in terms of the number of people making use of health
care services.
It is discriminatory because those people in Canada who do not
have employer paid health plans are left to their own devices,
either to buy insurance themselves or to pay as they go for the
services they require. They are all subject to a deductible and
only get a modest break on our tax return system for medical and
dental and vision care expenses that would be incurred directly
on their behalf. There is a discrimination there.
One of the things I had suggested is that for those who do not
have group life plans which cover the broad range of health
services, maybe there should be a super or an extra tax benefit
or deduction, those kind of things.
With regard to the tax exempt status of bus passes, yesterday on
the news I saw that Northern Telecom and I believe the transit
system in Ottawa have kicked off a one month pilot on this very
thing where the employer is providing those passes. The Ottawa
transit system announced that it needs to increase its ridership
by some 70% over the next few years to maintain the
efficiency and service levels it presently enjoys simply because
of the changing of this region.
There must be at least a dozen different angles or issues on
this. I believe it provides an ample opportunity for members from
all sides of the argument to be engaged in debate, which is one
of the most important reasons we have private members' bills
and motions.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity at least for a few minutes to
comment on Motion No. 360 by my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys. I will just make a couple of key points.
I certainly support his motion and whatever we can do to
encourage a public transit system, get people off of the roads.
Certainly as someone not in a huge urban area, I have no problem
acknowledging that if larger urban centres can put something in
place to have fewer vehicles on the roads, decrease emissions
within their areas, we can have some kind of benefits such as a
tax exempt bus pass benefit.
As the member for Mississauga South indicated, there is not
equality throughout the system. Northerners have a northern
remoteness allowance and we get a tax exempt status for
remoteness in some areas. It acknowledges that Canadians
recognize there is diversity and we need to reflect that in the
actions we take.
Seventy-three per cent of Canadians are in favour of this type
of legislation.
I think the comment that it is already taking place in a pilot
project in Ottawa is an indication that there is certainly
support for this type of a program within Canada. Canada needs to
work very hard in meeting its Kyoto commitments. This is
certainly one way of doing that. The number of large urban
centres that would put this type of a practice in place could
certainly go a long way to helping Canada reduce its emissions
and meet those Kyoto commitments.
1830
I want to thank the House for these few minutes. I commend my
hon. colleague. Hopefully the House will support the motion
unanimously.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., the time provided for
debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order made earlier today, every question
necessary to dispose of Motion No. 360 is deemed to have been put
and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until
Tuesday, April 13, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last Friday I asked the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food a question and he responded by declaring that my
comments were absolutely false.
I represent my constituents in this House. My constituents call
me with their problems and I raise their concerns in the House.
When the minister accuses me of making false statements, he is
calling my constituents liars. The minister should pay more
attention to what farmers are saying about his programs than what
his bureaucrats are telling him.
Last Friday I asked the minister “The disaster application
forms are 40 pages long and accountants are charging farmers
between $500 and $1,000 to fill them out. Why is the minister
giving western grain producers more bills to pay instead of the
disaster assistance they desperately need?”
My constituents are telling me that the AIDA application forms
are not even available in printed form yet. I checked the
Internet, found the application forms and counted the pages for
myself. There are 50 pages, not 40.
I checked with a few accountants in Saskatchewan and asked them
how much it was going to cost farmers to have the accountants
fill out these AIDA applications. One accounting firm in Regina
that does thousands of returns for farmers said the charges for
filling out an AIDA application would be about the same as
filling out an application for the Alberta farm disaster program.
That is $500 to $1,000. Is the minister saying that his AIDA
application is simpler than Alberta's?
The minister said “It is so simple. Just transfer information
from one form to another”. The minister's statement is an
absolute falsehood.
Here is what accountants who do thousands of returns for western
grain farmers are saying. The information a farmer needs is more
than just his tax return and his NISA forms. Accounting firms
told me that grain tickets or permit books are needed as well as
their crop insurance records and documentation to prove their
level of inventory.
Producers who are not a part of NISA will have another eight
pages of forms to fill out. Accountants say producers cannot use
the cash basis but need to determine what their inventories were
on January 1, 1998 and then again on December 31, 1998.
Accountants say getting the accurate records to comply with the
accrual method on the AIDA forms is going to be quite a struggle.
The form asks not only how much wheat a producer has, but what
grade and protein content it is.
Even when the AIDA forms are filled out, there is no way of
knowing if that is how much compensation the farmer will receive.
These forms are directly tied to NISA. The farmers' NISA numbers
might not reflect the same numbers that the bureaucrats have.
Also the timeframe given to complete these AIDA applications in
Saskatchewan is June 15. That is too short. Accountants say it
will be a struggle to get all of their producers' forms filled
out by that deadline.
Farmers are getting into seeding season and it is going to be
extremely tough to get farmers off the tractor and into the
accountant's office. In Ontario and Alberta, farmers have until
July 31 to fill out their applications. Why is the federal
government putting such a strict deadline on the forms coming
from Saskatchewan and Manitoba?
1835
One accountant said that these forms are extremely complicated
and that it looks like a make work project for the bureaucrats in
Ottawa. The whole package could have been much simpler.
Farmers are telling me that when they see the forms, they get
extremely frustrated. Many wonder if it is worth taking the time
to fill out the AIDA application. They feel they will not be
entitled to anything anyway because of the way the program is
structured.
The AIDA program does not take into account any bills or
outstanding lines of credit that a farmer may have. As a result,
the AIDA form is not an accurate representation of a farmer's
financial situation. This final point is very key.
My final question is why did the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food create a make work project for bureaucrats and
accountants instead of a simple cost effective system that the
farmers were asking for.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all
we should straighten out just how many pages we are talking
about. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has stated 40 to 50
pages. In actual fact the number of pages for the AIDA form, if
the farmer is enrolled in NISA, is seven pages. The rest are
instructions. There are an additional five pages if the farmer
is non-NISA, with the rest being instructions. The number of
pages may be relevant in one way but very irrelevant in another.
The actual form is from five to seven pages.
The basic information needed is revenue and expense data filed
for income tax purposes for the current year and the preceding
three years. Everyone with a farm business has this information
already on hand.
This year the tax forms also serve as the NISA application. The
forms now fill three functions. They can do their income tax,
their NISA and their AIDA. There is a limited amount of
supplementary information required for AIDA. The added
information relates primarily to the changes in inventories,
accounts payable and accounts receivable and is essential to
ensuring that the applicant receives the appropriate payment. Let
me provide two examples.
First, let us consider a farm which had a major production loss
in 1998. The cash receipts will not be down that much because
the farmer will be selling the inventory on hand, emptying the
barns or the bins. Inventory decline must be reflected in AIDA
or the payment will not reflect the true loss.
Second, those in difficulty will leave bills unpaid. This must
be reflected to determine the true loss.
Finally, if a producer has an accountant for income tax and
NISA, it should not cost too much more to transfer that data to
the AIDA application form. The cost of hiring an accountant need
not be overly excessive.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
various Liberal members like to claim that they are friends of
the farmers. This is interesting because in each of the last two
budgets the finance minister never allowed the word farmer to
pass his lips during his speeches.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should tell his
Liberal colleagues that many Canadian farmers are facing a
full-blown income crisis which is getting worse day by day.
Predications are that realized net farm income for Canadian
farmers will drop as much as 40% in the year just ended.
Grain prices last year were at the worst level since the Great
Depression and hog prices were not much better. We saw some
farmers giving their hogs away to food banks because they were
being paid next to nothing for them.
In December the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food promised a
contribution of $900 million from Ottawa to be supplemented by
$600 million from the provinces. Now there is a clear indication
that the bureaucrats are fiddling around with the program design
to ensure that Ottawa will pay less than it promised.
The minister says that the program will not cover losses or
negative margins. It means if farmers actually lost money as
they did in northwestern Saskatchewan because of the drought,
those losses are not covered. These farmers say that this
program will do nothing for them.
The minister is also going to deduct from his payments to
farmers any contributions the government has made to the net
income stabilization account, NISA. By setting up this program
the minister will pay about $600 million or even less, not the
$900 million he promised as recently as December.
1840
I should mention that the forms the government is sending out to
farmers, as another hon. member has stated, are long and
complicated. A lot of farmers are throwing their hands up in the
air and saying to heck with it.
Another problem is that the provinces are being forced to pay
40% of this program. That is not fair. North Dakota or
Minnesota are not paying disaster relief to American farmers; it
is Washington. And it should be Ottawa, not small provinces like
Saskatchewan, that foots the bill to help our farmers through
trade wars. Our small provinces cannot afford to take on the
treasuries of the United States or Europe.
Until the late 1980s Ottawa took major responsibility for safety
net and disaster programs. This Liberal government has walked
away from its responsibility. The Liberals have slashed spending
on agriculture by 60% since 1993. The money they plan to spend
on the disaster relief program is just a brief two year blip. By
the year 2000 the Liberals will again be spending less than they
did last year. In turn, it is much less than what they had spent
in 1993.
In addition, our farmers have been impacted by the falling
commodity prices, as everybody is well aware, but their increased
input costs have compounded the financial squeeze that is driving
our families away from their farms. This government should
immediately investigate the input costs in agriculture, the
unrealistic fuel costs, the whole issue of concentrated control
of our food supply, as referenced by the Western Producer
recently, and claim it as food clusters.
Farmers have played a key role in the deficit reduction of this
country and the restoration of the balanced budget this
government is so proud of. It is time for Ottawa to put back
money into agriculture. We in the NDP believe that Canadian
farmers need stable incomes. Our federal caucus intends to keep
the pressure on the agriculture minister so that a solid
sustainable farm income disaster plan will be there not just for
one or two years, but for the long haul.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say
this question goes back to November 26, 1998. A lot of things
have happened since the member asked the minister the question.
I have addressed the length of the application, which
has been fairly well exaggerated. The amount of money is $900
million plus $600 million, $1.5 million federal-provincial, 60:40
cost shared because the jurisdiction is a shared jurisdiction.
As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his provincial
colleagues announced after their meeting on February 23 and 24,
Canadian farmers now avail themselves of comprehensive income
disaster protection. Whatever commodity they produce in whatever
province, agriculture producers will be eligible to receive
government assistance if their gross margin falls below 70% of
their three year average.
The spirit of federal-provincial co-operation and our sense of
urgency, given the gravity of farm income difficulties, meant
that the new agricultural income disaster assistance program was
developed very quickly and expeditiously.
As of March 5, application forms were available in electronic
format and in hard copy a week or so later. This is quite an
achievement.
The national program will not be delivered in isolation of its
existing instruments. AIDA is built on the substantial
protection already offered by other safety nets, including NISA
and crop insurance. The design and administration of AIDA
includes several built-in incentives to take full advantage of
the existing safety nets. This encourages farmers to get actively
involved in the management of their own risks.
Similarly, the disaster program will be delivered in full
respect of existing provincial initiatives. Where a provincial
program decreases the cost of AIDA by enhancing producers'
incomes, this will be taken into account. It was agreed that
producers should not be compensated twice for the same income
shortfall. Ways were found to accommodate and build on other
initiatives with the same purpose as the national disaster
program.
In closing, I am very satisfied with the progress that was made
in such a short time. Farmers impressed upon us the urgency of
the situation and the government has taken action.
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on March 4, I asked the Minister of Finance a question
about shipbuilding. The Minister of Industry replied to my
question. He did not answer satisfactorily in my opinion. On
several occasions, I had questioned him in committee.
1845
On October 28, 1997, he replied that it would be better to ask
the Minister of Finance, who would perhaps be in a better
position to answer my question about shipbuilding and tax
credits. Similarly, on April 22, 1998, the Minister of Industry
told me that many issues were not the responsibility of his
department, but rather that of the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions or the Minister for
International Trade.
On March 4, I directed my question to the Minister of Finance,
but the Minister of Industry replied.
What can we do? I note that, today, the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Agriculture is likely to be responding,
because he is the only member I can see at the moment.
Are we to give up and be content with the government's game of
ping-pong and incomplete responses? We can see easily that the
Minister of Industry relies on the Minister of Finance. The
latter does not want to intervene, because he already has
interests in Canada Steamship Lines. The Minister of Transport
says he no longer controls the St. Lawrence Seaway following
privatization. As for the Minister for International Trade, he
has often been unable to answer our questions on the
interventions of the Export Development Corporation. When he
finally did answer, it was some two years later, on the Spirit
of Columbus.
In this context, I would like to know who I should speak to
in order to get a response, if not action.
The Liberal government has not yet managed to explain why it is
refusing to harmonize federal tax measures with those of Quebec.
It has yet to explain why, by taxing the tax advantages of the
shipbuilding industry, it is obliged to cancel the beneficial
effect of the tax deductions offered by Quebec in order to
stimulate this industry.
The government has not explained why it does not deign to
propose measures of greater benefit to shipbuilding. It has yet
to say why it is refusing to establish a real policy on
shipbuilding, as all the representatives of the shipping
industry have been asking it to do for months.
I plan to continue my campaign in favour of a real shipbuilding
policy, which I began a few months ago.
I am very pleased to see that more and more business people,
union leaders and politicians are taking up the cause.
I am particularly pleased at how this issue has brought people
together. Two examples are the coalition of opposition parties
I formed on December 8 in Ottawa and the coalition of unions the
Davie Industries union managed to get, two groups of
stakeholders that are beginning to ask the government serious
questions.
I take this opportunity to urge people to send in the postcard
calling for a genuine shipbuilding policy in Canada.
Since no postage is required on letters to MPs, I particularly
urge the residents of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière and other
citizens throughout Canada, in the maritimes and British
Columbia, as well as in Quebec, along with the unions, to send
it in. We must show that Canadians are not happy with the
national shipbuilding policy the Minister of Industry says he
has and that he says he knows nothing about. He is forever
passing the buck to other ministers, and we never get an answer.
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
that the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has
given me the opportunity to speak to the subject of shipbuilding.
The federal government acknowledges the important contribution
the marine industry makes to our national economy. As well, I
must reiterate that the government currently maintains a generous
package of measures which, in conjunction with provincial
policies and sound industrial practices, benefit shipbuilders.
These measures are: a 33.5% accelerated capital tax allowance
for Canadian built ships; a 25% duty on most non-NAFTA ship
imports; domestic procurement on a competitive basis for all
government shipbuilding and ship repair needs; Export Development
Corporation financing for commercially viable transactions; and a
very favourable research and development tax credit system.
We acknowledge that despite this support the industry continues
to face considerable challenges in international markets. For
instance, in December 1997, in an OECD workshop on shipbuilding
policies, it was reported that a substantial overcapacity exists
in the shipbuilding industry and that this overcapacity would
grow to around 40% of the estimated world capacity by 2005.
The Canadian shipbuilding sector went through a voluntary
rationalization process that culminated in a more streamlined and
viable industry.
The government participated in this industry led process by
contributing nearly $200 million between 1986 and 1993. Through
reorganizing and streamlining its operations over the past
decade, the Canadian industry has been able to improve its
productivity levels even with the forecast world overcapacity and
has been successful in obtaining some international sales in
specific markets, such as tugboats.
1850
In summary, substantial support has been provided to the
shipbuilding industry in the past and we continue to support it
through a variety of initiatives. If the provinces wish to
supplement our initiatives, as has been done by Quebec and Nova
Scotia, they are free to do so.
The comments concerning the Minister of Finance made by the
opposition and by the president of Davie Industries workers'
union are completely false. As is the case for all cabinet
ministers, all such assets are placed in trust under the control
of a trustee. It is the trustee who has the final say.
Consequently, there is no conflict of interest.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.51 p.m.)