37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 061
CONTENTS
Monday, May 14, 2001
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT
|
| Bill C-203. Second reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. John Cannis |
1125
1130
| Mr. John Williams |
1135
1140
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1145
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1150
1155
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1200
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1205
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-22. Third reading
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1210
1215
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1220
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1225
1230
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1235
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1240
1245
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1250
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1255
1300
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1305
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1310
1315
1320
1325
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1330
| Division on amendment deferred
|
1335
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
|
| Bill C-17. Third reading
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1340
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1345
1350
| Mr. John Williams |
1355
| Amendment
|
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| MISSING CHILDREN
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| ST. GEORGE'S ANGLICAN CHURCH
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| CANNES INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| BRENDA BURY
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| HUNTINGTON'S DISEASE
|
| Mr. Alan Tonks |
1405
| POLICE OFFICER OF THE YEAR AWARD
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| KEITH MANN
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1410
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| MONTFORT HOSPITAL
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| HERITAGE
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. James Moore |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. James Moore |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1420
| SINGLE CURRENCY
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| BULK WATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1425
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1430
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ANTIMISSILE SHIELD
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| BULK WATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1435
| Hon. David Anderson |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1440
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1445
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| NATIONAL PARKS
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| PARA TRANSPO
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
1450
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Ovid Jackson |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1455
| Hon. David Collenette |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| POINT OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
1500
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| AUTOMOTIVE POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT
|
| Bill C-350. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1505
| MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT, 1987
|
| Bill S-3. First reading
|
| Hon. David Collenette |
| PETITIONS
|
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Missile Defence Program
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Pesticides
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Iraq
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Visteon Canada
|
| Mr. John McCallum |
1510
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| STARRED QUESTIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
|
| Bill C-17. Third reading
|
| Division on amendment deferred
|
| TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-26. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. David Collenette |
1515
| Third reading
|
| Hon. David Collenette |
| CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Second reading
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1520
1525
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1530
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1535
1540
1545
1550
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1555
| Mr. John Duncan |
1600
| Mr. John Duncan |
1605
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1625
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Motion
|
| CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
1630
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1635
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1655
| Mr. John Cummins |
1700
1705
1710
1715
| Division on amendment deferred
|
| TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-26. Third reading
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1720
1725
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1730
1735
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1740
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1745
1750
1755
1800
| Mr. André Bachand |
1805
1810
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1815
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1820
1825
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1830
| PATENT ACT
|
| Bill S-17. Second reading
|
1850
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| PATENT ACT
|
| Bill S-17. Second reading
|
1900
(Division 95)
| Motion agreed to
|
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-22. Third reading
|
1905
(Division 96)
| Motion agreed to
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
|
| Bill C-17. Third reading
|
(Division 97)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Second reading
|
1910
(Division 98)
| Amendment negatived
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Privacy Commissioner
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1915
| Mr. John Maloney |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 061
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 14, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved that Bill
C-203, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (unpaid
wages to rank first in priority in distribution) be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset what a
rare and wonderful thing it is for an opposition backbencher to
be given the opportunity to bring forward one of his or her own
private member's bills for debate in the House. I think most
members would agree that one of the most satisfying aspects of
our job is when we can actually shape the course of the debate
for at least one hour.
Most private members' bills that are brought forward are very
thoughtful and very well researched and seek to address a very
important subject brought to the member's attention, usually by
people in his riding or across the country.
However, I am very disappointed and I begin the debate with a
certain element of sadness. My private member's bill seeks to
right an historic wrong but was not deemed to be votable by the
ad hoc committee that meets regularly to deal with private
members' business. This is a criticism we in the House should
observe and it is something that should be rectified. When a
private member, no matter what party he or she belongs to,
opposition or government, brings forward an important issue on
behalf of their constituents we should be giving it a bit more
consideration and allow the issue to get to committee stage.
In speaking to Bill C-203, a bill to amend the bankruptcy act, I
want to dedicate the effort we made to bring this issue to debate
to the workers at the Giant mine in Yellowknife. As members may
know, the history of the Giant mine has been a tragic one. It
has involved a great deal of labour unrest. Many workers have
suffered at the hands of an absentee landlord, namely foreign
ownership. Nine people died in an explosion at the mine.
As if the employees and the citizens of Yellowknife have not
gone through enough inconvenience, Royal Oak-Giant mine has
declared bankruptcy. The workers, after years of working in the
mine, have been left with back wages owing to them as well as
pension contributions and severance pay. The bill seeks to
address those problems. In the event that any enterprise goes
insolvent or bankrupt, the current law has workers' wages ranked
down on the list of priorities as to who will divide up the
assets of the enterprise.
1110
Before I go into the details of the bill, let me say that the
employers do not really resist this type of amendment to the act
because by the time an enterprise declares bankruptcy the few
assets that are left over are of little consequence to the owners
of the company. They would not oppose this sort of activity. In
the interest of basic fairness we would want to believe they
would want the interests of their employees addressed and
prioritized in terms of dividing the few assets that are left.
I also want to explain some of the rationale behind putting the
interests of the employees ahead of the interests of the other
creditors or bankers.
A very special relationship exists between an employer and an
employee. It is a contract of sorts or a tacit agreement between
the employer and the employee. It is not enshrined in a written
document, such as a collective agreement, but it is recognized in
law. The relationship is very simple. The employee provides a
basic service or a service the employer wants and the employer
pays a set wage or a remuneration for the service. That exists
and is recognized in common law.
Both parties have certain obligations. The obligation of the
employee is to do their duties in a diligent fashion and to be
loyal to the employer. There are many cases in common law that
the duty of loyalty of the employee to the employer goes beyond
the workplace. The employee is not even allowed to trash the
employer in his private life. Certainly that relationship is
recognized.
The employer has an historic obligation to recognize the debt to
the employee for services rendered. One of the reasons common
law is usually sympathetic to the employee in situations like
this is that there is an historic out of balance in the
relationship. The employer holds all the cards while the
employee holds very few. The employee is really at the mercy of
the whims of the employer, which is where it becomes very much a
trust relationship. It actually goes further than that. The
trust of the employee for the employer to pay him or her is
usually far more serious. If the employer reneges on the
obligation to pay the wages, the impact on the employee is much
more serious than if the employer had chosen not to pay back the
debt to one of the banks or lending institutions.
I would argue that when the lending institutions loan money to a
company they know full well the risks that might be involved in
that enterprise. They even get compensated for that risk by
charging interest on the loan. Usually by the time a company
goes bankrupt the loan has been repaid, at least in part. The
bank or lending institution will be compensated for at least some
of the risk it puts into the venture, either through interest
payments or payments to the principle.
The impact on the employee, however, is far more serious. We
are talking about a person's day to day income. It may mean the
loss of their home. It may mean a huge impact on their family or
huge impact on an employee's spending power which influences
small businesses in given areas.
In terms of the relative weight of a debt to an employee versus
a debt not paid to one of the banks or secured creditors, the
impact, I would argue, is far greater, which is why common law
has been a little more sympathetic to the employee in that case.
However, that sympathy has not been translated into legislation.
Since 1975 my research shows that this issue has been before the
House of Commons to be remedied to varying degrees of success
four times. There was always a basic recognition that the
employees, because of the imbalance in the power relationship,
needed the authority of legislation to look after their interests
more than the banks needed the legislative authority of
parliament to look after theirs.
What should be our primary concern in the House? Whose
interests should we be here advocating? What should be primacy
in terms of the relative priority of who is more at risk and who
deserves our support more?
I would argue that it is the people of Canada, the working people
of Canada, who sent us here to advocate on their behalf. They
are the ones who need representation. I would argue further that
chartered banks or lending institutions are far more able to
absorb the impact of a debt gone bad than working people. They do
not frankly need our help. The people who voted for us need our
help.
1115
Bill C-203 results from extensive research on various mechanisms
and the instruments we could put in place that would give some
relief to employees in a situation like this one. We looked at
various models from around the world because Canada is not alone
in realizing that employees need more protection through
legislation. We looked at a few options.
For instance, Australia put in place a wage guarantee scheme
which is a little different from what I would put in place with
my bill. It contemplates putting together a pool of funding
through the government. Through either general revenue or some
payroll tax the government would actually be responsible for the
back wages owed to employees.
I am critical of this model, even though it is working quite
well in Australia. It is better than nothing, in that at least
there is some avenue of recourse and some satisfaction that
employees can achieve. However it also raises problems.
During the debate in Australia to put in place its wage scheme
the spectre of a moral hazard was raised. If employers knew that
there was a fallback position for employees they might be more
likely to leave the employees dangling or to fail to clean up
whatever mess has been made in terms of back wages prior to the
bankruptcy situation. I caution it is probably not the right
route to go.
I will speak later to how various boards and task forces in
Canada arrived at recommending a wage scheme rather than at what
I am recommending in my bill.
Another alternative which comes up now and then is giving a
special status to employees, the preferred creditor status. This
as well has its shortcomings and shortfalls. I advise it is not
the best way to go.
We are recommending giving a super priority to the back wages
owed to employees. In the event of a bankruptcy employees would
be first in line for any back wages, back contributions to
pensions and severance pay. In the event of self-employed
people, travelling salesmen for instance, they would be in line
for any costs they might have incurred. In other words, any
wages or compensation owed to employees should be cleared up
first out of the assets remaining in bankrupt companies and the
others can get in line to divide whatever is left over.
It is an issue of basic fairness. It is an issue that
recognizes the historic imbalance between employers and employees
and the imbalance between the ability of employees to recoup any
back wages versus the authority of the banks or any other lenders
or creditors.
Looking at the history of what the House of Commons has tried to
do to deal with this issue over the years, I note the Canada
Business Corporations Act looks at the issue of unpaid wages and
the liability on corporate directors. At least it was
contemplated in that act.
Liability for wages can be assigned to the directors in certain
situations. Directors can be sued personally. If an individual
employee wants to go after the board of directors, the directors
can be liable. There is a section in the act which covers the
liability of directors and makes it very rare for employees to be
able to sue directors.
Subsection 123(4) exonerates directors from any liability if
they were acting in good faith on the information given to them
through the financial information of the company. In other words
the onus would be on employees to prove that directors were
acting in bad faith and were not dealing properly with the
information given to them.
It is a huge burden to put on employees. If average employees
went after a few thousand dollars worth of back wages they would
never be successful in this challenge.
1120
We could trace the efforts to amend the bankruptcy law back to
Bill C-60 in 1975 when an effort was made to introduce the idea
of a super priority status for employees. The Landry committee
in 1981 gave it an effort. The Colter advisory committee in 1985
made a series of recommendations to change the Bankruptcy Act for
just this reason, to give employees a super status.
The committee recommended that a fund should be established,
which is not exactly what I recommend, and believed that it
should be paid for by contributions from employers and employees.
My argument would be why should employees have to pay some sort
of a premium to buy insurance to guarantee that their wages would
be paid. That is patently unfair and goes in the wrong
direction.
I believe this is an act whose time has come. I am very
disappointed that it was not given the votability it deserves. I
point to the incidence of bankruptcy in Canada. If I had more
time I would go through the details. Last year alone there were
10,500 bankruptcies, leaving a total liability of $2.5 billion.
In 1999 there were 10,800 bankruptcies, leaving a liability of $2
billion. The same was true in 1998.
Every year approximately 10,000 companies go out of business and
every year employees are left dangling on the hook for back
wages, back pension contributions, severance pay and other
compensation to which they were entitled. I appeal to members of
the House of Commons today to recognize that the wages of workers
should stand first in line in terms of priority whenever a
company goes bankrupt.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I begin my remarks let me
acknowledge the concern of the member for Winnipeg Centre for
employees in bankruptcy company situations. When he speaks to
this issue he is very sincere about it, but the issue of unpaid
wages and pension contributions when a firm goes bankrupt is one
considered by the House several times in the past. The member
also alluded to that. I am confident members on all sides would
like to see the most equitable solution possible.
Over the years different governments, as was stated earlier,
considered many different options for wage earner protection that
would be good for the economy and for workers. This is not a
partisan issue. It is not an easy issue at all. Each option has
its trade-offs and several times parliament has been unable to
agree on the fairest course of action.
Industry Canada, which is responsible for the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act, is aware of the need to protect wage earners
whose employers face bankruptcy. As recently as 1992 parliament
amended the act to extend the protection of unpaid wages. In
particular, parliament found it appropriate to increase the
protection for wages earned up to six months prior to bankruptcy.
This represents a doubling of the previous length of time.
In 1992 parliament also quadrupled the maximum amount that could
be claimed from $500 to $2,000. Further review of this important
issue is currently under way. I am pleased to bring members up
to date on the plans of Industry Canada to strengthen the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
First, the department expects to release in the next couple of
months a discussion paper which addresses wage earner protection.
Second, Industry Canada officials will be undertaking
cross-Canada consultations with stakeholders to help identify a
fair solution. Third, the act will be referred to the
parliamentary committee for review in the next year. The results
of the consultations and the whole question of wage earner
protection will likely be examined during the parliamentary
review.
Notwithstanding, I certainly realize that wage earners sometimes
face special difficulties when their employers go bankrupt,
leaving their wages and pension contributions unpaid. They are
vulnerable creditors that often cannot afford such losses and
usually lack the information to assess the risk that their
employers may not pay them.
1125
To protect employees the current act gives preferred status of
up to $2,000 in wage claims for services provided in the six
months immediately before the employer's bankruptcy. It also
protects up to $1,000 in disbursements for sales people, as
mentioned earlier.
In the preferred ranking, wage claims are given priority over
claims of ordinary creditors but wage claims rank behind those of
secured creditors. Protection for pension contributions is
provided in federal and provincial pension legislation, much of
which gives secured creditors status to claim unpaid pension
contributions.
Very few people would argue against the principle of protecting
the claims of wage earners. Fairness weighs in favour of
protecting them. In practical terms wage earners are more likely
to have their unpaid wages claims satisfied than ordinary
creditors because of their preferred status. In some
circumstances as well, secured creditors may allow trustees to
pay accrued wages to which the employees are not entitled,
strictly speaking.
The issue raised by the member for Winnipeg Centre in Bill C-203
is apparently straightforward. The bill provides for a kind of
super priority for wage claims and payments in respect of
pensions. As we know from extensive past discussions on
bankruptcy law, super priority, as with other options, raises
various issues.
A difficult issue and one in which earlier proposals have
foundered is that super priority could affect the availability of
credit to companies. It could become an important factor in the
risk assessment of commercial lenders, leading to a reduced
amount of credit being available. The consequences could
adversely affect the employment and interest of workers
generally. Commercial bankruptcy law has an important role in
the allocation of these credit market risks.
I ask hon. members not to misunderstand what I am saying. I am
not saying that super priority should be rejected as a way of
handling wage and pension contribution claims in bankruptcies,
but I am stressing it is a complex issue that has a long history
and involves certain trade-offs.
The basic principle of wage earner protection was established 50
years ago in the Bankruptcy Act, 1949. Since that time five
committees have reported the possible changes: the Tassé study
committee in 1970, the Landry committee in 1981, the Colter
advisory committee in 1986, the advisory committee on adjustments
in 1989, and the bankruptcy and insolvency advisory committee in
1994. None of their recommendations for wage earner protection
were implemented.
Over the past quarter century no fewer than eight bills have
been introduced in the House and in the other place to amend the
act. Only one of these bills subsequently altered the provisions
for wage earner protection, the bill involving the 1992
amendments to the act.
These committees and bills proposed or analyzed a wide range of
approaches including wage earner protection funds financed by
contributions from employers, from employers and employees, or by
the government through general revenues. Some bills proposed
super priority protection for wage claims. Some bills proposed
raising the ranking of wage and pension contribution claims among
preferred creditors.
There is a great deal of divergence on who should pay for the
cost of wage and pension contribution claims. It was nearly
impossible to obtain a consensus on better ways to proceed than
what is currently in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. That is
why the protection of wage earners requires further examination
and consultation.
I have sketched out these details to suggest various available
points to my colleagues on all sides, and specifically the hon.
member for Winnipeg Centre. There is great interest in the whole
question of wage earner protection following bankruptcies, but
finding a fairer solution than what is now available would
require a good deal of hard and thoughtful work during the
forthcoming parliamentary review.
As I said in my opening remarks, this is not a partisan issue.
Several different governments have already grappled with the
question. Each option for wage earner protection has its
advantages and disadvantages. Industry Canada currently is
working to identify a fair solution.
1130
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the bill of the hon. member
from the New Democratic Party regarding the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act. Unfortunately we cannot support it.
When we in our party look at the idea that it would double the
compensation from $2,000 to $5,000 for wages to employees and for
increasing commissions and so on, we see that the cost in a
bankruptcy to pay these commitments would far outweigh the
benefits that accrue from leaving it as it is.
We have to think of situations where businesses are ill equipped
or finding it difficult to pay their bills, and their creditors
are hounding them. A business in that situation may ask the bank
to lend it some money. If the company has 100 employees, the
amount to be given for wages and commissions would multiplied by
that. If the company goes bankrupt the bank would be unable to
collect the loan given to help that company though its difficult
times even if the bank took security. Therefore it is going to
cause more businesses to go bankrupt rather than get close to
bankruptcy and survive.
I would have thought that the NDP would be far more interested
in protecting and preserving jobs rather than forcing businesses
into bankruptcy because they cannot raise the money.
We have to recognize today that banks lend money in the
anticipation of getting it back. If they do not feel they will
get it back, they will not lend the money. Even if they take
security, that security would then be in jeopardy in regard to
accounts receivable and so on because according to this bill the
money would have to be paid out.
Not only that, but banks charge interest based on what they
perceive to be the risk involved. If they think it is possible
to lend the money but the risk is higher they will charge more
interest. Interest rates would therefore rise, which again would
make the business more vulnerable.
There is nothing in the bill that suggests amending the
bankruptcy act would be beneficial to the economy or in
protecting jobs or providing ongoing value to Canadians.
I was involved in the debate about 10 years ago when the
bankruptcy act was last rewritten. I argued for various changes
to ensure that as far as possible matters involving creditors,
employees and others owed money by businesses experiencing
financial difficulties were wound up quickly and efficiently to
ensure that the maximum amount of money was available to be
distributed to creditors, which of course includes the employees.
We want to try to ensure a viable economy in these difficult
times so that businesses in difficulty can, if possible, borrow
money. I cannot understand why the NDP wants to put into the
bankruptcy act that the first claim on the assets of the
organization should be payments for arrears in wages and
commissions. Can it not see that would jeopardize the potential
to keep the business afloat? I cannot understand it.
I would have thought that jobs were of ultimate importance to
the NDP, to us and to Canada's economy.
An hon. member: Jobs with no wages?
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, they seem a little upset
down there. I would just like them to think about it.
1135
Mr. Pat Martin: Any business can stay open if they do not
pay their wages. It is not that tough.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I hear the comment that
any business can stay open if it does not pay wages. We have
laws that require businesses to pay wages. We have laws that
require them to pay their source deductions to the government.
There are times, for reasons that are out of the control of the
organization, that the money is not there. They may have
accounts receivable that they cannot collect.
I think of a well run small business that I knew of a number of
years ago in my constituency. It had one of their major accounts
receivable companies disappear overnight. It went bust,
bankrupt. The small business was left with no cash coming in and
no wages to pay out.
Through that difficult time the bank carried the small business.
The bank saw that the management was good and had faith in the
owner and carried him through. The bank was able to lend money
to pay for the wages because the bank thought there was some
capacity of maintaining the business.
In the situation being proposed by this member, the bank would
never have lent money under these circumstances. Therefore the
business would have failed. I cannot understand why the NDP
finds it more important to stand on this principle of every last
penny of wages having to be paid while other creditors, even if
they are secured creditors, are without recourse to their
security. Putting this up as number one on the list of order of
creditors being paid when a company goes bankrupt means that
secured creditors may lose the value of their security.
The banks take a mortgage on a piece of property. That mortgage
may not be as valuable as it was because the cash has to be used
to pay the wages. Surely the fundamental thing is to protect the
jobs of Canadians. The fundamental thing is to build a viable
economy. There are times, unfortunately, when businesses go
bankrupt through no fault of their own. I would expect that
surely the NDP would be willing to put forth creative ideas to
help these kinds of business protect the jobs of their employees.
This is not it. This is a preconceived concept that the
business has run off with the cash and left the employees high
and dry. I was an accountant before I got into the political
game and I saw businesses fail where that failure had nothing to
do with bad management. I gave one example where the large
accounts receivable company went broke and the small business was
left high and dry. The owner was left high and dry. The owner
stood to lose every penny he had invested in the business and
through no fault of his own.
Why do we always think that the businessman has taken advantage
of the employee? The businessman has provided opportunities for
employment for the employees for as long as he has been in
business. It would not likely be his desire, assuming no
criminal intent, to see his own assets disappear and his own
business disappear. What would he do? He does not get
unemployment insurance or anything like that.
Let us be practical. Let us look at opportunities to ensure
that if businesses find themselves in difficult times we do not
guarantee that they are going to fail. Let us provide the
opportunity for them to get through the difficult times by
ensuring that the banks do not say businesses are too high a risk
so the bank is not going to deal with them. We must ensure that
the banks do not say that the risk is so high they are going to
charge an exorbitant rate of interest.
Let us work for the benefit of all Canadians. Let us not split
this issue into employees who are at the mercy of an employer and
employers who the NDP thinks are ripping off the employees. Let
us work together. Bankruptcies are tough times for employers. I
have seen it. I have counselled them. I know how difficult it
is and this would not help the situation one bit.
1140
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, I must
say that I feel the previous speaker from the Canadian Alliance
has really skewed the question.
The question is not whether we are for or against job protection
and creation; we are all in favour of job creation prior to
bankruptcy. Once bankruptcy has been declared, however, there is
no more discussion of job creation. The question instead is how
the liquidated assets are going to be divided between the banks
and the workers, between those who are making record profits that
are even an embarrassment, even to shareholders, and those in
need of money quite simply to support their families.
The question has been skewed, and the response the hon. member
for Winnipeg Centre was seeking has not been obtained. I
congratulate him for introducing this bill and share his regret
that it is not a votable item.
Will pay owing to workers have precedence over the financial
institutions, or will it not? The Bloc Quebecois' answer to
this is yes. We agree with Bill C-203 that the order of creditor
priority must be changed when a business goes bankrupt, so that
pay to salaried and other employees takes top priority when
assets are being divided.
In my eight years as secretary general of the Confédération des
syndicats nationaux I heard of many sad cases.
I will name three only: the bankruptcy of the Coopérants, the
bankruptcy of Crowne Plaza, on the west side of Sherbrooke
Street; there are two Crowne Plazas in Montreal, the other one is
on the east side of Sherbrooke; and the bankruptcy of Papiers
Saint-Raymond.
In each case, workers who had devoted much of their life to
developing the business ended up penalized because, with the
liquidation of its assets, the company was unable to meet its
salary and pension obligations, in particular. These were
unionized workers. The CSN spent time and energy pursuing the
company directors under Quebec and federal laws in order to
recover some money. It took time. At times we were unable to
obtain everything due them.
Unfortunately, these unionized workers are still a minority in
the labour force. In the case of Quebec, only 40% of the labour
force is unionized and in Canada, the figure is a little less
than 35%. Legislation is needed to re-establish a balance, if
I can put it that way, so that workers, the employees of the
company, are the first to be paid when assets are liquidated.
Why should they be paid first? Because they are often the
victims of the errors made by employer and directors.
Unfortunately in Canada and Quebec we are still not entitled to
economic information that will help employees. They are, in the
end, at the mercy of a decision that may have been made in all
good faith. I do not doubt that. I do not think many employers,
I have known some who did it for anti-union motives, but they are
the exception, made a conscious decision to lead their business
to bankruptcy, but it can happen.
Workers are adversely affected by these errors in judgment in
that they lose their jobs. If they also lose the salaries owed to
them, it is a double whammy.
There is also the ability to shoulder the loss of income. As I
said earlier and I will say it again, banks make profits which,
in my opinion, are obscene. These profits are made at the expense
of both businesses and consumers. The Canadian Federation of
Independent Business complains about the treatment that its
members are getting from major Canadian banks and others.
Given their record profits and the instruments they have at
their disposal, banks are able to put up with losses that workers
cannot shoulder, because it is the future of their families and
their own retirement which are at stake.
In theory, I underline in theory, when financial institutions
lend money, they take a risk. Their payoff for that risk is the
rate of interest they charge. Interest rates are very real and
they are still too high. Banks have the means to assess the risk.
These financial institutions take risks and it would only be
normal that they come after the workers.
Under Bill C-203, it is not guaranteed, as the hon. member rightly
pointed out, that all the debts owed to workers would be paid
back.
1145
In this respect, Canada should follow up on convention 173 of
the International Labour Organization and sign this convention
adopted in 1992, precisely to protect, just as Bill C-203 seeks
to do, the debts owed to workers, to ensure that they are
compensated for their salaries, pensions and other types of
benefits, following a bankruptcy.
Convention 173 also proposes the creation of an independent fund
to which all employers would contribute so as to ensure that not
only would workers head the list of creditors, but should an
insolvent employer be unable to pay their wages and pensions by
liquidating its assets, the fund could be used to ensure that
workers were not penalized.
All Quebec's labour unions, the CSN, the FTQ, the CSD and the
CSQ, are in agreement with the principle of Bill C-203. As a
representative of the Quebec people and of their interests, I
have an obligation to support this bill.
It is very hard for me to understand why the government members
keep telling us about the extremely generous values to which
Canada subscribes when the country is refusing to sign ILO
convention 173.
It always seems to be the same old story with the present
federal government, the Liberal government. It always has its
left turn signal on, but it always turns right. At least with
the Alliance, things are clear: always a right turn signal and
always headed to the right.
I have had enough of this hypocrisy, and I want to assure this
parliament that, in the interest of the Quebec people, in the
interest of the workers of Quebec and Canada, we are always going
to support measures of the sort found in Bill C-203. Once again,
I congratulate the member for Winnipeg Centre on his initiative.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-203. I commend the
hon. member from the New Democratic Party who presented it today.
Like so many private members' motions and bills, the bill should
be votable. We should have an opportunity as private members to
raise issues of importance and then to have the level of
importance and focus put on them that are deserved as initiatives
led by individual members of parliament. Many pieces of
thoughtful legislation are not provided with that opportunity
because the Liberals are not interested in significant
parliamentary reform. Reform could begin by enabling private
members to present legislation which is votable.
At first glance, when one looks at amending the Bankruptcy Act
to protect employees, it seems very positive to ensure that in
cases of bankruptcy employees end up ultimately receiving the pay
owed to them. I have some concerns relative to the unintended
consequences that may follow.
Banks are not always the only creditors. It is very easy to
point to large financial institutions and say that they do not
necessarily need the money. If it is a question between the
interests of large chartered banks and that of employees, the
onus should be on paying employees in such circumstances.
In most bankruptcies the banks are prominent creditors, as are a
lot of other businesses. Many are small businesses in an
accounts receivable or trade credit situation. I know this as
someone who started my first business when I was 19 and continued
to participate in small and medium size business during that
period until I actually ran for parliament at the age of 29.
1150
During that period I saw many companies with which I was doing
business end up in circumstances where they were not able to pay
their bills. I saw and experienced firsthand what that did to
other companies. It can create a chain reaction which can result
in not just one company going bankrupt. It is important to
realize that it can potentially lead to threatening the existence
of several companies.
There is a different dynamic between larger and smaller
corporate entities. I believe the hon. member also recognizes
the difference. In many cases, for instance, the owners are
people who have not taken pay for extended periods of time. They
have made significant sacrifices. In terms of establishing a
sense of unity between goals and objectives, there is probably a
greater amount of commonality of interest between employer and
employees in the small business environment than in most other
businesses.
I also have some concerns about how it might impact in a
perverse way. I am certain the hon. member would not intend this
to be the case, but it could unintentionally result in a
reduction in lending money to small businesses. If this were
implemented we could expect it not just in terms of banks but
also in terms of trade.
If I were a small business person and I had an opportunity to
sell products to another small business and part of the
consideration in terms of extending credit was associated risks,
it would reduce the likelihood of repayment. In a bigger
corporate setting that is not as likely the case.
Perversely smaller companies would be judged in some cases more
negatively from a credit risk perspective if the legislation were
introduced than larger companies for which the wages would not
form as large a percentage of their actual accounts payable.
For example, if we look at a restaurant, a store or a small
business, the degree to which wages form the lion's share of
expenses on a week to week basis is less capital intensive and
more labour intensive. It might have a very negative impact on
the service industry, small retailers or small restaurants.
Under the provisions of the legislation any business with a
higher focus in terms of cost structure on pay or labour costs as
opposed to capital expenditures would be disproportionately
discriminated against in the eyes of lending institutions or
other businesses extending trade credit.
Most of us in the House would agree with what the hon. member is
trying to achieve: greater protection for workers in the event of
bankruptcy. Clearly people employed with a firm, a store or
whatever do not have the upside potential of great profits if the
business succeeds and in some cases have a significant loss when
a company goes broke. It would be unfair if workers did not
receive pay that was owed to them for the labour they provided.
It is the contract between an employer and an employee which
indicates that an employee is to be paid by the hour or by
project.
One model I am sure the hon. member is familiar with is the
Australian model whereby various levels of government work
together in a sort of employment insurance type guaranteed scheme
which costs Australian taxpayers $100 million per year. Given
the multibillion dollar size of the government EI surplus, that
might be a rational approach to take a look at.
1155
We would be far better off if we achieved what the hon. member
is trying to achieve, better protection for employees in the case
of bankruptcy. If we can avoid the negatives of potentially
increasing the risks associated with lending to small business
and business in general, which is certainly not something we want
to see, we would be far better off. An appropriate way to
proceed is by investigating some of these other alternatives.
I would argue that we are not seeing enough lending to small
businesses. We have seen some improvement but not enough.
Lending to small businesses is a real challenge in Atlantic
Canada. It is much easier to get the money if it is not needed.
It is a real catch-22 for small businesses. I would not want to
do anything that would further reduce the chances of small
businesses getting that money. That being the case, we can
achieve the same result through different means which would
spread out the risk a little further and provide greater
protection for employees.
There is another point to realize. I am sure the hon. member
would agree that incidents where employers have tried to create
or manipulate circumstances in such a way as not to meet payments
to employees are not widespread. However when it does occur it
is unacceptable. If employers go out of their way to create
circumstances in which employees do not get paid, it is
egregious, offensive and immoral to all involved. However I
believe it is a fairly rare circumstance when it occurs.
When we are developing public policy that can be very broad and
sweeping in its impact we have to consider how pervasive the
actual situation is that we are addressing. We have to be very
cautious in this regard. I would be interested in further
debating the Australian model and other best practices in other
countries.
The Deputy Speaker: There are approximately six minutes
remaining before I give the floor to the member for Winnipeg
Centre to close the debate. I am in the hands of the House.
I have indication the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst and the
hon. member for Kelowna want to speak. If it would be agreeable
to the House, I would be prepared to take a three minute
intervention from both members and then go to the member for
Winnipeg Centre to close the debate. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have three minutes to speak to the bill of my
colleague from Winnipeg Centre. The bill in question is Bill
C-203, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, unpaid
wages to rank first in priority in distribution.
The NDP members seem to be the only ones prepared to fight for
the workers. They work for an employer. We are telling that
employer that if he goes bankrupt, he must look out for the
employees, at least.
We are not opposed to the employers, if that is the impression
the other members seem to have. We are not against them.
However, employers who go bankrupt have to remember who it was
that generated the company's profits: the workers with the sweat
of their brows. Then, one fine day, the employer announces “It's
over. I can't keep the company going any longer. I am filing
for bankruptcy”. The ones punished are the workers.
The Canadian Alliance members say that the banks will not make
loans to these companies. If they are not prepared to make
loans, the banks should close up shop. Is the sole purpose of a
bank to make huge profits and then tell workers “tough luck”?
The Conservative member said the same thing for small and medium
size business, that the banks did not want to lend them money.
1200
Does our country operate only through bankruptcy? Does the
decision to lend money hang on whether the employees will be paid
last?
Where is the human element? An employee who gets up in the
morning and goes to work deserves to be paid. I know of
instances in which employers have gone bankrupt, while some
people were at sea, for example, for months without being paid.
When they returned to land, they got a fine cheque for $1,
because the company had gone bankrupt, yet its employees had
worked for months without pay.
So who goes bankrupt at that point? It is the employees who are
unable to pay for their homes, their cars and food to feed their
children.
I think this is a very logical question. In Ontario, the
premier at the time, Bob Rae, introduced legislation on
bankruptcy. This did not prevent companies from having money in
the bank. There is no record to this effect. I am therefore
prepared to say it is not true. The banks will have to get used
to that.
The people who should have priority are the workers, who bring
in company profits. This is why it is unfortunate that the bill
is not votable. Hopefully, the House will later decide
unanimously that it is. It is important for the workers of this
country.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from the New
Democratic Party for bringing this private member's bill to our
attention. He ought to be congratulated for taking the side of
the workers. His bill seeks to increase the amount of money
payable to employees as a result of a bankruptcy.
I would like to register two additional important points.
First, whenever a bankruptcy occurs everybody loses. I am sure
the hon. member recognizes that only too well. A bankruptcy
situation is not something anybody looks forward to or wishes to
pursue, but it is something that happens. Nobody likes it and
everybody gets hurt. It is a question of distributing the hurt
that takes place among the people involved.
The order that exists in the Bankruptcy Act puts the employee at
the bottom of the list. The assumption on the part of the hon.
member who presented the bill seems to be that by having
employees last on the list this somehow puts them in a position
of suffering more than all the others. I do not think that is
necessarily the case. When an honest trustee brings a situation
like this to a head, the hurt experienced by various creditors,
suppliers and other people is distributed among them.
I was directly involved in some cases where the trustee decided
to make a settlement of 50% of the debt that was owed. The
assets were divided and the employees were paid. Roughly
everybody suffered at the same rate. That is a reasonable point
to make.
The second point I would like to register is that we want to
encourage entrepreneurship. When we encourage entrepreneurship,
we also encourage risk taking. People employed by new innovative
industries know they are in a risk situation. People lending
money to these industries also know that. The person putting the
capital forward is also in a risk situation. My hon. colleague
opposite says the employees build up the business. Of course
they do. However it is also true that a risk is borne by
everyone from the employees to the person who provided the
capital.
Let us keep this issue in perspective and balance it out. I am
sure the hon. member from Winnipeg knows very well that is really
what he had in mind.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to have a chance to summarize some of what I have heard.
I would remind all those who spoke on this bill that 10,055
companies went bankrupt last year. That figure does not include
another 10,000 companies that made application for some form of
protection under the Bankruptcy Act.
Therefore it is an urgent problem. Many workers are involved.
There is a great difference between the liabilities of the
company and the assets of the company, and usually a very great
shortfall.
1205
What we heard from the Liberals is that they wanted more
examination and to revisit the issue. I would argue we have
visited the issue a total of seven times in the last twenty years
and we have been unable to come to any kind of resolve to give
satisfaction to the working people of the country.
My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst pointed out that the province
of Ontario in 1991 did not want to wait any longer. It put in
place a wage protection scheme. Unfortunately it lasted only
until Mike Harris and the Tories came in and took it out. At
least somebody did not let the obstacles and the barriers get in
the way of doing what was right for working people.
The Alliance Party, the great grassroots party, seems to be
demonstrating some kind of a wilful blindness to what the real
issues are. It seems to have grasped the idea to be able to make
the debate that we should somehow privatize the profits in a
business and then socialize the losses in a business. In other
words, when a bankruptcy comes along we should all share in the
pain and all of us should bear the burden of the failure of the
company.
As I pointed out in my earlier speech, there is an imbalance in
the relationship between the employer and the employee. The
employer who assumed a loss also assumed all the profits when the
company was going well. The employee is the one who stands to
lose. I do not think it is an equal weigh scale as the Alliance
tries to portray.
I thank the members from the Bloc Quebecois for at least having
the courtesy to read the bill and to understand the arguments we
were making, and of course their ultimate position that they
believe that workers should stand first in line in terms of
creditors in the event of a bankruptcy.
The Tories seemed to miss the boat all together too, although it
is always a pleasure to see a creative wordsmith speak on both
sides of the issue and right down the middle all at the same
time. It is a real gift. What they fail to see is the type of
compensation package they contemplated, like the Australian
model, creates a moral hazard. That is the way it is put in our
research papers. The moral hazard is that companies knowing full
well there is a fall back position for the employees may be less
likely to do the honourable thing and make sure the employees are
paid up to date. In other words, it is building in an exit ramp,
or an excuse or an avenue for the employer to try to take
advantage.
I will summarize my arguments in a few words. The employees
usually do not have the same opportunity to protect themselves
when the employer is in a precarious financial situation. They
do not have nearly the opportunities that the employer does.
Unlike the secured creditors, like the financial institutions,
the employees do not have the same ability or the opportunity to
either read the risks of being involved with the employer or to
absorb the loss that an employer or financial institution has.
Nor do they have the ability to pass on that loss to future
customers. In other words, there is an imbalance there as well.
Employees need the protection of legislation. The banks, the
financial institutions and the other creditors know the risk when
they were going in and they have a better ability to deal with
any losses that might come out of it. Therefore they do not need
the protection of the House.
We should be advocating for the employees not the financial
institutions in the House of Commons. I wish we could have
convinced the other members on this issue. I look forward to
debating it again some day in the House.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the consideration of
private members' business has now expired. As the motion was not
selected as a votable item, the item is now dropped from the
order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2000
The House resumed from May 11 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 third time and passed.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, as we know, the Minister of Finance has reduced income
taxes by a few hundred pages and a few hundred million dollars.
Perhaps it will help the hon. member with his private member's
bill. By reducing the tax and burden on businesses, hopefully
they will not go bankrupt so fast. That is the spinoff. All
things considered there are benefits here and there are benefits
there.
However not everything is good in Bill C-22.
1210
The Minister of Finance stood up last fall, a couple of days
before the election, and brought down a budget to tell us the
good news about all the tax breaks. We could not understand why
he wanted to do that in October. When he first came to power he
said he would send the finance committee right across the country
for prebudget consultations.
It costs the House of Commons and taxpayers of Canada
approximately $400,000 to send the finance committee across the
country to hear from about 500 different people and institutions
and so on to find out what they want in the budget. It is a
great big process the Minister of Finance put in place so that
every year in February he can stand in this place and say he has
listened to Canadians and this is what the government will do.
However with the election in the offing, he decided not to worry
about consulting Canadians and came out with a bunch of goodies
to buy the votes of Canadians to win the election.
Members may recall that he introduced in that budget a payment
of $125 to everyone who qualified for the GST tax rebate to
reduce the cost of their heating fuel. There was no analysis.
This was strictly an election goodie. Tens of thousands of
payments at $125, the bulk of the money for a total cost of $1.3
billion, went to people who did not have a heating fuel bill to
pay. A large percentage of the lower income people lived in
rented accommodation. They lived in apartments. Did they pay
heating fuel? No, the landlord did. Did he get a cheque for
$125? No, but all his tenants did. There was no real benefit
other than it was a great election goodie.
The Liberal Party went around the countryside. It gave all low
income people a chance to reduce the cost of their heating fuel
but it never said how. Money went to people in prison, in
graveyards and to people who did not qualify for a variety of
reasons. Many had never seen a heating fuel bill in their lives.
Kids living with their parents got the heating fuel rebate
but the parents who paid the bills did not get a penny. Then to
top it all off, there was some questionable legality to it.
The $125 payment was a grant and fell under the definition of a
grant. Grants had to be published. The name and address of
everybody who received a grant from the Government of Canada was
public knowledge and therefore should have been published. The
information was derived from the Income Tax Act. Everybody who
filled out a tax return and qualified for the GST tax rebate was
on the list, and as we know tax returns are confidential. So the
government was in a quandary. It came to the public accounts
committee and asked for an exemption from publishing the names of
people because the Income Tax Act said it should be private and
rules covering grants said it should be public.
In my opinion, section 241 of the Income Tax Act, which
guarantees and protects the privacy of income tax returns by
Canadians, did not give the Minister of Finance the authority to
get these names in order to pay the $125 to these people who
qualified by virtue of being a recipient of the GST rebate. I
did not think they qualified.
The issue came up at the public accounts committee. One Liberal
member suggested a legal opinion was needed prior to giving them
the authority. Another Liberal member did not think a legal
opinion was needed, that they could hold their noses and pass it.
1215
I have serious questions about the legality of paying $125 to
those people just so the Liberal government could run around the
countryside last October and say that it was giving people money
to reduce their heating bills regardless of whether it was money
wasted, which it was. It was perhaps illegal but no one seems to
care. The Liberals won the election, so who cares?
We play by certain rules in Canada, and one is that the rule of
law is sacrosanct. I am not a lawyer and we never got a legal
opinion, but I have serious questions about the legality of that
payment. By its own admission, the government was in a quandary.
The Income Tax Act says that we must keep everything
confidential but grants and contributions rules say that we must
make things public. The fact that the government was in a
quandary should tell us there was a serious problem.
There are other issues. We in the Canadian Alliance have long
pointed out the disparity between two income families and one
income families. One income families pay more tax than two
income families that earn the same amount of money. The family
that decides a spouse will stay home to raise the kids rather
than pass them along to a babysitter does not get a tax
deduction. Who better in the world to raise children than
mothers?
We celebrated Mother's Day yesterday. Unfortunately, far too
many parents must put their kids in daycare rather than stay at
home because the tax act discriminates. It discriminates against
families that want to keep a parent at home to raise kids. How
can that be? Our most precious resource is children. We
discriminate against parents who love their kids and want to
raise them.
I am splitting my time with the member for Kelowna. I forgot to
mention that.
The point is that we discriminate against families. Why do we
tolerate that? I hope Canadians recognize this in the next
election and are not dazzled by payments, tax breaks and so on,
some of which are of questionable legality. Canadians should
vote for a party which says that it will stop discriminating
against parents who want to raise their own children. That must
be a fundamental right.
It was a big day yesterday for millions of Canadians across the
country who took time to recognize their mothers and the great
contribution they have made to their well-being, their nurturing
and their growing up. They took time to recognize the wiping of
tears, the hugs and the commitment that mothers and parents have
for their children. However, the government discriminates
against families. We collectively in this place are being asked
to vote on a tax bill that would continue the discrimination.
Surely that must be addressed and redressed.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
comment on the remarks by the member for St. Albert.
The member opposite talked about families. In listening to him
I wondered if he had actually read the budget and economic
statement that the Minister of Finance delivered last October. If
I may, let me summarize it and the member could perhaps check his
notes again.
For example, the member talked about a one earner family of four
earning, say, $40,000. This year that family will pay about
$1,100 less in taxes, a saving of 32%.
That will increase to 59% of federal taxes saved by the year
2004. This is a one earner family of four earning $40,000, so I
am not sure where the member gets his information.
1220
If I may indulge the House for a moment, a two earner family of
four earning $60,000 paid about $5,700 in federal income taxes.
This year it will pay $1,000 less or 18% less. By the year 2004
it will pay 34% less.
The member should consult his notes again. I am sure he will
retract his statements about the budget and economic statement
being biased against the family because the evidence is
absolutely to the contrary.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, this is typical bafflegab
by the government. I was talking about discrimination and the
fact that single families pay more than two income families.
The member talks about tax reduction. I did not dispute that
there was a reduction in tax. I said that discrimination
continues to exist. That surely was the point I raised. I could
not be more explicit and definitive than that, but the member
tried to avoid the subject by talking about tax reduction.
The government finally balanced the budget because of pressure
put on it by the Canadian Alliance Party not to continue running
deficits. The government finally, by virtue of economic growth
and not by virtue of economic policy, balanced the budget and is
now returning only some of the money to the taxpayer.
The Prime Minister said that the government would be balanced.
He said that it would keep half the extra cash to spend as it
wanted and give half back to the taxpayer. I would like to see
it all go back to the taxpayer. It was and still is the
taxpayers' money. The government does not have a right to that
money except to provide programs for the benefit of the country
and not for the whim of the Prime Minister. Therein lies a
significant difference.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for raising the issue of taxation of the family.
As the member will know, the finance committee appointed a
subcommittee on the issue during the 6th parliament. I would
refer him to its report which points out very clearly that it is
inappropriate to compare a two income family with an aggregate
income of $60,000 to a one income family making $60,000.
The real comparison is this: What is the tax burden on a two
income family in which one person decides to withdraw from the
workforce? This would result in a real drop in net take home
pay. The issue is about comparing a family to itself with two
options.
The member may be familiar with the fact that the United States
has joint filing. Would the member support a move toward
recognizing the family unit by taxing the family but with a
separate rate?
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member
brought up the issue of joint filing in the United States.
Unfortunately, given the way the government defines family, I am
a bit apprehensive about going down that road.
The point again is that families get a tax break for sending
children down the street to daycare but get no tax break for
looking after the children themselves. I cannot understand why
we still have that rule.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we need to make a couple of points on the legislation to
amend the Income Tax Act.
Before I get into the more detailed parts of the bill, I need to
register some things, particularly for the benefit of the
listeners. In looking at the situation I asked myself what
exactly was happening here in terms of physical terms. A copy of
the Income Tax Act was delivered to my office this morning.
The Income Tax Act has about 1,000 pages. It is a very
significant act. The paper is very fine; it is almost rice
paper. It is a substantial volume. It illustrates how
complicated the Income Tax Act—
1225
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I note that the member is not reading from the document but
rather using it as a prop. He has been somewhat less than
forthright with the House since it includes corporate tax—
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not involved in the
debate and will not get involved in the debate. However, if we
are talking about income tax and the member has an income tax
document I am hard pressed to call that a prop.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, you are not only a
fairminded person but you have demonstrated a tremendous sense of
humour. I respect and appreciate both qualities very much.
For the hon. member's benefit, I have marked the section in the
act dealing with capital gains. It begins on page 263 and ends
approximately at page 372. The section deals specifically with
capital gains. Later on, when the act refers to taxes on
inheritance, capital gains come up again. The capital gains
section of the act is over 100 pages long and there is additional
reference to capital gains later in the act. That is the Income
Tax Act as we know it currently. Another 514 pages of amendments
to the act have now been brought to our attention.
I refer to the parliamentary secretary's statement that there
have been tremendous tax reductions over the last while. The
Minister of Finance has indicated several times how significant
and large the cuts have been. He says that they amount to around
$100 billion.
However, when he makes that statement he does not tell us how
many increases there were. We need to look at that, particularly
in terms of payroll taxes. There has been a tremendous increase
in the amount paid to CPP. That must be considered an increase
in taxes. The $100 billion the minister refers to is not really
the total amount. The net cut is considerably less than that.
The child benefit program is administered through tax benefits
but it is really a spending program so it cannot be considered a
tax cut. It is important that we recognize exactly what is going
on.
I will make another point regarding the proposed statement the
Minister of Finance will deliver on Thursday of this week, if the
reports we have heard are correct. It will be very significant.
The mini budget last fall indicated some of the things we have
talked about here this morning. It looks like the new projection
will tell us what to expect in terms of expenditures, revenues
and the general state of the economy in Canada. The projection,
at least at the moment, is that it will be for two years.
I refer the House to a statement made last week by the chief
economist of the Toronto Dominion Bank, supported by a number of
other economists, which suggested that two years is a misleading
time period. Why? It is pretty clear to everyone that within
the next two years we will still have a surplus and revenues will
exceed expenditures. However, in the third year, because of
programs that have been promised and programs that have begun,
demands on the budget will create a deficit.
1230
I would encourage the Minister of Finance not to fall into the
trap of dealing only with the next two years, but rather that he
give us a balanced position and say to Canadians that for the
next two years we will have a surplus but in the third year,
because of the things he plans to do, there will be a deficit.
That would be an honest statement to make and I would encourage
him to do that.
I will now come back to some of the specific provisions within
the amendments of Bill C-22. I want to refer primarily to one
section regarding capital gains tax, which I have referred to
already. I will read one paragraph for the benefit of listeners.
It is an amendment to the existing provisions for capital gains.
I would like people to listen very carefully and see if they
understand the paragraph. It reads:
(o) where an amount is designated under subsection 104(21) of the
Act in respect of a beneficiary by a trust in respect of the net
taxable capital gains of the trust for a taxation year of the
trust and the trust does not elect under paragraph 104(21.4)(d)
of the Act, as enacted by subsection 78(23), for the year, the
deemed gains of the beneficiary referred to in subsection
104(21.4) of the Act, as enacted by subsection 78(23), are deemed
to have been realized in each period in the year in a proportion
that is equal to the same proportion that the net capital gains
of the trust realized by the trust in that period is of all the
net capital gains realized by the trust in the year,
(p) where in the course of administering the estate of a
deceased taxpayer, a capital loss from a disposition of property
by the legal representative of a deceased taxpayer is deemed
under paragraph 164(6)(c) of the Act to be a capital loss of the
deceased taxpayer from the disposition of property by the
taxpayer in the taxpayer's last taxation year and not to be a
capital loss of the estate, the capital loss is deemed to be from
the disposition of a property by the taxpayer immediately before
the taxpayer's death—
I would challenge all of our listeners to understand exactly
what has happened here. It is very significant that we
understand it.
Regarding the whole issue of capital gains, I would like to
refer again to the Income Tax Act that exists at present. There
is complex set of formulae in the act, not only the formula I
have just read but a whole host of other ones.
Much of the amendment I just referred to in Bill C-22 has to do
with the reduction of the capital gains tax from two-thirds to
50%. I do not think that is great. I think we should reduce
capital gains tax considerably. I would like to see it reduced
considerably below the present one, and the ideal, from my point
of view, would be to eliminate capital gains tax entirely.
Why do I think that? First, it is critical that we have risk
capital involved when providing capital for the establishment of
enterprises to develop innovations, to apply new technology, new
science and new understandings. People who risk their capital
ought to be able to benefit from the profits that arise. In many
instances these highly innovative projects, while they have the
potential for tremendous gain, also have the potential for loss
of a major part or all of the capital. We need to reward people
who are prepared to risk their assets, their talents and their
abilities so that they can be rewarded when they apply them.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member referred to the page number, so on that slight
technicality, showing the 1,000 page document, I was listing some
of the things that are in there, including the corporate tax
segments, the schedules for capital cost allowance, all of the
things that have to do with trusts, family trusts and survivor
trusts, and the non-resident taxation.
The document contains a substantial number of things that have
nothing to do with personal income taxation. I can tell the
member that of that 1,000 page document there are only about 10
pages that are applicable to about 80% of Canadian taxpayers.
1235
My question has to do with the capital gains side. The member
noted that there are a number of provisions. Most of those are
there because of history, such as the $100,000 capital gains
exemption, changes to the effective rate, list of personal
property and a whole host of historic aspects of capital gains.
However, the member did say that he would support eliminating
capital gains tax. Let us take something as simple as the
investment in the stock market. Shares obviously are valued on
the basis of their after tax return. Capital gains tax would be
taken into account to determine the return on investment, similar
to taking into account the dividend policy with regard to that.
If the member is correct when he says that the policy should be
to eliminate the tax, he probably should know that doing so would
affect the ability of the companies that have capital gains
history to attract capital. In fact it would penalize companies
that have high dividend payouts and lower capital gain because
they do not withhold money for reinvestment in the company. They
are paying out.
The member suggested that we lower or eliminate the capital gain
so that companies that have low dividend payouts and high
expansion get a benefit ahead of those who in fact pay out higher
levels of dividend yield to their shareholders. Is this what the
member is trying to say? Is he saying less money for ordinary
investors in Canada?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was a
chartered accountant in a previous life and should understand
what he was saying and should also understand what the act says.
He probably has a pretty good understanding of capital gains.
There are a number of different ways in which we can talk about
capital gains. I have to also refer back to his idea that there
are only about 10 pages on income tax in there. That is amazing.
We should then throw this thing away.
An hon. member: On personal.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Capital gains is very personal.
There are over 100 pages of capital gains in there and that is
very personal. The hon. member had better do his arithmetic a
little better.
Coming back to capital gains, the issue of dividends may or may
not be related to capital gains. It could be but I doubt that
very much, particularly when it comes to the area of innovations
and people who want to establish a brand new company, such as the
angels, for example, who work with small businesses and put a lot
of venture capital on the table. Generally these companies do
not pay dividends at all. They are risking the total amount of
the capital they put on the table.
In order to encourage that kind of innovation, we want to make
sure that money is there and these people can get their rewards
from their investment. That is really what I am talking about.
We do want to encourage that.
In Canada there have been some tremendous innovative ideas, but
we have discouraged much of the risk capital and many of the
venture capitalists from investing here simply because of the
high burden of capital gains.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member aware of
the fact that in RRSPs, in which a large number of Canadians
invest, capitals gains on investments that are purchased inside
an RRSP are treated like straight income and would not benefit
from eliminating capital gains tax?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I am very well aware of
that. I would like to remind the hon. member that within the
RRSP no tax is paid on the interest that is borne or on dividends
either.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you that I am
splitting my time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
The bill seeks to amend the Income Tax Act to put in place the
mini budget or economic statement from the fall.
1240
The interesting thing is that the Liberal government has yet to
produce a budget that will outline its priorities, both for
taking in government revenues and spending them. It is
inexcusable that we should be meandering through the wilderness
of the economic difficulties of these days, where leading
corporations like Nortel are laying off major portions of its
total workforce. That involved something like 6,000 Canadian
jobs. As well, we are watching the U.S. economy slow down. For
the first time in many years, the U.S. unemployment rate is
actually rising. All of this is going on while the finance
minister's policy is based on last year's election spending
spree.
In addition, the Canadian dollar is continuing to slide. I
remember talking about this issue a few months ago. At that time
we watched the dollar slide up and down above and below 67 cents
U.S. Today it is down to anywhere from 63 cents to 65 cents
U.S., which means that our dollar has lost about 16% of its value
in the last eight years.
Our weak dollar is like a national pay cut for everybody. It
means that the value of our money and the value of everything we
own in Canadian dollars has been reduced. Canadians' savings
have been reduced. Customers are forced to pay more for imported
goods in a global economy where almost everything we buy is made,
at least partly, somewhere outside Canada, while the Liberal
government merely continues its trend of spending and of ignoring
the need for real tax cuts.
During the 20th century in the United States there were three
episodes of significant tax rate reductions. These reductions
occurred in the 1920s under U.S. presidents Harding and Coolidge.
They happened again in the 1960s under President Kennedy and in
the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan. In each case the
Canadian Liberal government of the day predicted that tax cuts
would only reduce revenues and benefit the affluent.
People are always worried about the affluent benefiting. This
morning we heard a number of speeches in private members'
business and now under this bill that show the government is
worrying that the rich will get richer. However, if the people
who have the money do not invest, we know what will happen to
everyone else. No jobs will be available for them.
In each case the Liberal government of the day decided that it
would increase taxes and spend its way out of the problem. Each
time the United States avoided an economic crisis but Canada ran
head on into it. We see this happening again today.
President Bush is calling for massive tax cuts. He recognizes
that the global economy is slowing. He recognizes that his
country is heading for a recession. He also recognizes that
swift and significant tax cuts are necessary to stimulate the
economy of his country. President Bush is showing leadership by
working to avoid a crisis. The Bush administration has proposed
tax cutting measures that would reduce taxes by as much as $1.6
trillion over the next 10 years. Both Republicans and Democrats
have introduced tax measures in congress that would see tax
relief of up to $160 billion retroactive to January of this year.
1245
What is our government doing? What is the Liberal solution to
stop the economic bleeding and to avoid a crisis? Its approach
is quite unique. Last week it announced a $500 million spending
spree for arts groups. The arts are important in Canada, but
jobs for Canadians are perhaps more important at this time when
our economy is in crisis. Where would the money come from?
The government has announced tax increases through the CPP. It
has erased any modest gains that might have been made through
personal tax cuts. It refuses to lower taxes, issue a budget,
follow the American example and bring in an across the board tax
reduction.
As we talk about capital gains taxes we go into the nuts and
bolts and the minutia of them when all the while the government
is trying to avoid the necessity of reducing taxes for Canadians
so that they would have more money in their pockets to make the
economy work.
A recent report by the Institute for Research on Public Policy shows the
human costs of the government's refusal to lower taxes. It
studied the migration habits of Canadians leaving for the United
States. The results should come as no surprise. Canadians are
flocking to the United States because the taxes are lower there.
Their buying power increases and they have more money in their
wallets. Every year thousands of Canadians go to the United
States for better pay, better tax rates and better opportunities
to secure their future.
I was watching a TV show the other day in which Canadian
hospitals were trying to bring Canadian nurses back from the
United States. Goodness knows we need them. However the
response from the nurses who were going to the job fairs was that
the pay and working conditions here were not as good, taxes were
too high, and their spouses who were in the United States with
them could not find jobs if they came back to Canada.
The alarming number of Canadians heading to the United States is
increasing. Despite the Prime Minister sticking his head in the
sand and pretending that there is no brain drain, the numbers
tell the story. In 1968 the number of people leaving Canada for
the U.S. was 17,000. In 1997 that number rose to 98,000. In
1986 only 3% of Canada's natural scientists left for the United
States. In 1997 that number rose to 11%.
We have a brain drain crisis. Our best and brightest are going
south. Doctors, nurses, scientists and computer programmers are
among the many heading for lower taxes and better wages. We have
to deal with this problem. High Canadian taxes is the most
urgent task facing parliament. Thus far our economy has had a
free ride on the United States, but we are now seeing the results
of government policy or lack thereof.
I see the government having a far more serious problem by not
producing a budget that Canadians can see and work with. We need
a budget that we can hew to, not a general economic statement
prepared for a national election and justified through
legislation.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member
opposite I wondered how he could stand in the House to talk about
how the government has been inactive in cutting taxes.
Last fall the government introduced the largest tax cuts in
Canadian history of $100 billion. Those tax cuts which took
effect on January 1, coupled with the tax cuts at some provincial
government levels, are having a huge effect on the economy. It
is about 2% or better in terms of percentage points related to
the gross domestic product. Most economists understand the
significance of that and are saying that it is having a very
stimulative effect.
1250
All economists are saying that the timing could not have been
better. Hon. members opposite often cite the Americans. They
seem to be enraptured by them. However the Americans are still
debating their tax cuts. Our tax cuts came into effect on
January 1. We have to do more and we will do more.
The hon. member opposite talked about spending. He selected
some items that have been developed and addressed as a priority
by the government. Included in that was an important initiative
of half a billion dollars for farmers which I guess just slipped
his mind.
When he selects those spending items, has he actually looked at
the other items? I know he will say that it was not enough,
because we could always do more. Does he not support the half
billion dollars that was topped up to give farmers some relief?
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is not
a matter of what the government spends in the necessary areas.
For example, we need more spending in health care. We need to
maintain our social programs. We are not talking about the
urgent needs of Canadians.
The child benefit is a spending program delivered through the
tax system. I would like to touch on the point the hon. member
mentioned about $100 billion in tax relief. There is some
sleight of hand in this number if we take all the minuses into
account: the minus $3.2 billion for social spending over five
years, the minus $29.5 billion over five years for increased CPP
premium hikes; and the minus $20.7 billion over five years for
cancelled tax hikes in indexation. What do we come up with? Not
$100 billion tax relief but something just over $53 billion. That
is a little more than half what the government is talking about.
We need to have the numbers on the table so that we know where
we stand in both the income and the spending of the government,
not the kind of sleight of hand that it uses to win an election.
That is what the bill is about. It is to implement something
that was put in place as an election strategy.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member briefly referred to CPP tax increases. He knows that
the funds invested by Canadians through their premiums in the
Canada pension plan are segregated funds. They are not
government money for spending. They are there for the benefit of
Canadians in terms of their future pensions.
As we all know, with the baby boomer demographics today we have
something like five workers for every one retiree. With the
large number of baby boomers who will be retiring we will be
reducing that number to three workers for every retiree. Less
workers will be required to fund the Canada pension plan.
Would the hon. member prefer to scrap the CPP and leave
everybody to fend for themselves at retirement, or does he
support the amendments made to the Canada pension plan, including
increasing the premiums over a period of time to ensure it is
there for all Canadians?
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see a
clear picture of our spending. The hon. member mentioned CPP as
being designated. What guarantee do we have if there is no
surplus in the fund, as in the case of the employment insurance
fund? The government could not capture the revenue for itself.
Nothing is sacred and segregated to the government. If the
government wants it, it will take it. We cannot look at CPP as
anything but a tax because the government handles it as
government revenue.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to
Bill C-22. It is certainly a complex bill. Thousands of people
in Canada, and a good many in my constituency, fall into the
situation that I am about to describe in terms of exemptions and
qualifications.
1255
I refer to what happens to a young father who finds himself in a
divorce situation. I draw the attention of the House to two such
cases as they relate directly to the exemptions in the Income Tax
Act. Dan and Valerie were married for 12 years. I do not know
what led up to the divorce but they went through a divorce. The
responsibility, and rightly so, is for Dan to support the
children.
I will not accept for a moment, as is generally thought across
Canada, that all these men are deadbeat dads. Dan agreed to pay
his wife $1,000 a month for the upkeep of his children. At the
end of the year that upkeep costs him $1,200 a month. Aside from
the cost of the divorce and the loss of his house, he does not
get to claim that $1,200 as an exemption. His wife does not have
to claim it as income and receives a tax credit. That is wrong.
No matter which way the cake is cut, it is wrong.
I have other examples on file. We do not know why suicides come
about, but all these dads are not deadbeats. Many of them work
overtime to make ends meet, only to have to pay more money. They
are finding it more difficult to pay up each month. They want to
carry on their responsibilities, but the situation is getting
worse.
The last example I have on file is a shocker. John married a
girl by the name of Janet and she had one child from her previous
marriage. He accepted that child and together they had two more
children. That union divorced and, believe it or not, Janet
married her former husband. The oldest child from the former
husband then went back to the original parents. John was ordered
by the court to pay support for three children, even though the
one child he assumed from the previous marriage was back with the
original parents.
I could go on and on. All kinds of people have written to me
from across Canada. In many cases there is no fight between the
former wife and husband, but in many cases these young men simply
cannot make it. What I am saying is that the monthly support
payment should be an absolute deduction.
We seem to say at the present time that all divorces are the
fault of the men. There is no question about that. One only has
to look at the tax laws and the exemption entitlements. Hundreds
of young men under 40 escape by running away, by taking on new
names, and some by committing suicide. We sit here and allow it
go on year in and year out. No one has the stamina and the
courage to say that it is wrong.
If members ever talk to some of these young people, they should
talk to a man of 38 years of age who lost his professional job
through no fault of his own. Watch the tears roll down his face
because he cannot meet those obligations, and he was never
credited for it as a tax deduction in all those years.
1300
I say to the House and I say to all Canadians, it is time we
faced up to this. It is time that we said no, that not everyone
is a deadbeat dad. If we look at the statistics most of them are
not.
I have dealt with many cases individually where men have had to
suffer extreme hardships in order to meet the requirements of the
courts. Then the income tax comes, they make a huge payment and
have no deductions whatsoever. Their income tax is deducted at
source because they are once again a single parent.
I wish that somehow the finance committee could sit down with
the other departments involved in this to bring this atrocity to
an end, to bring some fairness to the situation and to bring some
fairness to what happens with a court ruling. Maybe they will.
However if they do not, there will be more and more young men who
will mysteriously disappear from the landscape and we will not
know the reason for their deaths.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am happy that the member raised the issue of divorce and the
costs. The member will well know that children are the real
victims of divorce.
When we consider a couple, whether one or two are working, with
the same income before and after divorce, the expenses are not
the same. In fact divorce costs money because if anything there
is a second residence to be paid for. That means the disposable
income of a family usually is eroded substantially because of
that. On top of that should they be unfortunate enough to have
to go through litigation of some sort, the lawyers take a
substantial portion. The member will well know that in a number
of cases it will wipe out the family's savings totally.
The member, in the case he used, raised the question about a
spouse not being able to deduct child support payments. He
should know that child support payments have never been
deductible by anybody. The issue is where is the income taxed.
The hon. member may recall the Thibaudeau case where Mrs.
Thibaudeau went to the court. She said she received child
support payments and that she did not want pay tax on it. She
wanted her husband to pay all the tax on his income and not
transfer that income to hers. What the member was describing and
what he disagreed with was the court judgment on the Thibaudeau
case. Maybe he wanted to suggest that we look at the Thibaudeau
case.
Having said, that, I tend to agree with him that the Thibaudeau
case actually exacerbated a situation in terms of the disposable
income of those two people. The fact that a high income earner
pays a higher rate of tax on marginal income and all of sudden
this additional income for the spouse with a lower level of
income probably is taxed at a lower rate. However it is not the
same for all situations.
I make this as a comment. Maybe the member would like to offer
his comments with regard to the importance of all of us working a
little harder to make sure our families stay intact because
everybody loses, particularly children, when there is divorce.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, of course I agree. There is
no one in the House more firmly convinced that the best
institution, our oldest institution has to be maintained. That
is to strengthen the family in every way possible. The previous
speaker mentioned that very fact.
No matter which way we want to cut the cake, when there is an
expenditure in child rearing it should be considered.
1305
I know of a case in Toronto where the individual is paying
$20,000 a month with two children. I know other case where the
father is trying to put up $2,000 a month. Not only is he going
bankrupt, he will lose the his house because of what happened to
his income.
There should be a $12,000 a year deduction at source for that
parent. There is no one in the House or outside it who can
successfully argue that it should not be an income tax deduction.
Maybe we are past the days of being all deadbeat dads when we
hung it on the men and gave women more liberty. I hope those
days are gone forever.
Sometimes after divorce, even though the money goes to the wife
in support of children, she then continues to work and pay income
tax. She includes the children and does not have to count the
money. There is something wrong there. I think everybody on
that side of the House knows it. Everybody in Canada once it is
explained knows it, and it is up to the government to make the
changes.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-22. I
spoke at the initial reading before the House. I would like to
reiterate in closing the debate the opposition of the official
opposition to the bill.
Often we are criticized of opposing for the sake of opposition.
In fact I think we have a record of supporting about half of the
government bills which are introduced, those which we think are
sensible and lend incremental improvements to public policy.
Bill C-22 falls far short of that standard in many respects.
It purports to legislate tax changes announced in the economic
statement of last October. The economic statement, which was
hurriedly put together by the finance minister on the behest of
the Prime Minister immediately before an election, did not take
into account the new economic circumstances in which we now find
ourselves. At that time the finance minister was projecting a
nominal GDP growth rate or real growth of 3.5%. It is now
evident that given the downturn in which we now find ourselves,
that economic growth for the current calendar year will be more
like 2.5% or perhaps lower. It undoubtedly will have a
substantial affect on the government's fiscal situation and the
revenues available to it. It will also place an upward pressure
on spending.
In the face of this new economic uncertainty in which we now
find ourselves, the government has not responded at all. It has
acted irresponsibly. The last full budget we had was in
February, 2000. It now appears likely that there will not be a
full budget presented to the House until February 2002. This
would constitute the longest stretch of a budget not having been
presented to parliament in the history of the Dominion.
At a time of economic uncertainty, when we see the United States
continuing to go into possibly a technical recession, we see our
third largest trading partner, Japan, in the midst of an economic
and fiscal crisis. We see the possibility of Latin America
veering off its economic course. Let us be objective and
realistic about this, not pessimistic. Objectively there is the
very real potential for more troubled economic times within the
foreseeable future, yet we have no budget to take that into
account.
The finance minister will apparently make one of his smoke and
mirrors presentations with video charts and focused group
language tested by his friends at Earnscliffe consulting at
considerable taxpayer expense. He will that on Thursday. However
it will not be a serious economic budget. It will not take into
account the new circumstances. It certainly will not deal with
the very serious corrosive problem of runaway Liberal spending
which is now setting into the fiscal status of the federal
government.
1310
In the fiscal year just ended, 2000-01, it appears that the
total program spending will have grown by about 7.1%. This is a
huge increase at a time when inflation plus population is growing
at a rate of just under 3%. In other words, spending under the
government is growing more than twice as fast as the population
and inflation. It is doubling the need for growth set by our
economy, our inflation and our growth of the population. The
projection for the foreseeable future is that spending growth
will continue at a rate of at least 5%. We think it will likely
be substantially higher than that given the track record of the
government to date. This is simply not sustainable.
We had in the last fiscal year $11.1 billion in supplementary
estimates above and beyond what was originally projected by the
government a year ago in its main estimates. We had money which
was been announced and not properly authorized or put through the
estimates process in advance. We had the phenomenon known as
March madness where the government spent as much as 70% more in
the last month of the fiscal year than it did in any other month
of the year. There was much as $16 billion in spending this past
March.
The warning bells are ringing that spending is growing out of
control. I can understand the political dynamic within which the
Finance Minister must operate. I suspect he has tried his best
to maintain the big spending old style Liberal habits of his
colleagues and is simply losing that debate around the cabinet
table in the caucus room now. The special interests in his
caucus, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of
Industry and their big spending friends, continue to grapple for
millions more taxpayer dollars. We see this in the fiscal bottom
line.
The point is that every additional dollar in discretionary,
unnecessary and wasteful spending that is committed by the
government is a dollar taken away from perspective tax relief for
working families to create new and better jobs. It is a dollar
taken away from debt reduction to secure our long term economic
future and pay down our still enormous national mortgage.
My colleagues opposite will say that the bill before us gives
effect to tax changes and therefore there is still room for new
spending. This ignores the economic reality in which we find
ourselves. The reality is the bill purports to authorize $100
billion in tax reductions which is just complete nonsense.
When we clear away the smoke, the mirrors and the fudge it
budgeting, when we take out the spending increase in the child
tax benefit which is an entitlement program, it is a spending
program not a tax cut, when we net out the $29 billion Canada
pension plan premium increase, the largest single tax increase in
Canadian history, an increase which has caused most Canadians so
far in this calendar year to see their tax level go up after
advertised tax cut and when the impact is taken out of
de-indexing the tax system which is not a tax cut it is just a
non-increase, we find that the real net tax cut over the ensuing
five years is less than $50 billion.
Liberals do not increase taxes but all of a sudden they want to
take credit for that as a tax cut. I am afraid it simply does
not wash. If we tried that kind of accounting as a CFO at a
company, we would end up making licence plates in a provincial
institution. The net tax relief is half of what is advertised in
the bill. That does very little to correct the significant
disadvantage we continue to face vis-à-vis our major competitors
and trading partners.
Canada continues today to have the highest personal income tax
to GDP ratio in the G-7. In laymen terms that means we have the
highest income taxes of any major country in the world; 14.1% of
GDP. Even if we take the Finance Minister's bogus $100 billion
figure and subtract that from our current tax burden, we still
end up with Canada at a PIT to GDP ratio of 12.4%, the highest in
the G-7.
1315
It is substantially higher than that of the United States even
today. Our major trading partner will be cutting taxes by at
least $1.35 trillion U.S., not Canadian dollarettes, over the
next 11 years, thus rendering the Canadian tax system even less
competitive.
This would not be a problem if it did not have an effect on our
standard of living, but it does and very substantially. Canada
continues to see its rate of growth in labour productivity, an
absolute key indicator of growth in our standard of living, at
one-third the level of the United States.
I have raised this issue in the House during question period.
The finance minister says our productivity is growing. Yes, it
is, barely, by roughly 1.5% a year, while we see productivity
gains in the United States of 4%. That means the U.S. is
producing more and doing it more efficiently. It is creating
more wealth which is shared by more people.
Why? It is not because Canadians are not hard working. They
are hard working and well educated. It is because we penalize
too many Canadians for working hard, taking risks and investing
and saving. The very economic behaviours which create wealth and
raise our standard of living are penalized by our punishing tax
regime.
The government's bill would raise the basic personal exemption
level to $8,000 under which a taxpayer would not pay taxes. The
government claims this is a great act of progressivity. However
it falls far short of what it ought to be doing to rescue low
income Canadians forced on to the tax rolls by bracket creep. The
government has benefited from this tax on inflation during the
last eight years of its mandate. The government has put an
additional 1.9 million low income people on to the tax rolls by
way of bracket creep.
The Canadian Alliance proposes to raise the basic personal
exemption to $10,000 and match it with a $10,000 spousal
equivalent. We would no longer have second class citizens when
it comes to the tax code. Stay at home parents would no longer
be regarded as having less economic value than their income
earning spouses. We would also have a $3,000 per child tax
credit, which would mean that a family of four under our system
would face zero taxes on their first $26,000 of income. That
would remove at least 1.4 million low income Canadians from the
tax rolls.
I find it galling to see Liberals pat themselves on the back
about how progressive they are and how they favour the poor when
in fact they oppose measures like this one, measures which would
give real relief to the working poor and people on fixed incomes.
That is another reason we oppose the bill.
We are not just penalizing people at the low end of the scale.
Through the bill and in its economic statement of October the
government would raise income thresholds at which people are
taxed at higher levels at marginal rates. That is a baby step in
the right direction but we are still miles from the threshold
levels for marginal rates as set in the United States.
People do not enter the highest tax bracket in the United States
until they earn over $250,000 U.S., or well over $350,000
Canadian, whereas one enters that bracket in Canada upon earning
$100,000 Canadian. Bright young entrepreneurs who work hard,
succeed and get ahead are penalized by the government the moment
they break into six figures, but people in the United States earn
three to four times that before being hit by the highest marginal
rate.
1320
I can feel my Liberal colleagues' soak the rich, politics of
envy gene kicking in. They want to stand and say that the rich
should pay their share. Successful Canadians do pay their share.
The top 10% of income earners earn about one-third of the income
in the country and pay about half the income taxes. The top 1%
of income earners earn about 9% of the income and pay about 20%
of taxes.
Those who create the most wealth and are successful pay a hugely
disproportionate share of taxes. I am not necessarily arguing
with that. However they would create more wealth, invest more,
take more risks and ultimately create more jobs if we raised the
income thresholds for the marginal rates substantially higher as
is the case for many of our competitors.
The Canadian Alliance Party thinks the optimum tax policy is not
to penalize people for working hard. We would adopt the generous
exemptions I have outlined plus eventually a single rate which is
progressive. We propose a rate of 17%. That would mean a family
of four with $26,000 in income, given the generous credits we
have proposed, would pay zero taxes. A family of four with
$52,000 of income would pay 17% on only the taxable half of its
income. It would pay an effective rate of 8.5%. A family of
four with a multimillion dollar income would effectively pay 17%.
My colleague from Toronto—Danforth who is the principal
advocate of this idea knows full well that it is progressive.
We have serious concerns about the inability of the government
to get tax policy right. Not only are we falling behind in terms
of productivity growth. We are doing so in terms of
competitiveness. We are not keeping up.
We are not keeping up on corporate taxes. According to a major
study done by KPMG that appeared in the Economist last
month, we have the highest corporate income taxes in the OECD at
42.1%. Our personal income tax burden, relatively speaking, is
at least 21% higher than in the United States. In terms of
competitiveness we are now ranked seventh by the World Economic
Forum compared to the first place United States. Ireland, which
is now in fifth place, has leap frogged over us. We have fallen
behind in standard of living.
This is reflected in the value of our currency which is hovering
at an all time low. Our currency has lost 25% of its value
during the tenure of the Liberal government. It has a value of
65, 64 and sometimes 63 U.S. cents. That is an embarrassment and
a reflection of the impoverishment of this nation under the
policies of the Liberal government.
We oppose the bill and call upon the government to control
spending. It must stop these crazy 7% annual increases in
spending and allow it to remain constant. Spending must grow in
relation to population and inflation growth so that we do not
have net cuts in spending. We could let it grow at a gentle
curve commensurate with the size of the country and the level of
inflation.
Doing that during the five year period outlined in the finance
minister's statement would mean an additional $58 billion for tax
relief for working families, for job creation and for debt
reduction to secure our long term future. That was the $58
billion missed opportunity of the finance minister's statement of
last fall which he will reiterate on Thursday. It was a missed
opportunity to create more wealth and pay down the huge national
mortgage.
Often when we talk about the debt the finance minister jumps up
and says we have reduced it. That is not true. The debt is
about $60 billion higher today than when the finance minister
took office in 1993.
He has increased the debt. He has not paid it down. Public
sector financial liabilities total about 106% of our gross
domestic product. That is the third highest in the G-7 and the
OECD.
1325
The government says we can afford to increase spending by 5%, 6%
or 7% a year and ignore the debt. However private sector
economists have projected that we will be in a planning deficit
by fiscal year 2004-05.
What does that mean? It means that in order to finance these
reckless increases we will need to eat into the government's
emergency reserves, the so-called prudence and contingency
reserves. Those moneys are not supposed to be spent by reckless
members of the Liberal cabinet. They are supposed to be set
aside in case the economy shrinks.
The Liberals are already eating into the contingency reserve of
2004 based on very optimistic economic growth projections. If
the economy turns down, the surplus that taxpayers have worked so
hard to obtain will disappear and the promised tax relief will go
down the sinkhole with it.
We are here today ringing alarm bells about the government's
return to fiscal irresponsibility. We plead with it to look not
just at the next two years but at four or five years down the
road and what will happen if spending continues on its current
trajectory. Therefore I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
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 not now read a third time but
that it be read a third time this day six months hence.
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order. Debate is
now on the amendment.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a program that my
friends and I used to watch in the 1950s and 1960s. It was
called The Twilight Zone. The member for Calgary Southeast
probably never had a chance to watch it, but he sounded very much
like that.
I do not where to begin but I will focus on a couple of areas.
The hon. member talks about the debt. The government is paying
down debt faster than any other industrialized nation. The
member conveniently forgets that one cannot attack the debt until
one eliminates the deficit, which we did. We started that as
soon as we came into office.
The member knows that federal government spending is at the
lowest level in terms of GDP since the early 1950s. We will
continue that moderating approach. The member talks about
possible deficits. There is no evidence of any deficits. The
Minister of Finance has budgeted and planned so that we have
fiscal cushions to absorb changes in the economy.
What got me the most was when the member said Canadians were not
really getting a tax cut. He said the $100 billion tax cut would
not be a tax cut for most Canadians. He said part of it would, I
admit that.
I will give some examples. We will ask Canadians if they think
this is a tax cut. One earner families of four earning $40,000
paid about $3,325 in federal income taxes last year. This year
they will pay about $1,100 less. That is a 32% saving. The
saving will increase to 59% by the year 2004. I ask the hon.
member if that is not a tax saving. I think it is.
Last year two earner families of four earning $60,000 paid about
$5,700 in federal income taxes. Next year they will pay over
$1,000 less, a tax saving of 18%.
Those savings would increase to 34% by the year 2004. I take
that as a tax decrease. In other words, Canadians will pay a lot
less tax as a result of the October 2000 economic and fiscal
update. I challenge the member to refute that those are not tax
savings. Those members talk about re-indexation until they are
blue in the face. They ask why we did not re-index the tax
system. We have done that.
1330
The member talked about the Canada pension plan. He knows full
well that the Canadian pension plan is a contribution based
pension scheme and that those funds do not go anywhere near
consolidated revenue. He knows that and yet he continues to talk
about it as being a tax. Would the member reconsider his
statements and come clean with Canadians?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary
secretary is in the twilight zone. He has to defend the highest
personal income tax burden in the developed world. It is a tough
job to do.
When the parliamentary secretary talked about the so-called tax
savings he was including new spending transfers like the child
tax benefit. The government will be sending out cheques to
people and calling them the child tax benefit. That is fine but
it is a spending increase and he is calling it a tax cut. That
is not honest bookkeeping.
The parliamentary secretary wants us to ignore the $29 billion
CPP tax grab. He says that is off-budget. It is in an Al
Goresque lock box or something. That is nonsense. Those moneys
have always been fungible. We know that money going into the CPP
has been spent as though it were in general revenues. It is a
tax that must be paid by Canadians mandated by the government.
What the parliamentary secretary really misses is the fact that
even with some modest steps forward on the tax front, the
government is allowing $58 billion to be gobbled up by new
spending above and beyond the rate of growth in population and
inflation. That is a missed opportunity of $58 billion which can
and should be delivered to working families in the form of far
more dramatic tax relief. This would enable us to increase our
productivity and our standard of living.
The money could go toward the national debt but he did not even
talk about that. He said that we could not reduce the debt until
the deficit was eliminated. He is right. The government took
four years to eliminate the deficit. According to Dale Orr of
WEFA, Don Drummond of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, a former
associate deputy minister of finance and the member's own
colleague from Markham, we are now going back into a deficit.
Last October his colleague said that there could be as much as a
$2.6 billion planning deficit. He did not address the fact that
we are at risk of going back into deficit territory in the out
years of the current fiscal plan because spending is not under
control. That is the challenge and that is the question the
government needs to answer.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. All
those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The vote is deferred until later this day
at the end of government orders.
* * *
1335
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Finance)
moved that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Budget Implementation
Act, 1997 and the Financial Administration Act, be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
address the House today at third reading of Bill C-17, an act to
amend the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, including the
provision of additional funding to the Canada foundation for
innovation, and to amend the Financial Administration Act.
I will begin by discussing the increased funding for the Canada
foundation for innovation. The CFI was established in the 1997
budget and remains high on the government's list of funding
priorities for university research.
Hon. members will recall that the foundation, an independent
corporation operating at arm's length from government, was
established to provide support for modernizing research
infrastructure at universities, research hospitals and not for
profit research institutions in the areas of health, environment,
science and engineering.
[Translation]
The 1997 budget provided for an initial upfront federal
investment of $800 million. An additional $200 million followed
in the 1999 budget. Without the extra funding, the foundation's
awards would have ended in 2001.
[English]
A further $900 million was subsequently announced in the 2000
budget and support for the CFI was extended until 2005. To date
the foundation's activities have been well received by its
partners, groups like universities, research hospitals, business,
the voluntary sector, individuals and provincial governments also
provide funding.
The provinces, for example, strongly support the participation
of their research institutions in CFI programs, either by
contributing to CFI supported projects or by establishing
complementary funding programs of their own. Quebec and Ontario,
for example, provide matching funds for CFI awards.
[Translation]
The CFI provides up to 40% of funding to support research
infrastructure projects, all of which helps universities and
research hospitals acquire the laboratories and equipment they
need for state of the art research.
[English]
So far the CFI has supported 95 research organizations across
Canada, including 65 universities, 18 colleges and 12 research
hospitals. Bill C-17 legislates an additional $1.25 billion in
funding in 2000-01 to the Canada foundation for innovation and
extends its activities to the year 2010. The amount includes
$500 million from the October 2000 economic statement and budget
update, and a further $750 million that was announced on March 6
by the Ministers of Finance and Industry.
The $500 million announced in last October's economic statement
will be invested in two ways. First, $400 million will allow the
foundation to contribute to the operating costs of new awards.
The remaining $100 million will help support the participation of
Canadian researchers in leading edge international research
projects and facilities that offer significant research benefits
to Canada.
[Translation]
The additional $750 million announced in March for the CFI will
build on this funding by providing additional stability to
universities as they plan their future research priorities.
[English]
The CFI needs the additional funding to help it support the
operating costs of new awards and the participation of Canadian
researchers in international research projects. Further,
additional funding for the CFI would help the federal government
to reach its goal of at least doubling its current investment in
R and D by the year 2010, a commitment that was made in the
Speech from the Throne in January.
1340
Bill C-17 also amends the Financial Administration Act. It is a
statute that encompasses the financial administration of the
Government of Canada, the establishment and maintenance of its
accounts, and the control of crown corporations. The act also
sets out the statutory framework under which the government can
borrow money.
Bill C-17 would improve the operation of the Financial
Administration Act. It would reinstate the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board as one of the crown corporations exempted from
divisions I to IV of part X of the Financial Administration Act.
The exemption would protect the independence of the board while
the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board legislation would
provide a strong accountability regime.
Amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act in 1998 inadvertently
deleted the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board from subsection
85(1) of the Financial Administration Act, meaning that the board
was subject to various crown corporation control provisions under
the Financial Administration Act, which put it in conflict with
its own mandate. Clearly it was neither wanted nor intended and
Bill C-17 would correct that error. This change would be
retroactive to December 1998 to ensure that the Canada Pension
Plan Investment Board had always operated within the laws of
Canada.
[Translation]
The second amendment reinforces the authority of parliament over
any borrowing by or on behalf of the crown. It provides for
greater certainty that it is parliament that must specifically
authorize borrowings made on behalf of Canada.
[English]
The measure would also provide clarification and consistency
respecting the role of the Minister of Finance ensuring
appropriate management of government indebtedness. Bill C-17
would ensure that all borrowings, not just the borrowing of
money, are subject to the supervision by the Minister of Finance.
In closing, the amendments to the Financial Administration Act
would improve its operation. The changes to the Budget
Implementation Act, 1997 that would provide additional funding to
the Canada foundation for innovation and extend its activities to
the year 2010 are consistent with the government's commitment to
at least doubling its current investment in R and D by the year
2010.
[Translation]
The Canada foundation for innovation is deserving of this
increased funding so that it can continue to promote research in
Canada and inspire young new Canadian researchers.
[English]
I know that my colleagues in the House support investment in
education, research and innovation. I encourage them to pass the
legislation later this day.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split the balance of my
time with my hon. colleague from St. Albert.
The Deputy Speaker: In this case the second party to get
the floor in this debate would have 40 minutes. Does the member
from Calgary Southeast have the consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise at
third reading of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Budget
Implementation Act, 1997 and the Financial Administration Act.
There are two parts to the bill. I will emphasize the aspects
related to the Budget Implementation Act, 1997. My colleague,
the chair of the public accounts committee and chief critic for
the treasury board, will address the amendments to the Financial
Administration Act.
The bill seeks to increase funding for research and development
through the Canada foundation for innovation by some $750 million
over an undefined period of 10 years. This follows quite
logically the remarks I just delivered on Bill C-22 when I
discussed at length the irresponsible approach the government was
taking to program spending.
I spoke about how in the fiscal year just ended program spending
had grown by 7.1%, how the government had overspent its budgeted
amount every fiscal year, and how for the next four years the
government was estimated to average spending increases of about
5%. I expect it would be substantially more than that.
1345
I also talked about the phenomenon known as March madness where
ministers make spending announcements without proper
authorization. I talked about how in April 2001, the last month
of the fiscal year, we spent some $16 billion or 70% more than
the average monthly amount.
This is of relevance to the bill before us. The government is
proposing that we authorize an additional $750 million for the
Canada foundation for innovation. Let me say at the outset that
the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, supports in
principle an appropriate and responsible level of funding for
research, development and innovation in academia which can be of
economic value to the country. We believe government can play an
appropriate role in that respect.
However such funding must be limited by the available resources.
We are concerned that the $750 million funding envelope has no
defined time period or parameters. It is not limited. The
government says it may be spent over the next 10 years or so, or
perhaps not. That is not a responsible approach. For a spending
program like this the government has an obligation to come before
us and detail where it expects to come up with the money and in
which years and to book the money as spent in each of those
fiscal years.
The auditor general has not only criticized the ongoing practice
of March madness as inherently inefficient. He has repeatedly
criticized the practice of booking future expenditures in one
year as the government did with the famous millennium scholarship
program and as it is doing now with the Canada foundation for
innovation.
This accounting practice would not be accepted in the private
sector. The government is ignoring its own rules and the
recommendations of the auditor general in the way it is managing
the moneys it seeks to authorize through the bill.
Another concern is that the government does not have a clear
framework for financing science or research and development. We
are dealing with major scientific and R and D projects on a case
by case, piecemeal basis. My colleague from Calgary Southwest,
our science and technology critic, has made and will continue to
make important remarks on the subject. We need very clear
criteria for the allocation of money for science, technology,
research and development. Throwing the money into a big envelope
and saying it will somehow be distributed on an equitable and
meaningful basis is not good enough.
How do we adjudicate the relative economic and social value of a
cyclotron project in British Columbia versus a nuclear research
facility in Ontario versus a research program for astronomy? All
these things come before us. Each has merits in and of itself
but parliamentarians have no overall objective criteria by which
to judge the value of competing R and D demands.
For that reason our party platform proposes that parliament
appoint a chief scientist, a position which exists in many other
national governments. Such a person would be the principal
adviser to both the government and the legislature on scientific
questions. He or she could help develop a clear framework to
priorize the many competing demands related to R and D, science
and technology. This would not require a large or expensive
bureaucracy and it would be helpful to have such objective,
external advice.
1350
Those are our concerns regarding the first part of the bill. I
will briefly outline our concerns regarding the amendments to the
Financial Administration Act, concerns my colleague for St.
Albert will elaborate further.
The clause seeks to clarify that parliament must provide
explicit authority to departments, agencies, boards and
commissions of the government in order to incur debt. That is
very interesting.
I was briefed on the bill by officials from the Department of
Finance who explained that the clause came about because of one
of the government's innumerable legislative drafting errors. The
error allows the Financial Administration Act to be interpreted
in a way that permits departments and agencies to incur debt on
their own authority without explicit authorization from
parliament delegated to the Minister of Finance.
Over the past couple of years the Department of National Defence
has been in a pitched quasi-legal battle with the Department of
Finance over this question. The DND has sought independent
borrowing authority not delegated by parliament which of course
has the power of the purse.
We therefore support the aspect of the amendment regarding
borrowing authority. However it begs the question: How can the
government consistently bring forth legislation with such
significant drafting errors which parliament must then spend
valuable legislative time rectifying? That is a serious concern.
In bill after bill, as finance critic, I deal with all sorts of
tax amendments which seek to amend errors in bills originally
presented by the government. We must accept to a certain extent
the bona fides of departmental officials and the government, the
ministers who bring these bills to parliament, that they are
technically correct. However too often they are not, as in this
instance.
The amendment also deals with certain regulations surrounding
the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board because of another
drafting error. When the government made amendments to the
Canadian Wheat Board Act it forgot to include the Canada Pension
Plan Investment Board. The CPP investment board is therefore
subject to intervention by the finance minister. He can go into
the CPP investment fund and strip cash out of it, contrary to
assurances given at the time of passage of Bill C-2 in the last
parliament which created the CPP investment board.
However because of a drafting error the finance minister,
contrary to every assurance granted us, can go into the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board and fire personnel, trash or write
his own business plan, and strip cash out of the fund. This
loophole needs to be plugged. It should never have occurred in
the first place.
We will therefore be opposing the legislation. We will urge the
government to take a much closer look at bills of this nature to
ensure they do not create future problems which we must then go
back and solve.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, as my hon. colleague from Calgary Southeast indicated, I
will be speaking to certain aspects of the bill. One aspect on
which I will focus is the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
and the fact that it is retroactively being exempted from large
sections of the Financial Administration Act.
The Financial Administration Act is a very thick document that
governs and dictates how the government manages its internal
finances. A large number of agencies, boards and so on must
conform to the Financial Administration Act to ensure their
finances are handled appropriately. Why would they not be?
However this clause would exempt the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board from the FAA.
1355
Also it is backdated to December 31, 1998. I understand from
the government it is the old housekeeping rule that somewhere
along the line it was originally exempt from the Financial
Administration Act. When somebody was doing some drafting of
another piece of legislation they inadvertently omitted to keep
the exemption there, but it slipped back in, that they were
subject to it.
We know there is a fundamental principle that legislation cannot
be backdated. It is never retroactive. Why is it in this case?
If we go to some particular piece of legislation and read some
fine arcane little rule, it says that where the government makes
a mistake it can backdate it if it so desires. Do we live in a
real democratic country or do we not? That is what it is coming
to.
As I mentioned earlier, when we were discussing Bill C-22 and
the $125 grant to all Canadians who qualified for the GST tax
credit, I questioned the legality of the information being taken
from the Income Tax Act. The act guarantees the confidentiality
of income tax returns. The government dipped into it just so it
could send out cheques for $125. The Income Tax Act does not
give the government the legal authority to get the information.
Here again we are having legislation backdated a couple or three
years just because somebody did not do their homework properly or
inadvertently made a mistake. The net result is that the
Liberals are imposing it in the House. They will use their
majority. They will bring out the whip. They will lash people
into submission, to say this is good stuff. In a democratic
country it is not good stuff when they have to backdate
legislation. It cannot be.
What is the government actually doing with the backdating of
legislation? It is exempting the board from being examined by
the Auditor General of Canada, the watchdog of Canadians. What
is the AG being prevented from examining? He is being prevented
from looking at the $40 billion or more of money Canadians have
set aside for their retirement. It is being held in trust by the
government and being managed by the particular board. The
auditor general cannot, by virtue of the legislation, go in there
to take a look and assure Canadians that all is well. The
government does not want that. It does not want these kind of
questions to be asked.
I say as a Canadian that the people in my riding of St. Albert,
and I am sure I speak for all Canadians, would like to know that
the pension plan is being managed properly, securely, safely,
prudently and so on. They will never know that. They will never
be allowed to ask that question because the auditor general will
never be allowed to ask that question by virtue of clause 6 in
Bill C-17. It is absolutely despicable. Therefore I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
“Bill C-17, an act to amend the Budget Implementation Act, 1997
and the Financial Administration Act, be not now read a third
time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance
for the purpose of reconsidering clause 6 and to consider the
desirability of hearing from the Auditor General relating to his
concern about the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board”.
1400
The Speaker: I know all hon. members were looking forward
to another 15 minutes of speech from the hon. member for St.
Albert but, unfortunately, by moving his amendment now he has
lost his time. When the House resumes consideration of this
matter later this day, the debate will be on the amendment.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
MISSING CHILDREN
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, a
father kidnapped one of his children in the daycare's yard, took
the child to Dorval airport and left Canada for his country of
origin.
Thanks to a concerted effort involving the resources of the
federal program “Our Missing Children”, involving the RCMP, and
the Montreal Urban Community Police Department in partnership
with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Immigration Canada, the kidnapper was
arrested as he was boarding the plane for New York City.
I congratulate all those who took part in this effort for having
quickly foiled this kidnapping attempt, and I am proud of the
program “Our Missing Children”, which has helped find over 500
children over the past 15 years.
* * *
[English]
ST. GEORGE'S ANGLICAN CHURCH
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the parishioners of St.
George's Anglican Church in Clayton, Ontario, who are celebrating
the 100th anniversary of their church this year.
I am happy to welcome the most Rev. Michael Peers, primate of
the Anglican Church of Canada, who visited St. George's this past
Saturday, May 12, to begin the anniversary celebrations.
St. George's Church enjoys a proud and distinguished heritage.
In 1899, the decision was made by the local congregation to erect
a new structure to replace the original Grace Church in Clayton.
With almost all the labour and money donated by the
parishioners, the cornerstone was laid on Victoria Day, 1901, and
the church was officially opened by the bishop on October 23 of
the same year. It is an architectural marvel that is admired, and
it impresses engineers and artists to this day.
Today St. George's Church plays the same important role that it
has served for four generations. Under its current rector,
Father David Andrew, the congregation of St. George's is growing.
To all the congregation of St. George's, I wish a happy 100th
anniversary and God bless them.
* * *
[Translation]
CANNES INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pride that I inform the House of the participation of
Quebecers at Cannes international film festival.
First, the French-Quebec production La répétition is in
official competition. Actress Pascale Bussières is extremely
popular, and all of Quebec and Canada is proud of her. We already
knew that Ms. Bussières was extraordinarily talented. It is an
honour to have that talent recognized on the international
cultural scene.
Then there is a Quebec production from Bernard Émond entitled
La femme qui boit, featuring actors Elyse Guilbault and Luc
Picard. This film is not in official competition, but it is a
magnificent reflection of the excellent movies that are produced
here in Canada.
Good luck to the film La répétition and to Pascale Bussières
during this prestigious competition.
* * *
[English]
BRENDA BURY
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week we paid homage to a great Canadian prime minister by
unveiling his portrait. Today I rise to pay homage to the great
Canadian artist who painted this portrait.
Brenda Bury was born, educated and trained in England. She took
an honours degree in fine art at the University of Reading where
she studied under Anthony Betts.
Ms. Bury travelled to Canada for just over a year where she
painted portraits, beginning with the then prime minister, John
Diefenbaker. She left Canada after a short period and returned
to England where she thought England's strong tradition for
portraiture would improve her skills. In 1964 she painted Lord
Mountbatten of Burma and it was he who later arranged for her to
paint the Queen herself.
Ms. Bury returned to Canada in the 1980s and set up a studio in
Toronto. Very shortly after her return, she found herself back
in England at number 10 Downing Street to paint a lifesize
portrait of Prime Minister Thatcher and her advisors in the
Falklands conflict. Ms. Bury has also painted the Right Hon.
Jeanne Sauvé, a speaker of this House.
I myself have had the privilege of sitting for Brenda Bury. I
will never forget the magic and amazement the first time I saw my
likeness revealed on the canvass. I am thrilled that her talent
and skills are being recognized by the people of Canada.
* * *
HUNTINGTON'S DISEASE
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that May has
been proclaimed Huntington's Disease Awareness Month by the
Huntington Society of Canada.
Huntington's Disease is a hereditary brain disorder, with
devastating mental and physical effects.
One in every 10,000 Canadians has Huntington's Disease.
Unfortunately there is still no cure for the disease and no
preventative treatments are currently available.
1405
The Huntington Society of Canada is a national network of
volunteers and professionals united in the fight against
Huntington's Disease. They are focused on finding new treatments
toward a cure.
I ask my hon. colleagues to please join me in extending best
wishes for a successful public awareness campaign to the
Huntington Society of Canada.
* * *
POLICE OFFICER OF THE YEAR AWARD
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, May 1 marked the 50th anniversary of the RCMP in Surrey.
Many of the detachment's original members attended the
ceremonies. On May 1, 1951, there was only one traffic light in
Surrey. The detachment now numbers nearly 400 serving a
population approaching 350,000.
Last Wednesday the Surrey chamber of commerce hosted the fifth
annual Police Officer of the Year awards dinner. Award
recipients were: the Arnold Silzer Community Policing Initiative
Award to the Surrey Minor Hockey Association; the Police and
Business Partnership Award to the Lark Group; the Policing
Volunteer of the Year Award to Bill Brand; the Police Municipal
Employee of the Year Award to Vivian Thompson; the Police Officer
of the Year Award, as nominated by members, employees and
volunteers of the Surrey detachment, to Corporal Al Bouchard; and
the Police Office of the Year Award, as nominated by the
community at large, to Corporal Greg Roche.
Congratulations to this year's award recipients and a sincere
thanks to those who have served Surrey with distinction over the
past half century.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
government can be justifiably proud of Canada's exceptional
performance throughout the year 2000 in the area of international
trade and investment.
These are the motive forces behind our economy and prosperity.
The figures cannot lie: 319,000 full time jobs were created,
taking the unemployment figures to the lowest level since 1974.
We also attracted $93 billion in direct foreign investments,
which indicates a massive vote of confidence in our economic
future.
Canadian trade and investment have attained new record levels in
2000 for the ninth consecutive year of economic growth; this is
the longest and most stable period of expansion since the 1960s.
Given all these successes, I believe we can have confidence in
the Government of Canada to negotiate international agreements
that will serve the interests of all Canadians.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Bloc Quebecois, through its justice critic and member of
parliament for Berthier—Montcalm, along with actor Marc Beaupré,
launched a tour of Quebec with the theme “At least give us a
chance”.
The main objective of this undertaking is to express aloud what
everyone in Quebec is thinking. All stakeholders in Quebec are
opposed to this reform, judging it to be pointless and even
dangerous, as far as its anticipated effects on reducing crime in
the long term are concerned.
The present young offender legislation works very well in
Quebec. Proof of this is that the youth crime rate in Quebec has
dropped 23% and this legislation has made it possible for Quebec
to record the lowest rate in Canada.
This is why Quebec says no to a piece of legislation that is
focused more on repression than rehabilitation. It says no to
Bill C-7. Consequently, we are asking the federal government to
allow Quebec to opt out of application of Bill C-7 and to allow
us to continue to apply the current legislation.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, May 13 to 19 is National Police Week. The purpose is to
raise public awareness and forge stronger ties between police
forces and the communities they serve.
Police week results from a collaborative effort between the
Government of Canada and the provincial solicitors general. This
week will be marked by special activities and displays that
promote the idea of co-operation and interaction between police
and their communities to promote public safety and well-being. We
invite Canadians to participate in these activities.
Our police are extremely devoted, courageous and vigilant. We
are proud to take this opportunity to recognize their hard work
in ensuring that our communities are safe and secure.
* * *
KEITH MANN
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
today I want to give one of the hardest tributes I will ever have
to make in the House.
Last Friday evening, Red Deer, Alberta and Canada lost one of
the most dedicated volunteers any city, province or country could
have. Keith Mann was killed in a tragic traffic accident in Red
Deer. He was the head of the music program at Red Deer College,
leader of the Red Deer Royals Band, proud member of the Rotary
Club and, when it came to music, the number one promoter of Red
Deer, Alberta and Canada.
1410
Keith taught music in Hawaii, across Canada, the United States
and Europe.
He was loved by our community and all the families whose lives
were literally moulded by this great Canadian.
Keith's motto was leave Canada a better place than he found it.
Keith was a true Canadian hero. I ask all members to remember
their volunteers. We have just lost one of our very best.
I send our condolences and prayers to his wife Marilyn, to his
family and to the community who have lost the very best.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity afforded me to congratulate the
Government of Canada on its commitment to reducing tobacco
consumption.
Smoking kills 45,000 people every year. This is more than
accidents, suicides, homicides and alcoholism combined. It is
one of our most pressing public health problems.
Over the next five years, over $480 million will be spent on the
tobacco control strategy. Taxation of tobacco products will be
reformed and additional funding given to law enforcement agencies
to ensure compliance with the laws.
These actions combine with the objectives set by the Government
of Canada. Action already undertaken and these new measures are
important milestones in improving public health.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Sydney Tar Ponds are North America's largest toxic
waste site. The area contains over 700,000 tonnes of toxic
sludge. Toxins include arsenic, lead, tar, benzene, kerosene,
polyaromatic hydrocarbons and the list goes on.
Stomach cancer is 78% higher than the rest of Nova Scotia,
cervical cancer is 134% higher and brain cancer is 68% to 72%
higher.
Instead of taking action, the government is awaiting yet
another study. This time it is a computer analysis based on
incomplete information, using hypothetical exposures to healthy
people to calculate acute health risks. In other words, another
stalling tactic. People are sick and dying while the government
stalls.
It is very important for the government today to commit to an
immediate permanent move for those families living in unsafe
neighbourhoods adjacent to the tar ponds in Sydney, Nova Scotia.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTFORT HOSPITAL
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, the
fight for the survival of the Montfort hospital resumes, as the
Ontario court of appeal hears the appeal by the province's
attorney general.
However, three judges of the divisional court unanimously
decided in November 1999 that the Montfort was necessary to the
advancement and improvement of the Franco-Ontarian identity as a
cultural minority in Ontario and to this culture's protection
against assimilation.
The problem here is not just linguistic, but is also and
primarily a brutal attack on the social contract between all
minorities in this country and the majority. This is perhaps
much less a legal issue than a moral one.
The government of Ontario must respect the rights of
Franco-Ontarians and immediately take all the means necessary to
ensure that the only francophone hospital between Hull and
Victoria will continue to fulfill its mandate.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
Canadians to regain confidence in the water they drink, we need
to invest in water quality. At present there is no charge when
we draw water from wells, when industries discharge polluted
water and when we use water at home we pay very little.
Until now we have managed water mostly to ensure an adequate
supply. From now on we should shift the focus to preventing
water pollution from harmful agricultural and industrial
activities as well as using water more efficiently.
In addition, governments should, instead of reducing, raise
taxes so as to be able to modernize and improve many waterworks,
plants and infrastructures in villages, towns, reserves and urban
centres.
The current water crisis is man-made and therefore can be
resolved. We all can regain confidence in tap water, provided we
learn to respect the value of water.
* * *
HERITAGE
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister wants to leave a legacy of his tenure that
involves the bulldozing of three blocks of properties and moving
two heritage buildings. This would free up the view of the
parliament buildings. All this is apparently being done in
secrecy.
1415
The Progressive Conservative Party supports heritage, but it
should be noted that before the grandiose project becomes a
reality, or even comes close to becoming a reality, parliament
should be consulted.
Canadians want a legacy of jobs and opportunities, safe water
and clean air, not a secret plan to erect a monument to the Prime
Minister's vanity. The Prime Minister should end this buying
spree now and quash the plans for Champs de Chrétien.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the government continues to delay a formal decision on the
concept of national missile defence. The United States has been
seeking a concept from Canada as to whether or not this was
supportable.
Of course this is a decision that corresponds with the best
interests of Canada. Is the government prepared to support the
concept of national missile defence?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Americans themselves have not put forward the
details of what they have in mind. I do not see how we can be
responsible in this serious matter until we have been informed of
the details and until we have considered them. This is what we
are doing in the interests of Canada.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the concept of defence is something that I think most
Canadians would support.
NORAD is vital for the security and sovereignty of Canada. One
of NORAD's prominent individuals has said that failing to support
national missile defence would mean the beginning of the end of
NORAD. On this basis what possible grounds can there be for not
supporting this important concept?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it would be premature and irresponsible to take
a definite position on something the Americans themselves have
not spelled out in detail. I do not know why the hon. member
wants us to be irresponsible and premature on such an important
matter.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I suppose having to mention the concept again would be
something that went over the Deputy Prime Minister's head.
If I might, several weeks ago the president of the United States
phoned our Prime Minister. The subject of national missile
defence was discussed. Did the president ask for Canada's
political support of the concept of national missile defence? Yes
or no.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that the president may well have given some
briefing to our Prime Minister, but I do not think it would
either be responsible or sensible to talk about a concept rather
than the solid details of an absolute and definite plan.
This may be the way the Alliance Party runs its own internal
affairs. It deals with the concept of leadership rather than the
reality of its disintegration. That is not the way we want to
run Canada on behalf of all Canadians.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, time is running out for a
decision on a national missile defence system that will protect
Canada's interests.
A few weeks ago the director general of policy and planning in
the Department of National Defence was quoted as saying:
The value of our political support will...depreciate as we
approach decision time. Once the U.S. has made its decision,
that value could be reduced to nothing.
When will the government get off the fence, act in Canada's
national interest and publicly endorse a national missile defence
system?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that President Bush has outlined a major
reworking of the global strategic framework from the American
point of view, but we do not yet have full details of what he is
proposing.
If we are interested in the best interests of Canada we have to
deal with details and we have to deal with facts rather than the
immature and premature speculation of the Alliance Party.
[Translation]
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Americans have long been
interested in our position.
Our deputy commander of NORAD and other senior officials warn us
that the future of NORAD itself is at stake, if we do not support
this defence system.
Why does this government want to play political games with
Canada's national interests?
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Americans have yet
to decide on the details of the future system. Therefore
speculation and the implication for NORAD are very premature.
When a decision is made Canada will be consulted, as has been
promised.
* * *
1420
[Translation]
SINGLE CURRENCY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first it was the Governor of the Bank of Canada talking about a
ten year time frame for adopting a single currency. Now it is
William Ruben of the U.S. federal reserve talking about the
possibility of a North American monetary union.
When will the federal government listen to Canadian and U.S.
central banks and assume its responsibilities by setting Canadian
symbolism aside and contemplating the possibility of adopting a
single currency in North America in the middle term?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois would do well to read
the text of the member for Markham's speech, which was released
on the weekend, to get a clear picture of both sides of the issue
and why it is so important for Canada to keep the Canadian
dollar.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, we have read the speech and
we see it differently.
I urge the Minister of Finance to read the other speeches as
well, to engage in real debate, rather than mouthing patriotic
phrases, rather than taking an opposing stand as he did in the
free trade debate. We saw how they came to their senses too
late.
Rather than getting caught at the last minute, should the
government not be responsible and examine this issue in the
context of the integration of North American economies?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what is at issue here is that the Bloc Quebecois really wants to
let Washington set our monetary policy. What other federal
powers does it want to hand over to Washington in order to
advance the cause of Quebec sovereignty?
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government opposes the creation of a single currency
in North America by arguing that it would be difficult to switch
overnight from a Canadian to a North American dollar. In spite of
that possibility, the government adopts a do nothing approach.
Is it not irresponsible on the part of the government to not
prepare Canada for a possible transition from a Canadian to a
North American dollar, considering that central banks in Canada
and in the United States have already begun looking at this
possibility?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what is responsible is to set up in our country a structure
that will allow us to keep our own powers, including fiscal and
monetary powers.
This is why we have a low inflation rate. This is why we are
creating jobs at a much faster pace than the Americans. This is
why Canadians' disposable income is rising. This is what we
should be doing and this is what we are doing.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance alludes to Canadian sovereignty.
I invite him to talk to his colleague, the Minister for
International Trade, who wrote in his book entitled Pour une
politique de la confiance that “The state has lost the ability
to direct its monetary policy”. This is from the Minister of
Finance's own colleague.
Why does the government prefer to stick with the Canadian
dollar, which has constantly been depreciating over the past 30
years, instead of considering North America's economic
integration, which could lead to monetary integration?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should simply look at the facts, in other words,
at the difference between the Canadian and American economies.
If we and the Americans had had the same currency during the
Asian crisis, Canada's economy would probably have suffered a
major downturn, instead of performing the way it did.
The hon. member should realize that he is advocating a solution
that would have a huge negative impact on Canadian families.
* * *
[English]
BULK WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment and has to do
with remarks that the Prime Minister made in Atlanta, Georgia,
with respect to the export of bulk water. The Prime Minister is
reported to have not entirely ruled out Premier Roger Grimes'
proposal to harvest 13 billion gallons of water from Gisborne
Lake.
Given the fact that the Minister of the Environment has spoken
so critically of this proposal in the past, could he explain what
the Prime Minister was up to? Is the government still opposed to
the particular project, or is the Prime Minister indicating an
openness to the project that was not there before?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The
government's position remains clear. We oppose bulk water
removals. This is an environmentally sound strategy. It
respects provincial jurisdiction and is trade consistent.
1425
There is concern across the country but, as the Prime Minister
correctly pointed out, there are constitutional complications and
we do need provincial support to make this the most effective ban
possible.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps some day the minister could explain to the House
what he means by trade consistent.
Could the Minister of the Environment arrange a briefing for the
premier of Newfoundland on ecosystems so that he and others could
stop suggesting that freshwater which flows into the ocean is
somehow being wasted. Does it not seem to the Minister of the
Environment that is how the oceans are created in the first place
and that is how they maintain their health?
Could he arrange for this to be explained to Mr. Grimes and
others who make this specious argument.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would always hesitate to enter into discussion
with a minister of religion on the creation of oceans or any
other part of the biosphere.
Nevertheless, I will take his suggestion of a briefing with
provincial premiers and provincial ministers of the environment
as notice.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Globe and
Mail reports another outbreak of forgeries at the Business
Development Bank. Is this epidemic of forgeries occurring only
on the Auberge Grand-Mère file or is there a general problem in
the bank?
The bank now claims that its chronology of events in the
Grand-Mère file is “not in conformity with the Globe and
Mail version”. Will the government table the Business
Development Bank's version of the chronology in the Auberge
Grand-Mère file?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Business Development Bank has turned over to the RCMP the
documents in question. The matter is now up to the RCMP. I am
sure it will do its duty.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
again my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In preparing
for his secret briefing with American experts, the Prime Minister
would have received basic information about the proposed missile
defence shield.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the estimated cost
of this project would be a minimum of $60 billion U.S. and could
rise to hundreds of billions of dollars?
If those are not the figures the government has been given, what
figure has the Government of Canada been given and what does the
Deputy Prime Minister estimate the cost would be to Canada, were
we to participate? Would it be in the billions of dollars?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are continuing to seek details of the American
proposals. Once we have them and we consider the matter, at the
appropriate time I am sure the House will be consulted.
In the meantime, the hon. member might explain how this is
supplementary to his original question. What happened to the
epidemic of forgeries? They must have got stuck in the hon.
member's brain.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, government spending is running out of control. In
the last fiscal year program spending was up by over 7% and the
government projects to see program spending increase by at least
5% a year, which is nearly twice the combined level of inflation
plus population growth.
If we were simply to restrain spending at the rate of inflation
and population growth there would be an additional $58 billion
available for additional tax relief and debt reduction.
My question is for the finance minister. Why has he bowed to
pressure from his big spending cabinet colleagues rather than
doing the responsible thing, holding the line and providing
Canadians with more of their own hard earned money?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's numbers simply do not hold water, but
there is no doubt there has been increases in certain areas.
I would simply like to ask him: Given that the majority of
those increases have taken place in the transfers to provinces
for health, that they have taken place in terms of increases in
elderly benefits and that they have taken place in the increase
in equalization, perhaps the hon. member would tell me which of
those three programs he would cut.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there is a growing consensus that the government is
headed for a planning deficit within four fiscal years. Even the
member for Markham and the former ADM of finance have said that a
planning deficit could occur in the year 2004-05. That would eat
into the so-called contingency reserves which are supposed to be
there to handle unexpected emergencies.
Will the finance minister commit to the House here and now that
he will not delve into the contingency reserves except for
emergencies? Will he commit that he will not finance regular
government spending out of the prudence reserve?
1430
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows full well the contingency reserve
has been in place ever since we formed the government. He knows
exactly the conditions under which it is to be used, and it will
continue to be used in that way.
* * *
[Translation]
ANTIMISSILE SHIELD
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
senior federal official has admitted that Canada is preparing to
give its support to the U.S. missile defence shield program.
According to this person, the justification for this about-face
is that it would spare Canada from losing jobs, from missing out
on substantial contracts, and particularly from having to reopen
the entire issue of NORAD.
Could the government confirm this statement and will it finally
admit it is preparing to support the anti-missile project put
forward by the Bush administration? Let it admit this.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has not reached such a decision. The hon. member must
wait. After we have reviewed the details of the Americans'
plans, we will inform the House in due course of the outcome of
our consultations.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois has requested a meeting with the U.S. emissaries.
In order for there to be an informed debate on this subject,
does the government intend to allow the opposition parties to
benefit from this meeting, and can it commit to a debate and a
vote in this House before Canada takes its official position on
this project?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I have said, we are going to consult the House in due course.
There is, of course, the possibility of a debate at this time. It
is premature to discuss a project on which we have not decided on
a position.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
Madam Tremblay, a close friend of the minister of public works,
has been awarded millions of dollars worth of contracts by the
Liberal government. She has a long history of Liberal
connections.
Why does having Liberal connections seem to make a difference
when it comes to receiving government contracts?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the contracts in
question have been given according to treasury board guidelines
and in a competitive process.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last month we asked about lucrative contracts to Madam
Tremblay. Last week we asked about Groupaction. Now again it is
Madam Tremblay receiving even more Canadian taxpayer money
without proper tenders.
I ask the minister to open up all government contracting to
competitive bidding and to take the politics out of the
government's contracting process. When will he do it?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that all
those contracts and the contract that the hon. member makes
reference to are given in a competitive process. If the hon.
member is ready, my officials are ready to give him a briefing on
how we do procurement for communications contracts, which might
be a little bit different from the others, but that is the system
that everybody uses.
* * *
[Translation]
BULK WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Newfoundland premier reaffirmed his desire to license private
companies to export water in bulk. Such a precedent could
encourage private companies wanting to take the government of
Quebec to court under NAFTA, because, as hon. members will
recall, the government of Quebec has imposed a moratorium on the
bulk export of water.
Is the government aware that NAFTA could prevent Quebec from
deciding itself what it will do with its water?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned a moment ago, on the issue of bulk
water exports there is need for co-operation between all
jurisdictions in Canada. Certainly we respect and we applaud the
decision taken by the province of Quebec with respect to water
within its jurisdiction. As I indicated, the federal
government's position is clear. We do not approve of transfers
from one water basin to another.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister says that water is not a tradable item under NAFTA,
because Canada signed a joint declaration with the U.S. and
Mexico on this. However, the American authorities have said that
the declaration changes absolutely nothing in NAFTA and does not
preclude the bulk export of water in any way.
Will the government confirm that, under NAFTA, water is indeed a
tradable item, a fact that would considerably undermine Quebec's
ability to limit or prevent the bulk export of water?
1435
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, were that the case, it would certainly undermine the
authority of the province of Quebec to take decisions with
respect to water within its jurisdiction, which it is entitled to
do by the constitution, but fortunately it is not the case.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, for the second time in a month officials of the Business
Development Bank are claiming that an internal document obtained
by the media is a forgery. Last month it was a financial record.
This time it is a chronology relating to the recall of the
$615,000 loan for which the Prime Minister had personally
lobbied.
The accusation that forgeries are being either produced or
leaked on a recurring basis is a serious charge. On what grounds
is this accusation being made?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say that the document
that was referred to in the Globe and Mail has been
referred by the BDC to the RCMP for investigation. It has been
concluded that the copy right now is of course not in conformity.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have no idea what that was about. Let me ask my
supplementary question this way.
The Prime Minister has openly admitted that he pressured the
Business Development Bank for a loan to the Auberge Grand-Mère.
We all know the auberge defaulted on the repayments, so it would
be routine for a bank to call the loan. Yet the BDC said that
the document recording the foreclosure was forged. What reason
does the BDC have to believe that the document was forged?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the member
is confused. There is more confusion in his party than in the
BDC.
Nevertheless, all I can say right now is that it is in the hands
of the RCMP for investigation. We will leave it at that. It is
not in conformity, and at the appropriate time they will know.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, three
years ago the international community agreed to dramatically
reduce or even eliminate persistent organic pollutants. Known as
the dirty dozen, POPs include PCBs, dioxins and DDT. They remain
in the environment for decades. Particularly, they are harmful
to Canada's northern peoples.
Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House what action
Canada is taking domestically and internationally to reduce these
substances?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that I will be
signing, on behalf of Canada, the United Nations convention on
persistent organic pollutants in Stockholm next week.
At the same time, I would like to point out to the House that we
all owe a great debt of gratitude to Dr. John Buccini, who
chaired the meetings in Johannesburg that led to this protocol. I
think that as a result we have something of great interest and
importance to Canadian northern peoples.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for
months now the NDP caucus has been calling on the Prime Minister
to clearly state the government's opposition to the U.S. military
defence proposal. The reply has always been that the government
will talk to the Americans and then it will tell Canadians what
was said.
Tomorrow President Bush's travelling salesmen are coming to
Canada to find out if we will be part of this treacherous NMD
scheme. What will the government tell the Americans when they
come a-calling. Will it ignore the opposition from millions of
Canadians, including members of its own caucus, or will the
government say no to George Bush and refuse to allow Canada to be
a part of this nuclear madness?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again we repeat
that the Americans have not made a decision on this. When they
do, a full debate will probably take place in the House and
everyone will have an opportunity to respond. However, until a
detailed response from the Americans is received, it is pretty
hard to give an answer.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
millions of Canadians have made it clear that we do not want to
be a part of plans to spend billions of dollars escalating the
arms race. Imagine our surprise, given what we have just heard,
to read what senior officials are saying in today's paper, which
is that Canada will support George Bush's missile shield and that
Canada has already made up its mind. Who do we believe? We want
to know.
Given this contradiction and the obvious division of interest
around this, will the government bring to the House for debate
and for a vote any ratification or endorsation of the NMD?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no contradiction. Members of the government
are standing in their places in the House saying that the
government has made no decision on an American proposal, which
the Americans themselves have not yet quantified in detail.
1440
It is true that officials are coming to Ottawa tomorrow to
provide information to our officials. This is only at the level
of officials. We have not made any decision on the matter and
will not make any until we have studied all the details and have
looked at it in the light of Canada's interests.
I repeat that we will seek appropriate ways of consulting with
the House of Commons when the time arrives.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, in a
speech delivered today in Halifax the human resources minister
said that Canada faces a tremendous challenge in attracting and
keeping high skilled workers.
This being the case, why does the minister's department post
jobs located in the United States on HRDC's Canadian taxpayer
funded website?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, under departmental policy HRDC does not assist foreign
employers to recruit Canadian employees for jobs outside Canada.
We are looking into this case to ensure that the employer is
Canadian. The posting has been suspended until this is
determined.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
industry and human resources ministers are preparing a white
paper that will outline how to correct Canada's lagging
productivity growth and may suggest major tax changes in business
incentives. This white paper sounds a lot like the budget that
the finance minister is unwilling to deliver.
Has the finance minister's budget authority been usurped by the
industry minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate both my colleagues, the
Minister of Industry and the Minister of Human Resources
Development, and indeed all the other members of cabinet and
caucus who were involved in this paper.
It is very important, the hon. member will understand, to look
ahead to begin to build the economy of tomorrow and that is
exactly what the government is in the process of doing.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
Four prominent Canadian generals have publicly disagreed with
the minister when the minister claimed that the Canadian forces
are as combat ready as the forces were 10 years ago.
Generals MacKenzie, Dallaire, Addy and Belzile have warned
Canadians about the capacity of the forces. When will the
government rebuild morale, equipment and combat readiness?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the department under
the present general, General Baril, has indicated that it is
combat ready. We have 3,100 Canadian forces personnel presently
on duty throughout the world doing a good job, a job for which
they should be praised and thanked, not some hollow rhetoric.
I have never been allowed to say this, but it seems that as soon
as one becomes a retired general one receives with the first
pension cheque some type of conscience that one did not have when
in the CF.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that
Canadians themselves disagree with what he has said. They really
question the government and the capacity of the military.
How can we send troops into war zones around the world when the
former military say that they are completely not ready to go?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is
committed to building and maintaining multipurpose, combat
capable forces that are equipped to perform a wide range of
duties and missions. The policy continues to serve Canada, both
at home and abroad, and what military personnel do abroad.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for more
than two years now, the Bloc Quebecois has been pushing for
mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods and calling on
the government to bring in legislation.
Today, we have learned that over 80% of Quebec farmers polled
are in favour of mandatory labelling of GMOs.
When is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food going to face
the facts and admit that legislation to make such labelling
mandatory is long overdue and urgent?
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
consulting with stakeholders and interested parties. We have had
the Royal Society of expert panellists. They have made the
report and of course we are studying it to see whether it would
be possible to do this and how we would do it.
We want to be accountable for all our people and all our
processes.
1445
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
European Union countries now require that genetically modified
foods be labelled.
Does the minister, or his parliamentary secretary, not realize
that his failure to act in this matter could have a serious
negative impact on exports of Quebec and Canadian products?
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us make it
very clear that there has never been any proof of anyone getting
sick from eating any type of GMO food.
Safety is our number one concern. We have the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency and our products are well received around the
world from all provinces, including Quebec.
* * *
NATIONAL PARKS
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, park wardens in our national parks
have a proud tradition of service. Hiring the RCMP to do the
wardens' job will still leave park wardens without the proper
safety equipment.
Why will the minister not follow the recommendation of her
department to equip wardens with side arms?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. I would
also like to wish my mother a happy mother's day because she is
in the gallery today.
I hope I answer this one well. In fact, we are following the
recommendations of the chief operating officer of Parks Canada.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, why is the government insisting on
spending $40 million for the RCMP to patrol our national parks
when park wardens, if properly equipped, are already on the
ground to do the job?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think Parks Canada looked at the issue of
enforcement and the chief operating officer of Parks Canada
understood that if we want to have police enforcement in the
national parks it should be done by police.
* * *
PARA TRANSPO
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Labour. Last Friday the
minister indicated her displeasure with all the parties involved
in the Para Transpo strike, a strike that is entering its third
month. Thousands of people have been left homebound and services
are not being provided to the people who need them.
This morning the minister invited the various parties to the
dispute to her office. Would she tell us what progress has been
made and how soon these people can expect the service they need?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I called an emergency meeting this morning to meet with
both parties. I advised the union and the employer that they
were responsible for resolving their differences and that it was
time for them to settle the dispute and restore transportation
services to the disabled people of Ottawa.
I also appointed my assistant deputy minister, Mr. Warren
Edmondson, as mediator to work with them. I urge both parties to
work with the assistance of Mr. Edmondson to conclude a fair
collective agreement. This dispute must be settled soon.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it would appear that the immigration minister is more
concerned about the public image of the department than about
public health.
In 13,000 high risk cases of tuberculosis among landed
immigrants, the immigration department failed to notify health
authorities in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec.
Will the minister assure the House that the very serious problem
of monitoring and reporting high risk TB cases will be properly
addressed?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I assure all members that public
health and safety are number one priorities for my department.
We are working to ensure that there is an improvement in the
communication among federal, provincial and public health
partners to ensure that we monitor and refer appropriately all
cases of anyone who needs medical assistance in Canada.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, these alarming statistics come from the department of
medicine of one of Canada's most respected universities. It is
concerned.
1450
I repeat that the immigration department did not report 13,000
high risk tuberculosis cases to provincial health authorities.
When will the minister assure Canadians that the very serious
problems of monitoring and reporting high risk TB cases will be
properly addressed?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important that the member opposite
not engage in fearmongering. We are all very concerned that
cases be properly reported and monitored.
However she should know and others should know that TB cases in
Canada have remained stable over the last decade. Canada has one
of the lowest number of cases of tuberculosis in the world. We
want to keep it that way. That is why we want to improve our
medical monitoring system and our partnership-relationship.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Israeli government has rejected the Mitchell report
recommendations calling on it to stop establishing Jewish
settlements in the Palestinian territories, in order to put the
peace talks on a more solid footing. Yesterday, five Palestinian
police officers were shot to death as the Intifada continued.
Does the Canadian government not feel that it should call on the
United Nations to hold an emergency debate on the conflict
between Israel and Palestine as soon as possible?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, Canada offers its
deepest condolences to the families of the victims on both sides
in this tragic conflict.
Canada condemns the violence and terrorist acts and calls on all
parties in the region who truly want peace to condemn these
events themselves.
The report of the Mitchell commission represents a constructive
contribution to the efforts of the international community and
suggests a way out of this conflict for the various parties. Its
recommendations mirror Canada's policy and as long as—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
* * *
[English]
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned over
incidents of air rage. As a matter of fact new international
incidents have heightened this concern.
My question today is for the Minister of Transport. Could the
Minister of Transport explain to the House how he intends to deal
with this threat and what exact steps has he taken to make sure
Canadians are protected when they travel by aircraft?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Transport Canada is taking a leadership role in
addressing this issue. We are working closely with stakeholders.
We hope to have policies and procedures in place this summer. We
are working with airlines and police organizations.
The Alliance members may laugh but air rage is no laughing
matter. We will be distributing a booklet in the next little
while entitled “Unruly Passengers: The Police Response”. Also
we took an interim measure, which became effective on March 17,
requiring cockpit doors to be locked during a flight when an
incident or threat to flight safety arises due to unruly or
abusive behaviour.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, over the last two weeks I have been
asking the Canadian Wheat Board minister to exempt organic wheat
growers and millers from the buyback provisions of the Canadian
Wheat Board monopoly. The minister promised to ask the elected
board members what he should do.
Has the minister asked the directors and what instructions did
they give him?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman acknowledges that there is a board of
directors in place at the Canadian Wheat Board. Two-thirds of
that board is directly elected by farmers.
The concerns with respect to organic matters have been raised
with the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. They have put in
place a producer direct sales system. They have more recently
improved that system. The most recent representations have been
drawn to their attention and I trust they will respond in a
timely manner.
* * *
[Translation]
HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services recently
confirmed that construction work for the two bridges and the
completion of Highway 30 would begin at the earliest opportunity.
Since that meeting, the Quebec Minister of Transport earmarked
the necessary funds to complete Highway 30 and he has said that
he is ready to share the costs on a 50:50 basis.
Since this project dates back a few years, will the minister
follow the example of his Quebec counterpart and immediately
allocate the funds required to build the two bridges and complete
highway 30?
1455
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we pledged to build two bridges and 14 kilometres of
road in partnership with the private sector. We have hired
consultants to set up a system to promote the construction of
these two bridges and 14 kilometres of road.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, news of more delays by the government in supporting the
relocation of families at risk in Sydney, Nova Scotia, is very
disturbing. Clearly there is hardly a need for more studies.
They only add to the agony and grief of families already
suffering enormously.
I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Will he
commit today to an immediate and proper relocation program for
the families affected by the toxic contamination of the Sydney
tar ponds?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the question follows those by representatives of the
same political party last Friday. We intend to wait until we
have the scientific report which was commissioned and which we
expect this week before making decisions on relocation and a
number of other questions related to that.
We do not think it is appropriate to proceed without having the
scientific basis for decisions which could massively disrupt the
lives of individuals and involve great cost to public authorities
both federal and provincial.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of the
Environment. It is not the disruption of these people's lives.
It is their health and their very well-being that people in
Sydney, Nova Scotia, are most concerned about.
Based upon the health risk and based upon the science that is
pending, will the minister today give his commitment on behalf of
the government to financially assist those at risk who need to be
relocated permanently to avoid life altering illness?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question relates to those who need
to be relocated permanently. It is exactly that question upon
which we are attempting to receive the best scientific
information we can.
If he wishes to move people away from that part of Cape Breton,
surely we should at least have the scientific basis upon which to
do it.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, because of recent events once again thousands and
thousands of families across Canada are living in fear and
watching their children every moment of every day for fear that
some perverted criminal that likes to hurt kids is on the loose.
Many of them are on the loose because of the failure of the
government to protect society the way it should.
Which member of the government will stand and declare that the
life of a child is far more important than the lives of these
perverted violent individuals?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my hon. colleague would
never want to politicize one of the most unfortunate and
difficult situations in Canada today. Our prayers and our hearts
go out to the family at this time. I am surprised my hon.
colleague would ask such a question.
* * *
[Translation]
POINT OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to an
incident, which occurred earlier during oral question period. It
involved the Minister of Canadian Heritage, when she was
answering a question raised by a Canadian Alliance member.
I want to make it clear that I am not questioning the value of
Mothers' Day and even less so the role played by the mother of
each member of this House.
However, during oral question period, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage mentioned her mother's presence in the gallery.
Mr. Speaker, we received a directive addressed by you to all the
House leaders, in which it is pointed out that the right to
mention the presence of certain individuals in the gallery is a
privilege which, under Beauchesne's parliamentary rules, is the
exclusive prerogative of the Chair.
Under this procedure, a list of the names of people who may be
pointed out by the Speaker is drawn up.
1500
Twice in this House, you strongly warned members, the Bloc
Quebecois member for de Repentigny and the Canadian Alliance
member for Edmonton Centre-East, to apologize, and you threatened
to no longer recognize them during statements by members or
during oral question period.
The aim of this point of order is simply to find out if there
are two standards in this House and to guide members on pointing
out the presence of certain guests. We each have visits from
family and want to know if, in the future, we can point out their
presence during oral question period.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was not aware of this directive, but I would like to
offer my deep apologies. Obviously, what I did went against the
standing orders. I would also like to apologize because I know
my Mum does not want to get me into trouble.
The Speaker: I can perhaps help the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans and the
Minister of Canadian Heritage by quoting from Marleau and
Montpetit, at page 239:
Only from the Speaker's gallery can distinguished visitors (such
as heads of state, heads of government and parliamentary
delegations invited to Canada) be recognized and introduced to
the House by the Speaker.
I have to say I was a bit surprised when the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, who was the deputy prime minister a few years
ago, mentioned the presence of someone, even though it was her
mother, in the gallery. It is difficult for the Chair to do
otherwise than to indicate to the minister that her recognition
was unacceptable from a procedural standpoint, as I have done for
the other members during statements by members.
[English]
However, I am sure the minister's mother, having heard the
hon. member's point of order, will now raise the matter with her
daughter and the matter will be dealt with accordingly.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
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(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
AUTOMOTIVE POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-350, an act to protect human health and the
environment by oxygenating automotive fuels.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing a bill
to protect human health and the environment by oxygenating
automotive fuels. This is the second time I have tried to do so.
[English]
However, hope springs eternal. The objective of the law is that
no person shall produce or import for use or sale in Canada or
sell or offer for sale any gasoline or diesel fuel that has an
oxygen content of less than 2.7% by weight, the idea being to
make gasoline purer and less polluting. I hope the bill will
receive the strong support of the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1505
MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT, 1987
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
that Bill S-3, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act,
1987 and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read
the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
PETITIONS
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present another petition from people of central
Ontario who support the re-establishment of VIA Rail service
between Toronto and Peterborough.
The petitioners point to the environmental advantages of this,
for example, the reduction in greenhouse emissions, and to
reduced accidents, reduced wear and tear and waste of time in
traffic jams on Highway 401. They also point out that this would
strengthen Peterborough as a business centre, educational centre
and tourist centre. It would also strengthen public transit for
the entire greater Toronto area.
I am pleased to say that this petition now has support in no
less than eight federal ridings, namely,
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Durham, Whitby—Ajax,
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Markham, Scarborough—Rouge River and
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington as well as Peterborough
itself.
The petitioners call upon parliament to re-establish VIA service
between Peterborough and Toronto.
MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on
behalf of a number of Manitobans who would like to bring to the
attention of the House the following: that the Government of
Canada may be asked to support the U.S. national missile defence
program.
They wish to point out that NMD is a unilateral initiative of
the United States and that it would be a step toward the
deployment of weapons in space, it would lead to a new arms race,
it would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and that
these treaties are cornerstones of the international
non-proliferation arms control and disarmament regimes long
supported by Canada.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to declare that
Canada objects to the national defence program of the United
States and they ask that parliament play a leadership role in
banning nuclear weapons and missile flight tests.
PESTICIDES
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from a number of
residents in Ottawa West—Nepean calling on the Government of
Canada and on the House of Commons in particular to support the
imposition of an immediate ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides
until such time as their use can be proven to be safe and without
long term harm to the environment, this as consistent with the
precautionary principle.
IRAQ
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition is signed by constituents in Ottawa
West—Nepean calling on the House of Commons to support, in
accordance with the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, the lifting of sanctions against
Iraq and the immediate cessation of bombing in Iraq.
VISTEON CANADA
Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present a petition signed by approximately 800
individuals regarding a plant closure announced in January of
this year. Visteon Corporation will be closed down and the plant
will be transferred to another lower wage country. Somewhere in
the order of 1,200 jobs will unfortunately be lost.
The petitioners would like to set up a meeting with the Minister
of Industry to review the situation and to look into possible
solutions for the people who will be adversely impacted by this
move.
* * *
1510
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 17 and 29.
.[Text]
Question No. 17—Mr. Joe Comartin:
With regard to Bow River water quality below Lake Louise,
Alberta: (a) what are the potential cumulative impacts that
development, community development and increased visitor use at
Lake Louise may have on Bow River water quality; (b) what
studies on the potential cumulative impacts are complete, and if
not complete, why not; (c) what cumulative impact studies
include considerations for communities downstream; (d) what is
the maximum value for effluent loading of the Bow River at Lake
Louise and below Lake Louise; (e) what are the parameters for
aesthetic considerations of Bow River water quality below Lake
Louise; (f) what are the parameters for “naturally occurring
water” and “measurement of” in relation to the Bow River below
Lake Louise; (g) what is the benchmark for the maximum amount
of sewage effluent to discharge for the Bow River at Lake Louise
and below Lake Louise; (h) what options to reduce effluent
volumes to the Bow River below Lake Louise have been
comprehensively evaluated; (i) based on the cumulative effects
of proposed development community development and
increased visitor use at Lake Louise,
what are the potential adverse impacts on the ecological
integrity of the Bow River?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): (a)
The potential cumulative impact of development and increased
visitor use at Lake Louise is to discharge more wastewater
effluent into the Bow River. If this caused an increase in
nutrients to this nutrient poor river, it could stimulate the
growth of algae and a shift in the diversity and abundance of
aquatic insects, with pollution tolerant species displacing more
common species, such as mayflies. Fish are not likely to be
affected.
(b) Water quality monitoring and aquatic studies of the Bow
River, at Lake Louise and elsewhere on the river, have been
ongoing since at least 1973. Flow records exist for many decades
earlier. Some of the studies, such as thesis research, are of
comparatively short duration but very useful in understanding the
ecology of the river, possible reaction to effluent and ways to
avoid adverse effects. The findings of the recent environmental
assessment for the proposed upgrade to the Banff wastewater
treatment plant are especially relevant to the Lake Louise
situation, as many of the issues are similar.
(c) The studies conducted on the Banff wastewater treatment
plant dealt with the issue of cumulative effect for communities
downstream from Lake Louise. The environmental screening for the
Lake Louise wastewater treatment plant will also address the
possible downstream effects of effluent produced at Lake Louise.
(d) The Lake Louise wastewater treatment plant is being designed
to meet both federal and provincial criteria for waste treatment
plants. In most cases, it will exceed these criteria.
(e) Potential aesthetic concerns are odour and visual impacts.
Currently they are not significant. Achieving the effluent
standards will address aesthetic concerns.
(f) The parameters for describing naturally occurring waters are
standard measurements of the presence and amounts of chemicals,
organisms and solids contained in the water column, for example
phosphorous, coliform bacteria and suspended solids. These are
measured at one location above Lake Louise and three locations
downstream from Lake Louise.
(g) There is no benchmark for the quantity of effluent
discharged by the Lake Louise wastewater treatment plant and it
is not conventional practice to set one. Instead, the performance
of a wastewater treatment plant is assessed on the quality of the
effluent, the goal being to avoid having a significant adverse
effect on the receiving waters. To that end, Parks Canada has
established and is working toward leadership targets that exceed
all conventional limits of performance for wastewater treatment
plants in Alberta.
(h) Key strategies for the area include water conservation,
limiting commercial growth and managing human use.
(i) See (a) above. The changes being contemplated for the
existing Lake Louise wastewater treatment plant are to improve its
capacity and effectiveness to ensure the potential cumulative
effect described in (a) does not occur, even if the quantity of
effluent discharge does increase as a result of more visitors to
Lake Louise.
Question No. 29—Mr. John Duncan:
With respect to federally built veterans' housing in the greater
Vancouver area since 1985: (a) how much money has the
government spent repairing water related damage; and (b) what
was the original cost of each such housing project or unit so
repaired?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): With regard to Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I am informed as follows:
The following table provides costs for construction and repairs
related to moisture damage for federally built veterans' housing
in the greater Vancouver area since 1985.
Veterans Affairs:
Veterans Affairs has not built any veterans housing or paid out
any money to repair water damage to federally built veterans'
housing in the greater Vancouver area since 1985.
* * *
[English]
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 31.
I would ask that the question and the answer to Starred Question
No. 31 be printed in Hansard as read.
.[Text]
*Question No. 31—Mrs. Elsie Wayne:
When does the government anticipate finalizing a just and full
settlement with the Merchant Navy veterans?
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Western Economic Diversification)(Francophonie), Lib):
On May 4, 2001, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced an
additional $34.5 million to provide full compensation for
qualified Canadian Merchant Navy veterans and their surviving
spouses. These funds bring the total monies for Merchant Navy
veterans to $104.5 million and ensure that all successful
applicants will receive 100% of their eligible payment. The
majority of the second payment cheques will be in the mail by the
end of May.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all
remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
The House resumed 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 third time and passed,
and of the amendment.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: The division on the amendment will be
deferred until the conclusion of government orders later this
day.
* * *
TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-26, an act to amend
the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise
Tax Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of tobacco, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee.
Hon. David Collenette (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1515
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time?
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. David Collenette (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, an
act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada,
be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the
amendment.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak today before this House, not only as a member of
parliament, but also as a citizen concerned with protecting the
environment.
Like my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I am in favour of
legislation aimed at protecting the environment and of measures
focusing on environments at risk, be they land or water.
Is it necessary to remind this House that the Bloc Quebecois
supported the bill creating the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park? Our support, however, is neither blind nor naive. We will
continue to support pro-environment bills, but not at any price
nor in just any way. Hence our opposition to Bill C-10.
Our primary objection is that the federal government's intention
is to use this bill to appropriate lands that are under
provincial jurisdiction by making orders concerning the creation
of marine areas.
The federal government would contravene section 92(5) of the
Constitution Act, 1867, which provides that the management and
sale of public lands are a provincial, not a federal
jurisdiction. The federal government cannot use an environmental
protection measure to appropriate provincial lands. It should
seek the provinces' co-operation, instead of resorting to its
usual steamrolling and centralizing approach.
This is yet another example of the federal government's
stubbornness about a process that works well. Again, the
establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the
result of co-operation and partnership. Why does the government
refuse to listen to reason?
It is the case with the young offenders legislation. The Quebec
approach, which is based on rehabilitation and reintegration, has
proven effective, but the federal government continues its push
for a hard line approach. Today, I realize that the government is
using the same process with this bill in that it wants to pass it
first and then look at the issues.
I fear for the future of intergovernmental relations because we
cannot trust a process that does not respect the public interest
and, more importantly, because we cannot trust a government that
does not respect its own departments. The Department of Fisheries
and Oceans already has a program of marine protection zones in
place. I stress the fact that this program is already in effect.
The result of all this is a state of confusion, and particularly
of lack of respect. This is a case where the winner will be the
one that will manage to gain the upper hand. Within the same
government, we could end up with a duplication of tasks and
skills.
1520
Why do we want duplication? How can the government justify this
duplication? Why is it necessary? How many levels are required?
How far will the federal government go in its quest for
duplication?
What worries me about this scenario is the rivalry that will
result. On the one hand, we have the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, which has expertise in this area. There is the Department
of the Environment, which also has expertise in this area. On the
other hand, we have Heritage Canada, which has a mandate to
promote Canadian unity. Which of them can we trust? Which of
them should we trust: Heritage Canada, which uses the environment
for national unity purposes, or Fisheries and Oceans, which
manages our marine natural resources? Can we trust the federal
government to make the right choice in this case? Sometimes, I
wonder whether the government has any judgment left, let alone
common sense.
My main concern about the bill is the flagrant lack of
co-operation within the government itself. I strongly doubt
whether such behaviour would reassure the other levels of
government regarding the introduction and enforcement of a bill
which intentions are noble, but which really boils down to
unhealthy rivalry.
This brings me to another question: Who will have the upper hand
in the event of conflict? Which department will have the last
word? If the federal government answers this, it will be
tantamount to revealing its true objective and its true nature as
far as the purpose of this bill goes. This could easily become a
two edged sword. On the one hand, it insists that the
environment is a priority, while on the other it takes advantage
of this fine principle to flog national identity, using Heritage
Canada which, I would remind hon. members, possesses no expertise
whatsoever as far as the environment is concerned.
The result is regrettable. Even if we do not go so far as to
call it a downright dangerous appropriation of funds and
resources, there is confusion, total and insurmountable
confusion. There is such confusion that even those in charge of
the various departments are lost themselves.
If there is confusion among the departments, it is easy to
imagine what confusion there would be among the key stakeholders.
Which department will be the one to really administer this
protected zone? Which one will really administer the
stakeholders? Which will penalize those breaking the law? All
these questions remain without answers, and no answers will be
forthcoming, for there is no one capable of answering without
sinking into a morass of duplicating and overlapping policies.
With this much confusion within the federal government itself,
it is easy to imagine the confusion there would be at other
levels of government. To whom would a provincial government such
as Quebec go in connection with the administration of a protected
zone? I have no idea.
This confusion gives rise to another problem as well. The
problem is a fundamental one. If the ministers of a government
cannot work together, how can we expect the provincial
governments and Quebec to collaborate? It is understandable why
the Government of Quebec would refuse to collaborate in this
project. The federal government is unable to tell us clearly and
precisely why this bill comes from Canadian Heritage, when
Fisheries and Oceans Canada already has a marine area protection
program. The Bloc Quebecois cannot but oppose such an incredible
administrative muddle as this.
The way this bill is to be implemented is not clear and cannot
be because of the nature of its objectives.
1525
Canadian Heritage is assuming jurisdictions that are not its
own. It is also trying, with this bill, to take over areas that
are not its areas and thus to meddle once again in provincial
jurisdictions and in Quebec's jurisdiction, under cover of the
environment. How far will the federal government go in taking
over Quebec's and provincial jurisdictions?
I reiterate my opposition to Bill C-10 on protected marine areas
for several reasons, including the overlap of the
responsibilities of departments and, more particularly, because
of the indirect approach taken in appropriating jurisdictions
that belong exclusively to the provinces and Quebec.
Once again, the federal government has chosen to introduce a
bill that ignores action already taken, and successfully.
I fear for the future of people who believe in this government,
which takes no account of their interests. I fear for the future
of our environment when the objectives of a bill put before us
ignore its primary focus, the environment.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member suggested that Bill C-10 interfered in provincial
jurisdiction. He also noted that the proposed legislation had
areas of overlap with provincial legislation.
Would the member advise the House of one example of overlap
to which he refers?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Speaker, the example is simple. These
are provincial jurisdictions, these are Quebec's jurisdictions.
The two levels of government co-operated when the agreement on
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was signed. The question
begs the answer.
Duplication on the government's part will be twofold. It is
trying to take over lands that belong to Quebec, lands that come
under provincial jurisdiction, as stated in the Constitution Act,
1867. It is duplication to try to take over lands by using such
a noble piece of legislation, a bill dealing with marine areas
and wildlife conservation on certain lands.
I have been asked to give examples. Well, it is all the pitiful
attempts by the government to use the environment to get hold of
some land. This is unbelievable, in my opinion.
We must protect the environment, but through co-operation with
Quebec and in the respect of existing jurisdictions. The federal
government did it once. The Quebec government was very
co-operative and this allowed for the protection of the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine conservation areas. That agreement
was made possible thanks to Quebec.
Why is the government now putting this in the hands of Heritage
Canada, when there is overlapping even in that department? We
wonder about the reasons for such duplication. Just imagine. This
government already has experts in the Department of the
Environment and in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and
the sponsor of this bill is the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We
wonder why. I am asked “Where is the duplication? Where is
the overlapping?” Nothing could be more obvious.
1530
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I take part in the debate on Bill C-10,
on marine conservation areas.
We know that the bill reflects the pan-Canadian vision that is
characteristic of the present government. History will probably
remember this government as the champion of centralization, as
far as the development of this great beautiful Canada is
concerned, a country that is more and more untied because Ottawa
wants it to be so, even though it does not necessarily have the
agreement of the Canadian population. Of course, members
understand that if I mention the agreement of the Canadian
population, it is because it is obvious that there are doubts
about the agreement of the Quebec population.
We know that the present federal government, under this
parliament and under the previous one, has been guided by the
social union framework agreement, signed in February 1999 by nine
provinces out of ten. Mr. Bouchard, the head of Quebec state,
like all his predecessors no matter their party allegiances,
refused to take part in a scheme aimed at trivializing Quebec by
refusing to recognize its specificity and the existence of its
people.
This is why Premier Lucien Bouchard refused to sign the social
union framework agreement, which has nonetheless actually been
implemented.
It is a tragedy for Quebec and for the people of Quebec to see
the actions of this institution, which is so pretentiously
democratic. We saw it recently at the summit of the Americas in
Quebec City. Canada praised democracy and demanded democracy from
other countries, even taking a tough stance against the Cuban
government. This does not ring true when one knows how things
work in this great Canadian democracy, where returning officers
are still appointed on a partisan basis.
When the premier of Quebec, the head of the Quebec state,
refused to sign in 1999, as one of his predecessors refused to
sign in 1982, the unilateral patriation of the constitution
under Prime Minister Trudeau, it did not change anything to
Canadian logic. It did not disturb the federal steam roller,
which is there to level the provinces. It is there to standardize
them, which may be necessary. That is one of the constraints of
globalization to increase efficiency in Canada, but it is a
tragedy for Quebec to be stripped of its specificity and of its
distinct character and to be moulded, week after week, month
after month, into the great Canadian whole with no attention
being paid to its distinctive features.
No attention is being paid to the fact that Quebec is supposed
to be, according to the member for Saint-Maurice and Prime
Minister of Canada, a distinct society. It is the government
people themselves who invented this concept, following the
commitments made in Verdun, where Quebecers were told that they
were a distinct society. Then, without even using that
expression, commitments were made during the referendum campaign,
just as Mr. Trudeau had made commitments in 1980. He had said
that he would put his head on the chopping block if changes were
not made, although he did not say which changes exactly.
They put theirs seats on the line for Quebec to be duly
recognized within the Canadian federation.
What happened in the following months? They announced that the
constitution was being patriated, which happened in 1982 without
Quebec's consent. This phenomenon occurred again in 1999 with the
social union.
This is quite a change; the more it changes the more it is the
same. No efforts were spared, through a shameless propaganda
campaign to the tune of $1,000 or $2,000, as we say in Quebec
“The sky is the limit”, to try to convince Quebecers they can be
good Canadians. They have tried to convince Quebecers slowly and
carefully of the value of the concept of nations, founding
nations in particular, and distinct society to mention a few, to
get back to this one, which was put forward by the Primer
Minister himself. They never said to which areas distinct society
would apply.
Would it apply to marine conservation areas? No, it would not.
Would it apply to parental leave? No, it would not. Would it
apply to the young offenders issue? No, it would not. Would it
apply to privacy policy, where I dare say Quebec is far ahead of
Canada as it is in many other areas?
1535
We could also mention the personal information issue about which
the Conseil du patronat as well as the Quebec Bar and the
Confédération des syndicats nationaux told the government “stay
out of this. Quebec's legislation is excellent. We do not need
the strong arm of the federal government interfering in the area
of personal information. Stay out of this. We have good
legislation in Quebec”.
Distinct society does not apply in this area any more than it
does with regard to parental leave, marine conservation areas and
5$ a day care. If the government was consistent, it would say “We
made commitments during the referendum campaign.
With all due respect for democracy in Quebec and for the people
of Quebec, we are going to implement what distinct society means.
Distinct society means an unconditional right to opt out,
because Quebecers are distinct, because they have successfully
handled a particular responsibility of our collective life. We
therefore have no need to duplicate what already exists”.
No, that is asking too much. Why? Because we know perfectly
well that, if this government dared to do such a thing openly,
particularly with the knowledge of the English majority in this
country, there would be quite an outcry from English Canadians,
who would once again massively reject, as they did the
Charlottetown accord, any vague desire by this government to
recognize that the people of Quebec have distinct rights or
characteristics.
It is a dead end for Quebec. Slowly but surely, Quebecers are
coming to the realization that there is no future in this
country. There is no future for characteristics specific to
Quebec or for the normal evolution of the Quebec people in this
country. It is two countries in one. It is two different kinds
of logic: the Canadian one and the Quebec one. This was the
simple description that Marcel Léger, the well known and
marvellous Parti Quebecois organizer, came up with during the
constitutional debate. René Lévesque described it as two
scorpions in the same bottle. If we go further back in time, the
Laurendeau-Dunton commission referred to two solitudes in 1963.
That is the real Canada, a country in which the provinces are
all put on the same footing, a country in which the power will be
inexorably displaced to Ottawa, where decisions from coast to
coast will be made in Ottawa. It has no time to lose with
Quebec, which will be made to fit in and slowly disappear.
People need to be aware that, particularly because Quebec cannot
control its immigration, some demographers feel that the Island
of Montreal will be non-francophone within eight, ten or twelve
years. People need to be aware that, as a result of immigration
and the birth rate, Quebec will go from its present 24% of the
Canadian population to just 21% within 25 years and just 16%
within 50 years.
There is, therefore, an implacable process under way that will
end up with Quebec's being trivialized, neutralized, if it
continues to be part of Canada. Quebec must leave, and the
necessity of this is illustrated by Bill C-10 on marine areas, in
which the government announces quite openly that the ownership of
these will be federal, whereas there is a law in place which
states that the beds of the rivers, the St. Lawrence and its
estuary are the property of the government of Quebec.
This is confrontation. This is what all these squabbles about
overlap are, these meetings of public servants who want to
wage administrative battles to the detriment of the public purse.
It is the poor old taxpayers who will have to pay through the
nose for all these multiple meetings, evidence of how conflicted
this country is, while the federal government ignores the recent
example of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, which offered
a model of a well administered conservation area. This is
no longer a model for the new Canada that has been under
construction since 1999, with social union and all the logic that
goes with it. This needs to be understood in future by all
concerned.
I am sure that some hon. members on the other side are unaware
of the gravity of this situation.
1540
There are social democrats and humanists among the Liberals, and
among others, who have not assessed the situation. There are
people of vision, who love Quebec and know it. I am sure they do
not want Quebec to be minimized and ultimately wiped off the map.
Under the democratic process mentioned earlier, what are we
reduced to, if we want some degree of vision? The people of
Quebec are reduced to being cut down, and systematically so, and
will end up looking like Acadia, with all its charming influence.
Then, the next stage is Louisiana and folklore. That is the sad
truth. It is relentless.
My colleagues from Quebec sitting opposite must understand what
machinations they are involved in. It is abnormal to be so
negligent, so careless. Or perhaps they are happy, I do not
know. There is one thing, though, there are things to be said
between Quebecers and between right thinking persons, on the
evolution of this people.
I must mention the article by Lysiane Gagnon in La Presse on
Saturday, which gave rather nasty and cavalier treatment to a
report on the constitutional position of the Liberal Party of
Quebec . The report was written by an eminent constitutionalist,
Benoît Pelletier, from the Outaouais region.
It is a discussion paper for right thinking federalists, those
who still dream of a Canada where Quebec will be respected,
something I see as Utopian, a dead end. Ms. Gagnon says, and I
quote:
In the next round, if there is one, God help us—
As if the problem were resolved.
As if the status quo existed. This is the type of smoke and
mirrors that we get from these types of individuals, such as Ms.
Gagnon, and from others in Quebec, but Quebec is caught up in
Canada's moving ahead.
It is somewhat like what the Secretary of State for Amateur
Sport wrote in his document entitled “Building Canada through
Sport”, which is a monumental mistake, but which at least is
transparent. Since February 1999, Canada has been moving ahead,
it is not the status quo. What we have is a Canada that is moving
ahead like a steamroller, a Canada that trivializes the role of
the provinces, something which may be necessary for its own good
performance, but which is tragic for Quebec.
Ms. Gagnon continues by saying:
What would be achieved, for example, in having enshrined in the
constitution a specificity that is obvious and that exists in any
case?
“A specificity that is obvious and that exists in any case”.
This “that exists in any case” is the type of smoke and mirrors
used by Quebec federalists; it would exist in any case if it were
enshrined in Canada's constitution. However Quebec's specificity does
not exist in writing. According to these people, it is a
perception, and yet, Quebec exists, the Quebec nation exists, the
Quebec homeland exists. This is not recognized here and this is
what is tragic.
In my opinion, this is why Quebecers will not always be able to
have it both ways. We will lose at one level or at the other. If
we do not react, as we are being asked to by the Premier of
Quebec, Bernard Landry, it is going to be a matter of life and
death for Quebec, in terms of its influence.
We know the influence Quebec has right now. Those who, like us
MPs, have had the privilege of travelling, of meeting people on
the international scene, see the planet differently. They see a
planet with a rather impressive Quebec geographically, a Quebec
that is home to seven million francophones who have a definite
role to play and who contribute to humanity, which is unique,
with its French influences, of course, and its English
influences, with its important Montreal minority, a minority that
is very respectable and very rich in every sense of the word,
and its allophone population, because Quebec is incidentally a
wonderful destination for immigrants.
1545
There is also the Anglo-Saxon influences, particularly from
Canada and the United States. We are a truly unique people, which
is clearly an asset in terms of its contribution to the planet
and to humanity. One just has to look at the situation from afar
to realize that the fact that Quebec is not sovereign is a
complete aberration, Mr. Trudeau would have said that it was a
crime against humanity.
It makes one wonder where Canada's social democrats are and why
they are not leading the fight for Quebec's sovereignty. Quebec
has things to say. Quebec is different. What Quebec has to say
would benefit not only Canada, but the international community as
a whole.
I cannot get over how this great country of Canada has failed to
grasp that Quebec's sovereignty would benefit everyone.
I cannot get over the naïveté, bad faith or cynicism of which
Lysiane Gagnon is capable when she writes things like this about
Quebec's specificity, which exists anyway. I cannot get over it.
It is sticking one's head in the sand to reason like this when
one is aware of the constitutional problem, because there is one.
There is a constitutional problem in Canada.
I think we must go back to the basics of Quebec-Canada
relations. There is something wrong with the course of action
adopted following the 1995 referendum, which, in my view,
consisted of three scenarios.
The first was the status quo, business as usual. The second
scenario, driven by English Canadians frightened by the 49.4% of
votes in favour, and the 60% of francophone votes in favour, and
I think we are still allowed to say this, was to try to please
Quebecers. The government would try to amend the Constitution of
Canada so that Quebecers would feel comfortable in this country
moving ahead. The country would amend its constitution to
reflect the will of the people, because it had had a real scare,
because for much of the evening on October 30, 1995, Quebec had
decided in favour of sovereignty. As luck would have it, around
11.30 p.m., that sovereignty slipped out of our grasp. We have
lived with this.
I think that English Canada could have learned something from
this. The Liberal government therefore had the choice of making
the country more welcoming to Quebecers.
A third scenario, which was the one the Liberals adopted, was to
dig in their heels; let Quebecers do what they liked, let them
make their own choices, but in Canada, this was the direction
they were taking. Take it or leave it. They had no time and no
energy to spare to try to find approaches that would make
Quebecers happy because they would never be happy anyway.
So, they have chosen the hard line. They came up with Plan b
and they enlisted the ineffable Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs. All of this was part of one big scheme. The style the
minister has chosen is not conducive to problem solving.
They dug in their heels and said that that was the way to go
and that Quebec could get on board or withdraw. The ball is now
in Quebec's court. I think this deserves more in depth
consideration. To help us with our reflection, we have before us
today a technical bill that is utterly misleading and is part of
a Canadian centralist vision where the federal government calls
the shots and the provinces have to yield. In 8, 10, 12, 20, or
25 years from now, the provinces will be just big regional county
municipalities.
1550
This may be a good thing for English speaking Canada, but I
maintain that it would be a tragedy for Quebec. I will fight
tooth and nail to prevent this tragedy.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what a
beautiful follow-up when, after having spoken myself on a bill
described as technical, I hear a general explanation such as
the one my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois just made.
This debate today is very important on very important
legislation about the environment. The government has trivialized
it, but my colleague really put it into perspective to show how
important and urgent it is and perhaps show, as we heard, how
dishonest the government is.
As the hon. member for Trois-Rivières was saying, a bill like
this one is once again an encroachment. This is done so often
that we are not in a status quo situation any more. We are
getting into something that might be dangerous for Quebecers.
How can Quebec counter such a bill and all those encroachments
in its areas of jurisdiction? If such a measure and such
encroachment on areas of jurisdiction persist, how can the
Quebecers who are listening today know what will happen and how
can Quebec counter these attacks?
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague
from Châteauguay for his question, which is not easy to answer.
There is no magic way to counter the initiatives, which are to
some extent illegitimate, of a government like this one, because
our democratic rules are involved.
A government can legislate in areas where it believes it is
legitimate to do so. When this government decides to more or less
disregard the constitution, particularly where ethics are
concerned, then the roads are clear, as we say in Quebec. It will
be up to the voters to make a decision, following a properly
conducted election campaign with a real debate. Hopefully, if
there is a referendum, this type of issue will be raised.
It is all the more odious that listening to the member for
Châteauguay, I was reminded that this government, which claims to
be democratic and boasts about Canadian democracy, acted without
a mandate, without consultation, without proper debate and
without a popular verdict, in other words without the support of
the population and without any referendum, when it decided in
1982 to repatriate the Constitution and in 1999 to launch the
social union.
On the one hand, the government decided to repatriate and bring
a major amendment to the constitution by entrenching into it a
charter of rights, which was a transcendent event in the history
of Canada, without a referendum, without seeking the opinion of
the public and without any mandate. The issue was never raised
during the election of 1980, but that did not stop the
government. Neither did the government address the issue of
social union in 1997 as we had. There had been discussions
between the provinces to try to improve co-operation with Ottawa.
When the federal government started throwing its weight around to
impose its point of view, while giving goodies to the provinces
that had given in, it had no mandate to do so, there had been no
debate, let alone a referendum.
This is all the more unbearable today that we feel that the
government is relying on this transcendent event in the history
of Canada. Some people are talking about the major one, with the
repatriation of the constitution, and the minor one, with the
social union, in the evolution of Canada, a Canada that is moving
ahead.
1555
Today, the government draws on the social union to come up with
this kind of bill, which is giving obvious moral authority to the
Government of Canada without having any real legitimacy. It has
no legitimacy, as it arises from a people's consensus that would
have the Canadian government head in that direction. It is thus
very wrong to act in this way, especially when the federal
government claims that Canada is a democratic country.
I do not know if this answers the question of my colleague from
Châteauguay, but like other measures taken in recent months, this
bill clearly shows that this is how things are done in Ottawa
now, and that Quebecers need to take note, because the provinces
including Quebec will be cut out of the loop.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the previous
two presentations by the Bloc.
It is the considered opinion of everyone who I have talked to in
my travels across Canada that the worst part of the legislation
is that many of the groups that would be mobilized against the
legislation need to know which areas are being targeted by the
government. The government refuses to include the specifics on
which areas it is considering for marine conservation protection
under the heritage bill.
Would the member like to comment as to which areas are being
specifically targeted in the legislation in terms of what the
people in Quebec might know about the government's intention?
The bill was brought up in the first session of the last
parliament. It has been around in various formats for a long
time and objections to it have also have been around for a long
time. The government has said it would have those specifics but
we still do not have them. I know the member was here in the
last parliament. Does he feel the circumstances have changed
since the last parliament? Is he able to address this obvious
bad piece of legislation, without any schedules attached that
need to be there, in order to mobilize local groups to comment?
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague's
question, I do not feel there is much interest for this bill in
Quebec.
If I go by the consultation that was supposed to take place, I
am told that hardly anyone showed any interest in it. I do not
know if it opens the door wider to federal intervention or if
Ottawa will be reluctant to intervene since there is hardly any
interest or support coming from Quebec.
I will take my area as an example; I cannot see the federal
government stepping in when it came to a rather extraordinary
body of water, namely Lake Saint-Pierre, which might be
designated by UNESCO as a world heritage site for its flora and
fauna. I cannot imagine that the federal government would throw
its weight around.
Unless the federal government waves its constitutional magic
wand, pouring in millions of dollars, using the surpluses, money
from the unemployment insurance fund, pretending to be generous
with Quebecers and giving them goodies, in our opinion anyway, to
buy their conscience when they should condemn federal
intervention and stand their ground. They might instead see it as
being advantageous to their association or pressure group, making
it easier money wise, as they would be freed from financial
constraints.
As we know the flesh is weak. We know the government can be
forward-looking. We know it, the Privy Council is here to make
sure of it. Unless the federal government is banking on human
weakness, I hope that the people, in Quebec at least, will see
through it and be on their guard for Quebecers' sake.
1600
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-10, an
act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.
The Canadian Alliance supports sustaining and developing national
parks and marine conservation areas that exist for the benefit
and enjoyment of everyone. The Canadian Alliance also supports
sustainable development and environmental protection regulations
that have been fully debated by parliamentarians.
The bill is bad legislation in that it strengthens the power of
cabinet while diminishing the effectiveness of elected
representatives. No valid argument exists at this time for the
need for the legislation.
It is obvious the government is not fully committed to the file,
as legislation has been allowed to die on the order paper at
least twice previously. We know it is unnecessary in that the
regulatory framework already exists to accomplish what the bill
purports to want to achieve. To sum it up, it is a power grab by
the heritage department, and other government departments are not
saying anything when they should be.
I have a living example from when I was in the Atlantic
provinces last week with the fisheries committee. There is a
fisheries department with its set of regulations for marine
conservation. There is a lot of offshore oil and gas development
off the coast of Newfoundland and off the south coast of Nova
Scotia. There is a board called the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore
Petroleum Board which has full representation from the province
and from the federal government for joint decision making. Its
job is to issue the leases for oil and gas development.
If there is one thing that would be at complete conflict with
oil and gas development, it is obviously the creation of a no-go
marine conservation area. One would think that would also have
joint federal and provincial administration and decision making.
Guess what? It does not.
Where is the natural incentive for the province if it is fully
represented on the offshore petroleum board and unrepresented on
marine conservation areas as envisioned under the Fisheries Act
or under the fisheries department and by this legislation?
Obviously, it sets up a federal-provincial problem and an
incentive that is unbalanced in favour of offshore oil and gas
development at the possible expense of the environment. It is
hardly a balanced approach to take and an obvious shortcoming of
this and other marine conservation legislation.
In my question to the Bloc member for Trois-Rivières I spoke
about my concerns regarding knowing where these 29 parks
contemplated by the marine conservation legislation of the
Department of Heritage existed. The legislation should describe
the location of the parks it intends to create and insert the
information into the schedule.
There was lots of time to do it. If the department did not have
time when it first submitted the legislation to the last
parliament, it certainly has had time by now to fill in lots of
the gaps. However it does not want to because it might mobilize
even more people concerned about the legislation.
1605
Right now if the government was going to create a land based
park, a new national park, it would have to bring it to this
place. If the bill goes through and it wanted to create a new
offshore park, order in council or cabinet could make that
decision. It never has to come here. That is totally
inappropriate. However, if we ever wanted to reduce or remove
one of those areas from that status, then it would have to come
back here. That is what I call hypocrisy, a double standard and
any other number of negative terms.
I spoke on the bill before in its previous form. It has not
changed a whole bunch. There are things that are not well known
to the public that need to be known. For example, fishing
activity, aquaculture or fisheries management, marine navigation,
marine safety plans are all subject to the approval of the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Canadian
Heritage under this bill. That is a power grab.
One can see there is already difficulty, and I saw examples of
this last week, between the agenda of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage and the agenda of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
in terms of which one is the lead agency, which one deals with
the stakeholders and all that when it comes to offshore oil and
gas development on the east coast. We are going to get there on
the west coast in terms of oil and gas development. The debate
and the discussion is going to move forward. Quite honestly, it
is a mess. We do not need this piece of legislation.
Right now it is very clear whose mandate and responsibility some
of these activities are. It is going to become diffuse, subject
to competing agendas. We are going to see the special interest
groups and the lobbyists using leverage on various government
ministers and departments. They can go to one department and ask
for their wish list. If they do not get it, they can threaten,
cajole or do other things to go to the other department. They
can handout their Brownie badges to whoever they think is
appealing to their special interest, and the greater good gets
lost. This is a way to fudge the ability to act in the national
interest. It compromises the ability to act in the national
interest and increases the viability of special interests to win
the day rather than the greater good.
The bill, without any social economic studies, could for example
prohibit exploration or exploitation of hydrocarbons, minerals,
aggregates or any other inorganic material.
Let us think about what I just said a few minutes ago. To set
up one of these areas which excluded or prohibited fishing, the
minister of fisheries and the minister of heritage would have to
say it was okay. Why would the minister of heritage be asked if
it was okay for fishing to be allowed some place on the British
Columbia coast, or off the coast of Nunavut or off the coast of
Nova Scotia? This is a problem. Any stakeholder that has looked
at the legislation is very concerned about the implications.
Those are all problems.
What is the lead agency? If we have a marine conservation area,
which agency?
With this we would have three federal departments that could set
up marine conservation areas. Which department would set it up?
How would they make that determination? Which would be the lead
agency of the three to help chair this discussion?
1610
I asked those kinds of questions last week in Halifax of
fisheries officials and others. There were no answers. We are
debating legislation that would change the status quo, which has
been long contemplated. Nobody is even trying to respond to this
kind of request in the public domain. This is nuts. The
government members should be embarrassed at the mess it has
created on marine conservation areas.
I have a major problem too in that provincial responsibility is
potentially being completely co-opted by the federal government.
I already talked about the natural incentive for the provinces
when it comes to the offshore petroleum board, the Canada-Nova
Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. However it has major
implications. Let me talk about west coast oil and gas again.
We will have a new provincial government this week. The
election is on Wednesday and I think even the governing party has
conceded of which is unheard. So we will have some new
directions.
British Columbia worked long and hard and fought the federal
government over who owned the seabed between Vancouver Island and
the mainland coast. It went to the supreme court. This was a
very long, detailed, expensive debate and proceeding. Guess
what? The province won, it owns the seabed.
There is nothing in the legislation that excludes the ability of
the Government of Canada to pre-empt that provincial jurisdiction
by creating a marine conservation area in that area. That is a
very clear conflict of jurisdiction and one that should be
automatically clarified in the bill but it is not.
However the other parts of the coast where the province does not
own the seabed are still problematic in terms of a federal power
grab and a federal administration that is largely out of touch,
particularly with remote coastal concerns on the British Columbia
coast. I can speak to that with great authority, so can
virtually all of the municipal level politicians and many of the
provincial politicians from that part of the country.
We will have a major debate and a major initiative on things
like what we will do on west coast oil and gas development. We
do not need this piece of legislation hanging around in the
current format to muddy that whole debate.
We know the heritage department has an agenda, but it will not
fess up and tell us what it is. I have already said why it will
not. One reason is because it does not want to stir up people
who would be very upset with the specifics of what it is
contemplating. Therefore, it wants to keep it general and broad,
then it will only have to deal with the large, urban based groups
that will look at the legislation more as a framework or a legal
document rather than as something specific that is affecting a
bunch of stakeholders. Somebody called it the mushroom syndrome,
and that is right.
1615
The bill requires provincial governments to obey it. The bill
impinges on provincial jurisdiction in many ways. It will
prevent honest fishermen, hardworking oil and gas exploration
workers, local anglers, recreational boaters and others from
being able either to earn a livelihood or enjoy themselves, at
the possible expense of achieving almost nothing. If this were
truly going to do something for the environment we would be more
than happy to support it. The reality is quite different.
I did attend some of the heritage committee meetings. I was
party to helping bring some witnesses to that committee. I was
embarrassed at the treatment they received from some of the
government members. The chief of the Campbell River Band was at
the committee. The North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force was there.
West coast fishermen were there. Rather than hearing the
committee accept their legitimate face value concerns, what did
we hear? We heard a lecture from the chairman of the committee.
Quite frankly, I was amazed at the treatment meted out to people
who had travelled so far. I expressed my great concern at that
time. Now, much later, I am still out of sorts about what
happened on that particular day.
This is a sloppy piece of legislation. As I said, we would have
three federal departments that could protect marine areas, two
being Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, and this bill would put Heritage Canada into that picture
as well. Any time we have more than one party responsible for
managing something, we get diffused management and diffused
objectives and things tend to fall apart. I learned that during
my long working career. I think most Canadians would understand
that precisely.
Also we have provincial governments that have legislation.
Believe it or not, we have had provincial governments far-sighted
enough to create marine conservation legislation. I ask members
to guess what they have done under that legislation. They have
actually created marine protection areas. We have quite a few in
British Columbia that have been set up under the provincial
government. Is that not marvellous, Mr. Speaker?
The legislation does not appear to deal with all of that. Yes,
the government has had a very complicit government in British
Columbia to deal with in the last 10 years. Hopefully we will
have a new government in British Columbia that will set some new
directions and new initiatives in terms of dealing with the
federal government on a much more equivalent basis rather than in
terms of the mushroom syndrome.
We are very concerned that we will be pre-empted from an
opportunity to fully develop industry in British Columbia and in
other jurisdictions by legislation that blindly creates parks
without taking a lot of stakeholder interests into account. It
is clear from the way this bill has been developed that those
things have not been taken into account.
We recommend that the municipal level of government be put into
this legislation in a meaningful way so that it can have a
decision making role in whatever these specific areas are that
municipalities are interested in. There has been no movement in
that regard.
In summary, this is a bad bill and we should kill it.
1620
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thought that was a most enlightening dissertation and
exposition of legislation now before the House. I wish to thank
my hon. colleague for being so specific and thoughtful in his
analysis and for the thoroughness with which he approached the
problem with and the difficulties in the legislation.
There was one part of the legislation he hinted at that I think
we should explore further. It seems to me that the legislation
seems to be taking out of parliament the very essence of what
parliament was created to do for the people of Canada. The
difficulty centres around the possibility of an agency other than
even a government agency actually creating a marine conservation
area.
I know that this is particularly dangerous. It is bad enough if
parliament gives this kind of power to an individual minister or
to the cabinet. However, when the clauses contained in this
legislation actually make it possible for a special interest
group to force and to cause to be created a conservation area
which then does not allow certain kinds of development to take
place, then not only have we really usurped what the people of
Canada elected us to do here but we have insulted every single,
solitary person in the House, including members on the government
side.
I would ask the hon. member whether he could explain a little
more clearly whether that in fact could happen under this
legislation. If that one provision is there, the bill should be
scrapped, if for no other reason than that one, because it denies
the House.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, the legislation
would pre-empt parliament, and yes indeed, cabinet would be able
to create these marine conservation areas in a vacuum. I am very
concerned about that. That is reason enough to topple the bill
as far as I am concerned.
We live in an age that is cluttered with information and new
information. That applies to every trade association, every
stakeholder group, provincial, federal and municipal levels of
government and the citizen at large.
One of the things that this or any parliament does is to open a
window and allow people to catch up to the debate. It allows
time for people who have an interest in the specifics to mobilize
and to offer their input, pro, con and constructive. Those are
the essentials of why we need to make that change, not only to
this legislation but to any legislation. More and more of the
legislation in this place is an enabling framework to allow
either the bureaucracy to enact regulations or the cabinet to
make decisions that basically are announced the next day by a
press release or a press conference. The spin is managed and it
is a done deal. That is not, in the long run, what is good for
society.
An hon. member: Is this a Henry VIII clause?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed listening to the remarks of the member for Vancouver
Island North. In fact the member and a group from the fisheries
committee were just in Nova Scotia. As he mentioned in his
speech certainly there were some concerns raised by fishermen
about the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and
decisions it might make that would impact their industry. There
also were some concerns raised on marine conservation areas that
might or might not be proposed in the future.
I wonder if the member would expand a little further on the
concerns that fishermen expressed to us and others relative to
those two points, especially as they relate to marine
conservation areas.
1625
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
and the comments. We had some very good submissions to the
committee dealing with the issues but people were asking
questions for which they should have been able to get clear
answers. One of the things I found most interesting is that we
did not get a clear answer on whether people are allowed to fish
in a marine conservation area. That was one of the questions
asked. The official answer was yes, but of course that is not
really the case.
If members listened to my speech and my analysis they will know
that people can fish if they make application and it is approved,
under this legislation, by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. That is a far different
answer. The way it works now in most marine jurisdictions is
that fishing is open unless it has been closed by the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans. Who is managing the fisheries? It is
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister of heritage
is not managing the fishery nor should she be.
We were also asked, and we in turn asked, who the lead agency is
when there are multiple jurisdictions looking after marine
conservation areas. There was not a clear answer on that
question either. There obviously should be. There has to be.
There must be. It might not always be the same agency or
department. If we end up with three we may have to zone our
marine conservation areas as to who is responsible for which ones
in terms of being the lead. This is very frustrating to marine
conservation proponents as well.
Even though we had the expertise in the room that we thought was
appropriate under the circumstances, we did not get clarification
on the important questions related to the legislation. There
should be a whole lot more people getting a whole lot more
concerned about the legislation. Part of the problem is that it
has been around so long that nobody takes it seriously any more.
One day it is going to be dropped on them and then they will be
concerned.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find that
the House is eager to give unanimous consent to the following
motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding the decision taken by this House earlier
today with respect to the third reading of Bill C-26, when debate
on Bill C-10 is completed this day, the House shall revert to
consideration of the third reading stage of Bill C-26, provided
that, at 6.30 p.m. today, Bill C-26 shall be deemed to have been
read a third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Members have heard the
terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent to proceed this
way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, an
act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada,
be read the second time and referred to a committee and of the
amendment.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague
from Vancouver Island North for his presentation.
1630
I am amazed and dismayed at his comments that the fishing
community and community representatives from British Columbia
were not well treated by the heritage committee. The member is
quite aware that we had requested joint hearings between the
fisheries and heritage committees. However the government
refused that request. I am upset by that and I am sure my
colleague is as well.
Would the member like to comment on that issue, as well as on
the issue of the supremacy the fisheries minister would now have
and how the bill would water down his authority?
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time.
Yes, the bill waters down the authority of the minister of
fisheries. We should all be very concerned about that.
I know that my colleague from Delta—South Richmond knows two of
the people who were at that meeting in the last parliament as
invitees. They were Paddy Greene and Bill Belsey from Prince
Rupert, who will confirm what I say. I am truly concerned about
the double minister requirement for fishing activity.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Yorkton—Melville, Privacy Commissioner.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise to speak to Bill C-10, which replaces the now defunct
Bills C-48 and C-8 dealing with the creation of marine areas,
more specifically 28 marine conservation areas.
The Bloc Quebecois is not against protecting the environment,
but it is against Bill C-10 for several reasons I will list now.
First, we are opposed to the bill because the federal government
is grabbing the power to create marine conservation areas without
any regard for provincial jurisdictions. Why is the federal
government not consulting the provinces on this, more
specifically Quebec, as it did for example with regard to the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park? Why in the case of Bill C-10
on the establishment of marine conservation areas is it not
consulting Quebec and working together with it?
There is another example, phase 3 of the St. Lawrence action
plan. There were consultations. Why is it that when it comes to
Bill C-10 there was no consultation, which would be desirable and
would benefit the population? Although it is being said that the
federal government wants to establish marine conservation areas
for the benefit of the people and their social life and to help
the economy, it is ignoring the government of Quebec and
provincial jurisdictions in this area.
The Bloc Quebecois opposes any attempt to duplicate and
trivialize Quebec's jurisdictions over the environment, fisheries
and oceans.
Again, this goes to show the bad faith of the federal
government. When Canadian Heritage is involved, not too much
attention is paid to Quebec's jurisdictions and to shared
jurisdictions.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has just announced an
investment of $500 million in culture. It is typical again of
this department: no consideration for provincial jurisdictions
and no consultation. It just goes ahead without examining the
action plan, if only on culture, with Quebec. Here again, in the
marine conservation areas issue, the federal government's way of
doing things is there for all to see.
1635
Several witnesses appeared before the committee and said that
there would be duplication and that there would be a new structure.
The government wants to duplicate even within its own
bureaucracy. We are wondering how consistently this bill will be
applied.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the
Environment are both involved in the protection of the
environment. When I talk about duplication inside the federal
government, I am referring to these two departments.
How can we accept such a bill when several witness have told us
there will be inconsistencies in the way it will be applied and
in the management of marine conservation areas?
A number of witnesses told us that this made no sense. Among
those appearing before the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage was the vice-president of the Fisheries Council of
Canada.
The Fisheries Council of Canada is a trade association
representing provincial fisheries associations in Atlantic
Canada and Ontario. He told us:
If there's a need for legislation to establish marine
conservation areas, it is our view that such legislation should
be incorporated into the recently passed Oceans Act under the
responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and
administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is
simply inefficient—
These are his words, not mine.
We can therefore see that there is duplication, inconsistency
and inefficiency to come, if Bill C-10 sees the light of day. He
goes on to say:
The fishing industry, for example, is working with the Fisheries
and Oceans minister and Fisheries officials regarding development
of an oceans strategy for Canada and an approach to the
introduction of marine-protected areas. These tasks are the
result of the establishment of the Oceans Act in 1996, an act
that states that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans shall lead
and facilitate the development and implementation of a national
strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine
ecosystems.
He went on:
Bringing forward this MCA initiative at this time under the
responsibility of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to be
administered by officials of Canadian Heritage, undermines the
oceans leadership role assigned to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans under the Oceans Act.
If the challenge for Canadian industry in the milieu of
globalization is to be streamlined and efficient, we should be
able to demand government structures that are also focused and
streamlined. Regardless of the merits of MCAs, of this
initiative, the manner in which it is brought forward will lead
to confusion, duplication and conflicts in its implementation.
This witness testified at the committee hearings on the defunct
Bill C-8, and the government has not really made any changes in
Bill C-10. This is nearly exactly what was found in C-8. The witness
called for the withdrawal of the bill and added:
The bill should be withdrawn. Discussions should be initiated
with officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with a
view to bringing forward an amendment to the Oceans Act to
specifically provide for the establishment of marine conservation
areas, where warranted, as part of Canada's oceans strategy.
Another quote comes from Marc Kielley, the executive director in
Newfoundland of the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, in
February 1999. This is an association representing the
interests of regional and sectoral aquaculture associations and
their members, who raise fish and shellfish. He said:
Overall, while we respect the need for conservation, we object
to the bill for a number of fundamental reasons. At issue: The
coming into force of an act to create the national marine
conservation areas will result in unnecessary and expensive
duplication of existing legislation, specifically the Oceans Act,
1996, as well as the National Parks Act as amended in 1988.
1640
Again, a witness representing the aquaculture industry felt that
Bill C-8 should have been withdrawn. Therefore, if Bill C-8
should have been withdrawn, so should Bill C-10, because it is
basically headed in the same direction, except for a few changes.
The French version of the preamble of C-8 provided that marine
areas had to be “représentatives et protégées”, whereas in the
new bill, they must be “protégées et représentatives”. This is a
very cosmetic amendment that does not deal with the core issue,
namely duplication, overlapping and the ineffectiveness of this
legislation.
In a number of departments, including two in particular, it
would be hard to be consistent in implementing the law. The
organization also stated:
So with regard to the implementation of the integrated
management plans, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans shall
develop and implement policies and programs with regard to
matters assigned by law to the Minister, and shall coordinate
with other ministers, boards, and agencies of the Government of
Canada the implementation of policies and programs of the
government with regard to all activities or measures in or
affecting coastal waters or marine waters.
Based on the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that Bill...is
redundant legislation and, if passed, would only serve to confuse
and complicate issues relating to the protection and conservation
of marine resources and marine ecosystems.
To empower the Minister of Canadian Heritage for the MCA
initiative effectively undermines the authority and mandate of
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as provided for under the
provisions of the Oceans Act. This should not be permitted to
occur.
What is the difference between a marine protected area and a
marine conservation area? How do these two seemingly similar
elements fit into the overall tapestry of integrated coastal zone
management? What about marine wildlife areas?
So, there are several issues here. It is somewhat in that spirit
that we can emphasize the inconsistency of such a bill and its
ineffectiveness. A number of people may have difficulties making
a decision.
When the minister tells us that this is for the good of people,
for the good of the community, from an economic, cultural and
social point of view, we wonder.
When credible people, people with a certain amount of expertise
on the issue, come and testify, we as parliamentarians are there
to analyze the experience behind and the relevance of their
recommendations. We always listen in good faith. However it is
always disappointing when we see the government dig in its heels
with a bill. The government has gone back to the drawing board
three times and each time it has come back with a bill that is
no different. It has ignored what the witnesses had to say.
I wish to cite what Tom Lee, the Director General of Parks
Canada, told the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. He
said:
The marine conservation areas fall under a partnership with
other federal departments, basically, under the general direction
of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Under the Oceans Act,
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans takes leadership in putting
in place the protective and management measures for Canada's
oceans. That involves a number of federal departments, and the
two other major ones are noted here, Environment and Canadian
Heritage.
Once again, there are doubts about Heritage Canada's
effectiveness in managing marine conservation areas.
I have here more testimony, this time by Marlon Quinton, a
project co-ordinator who appeared before the committee. He said,
and I quote:
This brief is submitted to the House of Commons standing
committee on behalf of the Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay
National Marine Conservation Area Advisory Committee Cooperation.
As a committee, we have held a series of stakeholder meetings to
exchange information and obtain feedback on the suitability of
the proposed marine park, to date.
1645
He continues:
Stakeholder workshops have been held on commercial fisheries,
aquaculture, tourism, and mistrust of government and how to build
trust. In our deliberations we have taken a careful look at what
impact this initiative would have on the Newfoundland people who
earn a living on the water and at whether Bill C-48 and the
proposed NMCA could negatively affect traditional and existing
livelihoods, incomes, property rights, and freedoms.
He added, for another reason:
We are mystified as to why Canadian Heritage is attempting to
run a parallel conservation initiative under a separate piece of
legislation.
We were presented with about two pages full of objections in
connection with Bill C-10, should it ever see the light of day.
There is another. I wonder how all these recommendations came to
be ignored, when they simply suggested that Bill C-10 be
withdrawn and not proceeded with, as there were so many witnesses
who were opposed to it.
Jean-Claude Grégoire, a member of the board of directors of the
Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec, also indicated
the harmful nature of the bill. He spoke of the alliance
membership, describing them as primarily inshore fishers who
generally use fixed gear and fish along the coastline.
He went on to say that, for all manner of reasons, he would:
Once again, we see economic concerns expressed.
In light of the inefficacy Bill C-10 would have, the Bloc
Quebecois is opposed to going ahead with and supporting, this
bill.
Then there is the matter of Quebec jurisdiction.
Why in this bill did they ignore Quebec jurisdiction over marine
areas? We find it regrettable that Bill C-10 did not respect the
integrity of the territory. Why did we set up the Saguenay
marine park in consultation with the community, the federal
government and the Quebec government?
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park would have been a model
to follow. In 1997 the governments of Quebec and Canada agreed
to pass legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park. That legislation established the Saguenay—St. Lawrence
marine park, the first marine park to be created jointly by the
federal and Quebec governments, without any transfer of
territory. Both governments will continue to fulfil their
respective responsibilities.
There was also the St. Lawrence action plan, another example
the government could have followed. The environment ministers of Quebec and
of Canada announced phase 3 of the St. Lawrence development plan,
representing a total bill of $230 million. How did they manage
to agree in these two examples, and in the case of Bill C-10,
which is on the table, and in the establishment of the 28 marine
conservation areas, the government ignored Quebec's jurisdiction?
The government also knows that jurisdiction over the environment
is shared under the Constitution Act, 1867. The federal and
Quebec governments share jurisdiction over the environment. Here
again, we can see the federal government's bad faith in this
matter. The Constitution Act provides that: “in each province,
the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to:
exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province,
development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural
resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws
in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom”.
When we see the lack of respect for provincial jurisdictions,
which pertain to the exploration for natural resources,
development, conservation and the management of natural
resources, we see the government is ignoring provincial
jurisdictions.
By refusing to use the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as
a model and by making title to the territory an essential
condition for the establishment of marine conservation areas, the
federal government would be able to establish marine conservation
areas on submerged lands to which it claims to have title and
thus bypass Quebec's environmental jurisdictions.
1650
We are very disappointed with what the federal government did
with the recommendations made by various witnesses, including
with regard to the protection of provincial jurisdictions.
There is more. The witnesses came to tell us that marine
conservation areas should not be the responsibility of Heritage
Canada because of duplication within the federal government, with
Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada both having a certain
role to play with regard to the protection of ecosystems.
National parks come under the responsibility of Canadian
Heritage, which is not necessarily doing its job. There are
serious problems in some national parks. I could mention the case
of Forillon park, where a cliff is threatening to slide and
collapse. Nothing has been done to reinforce it, which puts the
life of tourists and workers in danger. In the case of Mingan
Islands park, money is needed. Several islands are threatened by
erosion. Witnesses raised several problems in national parks.
Why does Heritage Canada not fulfil its responsibility in this
area instead of dealing with problems that are not its concern?
If it wants to do things right, it should start by doing the
things for which it is responsible.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
been listening to the debate since the beginning of the
afternoon. Once again, it would appear that a very important
issue is being used for other purposes.
Nowadays, the environment is so important for our future
generations that we should ensure that it is a primordial issue
and a priority and that it is not used for other purposes by
the Department of Canadian Heritage, which wants to manage things
it has no jurisdiction over.
We are talking about the environment. We are not talking about
nationalization or even about propaganda. We do not want this
issue to be used for unity purposes either. This is about
management of the environment and of public lands.
Section 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, is clear on this
issue: this is a jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces.
This is a jurisdiction of Quebec, and the federal government is
trying indirectly to show that it is easy to use such an
important bill.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Québec what she will say
to her constituents, to the Quebec people, about the infringement
on provincial jurisdictions, through Bill C-10.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, since 1993, we have indeed
witnessed considerable interference by the federal government in
areas under provincial jurisdiction. It did not take into account
what Quebec had to say concerning areas under its own
jurisdiction.
Bill C-10 is a blatant example of the federal government not
respecting provincial legislation, in this case Quebec's
environmental legislation. I also think there is a certain
consensus about this bill.
1655
Other provinces say they are concerned about the federal
government's approach. We know that the federal government is
often referred to as a centralizing government, not only in
Quebec but also in the other provinces. This causes people to
become frustrated instead of establishing a dialogue of creating
a partnership.
When the federal government says that it wants to negotiate in
good faith, it must sit down with the other party or parties,
whether the issue concerns a shared or an exclusive jurisdiction.
However it does not do that. It announces billions of dollars in
spending and legislates. It spends money, but who is footing the
bill? All the taxpayers are footing the bill.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-10,
the marine conservation areas act. I do so as a supporter of
parks and marine conservation. Yet I have serious doubts about
the bill, as do many people involved in the marine industry in
British Columbia including environmentalists.
In a recent conversation with one environmentalist from British
Columbia it was pointed out to me that the best approach to
protecting our marine environment was good fisheries management.
Marine protected areas create little zoos and make us feel good,
but good fisheries management is the best way to go. Marine
protected areas are no substitute for good fisheries management.
There have been discussions in other jurisdictions in the world
on these marine protected areas. I would like to read a short
newspaper article from the February 1999 issue of Fishermen's
News published in Seattle, entitled “Marine Reserves: Friend
or Foe”. It reads:
The effectiveness of existing MPAs in the US should be assessed.
A whole lot of MPAs already exist, particularly in California,
but nobody knows whether they are having any impact. A thorough
and science based review needs to take place of all existing
marine protected areas and the myriad of already existing
`no-fishing zones' along the California coast and elsewhere to
determine their effectiveness for either: (a) providing baseline
research information; (b) protecting critical marine habitats,
or, (c) protecting specific marine fish or ecosystems. This
review should be undertaken by a panel, including marine
scientists, appropriate fishery agency representatives,
knowledgeable commercial and sport fishermen, and knowledgeable
marine conservation representatives. This review should include
a report with recommendations for each existing MPA and
no-fishing zone as to their effectiveness, whether there should
be any changes in regulations or boundaries, and whether each
should be maintained, reduced, expanded or eliminated.
That is a good recommendation, which our government would have
done well to follow before it proceeded with the legislation.
What is the object of the bill? Is it marine conservation or
merely the creation of marine parks? I am concerned that it is
the latter, that it has little to do with conservation and much
to do with the creation of marine parks.
I am concerned that the bill is only a further signal that the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans has given up on marine
conservation and protection. Canada does not need a few marine
zoos with the rest of her marine ecosystem laid waste by a
failure to manage the marine resource.
Canada has fundamentally sound legislation to protect the marine
environment, namely the Fisheries Act. The government has failed
to enforce either the letter or spirit of this environmentally
powerful act. It is considered one of the best pieces of
environmental legislation in the world. Section 35 of the
Fisheries Act prohibits any activity that results in the harmful
alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.
In section 36 it specifically prohibits the deposit of a
deleterious substance of any kind in water frequented by fish or
in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance
or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit
of the deleterious substance may enter any water frequented by
fish.
1700
At this very moment the minister of fisheries is working to dumb
down these sections of the Fisheries Act that were designed to
protect the marine environment. The minister of fisheries wants
to make the marine fisheries act aquaculture friendly, forgetting
that it was designed to protect fish rather than to promote an
industrial activity that if not carefully regulated could destroy
the fishery.
Last week in Halifax the minister's Commissioner for Aquaculture
Development, Yves Bastien, said that the Fisheries Act and its
regulations “were not drafted with aquaculture in mind and this
causes significant problems both for the industry and the
regulators”.
The Fisheries Act is not now nor was it ever intended to be an
aquaculture promotion act. It causes problems for aquaculture
because the government refuses to implement siting regulations
that would prohibit locating farms in areas that would threaten
productive lobster and other shellfish beds, prohibit locating
farms near the mouths of fish bearing streams or in the migration
route of migratory species such as salmon or would prohibit the
use of lights at night that attract and disrupt migratory
species. Without clear ground rules that are consistent with the
Fisheries Act, the aquaculture industry will not be sustainable
either in British Columbia or in the maritime provinces.
The government has called aquaculture the industry of the
future. Until the fin fish aquaculture industry has clear and
effective rules prohibiting the deposit of deleterious substances
in waters frequented by fish and can abide by them, it is merely
another polluting and environmentally destructive industry, an
industry without a past or a future.
Canadians want seafood that is safe to eat and clean drinkable
water. The two go hand in hand. Seafood grown without chemicals
are a food of the future and part of any industry of the future.
The commercial fishery is an industry of the future with a past
that reaches back to the earliest days of exploration and
settlement.
Aquaculture will also be an industry of the future when the
government puts in place regulations consistent with the spirit
and intent of the Fisheries Act. We have not arrived there yet.
Only a few months ago the auditor general tabled in parliament a
report entitled “The Effects of Salmon Farming in British
Columbia on the Management of Wild Salmon Stocks”. The auditor
general advised parliament that the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans and his department were not meeting their legislative
obligations under the Fisheries Act to protect wild Pacific
salmon and habitat from the effects of salmon farming.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the auditor general
found, was not ensuring that salmon farms were monitored for the
effects on fish and fish habitat with a view to enforcing the
Fisheries Act. “The department”, he said, “is not currently
monitoring effects on marine habitat or on juvenile or adult
Pacific salmon in the vicinity of net cages”. According to the
auditor general, fisheries and oceans scientists drafted siting
criteria in 1985 but never enacted them.
Much of Canada's water is neither fit for the survival of fish
nor for human consumption. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
has failed to enforce the Fisheries Act prohibition against
dumping. Too often municipalities, industry and forest cutting
operations have been allowed to undertake activities that have
led to the destruction of the marine environment.
The Fisheries Act is not designed to protect our drinking water
but if enforced it makes the job of providing safe drinking water
to Canadians much easier. If the Government of Canada were
serious about protecting the marine environment, its first
priority would be conservation and protection of our marine
resources.
Setting aside a few marine parks may be well intentioned but it
is not in itself a serious conservation measure. We already have
under the Oceans Act the authority to establish marine protected
areas. When such marine protected areas are established the
first question that must be identified is: What are we trying to
protect? Then, what measures must be undertaken to protect it?
1705
Under this marine conservation areas act, large areas along our
coastline would be set aside, not because there was a species in
need of protection, if there were the fisheries act or marine
protected area under their oceans act could be used. No, the
marine conservation areas act is about setting aside large
so-called representative areas.
I am concerned that these areas will become like land based
national parks, no go areas for fishermen, men and women whose
livelihood depends on the conservation and protection of the
marine resource. Without fishermen on the water in these no fish
zones there is likely to be rampant poaching, hardly an effective
conservation measure.
Abalone fishing has been prohibited for the past decade, but the
species has not returned because poaching has continued on
unabated. One of the most effective measures for knowing the
state of fishing stocks is to have fishermen fishing.
While the parks minister might deny that these marine
conservations areas will become no take zones for fishermen, Bill
C-10 appears designed to do just that. For example, in section 4
we are told that marine conservation areas are established for
the purpose of protecting and conserving representative marine
areas for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of
Canada and the world. No mention is made of fishermen. If the
areas really were intended to be multi-use areas we would see
specific mention of fishermen in such a section.
The parks minister is required in section 10 to consult with the
provinces, affected coastal communities and aboriginal
organizations established under a land claims agreement. No
reference is made to those whose livelihood depends on the
resource. Fishermen are not at the table.
If it were intended that fishing was to continue, fishermen
would be listed in section 10. The same is true for section 11
and so on. Section 11 requires for each marine conservation area
that the parks minister establish a management advisory committee
to advise the minister on the formulation, review and
implementation of the management plan for the area.
Fishermen have been excluded from the act and I am concerned it
will not be long before they are excluded from marine
conservation areas. If I were convinced the bill would consider
fishing and fishermen a legitimate activity and recognized
fishermen's constitutional and common law right to fish, the bill
would have my enthusiastic support.
I would support any action that would lead to rigorous
conservation and protection of the marine resource and recognize
the objectives of good fisheries management.
According to a recent series of articles on the advantage of
marine protected areas in the Vancouver Sun by Larry Pynn,
it would appear that is the case with the large marine protected
areas around Australia's Great Barrier Reef. We are told that
fishermen there are an integral part of the management regime
with 95% of the area open to fishing.
That is not the case with our proposed marine parks act. We
must have legislation that will require marine protected areas or
conservation areas to develop reasons and scientifically
defensible criteria for any and all areas of no-take zones in the
marine environment which are over and above the regular
management measures taken by DFO under the fisheries act.
Under Bill C-10 fishermen would have no place at the table.
There is no recognition of their dependence on the resource. In
addition if they are shut out of a marine conservation area there
is no recognition of their financial loss and no recognition that
they must be compensated.
When Parks Canada creates a land based park, there is no
question that any private owners or crown tenure holders on the
land are compensated, either a fee simple purchase of the land or
buying out of the value associated with tenures such as timber or
traffic. Just because marine resources are considered by some to
be a common property resource, as are trees on crown land, does
not mean that fishermen who have licenses to harvest marine areas
do not experience an economic loss and are not entitled to
compensation for that loss.
Fishermen must be compensated for any exclusion from licensed
harvesting areas resulting from the creation of no take zones in
marine conservation areas.
We are told Australian fishermen were compensated for the small
area they lost in the Great Barrier Reef marine protection or
conservation area.
1710
A requirement for compensating losses is absent from Bill C-10.
This would be unthinkable in a land-based park. Why is it not
being considered in the marine environment?
Parks Canada has identified areas for the establishment of large
marine conservation areas in the Queen Charlottes and the central
and south coasts of British Columbia, all areas of significant
fishing.
Let me identify several failures of marine conservation
management. Let us consider if this bill would deal with these
problems. If it did it would have my support.
A fisheries management failure is often camouflaged as a result
of climate change, when in fact it is merely a management
failure. I am thinking of the near collapse of Fraser River
sockeye stocks.
Government ministers and DFO, in particular, blamed the collapse
of sockeye on climate change that has caused, they said, changes
in the water temperature and the like in the north Pacific. An
internal DFO document reports documented evidence that there had
been a management failure on the Fraser camouflaged as an
environmental failure. Let me refer to the DFO report which, as
I said, supports my contention.
The report entitled “Unsanctioned, Partially Monitored First
Nations Fisheries on the Fraser River: A Conservation Risk”. The
report warned the department that its failure to account for
illegal or “unsanctioned fishing represents an egregious affront
to salmon conservation”.
The report examined DFO's failure to account for the significant
numbers of sockeye that were illegally caught on the Fraser River
between Mission and Sawmill Creek. It said that the department
had failed in the year 2000 to account for the illegally caught
fish due to political and budget reasons.
The report documented how over the past several years that
unsanctioned and unquantified in river catch had essentially
added to the en route mortality account, the estimated number of
fish that died en route to the spawning grounds from natural
stress and temporary contact with fishing gear.
It came to the startling conclusion that this consistent failure
to account for illegally caught fish together with the misleading
practice of lumping them in with en-route mortalities:
The report said:
Overall, it is crucial to have a complete picture of catch to
determine whether realised catch levels (by all user groups) are
consistent with the achievement of desired spawning escapement
goals—the fundamental measure of conservation success.
It also said that the estimate of total unsanctioned catch
between Mission and Sawmill Creek on the Fraser for the weeks
ending June 11th through September 10th was 30,952 sockeye.
The report said that Indian bands fishing in the Cheam and Yale
First Nation areas caught 23,415 of these fish, 76% of the
unsanctioned catch.
It further said:
Underestimating catch contributes to an underestimate of stock
abundance, underestimating rates of exploitation, and difficulty
validating and improving in-season abundance estimation that are
crucial for implementing fishing plans and successfully achieving
spawning escapement goals.
The report observed that conservation and protection that
Officers adopted a more passive policy towards unsanctioned
sockeye fishing in 2000, seizing fewer nets than previous years,
especially 1999, despite valid conservation concerns for
co-migrating species such as coho. It said that this was true
especially true in the area fished around the Cheam First Nation
band.
British Columbians are often presented with a particularly
confusing picture of salmon stocks, the state of salmon habitat,
and the health of fish populations generally, according to the
report. Reasonable and simple questions about the state of the
fish and fish habitat in British Columbia are often met with
contradictory and confusing answers. Unsanctioned fishing
activity is unsanctioned expressly because the fishery is closed
to ensure long run conservation of various migrating fish stocks.
Canadians have a right to know about any substantial illegal
fishing activity by any user group. Unsanctioned fishing is an
area that receives little public attention despite the
potentially serious consequences to the status of some stocks.
1715
I could go on and talk not only on the issue in British Columbia
but also on the problem of maintaining adequate lobster stocks on
the east coast, especially in the area of Burnt Church.
I will quote a short statement from December 13, 2000 question
period briefing note to the Prime Minister. It said:
The Burnt Church and Indian Brook bands have refused to
acknowledge the government's right to regulate the fishery...They
have, instead, asserted treaty rights claims and, in Burnt
Church, put in place a large scale illegal lobster fishery.
The government knew about the problems and yet it blamed them on
the environment. It is now putting in place marine protected
areas as an excuse for failing to enforce existing fisheries
regulations. The minister has the power to protect all the fish
habitat and all fish in coastal waters but he is not doing his
job. The bill will not help him.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The vote will be
deferred until the end of government orders today.
* * *
TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, an
act to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act,
the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of tobacco,
be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
address the House at third reading of Bill C-26, the tobacco tax
amendments act, 2001. The bill would implement the tax elements
of the comprehensive new tobacco strategy that was announced on
April 5 by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health and
the solicitor general.
[Translation]
The new strategy is designed to improve the health of Canadians
by reducing tobacco consumption, especially among youth, which is
one of the government's national health strategies. The new
strategy represents the most comprehensive anti-tobacco program
in Canadian history.
[English]
The strategy includes increased spending on tobacco control
programs as well as tobacco tax increases to discourage smoking.
Under this strategy, tax increases are linked to a new tobacco
tax structure designed to reduce the incentive to smuggle.
The new tobacco tax structure builds on the 1994 national action
plan to combat smuggling, which has proven to be very effective
in reducing the level of contraband activity and restoring the
legitimate market for tobacco sales. The main element of the new
tax structure is a replacement of the current tax on exports of
tobacco products, which was implemented under the 1994 action
plan, with the new two tiered excise tax on exports of Canadian
manufactured tobacco products effective April 6, 2001.
1720
Under the new export tax, all exports of Canadians brands of
tobacco products would be taxed, thereby reducing the incentive
to smuggle exported products back into Canada.
The new tax would be two tiered. A tax of $10 per carton of
cigarettes would be imposed on exports up to a threshold of 1.5%
of a manufacturer's annual production. A refund of tax would be
provided upon proof of payment of foreign taxes. This measure
would help avoid double taxation of these products when they
enter legitimate foreign markets.
Exports of Canadian tobacco products over the threshold would be
subject to the current excise duty on tobacco products and a new
excise tax which in total would amount to $22 per carton of
cigarettes. There would be no refund on the second tier of
export tax.
The new export tax structure would remove any incentive to bring
Canadian tobacco products back into Canada illegally and would
help set the stage for future tobacco tax increases.
Another element of the new tax structure affects people who
travel. The government believes that all Canadian brands of
tobacco products should be taxed regardless of where they are
sold. Allowing Canadians who travel to continue to have access
to low cost, tax free tobacco, either through duty free shops or
the traveller's exemption, would be inconsistent with the
government's strategy of raising tobacco taxes domestically to
achieve the government's health objective of reducing smoking.
With the bill, Canadian tobacco products delivered to duty free
shops and ships' stores, both at home and abroad, would be taxed
at a rate for cigarettes of $10 per carton effective April 6,
2001. Furthermore, the traveller's allowance is being amended to
ensure that returning residents can no longer bring back tax and
duty free tobacco products. Effective October 1, 2001, a new
duty of $10 per carton of cigarettes would be imposed on these
products when they are imported by returning residents.
To ensure that Canadian residents are not subject to double
taxation when they return with Canadian tobacco products on which
tax has already paid, neither this duty nor regular excise duties
and taxes would apply to tobacco products with a Canadian stamp,
signifying that excise duties and taxes have already been paid.
Non-residents would not be affected by the change to the
traveller's exemption.
These measures would help meet the government's goal of reducing
tobacco use.
[Translation]
Increasing tobacco taxes is another key component of the new
strategy to combat the use of tobacco.
The federal government is increasing taxes, along with the five
provinces that followed the federal government's lead when it
reduced tobacco taxes in 1994. Effective April 6, 2001, combined
federal and provincial taxes will increase by $4 a carton for
cigarettes sold in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia
and Prince Edward Island.
[English]
The increases would restore federal excise tax rates to a uniform
level of $5.35 per carton on cigarettes sold in Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and P.E.I. The amount would be equal to the current federal
excise tax rate in the provinces that did not reduce tobacco
taxes jointly with the federal government in 1994.
This would be the fifth increase in tobacco taxes since 1994 and
would raise federal revenues from tobacco products by $200
million annually.
Bill C-26 would also increase the surtax on the profits of tobacco
manufacturers to 50% from 40% effective April 6, 2001. This
surtax currently raises about $70 million annually. It would now
raise an additional $15 million each year.
Before closing, I want to mention briefly that the
government is providing additional resources in the amount of $15
million the first year and $10 million each year thereafter to
help federal departments and agencies monitor and assess the
effectiveness of these new tax measures in reducing smuggling.
The bill would implement fundamental changes in our tobacco tax
system which would enable the government to use higher tobacco
taxes to reduce smoking.
1725
[Translation]
The new tobacco tax structure will reduce the incentive to
smuggle Canadian-produced tobacco products back into Canada, and
the resulting tax increases will help the government to meet its
health objectives.
The new structure also sets the stage for future measures.
[English]
This new strategy demonstrates the depth of the government's
commitment to reducing tobacco use. I encourage my hon.
colleagues to give their full support to the bill.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will begin by asking for the
consent of the House to split my time with the hon. member for
Red Deer.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, we are here today to
debate Bill C-26. The bill has some good qualities and our party
agrees with some aspects of the bill.
However, I would like to suggest that the government look to the
Senate to study a bill that addresses the real problems of
tobacco use, particularly with children. Bill S-15 has gone
before committee and may soon come before this House. Although
Bill C-26 has some good qualities, I believe the bill from the
other place really would be more appropriate. It targets youth
and suggests a model for accountability of the delivery of
government services. I believe, despite our support for Bill
C-26, that Bill S-15 deserves more careful scrutiny.
Earlier in the day we debated Bill C-22 and Bill C-17. We
talked about the complexity of the imposition of taxes and the
tax act. Taxes in this instance are also extremely complex with
some 40 pages of legislation and another 50 pages of
explanations. My goodness, why does it always have to be so
difficult for people to understand the government's intentions?
One of the main difficulties in increasing taxes, particularly
for constituents who have service stations and corner stores, and
those who are rural merchants, are that their businesses have
been so caught up in the economic decline of the country,
particularly where I come from, that the loss of this income in
tobacco sales is a real difficulty.
Should the bill go forward, I would suggest that there be a
commensurate reduction of tax on other economic activities that
are sensitive to price changes. A reduction of taxes in other
areas for people who are hit with these increases would be
appropriate.
While it may seem equitable to some that the big, bad tobacco
industry take this on, taxes are not necessarily borne by those
who have the responsibility to pay those taxes.
I do not think I need to lecture adults about cigarettes and all
the associated health risks but I do want to talk about why I am
supporting the bill even though there is much about it with which
I disagree.
We all know the facts. What needs to be addressed in the bill
is the central reason for this bill coming into existence. We
can argue over the wording of the bill. Some may call it a
tobacco recovery levy and some may call it a tax. What we cannot
argue about is the fact that the tobacco companies target
children. These are the smokers of the future who the tobacco
industry will depend on for their future income and profits.
1730
Young people are the most important target for smoking
prevention activities. Since most smokers in Canada begin to
smoke in their adolescence, a major challenge for smoking
prevention is to counteract the influences of the tobacco
companies. Tobacco use among young Canadians must be reduced.
What does the data say? What are the numbers? There are close
to 6.7 million smokers in Canada. Smoking among adolescents aged
15 to 19 has risen from 21% to 29% over the past 10 years, and
females make up a large percentage of this group.
Smoking accounts for about 30% of cancers in Canada and 80% of
those who suffer from lung cancer are smokers. Cigarette related
deaths account for 40,000 deaths in Canada every year. These
facts speak for themselves. We must do everything possible to
stop children from getting involved with this killing habit. The
bill is one step in the right direction.
Some may argue that tobacco farmers would suffer enormous
economic hardship. However during the 1980s the number of
tobacco farmers declined by about 50%. These farmers began to
grow other crops and have benefited from assistance programs.
There are others in the retail end of smoking who suffer as well.
There must be compensation for those who suffer. There must be
an ability for them to continue on but smoking is evil. It is
wrong for us to poison our young people and have them sacrifice
their lives. This has to be the bottom line.
In 1991 consumers spent over $10.1 billion on tobacco products.
Of that amount about $6.6 billion went to the federal, provincial
and territorial governments. There is no denying that this is a
substantial amount of money but it amounts to less than 2% of
federal and provincial revenues. Considering that tobacco taxes
make up less than 2% of the federal revenue, there is even more
incentive to reduce the number of children who want to smoke.
I want to compare the 2% of federal revenue to the health care
costs in our public health care system. With over 40,000 deaths
directly related to tobacco, the strain on our overburdened
health care system is enormous. Those suffering from lung cancer
as a result of years of tobacco use costs billions of dollars in
health care costs. By reducing the number of children smoking,
we not only save their lives but we can help save billions of
dollars in health care at the same time.
These are very important reasons to help stop tobacco use among
our children. When people stop smoking completely, the country
saves money. In 1993 the societal costs attributed to smoking
were estimated to be $11 billion, which is far higher than the
income from tobacco.
The Canadian Cancer Society surveyed thousands of smokers and
over 85% indicated that they wanted to quit and that they only
smoked because they were addicted and could not get out of the
habit. In 1994 almost 75% of Canadian smokers reported having
tried to quit at least once.
What is needed from the government is leadership on the issue.
The Minister of Health has taken some small steps to address the
crisis of smoking among youth but small steps in the past have
not been enough. The government needs to put the health of young
children ahead of partisan politics and show some determination.
We all must recognize the enormous health risks of tobacco and
the true costs of allowing this habit to continue.
Children are one of the most vulnerable groups in our society
and that is why aspects of the bill are so important. The bill
would create an educational fund.
Bill C-26 would put a levy on tobacco and put the health of
children ahead of everything else. By reducing tobacco caused
illnesses and death through prevention, we are helping society as
a whole.
1735
Some argue that non-smokers should impose their views on
smokers. Perhaps there is some merit in that. However I am
arguing for the vulnerable children. Adults are responsible for
the protection of children from this kind of harmful activity.
The government is the watchdog and the guardian over that which
would harm our children. The societal costs of smoking are
tremendous.
We cannot forget that children need our protection from harm.
They are vulnerable and impressionable. This is why elements of
the bill are worth examining. Children are the future and the
reason I am supporting the bill. Let us give them a fighting
chance.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-26, the tobacco tax
amendments act, 2001.
Last year as a member of the health committee I listened to a
lot of testimony from various tobacco producers and sellers. I
also listened to many health experts and it became fairly obvious
after several months of hearings just how damaging tobacco is to
society and how it impacts on our health care system.
Whether it is the heart association or the cancer association,
all of them bring solid evidence that tobacco kills. They tell
us that 45,000 Canadians are killed directly by the use of
tobacco every year. They also show figures representing billions
of dollars taken from our health care system as a result of this
habit.
Like the last member who spoke I find the most discouraging,
disappointing and despicable part of the whole tobacco industry
is the targeting of young people and the various ways that it
operates around the world.
While in Germany recently I went past a number of schools.
Adjacent to a school, sometimes on all four corners, there would
be cigarette machines and advertisements targeting young people.
We do not have that in Canada because we have progressed a long
way from that. However that is the kind of industry we are
dealing with, one that targets young people even in an advanced
country like Germany.
Over the many years that I have travelled to developing
countries I have seen little 10 packs of cigarettes being given
to children outside schools. These children are only 8 and 9
years old. Many reports indicate that these cigarettes contain
many times the nicotine level contained in normal cigarettes. In
this fashion, tobacco companies hook them young.
The tobacco industry does not want the bill to pass. It is hard
for me to agree with the tax increase, but in this case if the
money is put toward stopping people from using this very
dangerous product then this tax is reasonable and legitimate, and
my party will support it.
It is hoped, however, that the dollars collected would not be
like the dollars collected on the gasoline tax. That money is
collected but is not put into roads. I hope this extra money
would go to the health system and toward stopping our kids from
smoking. In supporting the bill I have to say that this
provision must be included. The dedication by the government
must also be there.
1740
Our country's health system is deteriorating. Many experts
would say that we are 23rd out of the 29 OECD members, the most
industrialized countries. That is not something to be proud of.
Obviously one of the problems, and there are many others, is the
lack of funding. Hopefully this funding would help that.
It is also hoped that the tax increase would allow some other
tax decreases to occur. The thing that is probably hurting us
the most and the reason that many of us came to the House was the
debt of $550 billion of which $43 billion is paid out in interest
every year. I imagine what we could do with the $43 billion to
help our health system, to help kids stop smoking and many other
things.
It has to be remembered that today we are spending $15 billion
on health. We spend $12 billion on advanced education and $22
billion on various other social programs. If we had $43 billion
we could probably stamp out the problem that the bill is
addressing.
I believe that the bill is good for Canada as long as the money
from it is used in the right way. It is hoped that it would go a
long way to stopping young people from wanting to smoke.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot help but begin my portion of the debate on Bill
C-26 by commenting on developments within the Canadian Alliance
ranks.
I did not believe we would ever see the day when members of the
Canadian Alliance would be supporting a tax hike. However, here
they are today. I guess stranger things have been happening over
the last little while. It is wonderful to see the transformation
of Canadian Alliance members. I say good for them for
recognizing that the tax system is an important part of shaping
good public policy.
I hope they are able to use the logic they have applied to this
debate in seeing tax increases as playing an important part in
creating responsible social behaviour. It is something that
needs to be extended and looked at in a whole number of areas,
including conservation of our natural resources, the reduction of
poverty in our midst and the pursuit of social justice. That is
the bottom line in terms of the taxation system and what is
important for Canadians.
I am also tempted at the start of the debate, following
developments earlier in the House today, to say hello to my mom.
It is a wonderful opportunity to pay tribute to mothers across
the land and to make the connection between mother's day and the
debate we are having today on tobacco control.
Many times in our history mothers have led the fight to create
safer communities to protect the health of our young people. They
have been involved in stopping drinking and driving. They ensure
that pregnant women take all the necessary precautionary steps.
They are also trying to prevent young people from getting
addicted to the deadly product of tobacco. Women have been doing
an incredible service for the country in the pursuit of health
and well-being for all our citizens.
Today we have an opportunity to talk about tobacco control and
to acknowledge the work of the federal Liberal government in
pursuing one part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the use
of tobacco in society and to prevent addiction to cigarettes.
I acknowledge the importance of Bill C-26. It is a bill that
would increase taxes on tobacco products. It would amend a
number of acts which would result in an increase of $4 on a
carton of cigarettes. That is an important development.
1745
The members of the New Democratic Party certainly will support
Bill C-26 at the final stage of approval by the House. However,
I think it is incumbent upon us at this moment with this
opportunity to look at what else the government could have done
and to urge it to do more in this regard.
I was pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance suggest that this is a beginning, that there
are more tax increases on the way and that the government
recognizes there is room to move when it comes to increasing the
price of cigarettes and still not be worried or pressured because
of the threat of smuggling.
I think it is fair to say that the government is actually making
up for lost time. It has perhaps, I hope, seen the error of its
ways in that devastating decision in 1994 when it caved in to the
tobacco lobby, rolled back the tax increase on cigarettes and
actually contributed to the very serious problem of smoking among
our young people today.
It has to be acknowledged what that kind of taxation policy does
and what that kind of caving in to tobacco companies can do in
terms of our collective pursuit of preventing the use of tobacco
and stopping addiction to cigarettes among our young people.
I hope the Liberals recognize what they have done and I hope
today's measure in the form of Bill C-26 is an acknowledgement of
their past wrongdoings and a determination to right a wrong and
to move forward, doing everything we can.
In 1994 we had an opportunity to keep the taxes high on
cigarettes, to keep products out of the hands of young kids and
to stop a lot of folks from getting addicted. I think we really
did a great disservice to this country. Because of the threat of
smuggling, we dropped the tax increase and actually caused more
young people to get addicted to cigarettes. It is fair to remind
the House that under the Liberal government, addiction to
cigarettes among young people has actually increased.
It is important to refer to the government's own document put
out by Health Canada, entitled “Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring
Survey” for February to December, 1999, which points out that
smoking by teens aged 15 to 19 years, though down significantly
from 43% in 1981, has increased 21% since 1990 but appears to
have reached a plateau at around 28% since 1994.
In the Liberal era, smoking among young people and addiction to
cigarettes has actually increased significantly. That has to be
the direct result of caving in to the tobacco industry in 1994
around the tax increases and a result of a failure of the
government to actually implement a fully comprehensive smoking
cessation program.
The question for us today is this: is a $4 increase on the
price of cigarettes enough? Could we do more? The answer is
clear. Many groups have said there is all kinds of room to move.
We know from some of the mapping done by those involved in this
field that there is still a considerable gap between the price of
cigarettes in Canadian provinces and the price of cigarettes in
U.S. border states. The statistics suggest that we could raise
cigarettes prices quite a bit more in order to be even closer to
the price of cigarettes in the United States, so there is no need
to be leery about the whole issue of smuggling in that context.
The comments of groups that have pointed out that we have
overreacted to the threat of smuggling are legitimate. It is
very important to remind ourselves that perhaps the government
got caught up in something that did not necessarily have a basis
in fact.
1750
I point specifically to much work done by the Canadian Cancer
Society and the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, which over and
over have reminded the government that it has room to move in
terms of increasing the price of cigarettes. In fact, they
suggest that even if the Canadian government raised tobacco taxes
by $10 per carton the price gap between Ontario-Quebec tobacco
and the now much more expensive American cigarettes would only
close by about 50%. They said that in a letter and documentation
put together by those two organizations in March of this year.
The executive directors of those two organizations, Ken Kyle for
the Canadian Cancer Society and Garfield Mahood for the
Non-Smokers' Rights Association, stated:
I put that on the record because I take in all seriousness the
parliamentary secretary's comments about potential future
increases and indicate to him that there certainly would be no
opposition from us. I believe that he would have the support of
many Canadians if his government chose to do that on an
expeditious basis.
There is another question around this announcement and this
bill. Is there enough money for and is Canada doing its part in
tobacco prevention and cessation? The announcement that was tied
to the tax hikes under Bill C-26 indicated that there would be an
additional $480 million over five years for the tobacco control
program in Canada. That is clearly still far below the levels
that most groups active in this field have called for. It is
certainly not much of an increase when we break it down in terms
of what the government is spending today.
The government's own press release indicates that about $210
million over five years would be assigned directly for prevention
of tobacco addiction and for tobacco control programs. That is
about $42 million a year. That is hardly in line with what
Canada is obligated to spend if we are to deal with the serious
problem in our society today. I do not need to repeat the
figures.
We heard from the Alliance and other members today about the 6
million smokers in Canada today, the 45,000 deaths per year, the
fact that 250,000 young people annually become addicted to
cigarettes, the fact that 90% of all smokers are addicted before
the age of 18 and the fact that we spend $3.5 billion annually in
terms of the health costs associated with smoking. All of those
facts should be obvious to the government and should point this
government clearly in the direction of an increased expenditure
for smoking prevention and cessation programs.
That is precisely the essence and the purpose of Senator Kenny's
bill, which has been through this House a couple of times and is
on its way for the third time. Bill S-15 is due to arrive in the
House very shortly. It follows on the heels of Bill S-20 which
died on the order paper when the election was called. That
followed Bill S-13 which was killed here in this place as a
result of the government rising on a point of order and
suggesting that it was out of the bounds of this place to pursue
a money bill, a tax bill, that came from the Senate.
There is a question for all of us today. Given everything we
have learned, given the work by groups on this bill, given the
clear changes to Bill S-15 to make it compatible with the rules
of this place, what will this government do in the next couple of
days when the bill makes its way from the Senate to the House of
Commons?
I hope that under no circumstances would the government try to
put the kibosh that bill and suggest that it is not within the
purview of this place to proceed with a bill that would actually
raise the price of cigarettes on a much more significant basis
than the government has been prepared to do to date and would
ensure that the money is targeted specifically for smoking
prevention and cessation programs. We are looking under that
bill at a fund of approximately $360 million a year to be
dedicated to smoking cessation and prevention among young people
and others in our society.
1755
If we compare that $360 million a year to the $210 billion that
the government promises to dispense over five years, we can see
the huge gap in the proposals and the clear need for Senator
Kenny's bill. I would hope that when the bill enters this place
we would all be united in support of the bill to ensure it is
allowed for debate so that we can have a meaningful discussion
about the values of a tobacco control initiative that increases
the cost of tobacco by another $10 per carton and ensures that
the money goes into a special fund to be administered by
non-profit organizations.
That would bring us much more in line with other countries that
are taking the issue seriously. It is important, for the record
and for the government today, to be mindful of the fact that
under the government and the way we administer our programs
dealing with tobacco prevention, we spend about 66 cents per
capita on this important endeavour. Many others have pointed out
how that compares to other jurisdictions. For example, $32 per
capita is spent by the state of Ohio and $16 per capita by
Massachusetts and so on. All academic overviews of the issue and
all analyses by experts on this serious problem in our society
show that Canada should be spending more like $270 million to
$720 million a year on dealing with a problem that is growing as
we speak.
The facts that more young people are turning to cigarettes, that
smoking at an early age leads to a lifelong addiction and that it
very likely leads to ill health and even death should be enough
to tell us to get on with the job and do something now. The old
expression that a penny of prevention is worth a pound of cure
suggests that if we invest a little bit now we will save a heck
of a lot later on if we are serious about this problem.
Finally, as part of a comprehensive strategy dealing with the
high rate of tobacco and cigarette smoking in society today, we
must have an increase in the cost of cigarettes, as the
government is doing in part today. We must have a clear focus on
education and prevention, a model of which is provided by Senator
Kenny's bill coming from the Senate this week.
We also must do more in terms of advertising and restricting
tobacco companies' attempts to get through to our young people.
It was just over a month ago that we raised in the House a
totally destructive ad by du Maurier which ran in dailies across
the country. It was a huge colour advertisement that basically
suggested there was a free trip to the city of New York to be won
if one was a smoker and over the age of 18. The ad said “Live
it up in the city that never sleeps. Win one of two amazing New
York experiences”. It went on to set out the terms and
conditions for applying for that prize.
The government has done nothing. We have appealed to the
government to look at the Tobacco Act and to realize that this is
contrary to the law. We have called upon the Minister of Health
to take action. I wrote to the Minister of Health on March 23
and asked him to please take action against du Maurier and do
something about that deplorable ad. I have yet to hear from him.
I am hoping that this is still under advisement and that the
Minister of Health and the government are prepared to apply the
full force of the law in regard to this ad by du Maurier, because
it is contrary to the law. We have heard clearly from many
groups about how it violates the law.
[Translation]
I am referring to the Coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du
tabac, which said, on March 27, “The tobacco industry is thumbing
its nose at the government and its Tobacco Act”.
This was the reaction of the Coalition québécoise pour le
contrôle du tabac to the new du Maurier ads announcing a contest
to win a five-day trip to New York.
1800
[English]
That organization gave the Minister of Health some very specific
articles in the tobacco act to pursue in terms of contravention.
Specifically that organization and others have referred to
articles 21 and 29 of the tobacco act. We hope the government
will take action. If it is serious, as it indicated today, about
controlling access to cigarettes by raising the price then surely
it is prepared to take on tobacco companies when they break the
law. Surely the government is prepared to show leadership by
example.
Leadership by example would do more than anything to deal with
this tragic epidemic in society. I am thinking specifically of
the government's decision to include tobacco industry
representatives on the trade mission to China in February.
It struck us and many Canadians as odd that the government would
show such hypocrisy. On the one hand it pretends to be
interested in controlling tobacco use and on the other hand it
promotes tobacco in a country where there is already an epidemic
of smokers. Some 800,000 Chinese people die every year because
of tobacco addictions.
The government is involved in global efforts to control tobacco
and we commend it for that. Given the fast flow of goods and
services around the world, dealing with cigarette addiction and
coming up with meaningful tobacco control programs must be done
internationally. That is precisely where we would like to see
the government show leadership.
We commend the government for being involved in what is clearly
an important initiative, one that requires more time and effort
by all of us. However it is hard to take seriously the
government's efforts regarding international tobacco control when
it is neither showing such leadership domestically nor leading by
example in terms of ensuring we practise what we preach wherever
we go.
We support Bill C-26. Increasing the price of cigarettes is an
important and necessary step. However it falls far short of a
comprehensive strategy that involves education, prevention,
advertising restrictions and ever increasing prices on tobacco so
that it is priced out of reach of our young people.
I thank the House for its attention and urge the government to
follow these suggestions.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a couple of technical points to make before I start. I
advise the Chair that I will be splitting my time with my
colleague from Kings—Hants who has not had a cigarette since the
holiday season. He is setting a example for the House.
I would also like to thank the translation service and the
interpreters. I find it very hard to stick to my prepared speech.
I want to thank them for their understanding and for trying to
follow me. I will try to speak more slowly. They do an absolutely
remarkable job and I take this opportunity to congratulate and
thank them for their understanding.
This being said, Bill C-26 is a tax bill, which hopefully will
change things in the area of health. While I was looking at the
bill I was thinking “Can a tax bill really save lives?” We
certainly hope so, and this is the reason why we have been asking
the government for a long time to put money back into health. The
government should put more money into health.
If we are willing to levy an additional tax to put warnings on
cigarette packages alerting young people to the dangers of
tobacco, if it works, and we hope it will, we should take this
opportunity to invest massively in transfer payments to the
provinces so that they can deal with others issues.
1805
Bill C-26 sets this amount at $4 per
carton of cigarettes. I am a smoker,
the only one in the Progressive Conservative caucus, and I am
wondering why $4, why not $3, why not $10? Honestly, I do not
know why. The government is proceeding cautiously, step by step.
It claims smuggling is not an issue, yet it is still moving very
timidly, according to anti-tobacco groups both in Quebec and the
rest of Canada.
The parliamentary secretary said that $4 will give us this much
money. It would have been interesting to know what the impact of
a tax increase is on cigarettes sales. If people buy less,
revenues will be lower.
What are the mathematics? What is the government's objective in
introducing Bill C-26 as it relates to the reduction of tobacco
use, particularly among young people? We do not know.
Of course, it is not ethically correct to say that $4 are added
to the price of a carton of cigarettes. However, we do not know
what the government's plan in the fight against tobacco is. We
know that a bill is coming from the other place.
People are applauding Bill S-15, except that there is a problem
with parliamentary tradition. The problem is the fact that a tax
is asked for by the other place. The House will examine that
bill. I am not worried about that. If Bill S-15 is not acceptable
to this House, in accordance with parliamentary tradition, the
government, if it is serious, will introduce a bill the very next
day, using the same arguments and the same information and will
identify it with a C instead of an S. If the government is
serious about its fight against tobacco, it must arrange to apply
the principle behind the details in the bill.
This being said, $4 is one thing, but interestingly, the
government is controlling something controllable in the fight
against tobacco. We remember that, when there was a major
increase in taxes, companies would sell their cigarettes to the
United States and the cigarettes came back through somewhat
illegal channels. We would buy Canadian tobacco, but it had made
a short trip to the United States before coming back here. This
bill corrects this situation.
We knew that one of the reasons why there was a black market was
the fact that there was no tax on cigarettes coming out of the
production plant. It took years to deal with that issue. We were
aware of the problem and of the legislation, but it took six or
seven years to make it into an efficient tool.
Now we are told that there is no problem anymore. We know that
the black market is active again, albeit to a lesser degree than
before, because it is harder now. However as we all know, if there
is money to be made, criminals are usually quick to get
involved.
As for the Canada—United States agreements, we do not know what
measure was taken so that both sides would talk to each other.
The case of duty free shops is interesting. People used to go to
Old Orchard or elsewhere in the United States for a day or two,
perhaps a week, and come back with cigarettes that cost a lot
less. That situation is being corrected.
This only makes sense.
Indeed, if tobacco products are taxed in Canada because they are
deemed to be dangerous products, there is no reason to sell them
for less to Canadians who buy them in duty free shops. We must
be consistent. The Minister of Finance and his American
counterpart deserve praise for having taken the necessary steps
to deal with this issue.
We support Bill C-26, but the fact is that according to
statistics, over 40,000 people die every year because of tobacco.
If two people die from another cause, the government takes
immediate action to ban that cause. However tobacco kills 40,000
people per year, and all it does is increase taxes and tell
Canadians that it is a dangerous product. I find this a bit
cynical.
1810
I come from a town called Asbestos. What is being said around
the world? “Asbestos kills. We are banning it”. If we apply the
anti-tobacco logic, why not ban tobacco? Why not say that it is
a dangerous product and that we are simply banning it. Why not?
Because there is a certain degree of social acceptance.
We hope that the anti-tobacco program will be aimed not just at
young people, but at all Canadians. Smoking must become
unacceptable. I am a smoker and I must say that the bylaw
recently passed by the new city of Ottawa, which will take effect
August 1, promises to make life difficult.
They are talking about increasing the buffer zones, even
outside. There will be buffer zones, as there are in hospitals,
for instance. When one goes to the hospital, one may not smoke.
There are even restricted areas at entrances. We do not have
this situation in the parliamentary buildings; we have our famous
smoking urns outside.
I recall being outside smoking a few years ago when the
temperature was minus 35 Celsius. Neither cold, nor snow, nor
sleet, nor rain will stop a smoker. We are like letter carriers,
so we go outside to smoke, and the current Deputy Prime Minister
went by and said: “My God”. It smelled terrible. Eventually
the buffer zones will be enlarged.
That having been said, it is true that there are people who die
because of tobacco. An additional $4 per carton will not solve
everything. Bill S-15 will not solve everything. What is missing
in this battle is a united front. The battle does not involve the
federal, provincial and municipal levels. They do not talk to
one another. This is nothing new on the part of the federal
government, which acts on its own most of the time, but it ought
to talk to its partners.
What other municipality would act like Ottawa? Does it have the
support of the provincial and federal governments? We do not
know. Within the information program, will the federal
government spend money to encourage the provinces and
municipalities to pass bylaws, as it has with the City of Ottawa?
If there is a constitutional problem relating to a total ban on
smoking, will the federal government be prepared to listen to the
arguments?
There are logical measures being put forward and we applaud
them, but taxation measures are not what is going to solve health
problems.
I will close with the remark that, if it is a good thing to
address youth smoking by adding more tax and to use those funds
for awareness and education campaigns, it is surely also a good
thing to reinvest in the entire health system the necessary funds
to provide choices to people, not just Quebecers but all
Canadians, so that they can live healthier lives.
We applaud Bill C-26 and await Bill S-15, these financial
legislative measure introduced in this parliament, which make
sense for the health of those we represent. The Conservative
Party will be supporting them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and may I
wish you good health.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked what the
government's objective was behind the increase in the tax on
cigarettes and how it would reduce the incidence of smoking. That
is a very good question.
Unfortunately the last time we raised the tax we saw a lot of
smuggling. Many Canadians got cigarettes through the back door
so it was hard to correlate the increase in tax with the
decreased incidence of smoking. However the government is quite
confident that the new measures, along with the reduction of
economic incentives to smuggle cigarettes across the border,
should reduce or eliminate the incidence of contraband.
Therefore, we will have a much better measure moving forward.
However there is some good generic data that supports the notion
that increasing the taxes reduces the consumption, other things
being equal. If people can get the cigarettes through the back
door that will not happen. I just wanted to make that comment. I
thank the member for his contribution.
1815
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, that is it exactly. I thank
the parliamentary secretary for his remarks. Indeed, in Canada,
when there has been a marked, rapid and brutal increase in the
taxes on tobacco products, the black market has moved in.
That said, the data are available and studies, which are, more
or less conclusive, have been done. In the U.S., for example,
increased taxes on cigarettes had limited effect on the number of
smokers per age group. When one state is located in the central
part of the States, and its partners from the other states have
similar measures, data are available.
In Bill C-26, the most interesting measures, as I was saying
earlier, concern a tax on tobacco products at the factory gate.
This is about what we have. The old federal taxes we had prior
to the arrival of the infamous, questionable and questioned GST,
like the old federal manufacturing tax, resolved part of the
problem.
It will be interesting to see the effectiveness and the impact
of a tax on health. There is a study that has nothing to do with
health. At one point a curve was developed, which was used
frequently by Mr. Reagan in the States: the higher the taxes, the
higher the revenues. At a certain point, however, revenues drop.
It will be interesting to see what tax on cigarettes will be the
optimum in discouraging smoking among the young. I hope that the
Department of Health will monitor this closely.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-26. I thank
my colleague, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, for his
comments and personal reflections on this issue.
It is important to realize that smoking is on the rise in
Canada, particularly among young people. That is the most
troubling part of this whole trend relative to smoking. In 1990
in the age group between 15 and 19, 21% of that age group was
smoking. That rose to 28% by 1999.
Let us look at our strategy to combat smoking. We have seen the
banning of sponsorship of auto races and cultural events across
the country. It is questionable whether or not that ban has
helped reduce smoking. What it has done is reduce funding for
cultural events across Canada. I question the government's
strategy on whether or not banning sponsorships of cultural
activities has made a big difference in reducing smoking. That
has been part of the government's strategy.
Another one strategy has been these garish, egregious packages
which have pictures of gangrenous feet and cancerous lungs. Now
we have teenagers trading them like playing cards, with one
teenager saying to another “I'll give you a gangrenous foot for
a cancerous lung”. That sort of thing is going on, so I
sometimes question whether or not that initiative is achieving
its mark.
One jurisdiction that has made a difference in reducing the
incidences of smoking with young people is California. We should
take a serious look at how their best practices achieved that
reduction in smoking. Certainly its advertising and promotion
was very sophisticated. There was not a banning of sponsorship
of events by the cigarette companies. Those have continued.
The warnings on the cigarette packages are discreet but we have
seen in recent years a 43% decline in smoking in California. The
big difference is the funding of educational programs.
1820
In Canada the government's latest initiative will result in what
I think works out to about $2.33 per Canadian per year. In
California the amount of funding devoted to smoking cessation or
anti-smoking initiatives, from a marketing and educational
perspective, is closer to $5 per person.
California focused on community groups, schools, the education
system and on trying to avoid the behaviour from being developed
in the first place. We really should take a hard look at
California and other jurisdictions that have been successful in
this light.
The government has the best of intentions with a lot of these
initiatives. That is not to be questioned. What is more
important than just having the best of intentions is having great
results. We should take a serious look at a more significant
investment on the education side and working with the provinces
to ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent young
people from smoking.
As I said, I personally question the banning of the sponsorship
of sports and cultural activities. I do not think that has had
an impact. I stand to be corrected. I also question the garish
packages with the pictures on them. I think that has perversely
in its own way, through some type of reverse psychology, created
an attraction to young people who, for some reason that is beyond
me, are drawn to these sickening packages.
Whether or not the price will affect people's decisions, I can
only speak in an anecdotal way from constituents who have told me
that increases in cigarettes prices make a difference. They make
a difference in their lives in terms of the affordability. It is
intuitive to expect that raising prices will have an impact on
reducing the actual incidence of smoking.
I do not smoke any more. When did I never bought them, I used
to bum them off my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, so the
price was never a factor for me. However smoking caused a few
friendships. It was my efforts that slowly reduced the incidence
of smoking in our caucus because none of the other members could
afford to smoke and give me free ones. There are reasons why I
am finance critic. Parsimony may be one of them.
I am very pleased that I have quit smoking. I feel very good
about that. I am looking forward to the day when our caucus is
completely smoke free. We are nearing that day very quickly. By
that I mean I want the member for Richmond—Arthabaska to quit
smoking, not that I want him to leave caucus. I see the hon.
member for Compton—Stanstead opposite and I just wanted to make
sure that I was being absolutely perfectly clear on this.
In any case, I commend the government's efforts in this regard.
It is something of which we have to do more. I question some of
the directions and initiatives, but I certainly do not question
or dispute the positive intentions of the government. I just
hope we are doing everything we can to fight this scourge on the
health of Canadian citizens and to foster a healthier Canada, as
we have now entered the 21st century. We have to work together
to ensure that happens. As policy-makers and as leaders, we have
to ensure that we do everything we can to ensure that. With
health costs rising, the one way we can make a difference is to
reduce the incidence of smoking, particularly with young people.
1825
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, having worked with the member
for Kings—Hants, I know he does not cheat nor does he run into
the washroom and grab a quick smoke every now and then. I
congratulate him. I am sure his colleague will see the light of
way in due course.
I do not blame Canadians for being confused with regard to parts
of this issue because it is very complicated. When taxes on
cigarettes go up, some constituents of mine will say that people
will start smuggling them. This gives me an opportunity to
highlight the difference in this two tier tax structure with a
non-refundable tax.
People were smuggling cigarettes into Canada because of the
price differential. Cigarettes used to go into the U.S. market
without the tax. That created the incentive for people to
smuggle them back into Canada, which created a very lucrative
market for them. Under the present regime, we have a tax which
in the main says that once cigarettes leave the manufacturers
plant a non-refundable tax goes on them. If the economic
incentive to bring cigarettes back into Canada is taken away,
then we are going a long way.
The government understands that people are very creative. That
is why we started off with a $4.00 per carton increase.
Hopefully smuggling will not be an issue. However we will
monitor that very carefully. Some people say the key factor is
the price of cigarettes in the United States. However it is the
differential and the incentive to smuggle Canadian cigarettes
because Canadians like to smoke Canadian cigarettes. That is why
we have to eliminate the economic incentive.
I would like to congratulate the member on his intervention.
Would he comment further on those aspects.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I hope this initiative is
more successful because of the two tier nature of it in
preventing the cross border activities.
His government has done something else which will help reduce
the incidence of Canadians buying cigarettes from the U.S., and
that is its very dedicated effort to reduce the value of the
Canadian dollar. The government has successfully reduced the
Canadian dollar by almost 12 cents during its period in office in
the last eight years. That in and of itself makes a difference
in convincing Canadians not to buy cigarettes in the U.S. because
they cannot afford to pay in U.S. dollars.
Perhaps in some perverse way that is part of the long term
strategy of the government to not only lock Canadians in the
fiscal prison, that is the low dollar, but also to prevent them
from being exposed to nasty substances like American cigarettes,
which are pretty bad by the way.
I wish he could comment on that because I was wondering why the
government was paying so little attention to the precipitous
decline in the dollar. However I realized that the government
was actually trying to protect the health of Canadians by
reducing the dollar to such a point to reduce in any way, shape
or form incentives for Canadians to buy cigarettes in the U.S.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in regard to the smuggling aspect of
tobacco, the House should hear the seriousness of that situation.
The last case I worked on when I was in the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police involved an agent who was paid to get inside the
organization that was smuggling tobacco. That agent ended up
murdered on the side of the road after charges were laid against
the crooks who were bringing the tobacco across the border.
If anybody in the House or anybody watching thinks that tobacco
smuggling is not a serious issue with serious consequences for
this country then I have news for them. It is organized crime.
Has the member considered the fact that smuggling is a much
bigger issue than just the fact that someone is making a few
dollars from it?
1830
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. He has identified a very important issue. What
are we doing about funding, particularly for the RCMP in terms of
dealing with organized crime?
Anything we do that creates greater incentives for smuggling and
organized crime needs to be done in lockstep with better funding
and resources for the RCMP. It is of little use to pass laws we
cannot enforce. It is of little use to raise taxes if it results
in smuggling which we cannot police effectively. I think the
member's point was that we need to be vigilant in ensuring the
RCMP has the resources to do what is necessary. It is a very
serious issue.
I hope, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance said, that this initiative—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 6.30 p.m. and
pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, Bill C-26 is deemed
to be read a third time and passed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
PATENT ACT
The House resumed from May 10 consideration of the motion that
Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the
motion at second reading stage of Bill S-17.
Call in the members.
1850
And the bells having rung:
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was just in discussions with the
government House leader and my party has decided to withdraw its
amendments to Bill C-22 and Bill C-17. I think if you were to
seek consent you would find agreement for that.
We will be voting on the main motion to both those bills.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to permit the
withdrawal of the two amendments on each bill announced by the
hon. chief opposition whip and to proceed with votes on third
reading motions on both bills tonight?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendments withdrawn)
* * *
PATENT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-17, an
act to amend the Patent Act, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion for second
reading of Bill S-17.
1900
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
|
Bailey
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Bryden
|
Burton
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Elley
| Epp
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
|
Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marceau
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Paquette
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
|
Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
|
Scott
| Shepherd
| Skelton
| Spencer
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Venne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 180
|
NAYS
Members
Blaikie
| Godin
| Hinton
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Nystrom
| Wasylycia - Leis – 6
|
PAIRED
Members
Allard
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Bourgeois
| Brown
|
Cardin
| Carignan
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| Discepola
|
Eggleton
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Graham
| Guay
| Ianno
|
Knutson
| Lalonde
| Loubier
| Manley
|
Marcil
| McLellan
| Ménard
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Redman
| Rock
| Roy
| Sgro
|
Stewart
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vanclief
| Whelan
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly,
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry,
Science and Technology.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
[Translation]
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 a third time and passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division of the motion at third reading stage
of Bill C-22.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent that those members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance
will be voting nay to the motion. As well, the hon. members for
Edmonton North and Delta South—South Richmond are in their
places and will be voting this time as well.
1905
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote no on this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote no.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, since I did not vote on
the previous motion I want to be recorded as having voted with
the government's side, strange as that might be.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bagnell
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Bryden
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
| Volpe
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 126
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
|
Burton
| Cadman
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Day
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Harris
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Jaffer
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
|
Pallister
| Paquette
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
|
Toews
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
| Yelich – 63
|
PAIRED
Members
Allard
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Bourgeois
| Brown
|
Cardin
| Carignan
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| Discepola
|
Eggleton
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Graham
| Guay
| Ianno
|
Knutson
| Lalonde
| Loubier
| Manley
|
Marcil
| McLellan
| Ménard
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Redman
| Rock
| Roy
| Sgro
|
Stewart
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vanclief
| Whelan
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
The House resumed 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 third time and passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading
stage of Bill C-17.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent in the House that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance is
voting nay to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote no on the motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP are
voting no to the motion.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote no to the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bagnell
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Bryden
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
| Volpe
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 126
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
|
Burton
| Cadman
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Day
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Harris
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Jaffer
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
|
Pallister
| Paquette
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
|
Toews
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
| Yelich – 63
|
PAIRED
Members
Allard
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Bourgeois
| Brown
|
Cardin
| Carignan
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| Discepola
|
Eggleton
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Graham
| Guay
| Ianno
|
Knutson
| Lalonde
| Loubier
| Manley
|
Marcil
| McLellan
| Ménard
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Redman
| Rock
| Roy
| Sgro
|
Stewart
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vanclief
| Whelan
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, an
act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada,
be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the amendment to the motion for second
reading of Bill C-10.
1910
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to record those who voted on the previous motion,
with the exception of the member for LaSalle—Émard, as voting on
the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed?
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance
members will be voting yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc are in
favour of this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP will vote no
on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Party will
be voting yes to the motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Chatters
| Clark
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Day
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallant
| Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
|
Pallister
| Paquette
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
|
Toews
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams
| Yelich
– 58
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bagnell
| Barnes
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Bryden
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Godin
| Goodale
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 130
|
PAIRED
Members
Allard
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Bourgeois
| Brown
|
Cardin
| Carignan
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| Discepola
|
Eggleton
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Graham
| Guay
| Ianno
|
Knutson
| Lalonde
| Loubier
| Manley
|
Marcil
| McLellan
| Ménard
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Redman
| Rock
| Roy
| Sgro
|
Stewart
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vanclief
| Whelan
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the House on February 20 I tried
to get the Minister of Justice to address the injustice of having
three and a half million citizens in an RCMP databank called FIP
or Firearms Interest Police. All three and a half million are,
without their knowledge or consent, in direct contravention of
the Privacy Act of Canada, an act for which the minister herself
is responsible.
Sources in the RCMP and the Sûreté du Québec confirm that there
is a 50% error rate in the FIP databank. Sources in the Sûreté
du Québec advise us that municipal and city police forces do not
follow section 5 of the Firearms Act when loading personal
information into the FIP.
The Sûreté du Québec has advised us that it took one
investigator eight hours to clear the name of one improperly red
flagged individual. Is this the culture of safety the minister
envisioned with her billion dollar error riddled gun registration
scheme?
The minister brags that potentially dangerous individuals have
been blocked from buying guns or have had their firearms licences
refused or revoked. How could she brag about a so-called success
when the same thing could have been done 20 years ago with the
FAC program? How could she call the FIP a success when it is
based on information that is wrong 50% of the time?
The Minister of Justice says she is fully accountable and
responsible. However she looks the other way when the personal
information of three and a half million Canadians is loaded into
an RCMP databank that contravenes all seven privacy rights
guaranteed in the Privacy Act.
On February 16 the Privacy Commissioner of Canada wrote me a
three page letter outlining his concerns about the RCMP's
Firearms Interest Police database. Here are the key concerns Mr.
Radwanski described in his letter.
1915
First, the FIP database contains names of individuals that
should not have been entered and even “contains the names of
witnesses and victims”. Second, the police information and the
FIP leads to investigations based on “unsubstantiated, hearsay
and incorrect information”. Third, the police loaded incidents
in the FIP not relevant to section 5 of the Firearms Act. Fourth,
the police are conducting unnecessary investigations because the
FIP file contains information on “cases where the charges have
been dropped and the individuals have been acquitted”. Fifth,
he said that there is no process in place to ensure that
“improper or duplicate entries in the FIP files are removed or
corrected”.
The last point that I would like to raise, and these are not
exhaustive, is that the way the FIP database is set up makes it
“extraordinarily difficult for individuals to exercise their
access and correction rights”.
The government told Canadians that they have nothing to worry
about if they have done nothing wrong. The privacy
commissioner's letter proves that everyone has something to worry
about, especially the three and a half million citizens in the
RCMP's FIP file. When police are kept busy chasing down
incorrect and unreliable information in this police database, it
is possible for some criminals and truly violent individuals to
escape detection.
My question is this: when will the minister implement the
privacy commissioner's recommendations and fix this mess?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member opposite seems to believe that the Minister of
Justice is ignoring the recommendations of the privacy
commissioner. In September 1999 the Department of Justice
received an invitation from the privacy commissioner to do an
informal inquiry into both what was right and what was wrong with
the firearms program from a Privacy Act compliance point of view.
The object of the inquiry was to fix any outstanding issues, if
any. The Department of Justice accepted the commissioner's
suggestion.
The annual report from the privacy commissioner discloses that
in January 2000 he began a review of the firearms registry to
thoroughly assess its personal information handling practices. He
notes in his report that the deputy minister of justice has
welcomed the review and awaits any observations and
recommendations that would help the Canadian Firearms Centre meet
its requirements under the Privacy Act.
The Canadian Firearms Centre examined that report in detail and
had a meeting with the privacy commissioner's office in December
2000. In January 2001 the Canadian Firearms Centre submitted a
report in writing expressing a number of improvements that could
be made to the draft report. As of early March no response to
the firearm centre's comments and request for examples of misuse
of information had been received from the privacy commissioner.
These are clearly not the actions of a minister, a department or
a program that, in the words of the hon. member, continues to
ignore the recommendations of the privacy commissioner.
I would like to address the member's second concern, that
information used to make public safety decisions when deciding on
eligibility for a firearms licence exceeds the authority of the
minister and the Firearms Act. The House passed Bill C-68 after
a lengthy debate. Section 5 of the Firearms Act specifies that a
person is not eligible to hold a firearms licence if it is
desirable in the interest of the safety of that person or any
other person that the applicant not possess a firearm described
in the statute.
To set the framework for making this determination, the
legislated statute makes specific references to offences under
the criminal code, such as an offence where violence is used,
threatened or attempted, and offences respecting criminal
harassment. Offences respecting drugs are specifically
mentioned. Persons who have been treated for a mental illness are
specifically mentioned where violence, threatened, attempted or
used, is a concern. Finally, a history of behaviour that
includes violence, threatened or attempted, against any person is
specifically mentioned. Evidence of these factors could render
an applicant ineligible for a firearms licence.
Gathering information in respect of these criteria is central to
the public safety. The requirement of section 5—
The Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.19 p.m.)