37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 044
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 5, 2001
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| Mr. John Harvard |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-24. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1005
| FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-25. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| DIVORCE ACT
|
| Bill C-334. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT
|
| Bill C-335. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-336. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| PETITIONS
|
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1010
| Bioartificial Kidney
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Motion No. 1
|
1015
1020
1025
1030
| Mr. Scott Reid |
1035
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1040
1045
1050
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1055
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1100
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1105
1110
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1115
1120
| Mr. John Bryden |
1125
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1130
1135
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1140
1145
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1150
1155
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1200
1205
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1210
1215
| Mr. John Duncan |
1220
1225
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1230
1235
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
|
| Bill C-17. Second reading
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1255
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1300
1305
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1310
1315
| Mr. John Duncan |
1320
1325
1330
| Division on motion deferred
|
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-22. Second reading
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1335
1340
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1345
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Mr. James Moore |
1350
1355
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| LANDMINES
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1400
| THE CONSTITUTION
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
| PROSTATE CANCER
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| WORLD HEALTH DAY
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1405
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| MEMBER FOR CALGARY—NOSE HILL
|
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
| CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| BRANT FESTIVAL
|
| Mr. James Lunney |
1410
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1415
| NEWFOUNDLAND
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. John Manley |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1435
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| TAX AGREEMENTS
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1440
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| FRESHWATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1445
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| FRESHWATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| TAX AGREEMENTS
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1450
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TELECOMMUNICATIONS
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Andy Savoy |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1455
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. John Manley |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
1500
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| FRESHWATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Comments of Member
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1505
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Notice of Motion
|
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1510
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Citizenship and Immigration
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-22. Second reading
|
| Mr. James Moore |
1515
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1520
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1525
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1545
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1550
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-22. Second reading
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1555
1600
1605
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1610
1615
| Mr. John McCallum |
1620
| Division on motion deferred
|
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Third reading
|
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1625
1630
1635
| Mr. David Chatters |
1640
1645
1650
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1655
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Third reading
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1715
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1720
1725
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LABELLING
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Motion
|
1735
1740
1745
1750
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1755
1800
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1805
1810
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1815
| Mr. André Bachand |
1820
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1825
| Division on motion deferred
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1830
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1835
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1840
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 044
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 5, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table
the performance report of the House of Commons administration for
the period from April 1999 to March 2000.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
table in the House today, in both official languages, the annual
report for the year 2000 of the Export Development Corporation.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present, in
both official languages as well as in Spanish and in Portuguese,
the report of the inaugural meeting of the Interparliamentary
Forum of the Americas, held here in Ottawa, March 7 to 9, 2001.
[English]
You were good enough to preside over the opening of the session,
Mr. Speaker, which brought some 100 parliamentarians from the
Americas together from 28 countries to form an interparliamentary
forum which will allow us to communicate with one another
throughout this hemisphere.
Parliament had the opportunity to serve as the historic place
for this extraordinarily important meeting. At that time we were
also able to provide information and guidance to the leaders of
the Americas who will be meeting in Quebec City.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the
honour to present to the House, in both official languages, a
report from the Canada-United Kingdom Interparliamentary
Association concerning the visit to London, United Kingdom, held
from March 4 to March 7, 2001.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-24,
entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and
law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other
acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1005
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-25, an act to amend
the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-334, an act to amend the Divorce Act
(child of the marriage).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill. The
objective of the bill is to declare that a child who has reached
the age of majority is not a child of the marriage within the
meaning of the Divorce Act by reason of only being enrolled in a
program of studies at a post-secondary school level.
Accordingly the court would not be able, except for some other
reason, to make a child support order to cover all or part of the
child's post-secondary expenses if the child has reached the age
of majority.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-335, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act (medical use of marijuana).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill
that would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to
authorize the possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana for
medical purposes.
The only requirement would be for the user to have a medical
certificate.
The purpose of this bill is to decriminalize the medical use of
marijuana and to follow up on a decision made by an Ontario
court on July 31, 2000.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-336, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic
manipulation).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to
amend the criminal code in order to prohibit the genetic
manipulation of a human cell, a zygote or an embryo with a view
to preventing human cloning. Any person guilty of
such an offence would be liable to a fine, imprisonment or both.
As we know, the pace of scientific discoveries and technical
advances in biotechnology has accelerated over the last few
years which forces the legislator to take note of the
situation.
Faced with this undeniable fact, almost all the developed
countries in the world have put on a spurt and, over the last
few months, quickly passed legislation to prohibit human cloning
or at the very least to strictly regulate genetic research. In
Canada, there is nothing at all, there is a legislative vacuum.
That is why I am introducing this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present two more petitions from citizens of the Peterborough
area and beyond, including Ajax, Durham, Victoria, Haliburton and
Brock. They want the re-establishment of VIA Rail service
between the city of Peterborough, the county of Peterborough and
Toronto.
1010
The petitioners point out the environmental advantage of a
reduction in greenhouse emissions and the health advantages which
also result from reducing emissions. They point to the benefits
to Peterborough in terms of it being an educational and tourist
destination and a commuter base and the advantages to Toronto in
terms of relieving traffic in that area.
The two petitions urge the re-establishment of VIA Rail service
between Peterborough and Toronto.
BIOARTIFICIAL KIDNEY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition on behalf of people suffering from end stage
kidney disease. The petitioners point out that whereas kidney
dialysis and successful transplantations have helped and
certainly do help, there are not enough organs for
transplantation and dialysis services are very limited.
Therefore they urge the federal government to support the
development of the bioartificial kidney which will replace both
dialysis and transplantation as a source of relief for people
with end stage kidney disease.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, an act to
amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: There is one motion, an amendment
standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-9, an
act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act.
[Translation]
I have examined the motion carefully. I realize that it is
similar to a motion that was debated and defeated in committee.
In spite of some apprehension in selecting the motion, I have
decided to give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt.
Therefore, Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
2, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 33 on page 1 with the
following:
He said: Mr. Speaker, the aim of this amendment is to prevent
our being obliged to consult or include the Senate in amendments
to the Canada Elections Act.
It would be a bit of a paradox, in the case of a law that
applies to elections that apply to members of the House of
Commons, to have people not elected involved. I would point out
that I personally have nothing against those who make up the
other House.
We meet them fairly regularly and many of those I have met are
competent and nice.
But one thing must be remembered. We must not forget that they
are often appointed by the Prime Minister of the House of
Commons. Who does the Prime Minister appoint? Generally, he
appoints people he knows well and whose work, often partisan, he
values. One way to compensate them for the work they have done
is to appoint them to the other House.
Of course, we cannot rule out the fact that they have experience
in a number of instances, but sometimes the subjective criterion
is left up to the Prime Minister. There was the vote we had
yesterday calling for a public inquiry on the conduct of the
Prime Minister in his riding, especially given the fact that he
himself appoints the ethics counsellor who reports to him.
We think that the people in the other House should not be
consulted on this. They are just more people who would offer an
opinion on ways to change the ridings and electoral boundaries.
1015
When an election is involved, members of the opposition are
entitled to speak, but if the dice are loaded from the start, if
things are decided by friends of the Prime Minister or by people
he considers his supporters, in principle, these people will
tend to support the recommendations of the party in power, the
party of the Prime Minister who appointed them.
This is why I am moving this amendment. It is out of respect
for the people and because I am concerned about the continuity
of this institution, which in our opinion, has become obsolete.
This is not the first time we have taken such a stand.
In 1993 it was part of our election platform. We have
consistently held that position since we first came here in
1993. We have always been opposed to having joint committees
that include elected members of parliament and non-elected people
to discuss, particularly in this case, electoral issues. Most of
these non-elected people are not former members of parliament.
They have not been confronted to electoral reality and they
do not know what they are talking about in this regard even
though they may have contributed, in a partisan way, to getting
someone elected.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois feels that the proposed amendment
is very relevant. Mr. Speaker, we thank you for having accepted
it and thus allowing the House to look at it.
We invite our colleagues from all political parties, and
particularly opposition parties, to support it. I am thinking
more specifically of Canadian Alliance members.
Even though we do not necessarily share their view, we arrive at
the same conclusion. They are hoping for an elected Senate
while we want to get rid of that institution. But we agree on
the problem which is that the people in the other place are not
elected.
Hopefully we can get the support of the other two political
parties, namely the New Democratic Party and the Progressive
Conservative Party. Members of these parties have already said
that we should examine this issue among elected representatives
and consult the public. We should get people's opinions because
we work for them first and foremost. It is important to know
what the public thinks because it is the public who elect us
to this House. This must be done in the best possible
conditions.
People must be confident that this parliament works in the best
possible democratic spirit.
Since I have a few more minutes, I might add in this connection
that this government sees itself as the great champion of
democracy on the international level. We must admit that it has
acquired a certain reputation for this, so much so that some
MPs, even opposition ones, are occasionally called upon to
monitor elections in other countries.
As a member of the subcommittee on human rights, I know that
Canada sees itself as a promoter of human rights. On occasion I
have trouble adding my voice to those who say Canada is a
champion in this field, when I see the major shortcomings that
still exist within the country, particularly as far as campaign
funding is concerned.
As the rules stand at present, big business can make campaign
contributions.
We have long opposed this and our last suggestion was that it
at least be restricted to $5,000 or less.
1020
I have no problem with the people across the floor, or anyone in
this institution, ministers in particular, and the Prime
Minister, making a contribution internationally with delegations
or on other occasions making statements about how other
countries ought to operate more democratically, ought to respect
human rights more. However, we must ensure at the same time
that we here in Canada really respect this evolution or, how
shall I put it, this affirmation of these democratic concepts.
That is the reason behind my amendment this morning which
was seconded by my colleague the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
That is the reason behind this representation.
I thank in advance all opposition members and
those in the Liberal ranks as
well who dare to support us. A number of them have often told
me that they are not always totally thrilled—like last night—to
toe the party line. They are sometimes obliged not to follow
their convictions. In this case, since elections are concerned,
I trust they will be faithful to their convictions and
think of democracy.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon.
member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. By this amendment and
by this motion, he is showing that he is capable of expanding his
horizons and that he is an extremely versatile member of
parliament. We know the work that my colleague from
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has been doing in the
shipbuilding area, in shipyards not only in Quebec but also in
Canada. Our colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has
managed to get all shipyard owners and unions throughout Canada
to reach a consensus.
I think the fact he has moved this amendment to Bill C-9, an act
to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act, shows that he is capable of speaking out on
other issues. Thus, the hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is not a one issue man; he is a
versatile man.
That being said, during the short time that has been allotted to
me I would still like to add for our viewers and for our
colleagues here in the House who are listening very carefully to
my speech, that this amendment is being made to page 1 of the
bill. It would amend section 18.1 of the elections act and would
boil down to changing the role of the other House with respect
to adopting amendments to the elections act. Specifically, the
chief electoral officer would be able to use an electronic
voting process.
I sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
About ten days ago, Mr. Kingsley tabled his report on the last
general election held on November 27, 2000. We will have the
opportunity to come back to it and to suggest further
amendments to the elections act.
But I can say that it is in several ridings of Quebec and
Alberta— and I know this has not happened by chance because
there is a majority of Alliance members in Alberta and a
majority of Bloc Quebecois members in Quebec— that there were
the most problems during the last election held November 27.
1025
In only 10 minutes I do not have time to list all the
problems with unco-operative returning officers and unsuitable
polling stations.
In a space no bigger than 10 square feet there were six or
seven polling divisions. According to the elections act,
candidates can visit polling stations, shake hands with the
representatives of all parties. We could literally see for whom
people would be voting. Some polling stations were located very
far from the homes of elderly people whose mobility is
sometimes reduced and that was to discourage them from voting.
I must tell the House that the Bloc Quebecois is drawing up a
list of the problems from the November 27, 2000 election and
we will have an opportunity to come back to them. I personally
advised Mr. Kingsley that there will have to be improvements.
This bill introduced by the government House leader gives
returning officers authority to try alternative voting means,
including electronic voting. The bill provides that the
introduction of such a process would require the approval of
both Houses, the House of Commons and the other chamber, whose
members as we know are not elected.
We are being upfront. The purpose of our amendment is to take
away the right of the Senate—the other chamber—to give its
approval and amend the clause such that only consultation is
required. We realize that there is a difference between
consulting and obtaining approval.
We are aware of this difference and we have moved this amendment
deliberately.
We have done so because 301 members of this House, whatever
their political stripe, recognize that members of this House
were all democratically elected—some races were tighter than
others—by the people of Quebec and Canada.
Contrary to what goes on in other countries, nobody in Canada or
in Quebec voted in the November 27 election with a machine gun
to their back. People expressed their choice freely. The
result is the 37th parliament. In my view, the 301 members here
are entirely legitimate, regardless of their political
affiliation.
The problem arises when a non-elected House is given the power to
decide how elected representatives will be elected.
I do not know whether that is clear; I am getting lost myself.
There may have been too many “elected's” in my sentence, but I
think the House understands. The problem is giving to another
appointed body—a body that is rewarded, therefore not
elected—the power to decide how elected representatives will be
elected. This makes no sense.
It should be consulted because it is supposed to be a House of
sober second thought. We know that under British parliamentary
tradition the House of Commons represents commoners. We are
the representatives of the common people, while the other
chamber represents the aristocracy, the lords in the British
system.
I am sorry but I prefer to be a member of the House which
represents the population, the ordinary people, those who every
four years can tell us “You are doing a good job, we will keep you”
or “You are not doing a good job, you are out”. This is
democracy and this is why, in democracy, we go from one
government to the other, which is called state succession.
It is therefore important to take away from the Senate the power
to decide about electronic voting.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: It should be abolished.
1030
Mr. Michel Guimond: As my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has
just said, the solution would be to abolish the Senate. But we
must not forget that in the present system, when pollsters ask
Quebecers about the Senate, 84% are in favour of abolishing it.
In the other provinces, they want a triple E Senate, a Senate
with more powers.
We will probably not see the abolition of the Senate in this
lifetime. We in Quebec, however, could go about it differently
through sovereignty for Quebec. Once we are sovereign there
will be no more Senate, no more Governor General, no more
lieutenant-governor, but only government of the people by the
people.
I know that I am running out of time, but I would like to talk
about a number of members of the other place. Are we, as elected
representatives, prepared to give non-elected parliamentarians
like Lise Bacon, a former Liberal minister appointed by
Liberals, John Bryden, a Liberal senator from New Brunswick,
Ross Fitzpatrick, a bagman from British Columbia, and the list
goes on, the power to decide for us, we who represent the people
and speak for the people in this House?
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am happy to speak today in favour of the amendment put forward
by my hon. colleague, the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
[English]
The member suggests that the committee reviewing any possible
electronic voting or voting changes would only seek consultation
from the Senate and that the committee of the Senate would not
exercise a veto over any proposed changes to the voting.
This is an excellent idea. A similar amendment, which I thought
was a good idea, was proposed by members of the Bloc
Quebecois in committee. I believe the suggestion was actually an
improvement over what was suggested when the bill was being
reviewed in committee because it allowed the committee of the
Senate to actually provide some guidance.
We can benefit from the wisdom in the Senate. The Senate was
originally understood to be, as we all know, a chamber of sober
second thought. In fact, this might be sober first thought, as
it were, but nonetheless a sober commentary, not an actual veto.
I think that is a very profitable thing to do.
However, giving a veto over changes, which is the way the
relevant section of the proposed law is currently worded, would
give a committee of an unelected chamber actual control under the
law of Canada over a part of the election law of the country. I
think that is a precedent that has already been set, but it is a
slippery slope down which we do not want to continue where
unelected people have greater and greater control and those of us
who are elected, and therefore those who elect us, are less and
less in control of the political agenda. This is particularly
true when we are speaking of the actual election law of the land,
surely the most sacred of all our democratic institutions.
The suggestion I would make is that the Senate actually would
have a valuable role and a Senate committee ought to have a veto
over any election law changes if the Senate itself were elected.
When the amendment came up at committee meetings, I raised the
point that it would be very advantageous if in the future we were
to allow for greater control from the Senate if it were ever
elected.
I know I differ from my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and the
New Democrats in favouring an elected Senate as opposed to the
abolition of it, but there is a valuable role a second elected
chamber can play, particularly when it is elected on a different
basis from the House of Commons.
1035
Many countries around the world have an elected second chamber.
I am thinking here for example of Switzerland, the United States,
Australia and Germany which use different systems. We forget
sometimes that prior to 1867 the united province of Canada did
have an elected second chamber. Perhaps one of the greatest
steps backward that occurred at the time of confederation, when
so many other good measures were put forward and set in stone,
was that we went from an elected to an unelected second chamber.
My colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois are particularly sensitive
to the problems of having an unelected body practising a veto
over the electoral law because of the fact that Quebec has not
that long ago had the experience of having its own unelected
second chamber. It was only in the 1960s that a constitutional
amendment was passed removing that unelected second chamber in
Quebec.
I recently had the experience of going through an old issue of a
magazine, I think it was the French version of MacLeans
published around 1965, which listed all the then incumbents in
Quebec's second chamber. It included the dates members were
appointed and their ages. One member on that list had been born
in the 1870s, a man practically as old as confederation itself.
This was an unelected member sitting in that chamber and serving
out his time. As it turned out, he was a very long lived
gentleman who had been appointed back in antediluvian times and
continued to serve as a member of that chamber. I have no idea
of his attendance record or of his mental state but he continued
to function and, along with a small group of colleagues, to have
the ability to block all the laws of the province of Quebec.
In fact that upper house sometimes did block laws when its own
privileges were being attacked. It was very concerned about its
own privileges. I do not think we want to see that kind of
power, which already exists to some degree in the Senate, in
Canada. We do not want to see that kind of power being used by
committees over business that relates purely and entirely to this
Chamber.
It is very important that we have that distinction as long as
this is the only democratic Chamber in the country. As long as
the country does not have any form of referendum law, citizen
initiative, recall law or any of the basic accoutrements of a
democratic society, as found in the more democratic societies of
the world, then surely we do not need unelected bodies having
direct control over changes that would make this place more
democratic and the manner in which members are elected to this
Chamber more democratic.
I want to briefly refer to the concept of electronic voting and
other types of voting that was suggested in the original text of
the bill. That is actually a very valuable provision. We should
be considering the possibility of electronic voting for citizens.
When I was seeking election there were a number of people
unable to cast ballots because they were ill, incapacitated or
out of the country. Proxy voting allows to some extent for this
problem to be dealt with, but it is an awkward system. It is
possible that it could be improved upon. I know all members
would want to see any improvement in access to voting for
Canadian citizens to go forward. The idea of having some
provision that permits for the potential for electronic voting
for Canadians is something that should be encouraged.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say a few words in support of the motion put
forward by the member from the Bloc Quebecois. It is really to
remove the veto from the Senate in terms of legislation we are
debating today concerning the Elections Act of Canada.
1040
I suppose the most perverse power we could give the Senate is a
veto over election laws because its members are unelected. Why
the government would insist on doing that is beyond me.
Members of the Senate of Canada are appointed. The Senate is
not democratic and its members are not elected nor accountable.
Its members do not have constituencies. They do not face voters
and they do not get swayed by public opinion. However the Senate
does have veto power in terms of changing the electoral law of
the country for those of us who are elected, who have
constituencies and who go back to our ridings and face our
electorate time and again.
That is a very perverse type of democracy if one were to define
what democracy is. I therefore certainly support the Bloc
Quebecois in terms of the amendment before the House today.
The Senate issue has been around for a long time. My
recollection of history is that when the country was founded
every province had an upper house and a lower house, whether it
was Ontario or Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, Prince Edward
Island and so on. I think even Manitoba had that. I think six
or seven of the provinces had upper and lower houses. One by one
their upper houses were abolished. I think Quebec was the last
one to abolish the upper house.
[Translation]
It was in 1968. The Quebec Legislative Council, Quebec's senate,
was abolished. It was the red chamber and it was abolished in
the province of Quebec. The same thing happened in every
Canadian province where there was a second chamber. It was
abolished because Canadian provinces did not need two
chambers.
[English]
However we have an anachronism in the House of Commons. About
an hour ago, while speaking at a public policy forum here in the
city, one of the questions that came up was that of the Senate.
We now have an unelected Senate. All the polls I have seen show
that about 5% of the people support the Senate and yet the
government across the way does nothing about it. There is a
debate in the country whether or not we should reform the Senate,
elect it or abolish it.
Over the years many attempts have been made to change the
Senate, to elect the Senate. I remember back in 1991-92, right
before Charlottetown, when there were committees of the House of
Commons, the Beaudoin-Edwards and the Beaudoin—Dobbie
committees. The most difficult issue we had to face was what to
do with the Senate. That was the very last issue with which we
dealt.
At the end of the day the three parties of the House of Commons
came to an agreement about reducing the powers of the Senate,
ensuring it had equal representation, not from each province but
from the five regions of the country. We had the Atlantic,
Ontario, Quebec, the prairies and British Columbia, along with
the north. It would have given each of the five regions in the
country 20% of the seats in the Senate.
Then we all agreed, which was difficult for some New Democrats,
but I was the party spokesman at the time, to elect the Senate
and to elect it entirely by proportional representation. That
was a three party agreement.
I see a great Liberal Party enthusiast from Hamilton cringing in
his seat, but that is the record of the House. If he goes back
to the Library of Parliament he would see where his party stood.
His spokesperson then was André Ouellet, the former minister of
external affairs from Papineau who is now the chairman of Canada
Post. The Liberal Party, led by the present Prime Minister,
endorsed the idea of an elected Senate by PR, with reduced powers
and equal representation, not from each province but from the
five regions.
What happened to that unanimous proposal of parliament was that
it went to that great Canadian institution, which is also a
little bit undemocratic, called the first ministers' conference.
The first ministers, Prime Minister Mulroney and the premiers,
took only a few minutes before they rejected the idea proposed by
the House of Commons and came up with the proposal in the
Charlottetown accord which was still an appointed Senate with
reduced powers and an increase in the number of seats in the
House of Commons. It was a convoluted dog's breakfast that was
turned down by the people of the country.
Once again we are back in the same place. During Meech, as
well, there was an attempt made around that time to change the
Senate. I think at that time there was a proposition that the
Prime Minister would appoint senators from a list provided to the
Prime Minister by each of the provinces. That actually did not
make it into the Meech Lake accord but it was one of the
proposals at the time.
There have been all kinds of different proposals on the Senate.
The triple-e movement, which was spawned in part in western
Canada, requires that every province have an equal number of
senators. We would have a powerful House of Commons and a
powerful Senate and the two would balance each other off.
1045
That never got off the ground and never will because Ontario and
Quebec with their population and their power cannot agree, will
not agree and have never agreed to an equal Senate where Prince
Edward Island has the same power as Ontario and where New
Brunswick has the same power as Quebec, if indeed the Senate has
any powers at all. If the Senate does not have any powers, why
even have a Senate if it is just to become a debating chamber?
There have been all kinds of attempts to reform and change the
Senate. Another idea pushed by the Alliance and the Reform Party
is to start on an ad hoc basis electing senators one by one. I
think that would be a great mistake. If we start electing
senators one by one at the present time, we would empower these
people. We would enshrine in perpetuity the present extremely
unfair representation in the Senate where British Columbia with
around three million people would have six senators and New Brunswick
with 500,000 or 600,000 people would have ten.
It would also enshrine the existing powers which are almost as
strong as the powers of the House of Commons. It would be
locking into our constitution a vision that was drafted back in
the 1860s. That is not the right vision to pursue. That is a
vision that would discriminate, for example, against western
Canada. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba
would have six senators; New Brunswick and Nova Scotia would have
ten; Newfoundland would have six; and Prince Edward Island would
have four.
Yet the position of many people in the Reform Party is that we
should start electing these senators on an ad hoc basis, as was
done in the United States many years ago and led to an elected
senate in that country.
I do not think many Canadians would want province by province
representation in the Senate today because it does not reflect
today's population. It does not reflect the large populations in
Alberta and British Columbia. It does not reflect the tiny
populations in some of the Atlantic provinces. I do not think
many Canadians, if we had an elected Senate, would want to have
the Senate exercise its existing powers, which are pretty awesome
powers compared with those of the House of Commons. They are
very seldom exercised today because the Senate does not have
legitimacy.
It is like a dog chasing its tail. It is a never ending debate.
It goes on and on. To get the triple-e we would need a
constitutional amendment. At the very best we would need an
amendment supported by the House of Commons, the Senate and
two-thirds of the provinces reflecting 50% of the population, a
never ending debate.
The Prime Minister at one time played around with the idea of
Senate abolition. John Crosbie's biography states that when
Brian Mulroney was first elected prime minister the first thing
he wanted to do was to abolish the Senate. He never got around
to doing it because of the complexities of the present system.
I have come full circle. In the final analysis there is no way
we will ever reform the existing Senate. There is no way the
existing Senate will be elected with any significant powers to
make it worthwhile.
If we elect the existing Senate it will not cost the existing
$60 million it spends. Once it is legitimate and elected with
powers, we could double and triple the cost of the Senate as it
empowers itself because it is legitimate, because it is elected.
I question whether we need two big, powerful elected bodies. The
way to go is to abolish the existing Senate and bring the checks
and balances into the House of Commons by empowering
parliamentary committees and creating more independence for each
and every member of parliament through fewer confidence votes, as
is the case in most parliamentary democracies around the world.
That is the direction in which we should be going.
It is time we had a backbench revolt on this issue. It is time
we empowered ourselves as parliamentarians and said to the
government that enough is enough, no more of the charade of
unelected people parading around pretending they have all this
power and yet have no legitimacy, no democracy and no
accountability to anyone in the country.
That is a national disgrace. It is an eyesore. In the name of
democracy, let us change that situation and change it now. This
modest amendment by the Bloc will go part way to doing that by
saying it wants a veto over the election bill. Instead all we do
is consult with the Senate, but we cannot veto it.
Let us stand and vote for this change. To hell with the party
whips. Let us make that modest change by ourselves.
1050
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
always interesting to see how we grapple in the House with issues
involving the other place. I want to put on record my position
and what I believe to be the position of the government in
relation to the amendment.
The current legislation governing elections allows the chief
electoral officer to undertake studies and test or pilot projects
involving the use of electronic voting in elections. That was an
innovation put into the Canada Elections Act adopted by
parliament last year.
Most Canadians would agree it is a useful device. It allows the
chief electoral officer to alter the way Canadians might vote in
a test or pilot project without having to change the legislation
first. It is forward looking and a little bold. Parliament
decided that if we were to allow this test or pilot project to
occur, we would want the House to approve it first. I am sure
Canadians would agree with that as well.
When the bill was passing through the other place senators made
the point that they had been excluded from the process which in
part pre-empts the existing law on how elections are held. The
government through the minister gave an undertaking to the Senate
that when the bill was passed there the government would
introduce an amendment to address that issue.
In the current bill before the House there is an amendment which
provides that before such a test or process takes place approval
would be obtained from both the committee of the House and the
committee of the Senate that normally deal with those issues.
The amendment before the House now would alter that approval
process in the bill. It would call for the House to give its
approval but for the Senate only to be consulted. That is the
proposed change to the bill, but I also point out that a plain
reading of the motion before us suggests that the House must
consult the Senate before it gives its approval to electronic
voting.
I am not entirely sure that is what the mover intended. I am
not sure it was intended that the House be restricted when it
gives its approval; perhaps only that the Senate be consulted. In
any event the amendment as it is now drafted is unclear on that
point because of the apparent absence of the conjunctive word
and. I will not inquire further into that except to say that as
I read it the proposed amendment may not accomplish precisely
what the mover wanted.
The Senate wanted the amendment to ensure that its approval was
obtained before the test or pilot project was adopted. As all
members know, the Senate, the other place, wishes to deliver on
its role as an equivalent house of parliament. It would not in
the ordinary course want to be excluded from legislative matters.
I suspect it would never even permit itself to be excluded from
the legislative process, but it certainly did notice when the
bill was passed that it had been excluded from the approval
process which would allow the pilot project to pre-empt the
otherwise prevailing laws governing elections.
It is in good faith that the Senate requested the amendment.
The Senate continues to have a strong interest in how elections
in Canada are run. It wants to be involved in any change.
1055
If we ask average Canadians on the street whether the House
should have an exclusive right of approval and the Senate should
not have any role in making changes to the Canada Elections Act,
not all but many would say that the Senate could probably make
some good, objective commentary in the process. The Senate would
not be involved in elections. At present senators are definitely
not involved in elections.
Members of the House might take umbrage at any suggestion that
they have a role in elections. but the Senate has a role to play
when it comes to the framework legislation that governs elections
and delivers on the charter based rights of Canadians to vote to
ensure their constitutional democratic system is operating
properly. Many experienced senators in the other place
understand how elections are run and can participate
constructively in that type of approval process.
In delivering on its commitment the government at this point is
quite certain that the amendment in the bill, not the motion in
amendment proposed by the hon. member, reflects the undertaking
given at the time of the passage of the bill last year. For the
other reasons mentioned in my remarks I cannot support the
motion.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Bloc member for bringing forward
this motion in amendment. It is a sincere attempt to improve
upon a bill which is rather narrow and rather focused in its
content. It is a response to a supreme court decision in Queen v
Figueroa that basically looked at the definition of a political
party as it appears on a ballot and at the requirement to have a
certain number of candidates in an election to qualify for the
right to have a name denoted on a ballot.
This debate is somewhat digressing into a broader issue. A
number of members have a very legitimate interest in the issue.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has been a longstanding
abolitionist of the Senate. He brings a great deal of knowledge
and history to the debate. We have heard his facts as well as
the comments of other members about what they would prefer to
see.
As a member of the Conservative Party I am quite proud of the
fact that real efforts were made to reform, improve and modernize
the Senate. Major initiatives were put before the country. The
Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords dealt in great detail with
the ways in which we could approach the Senate.
There are recent converts to the cause who suggest the
Conservative Party has perpetuated the existence of the Senate.
There were very legitimate attempts to bring the Senate into the
modern era. In fairness, when we look at the model in Great
Britain, the mother of all parliaments, we see that country
struggling with its upper house.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle also talked about the history
of the provinces, particularly the province of Quebec which most
recently went through this debate and in its wisdom decided to do
away with its upper chamber.
There is a very legitimate basis to the motion that has been put
forward today. On behalf of the Conservative Party I would
reluctantly say that this is not the way to go about it. It
should not be done in a piecemeal fashion. I do not say that in
a derogatory sense, but to exempt the Senate from certain
legislation while allowing it to continue to perform its function
on other legislation is not the way to go about changing the
current system. It is not the approach we would advocate.
There is a legitimate concern when we are talking about
elections. This legislation is about elections, yet senators do
not subject themselves to elections.
1100
However, to suggest that we simply exempt them from the process
of sober second thought, of examination of legislation on this
one bill as opposed to other bills, is not the approach we would
advocate.
As a member of the Conservative Party I do not shy away from
involving myself. The party has never shied away from looking at
how we bring the Senate into the modern era, if at all. There
are many members in our party and many senators who realize that
the system cannot currently bump along and continue to exist in
its present form. It is not acceptable. It is not something
that the overwhelming majority of Canadians accept.
The Senate, as it has in the past, continues today to perform a
very legitimate service, although the fashion in which it is
constructed is not in favour with most Canadians. It is not
popular or politically correct to praise senators, but there are
many in the Senate who currently take their role extremely
seriously. They serve the country with great distinction. They
come to the Senate with skills that are of great assistance and
they continue to be a great asset.
It is wrong to suggest that because senators have never been
elected it is illegitimate that they sit in the upper chamber and
preside over medicare improvements, justice issues or issues that
affect Canadians in a fundamental way.
There was a gathering this morning in the foyer of the Senate
where they were discussing ways in which the medical community
could work closer with politicians, both elected and unelected,
to improve our health care system. Liberal Senator Kenny
presided over a Senate committee that has brought forward many
good ideas which form the basis of the upcoming study that will
be chaired by the prominent former premier, Mr. Roy Romanow.
It is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If we
rush headlong into Senate abolition there is a risk of losing a
great repository of information, knowledge and ability. That
would be a shame if that were to happen.
I am not in favour of the amendment. There is a time and a
place to go into the issue of Senate reform and the ways we can
improve our entire democratic system. There are ways we can
improve our electoral system and the voting process which is the
basis of how this place exists and how we interact with Canadians
at election time. However, to vilify the institution in its
entirety and to denigrate individual members is not the approach
that I would put forward.
There are recent converts. The Canadian Alliance has a senator.
It is quite interesting how its approach has softened so much,
now that there is a senator in its midst. We have to be at least
intellectually honest when we are discussing this issue. There
have been offers in the past for members of the New Democratic
Party to join the Senate. To their credit they have remained
consistent in their position on how they would approach the
Senate.
The motion focuses on removing the Senate from how legislation
would proceed. If we are to do it, we should do it in an overall
fashion, not by exempting Senate deliberations on singular bills,
which is what the amendment would accomplish.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I am
very pleased to participate in the report stage debate of Bill
C-9.
Bill C-9 is an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
1105
In the last session I spoke to Bill C-2 which was passed in the
House. The Canadian Alliance or Reform Party at the time opposed
the bill. The Liberals should be ashamed because Bill C-2 had so
many serious flaws in it that it was not only undemocratic but
almost anti-democratic. Bill C-2 made Canada look like a
dictatorship.
Among other technical matters Bill C-9, which is an amendment to
Bill C-2 passed in the last session, stipulates that if the chief
electoral officer wishes to examine certain things like
alternative voting processes such as electronic voting, the
alternative cannot be used without the approval of both House and
Senate committees. Clause 2, which we intend to amend, states:
The Chief Electoral Officer may carry out studies on voting,
including studies respecting alternative voting means, and may
devise and test an electronic voting process for future use in a
general election or byelection. Such a process may not be used
for an official vote without the prior approval of the committees
of the Senate and the House of Commons that normally considers
electoral matters.
The term Senate is used and that is why the amendment is being
proposed. I congratulate the hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière who moved an amendment which
reads:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 31 to
33 on page 1 with the following:
The Canadian Alliance supports the amendment because it takes
the role of the Senate out of the bill. Our policy book, which
is dictated by grassroots members of the Canadian Alliance,
states in section 71:
We will support the election of senators who would then have a
democratic mandate to carry out their constitutional
responsibilities. We will further support the distribution of
Senate seats on an equal basis determined through constitutional
discussion with the provinces and territories.
The Canadian Alliance advocates Senate reform. Senators try to
do their job the best way they can. As co-chair of the Senate
and House of Commons Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations I
had the opportunity to work directly with senators. There are
senators who work very hard. There is wisdom in the other
chamber and we look forward to the sober thought from the other
place.
There are senators who want to have a veto in our elections act
on how Canadians elect members to represent them in the highest
chamber. The Senate wants to have a veto in the bill, a veto the
weak and arrogant Liberal government is allowing in the bill.
That is a serious concern.
Senators are elected in other countries. Our largest trading
partner, the U.S, elects its senators.
1110
The point which would motivate us in the Chamber to support the
amendment is that senators are not accountable to constituents
because they do not have any constituencies. They do not
represent constituencies. They are appointed by the Prime
Minister of Canada and tend to be accountable to him.
I commend B.C. Senator Gerry St. Germain, who has offered, and
who is prepared to resign from his senate seat provided the Prime
Minister appoints an elected senator to the Senate. That senator
has made a bold step and I appreciate his intention.
The Canadian Alliance members support the amendment. Under the
current legislation, only approval of the House of Commons
committee is required. Giving the Chief Electoral Officer the
freedom to examine innovative alternatives that could help to
modernize our electoral process is a good thing but it should be
limited to the elected members who represent Canadians in the
House of Commons.
On this side of the House, our ears perk up when we see the use
of the word Senate, particularly in reference to it interfering
in the election process. Are the Liberals preparing to have the
Senate kill any innovative ideas the Chief Electoral Officer may
propose? Maybe we cannot trust the Liberal government. The
Canadian Alliance believes that the voters, not the government,
should decide whether a party or a candidate is worthy of a vote.
As all opposition parties will be supporting the amendment, it
is now up to the Liberals. If they do not accept the amendment,
it would be another example of how they are making Bill C-9
anti-democratic.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to speak to the motion in amendment
put forward by my colleague for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. It
seems to me that it is totally relevant.
During my speech I may have the opportunity to respond to a
number of the assertions made by my colleague for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, which, notwithstanding all the
respect I have for him, appear to be slightly false.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons has best described a moment
ago in his speech how things have been done so far and why we
are putting forward this amendment.
He explained how this provision of the elections act, within
Bill C-2, came to be, to ensure that if new voting techniques
were to be tried it would be only after the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs, which normally looks into these
matters, approved the implementation of such a pilot project.
Everything was going well. The amendment proposed in Bill C-2
was passed. It was included in the Canada Elections Act which
was used, need I remind members, in the last general election.
1115
Bill C-9 corrects a series of small errors that had gone
unnoticed because Bill C-2 was passed in such a hurry. Again, I
need hardly remind the House that if this legislation was rammed
through in such a hurry, it was essentially due to political
considerations as the government wanted amended electoral
legislation as quickly as possible in order to call an early
election, which is precisely what happened and which confirms our
opinion in this regard. The government has now introduced Bill
C-9 to correct a series of small errors that had gone unnoticed
in Bill C-2 given the haste I have just talked about and also to
correct another element of the bill that is more substantial as
it gave rise to a court ruling.
I should also point out that certain recommendations were made
to the government following the Figueroa case. The government
preferred to take the case to court, at taxpayers' expense,
rather than consider the opinions expressed. It lost the case.
It is coming back to us now to introduce a more substantial
amendment in order to comply with the court decision in
Figueroa concerning the number of candidates a political party
must field in order for the name of the party to appear on the
ballots.
Among those technical amendments they proposed one, amendment
No. 2, which modifies section 18.1 of the Canada Elections Act
to ensure that before any pilot project can be implemented to
modify the voting process, the chief electoral officer will have
to obtain not only the approval of the House of Commons
committee that normally considers electoral matters, that is the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, but also the
approval of its senatorial counterpart.
I submit respectfully that it is surprising that we would have
to consult a non-elected institution to determine the relevance
or
the opportunity of any pilot project concerning an election.
That is why we thought it was appropriate to propose that this
reference to the Senate be removed.
Needless to say that this amendment which we proposed in
committee was rejected because the government House leader
argued that ours is a bicameral parliament. Therefore we have
two Houses, and as long as there are two Houses, as long as we
do not decide otherwise—which brings us back to the debate of the
member for Regina—Qu'Appelle—we must face that reality and take
into account the fact that the Senate must concur in any
legislation. Very well.
I am not particularly in favour of the Senate in its present
form or of a second chamber within Canadian parliament, but
I nevertheless agree that since we respect the institutions as
they are right now we must involve senators in the passing of
any legislation, until further notice. But this is not what we
are debating now.
What we are taking about is consultation, opinion and approval
regarding the implementation of a pilot project, a new method of
voting. If I have the time I shall return to this later.
This is simply a technical opinion. How is a group of
unelected representatives in a position to provide an opinion on
such a matter? I ask you, Mr. Speaker. I know that you are not
going to give me any answer, Mr. Speaker, but I am asking anyway.
The question has to be asked eventually, as my colleagues for
Regina—Qu'Appelle and for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough have
suggested. Ultimately, we will have to look at the role of the
Senate, at whether it is appropriate to maintain that
institution. That is not however what interests us in this
debate. The purpose of the amendment is not to exclude senators
from the legislative process.
It merely requires the chief electoral officer, when he wishes
to test new voting methods, to consult those who being elected
themselves are perhaps in a position of being able to provide
him with appropriate feedback.
1120
Recently, the government House leader has been doing the rounds
and trying endlessly to convince us that the amendment presented
by our colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière does not say
what that member meant it to say.
I do not know if the government House leader has the
extraordinary gift of being able to read people's thoughts and
thus knows what my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière had
in mind when he drafted this amendment and when he introduced it
in this House.
Personally, I think that this amendment says exactly what the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the
House said earlier, namely that it seeks to ensure that before
testing new voting processes, the chief electoral officer must
get prior approval of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs of the House of Commons and must consult the
Senate committee that considers these matters.
The claim made by the government House leader, which goes
against the view of his parliamentary secretary but is
supported, seemingly, by the Privy Council's learned legal
officers, is that this amendment would require the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consult its
counterpart in the Senate before giving its approval to the
chief electoral officer.
I respectfully submit that I cannot figure out which version
makes Privy Council's legal officers come to that conclusion.
Perhaps it is the English version which, incidentally, is a
translated version since the motion was originally drafted in
French.
In the French version a comma replaces the word “et” in an
enumeration. In the current text, if we replace the comma with
the word “et”, the amendment is very clear and specific. The
purpose of this amendment is to provide that the chief electoral
officer must get the approval of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs and must consult its Senate
counterpart before implementing a new voting process.
Unfortunately, I am running out of time and I will not have the
opportunity to express my view on electronic voting.
However I must say, with all due respect for the other
place, that we chose not to exclude it from this technical process,
but to get it involved through a consultation process. This is
why I am asking all hon. members to support this amendment.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is one of these occasions when I am
a little puzzled by what happens in this place because if I were
an opposition member of parliament I would be firmly opposed to
this particular amendment.
Rather than serve the opportunities of parliament in general in
making sure that the government does not dominate, what this does
is it gives back to the government enormous power over whether or
not an official vote using electronic means will take place.
Originally in Bill C-2, there
was a clause, the clause that is under debate right now, which
basically said that the chief electoral officer can experiment
with electronic voting, but if he wants to actually undertake an
official vote with electronic technology he has to get the prior
approval of the appropriate committee of the House of Commons.
That committee, incidentally, we would assume to be the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
What the amendment in Bill C-9 does is it takes away this
exclusive power of the committee of the House of Commons to
decide whether an official vote will be taken with electronic
means and adds in a committee from the Senate. So now under Bill
C-9 there would be two committee approvals required. The motion
before the House would again revert us back to Bill C-2 by taking
away the approval of the committee of the Senate.
1125
I point out that what we are talking about
here is an official vote. That is what the clause says, an
official vote. That means somebody is going to be elected or not
elected.
The way the original clause read, by giving the decision on
whether electronic voting should be used or not in an official
vote, it was giving it exclusively to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, a committee that is dominated,
always dominated, by the government. Basically, the original
clause guaranteed that if approval was sought government approval
would be given, either side. Or if the government disagreed with
the possibility of using electronic voting, let us say it is a
byelection, the government, using its majority on the procedure
and house affairs committee, could stop it from happening.
This is where I get really puzzled. Basically, what the
amendment does is it takes away some of that government power. It
dilutes it by requiring approval to come from the appropriate
Senate committee as well. That is not such a bad thing because
the Senate is indeed not an elected body and it is not under the
same direct pressure that MPs are from their own governments. I
can tell you, Mr. Speaker, on a standing committee it is very
difficult for members on any side to buck the basic policy of
their party, and you would not expect it to happen on the
procedure and house affairs committee in this particular
instance.
However, for a Senate committee, even if every member is
appointed by the government, it would not matter because the
senators are still unelected and when it comes down to a matter
of having to use their conscience, their discretion on something
that is extremely important, we are talking about someone being
elected officially to the House by a certain means, so, Mr.
Speaker, it seems to me, on the opposite side, on the opposition
side, every MP should be opposed to the amendment.
I note that the Canadian Alliance speaker that spoke just before
me made a mistake because he suggested that all opposition MPs
were in favour of this particular amendment that is proposed by
the Bloc Quebecois, but in fact I did note that the speech from
the Conservative member was opposed.
I would suggest that the opposition members
reconsider because, while as a government MP I am happy to give
my government lots of power and lots of things, I can tell you I
am very nervous about giving my government, which could be the
government of another party in the future, any kind of exclusive
control over deciding whether or not an official vote should be
taken by one means or another.
I point out, and I emphasize this to all members, that we are
talking about approvals that come in committee. We are not
talking about something that is debated in this entire House. We
are not talking about a vote in the House or a vote in the
Senate. We are merely talking about approvals in committee and I
suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the way the clause was written in
the original bill, Bill C-2, was seriously flawed because
basically it gave the power of approval to a committee of the
House which is dominated by the government, which would have
meant it would have been a rubber stamp approval anyway, and the
amendment which the government itself is introducing goes a long
way toward diluting this power and making sure that, as best we
can, there is another calculation, another evaluation of the
issue by the members in the other place, who I think we could
trust in a situation like something as important as a vote that
would bring a new member to the House of Commons, that we could
count on the senators no matter what their original party
affiliations to act in their very best judgment.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to address this topic.
I certainly concur with my Bloc colleagues that there is a very
distasteful feature to having the Senate in its current form have
a hand in deciding our electoral system.
Some members have said that the Senate has had nothing to do
with our electoral process. I think they are wrong. Many of the
people who are in our Senate today are there because they had a
very direct hand in our electoral process.
1130
They were excellent at raising and collecting money for parties.
They ran very effective election campaigns for key people who
would have had trouble winning without their assistance. There
was a payoff from the electoral system for good work done for the
party.
It was also suggested in the House that the Senate is the only
appointed place that has anything to do with our electoral
system. I remind members opposite that the current Supreme Court
of Canada, armed with a new philosophy of judicial activism, has
made major decisions about electoral law that have outraged the
public. Ninety-five per cent of the public was totally outraged
that a prisoner serving a life sentence would have the right to
vote in an election. Perhaps prisoners would be able to run for
election if we carried it far enough.
The government of the day decided it would not use a safeguard
that is in our constitution, the notwithstanding clause. To say
that appointed people have nothing to do with this is a little
off base.
Much of the debate in the House since I have been here has
centred on one issue: the concentration of power into one
person's hands or one office. Everyone has heard Lord Acton's
famous statement about corruption and how it can corrupt. I have
heard some good speeches in the House in the last while. It is
too bad they had to be misinterpreted for political purposes.
People have pointed out historical experiences where Lord Acton's
dictum could be shown to be true.
People in Canada assume those sorts of things cannot happen
here. I do not want them to happen here either but we would be
off base to ignore the lessons of history. We should be
implementing safeguards to make sure we do not have that sort of
concentration of power.
An individual for whom I have a lot of respect, Gordon
Robertson, served under four prime ministers and was Clerk of the
Privy Council. I think members opposite would be quite familiar
with Mr. Robertson. He is a highly respected person. Mr.
Robertson is very concerned about what has happened to parliament
and about the concentration of power in the Prime Minister's
office. He has stated that we have an elected dictatorship and
that the cabinet has become nothing but a focus group for the
Prime Minister's office.
Given those statements, I find strange some of the comments my
NDP colleagues have made about the Senate. Their comments are
out of sync with this place. If I understand my NDP colleagues,
and they have supporters on the Liberal side, they want to
abolish the Senate. They say that an elected Senate with
regional representation would be good for the country but that
Ontario and Quebec would not accept it. They say that it would
take a constitutional amendment to change the Senate.
Did it ever occur to them that it would take a constitutional
amendment to abolish the Senate? If we must go through the
exercise we should do the right thing and not the wrong thing.
Abolishing the Senate in its present form would only give the
Prime Minister one more power card. It would complete the
picture.
There are two very good reasons we should have an elected,
independent and powerful Senate. First, it could deal with the
issue we are confronted with in the House: the concentration of
power into one person's hands. Concentration of power leads to
abuse of power. There are no checks or balances in our system to
effectively deal with it. That is the dilemma. Everyone is
looking at the issue and asking what mechanisms we have to deal
with wrongdoing, and there are none.
1135
What a powerful, elected and independent Senate would do first
and foremost is put in the system a badly needed check and
balance, a counterbalance to the concentration of power.
I am surprised my colleague in the NDP does not recognize that
an elected Senate that fairly represents the regions would go a
long way toward alleviating the regionalism, alienation and
fragmentation in the country. It would make people in all
regions feel they had a powerful and effective voice in the
federal government. Many of the folks in various regions of the
country, believe it or not, do not believe they have any say or
input into the system. They do not have connections to the Prime
Minister's Office and they are left out of the equation.
I will address certain other matters that were said in the
House. Somebody mentioned that the Charlottetown accord had a
provision for an elected Senate and implied that the public had
rejected the Charlottetown accord because of that provision. I
think that is wrong. The Charlottetown accord, had it been any
longer, would have been competing with War and Peace for
length.
Under the accord one province, and I am surprised the province
did not support the referendum, could have vetoed anything that
affected culture. Culture to me is a mile wide and a mile deep.
It probably deals with everything we do as parliamentarians. That
proposal would have given one province a loaded gun. Some 58
things were open for further negotiation and discussion.
Mr. Derek Lee: Is this Cross Country Checkup?
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Yes, it is. We are giving
government members a check up. We are educating them. We are
seeing if their listening skills are working.
It is also implied that we do not elect senators. Alberta
elected one very good senator, Mr. Waters, an outstanding person.
The people of Alberta voted for that person to be their Senate
representative. The prime minister at the time had the courage
to respect the democratic will of the people of Alberta.
It is too bad the Prime Minister who followed him ignores that
procedure. We have elected senators-in-waiting in Alberta, whom
the people want to be their voice in the Senate, being denied
representation. There are people in Alberta who have worked hard
for the party opposite, have collected money and have done good
things for it. They are the people who have been elected and
should be in the Senate.
If the country wants to go into the next century with a proper
system of government and a proper system of checks and balances,
it needs a powerful, elected and independent Senate, whether it
wants to admit it or not. If we do not bring in that necessary
reform we will one day regret not having seized the opportunity
to do so.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too
should like to participate very briefly in the debate today on
Bill C-9. I support the modest proposal put forward by the Bloc
to restrict the power of the unelected Senate to have a veto over
elections. It is impossible to escape the irony of an unelected
Senate somehow having a veto over what we do to further democracy
in the land.
1140
I have listened to some of the previous speakers. I agree with
the speaker who immediately preceded me regarding the almost
absolute power of the Prime Minister's Office. It has far more
power than that of the president of the United States where there
is a system of checks and balances.
We are aware that many attempts have been made over the years to
reform the Senate and that all attempts to date have met with
abject failure. I see this proposal as a very modest one to
limit the power of the Senate. It proposes to consult the Senate
on issues rather than give it a veto.
The Bloc has made a reasonable suggestion. I listened with care
as well to the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who
cautioned against doing anything in a piecemeal fashion.
The concern of a number of us in this party is that past
attempts to make broad changes and to have an elected Senate, as
we have seen in Charlottetown, Meech Lake and other attempts,
have all ultimately met with failure. We are grappling with the
need to do something.
Members get up from time to time to talk about an elected Senate
and they ask the Prime Minister, when a vacancy occurs, whether
he would allow an election in the province where the vacancy has
arisen. The answer is always no, with some qualifiers about
Meech Lake and about Charlottetown.
What is proposed here is simply a modest way to curtail the
power of the Senate. As I said, it is totally ironic that
unelected senators should have a veto.
A previous speaker from the government side questioned whether a
conjunction existed in English or whether the bill was lacking a
conjunction. If that is his only problem why does he not move a
friendly amendment and let us get on with it?
Earlier this week I had occasion to meet with someone from
Bolivia, which we would normally consider a third world country.
He was very interested in our political system. He wanted to
know about elections to the House of Commons and then he
innocently asked how our senators were elected and for what term
of office.
It is embarrassing for most parliamentarians, and probably for
many Canadians, to have to say that we appoint senators rather
than elect them. We do not do the appointing. The Prime
Minister appoints the Senate and each member therein.
He looked at me in a strange way, as do a lot of guests to our
country when we reveal that we have one of the few bicameral
systems in the world where one House is elected and the other is
appointed. The upper chamber is appointed by one individual and
has no checks and balances. There is no opportunity for a
committee to decide whether a Senate candidate is suitable.
The Prime Minister can simply wake up one morning and say it is
time to appoint so-and-so. That is why people like Gordon
Robertson and Donald Savoie are concerned about the absolute
power of the Prime Minister's Office and the almost total absence
of checks and balances.
To come back to the amendment, it is a very modest one. It is
trying to address the difficulty we have in dealing with
electoral reform and whether we should have a Senate.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle makes a very good point. He
has come full circle on this issue and now believes that the way
to go is to abolish the Senate.
1145
In answer to the previous speaker, that would only give more
power. If we were to have a system of proportional
representation where we would perhaps have a first past the post
system for some members and then proportional representation for
some others, we could achieve the best of both worlds. However,
we would do it in one institution, in the House of Commons, as
opposed to having a House of Commons and a Senate.
I very much support this modest amendment made by the Bloc this
morning and I encourage other members to do so as well.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I want to make a few comments on the amendment because it is an
opportunity for us to reflect on the role of the other place in
general, but also to reflect on the irony of a procedure
established by the bill whereby the other place would have a
decisive role to play in something having to do with elections.
The amendment does not completely leave out the Senate. It
talks about consulting the other place. That is appropriate. We
can consult the other place. We can consult Canadians. We can
do a lot of consulting. The question is whether or not the other
place, which is an appointed chamber and not an elected chamber,
should have a decisive say in something having to do with
elections.
There are two ways, it seems to me, that the argument for the
amendment can be established. One is simply the argument based
on democratic principle, that being the fact that elections have
to do with democracy and the Senate, being an appointed body,
should by definition keep its nose out of things having to do
with elections out of respect for the fact that senators are not
elected themselves.
The second reason is something which I suppose has always been
the case but has become more aggravated in recent years, that is,
generally election law is something that is decided on by all the
parties in the House of Commons through a House of Commons
committee or by consultation with parties outside the House. By
involving the Senate in this way, we are basically saying that
after all the work is done among the five parties in the House,
and perhaps even after consultation with parties that have not
been able to elect people to the House of Commons, a decisive
role is going to be given to a chamber where really only two
parties are represented. I know there is now an Alliance senator
but that does not really take very much away from my argument.
The fact is that the Senate is a chamber made up of Liberals and
Conservatives. It is made up of people who have been appointed
over the years by those parties that have formed the government
in the country. When the Liberals are in power, Liberals are
appointed. When the Conservatives were in power, Conservatives
were appointed. Sometimes there is the odd exception and an
independent is appointed, but by and large the Senate is a
chamber made up of people who belong to the two political parties
in this country that have formed governments over the years.
Now that we have a five party House, it seems a little odd to me
that a chamber or a House in which three of the parties are
unrepresented should have this kind of role to play. That is one
of the reasons I think this amendment is just not in order
procedurally and also politically.
I listened with interest to the apologia for the Senate that was
given by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
He was being a faithful Conservative and defending many of his
colleagues in the Senate. That is understandable, but it seems
to me the argument he made, which is that there are good people
in the Senate and they do good work, is just not sufficient. It
is true that there are good people in the Senate and they do good
work. It is not the work they do: it is the role they have.
1150
The Senate has a decisive constitutional role in our democracy
which we say is inappropriate given the fact that senators are
appointed. There are all kinds of people throughout the country
in various contexts who are good people and do good work, but
they do not have the constitutional power that the people in the
Senate have, who are good people and do good work. If they want
to be good people and do good work they can do it somewhere else.
They can do it where they do not have the constitutional power
that should be vested only in people who are elected.
That is our point and it is the reason why for so many years the
NDP and, before that, the CCF have been for the abolition of the
Senate. It is an affront to our democratic principles to have
this appointed body in our midst with that much power. I say
that with all due respect to the many senators whom I know who
are very dedicated to the country and do very good work. That is
beside the point, and that is the point I am trying to make.
It may be that abolishing the Senate is not on and that
reforming the Senate, as many have suggested over the years, is
what we need to look at. We in the NDP have been open to that.
We supported Meech Lake and we supported the Charlottetown accord
even though those accords did not abolish the Senate, but because
they went some way toward reforming the Senate and making it
democratic or in some cases such as Meech at least making it more
responsive to provincial input and in Charlottetown actually
making it elected.
We in the NDP supported that kind of Senate reform. We are not
absolutist in our demand that the Senate be abolished but we are
absolutist in our demand that it be changed and in our demand
that ultimately the Senate be made a democratic Chamber rather
than an appointed Chamber.
It is true that one of the ironies of recent Canadian political
history is that the very same party that has made a political
career out of exploiting the need for Senate reform, particularly
as it relates to western and regional alienation, is the same
party that in my judgment and in the judgment of others has
actually stood in the way of Senate reform on a couple of
occasions. While I am sure that there are people in the reform
alliance political constituency who genuinely wish for Senate
reform, it almost seems to me sometimes that if we ever did have
reform, it would be a disaster for them because it would mean
that this great hobby horse of theirs would be eliminated.
There is some evidence to back this up, because on two occasions
there was opportunity for Senate reform. In Meech the provinces
were going to be given the opportunity to provide a list that the
Prime Minister would have to pick from in order to appoint
senators, until such time as there was genuine Senate reform, so
that there would be pressure on the federal government to reform
the Senate. If there was no reform, then the provinces in
perpetuity would have the power to influence who became senators
in this way. However, that was not on. That was another
occasion for outrage on the part of people in the reform alliance
political constituency. Then in Charlottetown we had another
opportunity.
1155
I think these things are worth saying because it may well be
that when the history of our democratic institutions is written,
unless something dramatic and hopeful happens in the next little
while, the very people who have made so much out of wanting to
reform the Senate will be shown to have been the people who stood
in the way of that very reform.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I was not going to rise on this occasion, but after the speech
from my colleague from the NDP I cannot help but respond to some
of the things he has said. Imagine putting at our feet the
responsibility for preventing reform of the Senate when we have
been the champions of it. I cannot believe he would even try to
do that.
I would like to set the record very straight. So often when we
talk about the unelected Senate, the Prime Minister in particular
loves to do what the member for Winnipeg—Transcona just did,
which is to say that we had the choice and we were against the
Charlottetown accord.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you, to other members in the
House and to all Canadians who have ever heard our story that we
were against the Charlottetown accord for 100 reasons.
Unfortunately, the few tepid movements in that accord toward
reforming the Senate were not sufficient for us to say that we
would eat all the gravel, the dirt and the stinkweed in that meal
and call it a pie. No, we were not ready to do that.
Indeed, the accord did say that there was some measure of voting
for the Senate. If we look at it more carefully, it did not give
the right to the people to elect the Senate. That was an option,
but as I recall, the Charlottetown accord said senators could
also have been put forward by lists from the legislatures of the
provinces. What we have there is just another way of getting an
unelected Senate.
We proposed, and we stand by it, that in our modern society in
Canada, where we call ourselves a democracy, there should be
nothing less than a Senate that consists of members elected by
the people they represent, just like we are sent here by electors
in our ridings. That is how senators should be elected. When
the Prime Minister and members of the NDP tell us they are
against an elected Senate because our party did not accept the
Charlottetown accord, that is a misstatement of our
representations in that area.
Another thing I have to say on this issue of the Senate is that
we believe the House of Commons is properly constituted when it
represents the population in the country. Right now we have the
situation, and we have had it for many years, where, because 60%
of the population of the country is in Quebec and Ontario, 60% of
the members of the House are from Quebec and Ontario. We accept
that. That is representation by population.
However, the Senate has 24 members from Ontario and 24 members
from Quebec. What does British Columbia have, which is the third
most populous province in the country? It has six senators. Did
the Charlottetown accord correct that? No, it did not. Not only
do we have the overbearing weight of legislative authority by two
provinces telling the others what will be done in the country,
but we have it duplicated in the Senate.
It is absolutely positively true that what we need is a Senate
that is proportional to the provinces, not the populations of
them. It is done in the United States and in a number of other
countries. Maryland has two senators and California has two
senators, which is not in proportion to their populations but
because the role of the U.S. senate is to balance the interests
of regions and states against the predominant majority, and in
our case it would be the House of Commons and a predominant
majority from the two most populous provinces.
With respect to the amendment putting the Senate in control, in
any way, of affecting our legislative outcomes in elections, it
is almost an oxymoron.
These members are not elected but are going to become involved in
our elections. How absurd. I simply say, loud and clear, let
them be elected. Let them represent the people who they are
supposed to represent.
1200
The province of Alberta, from which I come, has 23 out of 26
members of parliament who are Canadian Alliance members. That is
a simple fact. Alberta people believe most strongly in the
policies, the principles and the integrity of our party so they
voted for us.
When we had senatorial elections, whom did they select in our
province? With more votes than any member of the House of
Commons got, they selected two members who happened to be
associated with the Canadian Alliance. Those are our senators in
waiting. Are they getting respect? No. Who does the Prime
Minister appoint when there is a vacancy in Alberta?
I have no disrespect at all, because I know that it is against
the standing orders, but I say this genuinely. I have the highest
respect for people who are in the Senate from our province. I
happen to know Tommy Banks a bit. I have admired some of his
works for many years. Now he is a senator which is great. Had
he run for election and the people said that he was their
selection, then fine. However, we had an election for the Senate and
he did not even run.
I have heard it said in the United States that to be a senator
one has to win an election. In Canada to be a senator, one has
to lose an election. People who run for the currently governing
party, if they lose in their riding, end up getting appointed to
the Senate instead. That is absurd. It does not sit with
modern day democracy.
We are talking about a Senate which balances the powers of this
place by one in which senators are equally represented across the
country, in terms of the same number of senators per province. We
are talking about an elected Senate, elected by the people. We
are talking about an effective Senate which basically would
continue with the powers that the Senate has now.
I strongly urge members, especially the Prime Minister, to watch
his tongue when he says that we rejected an elected Senate
because we did not support the Charlottetown accord. One just
cannot give a guy a little bit of a dirty stick with some icing
on it and say “Here, eat the whole thing”. We would have taken
the icing all right but it was covered with so much other totally
objectionable material that we had no choice. The Canadian
people proved that we were the ones who were right. When an
analysis was done across the country, the Canadian people were
the ones who rejected the Charlottetown accord. It was not us.
All we did was get into the debate.
Just talking about the Charlottetown accord debate, I remember I
was a recently elected nominee for our party at that time. I was
elected in June 1992 to represent our party in the next federal
election which we thought would possibly be that fall. Of
course we know that the Conservatives postponed it because all
indications were that they were going to lose, and how they lost.
Here I was a neophyte, a math and computer teacher, and I was
asked to go to a forum in one of the towns in my riding to debate
the Charlottetown accord. I was on the stage with no less than the
woman who until recently was the leader of the Liberal Party in
Alberta. At that time her name was Nancy Betkowski. She was an
Alberta cabinet minister in the Conservative government of the
day. Next to her was Brian O'Kurley, the previous member of
parliament for Elk Island. He was of course a Conservative
member. There was a Conservative member of parliament, a
Conservative member of the cabinet from the province and me.
In my introductory speech, which was one of my first public
speeches, I remember clearly saying I never thought that I would
see the day when I would be standing on the platform with two
other people and they would be considered the heavyweights.
1205
As it turns out we had the right ideas. We had the right
analysis on the Charlottetown accord, and we stand by it. As
they say on that good game show “that's my final answer”.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in this debate to support the amendment moved by the
member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. Under the proposed
electoral reform, the Senate, that group of wise individuals who
represent the financial interests of Canada's economic elite
more than they represent the Canadian people, is to be
consulted.
I think that these people, who are not elected, should not
impose their view of how members of this chamber should be
elected. This would give them a power and authority that they
do not legitimately have because they are not elected.
Nor can I let pass without comment the views of the Canadian
Alliance member who is all for what was described in the
Charlottetown accord as a triple-e Senate: elected, effective,
and I forget what the third e stands for.
I would like the member to give this some thought. The Bloc
Quebecois is saying that the Senate should be abolished; it no
longer has a role to play. The Senate had a purpose in the time
of Caesar in ancient Rome. But I ask the member who is waxing
on about the beauty and grandeur of an elected Senate what
happens when an elected Senate opposes a policy of the governing
party.
We have experience of this in Quebec. At one point there was
an independence party in power in Quebec and 75 federalist MPs
representing Quebec in Ottawa. The federalist MPs said “We
represent the views of Quebecers just as well as MNAs do”. What
happens when an elected Senate tells the elected representatives
of this House “We represent the Albertans who elected us just as
well as the Canadian Alliance, 23 of whose 26 candidates were
elected.
We are just as legitimate as the Alliance”?
This is where things get tough and complicated when a second
elected House wants to have its authority recognized and
sometimes claims to have greater authority than the elected
members of this House. Instead of solving the problem we are
inviting squabbles between elected members in both houses.
We used to have that situation in Quebec. This is nothing new.
Until 1965 when it was abolished, we had a second chamber
called the executive council. Nobody in Quebec has ever asked
for the reinstatement of this provincial institution. It has
never been said in print or elsewhere that this was a great
loss for democracy or for the Quebec people. For all intents and
purposes, this assembly of unelected members did not represent
in any way the day to day interests of the public.
Now that my distinguished colleague of the Alliance who spoke so
highly of the triple-e Senate has finished his discussion with
his colleague, I would ask him to think this over. He said that
in Alberta his party won 23 seats out of 26. If we had an
elected Senate, senators elected in Alberta would be able to
work against the elected Alliance members of Alberta. We would
end up with the same kind of situation we had with Trudeau. He
was a member from Quebec in Ottawa and he said that he
represented Quebecers as well as the Quebec government did. He
even said we were a tribe and many other things besides.
1210
Members can see the dichotomy this created within the population
of Quebec between the federalists and the sovereignists. At
this point there would be a similar split between the Alliance
partisans and the Senate partisans, if we can put it that way.
The position of the Bloc Quebecois is to abolish this outmoded
institution which dates, as I said, from ancient Rome before
the time of Caesar. It is very costly, adds little and defends
little or rather does not represent the day to day interests of
the public. These are people who are, more often than not,
being compensated for services rendered.
I agree with the member who said that in the United States a
person has to be elected to become a senator. In Canada, a
person has to be defeated. A person must have run in a riding
during an election, lost or been rejected or revoked by the
public. This is the way to become a senator. This is the
history of the Senate in Canada.
Most of those who sit in the Senate are being thanked. It is a
way of recognizing service which, at times, has nothing to do
with the administration of a country. It is pure and simple
recognition for support, a hand up, a kind word with respect to
the Prime Minister during an election, for example, or an
attempt to influence the public during a vote which is
compensated by an appointment to the Senate.
For example, there are appointments in other areas.
I learned that my adversary in 1993, the person running against
me in Chambly, is now the president of the Canada Post
Corporation. I am delighted at his appointment as, he is a
competent individual. This is perhaps not the usual way to get
this sort of job, but luck arranges many things. The current
president of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is, in
my opinion, a competent individual, and I am delighted at his
appointment.
However, I know lots of others who had absolutely not one ounce
of administrative ability or anything else. As a reward for
running or for getting absolutely slaughtered in the
polls—because they knew in advance that there was no hope of
victory in a given riding—they were told “Run, and you will get
your reward”. Depending, I presume, on people's qualifications,
they ended up at various levels of government bodies or agencies
or crown corporations. Some of them are here on the Hill in
ministers' offices when their only qualifications are to have
been a defeated candidate.
We are saying that this change to the Elections Act,
is necessary. The chief electoral officer, a neutral citizen,
must be given authority. Until now his neutrality in
performing his duties has never been questioned. The Elections
Act contains many shortcomings.
All members here are elected. As the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans has said, no one
has ever been elected to this place after campaigning at gun
point in his or her riding. We are all representatives of the
people, democratically elected and entitled to hold a seat in
this place, even if this does not always suit those who are
seated on the opposite side of the floor. The opposition has a
right to be here under our parliamentary system and it plays
an important role.
In my opinion, there are many things that need changing. Surely
electronic voting will be one of those changes. The bill
permits electronic voting to be used, but there are some other
points that are questionable. For instance, for the owner of a
nursing home to be able to vote for all his residents is
somewhat undemocratic, in my opinion.
1215
Thought should perhaps be given to having a voter's card
because there is too much of this kind of substitution. There
are people who vote eight, ten, twelve, fifteen times on the
same voting day. Unfortunately the legislation governing the
last election was new as well. It had been substantially amended
and instead of improving matters it made them worse.
In the future, I hope that electronic voting or some other
process will bring about an improvement instead of the opposite.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting debate today.
When it comes to democracy most politicians have something to
say.
I have some background on the proposed legislation from the
standpoint that it all derives from what happened to the
Communist Party when it was running candidates and what happened
in the courts when it was stripped of its assets because it ran
less than 50 candidates. The government, in my mind, went
overboard.
The government has done everything it could to have a monopoly
on politics and to find a way to exclude parties that it
considers potentially troublesome. That is not democracy. It is
not acceptable for the government to take the actions that it
does.
The only accommodation that the Liberal government has made
toward the response of the courts in this whole action is that it
is now saying that a party only needs to run 12 candidates in
order to have a party label on the ballot. That is a precious
small concession when one considers what it takes to run a
political party.
Candidates need the ability to raise funds and to mobilize for
byelections. They need the ability to secure party assets that
continue from election to election and to have a continuous
stream of revenue for political activity. They need to be able
to carry out those activities without being hampered by a size
determined by the government. It is very anti-democratic.
It has to be looked at not from the standpoint of a start-up or
smaller party but from the standpoint of being a member of the
public. Does the public not deserve to know, according to label,
what that person wishes the label to be?
None of it makes sense when it is looked at in the true spirit
and sense of democratic principle. It only makes sense if one is
trying to restrict the political spectrum in some way and trying
to create a monopoly on politics.
It goes to the posture and attitude of government and of
governance. It is one more reflection, after being in this place
for eight years, of a government that enjoys governance too much.
It is prepared to dismiss anything that may disquiet its
enjoyment of governance.
1220
It is reflected in many ways. I must conclude that government
members, whether they are on the backbenches or in cabinet, are
so immune to other people's feelings that very often they do not
actually even recognize other points of view. Nor do they
recognize the toxic ramifications of some of their actions. They
may not today or tomorrow but they do filter into our society and
into our so-called democracy in ways that chip away day after day
at basic democratic principles and basic individual rights.
What is being done now will be challenged and it will go to the
courts again. The government has attempted to control third
party spending limits on advertising and that kind of thing. It
is a whole attitude posture, positioning to increase the comfort
zone of the government, fortifying its monopoly on politics and
excluding criticism.
The government is very consistent in how it approaches all these
issues. When there is pressure for change the status quo is
worse than standing still. The status quo is going backward
because most of the other western democracies are not retaining
the status quo. They are moving forward. Considering where we
stack up on basic democratic principles, we are having a much
more difficult time justifying that we are a true democracy.
I will refer to something that is near and dear to my heart.
Some members did bring into the debate some of the experiences
they shared in terms of the Charlottetown accord and all the
discussion, debate, heat and light that led up to that whole
exercise.
I was highly motivated as a citizen in 1992 to do something
about what I saw as an imposition by all political parties in the
House and by all provincial premiers. We were not here. We only
had one member. The comfortable political elite of the nation
tried to ram down the throat of Canadians an agreement that would
have changed the country forever and would have made it even more
difficult to make effective, progressive and democratic change in
the future. However we have been going backward even without the
referendum.
I was very motivated personally and that is what led me into the
political arena. If I had not been motivated in that regard I
would not have been motivated to run for federal politics and I
would not be here today. It is that simple. Maybe that is
good. Maybe it is bad, but I have enjoyed my time here.
1225
It was interesting to be part of the no side with limited
resources, resources that were raised in ways that involved a lot
of personal sacrifice, and then to watch the highly financed yes
committee. There is no way to compare it. If a forensic audit
were carried out, it would find that some business was done in
that time that was not tidy. I am thankful for the opportunity
to have spoken to the legislation.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on behalf of the
constituents of Calgary East. I had no intention of speaking to
the bill, but as the debate carried on and the points of view
were put forward I thought it would be appropriate to join the
debate.
The points that were raised have strong ramifications. There is
a plea from members on this side of the House for the government
to look at the way parliament is functioning, at the way elected
officials are functioning and at the way power is concentrated in
the PMO.
I have two points to make. Before I speak about the Senate and
the way our democracy works, I would like to make a small point
about elections. When I was signing my final returns the
returning officer brought to my attention complaints that she and
other returning officers had received when the chief electoral
officer had made comments regarding his consultation process
during the last general election.
The chief electoral officer said that he had met with DROs and
key players to prepare his report. Unfortunately he made
comments in his statement concerning DROs whom he had not
consulted. He did not explain why he had not consulted them. It
raised unhappiness with the DROs who were not consulted. By
addressing the issue here I would hope that the chief electoral
officer would address it with the DROs who were not consulted and
who were not very happy with those comments.
I would like to talk about democracy in our country. In 1999 I
had the privilege of being asked by the former Governor General
of Canada to join him on a state visit to five countries in
Africa. I was informed that the purpose of the state visit was
to promote democracy in these countries where democracy was
slowing taking root.
When I looked at who was going on the state visit I found out
that we would be accompanied by two senators. The comments that
I am about to make have no bearing on the two senators or their
characters. I am sure they are very fine gentlemen. I know them
very well and I have great respect for them.
It is the institution we are talking about and not the
individuals. I was puzzled and disturbed to be going on a state
visit to other countries to talk about democracy accompanied by
the symbols of what is not a democracy in this country. These
are people who sit in a chamber. They are not elected by the
people of Canada but are appointed by one individual at his whim.
How can we call that a democracy? That institution represents a
power that is in one office.
1230
Here we were going to another part of the world to tell it
about democracy and how democracy works in our country. I found
that very contradictory, so I wrote back to the Governor General
and told her that. I asked if she would perhaps allow me the
opportunity, when meeting with parliamentarians in other
countries, to tell them that there was a problem with democracy
even in our country and that reforms were needed. After some
pause I was given permission by the Governor General to bring up
this point.
Henceforth, everywhere we met with parliamentarians, I made sure
they understood that there was not a full-fledged functioning
democracy in Canada, that Canada also had problems and that
Canadians were demanding reforms to make it a truly functioning
democracy.
When I brought up this subject, it was amazing that
parliamentarians in other countries stopped, looked and listened.
They could not believe we had an upper house in Canada that was
not elected, that it was appointed and appointed by one person.
They could not believe that was possible, and that we call that a
parliament of Canada. The more I talked about it the more they
shook their heads. I told them they should not do this. I told
them that as they were laying the foundations of democracy not to
import to their countries the mistakes, those cracks in
democracy.
When I meet with foreign delegates who come to Canada, the first
thing they ask is how can we have a chamber that is not elected.
Democracy means the voice of the people, not the voice of the
elite. The people can only be heard through elections, not
through appointments.
What we have is a fundamental flaw in our democracy. That is
why the voices of Canadians across this nation are demanding that
this parliament be reformed so that it can truly represent the
voice of the Canadian people.
Our provinces have asked that their voices be heard. That is
why the province of Alberta went through an election and elected
two senators. This is the choice of the people of Canada.
At this stage I would like to commend the former senator, Mr.
Ghitter, who resigned from the Senate because he felt it did not
reflect the will of the Canadian people. I hope that is the
reason he quit.
Senator St. Germain is still in the Senate but has publicly
stated that he would like to be an elected senator. I am sure
those senators would. I have met nice senators. There are good
senators and hard working senators. I am sure if all senators
ran for election and got the legitimacy of the people, they would
be far happier to sit in that chamber than they are right now.
Those are the comments I wanted to make. I hope the words
spoken by the members in this place will have some impact on the
government to see that there is a reform of parliament and that
there is a voice of the people in this parliament.
1235
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
was at a distinct disadvantage since, as you know, I am totally
unilingual so I speak only English. There was no translation
available and I do not know what the government member said. If
you will inform me of what he said, and depending on that, then I
would possibly have a response.
The Deputy Speaker: With somewhat different approaches,
the whip on behalf of the government and the hon. member for
Crowfoot on behalf of the official opposition, we end up with the
same result. When a vote is deferred to the next sitting day, in
this case being Friday, it is automatically deferred to Monday.
The recorded division on report stage Motion No. 1 will take
place on Monday, April 23 at the end of government orders.
* * *
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
The House resumed from April 2 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-17, an act to amend the Budget Implementation Act, 1997
and the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank you for that clarification. I appreciate that
you compensate for my inabilities. I am surrounded by people who
do that for me and I really am appreciative.
I would like to say at the outset that Bill C-17, the act we are
now debating, is an act to amend the Budget Implementation Act,
1997. This is an act that has been around for almost four years,
and we are now going to amend it. It deals with the
implementation of the 1997 budget.
Over the last number of years we have had a number of these
bills. About a year or so ago we debated an implementation bill
that extended back 10 years. It just so happens that the
finances of the government are done with the announcement of them
in a budget by the finance minister and that makes them law.
Then afterward we do it. We tax the people and take the money
from them. If the budget includes the giving of grants the money
is given, and so on. Eventually we get around to passing what we
have actually done.
1240
It seems to me that perhaps some of these things should be done
in a more expeditious manner. We would not have the problem of
people not really knowing where they stand on different issues.
I would like to talk a bit about Bill C-17 and about the whole
idea of budgets and finances of the government in general.
First, one of the features of the bill is it increases funding
for research and development. I do not think there are very many
Canadians who would not acknowledge the importance of research
and development. As a matter of fact over the centuries our
standard of living has increased based on the things that people
have invented and discovered. Sometimes these discoveries are by
accident and sometimes they are very methodically carried forward
with years of developmental research. Finally, they zero in on
exactly what needs to be done to achieve a certain goal, for
example, in the health area.
Many decades ago I remember reading about Madame Curie who
invented the x-ray. An interesting thing happened. She put a
uranium source in the same drawer as some film and lo and behold
the film was clouded. Therefore, she was able to deduce from
that that the radiation from the source caused an effect on the
film which is of course a chemical reaction.
That was the beginning of being able to analyze what was going
on in a person's body, whether healthy or ill. Usually of course
this is done for reasons of illness or for injury. We are able
to examine what is happening without having to perform surgery.
Many times, especially over the last 40 or 50 years, it has still
been necessary to perform surgery to see what was going on.
I remember a very pivotal event in my life when I broke my ankle
on July 1, 1968. I was out with a bunch of boys at a children's
camp. I was acting as a counsellor for a couple of days. I took
these boys out for a hike and we jumped a fence. I do not know,
Mr. Speaker, if you even want to contemplate that. It conjures
strange images I am sure when thinking of me jumping a fence, but
I did. Unfortunately, when I landed I was in a twisting motion
and my ankle broke. I had to hobble back to camp. It was quite
a task for a guy my weight to get back since I have always been
heavy. It was probably close to a kilometre from where we were
to get back to camp. I had to go all that distance on one leg
with a makeshift crutch because these little boys could in no way
carry me. I am sure everyone understands that.
When I got to the hospital, my leg did not have to be cut off.
Although one of the guys at the youth camp had suggested it as
soon as I hobbled into camp. He said to some of the others “Hey
guys, get the axe. We have to amputate”. We had a little laugh
about that.
The first thing they did at the hospital was to x-ray my leg.
They determined the ankle was broken and proceeded to put it into
what turned out to be an extremely painful cast. I suffered for
six weeks in a cast. It was almost two years before my ankle was
back to normal. At the best of times my ankles have to work
pretty hard in order to carry the burden that is assigned to
them. As a result of research they were able to determine how
bad my ankle was damaged without having to cut the skin open and
get in there and probe.
However, in my own short lifetime I remember a number of
occasions where people have had an illness or an injury.
1245
In order to diagnose it they had to do what was in those years
called exploratory surgery. It is still done occasionally but
much less now. What started out as medical research leading to
x-rays many years ago has since developed into other diagnostic
tools, including audio diagnosis, CAT scans and magnetic
resonance imaging or MRIs. All these different techniques for
getting a picture of what is inside a person are very useful.
These techniques are a result of very careful research,
development and testing.
The question is where the money for the research should come
from. I was an academic earlier in my life. I went to
university and those were probably the best years of my life. I
had more time then, and I say that with all due respect to the
pages who are very busy now as students. I had more time then to
read books just for the fun of reading them than I have now with
the business of life that happens when one accepts adult and
family responsibilities and all other things that go with them.
In my career as a student and later on as an educator in a
technical institute I always felt that there was a proper role
for the use of public funds to fund research and development. One
example would be the academic research environment in a
university working in conjunction with perhaps the Medical
Research Council of Canada. In Alberta we have a very strong
Alberta Research Council in Edmonton and Calgary. I am
specifically familiar with the one in Edmonton but there is also
one in Devon. Each one does different kinds of research and some
of it is the medical research I have already talked about.
A lot of research goes into the processing and refining of
oil products in Alberta. The council looks at more efficient
ways of using energy so that our non-renewable resources are
treated carefully and we do not run out of them.
These research projects are very worthwhile. Although there is
a proper role for the funding of many of these projects by
private enterprise, and that happens big time, there is a role
for the use of public funds through the universities, through the
research councils and through all the different granting
institutions we have developed in the last number of years.
One thing that has happened in Bill C-17 is that there will be
an addition to the Canada foundation for innovation. Whereas
before it had $500 million in its budget based on the mini budget
of the Minister of Finance last fall, the bill would now add
another $750 million, making the total $1.25 billion for
research. That part of the bill is very worthwhile.
I am rather surprised that you are giving me a signal for time,
Mr. Speaker. It was my impression that I had a 20 minute time
slot and I am prepared to speak for 20 minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Price): It was a 10 minute speech
and the hon. member split his time with the speaker who spoke
last on it.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that I was
splitting my time. I thought I was the first recognized speaker.
May I have consent to continue my speech for another 10 minutes
as I have only finished half of the introduction?
The Deputy Speaker: If I could assist the hon. member for
Elk Island, the colleague with whom he was sharing his time was
the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. He would have had a few
minutes left on questions and comments.
He was not able to be here at this time and so we continued
debate with the hon. member for Elk Island for the remaining 10
minutes of that period.
1250
The member for Elk Island was also asking if he could have
unanimous consent to continue his speech for 10 minutes. Does he
have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I was listening with quite an interest to what my
colleague from Elk Island was saying. Since members on the
governing side would not give him any time to continue with his
speech, and I do not know what they are afraid of, I would like
to hear what he has to say in the remaining five minutes.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
bailing me out because I do wish to address some of my concerns.
I have spoken in support of the idea of funding research and
development, especially with respect to medical research that
improves our standard of living. That is something we have to
do.
We also have to recognize the fact that Canadians right now are
in dire straits when it comes to research and development. The
bill does not address that and the government should start
addressing it big time.
Pouring money into research and development is one thing, but
one also has to develop the whole culture of research and
development. That happens in an academic environment by being
surrounded with people of like mind and of equal great ability.
It occurs when we have places of research which are outstanding
in their ability and which attract the best in the world.
One of our huge problems is that researchers get paid in
Canadian dollars. The bill would increase the initial funding of
$550 million by $750 million, which is more than doubling it. All
that does is compensate for the fact that our researchers and
scientists are paid in Canadian dollars. It means the increase
is necessary to compete with our American neighbours, for
example.
Currency is a very important aspect of the bill, but the
expenditure is nothing but a cover-up by the government. It
covers up the government policies which have brought us such an
extremely low Canadian dollar. It puts us at a disadvantage when
competing for the brains and bodies of the brightest in the
world.
I would also like to make a point about the bookkeeping process.
Over the seven or more years that I have been here now, I have
seen too often how the government uses the opportunity to put
into budgets things that would use up the current surplus without
properly accounting for them. No other businessperson in Canada
could do that. I could not as an owner of a trucking company say
that in the next five years I need 10 new trucks, buy two trucks
per year for the next five years and bill them all in this year's
budget because I have a surplus and thus reduce my income tax.
Accounting principles and the income tax law do not permit it,
yet the government does it over and over again. This one time
expenditure extended over the next five years will be totally
billed to this year's budget. That is a sleight of accounting
hand and the finance minister should be chastized. The
government has done that too often.
The government did the same thing with the millennium
scholarships. In 1998 the government introduced a $3 billion
millennium scholarship fund which it was to use to help win the
next election. It seems to have worked. It was billed in 1998,
spread out over the next three years and very little of it paid
out until the election year. Most of it was spent during the
election year or leading up to the election. I take personal
umbrage at that. It is offensive and it ought not to happen.
1255
In summary, we support the objectives of the Canada foundation
for innovation. We believe the money expended should be properly
accounted for, not just booking it in the fiscal year just
ending. We believe the government is wasting time in parliament
bringing in amendments that should have been done properly if it
would have done the legislative work correctly, because some of
the other amendments addressed that.
I have some happiness with the fact that the minister has pulled
back from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board but I deeply
wish the Canada pension board would be subject to an audit by the
Auditor General of Canada.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party
to take part in the debate on Bill C-17.
I must be clear from the beginning on what we are debating here
today. We are debating an anti-democratic, unparliamentary,
omnibus bill. The two parts of the bill have absolutely nothing
to do with each other.
The first part of the bill appropriates funds for the Canada
foundation for innovation. The second part makes amendments to
the Financial Administration Act, which has nothing to do with
the Canada foundation for innovation. Both issues are separate
and should be dealt with in two separate bills.
In the time that I have had the honour to serve my constituents
and the Canadian people in the House, I have worked on quite a
few bills. Currently I am my party's critic for industry,
transportation and infrastructure. I have also been the treasury
board critic and housing critic and have worked on bills in those
areas. I have also worked on bills, which were of particular
interest to the constituents in my riding: everything from
health and justice to aboriginal affairs.
I have worked on a lot of bills, and what concerns me is that
the more bills I see the more common it is becoming for the
Liberal government to introduce these kinds of omnibus bill. This
is not a rare occurrence. This is not something the government
does once in a while. It does this all the time now, although it
says it is for very good reasons.
The Liberal government does not want to let parliament properly
debate and scrutinize its legislation so it just slaps a bunch of
completely unrelated items together and makes us vote on them all
as a package. This is not a transparent and democratic process.
What is so anti-democratic about the bill? Well, as I said
earlier, it has two parts. The first part would appropriate
funds for the Canada foundation for innovation and the second
part would amend the Financial Administration Act.
The problem is that we, in the NDP, support part one, dealing
with the Canada foundation for innovation, but we oppose part
two, the amendments to the Financial Administration Act.
By putting these two completely unrelated items together in one
bill, we are being forced to vote against something that we like
and support, the Canada foundation for innovation.
To register our opposition to the government's changes to the
Financial Administration Act, we must vote against the whole
bill. Members in the House, not just from the New Democratic
Party but from all parties, cannot accurately represent the views
of their constituents by voting on these two completely different
issues together.
I will now say a few words about the parts of the bill that we
would otherwise support before I move on to the reasons that we
will be opposing the bill.
We support increasing the funding for the Canada foundation for
innovation. The foundation does important work to support
research and development in Canada's universities, hospitals,
community colleges and other public and non-profit agencies.
Canada has a clear deficit in the area of research and
development compared to most other members of the G-8 and this
deficit has been made worse by the Liberal government's massive
cuts to post-secondary education. The Canada foundation for
innovation helps in a small way toward overcoming the research
and development deficit. My fellow New Democratic Party MPs and
I support the work it is doing.
We have heard from representatives of different areas of science
and research on the industry committee about the money that was
finally put into research and development. I was extremely
impressed with the work they have done in such a very short
period of time to promote Canadian research and development in
science and technology.
1300
I have been truly impressed by the fact that 75% of people
involved in these areas are educated in Canadian schools. It is
extremely impressive, I must admit. I did not realize it until I
was part of the industry committee.
We have gone in the right direction and put federal dollars into
research and development. We do not risk creating an environment
where, as in the U.S., only the commercialization of science and
research and development is able to succeed. We will finally
support those programs.
It would be nice if the federal government had kept this issue
separate from the other. We have a few ideas on how to improve
the foundation's work and I hope we will be able to address them
as the bill progresses.
As my colleague from the Alliance has mentioned, it would be
nice if the foundation were reviewed by the auditor general. That
is what the auditor general recommended, but it is not the case.
As a result there has been criticism that the process is not
transparent.
I recognize that representatives from the foundation who came
before the industry committee were working among themselves to
ensure a transparent process. We heard questions from my
Alliance colleague about the improper spending of government
dollars. There were suggestions that there is government
intervention as to where the dollars go. We therefore need a
transparent process.
In spite of Canadians not having faith in our democratic system,
politicians, the government and specifically the Prime Minister,
and believe me they do not, I would wager a fair chunk that they
have faith in the auditor general. They have faith in the
integrity of the past auditor general and I hope they will have
faith in the new auditor general.
One does not hear criticism of the auditor general's reports or
of his integrity. Canadians have faith in the auditor general
and in the position that he holds, and I hope that will continue.
We should listen to the auditor general's recommendation to have
the foundation reviewed. As I said, there is not necessarily a
problem. However to have faith in the system and ensure public
dollars are spent wisely and legally we must do so.
Part 2 of the bill, the changes to the Financial Administration
Act, governs the rules for borrowing by government departments,
agencies and certain crown corporations to make them more
accountable to the Department of Finance. That is a good thing.
It closes a loophole that needs to be closed. What we in the New
Democratic Party object to specifically and very strongly is
clause 6 of the bill which adds the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board to the list of crown corporations exempted from
the Financial Administration Act.
My fellow NDP MPs and I do not support exempting the CPP
Investment Board from the Financial Administration Act. The CPP
Investment Board is not like the CBC or the Bank of Canada. It
does not need to be arm's length from the government. We believe
that the crown corporation entrusted with investing the hard
earned pension money of Canadians should not be exempt from
democratic oversight.
We said the same thing when the CPP Investment Board was created
by the government a few years ago and we stand by that today.
This is the pension money of Canadians. It is what many
Canadians will rely on in their retirement years. For many
people it is pretty much all they will rely on.
The corporation entrusted with that money ought to be
responsible to the Canadian people, not to a government appointed
investment board. However it is not. The way the Liberals have
set up the corporation, the only people it will be responsible to
are bankers on Bay Street. That is a dangerous way to treat the
hard earned pension money of Canadians. By the time my three
kids reach retirement age they will look back on how today's
Liberal government handled the Canada pension plan and say that
it was a mistake to set up it up as the CPP Investment Board.
My party colleagues and I indicated that we believe pension
dollars should be invested into ethical funds and ethical
investments. What is the reasoning of a government which
promotes healthy living and anti-smoking but allows the CPP to
invest in tobacco companies?
1305
What is the reasoning behind that? What is the reasoning behind
the board's investment in Talisman, the energy company which is
tearing itself through Sudan and which is, from my perspective,
certainly a part of the carnage taking place within that country?
I take offence to even a penny of my pension dollars going to
Talisman, Imperial Tobacco or any fund like that. As a citizen
and a payer of pension dollars, I should be able to tell the
government it cannot invest at least my share of CPP payments
into those kinds of funds.
Believe it or not, some of us feel strongly enough about the
issue to forsake the increased profit of selling tobacco to
people in China. As the domestic tobacco market shrinks due to
growing public awareness of its health risks, I do not want our
dollars to promote it anywhere else in the world.
In conclusion, I reiterate my party's opposition to the bill
even though there are parts of it we like. It is extremely
disheartening that we cannot support the setting aside of money
for the Canada foundation for innovation. We are not able to
support it because we must vote on the bill in its entirety.
Although we support the setting aside of money for science,
research and development, we stand clearly and strongly for a
democratically accountable CPP investment board which answers to
parliament, and the bill does not provide for that.
I restate once again my profound displeasure with the government
for bringing forward these measures in an anti-democratic and
unparliamentary omnibus bill. It should have brought in two or
three separate bills to allow each issue to be voted on
separately. It once again shows the Liberal government's
profound contempt for democracy. It is something Canadian people
will not let the government get away with forever.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents
of Calgary East to speak to Bill C-17. My colleague from the NDP
quite rightly pointed out that a lot of things are wrong with the
bill. We agree with many of the issues she raised today.
She said the bill was anti-democratic. I will make this
observation. My colleague from Elk Island spoke prior to her. He
addressed his concerns about the bill. Due to a mix up he
thought he had 20 minutes to speak but he did not. As he did not
have time to make all his points he asked for unanimous consent
to be allowed to do so. Members from the government side
refused.
What is the government afraid of? This is the house of
democracy. The Liberals should let people speak. They are the
governing party. They should show by example what is democracy.
For the Liberals to deny my colleague his right to speak
indicates they are afraid of something. They are afraid we will
be able to show what is glaringly wrong. They are afraid of this
coming out.
As my colleague from the NDP stated very clearly, the bill is
anti-democratic because it has two parts, the Budget
Implementation Act and the Financial Administration Act. She
rightly pointed that it creates a problem for the opposition as
to what it should support.
In reference to the Canada foundation for innovation, let me
quote the Canadian Alliance policy of the last election. It
stated:
We will appoint a Senior Advisor on Technology with private
sector technology experience to report directly to the Prime
Minister...We will bring the best ideas in business, government,
and universities together to facilitate the transition to the new
economy and position Canada as a global leader...We will increase
support to Canada's research granting councils, and appoint a
Chief Scientist of Canada to co-ordinate science activities in
all government departments and ensure that science, not politics,
prevails...We will increase Research and Development funding by
$500 million.
1310
As far as the Canadian Alliance and its members are concerned,
we recognize the importance of technology and of supporting
research with public dollars. Our nation has a proud history of
producing excellent scientists. Our record shows we are quite
capable of being the best in the world.
Everyone in Canada is extremely proud of Drs. Banting and Best
who invented insulin for the treatment of diabetes and changed
thousands of lives around the world. That is highly commendable
and Canada is quite rightly proud of it.
We do not lack brains. We do not lack men of distinction in our
nation. We agree with the government that it should support
technology and research.
The world is becoming smaller. Borders are disappearing. We
are moving into an era of globalization and fewer borders. As
borders diminish competition increases. As competition
increases, nations that are poised to take advantage of
innovation and new ideas are the nations that will progress.
Canada should position itself to take advantage of globalization
in the coming years. If we do not, someone else will and at the
end of the day we will be the losers. It would be a tragedy not
to support it when we have such an intelligent workforce and such
illustrious persons in our universities and research councils.
We have no problem supporting the first part of the bill,
although we have some questions as to the amount. We say $500
million. The government says $750 million. There is a slight
difference there but the objectives are the same. We feel that
our overall policy of lower taxation, freer markets and less
government interference would eventually see more dollars put
into research facilities across the country.
As my colleague from the NDP stated, the second part of the
bill, the Financial Administration Act, is where we have
difficulty and why we will not support the bill. If the bill had
been broken into two sections we would have supported the Budget
Implementation Act with reference to the Canada foundation for
innovation. However we have a problem with the Financial
Administration Act.
Our difficulty arises with a lot of issues. First, the bill was
brought forth to correct a legislative error. It is amazing that
with all the bureaucrats, research staff and huge departments at
the government's disposal it still makes legislative errors. It
spends billions of dollars and cannot even make a bill that is
right. It then must bring in another bill to correct the
mistakes. When opposition members have the opportunity to show
what is wrong, the government cuts debate short and does not
allow us to speak.
1315
Another reason we are opposing the bill is that the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board would be exempt from the Financial
Administration Act. However, we do like the fact that there will
be less ministerial intervention. We have been asking for less
government and ministerial intervention. When there is
government intervention, it spoils the good intention of a bill
because it is packed with patronage. Good programs usually
develop implementation problems due to unnecessary ministerial or
government intervention. We are happy when we see less
ministerial intervention.
We also have difficulty with the fact that the board would not
be subject to the auditor general's review. The auditor general
should have every right to do an audit when public funds are
being used. Public funds have been sent to the government, in
trust, to be used wisely and the only person who can advise the
Canadian public that the money has been used wisely is the
auditor general.
We look forward to the auditor general's report because he has
shown time after time where the government has failed to use
taxpayer money wisely. We are concerned that the Canada Pension
Plan Investment Board would be exempt from the Financial
Administration Act. The bill would also take away the auditor
general's right to audit the board and that is unacceptable.
Similar to what was said by my colleague from the NDP, we have
difficulty supporting the bill because it has two parts.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the bill is undemocratic. This is
the second time today that I find myself standing and talking
about legislation that is undemocratic. That is the direction of
the government.
I want to paraphrase a famous phrase because I do not remember
the words exactly. Winston Churchill once said that democracy
was very hard work but that it was the best governance system
that we had. If we choose not to work hard at democracy then we
will lose it.
The bill once again displays a malaise coming from the
government in terms of how it approaches very important
initiatives. There is nothing more important in what we do in
this institution than to look after the revenue that is collected
from taxpayers and purportedly spent for the greater good.
It is difficult to accept legislation that deals with two
unrelated things. It was unnecessary. If we had dealt with the
Canada foundation for innovation initiative separately, we could
have approached it in a very professional manner. We could then
have dealt with the rest of the bill, which would have been the
appropriate way to do it.
1320
I conclude that the government is using this as a political
instrument. It would like the opposition to vote against it
because then it could say that the opposition is opposed to the
Canada foundation for innovation. That is absolutely not the
case. We are opposed to the way that this came about.
In 1997 the Canada foundation for innovation was included in the
deficit as if it were a liability even though the foundation did
not exist at the end of that year. The government chose to
include the $800 million as a liability. It was a total
departure from previous accounting policies, practices and
principles for the third year in a row, and in contrast to public
sector accounting and auditing board guidelines.
The auditor general was very kind as he called it inappropriate
accounting and a parliamentary oversight. Inappropriate
accounting is a very strong criticism to come from an auditor and
parliamentary oversight is very kind indeed, because we are still
doing it. That criticism, which should be of major concern, is
being ignored. It is being ignored deliberately and not just in
this instance.
What do we have here? We have the Minister of Industry making
an announcement of a $750 million spending initiative. We are
not sure whether it is over ten years, or ten years plus or minus
one or two, or some other factor. The government wants to set it
all up as current liability and that is inappropriate accounting.
The government has now gone from the days when it was trying
very hard to balance the national books, because we had a crisis
in the making if we did not, to a position where we are spending
$35 billion more than we did the year before last. Thirty-five
billion dollars out of Canada's budget is a very steep increase.
A lot of it is going out in end of fiscal year spending sprees
that are not subject to the normal course of scrutiny which
happens when we have a budget in the spring with all that goes
into the preparation of the budget.
We have ministers near the end of the fiscal year making
spending announcements prior to any parliamentary or legislative
authority and operating under the assumption that they will get
whatever they want out of this place because this place is just a
rubber stamp. That is the way the government treats this place
and that is very destructive.
1325
Instead of bolstering, boosting and creating a progressive
dynamic democratic institution, we are going backward. It
happens time and time again. We have not had a government
committed to democratic principles for a very long time.
There may be some historical reasons for that. We were a much
more homogeneous country early in our history. We have always
been a country with a small population in a large land.
Governance was easier and it was more consensual. We were also a
very centralized country, whereas today it is very clear that we
are becoming less centralized because we are getting a lot more
economic growth from outside central Canada.
When I was a young man we were taught that our major city was
Montreal, Toronto was second, Vancouver was third and Winnipeg
was fourth. Things are very different today. At least three of
the top five financial cities in Canada are in western Canada.
There has been a complete rejockeying of positions in cities like
Montreal and Winnipeg.
This has changed the dynamics of the country much faster than
our central bureaucracy or federal governments up until now have
recognized. We need a government that works hard to make
legislative initiatives and other initiatives fit into a modern,
progressive and democratic model. Unfortunately that is not
happening.
Our party would like a simple amendment to be made to the
legislation. We would like to have the auditor general oversee
on an ongoing basis the Canada foundation for innovation. That
is not in the legislation. Unfortunately that is consistent with
where the government is coming from. We would make that
amendment to the bill and I would hope that government members
would support it.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
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.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1330
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly the vote is deferred
until Monday, April 23, at the end of government orders.
* * *
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
The House resumed from March 27 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-22, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax
Application Rules, certain acts related to the Income Tax Act,
the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and another act
related to the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure people will be surprised to see me get up for
the third time within two hours. This is a unique happening in
the House. I would like to remind people that this is happening
because the governing party is refusing to debate these issues
and is refusing to defend its bills. As such, the bills are
going through more rapidly because only the opposition is
pointing out what is wrong with the legislation. The government
is refusing to defend itself.
It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of
Calgary East to speak today to Bill C-22, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the
Excise Tax Act and the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations
Act. This bill, like many dealing with the tax code, is an
omnibus bill, meaning that it deals with a number of issues at
once.
As mentioned in the title of this bill, acts included are the
Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Excise Tax Act.
While each of these acts deserves attention and has important
consequences for Canadians, I would like to address my thoughts
to how this act impacts on Canada's competitiveness.
I have been appointed chair of the advisory committee on
globalization and competitiveness by the Leader of the
Opposition. The mandate of this advisory committee is to advise
and to get input from business leaders, academics,
non-governmental organizations and Canadians from all across the
country on the possibilities and pitfalls of globalization for
Canada.
There are countless ideas about how to make Canada more
competitive in a more interconnected world. These ideas need a
voice in parliament and the public sector. It is hoped that the
Canadian Alliance will be that voice.
For years the Liberal government has ignored the reality that
Canada is losing valuable ground to our neighbours to the south
and to our major international competitors. We know that the new
U.S. administration won a mandate based on the promise of
substantial tax relief and a targeted plan of debt reduction.
We know that income taxes are not the sole indicator of the tax
divide between Canada and the U.S. Canadians face other taxes
that push the total tax burden higher. The total tax burden
includes sales taxes, payroll taxes and other levies by all
levels of government, which create a Canadian tax burden that is
up to one-third higher than that of the U.S. It is clear that if
Canada does not follow U.S. tax reductions, the country will fall
further behind.
Mexico, our NAFTA partner, also has vigorous plans to become a
major centre for North American investment. Canada will face
increasingly tough competition from Mexico in our plans to
attract foreign investment. Mexico enjoys a unique position as a
member of NAFTA. It is the only North American country that has
a free trade agreement with the European Union as well as with
Mercosur, the free trade bloc with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and
Chile.
The challenges presented by Mexico and the U.S. are just two
examples of why Canada cannot afford to continue making negative
public policy decisions that impact our competitiveness.
When the current foreign affairs minister was the Minister of
Industry, while he was curtailed because he was representing the
government, he did at times manage to raise warning signs about
our country's tax bracket and competitiveness.
1335
A survey of the world's most competitive economies by the
Swiss-based International Institute for Management Development
has placed Canada at number 11, a drop of one place from last
year. The institute praised Canada for its infrastructure, legal
framework and human resources, but gave poor marks for its record
in science and technology and for uncompetitive taxes. Just
before speaking on this bill, I spoke on another bill in
reference to welcoming the government's initiative in helping
science and technology.
For years many of Canada's most successful companies and
business people have argued that high taxation impacts Canada's
ability to be competitive in a more interconnected world. High
taxation discourages investment and innovation and it is a major
cause of the brain drain. These issues have been pointed out
time after time to the government.
John Cleghorn, former chairman and CEO of the Royal Bank, said
that higher taxation has diverted savings into the government
sector that would earn higher productivity returns for companies
and societies at large in free markets. He went on to say that
higher taxation also hits living standards more immediately by
cutting off what is left in our pockets at the end of the day to
spend on our families and ourselves.
Canadian business leaders and academics will agree that for
Canada the challenge is to build a more innovative economy that
is well positioned for competitive success in the new global
market. To succeed, Canadian firms must take full advantage of
the opportunities created by greater economic integration and
increased cross border flows of goods, services, technology,
ideas and knowledge.
The responsibility for building a more innovative and
competitive economy falls primarily on Canadian managers and
entrepreneurs. However, government has a role to play as well.
Government can reduce taxes. It can ensure that Canadian
students are some of the most highly educated in the world. It
can provide the conditions necessary to make Canada the final
destination of foreign direct investment from all regions of the
world. The government can and must do all those things, but
sadly the government does not.
The government claims in the bill that it has cut taxes by
$100.5 billion over five years. This is what it is saying based
on its list.
However, let us look at reality. The reality is that we must
subtract $3.2 billion over five years for social spending. The
child benefit is a spending program delivered through the tax
system and it is an increase. It is not a tax decrease, it is a
spending increase. However, the government says it is a tax
decrease. It does not recognize that it is a tax increase. As
well, indexation is accounted for separately.
Next we must subtract $29.5 billion over the five years for
increased CPP premium hikes. We all know that CPP premiums have
been increased, yet the government refuses to say that is part of
its tax cuts and puts it separately. In reality, when we look at
the competitiveness for everything, it is a burden. The burden
comes out of the government's mismanagement of the CPP. I was
part of the debate on CPP premiums. What is interesting is that
when CPP was first introduced the government was saying the same
thing that it is now saying after 20 years of CPP premium
increases. Nothing has changed over that time.
As well, indexing personal income taxes is meant to hold the tax
burden constant over time, so it should not be counted as a tax
reduction.
Therefore, when we take out all these things, there is only
$47.1 billion in net tax reduction provided over five years.
Let me repeat that: it is only $47.1 billion over five years,
not the $100.5 billion that the government is claiming. We can
see innovative accounting here, with the government giving the
illusion to Canadians that they are facing major tax relief over
the next five years when in reality that is not happening.
1340
I received a call from one constituent who was a little puzzled
because he had heard about the government reducing taxes and he
could not understand why his net take home pay had suddenly
decreased. I asked him to take a closer look to see if his CPP
premiums had increased. Sure enough, CPP had increased. That is
why he is taking home a smaller cheque.
The government's current policy does not create the competitive
environment that we need to position ourselves for taking
advantage of the global economy. The Canadian Alliance has
proposed further reductions in taxes, which would create an
environment that businesses are looking for on behalf of
Canadians in order to poise themselves to take advantage of the
21st century.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not sure if
the member opposite has actually read the budget or the economic
update but he seems to have missed a number of points.
Maybe I could start with some of them. The $100 billion tax cut
announced in the economic update is the largest tax cut in
Canadian history in dollar terms. Let me provide some examples.
The member opposite seemed to indicate that there is no real tax
cuts or that they are minimal. Of course he mixes up, as the
Alliance Party always does, the Canada pension plan. The Canada
pension plan is a contribution based program, an investment in
the future. It consists of contributions from employers and
employees, so it is not a tax at all and the member knows that.
Of course the premiums do not go to consolidated revenue. Let me
read an example:
A two-earner family of four has a combined income of $60,000.
Last year they paid about $5,700 in federal income tax. Next
year, their taxes will fall by over $1,000—a first year tax cut
of 18 per cent. In less than four years their taxes will fall by
34 per cent.
In another example, a one-earner family with two children that
makes $40,000 will see income taxes decline by 59% from what
otherwise would have been paid in federal taxes, which I think is
a pretty reasonable measure.
I am wondering if the member opposite realizes as well that by
the end of June the CPP contributions will have maxed out, as we
say, as will EI generally. Any small impact of the increase in
the CPP will of course disappear at the end of June. In terms of
net disposable income this will be a huge boost to Canadians.
They will have more money in their pockets and more again in the
years to follow.
I wonder if the member has actually calculated that and what
that would mean to Canadians in a very positive way.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, finally the government
side has asked me a question. I have been up on three bills and
this is the first time the government has asked a question.
Obviously something is bringing them to this point.
The member across the way has brought up the same point I just
mentioned when I said the government is claiming $100.5 billion
in tax cuts while in reality the cuts are only $47.1 billion.
Whether it is a CPP increase or whether it is the other indirect
increases the government has put in, the examples the member
cites are examples of ideal conditions, which impact a very small
number of families.
I am sure that when the member goes back to his riding
constituents will phone us and find out that contrary to what
government members have been saying, that is not what the tax on
their take home pay is.
As a matter of fact they are taking advantage of provincial
governments such as the governments of Alberta and Ontario that
are reducing taxes. The take home pay increase is coming from
the provincial governments and they want to take credit for it.
1345
At the end of the day we should ask all Canadians what their
take home pay is and they will say it is contrary to what government
members are saying. That is not the reality out there. It is
similar to the home heating fuel program they brought in which
resulted in criminals getting the cheques. At the same time they
were saying they were helping the poor.
The Deputy Speaker: Before I resume debate I would
like to address myself to the hon. member for Elk Island. When I
was last in the chair, I believe it was late Tuesday afternoon,
he rose on a point of order.
We had conflicting views on the standing orders regarding the
matter of the vote on the business of supply being deferred and
whether debate should have continued. The member for Elk Island
was correct.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, since the very beginning of
time it has been a practice for citizens to pay tax to support
the services they receive.
The Book of Genesis tells us that both Abraham and Jacob paid a
tax of 10% on what they owned and this tax was called a tithe.
Later the Council of Vienne which sat from 1311 to 1312 approved
giving the money from the tithe collected over a six year period
to the King of France to finance the crusades. The concept of a
simple tax on revenue has been with us for a very long time, as
has been the concept of directing tax money to fund the costs of
a war.
It came as no great surprise when the federal government in 1917
introduced the Income War Tax Act as a temporary measure. The
act was 10 pages long and used relatively simple language. The
basic obligation to pay income tax was clearly stated in
subsection 4(1) where it said:
There shall be assessed, levied and paid, upon the income during
the preceding year of every person residing or ordinarily
resident in Canada...the following taxes:
At that time university educations were a rarity and one
certainly did not need a degree to figure out whether or not one
owed taxes and, if so, exactly how much.
Today the tax act is a case study in bafflegab. It stands in
violation of one of the most basic rights of Canadians: the right
to know and understand the laws that affect them.
Canada, like most other Commonwealth countries, has specific
legislation requiring the publication of our laws. The
Publication of Statutes Act requires that our laws be printed and
distributed to the public so that the public may know the law.
Just as our legal system has long held that ignorance of the law
cannot be a defence, it requires that citizens be able to access
the laws and therefore know exactly what they are. This includes
the Income Tax Act.
When we think about it, every citizen should know their rights
and obligations. That is a basic tenet of a proper running
democracy. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms meets
this standard.
On the Department of Justice website the charter prints on to
seven neat pages and can be downloaded in seconds. It has clear,
concise wording. For example, subsection 6(1) says:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and
leave Canada.
Canadians who have completed a grade three education will
understand this sentence and, more important, will understand
their rights and obligations.
By stark contrast the Income Tax Act is there as well. The
Income Tax Act is also on the Department of Justice website. A
warning lets would-be downloading taxpayers know that the act is
a whopping 5.3 megabytes in size, relative to the seconds it
takes to download the charter. One can only assume that this
warning is so users can make room on their hard drive and/or
prepare themselves for a lengthy wait by reading War and
Peace or building a ship in a bottle.
When one finally receives the completed file one is also in for
a very nasty surprise. Actually one is in for two surprises. The
first surprise is that the act is not really written in either of
our official languages. Turning to subsection 2(2), I will read
the first paragraph which is written in both English and French:
1350
In English it reads as follows: “The taxable income of a
taxpayer for a taxation year is the taxpayer's income for the
year plus the additions and minus the deductions permitted by
Division C”.
I have chosen one of the more straightforward paragraphs. In
order for taxpayers to answer the basic question “How much do I
owe” or “combien dois-je au gouvernement”, Canadians who own
mutual funds or who have invested in an RRSP need not only a
profound knowledge of arcane English but a mind which is
sufficiently powerful to follow the logistical gymnastics of the
basic calculations. It is amazing how far we have regressed
since 1917.
The version of the Income Tax Act which is on the Department of
Justice website was last updated on August 31, 2000. That means
that the web version does not reflect the changes to the act made
by the October 18 pre-election mini budget. Even after wading
through thousands of pages of linguistic fog, the taxpayer would
still not have a clear answer to the question “How much do I
owe?”
Fortunately the private sector is willing to help. The problem
is that the tax act is so complicated that the books which try to
explain it are nearly as thick as the act itself. Arthur
Andersen's Preparing Your Tax Return is 1,264 pages with a
40 page index. Let us think about that. The index to the guide
is four times the length of the original temporary Income War Tax
Act. It is, however, the authoritative guide, the one that the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency uses to understand the act that
it must administer.
The authors of this book accurately summarize the problems with
the Income Tax Act in the book's foreword. They write:
Because of the complex nature of the Canadian Income Tax Act, the
fact that relatively few of its provisions have been interpreted
by the tax courts, and that some of its provisions have not even
been interpreted by the CCRA, it has not been possible to provide
answers to all of the questions which may arise.
The complexity of the tax act is such that an entire industry
now exists to help Canadians navigate the minefield the act has
become. Accountants, tax guides and online tax filing services
multiply like yeast in a warm oven in an effort to help the
average person answer that simple five word question: “How much
do I owe?”
With the complexities of the tax code that Bill C-22 adds, just
imagine if other government obligations were crafted with the
same complications. For example, how many traffic deaths would
result if the rules of the road were as complicated as the tax
act?
How many Canadians would never travel abroad if a passport
application form were nearly as difficult as a tax return? How
many Canadians would watch Peter Mansbridge if he used taxspeak
in his newscasts? How many Canadians would drink water from a
public drinking fountain if the state could not affirm the
cleanliness of that water in fewer than 120,000 words?
On top of the lunacy and the complexity of our tax code, I
suspect that the fog the Canadians face in understanding their
tax code is deliberate on the part of the Government of Canada. I
think there is an agenda here, a hidden agenda.
The fact is the relief that average Canadians feel upon
successfully filing their jungle gym tax returns probably acts to
dull the rage taxpayers feel working eight weeks longer than
their American friends to pay their federal taxes. Let us not
forget that even as the finance minister postures and smiles in
the House, American workers pay their tax bill on May 3 while it
takes Canadians until June 30. Perhaps it is the relief of
actually working for themselves on July 1 that puts so much of
the glee into Canada Day celebrations.
The result of those taxes has driven the Canadian dollar into a
downward spiral. It is now hovering between 63 cents and 64
cents. The tax cuts that President Bush is considering in the
United States will both affect the value of our dollar and
further widen the income gap between working class Canadians and
their neighbours south of the border.
Government members continue to posture and smile around their
mini budget's tax relief but it hardly gives them bragging
rights. It is like the Trabant claiming to be the best built
east German sedan. It may be true, but it is of little comfort
in a world where other countries are doing much better.
It is of even less comfort when we realize that we are paying
far more federal taxes today proportionately than our
grandparents paid in 1917. In 1917, a family of two with a
single income of $3,000 paid $120 in taxes. In today's money
that is roughly $1,349 in taxes on income of $33,373.
1355
In 1917 Canadians started paying taxes when they earned in
today's dollars almost $16,800. Today individuals under the
Liberal government start paying taxes when they earn less than
$8,000. In other words the tax code has become more regressive:
more Liberals, more regressive.
This year a Canadian family of two earning that same $33,000
will pay $3,422 in personal income tax after the finance
minister's biggest tax cut in history. That means for every $3
in taxes in 1917 today's taxpayer will pay $7.61.
If we think back, in 1917 Canada was deeply involved in the
great war. Hundreds of thousands of Canadian men were fighting
in Europe. Canadians supported and subsidized 100% of their
patriotic effort. Their existence was 100% subsidized through
tax dollars. The government introduced the Income War Tax Act to
finance the war and help those brave Canadians.
Today in times of unprecedented peace and stability the
government needs more than twice as much tax revenue from the
average person just to run the status quo, and it does not even
run that very well or outside debt.
That is a scary thought and really demonstrates the need for
genuine tax relief. Other countries have figured it out. The
government has not but other countries have. Places such as
Ireland have learned that cutting taxes means job growth,
increased competitiveness and a higher standard of living. The
Celtic tiger has outpaced Canada in both standard of living and
competitiveness since 1989.
The government needs to do two things to convince my generation
to stay in Canada and to lure other workers here. It needs to
simplify the tax system and it needs to cut taxes overall.
Simplifying our tax system is needed because it lets people know
directly how much they owe and because it focuses the debate not
on the language of the act but on the amount paid in tax. In
other words, how big is the government and how much do we have to
ante up for it? That is a healthy debate for the country.
Once people get a clear avenue of calculating their real tax
burden they will demand tax cuts with the same zeal they now
demand for balanced budgets. When that day comes the government will
have no choice but to limit its voracious appetite for tax
dollars and offer meaningful tax relief. On the same day
Canada's standard of living will rise and our international
competitiveness will be boosted if the government shows this kind
of leadership.
As a member of the most overtaxed and debt saddled generation in
Canadian history, I will celebrate that day when it comes. In
the meantime I will continue voting against and speaking against
Liberal halfsteps and increased tax code complications such as we
see embedded in the bill we are debating today.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I just want to say that was the best speech we have
heard from that riding in about three years.
On the weekend there was an article in the National Post.
It was quite a lengthy editorial about the things Canada could do
to get ahead of the U.S. as far as economic policy is concerned.
There were a number of really broad based, thinking outside the
box kinds of scenarios.
I would like to ask the member what he thought of a particular
scenario. It was suggested that young people starting in the
workforce should be able to earn the first $250,000 of their
lives taxfree to give them a head start in building their homes,
raising their families and educating their kids. What does the
member think about a scenario like that?
Mr. James Moore: Mr. Speaker, a proposal allowing people
to earn $250,000 before they owe their first nickel to the
finance minister is the kind of progressivity we need.
I am a former student. Rather than giving a GST rebate cheque
for home heating fuel expenses to students who do not pay those
expenses, who do not need it and do not deserve it, why does the
government not give broad based tax relief that really means
something?
As the hon. member for Lethbridge knows, in modern Canada today
a totally obscure bureaucrat who knows nothing, has invented
nothing and has created nothing has more power in our economy
than a Canadian who creates 10,000 jobs. That is the reality and
we need to change it.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
LANDMINES
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada is fully committed to the implementation of
the Ottawa convention to ban landmines, to assist landmine
survivors and to prevent the devices from inflicting deadly harm
sometimes well into the future and many years after military
conflicts are over.
1400
Canadian industry plays an important role in this effort, in
co-operation with our Centre for Mine Action Technologies. Since
1981, for example, Med-Eng Systems of Ottawa has provided
protective equipment to help save the lives of bomb disposal and
demining personnel in over 130 countries worldwide.
With the assistance of this corporation and through the
Department of Foreign Affairs and CIDA, Canada has proudly
donated demining equipment for use in six different countries
affected by anti-personnel landmines, including Ecuador, Peru,
Jordan, Yemen, Bulgaria and Moldova. Soon Bosnia-Herzegovina and
Croatia will be added to the list.
All Canadians can be proud of our efforts to help prevent
further suffering from landmines.
* * *
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this morning in the House there was
an interesting debate on Canadian elections, with reference to
the current unelected Senate of Canada as laid out in the
constitution.
For the most part, Canadians are totally unaware that our
constitution is virtually impossible to amend. The support for
successful change can only come from the central provinces. An
amendment requires the support of two-thirds of the provinces and
50% of Canadians.
How long will Canadians tolerate such centralized power? Will
one province, which is smaller than my province, continue to have
four MPs and four senators? Will another province continue to
have 75 members of parliament guaranteed, regardless of size?
The Canadian constitution was originally written to protect the
political power of central Canada. Regionalism is a direct
result of this central power. Constitutional change is long
overdue.
* * *
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
shipbuilding and the contribution of this industry to the economy
of this nation is of highest importance.
From my part of the country, Niagara, in southern Ontario, we
have the Port Weller Dry Docks and the Welland ship canal. Port
Weller Dry Docks has operated its shipyard for 55 years and
employs 500 people. The direct and indirect impact of the marine
industry on the region of Niagara is in excess of $.25 billion.
Today the Minister of Industry received the Shipbuilding and
Industrial Marine Report. Through this document, the four member
team has outlined practical and workable recommendations to
improve the competitiveness of Canada's shipbuilding and
industrial marine sector and to capture opportunities for growth.
I, along with everyone concerned with this issue, applaud the
efforts of those who participated in the industry-labour team.
Shipbuilding is an issue of importance and of relevance not only
to the region of Niagara but to all of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
PROSTATE CANCER
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in men, prostate cancer is the second most common type
of cancer and the second greatest cause of death from cancer.
However, thanks to a recent breakthrough achieved with the help
of funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research,
there is hope in the fight against this disease.
A team under Dr. Simard, working in the T wing of the Laval
University CHUL research centre, and Dr. Johanna Rommens, of the
Toronto children's hospital, have recently discovered the gene
causing prostate cancer.
This discovery is important because of the difficulty in
determining the specific genes causing diseases such as cancer.
Although it is still too soon to develop a genetic test to
screen for this type of cancer, this discovery will be a
springboard to other very important discoveries.
[English]
Dr. Simard and Dr. Rommens are true Canadian heroes and I am
proud to be a member of a government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
* * *
WORLD HEALTH DAY
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, April 7 is World Health Day. The theme of this year's
public awareness campaign is mental health. The campaign aims to
draw the attention of Canadians to the challenges that mental
illness and brain disorders pose to individuals and families
affected by them.
Mental illness accounts for enormous suffering, disability and
increased mortality. An estimated 400 million people around the
world suffer from mental and neurological disorders. It is often
associated with violations of human rights, stigma, unemployment,
social exclusion, poverty, shame and secrecy.
1405
The solutions to mental illness can be found in communities
through mental health services, scientific research and the
health policies of government.
As we mark World Health Day, I call upon my colleagues to join
in this World Health Organization campaign to make good mental
health a priority.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the disgraced junior multiculturalism minister's
hurtful smears and remarks contradict her own government's
foreign policy.
When she smeared Kamloops and Prince George she also compared
Northern Ireland to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Macedonia. She
is seriously undermining Canada's efforts in the peace process in
Northern Ireland. Canada has contributed over $5 million of our
tax dollars to peace building efforts in Northern Ireland. The
Prime Minister must replace this minister before she does more
damage. The minister is subverting international efforts in the
peace process.
She is inflicting injuries not only at home but also on the
world stage. Her smears not only contradict her own department's
mandate but also work against the government's foreign affairs
agenda.
The Prime Minister must not send this embattled minister to
South Africa for the United Nations world conference on racism.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR CALGARY—NOSE HILL
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
official opposition has gone too far. On Tuesday in this
House the member for Calgary—Nose Hill compared our Prime
Minister to Slobodan Milosevic, the butcher of the Balkans.
This former president of the former Yugoslavia is to face the
international tribunal accused of war crimes and genocide.
Such insinuations are inadmissible. They discredit this House
and our Prime Minister.
Our Prime Minister is a man of integrity who has served the
Canadian public honestly for over 30 years.
No comparison may be made between him and Milosevic. The member
showed a lack of respect for him and for our institutions.
The Speaker: Order, please. Statements by members may not be
used to attack other members. This is contrary to the rules.
* * *
CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, every year for the past 40 years spring brings back
Cancer Awareness Month.
April 5 is Daffodil Day, a day that will in fact last three days
and help cancer societies collect several millions of dollars to
be used primarily to fund research on that disease.
Over the years, the daffodil, which looks both fragile and
strong, has become a symbol of hope and determination against
all types of cancer. That disease could affect one person in
three by the end of the year 2001.
April is designated to bring awareness to this particular
disease.
That is what the Fondation québécoise du cancer, which works to
alleviate the plight of those who are affected by the disease,
is doing.
During the next three days let us stop at the daffodil booths
and contribute generously to the fundraising campaigns of the
Quebec and Canadian cancer societies.
* * *
[English]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Tuesday this week we debated an opposition motion
calling for a public inquiry. That motion was defeated, but
during the debate a most regrettable comparison was drawn between
Slobodan Milosevic and the Prime Minister of Canada.
Many times in this House the passion of some members for the
subject of debate causes them to personalize their remarks and
say things they should not. This is an occupational hazard for
people such as us, who spend a lot of our time in politics
working with our mouths. Occasionally we make mistakes. The
appropriate resolution of a verbal mistake, no matter why it has
occurred, is a verbal apology, and our House accepts them.
Comparisons between our Prime Minister and Slobodan Milosevic
should be seen as odious to all of us in the House and hopefully
to Canadians at large. I ask the member to reconsider her
remarks and to put this matter right in the way we all have to do
here from time to time in this great place: with an apology.
* * *
BRANT FESTIVAL
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to announce a very special
event that will be happening on Vancouver Island. This weekend
the oceanside area of Parksville and Qualicum Beach is hosting
the 11th annual Brant Festival. The festival celebrates the
arrival of thousands of black brant geese migrating from Mexico
to Alaska.
Birdwatching, nature hikes, art exhibits, wood carving
competitions and lectures by renowned wildlife experts are all
part of the festivities.
1410
Highlighting this year's festival is the official dedication to
the Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Reserve. The United Nations has
awarded official recognition to the unique ecological attributes,
from the 1,817 metre elevations of Mount Arrowsmith, to the 300
metre depths of the Strait of Georgia, and our beautiful coastal
communities.
The biosphere designation will help promote conservation and
responsible development. I wish to extend congratulations to
festival organizers and to Dr. Glen Jamieson, president of the
Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Foundation, and his team on achieving
the MABR designation.
* * *
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the debate in this place has been acrimonious at best, but it hit
an all time low on Tuesday when a member tried to draw a
comparison between our Prime Minister and the butcher of the
Balkans, Slobodan Milosevic.
That member may think that is just insulting Liberals, but in
fact it is insulting to all Canadians who have moved to Canada
from the former Yugoslavia and to Canadians in general.
The member should withdraw the words and apologize. The member
has shown a total lack of morals, sensitivity and understanding
in a blind zest to destroy our Prime Minister's reputation.
Canadians will not forget this repugnant example of a member who
debases her party, herself and this place by making these
scurrilous comments. The member—
The Speaker: The Chair is very concerned with the tenor
of some of the comments. I urge hon. members to remember that
Standing Order 31 statements may not be used for attacks. I
recognize the hon. member did not name an hon. member but we are
going very close to the line here. I wish hon. members would
restrain themselves.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canada Post has announced that it is celebrating the summit of
the Americas in Quebec with a special postage stamp.
This is ironic because Canada Post is one of our public
services that is very vulnerable to challenges under these free
trade agreements. In fact, UPS is suing it right now for $230
million in lost opportunity because it says Canada Post is a
monopoly.
What exactly are we celebrating here? The loss of our economic
sovereignty? What is the stamp going to show? Perhaps a nice
picture of Hughie pepper-spraying a bunch of college kids would
be appropriate, or perhaps a picture of riot police strong-arming
peaceful protesters. How about a picture of a UPS truck
delivering our mail? That would be the vision of the future.
Where does Canada Post get off being a cheerleader for what
amounts to a charter of rights for foreign corporations?
I say it is nothing more than cheap political propaganda. It is
using a stamp to celebrate a trade deal that threatens to stamp
out democracy.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of all Bloc Quebecois members, I wish to express our
strong support for the report of the national partnership
project committee set up by the Minister of Industry which is
designed to make our shipyards more competitive.
This report is in response to the work of the shipbuilding
coalition and to my Bill C-213. It is a major victory for Bloc
Quebecois members, for the other members who supported me and
for all the stakeholders in the marine sector.
While we are pleased that the government is finally doing
something to make our shipyards more competitive with those of
countries that subsidize this industry or continue to apply
protectionist measures, we must deplore the fact that the
minister intends to take six months to follow up on the
recommendations contained in that report.
Since the Liberals have made a habit of postponing things, I
will soon introduce a new bill to force the federal government
to take quick and concrete action to help the shipbuilding
industry.
* * *
[English]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
October of last year the House of Commons subcommittee on
organized crime completed its study and issued its report on
organized crime in Canada.
I am pleased to note that this morning legislation and
comprehensive measures introduced by the justice minister and the
solicitor general incorporated several key recommendations made
by the subcommittee.
Among these were the recommendations to strengthen anti-gang
legislation to provide prosecutors and police with more effective
tools, to protect jurors, prosecutors, police and other
participants in the justice system from intimidation, and to
encourage greater co-operation and information sharing among the
various agents of justice and law enforcement involved in
organized crime investigations.
[Translation]
Parliament and Liberal government members are committed to
fighting organized crime and I am asking all members of this
House to support the measures announced today.
* * *
1415
[English]
NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Newfoundland's terms of union of Canada transferred jurisdiction
over Newfoundland's ports and harbours to the Government of
Canada.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is currently divesting
itself of 325 harbours nationwide and 136 of them, fully 42%,
are in Newfoundland.
Given the harsh economic realities in many rural coastal
communities in Newfoundland, that is not a fair move by the
federal government. If the Government of Canada cannot or will
not find the money to manage these harbours, how does it expect
the harbour committees to do it?
First it was our airports, now it is the harbours and, according
to today's news reports, tomorrow it may be our nation's water
supply. Is nothing sacred to the government?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
.[English].
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister ordered
Liberal MPs to vote against the wishes of the majority of their
constituents, and vote against an independent inquiry. He has
also declared open season on directors of public commissions. A
few weeks ago he actually ordered his MPs to vote against their
own promise in terms of voting against having an ethics
commissioner.
The very checks and balances that are needed to maintain
democracy are constantly being subdued by the Prime Minister.
Will he not do the right thing and, in spite of the forced vote
last night, ask for an independent inquiry and restore the
faith—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian public is absolutely tired of the personal
attacks from the opposition. They want the opposition to start
dealing with the real business of the nation.
Members of my caucus voted yesterday as members of a caucus. I
was not present because I wanted them to express their personal
views. I am very grateful they all voted the way they did on the
motion.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he said that he did not want to have
anything to do with it and that he wanted his MPs to express
their own views. Is he telling us that nobody from his office or
the whip's office communicated to the MPs at all in terms of
telling them to vote against the majority of their constituents
last night? Yes or no. He had nothing to do, the whip had
nothing to do and nobody told MPs how to vote. Is that true?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have great respect for my MPs and I am the leader of a
party of which I am very proud.
The one thing I would like to say to the Leader of the
Opposition is that when a member calls the Prime Minister of
Canada, Milosevic, and is backed by the member's leader, it is
the most disgraceful thing I have ever heard.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if that is where he wants to go, he
did not answer, yes or no, so that was very instructive to
Canadians. He did not answer again.
It was the former Clerk of the Privy Council who served under
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Gordon Robertson, who literally
wrote the book on ethics. He recently said that the Prime
Minister had lowered the bar.
Now, with the quashing of a public inquiry and these constant
orders to their MPs to vote against their constituents, he has
dropped the bar even farther. We are wondering how far this
Liberal limbo will go.
The Prime Minister has lowered the bar on public ethics. Is
this the legacy that he is happy about leaving to Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because the Leader of the Opposition had foot in mouth
disease he forced taxpayers of Alberta to pay $700,000. After
that there was a payback to his party by the law firm of $70,000.
Two months after this action by the law firm, it cooked the
books to pretend that one individual, two months after the
election, willingly gave $70,000 to a losing leader and a losing
party. It is absolutely unbelievable and probably scandalous.
1420
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is not to mention the $2.5 million the taxpayers
kicked in—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair cannot hear the
question. The hon. member for Edmonton North has the floor.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, what about the $2.5
million for airbus and $45 million for Pearson? That is quite a
chunk of change.
Yesterday we asked the industry minister a question about Jonas
Prince. It involved his legal responsibility for the Business
Development Bank and the Export Development Corporation.
Today I would like an answer to my question. Has Mr. Prince or
any of his companies received any direct or indirect funding from
Industry Canada, the Business Development Bank or the Export
Development Corporation?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would be very happy to look into the question that has
been raised and report back to the House at the first
opportunity.
Let me say to the member opposite that everybody in Canada is
waiting for the Leader of the Opposition and for the foreign
affairs critic to issue an apology for comparing the Prime
Minister of Canada to the butcher of the Balkans. This is lower
than low. It demands an apology and it should be issued without
delay.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the minister to stay tuned.
The question was very simple and it concerned Mr. Prince or any
of his companies. The minister said that he would look into it.
He has had 24 hours to look into it. This same question was
raised yesterday.
Again, there could be some link. We do not know that but we
want the minister to look into it. We are not asking for the
release of any information. We just want the minister to tell us
whether Jonas Prince or his companies received any direct or
indirect government funding.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today at the Museum of Civilization an expedition has
been mounted. It is a very important one. It covers the fishery
of Canada. A particular segment of it has been dedicated to the
greatest fishing expedition ever in the history of this country
that turned up nothing. It is dedicated to the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, another
contradiction cropped up yesterday in the Grand-Mère golf club
and Auberge Grand-Mère affair.
The Prime Minister claimed in this House that he had not read
the September 1999 agreement until last week. Yet when the
ethics counsellor—or the so-called ethics counsellor—testified
before the standing committee on industry, his reply to my
question as to whether the Prime Minister was directly involved
in the negotiation was “Oh yes, he was directly involved in the
negotiation”.
I would like to know whom we are to believe, the Prime Minister
who tells us he was not aware, or the ethics counsellor who says
“Oh yes, he was directly involved in the negotiation”.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have said it clearly and I repeat: I saw the document in
question only last week.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): So, Mr. Speaker,
the ethics counsellor has, I take it, not exactly told us the
truth.
In actual fact, however, whether the Prime Minister read the
document or did not read the document makes no difference. The
document exists and is signed by his company. In this
document we find that the Prime Minister renounces all
ownership rights which means he had such rights. Also, that he
offers a seller's guarantee which means he had something to
sell. What is more, he makes a commitment to pay the legal
costs of the purchaser, Michaud. What big-heartedness.
If all this is not a conflict of interest, what is it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what it is is the tabling of a document. That document is the
contract of a sale that took place on November 1, 1993. And after
that date I was no longer the owner of the shares. I no longer
had any interest whatsoever in the golf club.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the Prime
Minister not admit that it is rather odd, for those watching in
the habit of doing transactions, to have a person who sold
property in 1993 end up six years later a signatory to a
document giving the vendor's guarantee, promising to assume the
legal costs and transferring his property rights.
How does he explain that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again, the most surprising thing is that the opposition has
absolutely nothing to say about the administration of this
government.
I signed a contract on November 1, 1993 and I disposed of my
shares.
1425
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister is setting himself up as judge and jury in this matter.
He is deciding on his own that there is no problem, that the
opposition need not get in a state.
I put the following question to him. When the opposition has
documents, including a contract signed in 1999 which
incriminates him up to here, how can the Prime Minister think
there are matters more important than the integrity of the Prime
Minister to all those watching?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians know very well the Prime Minister of Canada. Next
week will mark 38 years I have served this country as an MP.
It was in fact to avoid any conflict of interest that I sold my
shares before becoming Prime Minister, that is, a few days
before I was sworn in on November 1, 1993.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the past,
Canada was a world leader on environmental issues.
But yesterday, the Minister of the Environment more or less
confirmed that Canada will not be ratifying the Kyoto accord
because of NAFTA and its trade relationship with the United
States.
Will the Prime Minister explain to us why Canada has changed its
position on the Kyoto accord?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
position of the government is absolutely clear. We intend to
implement the Kyoto accord and we hope that all countries in the
world, including the United States, will respect the agreement
which was reached.
For our part, we believe that Canada is entitled to count on
so-called sinks in the Kyoto accord and also to be given credit
for the fact that we are a very large exporter of non-polluting
resources vis-à-vis the United States. We want these credits to
be recognized for Canada, but we intend to respect the Kyoto
accord.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think
Canadians recognize backtracking and waffling when they see it.
They are concerned about it with respect to Kyoto and with
respect to the protection of our water.
In the last parliament, government members actually voted for a
ban on the export of bulk water. Yesterday the Prime Minister
opened the door on the very opposite.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister to explain. Why has he
flip-flopped on something as fundamentally important to Canadians
as our water?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us be very clear on this. The Government of Canada
will oppose the bulk removal of water from any of our major
drainage systems, period, point final, c'est clair.
Control over boundary waters is covered in Bill C-6, which is
currently before parliament. As for control over waters that are
entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces, each province
has taken action with respect to that.
Our position is clear: There will be no removal of bulk water
from drainage systems in Canada.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister's personal company must pay the cost of
Michaud's witnesses at any inquiry.
Yesterday was the first time in Canadian history where a Prime
Minister was forced to miss a vote because of conflict of
interest under parliamentary rules.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When he signed the
so-called bill of sale was Jonas Prince present at the time of
the Prime Minister's signature? Will the Prime Minister table
his schedule for that day?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot understand it. This man has been in the House
of Commons for far too long to be asking questions just to
destroy reputations. He is just fishing. I thought he had a
little decency but of course in growing older he is getting
worse.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the minister of agriculture told the Senate that his
answer to an illegal American ban on P.E.I. potatoes was to have
islanders consider getting out of the potato industry. That is
like telling Ontario to get out of the auto industry.
The Prime Minister is meeting President Bush in Quebec. Will he
tell the president to lift the illegal U.S. ban on P.E.I.
potatoes? Will the Prime Minister bring back to the House
concrete assurances that P.E.I. farmers will be able to export
their potatoes this year?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at long last. I would like to inform the leader of the
fifth party, who is paying himself $300,000 per year, which is
twice as much as the Prime Minister, that the first item I
discussed with the president when I was in Washington was
agriculture and specifically, among the two problems, one being
wheat, the first one was potatoes from P.E.I.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his international trade
minister are fundamentally at odds regarding the linkage of
energy with softwood lumber.
The Prime Minister is now musing that he wants to put a tax on
oil and gas sold to the United States. The international trade
minister says that the two issues should be treated separately.
Who is speaking for the government on this issue?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, traditionally Canada
does not make linkages from one sector to another.
As the Minister for International Trade has repeatedly said, we
have an excellent case in softwood lumber on its own merits but
the reality is, we would like to see a far better climate on
trade with the United States which claims to be free traders.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister himself who has raised the
spectre of linkage on this issue.
Yesterday the Prime Minister referred to President Bush as “a
naive cowboy”. Insulting the president of the United States is
not the best strategy for ensuring future co-operation between
our two countries. By musing about linking softwood lumber with
energy exports he raises many questions.
Here is a question for him. Will he now impose a national
energy style program export tax on energy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is inaccurate information. I never said that about
the president. I have a lot of respect for him.
Canada has signed a free trade agreement with the Americans. We
want free trade not only in resources but in agriculture and in
softwood lumber.
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as part of
FTAA negotiations, the Canadian government is consulting various
business groups on Canada's position and on the state of
negotiations through the sectoral advisory groups on
international trade, or SAGITs.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirm that representatives
of the business community have had access to FTAA negotiating
texts, the same ones which were denied to the public and
parliamentarians?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
well knows, the Minister for International Trade has consulted
very widely on this file. He has met repeatedly with provincial
ministers. He has met with lumber people from every region of
Canada. There has been a special parliamentary series of
hearings on this issue.
Canada has been a leader in transparency on this issue. The
minister is today pressing for more transparency in Buenos Aires.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think
the parliamentary secretary misunderstood the question.
The question is whether members of the business community had
access, in the advisory groups, to the texts he is refusing to
let us see.
How can he explain that these members of the business community
were allowed to see the texts, while parliamentarians and
ordinary Canadians and Quebecers were not?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member
has some specific evidence that he would like to show me after
question period, I would be very interested in seeing it and take
up the matter with trade officials.
Most of the research I am hearing today from the opposition has
come from the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the government's fiscal policies are not working for Canadians.
In 1997 our productivity growth was at 2.3%. Now it is barely
half of that. This means that our standard of living is falling,
along with our dollar.
What steps will the finance minister take to reverse these
worrisome trends?
1435
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first step would probably be to simply illuminate
the hon. member as to the real facts.
The fact is that our productivity began to increase in 1997,
not decrease. If the member wants further indicators, our
national net worth is now at an all time high. Our personal
disposable income is on the increase.
The fact is that Canadians are doing better. The hon. member is
wrong.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am talking about the rate of growth. The minister is talking
about productivity. Our rate of growth is now fantastically
short of the rate of growth of the Americans. Statistics Canada
gave us that information just this week.
The American growth rate is almost four times what ours is. That
means that in the economic race it is moving ahead on eight
cylinders and we are sputtering along on two. Our economy lacks
acceleration.
What will the minister do to keep us from falling way behind the
Americans—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. If he is talking about
productivity, our productivity growth is increasing. It began to
increase in 1996 and 1997 after about a decade of falling, and it
has turned around under this government.
If the hon. member is talking about economic growth, well,
my God, we are projected to have much stronger growth this year
than the United States. Over the course of the last four years
we have created virtually twice the number of jobs as the United
States.
The only rate of growth that is steadily declining is the
popularity of the Alliance Party.
* * *
[Translation]
TAX AGREEMENTS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
beginning of the government's mandate when its moral code was
less elastic, the Minister of Finance had to withdraw from
cabinet whenever the issue of shipbuilding was on the agenda.
Now the Minister of Finance is allowed to fully get involved in
the issue of tax havens.
How can the minister justify such involvement considering that
he owns 11 companies in tax havens, including eight in Barbados?
Is this not as obvious a conflict of interest as one can find?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again, the Minister of Finance complied with all the rules that
existed when he assumed his duties.
He is a very honourable person and, again, the Bloc Quebecois,
whose popularity is also declining, is only trying to smear
people.
I have total confidence in my Minister of Finance and so does
the whole Liberal Party caucus.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a well
known fact that the Minister of Finance is benefiting, through
eight of his companies, from the tax treaty between Canada and
Barbados.
What credibility can the minister have, since he is directly
involved in an issue in which he has a personal interest through
eight of his companies?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, the treaty with Barbados was ratified in 1980, long before
I came into the picture.
That being said, Canada has been a leader in the movement to
eliminate harmful tax practices. In this regard, Canada has been
a leader among OECD countries. We are also taking the lead among
the finance ministers of the western hemisphere and we will
succeed in eliminating these practices.
* * *
[English]
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Industry responded to a report
on the future of the shipbuilding industry in Canada and ruled
out future subsidization of this industry.
Since the minister has firmly committed to not subsidizing the
shipbuilding industry, would he explain why the federal
government has not fought the American, NAFTA-exempt, Jones act to
allow Canadian shipbuilding companies to expand into the United
States?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Alliance Party may be over there talking about
providing huge subsidies for the shipbuilding industry, but we
think the shipbuilding industry is capable of being innovative,
using new technologies, using training and using access to the
marketplace to carve out a niche that will be successful for
Canadian workers.
1440
We do not have the defeatist attitude of members of the
Alliance Party who think we can only do business with subsidies.
We are not of that view.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is quite a role reversal.
During his last provincial election campaign in Newfoundland,
the industry minister told shipyard workers that if his
government did not make the shipbuilding industry self-sustaining,
then they could tie metal plates to his ankles and throw him over
the wharf. That was five years ago. Now he is the federal
industry minister and he still has no plan.
When will the minister either produce a plan or return to the
wharf?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is not what I said, but I can think of a good use
for some metal plates and whose ankles they should be tied to.
A federal government appointed task force has just reported
today. The members of the task force have done an excellent job
in providing a tool kit with a wide variety of options open to us
to improve the quality and productivity of our shipbuilding
industry. We will carefully analyze that report and report back
to the House at the appropriate time.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the threat that organized crime poses to our
families, businesses, farms and our sense of safety and security
in our communities is well known by constituents in my riding and
in the riding of Brossard—La Prairie, whose MP has worked very
hard on this issue for many years. It is well known by all
Quebecers.
Would the Minister of Justice tell the House how the measures
she and the solicitor general announced will improve the fight
against organized crime?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after consultations with
provincial and territorial counterparts, police, prosecutors and
the subcommittee on organized crime, my colleague, the solicitor
general, and I introduced aggressive new measures and announced
new resources to fight organized crime.
Among other things, the legislation would target participation
in criminal organizations, improve the protection of those who
work in the justice system from intimidation, simplify the
definition of criminal organizations and broaden the powers of
law enforcement officers to seize proceeds of crime.
We are sending a clear message that this government stands with
the police and prosecutors who are an aggressive—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today is a great day for women. Kelly Lesiuk from
Winnipeg won her EI charter challenge and achieved a wonderful
victory for women and part time workers.
Justice Salhany has just found that the EI program, which
requires workers to accumulate 700 hours of employment to qualify
for benefits, is unconstitutional and demeans the essential human
dignity of women.
My question is for the minister responsible for the status of
women. Will she promise Canadian women that she will fight to
translate this decision into law and—
The Speaker: The hon. Secretary of State for the Status
of Women.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has always
fought very hard for the rights of women to have an economic
status better than the one that many have. We have always fought
for women to be able to work in the workplace and to be able to
have the advantages and the benefits that they require to allow
them to have choices. We will continue to do so.
* * *
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on Tuesday in the House, the right hon. Prime Minister talked
about water being excluded from NAFTA. Just days before that,
the Minister of the Environment was expressing his concern about
Premier Grimes' plan to export water from Gisborne Lake in
Newfoundland on the grounds that because of NAFTA, this would
bind the rest of the country in a way that he found unacceptable.
I want to ask either the Prime Minister or the Minister of the
Environment to explain this contradiction. The Prime Minister is
saying that it is excluded and the Minister of the Environment is
worrying about the NAFTA consequences of Gisborne Lake. Which is
actual government policy when it comes to this particular issue?
1445
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the days of 1993 before signing NAFTA, I definitely
know that one of the things my government demanded from the
Americans and the Mexicans was that water should be excluded from
the NAFTA.
It was agreed to by the Americans and by the Mexicans at that
time so we could sign. We had a very important victory in the
first week we formed the government.
* * *
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the government would have the softwood lumber industry believe
that we are in the calm before the storm when in fact the storm
is right now. In four months every truckload of lumber exported
to the U.S. today could be charged back countervail and
anti-dumping charges retroactively to last Monday.
Four months of potential charge backs would cripple and close
sawmills right across the country. What is the government doing
to alert these sawmills of this danger? What is the government
doing to help mitigate the damages?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for
International Trade has proposed an envoy system, as the hon.
member knows, with his counterpart, U.S. trade representative
Zoellick. He is today pressing that case in Buenos Aires.
The fact of the matter is that Canada needs a pan-Canadian
approach to this. Free trade is the answer. That is exactly
what we have now. If the Americans will just live up to their
claims of being free traders everything will be just fine.
* * *
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians want trade with the United States in potatoes, in
softwood lumber, but not in bulk water.
Will the Prime Minister stand in this place and deny or rescind
comments that his government will entertain the shipment of bulk
water? Moreover, will he assure Canadians that he will not
jeopardize the natural heritage of Canadians and once and for
all say that Canada's water is not for sale?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is exactly because the Conservative Party did not put
that in NAFTA that we had to move on it in the last week of 1993.
If we had not changed it, water might have been part of NAFTA and
we might have been obliged to sell it.
Because of the quick action of a brand new government within
weeks after we were sworn in, we blocked that loophole.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the government will continue to boast about its spending on
reducing carbon emissions, but the government is way off its
target for meeting its Kyoto promise, regardless of the newfound
enthusiasm that our green Prime Minister seems to have.
My question for the Minister of the Environment is not about
spending. It is about commitment. Is the government committed
to meeting its Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 levels by 2008?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, ignoring the fact that the Alliance Party was
against the Kyoto target the Prime Minister accepted, may I
simply repeat for members of the Alliance and the New Democratic
Party leader who clearly are unaware of what was said yesterday
in the House. I quote:
Nevertheless, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday and in
previous statements, Canada is committed to the Kyoto protocol.
We want to implement its provisions and we urge other countries
to do the same.
In response to a second question, I added:
The Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, everyone cares about the environment but we are asking
about accountability. Kyoto was the result of backroom deals.
There was no public position before Kyoto. There was no analysis
of the costs and benefits.
At present there are new pressures on Canada and Canadian
energy. Will the government do the right thing this time and
conduct national transparent consultations on the issue of
climate change?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I can
assure the hon. member that I will be meeting with ministers of
the environment of the provinces and territories very soon. We
will be discussing climate change among other issues.
I know this is also true of the Minister of Natural Resources. I
know it is true of many other ministers of the government and the
first ministers of Canada who discuss these issues when they
meet.
* * *
[Translation]
TAX AGREEMENTS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
well known that 11 of the companies owned by the Minister of
Finance are based in tax havens, including eight in Barbados,
and that consequently, the minister benefits from the tax
agreements signed by the Government of Barbados and the
Government of Canada.
1450
If the Minister of Finance is serious when he says that we must
eliminate tax havens, is he prepared to take a concrete measure
that comes under his responsibility and cancel the tax agreement
between Canada and Barbados, as demanded by the OECD?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
following the discussions at the OECD and other negotiations
within the G-7, it is very clear that we must proceed
multilaterally, not unilaterally.
This is Canada's position and that of all the other major
countries. It is the only way to succeed in eliminating these
harmful tax practices.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
credibility does the Minister of Finance have considering that
he has eight companies in Barbados? We are asking him to do
something that comes under his responsibility, namely to cancel
the tax agreement signed by Canada and Barbados from which he
and his companies are benefiting.
I agree that we must eliminate tax havens. Everyone must join
the fight against tax havens. But the minister can immediately
cancel the tax agreement signed by Canada and Barbados.
Will he do so? Yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I said before, such personal attacks in the House are simply
disgusting.
We are here to serve the public. We have a Minister of Finance
who is regarded as one of the best in the world. He has held
that position for eight years and he has the trust of not only
my party, but of all Canadians.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: This is a cheap shot. This is dishonest and
disgusting.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has the floor and we want to hear his
question.
* * *
[English]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in a world of 500 digital channels
Canadians are telling us that choice is what they want in
television. Government policy currently forces viewers to
subscribe to television services, to pay for channels they do not
want because they have to buy a bundle of programs in order to
get the shows they do want.
Since the technology exists, will the Minister of Canadian
Heritage act now so that consumers only pay for what they want
rather than being forced to pay for what they do not want?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no requirement on any consumer
to subscribe to any cable service.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the
Minister of Industry. As it is obviously in the best interest of
Canadians to have the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications
Act under the responsibility of a single minister, will the
minister act now to ensure that the future of the Broadcasting
Act and the Telecommunications Act will be decided by the
marketplace and not by some misguided notion that government
should pick winners and losers in a 500 channel world?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am amazed a member of a party, the vast majority
of which comes from Alberta, would stand in her place and oppose
the policy that created thousands of jobs in Alberta.
In the last four years the investment in television in Alberta
has gone from $50 million per year to $200 million, precisely as
a result of the Canada television fund and the far-sighted
investments of the government in concert with the private sector.
I am sorry that her party is against television jobs because on
this side we support the hundreds of thousands of people—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
* * *
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many constituents in my riding depend on softwood lumber for
their livelihood. One in eight jobs in New Brunswick relies on
softwood lumber. Approximately 40 communities in Atlantic Canada
rely almost exclusively on softwood lumber as their major
industry.
Atlantic Canada softwood lumber producers are very concerned
about the anti-dumping petition recently filed in the U.S. My
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
International Trade. What is the government doing to preserve
Atlantic Canada's free trade in softwood lumber?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague
and all my Liberal colleagues from Atlantic Canada who have been
so vigorous on this file.
1455
As the hon. member knows, the minister is in Buenos Aires today
pursuing the matter of an envoy, which is a good way to make
progress on this issue. We will continue to fight for free
access for Atlantic softwood lumber, but in the context of free
access for all Canadian softwood lumber because that is supposed
to be the agreement.
Alan Greenspan, chair of the federal reserve, yesterday
cautioned against protectionism on softwood lumber and everything
else.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last month I returned from the Sudan
and introduced a 14 point peace plan because that country is
moving away from peace, not toward it.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs work with our international
partners and demand that the government of Sudan and the Sudan's
People Liberation Army implement an immediate ceasefire and allow
complete and free access to all relief shipments into the south?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first let me acknowledge the useful report that the hon.
member provided to me after his visit. I expect to receive
reports as well from the other members who were there.
Second, let me say that I recently met with Senator Lois Wilson,
who is a special envoy to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on
Sudan, in order to ensure that her involvement continues as we
try to support the efforts that are being made in order to
encourage a peaceful resolution.
The tragedy that has befallen the people in the Sudan is one
that frankly is breathtaking and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention to another
even more critical issue that is urgent because it places the
lives of about one million people at risk. There is impending
starvation in the south. A million people are poised to die in
the next month.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs ask the international
partners to redouble their efforts to ensure that the people in
the south will gain urgent access to food? The UN world food
program has said it is just about ready to put out its press
releases to talk about the body count. We cannot wait. Will the
minister ask our international partners to put food on the table?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first let me acknowledge that good question.
Second, let me say that we continue to work to encourage the IGAD
movement to do what is necessary to encourage a peaceful
resolution of the situation in the Sudan. My colleague, the
minister responsible for CIDA, has been involved as well in
supporting efforts in order to ensure there are adequate
provisions.
The truth is that there is a civil war going on and there are
casualties. It is a situation that cries out for a solution from
the nations of the world.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Canada has refused to sign the Montreal declaration on
greenhouse gas emissions.
Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said that Canada did
not sign because it was the host and that it was customary not
to vote on items that are not on the agenda.
Now we learn from checking with the Department of Foreign
Affairs that this decision was not a matter of protocol but a
purely political one.
Does this political decision by Canada not indicate that, slowly
but surely, Canada is withdrawing its support for the Kyoto
protocol?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we had a paragraph of the communique of the 34
nations of the Americas that met in Montreal which referred to
climate change.
That said, there was a separate Latin American declaration made
which is certainly its right and privilege. I said at the time
we had very little to take exception with in that but as we were
chairing that meeting we could not take part.
With respect to the second part of the hon. member's question, I
wonder whether he listened to my answer yesterday when I said to
the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie that the Prime
Minister made clear—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yukon.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Americans are overfishing Yukon salmon. In recent years the
Yukon river salmon that reach Yukon have been diminishing
drastically. Last year it was so bad that some Yukon fisheries
were closed.
Since the early 1980s the Canadian government has been
negotiating with the United States on a management framework for
Yukon river salmon.
1500
Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans update the House and
my constituents here and in Yukon on the progress of the
bilateral discussions with the United States?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce today that after
16 years of negotiation the United States and Canada have reached
an agreement on Yukon salmon.
This has been a long time irritation to Canada. This is great
news with respect to Yukon salmon, which has been threatened. Our
agreement clearly states the catch sharing agreements, the
conservation and the enhancement of Yukon salmon. The treaty is
great for salmon and it is great for the fishing community in the
north.
The Speaker: The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I know there is a lot of competition, but
the Chair has to make difficult choices once in a while.
* * *
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Winnipeg—Transcona. My
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The government has received recommendations from the ethics
counsellor proposing to close the loophole that lets ministers
call crown corporations with impunity.
Will the government introduce changes to the law that would
prevent that interference with crown corporations and that would
make the ethics counsellor responsible directly to parliament and
not simply to the Prime Minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will take my hon. friend's comments as a
representation.
The Speaker: As tempting as it is I see that our time
has expired. We will have to save the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona for another day.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: With unanimous consent, we could go ahead.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I hope no one was under the impression that I was trying to block
out of vision the former prime minister from the Speaker's eyes.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Given what
the Prime Minister said, which was sort of do not be worried as
far as NAFTA and water are concerned, I wonder whether the
Minister of the Environment is now prepared to rescind the concern he
was expressing a week ago about Premier Grimes' plan in
Newfoundland.
Is there no problem with respect to NAFTA now? Has the Prime
Minister changed his mind?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member clearly has not understood the
importance of making sure that water is not considered an item of
trade under NAFTA or other trade agreements.
We have to make sure that we do not get into a situation,
through inadvertence or any other reason, whereby water then
comes under NAFTA provisions. To do that we have an accord with
the provinces and territories. To do that we have legislation in
the House, Bill C-6, to deal with boundary waters.
It is clear that we must follow the procedures we have laid down
and follow them to the letter.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
COMMENTS OF MEMBER
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, concerns have been raised about
remarks I made on Tuesday when I spoke to the Alliance motion to
set up an independent inquiry into the Prime Minister's business
dealings concerning a hotel and golf course in his riding.
To my regret, I quoted from an article on Yugoslavia and the
abuse of power by former president Slobodan Milosevic. I deeply
regret having used that line of thought. It was an error in
judgment on my part and one for which I am truly sorry.
To all those who have been hurt or offended by my remarks, I
sincerely apologize.
* * *
1505
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, if the House leader will not answer the first question,
I have a supplementary one for him.
Would he tell us what the business of the House will be for the
rest of today and tomorrow, and then after the Easter break will
we get an opportunity to speak about softwood lumber and other
important issues involving natural resources? Will we get the
chance? Would the minister tell us?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer what is
undoubtedly the most thoughtful question asked thus far today.
This afternoon we will continue with Bill C-22, the Income Tax
Act amendments proposed by the very excellent Minister of
Finance. Then we will deal with Bill C-4, the sustainable
development foundation legislation. Tomorrow we will do report
stage and third reading, hopefully, of Bill C-12, the Judges Act.
On Monday, April 23, we shall call Bill C-13, the GST technical
amendments. We will then follow this with the organized crime
bill, introduced earlier today.
Tuesday, April 24, will be an allotted day at which time members
could raise such issues as softwood lumber, as they perhaps
should have last Tuesday when it was an opposition day and other
less significant issues were raised.
On Wednesday, April 25, we will begin with third reading of Bill
C-9, the Canada Elections Act legislation.
* * *
[Translation]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of
ways and means motion relating to tobacco products. I am also
tabling explanatory notes.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration
of the motion.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a
notice of a ways and means motion respecting the long term
management of nuclear fuel waste, and I ask that an order of the
day be designated for consideration of the motion.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1510
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations and I think you would find unanimous
consent to deal with the following committee travel
authorization. It is a single committee authorization. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be
authorized to travel to Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal
from April 29 to May 4, 2001 in relation to Bill C-11 and that
the necessary staff accompany the Committee and that the
Committee be authorized to televise its hearings.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House for
the parliamentary secretary to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The 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)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application
Rules, certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and another act
related to the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we were in the questions and
comments phase of the discussion. I have largely concluded my
comments so I would entertain any questions.
However, I did want to remind the government of the issue of
brain drain and the further complications in the tax code that
Bill C-22 presents. I will give the example to the House of my
own family.
My brother-in-law lives in Louisiana. My sister lives in
Atlanta. They are part of the brain drain. In the 19th century,
the great exodus of Loyalists to Canada on the underground
railway had a song they used to sing. It was called Follow
the Drinking Ground. The chorus of the song is:
That was the chorus of the song they sang when they came to
Canada because Canada was the place where everybody was free.
Since then it is astonishing how things have changed. The
underground railway has turned into a highway heading south, by
which the best and brightest leave the country. They leave this
country for better opportunities.
My own sister is an example of that. She has a degree in
communications in French from Simon Fraser University and she is
in Louisiana helping Canadian firms that are trying to sell
Canadian products in the French Bayou country. She is a Canadian
earning her keep in the United States because this country does
not treat her the way she thinks government really should treat
its best and brightest.
The United States has a better environment for cultivating,
sustaining and taking care of the best and brightest in their
country. The Americans treat young people as a resource.
In this country we do not get that. The finance minister brags
in the House of Commons day after day about the fact that we have
a balanced budget, but he does not give credit to the people who
balanced the budget: young people, entrepreneurs, the best and
brightest, small business owners, families, the people who
sacrifice, and people in the university departments like the
small university I went to, the University of Northern British
Columbia, which has a crisis in its entire financing structure
because of the government.
We have a balanced budget for a whole host of reasons, like the
hospitals that get shut down because of this government and like
the overtaxation of small businesses. The government stands atop
a dustbin of bad decisions. It stands atop the rubble of bad
financial decisions and atop the shoulders of small businesses
and says that because of the government and its decisions Canada
has a balanced budget. Canada has a balanced budget because of
nothing government has done. We have a balanced budget because
of a whole host of reasons, which frankly the government does not
control. The finance minister and the Prime Minister do not
appoint Alan Greenspan. They do not decide the economic growth
rates of the United States. They opposed free trade. They
increased taxes. They increased the payroll taxes that kill jobs
and the Canada pension plan. They are driving the best and
brightest out of this country.
They talk and brag about balancing the budget and about bills
like Bill C-22 that we are debating today, but Bill C-22 goes in
the wrong direction. It further complicates the tax code. It
makes it less likely that people, entrepreneurs and builders,
will want to stay here because they see that this country will be
something they want to be part of in 20 or 30 years. That is not
good enough.
I would love to see the day when we go back to that chorus of
the underground railway, where Canada is an enterprise state,
where we can sing that chorus again and be proud of it. For the
government members who just walked in, I will remind the House of
what that chorus is:
We need economic freedom and political freedom. We do not have
them, we deserve them, and if we do not, we are only sacrificing
our future.
1515
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
before question period the member was commenting on a suggestion
that the first $250,000 of income be tax free. I believe the
member's response to that suggestion was that that was the kind
of progressivity that we should have.
It makes me reflect on the issue of progressivity in our tax
system. For members information, progressivity is a
principle by which the ability to pay is a founding principle. It
means that at certain thresholds as our income grows the rate of
income taxation would increase.
The member for Calgary Southeast once explained to the House
that a 17% flat tax or single rate tax was a progressive tax
because the more one would make the more one would pay. That is
kind of interesting. Mathematically it is true but progressivity
it is not.
Could the member square the fact that he is a proponent of
progressivity in our income tax system, yet his party continues
to suggest that we should not have different rates of taxation
depending on how much we make. Rather we should lower it so high
income earners pay less money under a flat tax or single rate tax
and in fact pay the same effective tax rate as low and middle
income Canadians.
Mr. James Moore: Mr. Speaker, this is what happens in
politics when a political debate is dumbed down into catch
phrases that are supposed to represent entire economic thoughts.
The progressivity that the member talks about is nonsensical. He
is describing progressivity as progressive larger chunks of
income that the government takes away. Our concept of
progressivity is moving the economy forward, rewarding the best
and brightest and letting people keep more of what they earn so
they can have a better future. That is progressive.
Although it is broken, flawed and unproven in almost every
jurisdiction it has been tried, there is an economic argument
presented in Das Kapital that says “The harder you work,
the more you build, the more people you employ, the more you
innovate, the more entrepreneurial you are, the more the state
should punish you”. Yes, there is an argument out there for
that.
Speaking as a young Canadian, and I hope I am not alone, it is
rather progressive to say to people that the bigger the risk they
take, the more successful they are, the more people they employ,
the more ingenious they are, the more creative they are, the
bigger sacrifices they make, the more the state is going to
champion them as the kind of people that ought to live here, not
the kind of people we are going to target and punish because we
can take money from them and give it to the Secretary of State
for Multiculturalism. That is not progressivity.
However the Liberals seem to define progressivity as the
progressively larger chunks that the government can take away
from the builders, producers, entrepreneurs and the people who
make the country work. I would suggest that the Finance Minister
spend more time out there talking to small business people and
telling them that in Canada they are worth something because they
make the country work. They employ the people and they make the
country work. The government should reward them not punish them
for being the best that this country has.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would have to disagree with
the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. I miss the
kind of passion and energy that the previous member from that
riding had. I find it strangely ironic that a member would stand
up in the House and say that Canadians will not like $100 billion
in tax cuts because it is going to complicate things.
I will go back to the flat tax or single rate tax. Of course
what it did was shift the burden of tax from high income
Canadians to middle income Canadians, and close to the election
campaign the Alliance changed it to a 17%, 25% tax. We are not
sure where it is going with its single rate tax but I am not sure
anybody cares very much.
The member talked about complexity in the income tax system. We
might all agree that the Income Tax Act is complex.
1520
However if the Alliance Party were to introduce a flat tax or
single rate tax, does that mean that all the various deductions
such as RRSP, medical expenses over a certain amount, charitable
donations in certain circumstances, et cetera would not apply, or
would he simply have Canadians take a number and multiply it by
17 or 25?
A lot of Canadians think that might be the case, but many of the
member's colleagues in the House said that it will not be that
way. They said we would have all the same deductions because
that was what Canadians wanted and expected. Could the member
clarify that?
Mr. James Moore: Mr. Speaker, along with the language of
progressivity, it speaks again to what I said before about the
contortions taken to distort a position of a political party.
Single rate tax is not a flat tax. There is a big difference.
There is also a big difference between $47.1 billion in tax
relief which is what is actually happening, not $100 billion in
tax relief. He is not factoring in the Canada pension plan.
This is what Canadians do not understand.
He made reference to the previous member for my constituency and
said he missed him. The 70% of people in the riding who did not
vote for him sure do not miss him.
This speaks to Liberal math. It is not $100 billion in tax
relief. It is $47 billion. There is a bottom line net amount.
The net amount is not good enough. Young Canadians are still
leaving the country. Businesses are still closing down.
Provinces are not better off. The welfare state gets larger and
larger.
Frankly, I would like to see a lot of government departments have
smaller budgets.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Name them.
Mr. James Moore: The hon. member says to name one. The
Secretary of State for Multiculturalism deserves a smaller
budget. There is one.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Why?
Mr. James Moore: Because she does not.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on
Bill C-22. I find it intriguing, listening to the debate, the
completely different psychologies of our side and that of the
government.
I listened to some of the comments made about the tax structure.
Our party is for a progressive tax structure, not a punitive tax
structure which is what we have today.
Why do we have a system where the more one earns, the greater
chunk is taken away? Our party has always fought for the ability
of individuals to take care of themselves and for a fair tax
structure that takes the same percentage from the amount people
make as they grow older. Therefore the more one makes, the more
one pays, but the more one pays is not a greater percentage of
what one makes.
Also what is not as well known perhaps is that our party stands
for radically and dramatically improving the health and welfare
of the poorest and most impoverished people. How would we do
that? Simply by raising the amount of money that people would
have to make before they pay taxes. That is progressive,
innovative and demonstrates ingenuity.
If the government truly wants to help those who are most in
need, then it would look at our single tax rate, look at the way
we have articulated it and understand very clearly that it
strikes a balance between helping those who are most impoverished
while enabling those who are innovators to have the tools to
innovate.
There is one major complaint that I think all members in the
House hear when they talk to small and medium sized businesses in
their ridings. That is the government takes too much money from
their pockets. They generate jobs, innovate and are the major
engine of economic growth in our country.
They ask us why the government is not listening. There have
been reports and committees at federal and provincial levels for
years. Report after report says the same thing. Canadians want
the ability to provide for themselves, to pay a fair share of tax
but not a punitive share of tax. Businesses want to generate the
funds to hire people, to do research and development and engage
in the actions that build a strong economy which enables us to
have strong social programs.
One of the mythologies that has always been connected to the
right of the political spectrum is that the right does not care,
the left does and that the right only cares for the rich, the
left cares for the poor. This is completely nonsensical.
1525
We have shown and demonstrated over the years that the budgets
put out by the members of New Democratic Party have been abysmal
and the arithmetic has not added up. Instead of helping the
poorest people in our society, they would actually hurt them.
What they would do is raise taxes up to such a level that the
ability of the private sector to function would be constricted
and restricted. This leads to brain drain, the exodus of
businesses from Canada and the lack of ability for businesses to
get on the cutting edge in their chosen field.
Some would say we need to raise taxes even more. If we look at
the European models of Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and countries
that have historically been the bastions of socialism, countries
that have been looked upon from the socialist left, as being the
nirvana of economic thought, they not only damaged and destroyed
their social programs, they gutted the soul of their countries
and severely compromised their economies. This has been proven
in history.
I would encourage members of the NDP to listen very carefully
and look at their history books. What they ought to do is come
over to the Canadian Alliance, as should members from across the
House, and listen to what we have fought for over a long period
of time. Indeed, the former leader of the Reform Party was an
individual who was at the forefront of this and deserves a great
deal of credit for doing this.
One of the major reasons I joined the party in 1993 was out of a
deep concern over the state of our social programs. I did not
look at the NDP for that. I chose the Reform Party. Why?
Because the Reform Party articulated constructive economic
solutions to enable us to have a fairer and a lower tax rate
which would give our private sector the ability to generate the
funds to expand. It would also provide the moneys for our social
programs.
A healthy economy and a healthy private sector means strong
social programs. After all, the best social program any
individual could ever have is a job. Whatever we can do to
strike that balance between enabling our private sector to be
strong, aggressive and competitive, as well as ensuring that we
have tight, strong social programs that are targeted and fair,
will create the right balance.
I believe the public who is watching and members from across
party lines will understand very clearly that this is something
we have striven for throughout our entire professional careers
here.
We only need to look at the tax differential between ourselves
and the United States to see what it has done. We heard about
the brain drain. We heard about the exodus of companies. Perhaps
what we have not heard about is a more subtle and perhaps more
insidious problem in our society. That is what this has done to
the soul of our country.
Punitive tax rates erode the deep, inherent desire that all of
us have to strive to better ourselves. It destroys that edge of
innovation that every country needs to be competitive in a global
environment. Let us not forget that we are not only competing
among ourselves, within provinces and between provinces, more
important we are competing with other countries. As the barriers
to trade come down, which is a good thing, we will have to find
our niches and be more aggressive in how we capitalize on those.
I would also re-articulate the issue of a single tax rate, not a
flat tax rate, but a single tax rate that lowers and simplifies
the tax system while still allowing many of the deductions that
we have enjoyed in the past.
I would also suggest, and this is a personal issue, that we
lower the GST. The government has never looked at lowering
it, although it promised to, or simplifying it. One of the major
complaints we all hear about back home is that the GST is far too
complex. The amount of money that goes into managing it
chews up about one-third of all the moneys received from GST.
That is not an efficient system.
Personally, I would implore the government to look at ways to
simplify the GST, make it a single one time per year reporting,
make it more comprehensive and lower the amount by 2%.
1530
On the issue of payroll taxes, the EI moneys that companies pay
are in many ways just another tax. The government has generated
billions of surplus dollars from the EI fund that we have said
time and time again must go back into the hands of the Canadian
people and the companies that hire them.
EI, under the guise of being a social program, is actually a
tax. Payroll taxes by and large are another form of tax. What
we can do is ensure fair EI payments and restructure EI into a
true insurance policy.
I will also speak about charitable donations. There is a theory
that the higher the taxes, the greater the desire of individuals
to donate in order to receive a tax benefit. The facts prove the
opposite to be true. The United States has done some interesting
studies to show that the more money people have after tax, the
more they donate.
Between 1982 and 1989 the marginal top tax bracket in the United
States dropped substantially. The amount of money people had in
their pockets increased dramatically and there was a 29% increase
in the amount of money people donated. That is a huge amount.
These days, when people have less and less money and
non-governmental organizations have more and more responsibility
to raise money, is it not fair and equitable that the government
give them a chance to take care of themselves? Is it not fair
that organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society, Juvenile
Diabetes Foundation Canada and others have an opportunity to
raise money from the public and that the public derive the
benefit from that?
We cannot take money away from non-governmental organizations
while denying them the ability to raise money. The government
should look at what the U.S. did in terms of enabling people to
increase their donations. Again, it is about more money at the
end of the day in people's pockets.
Another thing the government can do is enable NGOs and the
people who donate to them to derive the same tax benefit as a
person who donates to a political party. Why do people who
donate to the Liberal Party or the Alliance Party receive a
higher tax benefit than if they donate to the Canadian Cancer
Society?
We should ensure there is equitability, that a person who
donates to an NGO receives the same tax benefit as someone who
donates to a political party. I encourage the government to look
at that. It is quite innovative work. People in Canada who rely
on non-governmental and charitable organizations would benefit
enormously from such a progressive move on the part of the
government.
Another thing the government can do in an age of so much new
wealth is enable people in the top tax bracket to create
foundations. Foundations can be an enormous generator of funds
for charitable and other non-governmental organizations. Why
does the government not put provisions into the tax structure
that enable people to create foundations which give them control
and ownership and, I would argue, efficiency in ensuring those
moneys get to people in need?
Another innovative program is energy tax incentives. The United
States in its budget last year put through some innovative energy
tax incentives aimed particularly at reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Many of those tax benefits rest on the ability of
individuals to invest in other forms of non-fossil fuels and
non-greenhouse gas producing energy sources that benefit both the
environment and the individuals themselves.
1535
I encourage the government to look at what the U.S. has done.
Solar power, new ways of heating homes and hybrid cars that use
non-fossil fuels would all provide our environment, individuals
and the organizations producing them the tax incentives that
would wean us away from fossil fuels.
Our demand for energy will increase substantially. We will need
alternative fuel sources. Nuclear power is a clean source, but
it has an obvious downside. Fossil fuels are limited. Since
greenhouse gas emissions will only increase, we must look at
alternative measures. We could learn from the U.S. energy tax
incentives to greatly improve our environment at home.
On the education system I encourage the government to look at
another proposal from our side, the income contingent loan
repayment plan. Students today face increasing difficulty in
finding the money to pay for their education.
I am a physician, but I could not have gone to medical school if
costs had been what they are today. Tuition fees at my alma
mater are now more than $12,000 per year. There is no way, given
the socioeconomic conditions I grew up in, that my family could
have afforded the fees. That is the situation students across
the country are facing.
We are now seeing a very dangerous situation in which
professional faculties are becoming the purview of the rich. A
recent study looked at family incomes at various schools, and I
will take the University of Western Ontario as an example. The
study found that over the last four or five years the average
family income went from $60,000 to more than $120,000 for
students entering medical school at the University of Western
Ontario. That pattern is borne out across the country and in
other professional faculties like law and dentistry.
People in lower socioeconomic groups who want to enter
professional faculties face an economic obstacle. Gaining access
to professional faculties is no longer an issue of merit or
competence. It is becoming an issue of how much money one's
parents make. This is a critical issue that must be dealt with
now. It is an matter of fundamental fairness for a country that
prides itself on equality for all people regardless of
socioeconomic condition.
The situation will only get worse. I encourage the Prime
Minister to call together the ministers of education across the
country to urgently look at the matter.
The shortage of professors and faculty members is also an issue
now and will be one in the future. Across the country the dearth
will become critical. It is so bad now that universities and
post-secondary institutions have sent out a clarion call for
help. We must find innovative ways to train and retain
individuals who can teach and work in our post-secondary
institutions. A professor cannot be trained overnight. It takes
at least seven years.
I encourage the government to raise the issue at a first
ministers conference as soon as possible. It will take years to
deal with it, but it must be done for the sake of our youth and
our economy. The economy is predicated on hiring and training
good, competent individuals. If we cannot train people of
excellence our economy will face a fate we do not want to
contemplate.
Lastly I will address the issue of accountability. My
colleagues have raised the issue time and time again. A
backbench member of the Liberal government articulated a solution
with which it is difficult to disagree. The individual quite
intelligently raised, as have my colleagues, the fact that we do
not know where our money has been spent.
1540
We need to know the amount of money going in, where it is spent
and what the output is. Whether we are talking about health
care, agriculture or the environment, we need to measure this.
There are ways it can be done.
Every ministry ought to be on a spreadsheet so that a deputy
minister would know, if asked, where the money has gone, how it
was spent and have a way of measuring the output. That is what
we want and what the public wants. If we are to build an
effective public service we must do that.
The government has been very clearly asked to do this by the
Clerk of the Privy Council. He has asked for an urgent indepth
look at our public service and how we can make it more efficient.
The good people who work in our public service urgently need that
as well. We must find ways of innovating and allowing members in
the public service to put their incredible talents and
intelligence to the best use.
I will again draw attention to something Mr. Gore did when he
was vice-president. President Clinton asked Mr. Gore to
rejuvenate the public sector. Mr. Gore did something I thought
was quite innovative. He told public sector members they had
carte blanche to do the right thing but with certain
restrictions. He then gave them a card listing the restrictions.
We need to be able to unleash the power of our public service.
We need to increase its efficiency and accountability. We need
to streamline it so we have an efficient public service that
works for the public good.
I know my time is up. I will close by saying that the bill,
while it moves in the right direction, should have come out three
years ago.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
one item the member talked about in his speech was the
differential between the tax benefit for political donations and
the tax benefit for charitable donations. That issue has been
with us for some time.
I did a quick calculation. The member will probably know that
if someone were to make a political donation of $1,400, his or
her income tax rebate, all other things considered, would be $500
because it is limited to that amount. If the same person
contributed that $1,400 to a charity, received the 17% tax credit
on the first $200, the 25% credit on the next $200 plus the
provincial income taxes which are calculated on the federal, the
person would get a bigger tax refund on a $1,400 contribution
made for charitable purposes than on one made for political
purposes.
It is not black and white that political donations are more
beneficial than charitable donations. There is a crossover
point. The benefit continues to rise for charitable donations
whereas there is a cap of $500 on political donations for all
contributors.
I suggest to the member that there is a rationale behind
political donations having a higher tax credit rate for the first
$200. The reason, as I understand it from the discussions that
led up to providing the credit, is that it provides all Canadians
an opportunity to seek public office at the federal level and to
be able to raise money in a way which would allow them to compete
in a federal election.
That is a very expensive proposition, as the member knows.
Members of parliament have limits in the range of $60,000 to
$70,000 to run an election campaign. It is a very expensive
proposition. The credit encourages individual taxpayers to
contribute to the democratic process so that all Canadians,
regardless of their state in life or their economic condition,
have an opportunity to run in an election campaign. I raise that
with the member simply for his information.
The question I have is on a related matter in the sense that the
member is talking about equity and progressive taxation.
1545
There may be a difference in the discussion when we talk about
progressive taxation versus progressivity. The member's
colleague who spoke previously addressed the issue of providing a
tax free amount of $250,000 of income that would somehow
encourage or stimulate people's investments.
It was described as being the kind of progressivity that we
would like to have in Canada. If the Canadian Alliance is
talking about progressivity, not progressive taxation but
progressivity, as a desirable aspect in our income tax system,
could the member help the House understand how it could also
propose a single or flat tax of some rate that would lower the
income tax burden of high income taxpayers and put that burden on
middle income taxpayers? This is not progressivity but quite the
opposite.
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, most Canadians do not
have $1,400 to donate to any charitable organization including
political ones. The member should take back to his cabinet that
the government should be increasing the amount of tax benefit
individuals receive at the lower level because most people donate
less than $200, not $1,400.
On the issue of the tax structure, our party's tax benefits and
deductions are progressive. The current tax structure is a
punitive tax structure. As an individual earns more, the system
takes away more.
What that does to an economy was seen profoundly in the United
Kingdom prior to Margaret Thatcher. Prior to Mrs. Thatcher the
tax structure was similar to ours. The government member would
call it progressive but in fact it was punitive. What it did was
gut its economy. Mrs. Thatcher reduced taxes and managed to
rejuvenate the economy.
Ireland is another example. It had a punitive tax structure
such as the one that Canada has versus the more progressive one
that it has today.
The government also has very sly methods of taking money away
from individuals. I draw the attention of the House to one very
important point. The government is giving money to our soldiers
on the one hand and on the other hand it is yanking the money
away with increased rents on their private married quarters and
forcing them to pay for things they did not pay for before. It
is giving money with one hand but taking money with two hands.
That is what the government is doing to the men and women in our
military. It is disgusting. These people put their lives on the
line for us and the government is shafting them. I will be
raising that again with the Minister of National Defence as soon
as possible. I have raised repeatedly in the past. I encourage
the member to raise it and fight for it within his own caucus
because this stone will not be left unturned.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I should like to make a comment on something that
was said before I get to my question. In the 1980s U.S. tax
policy was to lower taxes, simplify them and flatten them in a
major way. It is called efficient market theory. Today the U.S.
produces 35% to 40% of the world's GDP with 5% of the world's
population. Whether we are talking about autos, softwood lumber
or whatever, Canada is very dependent on the robust healthy
economy of the U.S. I would like to see Canada get that economic
growth participation and the population base to go with it.
We only have 30 million people. The U.S. has 300 million. Very
often we forget that point. Our population is not growing and we
do not have a very large market. We have to find a way of
getting a market in this country.
My colleague raised something that I do not know a whole lot
about. I would ask him to enlighten the House on it.
1550
In Saskatchewan, the Bill Gates Foundation contributed something
like $20 million. The money was invested in remote communities
in rural Saskatchewan, which include a lot of first nations
communities, to provide computers and get individuals on the
Internet. It is something the government talks a lot about, but
we do not have a lot of evidence of it. However Mr. Gates and
his foundation made that a reality in Saskatchewan.
I am very interested in the whole idea of foundations. Rather
than bureaucrats and government dictating and determining where
investments go, we could get those people who have shown they can
create wealth and produce goods and services to get the economy
going. To have people like Mr. Gates, Mr. Buffett, or someone
along those lines with a foundation making those sorts of
decisions in our economy could spawn some things. I was very
interested in the hon. member's comments in that regard. Maybe
he would enlighten us on how the bill would encourage that sort
of development in our nation.
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter
is that we do not have that kind of tax structure. The bill does
not have that kind of provision. The member raises the very
interesting example of an American philanthropist who has decided
to donate a substantial amount of money to our country.
We are missing an enormous source of innovation, energy and
money that could be applied to some of the neediest people in our
country. Many individuals who have made large sums of money in
business would like to do that. They are very successful and
intelligent people who could use the skills they applied in
business to provide such a public service through their
foundations. The government does not need to do anything about
that. It just needs to give them the chance to do it.
I am almost finished drafting a private member's bill that deals
with the issue. When I introduce it, I look forward to support
from all members of the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INTERNATIONAL TRADE, TRADE DISPUTES AND INVESTMENT
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Ongoing consultations allow me to seek
unanimous consent to put the following motion dealing with
committee travel. I believe you would find unanimous consent for
the following motion:
That the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and
Investment be authorized to undertake a study of Canada's
economic relations with Europe, and further that the committee
approve a proposed budget for eight members of the subcommittee,
along with the necessary subcommittee staff to travel to Paris,
Geneva, Berlin, and Brussels during the period of April 22 to May
5, 2001.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application
Rules, certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and another act
related to the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey
Central to state our case in opposition to Bill C-22, the Liberal
government's proposed changes to the Income Tax Act, the income
tax application rules, the Canada pension plan, the Customs Act,
the Excise Tax Act and many other acts.
Earlier this morning I spoke in opposition to the Liberal's
proposed changes to Bill C-9, the Canada Elections Act. That act
creates a two tier electoral system. Among other things, it
discriminates against smaller political parties. The Liberals
are eroding our democracy with that bill and we cannot support
it.
Bill C-22 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act and statutes
originally included in Bill C-43 and to put into place key
aspects of the last two budgets. The bill has 31 amendments
touching on a number of tax deductions and their definitions.
There are three main reasons the official opposition and my
constituents oppose the bill. First, the bill fails to address
the enormous complexity of the tax code. It adds further
complexity to an already complex tax code.
1555
Second, it undermines the family, particularly one income
families.
Third, the tax cuts provided for in the bill fall far short of
what the Canadian Alliance proposed and what the government must
do to increase our nation's productivity, competitiveness and
standard of living. I would like to elaborate on those three
points beginning with the complexity of the bill.
The government should be moving toward simplifying and
broadening the base of the tax code. Lowering the taxes of all
Canadians would be easier and it would have a far more positive
impact for everyone. If the tax code were simplified and if it
had less exemptions, further clarification would not be
necessary.
The bill adds to the enormous complexity of the Income Tax Act
with its numerous amendments. Rather than simplifying the act as
the Canadian Alliance would do, the Liberals continue to maintain
a costly and complicated tax code.
Another reason for my opposition to the bill deals with measures
in the bill that assist the tax position of families with some
minimal tax reductions. Nothing is done to address the
longstanding inequality between single income and dual income
families. The bill increases the inequity by increasing the
child care tax deduction which is only available to high income
or dual income families.
The bill also erodes the legal position of marriage. By
changing references of spouse to common law partner it is
including same sex partners.
Even after the changes proposed in the bill, Canadians would
continue to pay far too much in taxes. The mini budget claimed
to cut taxes by $100.5 billion over five years. However here is
the reality. It is a bit technical so I would like to go into a
little detail.
From the $100.5 billion claim of gross tax relief we must
subtract $3.2 billion over five years for social spending,
chiefly the child care tax benefit. The child care tax benefit
is a spending program delivered through the tax system. The
increase in the tax benefit should not be confused with being a
tax decrease as it is a spending increase. The figure above
excludes indexation because indexation is accounted for
separately.
We then have to subtract $29.5 billion over five years for
increased CPP premium hikes. We then have to subtract $20.7
billion over five years for cancelled tax hikes, namely
indexation. Indexing the personal income tax system is meant to
hold the tax burden constant over time so it should not be
counted as a tax reduction.
Therefore when we take into consideration all those deductions,
the net tax relief is only $47.5 billion provided over five
years, not immediately.
The reality of the Liberal Party's 2000 tax relief package is
that it is less than half of what it claims it is and half of
what the Canadian Alliance proposed during the election.
These are the realities when we do a little math and we go into
detail. This is how the tax relief would work in contrast to the
image of tax relief the Liberals are projecting through their
propaganda. We are watching a smoke and mirrors show by the
government with respect to the bill.
1600
Bill C-22 is a 500 plus page bill. I will read it later on
because it will take too long. The Liberals say the bill is
concerned with administrative, technical and implementation
measures. They say it implements about $100 billion in tax cuts
over five years. As I demonstrated it does not. It is less than
half of that amount.
The more people study the bill, the more problems they will
find. The more people study the bill the more complexities it
creates in the minds of Canadians. I will take the time to go
over some of the points.
There are 31 amendments in the bill. One amendment is about
non-resident film and video actors. It would apply a new 23%
withholding tax on payment to non-resident film and video actors
and their corporations, with an option to have the actors and
corporations pay regular part 1 tax on the net earnings instead.
This provision alone hurts my beautiful province of British
Columbia where film making has become popular and is contributing
to the economic well-being of my province.
Canada Citizenship and Immigration has also imposed restrictions
on issuing visas to those who are trying to come to Canada to
make films and make the best use of the beautiful British
Columbia scenery and its facilities. This hurts B.C. Those
people then go to other countries to make films. Why should they
come to B.C. to make films? Many people are hoping the film
industry will contribute to the prosperity of my province.
The bill deals with limited liability partnerships, replacement
property rules, types of property to be considered, stop-loss
loans and a capital tax. An additional capital tax would also be
imposed on life insurance corporations. Foreign affiliate losses
would determine the affiliate or accrual property income for a
particular taxation year. It deals with a foreign affiliate held
by a partnership with simultaneous control in a chain of
corporations and the control of their stake. It deals with
advertising expenses concerning periodicals and magazines between
Canada and the United States. It also deals with trusts and the
tax treatment or property distribution from a Canadian trust to a
non-resident beneficiary. Further, it deals with mutual fund
trusts, RRSPs and adjusted retirement income funds.
When we go into the detail of the bill, we will notice that
there are more complexities, more anti-family type situations and
many other things.
There is taxpayer migration which is the ability to tax the
gains accrued by immigrants. It will affect the projection of
the country's image with respect to future immigrants.
With reference to foreign branch banking, there would be a 15%
investment tax credit for certain grassroots mineral exploration.
There is the foreign exploration and development expenses and the
value of foreign resource property owned. It would impose a 30%
restriction for the annual deduction of new foreign exploration
and development expense benefits.
There are many other points. Here is another one. There would
be a foreign tax credit on oil and gas production sharing
agreements. Another one is weak currency debt that limits the
deductibility of interest expenses and adjusts foreign exchange
gains and losses in respect of weak currency debt and associated
hedging transactions.
There are many points in the bill which will further make the
tax codes very complicated.
1605
Since capitalization, it reduces the acceptable debt to equity
ratio from 3:1 to 2:1 and it repeals the exemption for
manufacturers for aircraft and aircraft components.
As far as CPP contributions on self-employed earnings, these
amendments introduce a deduction from business income for one-half
of CPP contributions on self-employed earnings with the
other half of the contributions remaining eligible for the CPP
tax credit.
Here is something regarding students and scholarships,
fellowships and bursaries. The exemption would be increased by
$3,500 for scholarships, fellowships and bursaries received by
the taxpayer in connection with the taxpayer's enrolment in a
program and in respect of the taxpayer claiming the education tax
credit.
Here is another one for the education tax credit. It would
double the monthly amounts the tax credit allows to full time and
part time students based on $400 and $120 respectively.
It also affects the medical expense tax credit.
There is not one area that does not affect families, caregivers,
infirm dependant tax credits, disability tax credits, child care
expense deductions and so on. Therefore, I assume this bill will
not only be affecting families but also those individuals and low
income people.
The Canadian Mining Association supports some aspects of this
bill. It supports the definition of mining property, yet it was
not aware of the changes until the official opposition contacted
it. The association was not consulted. It had to learn from us
that the definition of mining property was being tinkered with by
the government.
This is a government from behind closed doors. Surely if the
government was sincere in its intention, it would have contacted
stakeholders and various groups in Canada. It would have
listened to Canadians. It should have understood that Canadians
want the tax credits to be implemented sooner rather than up to
2005.
The bill guarantees that the basic personal exemptions will hit
a minimum of $8,000 by the year 2004. The credits and relief
provided in the bill are a step in the right direction, but they
are baby steps nonetheless.
Efforts have been made to reduce the capital gains tax, deficit
surtax, marginal rates, raise marginal income thresholds and
tighten up various other rules surrounding deductions. The bill
would increase and clarify the disability tax credit.
There are some good points and some bad points.
In conclusion, Canadian Alliance members would restore public
confidence in the fairness of the Canadian tax system by reducing
its complexity. We would restore indexation and move toward a
simpler tax system built around a single rate of taxation to
ensure lower taxes for all Canadians. We believe all Canadians
above a minimum income level should share in the cost of the
services provided by the government, which benefit all of us
irrespective of income.
We hope the government will consider the amendments and what
witnesses have said at the committee hearings on this bill. At
this point the Canadian Alliance will not be supporting this
bill.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member for Surrey Central
along with his previous colleague made the argument that
Canadians would not be very happy with the tax package because
even though it was $100 billion it would complicate things. Of
course even their own tax proposals do not uncomplicate things,
as they have said in this Chamber.
While we all agree that tax simplification is perhaps a good
objective, with respect, I believe the member is missing the
point. Canadians do want tax relief. They embrace this tax
relief, the largest tax relief package in the history of this
country.
Then the member for Surrey Central, along with previous
colleagues, argued that the tax relief package was really not
$100 billion and was somewhat less.
He argued, for example, that Canada pension plan increases should
come off that amount. He and Canadians know that the Canada
pension plan is an employee-employer based contribution pension
scheme where Canadians are investing in their future retirement,
health and well-being. It is not a tax. The premiums do not go
to consolidated revenue. It never was a tax, never has been and
never will be. He knows that is disingenuous at best.
1610
He also argued that by reindexing the tax system that that was
not a tax saving. I used some examples earlier. A one earner
family with two children today is making $40,000. By the end of
this tax relief package their federal tax burden will be reduced
by 59%. That is 59% less federal income tax that they would pay
compared with what they would have paid if this was not
implemented. To say that cannot be counted as tax relief is
absolutely incredible.
I would like to put this question to the member for Surrey
Central. Leading up to this budget, Alliance members invariably
stood up in the House and said that the Liberal government had
increased taxes a multitude of times. We had not increased taxes
at all. They were really saying that because we did not reindex
the tax system we were effectively increasing the tax. I think
that was their point. When asked to name the tax increases, they
could not because taxes had not been increased.
How can they now claim that because we have reindexed the tax
system, before it was a tax increase, but we cannot now say it is
a tax decrease? Could the member explain that?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I know that the hon.
member spoke to this bill earlier and I listened to his concerns.
I intended to address some of the concerns he mentioned during
his speech.
He continues to insist that the bill is a simplification of the
Income Tax Act and various other acts. Why then are the
amendments needed? The Income Tax Act is very complicated. The
new bill has over 500 pages and is further complicating the
situation.
The hon. member said that the bill would offer huge tax relief.
However, it is too little too late. He bragged about the
government's tax relief. According to the hon. member he said
that it would be the largest tax relief in Canadian history. I
have to contradict him on that point.
I would like to remind the member that the tax decrease which
the government is proposing is not an actual tax decrease. I
showed through the calculations that it would be less than half
and would be over a number of years. I would like to remind him
that the largest tax increase in Canadian history took place
during this Liberal regime.
He asked me to mention one example. There was a 73% tax increase
in CPP. That is the largest tax increase in Canadian history.
It was the Canadian Alliance Party which talked about bracket
creep. The government finally listened to us. Whenever I talk
to my constituents I always tell them that our party is not only
holding the Liberals' feet to the fire, but our party has been
carrying a flashlight for a long time. We show the Liberals the
darkness and they keep walking behind us. However, the Liberals
do not listen. They do not get it right. They steal from our
party policy from time to time but we wish they would steal more.
Unfortunately, they do not get things right.
Various tax increases, including levies, show that there is a
tax increase. I mentioned CPP. The hon. member mentioned that
the CPP was arm's length from the government. If that is the
case, why did the government grab the surplus from the CPP fund?
The CPP premiums were paid by employers and employees and should have
been lowered.
1615
The hon. member does not have it right. He should probably take
this point into consideration. That is why our party proposed
those amendments. The government should listen to Canadians
because probably that will help to simplify our Income Tax Act
and various other taxes.
Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rushed over here to ask a question because I cannot agree with
very much that the hon. member has just said. In fact, I have a
triple-barrelled question.
First, what I cannot understand is what one might call
opposition ingratitude in the face of what the whole world has
described as the impeccably timed tax cuts, the largest in
Canadian history, praised by the IMF and OECD, et cetera, which
came into effect at exactly the right moment, January 1 of this
year. Second, I would like to ask a question with respect to the
hon. member's complaints about the Canadian pension plan
contributions and indexation. Finally, I would like to ask a
question with respect to the Alliance proposals. If I may, I
will go through each of these very briefly.
The fact of the matter is that the Americans are now talking
about tax cuts which the Canadian government has already
implemented at precisely the right time, at the moment of the
slowdown.
An hon. member: But not over five years.
Mr. John McCallum: Over five years, but in the first year
there is a big chunk of tax cuts. If we add up the federal
contribution and the provincial contribution, it comes to 1.5% of
GDP, which is an extremely large number, among the largest in the
G-7. No other country's timing is as good.
It is open to debate whether this impeccable timing is a matter
of good luck or good advice last year by private sector
economists or the brilliance of the finance minister. I will
leave it to the opposition to allocate the credit. Whatever the
reason, these tax cuts have come in at just the right time, just
when the doctor ordered them, just when this slowdown began.
This is my first question: why is the hon. member not more
grateful for this impeccable timing?
Second, I will leave out the CPP, Madam Speaker, to be brief.
The hon. member claims that the Alliance program was superior to
the Liberal program that has given us the biggest tax cut in
Canadian history. I would be the first to acknowledge that the
Alliance tax cuts were bigger than ours. However, there is a
double problem. With regard to the Alliance tax cuts, according
to Department of Finance officials and bank economists—not me,
because I know I am tainted now, being a politician—had we gone
with the flat tax or single rate tax cuts, we would have had an
$18 billion fiscal hole. I would ask the hon. member to explain
what he would have done about that fiscal hole.
The only way out of it would have been Draconian expenditure
cuts, including cuts to core programs, because that $18 billion
exceeded the so-called frivolous spending, according to the
Alliance. The cuts would have had to be to core spending
programs, which would have made the slowdown slower than it has
been. Not only that, but the Alliance program with its flat tax
would have, in a single leap, taken us to the most unequal,
unfair tax system in the whole of the western world.
My question is this: why does the hon. member not accept the
fact that we had this impeccable timing, for whatever reason, and
how can he explain the fact that his admittedly larger tax cuts
would have either given us an $18 billion fiscal hole or would
have required Draconian tax cuts to core social programs,
including health care?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member, who is a former banker and economist, for this
triple-barrelled question. However, my time is short and I think
he talked about the whole economy. It would probably take six
hours to answer this question in detail.
However, I appreciate the hon. member's question and I
appreciate his acknowledgement that the tax cuts in the Canadian
Alliance plan were greater and that they were the largest tax
cuts in Canadian history. I compliment the hon. member for being
honest and straightforward in acknowledging that. When a Liberal
member acknowledges that the tax cuts our party was proposing
were the highest, I consider it a compliment.
1620
Then he went further in talking about that $18 billion hole.
However, let me remind the hon. member, who is an economist and
who has a huge amount of experience in working with banks,
that we would eliminate the waste in the government and cut
spending by government as well. The hon. member knows that nine
cents of each tax dollar is wasted by the government. That alone
reduces by a significant amount what he is talking about if we
take that 9% off the $142 billion revenue of the government that
goes to wastage.
He talked about taxation and other things. I would remind the
hon. member that it is his party that has been governing this
country for quite a long time. It is his party that has
contributed considerably to the debt in this country, with 42
cents of each tax dollar going toward debt payment. The Liberals
are responsible for putting us at an economic disadvantage.
Look at the low dollar. The hon. member will agree with me that
it is this government that is responsible for lowering our
dollar, increasing our taxes and increasing our debt. In
particular, our personal income taxes are the highest of the G-7
countries, even after this tax relief by the government.
The hon. member should give serious thought to recognizing that
the tax relief given by the government is not enough. As he is
an expert on this issue, I urge him to lobby the government and
to give his advice to the government to lower taxes, not in five
years and not by half of what they are telling us, but by the
right amount, which Canadians deserve.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): That was the last
speaker on the bill. However, earlier I saw three members rise
to ask questions. Is there unanimous consent to allow the three
members to ask their questions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It has been a very interesting debate and we have had an
encouraging response from all members. It is very good to have
discussion from all members.
In that spirit, I would like to point out that Canadian
Alliance members did not oppose that consent. I would ask you to
seek unanimous consent of the House again, because Canadian
Alliance members will say yes to extend the question and comment period.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Unfortunately it did
not receive unanimous consent, so I am assuming that we will put
the question.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. All I wanted to do was to pay tribute to a Canadian
who won the Nobel Peace Prize, Robert Mundell, who would not
agree with anything that my learned friend—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): A recorded division
on the proposed motion stands deferred.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable
development technology, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part
in the debate on third reading of Bill C-4, which would establish
a foundation to fund sustainable
development technology.
1625
[English]
Sustainable development involves balanced development, an
approach that avoids either/or outcomes, that does not sacrifice
one essential value for another. The goals are complex, not
simple, for example, not just electric power, but power without
pollution, not just industrial growth and busy factories, but
these without environmental damage.
We know from the history of the last 30 years that these
balancing acts are achievable. We need only think of the
reduction of automotive emissions, the abatement of air
pollution, improvements in energy efficiency, and technologies of
enhanced oil recovery that squeezed new oil from old wells and at
the same time reduced the environmental footprint.
The common factor in every case has been innovation: new
thinking and new technologies that transform the equation,
effective technologies, affordable technologies and sustainable
development technologies. Innovation has helped us progress as a
society and it will continue to do so in the future.
Innovation of this order is what Bill C-4 is about. The
legislation is straightforward. It would authorize the
establishment of the Canada foundation for sustainable
development. The foundation would administer the sustainable
development technology fund of $100 million announced in budget
2000.
The initial focus of the foundation would be on climate change
and clean air because these are two major environmental
challenges of our time, particularly as recent events in the U.S.
have dictated. Under the climate change heading, it would
concentrate on the development of new technologies to slow down,
arrest and eventually roll back the threat of climate change, for
example, technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to make
carbon energy systems less carbon intensive, to increase energy
efficiency, and to capture, use and store carbon dioxide.
In the clean air part of its mandate the foundation would focus
on the development of technologies to reduce the level of
contaminants in the air we breathe: volatile organic compounds,
nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and others.
Technological innovation is by nature adventurous, pioneering
work that will always involve some form of risk. That makes it
particularly important that we achieve the best possible ratio of
inputs to outputs, of investments to results.
First, the bill would require that the foundation concentrate
its funding support on collaborative efforts rather than on
projects by single entities. This requirement reflects a strong
emphasis throughout the legislation on teamwork. It would also
help ensure that funding goes to projects that receive technical
review and peer support.
Second, the foundation would plan its activities to complement
and to dovetail with those of other federal and provincial
government programs on climate change and clean air.
In addition, the terms and conditions in the funding agreements
would require the foundation to use the fund to lever investment
from other sources to get the ball rolling, not to play the whole
game. The foundation would fund up to 50% of eligible costs of
any project but never more than 33% of eligible costs on average
across the program. This requirement too is consistent with the
promotion of teamwork. It is also a consistent maxim that a good
predictor of a project's success is the willingness of proponents
to put up some of their own money.
Let me now turn to another aspect of the proposed foundation:
the arrangements for governance as visualized in the bill.
Ultimately the extent to which the fund advances the cause of
sustainable development depends on good targeting, good
management and good administration. The machinery of government
for the foundation that the bill proposes meets this requirement.
The legislation would require the foundation to operate at arm's
length from the government and hon. members will see that the
governance structure matches that requirement. Essentially it
has two components.
1630
One component would be a board of directors, an executive body
that would be responsible for the management and services of the
foundation and would exercise all its powers subject to the
foundation's bylaws.
The second component would be a committee of stakeholders,
potential clients of the foundation and other entrusted parties
or members of the foundation as we call them. Their role would
be analogous to those of shareholders in a private corporation in
the sense that they would scrutinize and comment on the
activities of the foundation.
Of the 15 directors of the board, 7 would be government
appointees. Members of the foundation would appoint the 8 other
directors. None of the directors or the members of the
foundation would be from the government.
It is an accepted principle of sound design that form should
follow function and it does in this case. The ultimate function
is sustainable development, a process in which the trajectory is
away from narrow perspectives to broad vision. That applies with
full force to the development of sustainable development
technology. It must be effective, environmentally benign and
affordable. The form of the governance machinery proposed by the
bill supports that breadth and balance.
[Translation]
Together, the members of the board of directors and of the
foundation represent the experience and expertise of every sector
linked to the development and implementation of sustainable
development technology: the public sector, the private sector,
academic institutions and non-profit organizations.
In order to have balance in the geographic sense, members will
be drawn from all regions of Canada.
[English]
The bill also prescribes measures to ensure due diligence and
accountability, requiring the foundation to establish sound
financial and management controls and to appoint an independent
auditor to verify the effectiveness of these controls. The
foundation must submit an annual report to the Minister of
Natural Resources, to members of the foundation and to the
public. The report must include an evaluation of results
achieved through the funding of projects and must be tabled in
parliament.
The detailed terms and conditions associated with the management
of the fund will be set forth in a funding agreement between the
Government of Canada and the foundation. The Auditor General of
Canada will scrutinize the funding agreement.
In order to begin implementation of the mandate of the
sustainable development technology fund as soon as possible, Bill
C-4 also contains conditional clauses that provide for the
governor in council to designate a private sector foundation to
serve as the foundation in accordance with the requirements of
the legislation.
The legislation stipulates that in this eventuality the assets
and liabilities of the private sector foundation would be
transferred to the foundation and its board of directors and
corporate membership would dissolve, thus triggering the
appointment of the board and members of the foundation as
stipulated in the legislation.
These conditional clauses are also contingency clauses,
insurance against unnecessary slippage of schedule in the start
up phase. In the event of administrative or other delays of
process, they would allow the government to fulfil its promises
to establish the fund.
I would like to bring hon. members up to date on the history of
the bill. The legislation is based upon more than two years of
the most open, transparent and comprehensive consultation that
involved the provinces, municipalities, the private sector,
academic institutions and non-governmental organizations.
Every aspect of Canadian life was consulted in that two year
process and the sustainable development technology foundation is
a product of that process. However we did not stop there. The
consultation process continued even after the bill was tabled in
the House on February 2. We have had the opportunity to discuss
the bill in detail with directors of private sector foundations.
We agreed that one or two issues related to the roles of members
and the timing of their meetings could use clarification. We
therefore prepared amendments to the bill to achieve those
clarifications.
We presented the bill and the amendments to the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development
and Natural Resources. After vigorous and constructive
discussion the legislation and clarifying amendments received
approval. During report stage we debated a further seven motions
in amendment. One consequential technical amendment was adopted
to ensure consistency of all amendments throughout the bill.
1635
[Translation]
I want to take this opportunity to thank all members from
the various parties represented in this House for their support.
Bill C-4 was much enhanced because of the positive debate that
was held.
[English]
In conclusion I repeat what the Minister of Natural Resources
has said to the House on other occasions. He said that we could
not rely on technology alone to meet the challenges of climate
change and clean air or to achieve the balancing act of
sustainable development but that a constant flow of new
technology, effective technology, affordable technology and
sustainable development technology were indispensable to our
success.
As we know from experience, this is an area in which the right
investment of dollars, effort and expertise directed at the right
target at the right time could cut the largest problems down to
size. It is the right legislation directed at the right targets
at the right time. I urge hon. members to speed the legislation
on its way.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): 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 Palliser, Human Resources
Development; the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette, Taxation.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey
Central. I thank my colleague across the floor for the heartfelt
presentation he just gave. It moved me deeply.
I am pleased to rise once again on Bill C-4. I will begin my
presentation, as I have at every stage of the bill, by expressing
support for the concept of bringing a group of experts together
in green technologies. Our party supports the concept of
creating a foundation and leveraging a fairly significant amount
of dollars in the big scheme of things many times over in the
private sector through partnerships to help in the development of
new technologies.
It is a concept worthy of support. Our party was ready to
support the bill if we could have had a simple amendment to it,
just one amendment to provide some transparency and
accountability. It was denied unfortunately at report stage when
the government decided not to allow it. It makes me wonder why
it would do that. It makes me fear that the concerns I have
expressed about the bill are true and there is a reason the
government does not want transparency.
The bill is a simple continuation of a process started three
years ago in December 1997 when the Kyoto protocol was signed and
Canada agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990
levels for the period 2008 to 2012.
There are many experts who feel that such a dramatic reduction
is not possible or feasible as the goal of a 6% reduction
represents about a 25% reduction from projected 2008 to 2012
emission levels, using a business as usual trend of rising
greenhouse gas emissions as the basis.
To further complicate these projections Canada's levels of
greenhouse gas emissions have risen steadily in the last few
years to a much higher level than was previously projected.
Despite these complications the government continues to attempt
to meet the Kyoto commitments with a variety of actions. For
example, one such action was the government's action plan 2000
which proposed what strategic actions the government would take
to meet our Kyoto commitments.
The problem is that the plan only aims to reduce the emissions
by 65 million tonnes per year during the commitment period of
2008 to 2012. That is only one-third of the way toward the Kyoto
commitment.
1640
We had a good discussion this morning in committee with the
climate change secretariat. It was obvious that the government
would have great difficulty even reaching the one-third milepost
toward the Kyoto commitment. There was also increasing evidence
that climate change however much it was influenced by man's
activities was inevitable. The government should move to some
degree toward helping Canadians to adapt to climate change rather
than perpetuating the myths that somehow the Kyoto commitment
would prevent it, would reverse the trend and would save the
world.
In September 2000 Environment Canada reported that the United
Nations revealed that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions were 13%
above 1990 levels in 1998. These levels have risen consistently
due to factors such as the greater use of coal to produce
electricity. If natural gas prices remain high, and we have seen
evidence of that in Alberta, coal could be used even more than it
is now. If Canada continues its business as usual, it is quite
possible that the gap between projected emissions and the Kyoto
target would be 26% or significantly higher.
Government documents regarding the bill state that Canada is a
world leader in many climate change and energy efficiency
technologies with emerging strengths in other areas. That is a
term that the minister uses often in committee and in the House.
I have to question why, if what he says is the case, Canada is
relying so heavily on sinks and tradable credits in its Kyoto
strategy? If we combine the increase in emission levels with the
fact that the Kyoto protocol has virtually fallen apart over the
issue of carbon sinks, it is clear that much needs to be done
before Canada can consider itself well on the way to a significant
reduction in emissions.
Canada is in serious trouble and serious trouble calls for
serious solutions. If Bill C-4 lays out the groundwork for a key
part of the government's climate change plan then we are all in
trouble. The government should be providing a solid,
accountable, transparent and responsible plan that would
translate into a foundation. That plan should be producing real
benefits to Canadians rather than the current legislation that
plants the seeds to grow an enormous patronage plum, and I do not
mean a tree.
There are a number of problems with the bill that I hoped to see
addressed either in committee or at report stage in the House.
For example, the issue regarding the accountability of the
foundation and its reporting practices. I would like to see the
auditor general have access to the foundation's books. The
auditor general should bring forward regular audits to ensure
that the foundation is being run in a reasonable and responsible
manner.
As things stand now, rather than having the auditor general
perform an audit of the foundation's books, perhaps the
foundation could use the government's demonstrated standards of
bookkeeping. Members must forgive me if I do not find that a
particularly comforting thought. After all, for the last 10
years the auditor general has given his opinion on the financial
statements of the Government of Canada.
During that period the government has flunked the exam seven
times. Only three times has the auditor general been able to
give a passing grade to the government's bookkeeping. That is a
terrible average. It gets even worse if we look back further
than just 10 years. The former auditor general could give only
one clear opinion during his entire 10 year term.
If the government is to hold the foundation to those standards
we are in for more mismanagement and bungling, for we know how
fond those Liberal members are of spending money without
requiring any sort of framework, authorization or even paperwork.
I had hoped they had learned their lesson.
No one doubts the intention of the bill. It is sound. I would
have supported an organization that exists to promote the
development of new technologies to assist in sustainable
development, including those technologies that address climate
change and air quality issues.
Canada has some serious climate change issues that need to be
addressed. Since the government is already committed to a
certain course of action, we had better start producing rather
than just talking about it.
1645
Descriptions of the bill contain all sorts of glorious sounding
intentions. For example, the fund will encourage innovation by
helping companies develop new technologies and bring them to
market. The fund will complement other federal programs, build
on efforts to engage external partners, and promote the efficient
use of resources and technologies.
According to the government new technologies developed by this
fund will provide the opportunity for Canadians to access the
opportunity side of the climate change equation. Again I have to
question the bill. The government is making taxpayer dollars
available on extremely vague criteria. Is that what it means by
opportunities being created?
My impression is that the opportunities being created were
supposed to be for the development of new technologies that would
benefit all Canadians, not for the friends of the government to
benefit simply from the receipt of Canadian tax dollars.
The foundation will be composed of fifteen members. The fifteen
members of the foundation are assembled first and seven are
appointed by the governor in council who then appoints eight
other members. The chair and six members of the board are then
appointed by the governor in council, and those seven people
appoint eight other members for the board. Both the foundation
and the board have fifteen members and fourteen of the total
thirty members are handpicked by cabinet.
The chair and directors of the board are eligible for five year
terms. Directors and members can be reappointed for one or more
terms. It all sounds rather cushy to me. If someone has a
friend in the right place, he or she could be appointed to the
foundation.
There are two rather frightening aspects to this process. Just
as the chairperson, directors and members are appointed by the
governor in council, they can also be removed for cause by the
governor in council. Notice that reads cause, not just cause.
If members of the foundation are to be kept on at the whim of
cabinet or the Prime Minister, what are the chances that they
will ever make a decision independently? For example, what if
the chairperson makes a reasonable but unpopular decision and
turns down a grant to a friend of the Prime Minister? Will that
person then be removed from the board?
What if a director recommends that a project be denied but the
chairperson is a Liberal crony? Would that be considered cause?
What if a member is doing a terrible job but is a close friend of
the Prime Minister or the privy council? Does the member then
get to keep the job and the money and cannot be removed by
anybody but the Prime Minister?
We have certainly heard many examples in the House recently
about the Prime Minister and how he can assert his influence over
those he personally appoints.
I do not think I have to tell anybody about the issue of the
governor of the Business Development Bank and about the billion
dollar boondoggle in Human Resources Development Canada where
ministerial interference directed money to constituencies and to
organizations that did not meet the criteria of the program.
Those issues are fairly well known by everyone in the House and I
would expect fairly well known by everyone across the country.
We had hoped that at least there would be some safeguards
against this practice in the bill, but unfortunately those
safeguards are sadly lacking.
Another concern regarding the way the foundation will be staffed
relates to the provisions for expertise in its chairperson. The
bill states that the appointment of directors is supposed to
ensure expertise of its directors and that the board should be
representative of persons engaged in the development and
demonstration of technologies to promote sustainable development.
Curiously, though, the bill makes no such provision for the
appointment of the chairperson.
It seems to me that the bill is just leaving the door wide open
for patronage and just waiting for some friend of the Prime
Minister to walk through.
I also have some concerns regarding how members of the
foundation will be compensated for their contributions. The bill
states that the directors may be paid remuneration that is fixed
by the foundation's bylaws and that they are entitled to be paid
reasonable travel and living expenses incurred by them in the
performance of their duties.
If the board is setting their own bylaws, where are the checks
against unreasonable salaries? It sounds like a great
opportunity for these appointed cronies to find themselves a
tidy, new source of cash.
The House will remember Ted Weatherhill and his expense account.
He is the bureaucrat who charged Canadian taxpayers $21,000 in
three years for his travelling expenses. Certainly he was
entitled to collect reasonable expenses for the job he was doing
for the government.
Perhaps the possibility of that happening exists under this
foundation. Those could hardly be considered by anyone to be
reasonable expenses. Even the Liberals who fired him over the
issue did not think his expenses were reasonable.
1650
At least there is some mention of the salaries of directors in
the bill. Bill C-4 makes no mention of the chairperson's salary
and how it will be determined. Quite frankly with the way the
government likes to throw money at its friends, I would just as
soon not leave this sort of thing up to chance.
At the beginning of my comments I made mention of my concerns
regarding the financial operations of the foundation. I would
like to take some time to expand somewhat on those concerns. The
bill is terribly vague on how its financial operations will work.
I have to question exactly how the foundation intends to sustain
its financial viability without an ongoing infusion of taxpayer
dollars?
The bill states that the board shall establish investment
policies, standards and procedures that a reasonably prudent
person would apply with respect to a portfolio of investment to
avoid an undue risk of loss and obtain a reasonable return. I
wonder if the same standards of investment will be used as those
that guide Canada pension plan investments. If so, the financial
stability of the foundation is doomed.
On February 15, 2001, the CPP fund, made up of $41.6 billion in
assets invested mostly in bonds, reported a $453 million loss on
stock investments in its fiscal third quarter.
In the bill currently before the House the government is trying
to prevent public scrutiny of how the Canada pension plan fund is
performing. It seems to me that this fund made up of billions of
taxpayer dollars is just a bit too large to sweep under the
carpet. At the very least it would make a large lump in the
carpet that would be pretty tough to ignore.
If this is the pattern that the foundation will follow, we might
as well go ahead and buy ourselves some gas masks because there
will be little progress on the development of climate change
science and technology.
There are many serious problems with the legislation. I would
like to know why we need this new Liberal friendly and expensive
bureaucracy when there are many other funding vehicles already in
place that could accomplish the same goals.
There are regional development groups that receive federal
funding and have local boards which approve high risk investments
and give loans. There is also the Federal Business Development
Bank. All these groups are under the purview of the Auditor
General of Canada. They could cover the responsibilities of the
foundation and prevent establishing another expensive
bureaucratic mess.
While I am sure the Prime Minister would like to ensure that his
friends retire comfortably, when it comes to taxpayer dollars I
would like to see a better guarantee of an open, accountable,
transparent and responsible organization than what this confusing
legislation would suggest.
Before my colleagues across the floor accuse me of being
anti-environment, I should like to quote from the Canadian
Alliance policy which states:
We are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural
environment and endangered species, and to sustainable
development of our abundant natural resources for the use of
current and future generations. Therefore we will strike a
balance between environmental preservation and economic
development. This includes creating partnerships to promote
meaningful progress in the area of environmental protection.
Clearly the Canadian Alliance is in favour of taking steps to
ensure cleaner air through new technologies. However, as I have
already mentioned, this foundation has the potential to be so
riddled with patronage that little if anything meaningful will be
accomplished.
The Canadian Alliance believes, as the auditor general indicated
in his latest report to parliament, that government agencies,
boards and commissions must be staffed with competent,
experienced people who are appointed through an open and
accountable process based on merit. Quite frankly there is sadly
little merit present in either this bill or the foundation it
will create.
It is because of the lack of merit shown in the many ways I have
mentioned that I will be voting against the legislation. I urge
other members of the House to do the same.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been consultations in
connection with amendments to the report of the justice committee
tabled in the House earlier this week.
I understand there would be unanimous consent to deem the first
report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to
be changed so that the reference to “line 16 on page 26” is
altered to “line 9 on page 25” and the reference to “line 2 on
page 41” is altered to “line 9 on page 40” in English and to
“line 6 on page 40 in French”.
In advance of receiving consent I thank the members of each
opposition party.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1655
[English]
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, an
act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development
technology, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, the people of Surrey Central are pleased to have
me participate in the debate today concerning the establishment
of a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.
In the 2000 federal budget the Liberals announced that they
would be creating a sustainable development technology fund. They
earmarked $100 million as the amount of initial funding. They are
proposing a foundation to administer these funds. In the debate
today we are disappointed that the committee hearings on the bill
did not result in the Auditor General of Canada overseeing the
books of the foundation.
I will quickly review what the foundation is supposed to do. The
sustainable development technology foundation is allegedly to
operate at arm's length from the government. It is to be
operated as a not for profit organization. It will administer
funding primarily to projects related to greenhouse gas reduction
and improving air quality.
The foundation will dole out funds on a project by project
basis. The foundation will accept proposals from existing and
new collaborative arrangements among technology developers,
suppliers, users, universities, not for profit organizations, and
organizations such as industrial associations and research
institutes. The government originally expected that the
foundation would be in place by March 2001.
The people of Surrey Central support this initiative. We
believe that this is the kind of thing where our government
should be taking the lead. I would venture to say that members
on all sides of the House want to protect Canada's environment
and work on projects related to greenhouse gas reduction and
improving air quality. Our children certainly want that. We
want our children and grandchildren to have that.
Canadian Alliance policy supports these kinds of sustainable
development initiatives. I want to make that absolutely clear by
stating our policy. We are committed to protecting and
preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species
and to the sustainable development of our abundant natural
resources for the use of current and future generations.
Therefore we will strike a balance between environmental
preservation and economic development. This includes creating
partnerships with provincial governments, private industry,
educational institutions and the public to promote meaningful
progress in the area of environmental protection. That is the
policy we have pledged to follow when we form the next
government.
As a government the Liberals have mismanaged our environment and
failed to provide sustainable development. This weak Liberal
government has signed international treaties including Kyoto,
Beijing and Rio, with no intention whatsoever of carrying out
those commitments.
The government has made political decisions about matters that
require scientific decisions. The conservation of fish species
was based on political decisions, not on scientific evidence or
scientific research. The safety of the bovine growth hormone was
influenced by political pressure and political interference
rather than by scientific evidence and research.
The government is too busy trying to garner votes and counter
Canadian Alliance policy rather than allowing scientific
principles and evidence to drive the efforts to protect our
environment and meet our international commitments.
1700
Since 1993 the Liberals have been promising Canadians that they
were going to pass endangered species legislation, which of
course died twice on the order paper. After seven or eight
years, what do we have? We have another bill they are promising
to pass.
The endangered species bill they are proposing is an assault on
property owners in Canada. It is confiscation without
compensation. It is hard to imagine. It is so undemocratic that
it is anti-democratic, but that is another story for another day.
This weak Liberal government that lacks vision really has done
nothing in terms of initiatives for our environment and
sustainable development since 1993. Other countries have passed
legislation and are way ahead. Even the United Nations itself
has a sustainable development office, but the Liberals allow
Canada to once again be left behind.
The bill was originally introduced as part of budget 2000,
delivered almost a year ago. Now, after a year of doing nothing,
the government wants the bill to pass through the House and the
Senate as soon as possible and receive royal assent so it can
dole out $100 million. Is this simple mismanagement or is it
indicative of the usual way the government operates? It could
not care less about debate in the House. It does not
hesitate to use closure or time allocation to ram any bill
through.
At any rate, it is important to note that the official
opposition wants to support the bill today, but we wanted to see
some amendments as well. We would have supported the
bill one year ago, but the government did not allow it to go
forward until this month, at least one year late if we use the
Liberal government budget 2000 agenda, and seven or eight years
late according to the red book one promise.
Let me talk about suggestions we have for the Liberals
concerning the bill. Our suggestions really do not have anything
to do with the sustainable development aspect of the bill. The
amendments needed do not have anything to do with the projects
related to greenhouse gas reductions or improving air quality.
Our amendments have to do with the Liberal Party's arrogance.
Canadians are very uncomfortable with patronage, which denies
them transparency and accountability.
Let me read a simple paragraph from Canadian Alliance policy:
We believe that a non-partisan civil service, an independent
judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards
and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore
ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open
and accountable process based on merit.
The Liberals are proposing to turn the sustainable development
foundation into a Liberal patronage pork barrel. The people of
Surrey Central and I are dismayed. We are disappointed that
the government would take such a wonderful initiative of
supporting projects related to greenhouse gas reductions and
improving air quality and turn the efforts into some kind of
Liberal Party payoff.
The Liberals are trying to arrange it so that the chairperson
and a minority number of directors and members are appointed by
the governor in council. They then appoint the remaining members
to complete the 15 person board of directors. Obviously the
foundation will become another Liberal patronage plum. When will
the Liberals evolve in the new millennium and put a stop to these
kinds of 17th century old boys' club practices? When will they
abandon the politics of exclusion? When will they stop
implementing their systems of disenfranchisement?
The patronage practices of the government are virtually fascist
by strict political definition. The Canadian Alliance will put a
stop to this sort of thing when it forms the next government.
The creation of a sustainable development foundation is
something all Canadians have wanted for years. The Liberals are
turning it into some kind of arena for political payoffs. What a
shame.
1705
Let me talk about the auditing of the foundation. Again, while
the foundation would provide an annual report to parliament, the
foundation would appoint its own auditors and have final approval
on the financial reports before they are made public. While the
legislation does not set out rules as to who would be eligible to
be the auditor, the government refuses to allow the Auditor
General of Canada access to the foundation's books.
It is no wonder that the government does not want the office of
the Auditor General of Canada involved. It knows that the
auditor general has been very critical of its practices. The
Liberals have had a difficult ride with the outgoing auditor
general. His most recent report was probably his most scathing
indictment yet of the government. Each auditor general's report
on the mismanagement of the Liberal government is worse than the
previous one.
The official opposition wants these issues, the question of who
will audit the foundation and the question of how appointments
will be made to the foundation, dealt with. We ask the
government to look at these issues seriously. These are
non-partisan, good suggestions. We will not allow these two
concerns to be swept under the carpet by the Liberals. Based on
these two things, we have to oppose the bill and we do not want
to have to do that.
Another issue, our environment, is the most important thing that
the House of Commons could be dealing with. Debates on the
environment speak to the very future of the human race on this
planet. All else really pales in comparison when we view what
other subjects we could be debating in the House of Commons. Bill
C-4 is a good example of the weaknesses of the government when it
comes to the issue of sustainable development.
I would also point out that in regard to the idea of creating a
new foundation of this sort the government does not really talk
about where it would be based and what centre it would be working
out of. It actually puts into question the future of the
International Institute for Sustainable Development, located in
Winnipeg. We already have one institute for sustainable
development and its future is in jeopardy.
I participated in the second reading debate of the bill and was
very interested in the remarks of my colleague from Winnipeg
Centre. He has some serious concerns about the hidden agenda of
the Liberal government when it comes to the future of the
sustainable development centre in his riding. I share his
concerns.
The institute was created years ago and has had its funding
reduced year after year, to the point where it is really a shadow
of its former self. There was a time when it had a staff of 140
people and its own building. It now occupies a very small
office, with maybe a handful of people, on the third floor of a
nondescript office building in the centre of downtown Winnipeg.
We wonder if the government has completely forgotten it already
has an institute for sustainable development. Maybe the Liberals
are threatening to axe what is left of the International
Institute for Sustainable Development.
We have to compare the $100 million figure that the Liberals
have given us in Bill C-4 to cover the issue of sustainable
development with the government putting $1.3 billion into a very
narrow and fixed program, a one time payment to offset energy
costs for Canadians. The government missed the target with that
one as well, sending cheques to students, prisoners, MPs and
deceased Canadians but not to those who pay the heating bills.
Getting back to the institute in Winnipeg, if there is $100
million to spend, why would the government not restore the
institute to its former stature, that of a world leader, research
centre and resource library for anyone interested in the whole
concept of energy conservation or sustainable development?
Why not enhance the Winnipeg facility as a centre of excellence
right in the centre of Canada and become world leaders so we can
export the technology?
1710
In conclusion, once again we have the Liberals taking an
initiative, one that everyone would want to support, the creation
of a sustainable development foundation, but what do they do?
They turn it into a venue for patronage payoffs and they close
the books to the auditor general. They want to control the $100
million they are giving to the foundation without anyone else
finding out which Liberal Party donors receive the bulk of the
$100 million.
It would be amazing if it were not so sad. The people of Surrey
Central, who want to support the creation of the sustainable
development foundation, do not want to support the bill because
of the way the Liberals are playing politics with it. If the
Liberals are prepared to fix the flaws and the corruption they
have written into the bill, then we would be more than happy to
support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Madam Speaker, why a law to
establish a foundation to fund sustainable development
technology? The question arises: Why establish a foundation,
especially one outside the government? I think this kind of
question is totally relevant, especially since two things
happened since yesterday which made me wonder even more about
the reason for this foundation.
The first thing happened yesterday during the debate on Bill
C-209 brought forward by my distinguished colleague from
Jonquière, for whom I have the utmost respect because of her mind
as well as her heart. The member for Jonquière presented a bill
calling for a tax deduction to encourage greater use of public
transit.
In his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance said that it was an excellent initiative on the part of
the member. I was amazed to hear him say that. I thought it was a
great start. It was great, but it did not last.
He immediately went on to sing the praise of all government
policies regarding the environment, air quality and so on, to
brag about the hundreds of thousands of dollars and even the
billions of dollars invested in these areas, all that to say, in
the end, that he would not support the bill because it was too
simple.
As simple as Bill C-209 may have been, it could have had a major
impact on climate change, thus on sustainable development.
In a previous political life, as an alderman in Sherbrooke, I
sat for several years on the Sherbrooke area transport
commission. Many studies were carried out on road
transport—especially on motor vehicle transport versus public
transit—and I noticed that the impact was significant.
Depending on economic cycles, ridership varied according to
the subsidies the public transit system got. Of course, there
were operation subsidies and capital grants.
1715
We were promoting public transit, but ridership varied depending
on the economy cycle. When subsidies started to drop and the
price of cars started to go down or rebates were offered with
no freight fees and 0% interest, people stopped using public
transit.
Instead of spending millions of dollars to establish a
foundation, the government could have supported or should
support the bill brought forward by my colleague from Jonquière
in order to improve ridership. But I gather that the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance does not
understand a thing about the Hygrade sausage principle: the more
you eat...
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): The more you eat it,
the more you like it, and the more you like it, the more you eat
it.
Mr. Serge Cardin: Even I had forgotten how it went.
I had a memory lapse.
An hon. member: Increase the supply and the demand will
increase.
Mr. Serge Cardin: That is right. And the same applies to public
transit. We must encourage the use of public transit and make
sure that when Bill C-209 is brought back to the House for
debate in a short while, the government will invest in the
proposed initiative.
Another thing surprised me. This morning at the Standing
Committee of Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and
Natural Resources, we heard the parliamentary secretary. He
talked about climate changes. We also heard about the Kyoto
protocol.
The government says it is prepared to invest hundreds of
millions, even billions of dollars in some areas. It will also invest
$100 million in the foundation. We were supposed to achieve major
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions based on 1990 levels. But
the fact of the matter is that there has been a 13% increase
based on those levels. Not only did we not reduce our emissions,
but we increased them by 13% even though the government told us
that it had invested huge amounts in support of sustainable
development.
It is estimated that only one-third of the reduction objectives
set in 1997 for the period between 2008 and 2012 will be met.
We can see that on one hand the government refuses
initiatives, as small as they may be, that would be highly
effective in dealing with climate change, but, on the other
hand, with the hundreds of millions and even the billions of
dollars it has spent, it has not even managed to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it has only managed to
increase them.
The bill to establish this foundation raises a lot of questions
besides what we were able to observe in a relatively short time.
In less than 24 hours we were able to see that the government
is saying two different things but is not getting any results.
Of course the Bloc Quebecois is against the establishment of
this foundation because it raises a lot of concerns, to which I
will get back later on.
I could go through them quickly.
There is the division of power and the fact that Quebec already
has such a foundation. There is the concentration of power and
the fact that the bill is rather vague in its definitions, which
I would describe as risky, and so are the expressions used.
There is also a huge disparity between the recommendations from
the issue table and the bill.
Of course if we talk about the foundation itself, the objective
pursued is certainly a lofty one. Sustainable development, the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, are
all lofty goals, but this bill is obviously not the tool we need
to achieve results.
If we look at the situation in Quebec, I said earlier that there
is indeed a concern with regard to the division of power. This
bill seems to be another roundabout way for the federal
government to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, this bill is so broad in scope that it could
enable the federal government to invest in an area that should
be under Quebec and the other provinces' jurisdiction.
1720
At first representatives from the other provinces
could be supportive of the bill. They never take exception to
the fact that the federal government gets involved in their
jurisdictions and manages things for them. For Quebec, however,
this is unacceptable.
During consideration at committee stage we prepared amendments
effectively asking that Quebec be allowed to opt out of that
foundation, with full compensation, because our province already
has a foundation, the Fondation d'action québécoise pour le
développement durable. The government invested close to
$45 million in that foundation.
Allow me to digress for a moment.
Earlier I referred to our discussions this morning at the
standing committee on natural resources regarding the Kyoto
protocol. It was mentioned that greenhouse gas emissions had
increased by 13% in Canada. However, Quebec is the province with
the lowest increase, with 7%. This is almost seven times less
than the province with the highest increase.
So we feel that the foundation is effective. If it had an
additional $25 million or so to promote technologies, the results
would be even more conclusive.
As far as we are concerned the issue of the foundation is
settled: we do not need it. All we need is money, because the
needs are in Quebec. One also wonders about a foundation that is
outside the government. The government would hardly have any
control over it.
Automatically there is also the element of concentration of
powers.
The foundation can look after its own business itself, but we
know that there is always an important link with the
government—not with parliament—because it is the government that,
to all intents and purposes, appoints the 15 directors. The
bill provides that the first seven are appointed by the
government and eight others by the directors themselves. We
know that ultimately the government will be appointing all 15.
Today, certain people reminded me that when the government, the
Prime Minister in particular, began establishing foundations or
agencies with directors he himself appointed, he seemed to be
rewarding his friends with plum appointments. If he has a lot
of such appointments to hand out before leaving, maybe he should
be leaving soon.
So here are another 15 friends he can introduce to the board of
directors, 15 who, for all intents and purposes, will be
accountable to the government. The government even has the
right to remove them for cause.
The bill is rather vague with respect to the definition of
“eligible project”. Does an eligible project to improve air
quality mean that they will also fund projects having to do with
nuclear technology, for instance? Nothing would appear to
prohibit it, although this would run counter to the Kyoto
agreement and nothing would indicate the contrary.
Who will, indirectly, draw up the eligibility criteria? The
government as well, but the foundation will never be accountable
to parliament. It was this that prompted a major amendment.
This amendment called for the auditor general to be able to
audit the foundation in order to evaluate its performance
against objectives, the way in which funds were distributed, and
whether such distribution was cost-effective.
1725
Even before that amendment was proposed a request had been made
to ask the auditor general to appear before the standing
committee on natural resources.
We can see the impact that visit would have had on the drafting
of various clauses and changes to be made to the bill. The
auditor general has repeatedly criticized the fact that
appointments made by the Prime Minister and the government are
more often than not based on partisanship rather than merit. The
risk is still there.
Had the auditor general appeared before the committee to assess
the bill, he could have suggested changes to avoid these near
conflicts of interest that can exist between the government and
a so-called independent foundation.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Transparency.
Mr. Serge Cardin: Yes, as my distinguished colleague and member
for Jonquière just said, it goes to a matter of transparency. It
could have ensured some degree of transparency.
For these various reasons the Bloc Quebecois will not be
supporting the bill. We could perhaps have supported it had all
our amendments been accepted in committee. At any rate, with part of
them not having been approved, we already knew then that we
would not be supporting this bill. Quebec has its own
foundation.
The only thing we would be willing to accept is a transfer of
available funds for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to
promote sustainable development.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, before I start to debate
I would like to raise a point of order. You recognized me to
speak earlier and I sat down because the Bloc member had not
actually put his name on the debate schedule. I believe I did
have the floor.
I would like to have my 15 minutes to speak. I am the only
opposition member of parliament who has an amendment to the bill.
I feel I have some things to add to the debate on the bill. I
would ask unanimous consent of the House to finish my comments.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I would advise the
hon. member that this is not the end of debate. This is the
first round of debate on the bill. The hon. member will have
whatever time is left from the two minutes or one minute to
continue when the bill comes back to the House.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, I will take my two
minutes to thank you for asking. If we will be able to debate
the bill when it comes back to the House, I would certainly take
my 40 minutes at that time.
An hon. member: It is 20 minutes.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: We only have 20 minutes. Now we get
into trouble. It is a slippery slope.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Let me clarify
something in terms of the point of order the hon. member raised.
To be clear, there is no list. It is a courtesy that has been
decided upon by the House leaders. It is true that we go through
a certain rotation that has been agreed by the House leaders.
It is also true that the hon. member from the Bloc did not stand
at the same time, but he did stand and it was his turn. He had
the 40 minutes if he wished to avail himself of them. The hon.
member will have 20 minutes beginning the next round.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, I
think I have about 30 seconds left to add a few comments today.
It would certainly be a mistake if I did not take full advantage
of the minute and 30 seconds or so that I have today to speak at
least briefly to the bill being debated.
I appreciate the fact that we will be able to come back to the
bill at another time, shorten our speaking points a bit and be
able to get another kick at the proverbial can.
We in the Conservative Party would applaud a number of things in
Bill C-4. The whole idea of sustainable development and a
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are commendable projects that
everyone in parliament would tend to support.
1730
Unfortunately, it is the legislation itself. It is how it is
worded. It is how it is crafted. It is the fact that there is
not a sunset clause in it. It is the fact that there is no
accountability. It is the fact that the auditor general is not
able to look at the books.
There are a number of things wrong with this particular piece of
legislation that could have been corrected at committee and
report stage. Government members failed to do that. We have
a better piece of legislation than we had to begin with. It did
a slightly better job but it did not go all the way. For that
reason, we certainly cannot support this piece of
legislation. It is my understanding that the rest of the
opposition parties cannot support it either.
I will be more than happy to continue and debate this on
another day at another time.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to consideration of private members'
business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LABELLING
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)
moved:
That in the opinion
of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of requiring that no person shall sell an
alcoholic beverage in Canada unless the container in which
the beverage is sold carries the following visible and
clearly printed label: “WARNING: Drinking alcohol during
pregnancy can cause birth defects.”
She said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to introduce a
motion in the House this afternoon calling upon the government to
consider the idea of labels on alcohol beverage containers for
the purpose of dealing with a preventable tragedy in our society
today, fetal alcohol syndrome.
[Translation]
It is a pleasure to have this time in the House today to discuss
something of such importance to today's society. This motion is
calling upon the government to require alcoholic beverages to
carry a warning label as part of an all-out campaign against
fetal alcohol syndrome.
[English]
I want to begin by expressing some thanks for the work that has
been done leading up to the debate here today.
First, I want to express appreciation to members of the
all party subcommittee of the House for agreeing to make the
motion votable.
Second, I want to pay a special tribute to a member of the House
who has worked long and hard on issues pertaining to fetal
alcohol syndrome and who has in fact pioneered the notion of
labels on alcohol beverage containers here in Canada today. I am
referring specifically to the work of the member for Mississauga
South. It is very important that we recognize the work of that
member because he has led the way in the House for many years in
pushing very hard for education programs pertaining to fetal
alcohol syndrome and in pursuing the idea of labels on alcohol
beverage containers.
You are no doubt fully aware, Madam Speaker, of the work of that
member in terms of a book he wrote. I refer specifically to
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: The Real Brain Drain, and a
campaign he initiated called “Drink Smart Canada”, which lists a
number of conditions that are either directly or indirectly due
to alcohol.
I want to mention the work of the member for Mississauga South
in pursuing this matter before the House. In fact, I am not the
first one to bring the matter here. The member for Mississauga
South has done so previously in the form of a bill, introduced in
parliament and dealt with at the Standing Committee on Health two
parliaments ago.
1735
I want the record to show that we are following in the footsteps
of other people's work and that has to be recognized.
I also want to thank members of all parties for their
support on this issue. There has been support and encouragement
from representatives of every single party in the House today. I
think we have the basis for a non-partisan approach to a very
serious issue. It is my hope that we have a real possibility in
society and in parliament to achieve something that until
recently we thought was impossible.
The whole idea has not only been pursued by the member for
Mississauga South in parliament, but it was pursued actively by a
standing committee of parliament back in 1992. I am referring
specifically to a comprehensive study done by the then standing
committee on health and welfare entitled “A Preventable
Strategy”.
One of the recommendations of that report was to add warning
labels to alcohol products informing Canadian consumers of the
danger that drinking while pregnant could cause birth defects.
That was a very useful document that shed tremendous light on a
very serious issue in our society today. It created tremendous
public support and interest for pursuing the idea of labels on
alcohol beverage containers.
Over the course of the past decade, numerous members of
parliament and activists have been involved in building awareness
around the issue. It is important for all of us to acknowledge
the extent of the work done by the professionals, volunteers and
other advocates who have worked for many years, first to have the
condition of fetal alcohol syndrome recognized and then for
programs to assist individuals and their families to cope with
this disability.
Many others have worked to sensitize teachers and other
professionals, and still others have focused on educating the
public. Among those, many have campaigned for warning labels on
alcohol as a means to raise public awareness.
That is what we are dealing with today. We know that this is
not the be-all and end-all in terms of a solution to a very
serious problem in our society today. We are presenting it as
one element of a comprehensive education strategy to address a
very serious problem in Canada today, fetal alcohol syndrome.
Some have asked me why I am bringing this issue forward. I want
to give a little background. First, this is a continuation of
work I did when I was a member in the Manitoba legislative
assembly and is a follow up to our attempts in that province to
achieve some form of labelling on alcohol products. That work
demonstrated for me the difficulties in pursuing labels on a
provincial jurisdictional basis, being informed fairly early on
in that debate that we needed a national strategy.
Some jurisdictions have taken steps to put labels on alcohol
beverage containers. I want to mention the work in both the
Yukon and the Northwest Territories that pursued this and
implemented a form of labelling back in the early 1990s. They
recognized early on that there had to be some notification, some
attempt to make women aware of the dangers of drinking while
pregnant and how it could lead to birth defects, and the
possibility of fetal alcohol syndrome.
In Manitoba we did not win the battle for labelling but we at
least achieved the ability to put messages on the brown paper bag
in which alcohol bottles were placed. It was a step. It was my
hope to continue that fight here. It is great to be able to
follow in the footsteps of others who have done this work.
I also feel an obligation to represent my constituents on
something as important as fetal alcohol syndrome. No community
is spared the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome. Some
communities have a higher incidence than others. In parts of my
constituency of Winnipeg North Centre there is a very high
incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome.
1740
It is related and tied directly to poverty, despair, depression,
unemployment, poor economic circumstances, lousy housing and lack
of nutritional food. That reflects the demographics in my
constituency. It is understandable how that leads to a greater
incidence of drinking and a higher incidence of fetal alcohol
syndrome.
I think I bring to this Chamber the expressed intention on the
part of constituents is to have me pursue this matter.
In my constituency there are a number of organizations that are
working very hard on some groundbreaking projects that are making
a difference bit by bit. They have to be acknowledged. We have
to in this place do whatever we can to acknowledge those efforts.
I am thinking specifically of a school by the name of David
Livingstone which is in the heart of the inner city of my
constituency, where the problems of economic and social
insecurity are enormous. The school has taken up the challenge
of putting in place a program that will help identify the problem
of FAS and help develop programs that will meet the needs of
those children. There are no textbooks. There is not a lot of
help out there in terms of how to actually work with kids with
fetal alcohol syndrome. However it is making a difference, and I
wanted to acknowledge the work of the David Livingstone school
and its principal, Angeline Ramkissoon.
The other reason I bring this matter before the House today is a
very personal one. I happen to have a son with a disability. My
son is 16 years old. He was diagnosed with a rare genetic
disability when he was three years old. As a result of that, he
has severe learning disabilities, profound developmental delay
and lives with uncontrollable seizures.
In the case of my personal experience, my son's disability is
not related to fetal alcohol syndrome but that is neither here
nor there. The issue for me is that having the experience, as a
parent, of living with and caring for a child with a disability
reminds me each and every day that we have to do everything we
can in this place to help parents, families and children who are
dealing with disabilities.
When we think about this debate and the work that is involved,
we have to remind ourselves that we are talking for a lot of
families who are struggling on a day to day basis with some very
difficult challenges and we have to play our part.
It is sometimes hard to separate the personal and the political.
In my case, I do not think I can. The personal is the political.
The challenges I deal with on a day to day basis, the experience
I have learned through working with my son, have made me a more
effective member of parliament and have driven me to pursue
issues such as this one.
One thing I learned, in terms of addressing the needs of my son
Nick, is that we must do everything possible to help children
with disabilities but we must also, whenever possible, find ways
to prevent disabilities, if they are preventable.
Today we are dealing with a disability, with a syndrome that is
entirely preventable. Let us make no mistake about it. We are
talking about fetal alcohol syndrome which is a condition that
can be prevented. It is caused by a woman drinking while
pregnant.
If we can do anything to inform women to take precautions during
pregnancy and to try to prevent any child from being born with
fetal alcohol syndrome, then we will have done a great service.
There is no pretence here today that we are going to wipe out
fetal alcohol syndrome. There is no suggestion here today that
every child born with a disability is the result of drinking
while expecting.
1745
What we are saying is that there is a link between drinking
while pregnant and fetal alcohol syndrome. If we could make
women aware of the dangers of drinking while pregnant, then we
would have made a big difference. Even if one child is spared
fetal alcohol syndrome because we have taken action through a
measure as simple as putting labels on alcohol beverage
containers, then we would have served our constituents and the
people of the country well.
There is much to say about fetal alcohol syndrome, and I know
other members will talk about it today. I hope the member for
Mississauga South has a chance to speak because he is truly
familiar with the issues.
We have to remember that we are talking about a syndrome that is
the most severe in a spectrum of abnormalities found in the
children of women who have consumed alcohol while pregnant. It
is the leading cause of developmental delay. No accurate
statistic exists on the total number of individuals with FAS but
estimates indicate that there may be as many as three children
per 1,000 births.
When we add the whole question of fetal alcohol effects, a
related syndrome to FAS, we are talking about many more and the
numbers rise significantly. There is no cure and the damage
cannot be undone. The main feature of the condition is that it
can be totally eliminated through prevention.
My plea today is for the House to build on the work of other
members who have come before me and who have tried to accomplish
something that is fundamental to a comprehensive strategy on
fetal alcohol syndrome: to provide warning labels on alcohol
beverage containers. That does not seem like a big deal,
especially when we consider that labels have been required by law
in the United States for over 10 years. The United States
government has, since 1989, required all alcohol beverage
containers to contain warning labels. No dire consequences
flowed from that decision. The alcohol industry is still alive
and well. Everything that we have heard about the reaction to
that decision has been positive.
People who are not addicted to alcohol and women who are
pregnant have taken note. People who would not otherwise be
aware of the link between drinking while pregnant and fetal
alcohol syndrome are taking note. It does help and it does make
a difference. That is the point of today's debate.
The member for Mississauga South referred the following
quotation to me which says it all. Denny Boyd, who wrote an
article in the Vancouver Sun on November 27, 1995, said:
The intended purpose of warning labels on alcohol containers is
to act as a consumer lighthouse, sending a signal of impending
danger.
Does that not say it all? We are a lighthouse sending a
warning, sounding the alarm bells about the possibility of the
dangers that can occur when drinking while pregnant.
We are trying to make a difference and there is a real
possibility of that. In the last number of years, since the
member for Mississauga South and others in the House worked on
the issue, there has been a growing awareness about what fetal
alcohol syndrome really is and what kind of consequences it can
have for all of us. We know more today about the millions of
dollars society spends to support one child with fetal alcohol
syndrome. We also know more about the links between fetal
alcohol syndrome and juvenile delinquency.
1750
We know that probably over half the cases we are dealing with on
a day to day basis in terms of juvenile delinquency are directly
related to disabilities. Some of those disabilities are related
to fetal alcohol syndrome. If we understand the consequences for
society then should we not take whatever steps we can to make a
difference?
That is what we are proposing today. I look forward to hearing
from members of all parties about the value of the motion and
about whether we can continue the work started by the member for
Mississauga South.
We should not only consider it because it makes good public
policy sense, but we should consider it because we have the
backing and the support of many thousands of Canadians right
across the land.
A recent survey indicated that Canadians in large numbers
supported the idea of warning labels on alcohol beverage
containers. An Environics poll conducted for Health Canada and
released in January 2000 found that 90% of people approved of
warning labels and that two-thirds of those asked strongly
approved of warnings on alcohol beverage containers. The report
on the poll concluded that there was substantial public support
for initiatives to inform people about the risk of alcohol use,
including warning labels on alcohol products and others.
We have public support and the support of other provincial and
territorial jurisdictions. We have the commitment and the
dedication that we bring to this place. We should not lose this
moment. We should act today.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I
speak to Motion M-155, which reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of requiring that no person shall sell
an alcoholic beverage in Canada unless the container in which
the beverage is sold carries the following visible and clearly
printed label: “WARNING: Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can
cause birth defects”.
Before beginning, I wish to congratulate the member for Winnipeg
North Centre most sincerely on moving this motion.
[English]
Before I address the motion itself I should like to recognize
the longstanding efforts of my colleague, the member for
Mississauga South. Members on both sides of the House will be
aware that he has been involved with the issue for many years. He
has been an advocate for efforts to combat fetal alcohol
syndrome. I applaud his tenacity.
[Translation]
Furthermore, this tenacity was reflected in certain undertakings
by the Prime Minister in his Address in Reply to the Speech from
the Throne on January 31.
[English]
I am pleased to stand in support of the motion. I agree that
warning labels on alcoholic beverages should be considered.
Currently Yukon, Australia and some U.S. jurisdictions require
alcohol warning labels. While research studies demonstrate that
it may not be the most effective way to reach groups at a high
risk of alcoholic use, it is timely to review these findings.
[Translation]
However, warning labels on alcohol must not be taken in
isolation. They must be part of a comprehensive strategy to
combat alcohol abuse, which in turn can lead to fetal alcohol
syndrome and fetal alcohol effects. An effective comprehensive
strategy must include a number of elements: awareness-raising
campaigns, research, life-skills based approaches, and substance
abuse prevention programs.
Let me outline quickly what the Government of Canada is
doing to address the tragedy of fetal alcohol syndrome.
A wide variety of measures have been and are being implemented
in Canada to address this syndrome. These measures have
included extensive attempts and many programs to educate the
public about the dangers of drinking while pregnant.
1755
On January 28, 2000 a fetal alcohol syndrome-fetal alcohol
effects initiative received $11 million for three years. This
was an announcement that we made at the time and the program is now
under way. This initiative builds on the excellent work
currently being done in the provinces and territories and in
communities by parents and support groups.
[English]
The $11 million in funding is being used to enhance activities in a
number of areas, including public awareness and education,
surveillance, early identification and diagnosis, fetal alcohol
syndrome and fetal alcohol effects training and capacity
development, co-ordination, integration of services, and a
strategic project fund.
Health Canada has established a national advisory committee
on fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects. The
committee will provide independent strategic advice and
expertise to Health Canada on fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal
alcohol effects and promote collaboration and partnerships
across disciplines and sectors.
[Translation]
Health Canada is also working with the provinces and territories
to develop a national public education and awareness campaign on
this syndrome and on fetal alcohol effects. A joint launch of a
poster and pamphlet is expected in May 2001.
[English]
Furthermore, the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch is also
developing a fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects
public awareness campaign that reaches out to first nations and
Inuit populations in a culturally sensitive manner.
[Translation]
In order to ensure access to appropriate treatment for pregnant
women with substance use problems, Health Canada also provides
funding to the provinces and territories through the alcohol and
drug treatment and rehabilitation program. Also through this
program, Health Canada promotes best practices, evaluates model
programs, and disseminates leading-edge information.
Health Canada is also providing funding to the Canadian Centre
on Substance Abuse to enhance the national information service
and the On-Line Fetal Alcohol Syndrome-Fetal Alcohol Effects
training project for frontline workers in the Canadian prenatal
nutritional program and the community action program for
children.
[English]
Health Canada, working with key stakeholders, will be
conducting a national survey of physicians to determine current
knowledge, beliefs and attitudes with respect to fetal alcohol
syndrome and diagnosis. The First Nations and Inuit Health
Branch of Health Canada is working with the Indian and Inuit
health committee of the Canadian Pediatric Society to identify
diagnosis criteria. The information will be used as a baseline
measure for policy and education initiatives geared toward health
professionals.
Finally, Health Canada will be hosting a national forum in the
fall of 2001 for the purpose of developing a national action plan
for fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects involving
the relevant sectors: education, corrections, social services
and jurisdictions across Canada.
[Translation]
These initiatives are just a few of the many activities taking
place across Canada to combat this syndrome, but they give a
good picture. Although Health Canada recognizes that the
majority of adult Canadians use alcohol in a way that is not
harmful to their health, it is we who must combat this serious
problem on behalf of Canadian children.
If this motion is passed by the government, as we hope it will be,
the consideration by the House of Commons of the
desire expressed in Motion M-155 will no doubt contribute to
raising public awareness and go a long way to improve the
situation.
1800
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this
very important motion, Motion No. 155. I compliment the member
for Winnipeg North Centre and the member from Mississauga for
bringing the issue up.
Fetal alcohol syndrome is one of the reasons children incur
brain damage in utero. It is the leading cause of preventable
brain damage in Canada. It is extraordinary. In some
communities the rates are very high and exceed 12 children per
1,000. The cost is about $350,000 per child up to the age of 18,
not to mention the massive human cost to the individuals and
families involved.
I draw attention to the fact that it is not only alcohol that
causes children to be born with brain damage. Other substances,
such as glue, gasoline and illegal drugs, can poison the brain of
a growing fetus and the damage in many cases is irreversible. We
must therefore look at the issue in a much larger context.
I agree with the parliamentary secretary that the evidence is
out on whether labels are a solution. However, I strongly urge
the government to look at the issue in a larger context to see
how we can more effectively prevent substance abuse and the
incidence of FAS and FAE. As I said before, the damage is due
not only to alcohol but to glue, gasoline and illegal drugs.
In my clinical experience, every pregnant patient I have ever
met who consumed these injurious substances knew full well that
they would damage the baby. Every one of them knew this. Fifteen
year old girls accompanied by their caregivers have told me they
did not care what happened to their baby. They said that they
would keep the baby if it was cute and give it up if it was not.
When asked if they cared whether the child had been damaged by
the chemicals they said that they did not.
This is less a question of knowledge than of other issues. Much
of the alcohol consumed by pregnant women who will deliver FAS
and FAE children is produced at home. They throw potato peels,
yeast and a few other things into a big vat, let it ferment and
the result is beer of sorts. That is what is consumed, not the
brand names bought in the liquor store.
What can we do to address substance abuse problems and reduce
the incidence of FAS and FAE? New medical technology shows
clearly that substances in the neuropathways of the brain travel
around in a circle. We must therefore deal with the neuropathway
of the addict's brain.
People must be taken out of the drug environment. New medical
tools work very well along with the usual detox and counselling.
Some European models, particularly Switzerland and the
Netherlands, have a 60% cure rate after one year for substance
abusers, particularly hardcore narcotic abusers. That is
absolutely extraordinary.
I know from personal experience that many of the things we do
today make people go around in a circle. They do not address the
problems in a substantive way. I therefore encourage the
government to work with its provincial counterparts and to look
at some of the European models with high success rates. An
effective approach involves not only detox, counselling and
medical therapies but also skills training, jobs and a secure
environment away from the drug environment these people are in.
Let us talk about prevention. We can look at the head start
program. We passed the program in 1998. It works. It is not
only cost effective but has brought about a dramatic reduction in
substance abuse. It will reduce fetal alcohol syndrome. There
will be less chance that the baby the woman carries will be
marred by FAS, FAE or other brain damage.
I have put forth a bill that would enable the courts to put a
woman in a treatment facility against her wishes if she is
consuming substances that are injurious to her fetus. It is not
an abortion bill, and would apply only to cases where the woman
has chosen to take her pregnancy to term. If the woman has
repeatedly refused all treatment and is of sound mind she can be
put into a treatment facility against her wishes.
1805
The parallel to this is what is done for psychiatric patients
who are a danger to themselves or to others. It is not a punitive
action against women. It is merely a last ditch effort to try to
help prevent those fetuses from suffering the problems of FAS and
FAE. When I put the bill forward, and I have put it forward
three times in the last three parliaments, people who said they
supported it were individuals who work with children with FAS and
FAE and their families.
The NDP member made an articulate description of the social
issues surrounding these problems. She could not be more
correct. In many aboriginal communities with extraordinarily
high rates of FAS and FAE, we must determine how we can enable
them to have the best social program of all, which is a job.
Unfortunately our country has chosen to compartmentalize
aboriginal people. We have chosen to treat them differently. We
deal with them differently through an Indian Act which creates a
form of apartheid. It has been highly disruptive to these
communities. It has eroded them from within and it has prevented
them from being able to be masters of their own destiny, as well
as capitalizing on the economic opportunity that should be
available to them.
High rates of unemployment and poverty have contributed to the
high levels of FAS and FAE. Matthew Coon Come, grand chief of
the first nations, has made some very articulate statements that
should be supported for aboriginal communities to get their own
house in order and for aboriginal leadership to do so as well.
That would be a welcome change in many communities and one that
we would support as well.
We must deal with the issue of substance abuse in a much broader
range. We need to deal with prevention through the head start
program. We need to deal with new treatments that we have today
such as the European model that works with detox, counselling,
medical therapy, skills training and getting people out of their
drug environment for an extended period of time.
The latter is very important because we know that if addicts go
back into the drug environment a chemical cascade takes
place within their brains. They become excited and are prompted
to resume the substance abuse consumption they were doing before.
We also need to look carefully at private member's bills that
have been put forth on the issue.
There is also the case of Miss M in the home province of the
member from the NDP. She was a young woman who as a result of
glue sniffing had two children with brain damage. She was put
in a treatment facility against her wishes. A court challenge
took place and after a period of time she was released. However
she was off her drugs and she got her life back in order. She
delivered a baby that was the first baby she had that was not
brain damaged.
When she was asked whether or not the short period of time in a
treatment facility, albeit against her wishes, had an impact, she
said that it did. She said that it was probably the most
important thing that had happened to prevent her from having
another child that would be irreversibly brain damaged.
I can only prompt the House to look at it from the context of
our judicial system too because we know that almost 50% of the
people in our jails have some form of FAS and FAE. They have
severe problems with cognitive skills. They have severe problems
trying to acquire the skills necessary to be an integrated
member of society. As a result many of them get into the
unfortunate cycle of crime, punishment and incarceration.
These are the challenges of today that have not been
dealt with in a very pragmatic way. However, these are the
opportunities that the ministers of justice and health can use
their skills toward by working with their provincial
counterparts.
It would require a national approach involving the provinces,
the Government of Canada and other communities to deal with this
scourge. I am very happy and I compliment the member from the
NDP and members from all sides who have brought to the attention
of the House the problems of FAS and FAE as well as some of the
issues and challenges that we must address to solve this
important problem.
1810
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker,
first I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues to
congratulate and thank the member for Winnipeg North Centre,
whom I know very well since we work together on the Standing
Committee on Health.
I know that the well-being of people in her riding and of
Canadians in general has always been her first priority.
Obviously, being pragmatic, she wants to take concrete measures
to deal with an important problem for children.
As our colleague from the Canadian Alliance said, we are the
protectors of children in a way because the problem we are
debating is certainly detrimental to mothers, but it is even
more detrimental to children.
I believe that as parliamentarians we have a responsibility to
make sure that we do all we can in the area of prevention.
I think the motion brought forward by the member for Winnipeg
North Centre is interesting because it forces us to reflect on
the balance between coercion and prevention that must exist in
the legislative tools available to us.
Recently in the House we have been reflecting a lot on these
issues. Last Friday, another member of the NDP proposed that the
month of May be dedicated to the prevention of hepatitis. He
reminded us that there are seven types of hepatitis and that one
way to prevent this disease is, of course, through information.
Today, his colleague from Winnipeg North Centre is taking over
to remind us that fetal alcohol syndrome is preventable.
We all know people afflicted by illness. Some suffer from
cerebral palsy, others from severe diabetes, others yet from
heart disease. This is obviously very tragic on a personal
level, but it is different perhaps from fetal alcohol syndrome
in that FAS is, in a way, the result of a behaviour.
This behaviour can be avoided. It can be avoided if we put
everything into play socially so there is maximum
information available to those who are primarily responsible,
since they give life, carry the children and, of course, are
women. I am not saying they have sole responsibility.
I want to join with the member for Winnipeg Centre North. I
think our ridings are quite similar. My riding is in the centre
of Montreal, in the eastern central part, to be more precise. I
too in my riding have a high number of underprivileged people.
It is an industrial neighbourhood which underwent a major
process of de-industrialization in the early 1980s.
I do not know if people recall, but there was a big crisis in
the shipbuilding industry in the early 1980s.
There was a big crisis in the traditional industries linked to
textiles and metallurgy, known as the soft sector, and there was
a major crisis in the shoe industry.
These three sectors were central to the economic life of the
riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. It is a riding with a high
number of underprivileged people. It is clear that fetal
alcohol syndrome is to be found in communities with high levels
of poverty. In this regard, we can ask ourselves as
parliamentarians why there is more poverty in certain
communities than in others.
There are of course personal variables. There are variables
relating to the manufacturing profile and to the economic
profile of our ridings. But in the life of an individual,
sometimes things go badly. We lose confidence in the system. I
would say there are unwanted pregnancies sometimes.
There are people who plan pregnancies, who want to have a child
and for whom doing so gives meaning to life. I think this is
true for most people.
1815
There are probably circumstances in life where if a pregnancy is
imposed, unwanted, accidental, a woman might be tempted to turn
to alcohol. When things are not going well, when we are
depressed, when we lose confidence, when we are in an
environment where we feel useless, alcohol may unfortunately
become a form of escape. This is why the proposal of the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre makes such sense.
In my speeches I always like to give examples. No member of
parliament could present a bill to force someone to make a
success of his or her life.
From a legislative point of view, we cannot force people to do
so. What we can do as parliamentarians is provide them with
tools and training so they are equipped as best as they
possibly can be to go through life, and particularly rough
times.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is asking us to rely
on information. Sometimes, pregnant women may not be adequately
informed. If they see this warning on alcoholic beverages—wine,
beer and other spirits—we can assume that it will deter them from
drinking excessively.
Earlier, the parliamentary secretary and member for
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies told us that this motion must be part of
a set of means.
I am pleased to learn that in May an information campaign will
be launched with the release of a brochure and a poster. I
believe that all these tools can help us beat fetal alcohol
syndrome.
I see that I only have three minutes left. I promised to take
only eight minutes because I know that there are discussions
between the parties to leave more time for the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre.
So I will conclude by congratulating the hon. member and asking
for a unanimous vote on her motion.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, I
too, will be brief. The quality of the speeches made by the
previous speakers was such that I could even refrain from taking
part in this debate.
First, I think the member for Winnipeg North Centre and the
member for Mississauga South deserve to be congratulated for the
interest they have been showing in this issue for several years.
Some nine or ten years ago, a committee presented a report on
fetal alcohol syndrome. Recommendation no. 5 dealt with
labelling.
Other measures were also recommended at that time. Some were
implemented only a few months ago or a few years ago. We know
the government is slow and this is why opposition parties have
to push a little.
Thank God something else was done.
The government helped to some extent, but it must be noted that
the industry, as a result of that report or other reports,
realized the importance of awareness and education campaigns and
started to do something about it.
We saw brewers and winemakers, state monopolies such as the SAQ
in Quebec, take a portion of their revenues, a small one of
course, to educate people on the effects of alcohol. An effort
to increase awareness has been made over the last few years by
the provincial governments, which control their liquor boards,
by the federal government and by the industry. However, there
remains an issue that is pretty important: labelling.
1820
Of course, we should not get into a labelling frenzy and get to
the point where a bottle of beer or a bottle of wine carries
several warnings. Too many warnings kill the message.
However, there is nothing better than to start at the beginning.
If someone is aware of fetal alcohol syndrome, that person might
also be aware of the global impacts of alcohol for the rest of
his or her life. If a woman is not too familiar with the
consequences that alcohol can have on her unborn child, with a
good education program and adequate warning labels, other people
will let her know.
Of course, when we see a label we do not pay too much attention
to it, but when we see a pregnant woman close to us we tend to
say “Be careful”. I have the chance to have a little boy, my
angel. I never even thought of offering a glass of wine to my
wife when she was pregnant. If she had taken one glass of wine,
the baby would not have suffered from the syndrome. That is not
the point, but at least there is an awareness. If everybody was
more aware of all this, we would hear less comments like “Come
on, just one little glass will do no harm”. But sometimes we do
not know the effects that alcohol can have on a person. There
again, we should not panic. The baby will not develop the
syndrome with just one glass. All this is a matter of awareness.
This is why we are wondering what consequences the labelling
done in the United States will have, as we said earlier. Of
course the industry is worried. This is normal.
When we see other legislative follies, I think the industry is
right to be alarmed.
That said, the industry's current labelling practices for
exports might well apply domestically as well. What finer
message to send to the public than to tell them that
parliamentarians, in a motion introduced by the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre, are going to force the government, in a
manner of speaking, to take them into consideration. We will
have to cross our fingers and hope that the motion will acquire
a “C” instead of its present “M” and that it will lead to a real
bill the House will be able to consider very quickly.
I will stop here. I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for
her initiative.
Speaking of the New Democratic Party, I often treat the
opposition parties well, but the NDP has been—and we see this
evening once again—a sort of social conscience for the country.
We are very glad of its existence.
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre listed those who have
devoted themselves to building awareness of the importance of
drinking responsibly. To be fair, one group the hon. member
forgot to mention is the Brewers Association of Canada.
Warning labels on alcohol beverage containers on their own will
not put an end to the most serious problem of fetal alcohol
syndrome. In fact research has shown that 98% of women of
childbearing age already know about the link between alcohol
misuse and fetal alcohol syndrome. They are already aware of it.
I have a brewery in my riding. There are many members of
parliament with breweries in their ridings. I believe the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the member
for Etobicoke North, has two breweries in his riding. We will
not apologize for the fact that we have breweries in our ridings,
because since 1987 the Brewers Association of Canada and its
member brewers have devoted well in excess of $100 million to
communicating messages about the importance of drinking
responsibly.
In addition to high profile advertising campaigns, brewers
provide significant funding and other resources to a range of
partner organizations involved in alcohol research, counselling,
and the direct delivery of educational and awareness programs.
Putting a label on a bottle on its own will not do the job. It
is all the other work that is being done currently by those who
are responsible, by those organizations like the Brewers
Association of Canada.
For example, there is the Motherisk program of the Hospital for
Sick Children. Canada's brewers sponsor Motherisk's national
toll free alcohol and substance use help line, 1-877-FAS-INFO,
which provides callers with fact based information on how alcohol
and substances can affect a developing fetus.
1825
There is the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Funding is
provided to the Fetal Alcohol Resource Centre of the Canadian
Centre on Substance Abuse, which acts as a clearing house for
information on FAS-FAE for medical professionals, parents and
children.
The BAC, the Brewers Association of Canada, provided funding to
the College of Family Physicians of Canada to design a program
for family physicians called the alcohol risk assessment and
intervention, ARAI, program. The ARAI method gives family
doctors the tools needed to identify patients most at risk, which
helps them identify and help patients with problems related to
harmful alcohol consumption.
Brewers sponsored the caring together program of the Native
Physicians Association, which produced an FAS information poster
series, video and guide, as well as an interactive board game
aimed at native youth, which uses traditional symbols and
teachings to address native lifestyle and health concerns. This
is not just a label on a bottle but actual traditional symbols
used by our native communities so they better understand the
problem.
The Brewers Association of Canada together with Young Drivers of
Canada developed a video message that tells new drivers not to
drink and drive. We have all seen it. This message, delivered
by professional race car drivers, is seen by more than 40,000 new
Canadian drivers each and every year.
The Brewers Association of Canada initiated a partnership with
L'Université de Moncton and the University of New Brunswick to
develop Internet based activities for use in schools to educate
young teens about alcohol.
The BAC is a partner in a computer based training software
focused on the safe operation of personal water craft. BAC
messaging encourages responsible behaviour and urges people not
to drink and drive on the road or on the water. Other program
partners include Bombardier and Shell Canada. This is a team
effort. It is a delivery of a message by all concerned.
Since 1982, Canadian brewers and their U.S. counterparts have
funded the Alcohol Beverage Medical Research Foundation.
Associated with Johns Hopkins University, it provides research
grants to study the medical, social and behavioural impacts of
alcohol consumption. The foundation has provided more than $30
million in funding to 480 research projects here in Canada and in
the U.S.
How about Speak Up, Speak Out, Be Heard? This is a multimillion
dollar public service alcohol information campaign targeted
specifically at young people using concepts and messages
developed by young Canadians to be relevant to people their own
age.
In order to leave time at the end of the debate to ensure that
we have an opportunity to have a vote on this particular issue, I
will conclude with the following words. The president and CEO of
the Brewers Association of Canada, Sandy Morrison, said:
We work with a lot of people who are dedicated to bringing
important information about responsible behaviour to those who
need it. At a very human and personal level, these people are
making a difference.
At a very human and personal level, these people are making a
difference.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division
on the motion stands deferred until Monday, April 23 at the end
of the time provided for government orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1830
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise
as a result of an exchange I had with the minister responsible
for human resources back on March 23, during which I indicated
concern about the system on CPP disability payments that was
stacked against Canadians to the point where advocates were
increasingly coming in to the system to give a hand on a very
uneven playing field.
I had indicated to the minister that some of the advocates had
been harassed in the past and, in her response, she kindly said
that I should provide information on the allegations I had made.
This turned out not to be necessary because the office of the
commissioner of review tribunals wrote a letter almost
immediately saying that in his two and a half years in that job,
there had never been an advocate excluded.
However, he went on to say that one witness was excluded last
fall in a situation in Alberta where a person who had multiple
sclerosis and serious cognitive disabilities repeatedly asked for
her representative. There was some confusion that the
representative was actually an advocate. It took six months.
There has been no response yet from the office of the
commissioner to that individual. Obviously the case needs to be
reheard immediately.
In the few minutes that I have I want to talk about the bigger
picture of CPP disability benefits and why there are advocates
entering the system. My contention is that it is because the
system is clearly working against ordinary Canadians.
Two hundred thousand Canadians have been rejected over the last
five years because either their forms were incomplete, their
medical evidence was lacking or there was a misunderstanding of
the basic criteria of a very complex form.
The guidelines were changed as well in 1995. They were made
much more restrictive. I will give one example. It was assumed
that people over age 55 prior to 1995 who were found to be
disabled to do their own jobs were also disabled to do any other
job. That has now been rescinded and that opportunity no longer
exists.
People who may have contributed to CPP for their entire working
life may all of a sudden need it but when they do it is not
available. The rationale is that this saves money. It is
estimated that there will be a $1 billion savings in this account
alone by 2005.
In a contest between the bottom line versus compassion and
social justice for Canadians, the bottom line wins every time.
This is a national concern.
Older Canadians are often very proud. They are very reluctant
to talk about infirmities they may have acquired. We have poorly
versed medical professionals who simply do not understand all the
facts. We lack finances for the professional testing that would
help to sort this out.
There are no government provisions for appeals, forms or kits.
Most people who are denied can rarely speak with an adjudicator
as there is no money available for them. The CPP disability plan
is a bewildering, non-transparent maze. I am sure every member
of parliament has problems with this in their constituencies. It
is a totally unacceptable situation.
The caucus I represent will fight for progressive changes to
this. We will win, not on behalf of ourselves but on behalf of
disabled Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, allow me to thank
the hon. member for Palliser for the question he asked the
Minister of Human Resources Development a few days ago.
[English]
I will answer the member by saying that the office of the
commissioner of review tribunals is a quasi-judicial body that
operates independently from Human Resources Development Canada.
In other words, it is completely at arm's length. It oversees
the work of review tribunals which hear appeals from CPP or OAS
clients whose applications for benefits have been denied. These
are the clients I think the hon. member has been speaking
about.
1835
The Government of Canada works within the requirements of the
CPP legislation in determining who is eligible for disability
benefits. This definition has not changed since 1996. It is no
more and no less stringent since then. In fact, the legislation
states that a person's disability must be severe and prolonged in
order to prevent him or her from doing any work on a regular
basis. This is what the law requires.
All applications, including any new information provided, are
thoroughly reviewed by Canada pension plan medical adjudicators
to ensure that applicants qualify for disability benefits.
[Translation]
In recent years, the Department of Human Resources Development
has taken measures to improve the CPP disability benefits
program.
The department more than doubled the staff responsible for
medical assessments so as to be able to make decisions more
quickly. It also significantly increased the number of judges
appointed to the appeal board and the number of hearings to
speed up the processing of appeals.
It is not necessary for CPP disability benefit claimants—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member for
Dewdmey—Alouette.
TAXATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, my question is in further pursuit of an answer to
a question I had asked in February with regard to the home
heating rebate for individuals in British Columbia. I wanted to
know why the rebate was administered in such a way that those
people who should have received the rebate did not and those who
should not have received it did.
More than anything, I want to let my constituents speak tonight
to the parliamentary secretary and to the government on this
particular issue. I have received a number of letters and rather
than fill in my own words, I will use the words of my
constituents.
One constituent who wrote me on this particular topic said the
following:
I am writing to you to express the outrage I feel about the
natural gas rebate to some of the citizens of Canada. To hear
that rebate cheques have been issued to children, prisoners and
to people that do not even use natural gas makes me angry. When
issuing the rebates the government should only have issued them
to those that have actually paid for natural gas.
What a novel idea. The constituent goes on to say:
The lack of planning and thought that went into this program is
beyond my comprehension and leaves me with little faith in those
that we elect to wisely spend our hard earned monies. I am
writing this e-mail to you in the hope that you will be able to
convey my concerns and outrage to the members of Parliament. They
need to know that ordinary working Canadian is really fed up with
this type of nonsense and waste! Some common sense should
prevail.
I agree with my constituent.
Another constituent wrote:
I'm angry and I want the government to know about it.
I'm sick and tired of hearing that this, that and the other
thing has gone up in price every time I turn around. I haven't
had a decent increase in wages for years. I'm trying to support
myself and have never relied on the government for help in any
way—never applied for welfare or Unemployment Insurance
benefits. I have been a monetary supporter of the system since
my teens and I am now 52. I am an honest, hard working
person—period.
In summary, I don't think the way eligibility for the rebate was
decided upon was fair—but who am I—just one small person in a
country of many.
Two more people wrote to me and said:
This letter is to let you know that we are Canadians who are
terribly upset at the recklessness of the Canadian Government at
sending out the heating rebates to only a certain class of
people.
They go on to say that they are very upset.
Another person wrote and said:
I am outraged at the way the Liberal government spent millions of
dollars, supposedly to help people offset the high cost of
heating their homes with natural gas. Issuing these cheques to
GST recipients who are incarcerated, children, people who heat
their homes with alternative fuels and don't use natural gas at
all is stupidity at its worst. Because my net income is (around
32,000) I'm not entitled to a GST rebate but I have to heat my
home the same as everyone else. I have stopped using my natural
gas fireplace and keep the thermostat set at 15 degrees and wear
lots of clothes because I can't afford the high cost of heating
my house. It just infuriates me to think that not only am I
paying to keep violent offenders in jail but that you gave them
more spending money while I sit here in the cold struggling to
make ends meet.
1840
I have many more letters from constituents commenting on this
rebate and wanting to know how the program was administered. It
may have started as a good idea but it was administered in such a
way that caused great concern to many people in my riding and
across the country. We would like to have an answer from the
government.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, if the member will recall,
last fall the government indicated that it would provide some
relief to Canadians for energy costs that were anticipated to
rise quite significantly during the winter, which of course they
did, and especially natural gas.
The government was then faced with the situation of getting
relief out to Canadians, not next winter but this past winter
because it was this past winter when we felt that natural gas
prices in particular would be severe.
In terms of the instrument we used to get that relief to
Canadians, the government was left with basically one instrument
and that was to get the rebate out through the GST rebate. Those
who were eligible for the GST rebate in 1999 received $125 per
individual and $250 per household. Eleven million Canadians
benefited from this program at a one time cost of $1.3 billion. I
am sure the member did not read all the letters from those who
received the cheques, but 11 million of them did.
The problem that was presented to the government was that
looking at different alternatives involved a huge bureaucracy.
Forms would have to be checked. People could say that they paid
for their heat but then we would have to actually check it out.
We would have had a huge bureaucracy. Of the $1.3 billion that
was available, perhaps $700 million would actually go to the
program needs and meeting the objectives for which we were
striving.
The government did know that the method it used was not perfect.
It had some risks. However, we are quite confident that it
reached the vast majority of Canadians who were in need. Those
who argue that they do not pay for their heat will eventually be
charged for it by their landlords. I think we used the best
instrument available to us to make sure Canadians got relief this
past winter, not next winter.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): 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 6.43 p.m.)