1999-02-05

Government Orders
Competition ActHon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): moved:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, because this House is of the opinion that the intent and policy of the words in question is in the public interest and reflects the opinion of the great majority of Canadians, and this House proposes, in lieu of the amendments made by the Senate, that the amendments be amended to read as follows:

Page 14, Clause 19: Delete lines 31 to 46 and substitute the following therefor:

66.1 (1) Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed or intends to commit an offence under the Act, may notify the Commissioner of the particulars of the matter and may request that his or her identity be kept confidential with respect to the notification.
(2) The Commissioner shall keep confidential the identity of a person who has notified the Commissioner under subsection (1) and to whom an assurance of confidentiality has been provided by any person who performs duties or functions in the administration or enforcement of this Act.

Page 15, Clause 19: Delete lines 1 to 42 and substitute the following therefor:

66.2 (1) No employer shall dismiss, suspend, demote, discipline, harass or otherwise disadvantage an employee, or deny an employee a benefit of employment, by reason that
(a) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, has disclosed to the Commissioner that the employer or any other person has committed or intends to commit an offence under this Act;
(b) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, has refused or stated an intention or refused to do anything that is an offence under this Act;
(c) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, has done or stated an intention of doing anything that is required to be done in order that an offence not be committed under this Act; or
(d) the employer believes that the employee will do anything referred to in paragraph (a) or (c) or will refuse to do anything referred to in paragraph (b).
(2) Nothing in this section impairs any right of an employee either at law or under an employment contract or collective agreement.
(3) In this section, “employee” includes an independent contractor and “employer” has the corresponding meaning.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak this morning on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act. As you know, we passed third reading of this bill in the House on September 23, 1998.
The aim of this bill is to improve and consolidate the Competition Act. Some of the key amendments were intended to equip the competition bureau to combat the degrading crime of misleading telemarketing.
The bill also included provisions for whistle blowing intended to protect employees providing the competition bureau with information on activities of their employer limiting competition.
Those whistleblowing provisions were removed from the bill by the Senate as a result of arguments made by Progressive Conservative members of the Senate who focused on some concerns raised by the Canadian Bar Association.
Today this House has the opportunity to reconsider the whistleblowing provisions and an opportunity to do something positive for Canadian consumers and legitimate businesses.
I would point out that protection for whistleblowers has been the subject of a number of legislative proposals over the past several years and has been introduced in private members' bills.
The director of investigations and research at the competition bureau acted on this continued interest in whistleblowing by asking Mr. Justice Dubin to study the matter and identify the provisions that would be relevant should legislation on whistle blowing have to be introduced.
This study and its appendix on the provisions on whistleblowing were released on November 18, 1997 and posted on the Web site of the Competition Office for the public to consult.
On the initiative of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, the whistleblowing provisions were introduced into Bill C-20 on May 26, 1998 when it was under consideration by the industry committee.
The hon. member proposed these provisions to encourage individuals who have knowledge of price-fixing arrangements to act in the public interest and to report them.
As the hon. member indicated then, the amendments resulted from a great deal of consultation with many people in the community and throughout the country.
The Canadian Bar Association raised some concerns about the whistleblowing provisions with the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, one of which was that there had not been sufficient consultation.
We have made use of this time for additional consultation with the bar and other groups that have expressed interest in this provision.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, an organization comprising over 800 private members and corporations representing over 1.5 million Canadians, provided strong support for the provisions on whistleblowing.
The Canadian Direct Marketing Association also considered the provisions very important. The Canadian Bar Association as well considered there was enough protection for whistleblowers in Canadian legislation.
However, the government believes it is important to enact these additional protections as an express encouragement by parliament to people to report criminal activity limiting competition.
As for the substantive objections of the bar, the principal concern is that there could be criminal liability for requesting an employee to do something that is not actually illegal at the time of the request.
The Competition Act sets out certain criminal offences, but also deals with so-called reviewable matters in which conduct such as an abuse of a dominant position only becomes illegal after it is prohibited by the Competition Tribunal.
To meet this concern I have proposed an amendment to the whistleblowing provisions which will limit their application to conduct that is a criminal offence under the act and will not refer to conduct that is merely contrary to the act.
The CBA also argued that the potential for criminal sanctions could lead to inefficiencies in businesses where an employer might hesitate to discipline unproductive staff, even though legitimate reasons exist for doing so. However, the burden always remains with the crown to prove all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. If legitimate reasons exist for disciplining or firing an employee, then those reasons will no doubt raise the reasonable doubt that would preclude a criminal conviction.
The conclusion is that employees acting in good faith when they report competition limiting behaviour have our protection against vengeful employers. The provisions on whistleblowing, by balancing the rights of the employees and the employer, do not place an undue burden of proof on the employer.
What I have proposed in response to some of the concerns about the possibility of excessively heavy sanctions, is to withdraw the sanctions set out in the first provision.
An employer will now be liable to the same sanctions as the Criminal Code provides for the infraction of a federal statute.
I believe that it is important to send the right signal to Canadians that we need to work together to combat crime.
I am very disappointed that this issue held up Bill C-20 in the other place last December. I believe the modifications proposed to the whistleblowing provisions do represent improvements to the bill and do address the principal concerns of the Canadian Bar Association and of the Senate.
Now it is time for us to act quickly again. We need to provide appropriate protection for whistleblowers to enable the Competition Bureau to obtain the information needed to properly investigate criminal activity. We need to bring Bill C-20 into force to provide effective measures against deceptive telemarketers.
With every day that passes, there are new victims of scams. Every day that passage of Bill C-20 is delayed, the confidence of Canadians is put at greater risk. This is the moment to consider consumers, businesses and the organizations responsible for implementing the legislation across Canada, who have advocated expeditious passage of Bill C-20.
It is time to show all of these consumers across Canada that the House is listening to them. I urge that the bill receive expeditious passage.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the proposed amendments to Bill C-20. Before I begin I would like to reacquaint members of the House with the full scope of this important piece of legislation. I think that once my colleagues understand the necessity and urgency of this proposed legislation they will also understand why the motion before us is worthy of support, and why the changes made in the Senate would only work to dilute the effectiveness of this bill.
Bill C-20 is an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. Essentially this bill will create an enforceable and judicial code of conduct for those in the direct marketing industry. But I can assure members of the House that this is not an onerous government imposition on this industry.
It is a welcome framework for ethical practice, welcomed by legitimate direct marketers who understand that a legislative and regulatory environment designed with common sense can create a business environment that will foster growth and profitability.
Direct marketers understand that only in an environment of trust and accountability will Canadian consumers use their services. Direct marketers also understand that this trust and accountability must come not only from their own due diligence and fair conduct but from legislation supported by the full weight of the law.
Bill C-20 gives teeth to the voluntary practices already adhered to by legitimate players in this $4 billion a year industry. Under this new law, telemarketers would have to identify who they are representing, disclose the price of their services or products they are selling, and explain clearly why they are making the call. These three simple provisions, had they existed in the past, could have saved many Canadians from the humiliation of being victims of deceptive telemarketing.
I do not think it is fair to wait any longer to give this protection to Canadian consumers. My hon. colleague from Kelowna, British Columbia pointed out in a speech he gave some time ago that protection against telemarketing deception has been debated in this House since 1996 and that the cost of ignoring this problem is estimated to be approaching $5 million.
I personally do not plan to delay the implementation of this bill any longer and will consequently be keeping my remarks as brief as I can.
This legislation also proposes amendments to the Competition Act. Before I address those amendments, I would like to stress to this House as I have done on other occasions that while competition laws do have the potential to create a fair and level playing field in the market, they can be arbitrary and economically stifling.
Laws that make criminals out of individuals who are guilty only of selling quality products at low prices should not be supported in a democratic society that believes in the power and justice of economic freedom.
I could not support a Competition Act that would allow men like Bill Gates or Canada's own Conrad Black to be treated like common criminals only because they dare to achieve and they dare to be the best at what they do.
I would like members of this House to take note of these remarks as competition laws will surely surface in this House again and again. We can choose to create fairness in the context of economic freedom or we can create a bureaucracy under which both consumers and producers will suffer.
As part of the overall strategy to deal with deceptive telemarketing, amendments were made to the Competition Act to control deceptive marketing, advertising and pricing. These changes were designed to complement the code of conduct created in the same legislation.
These amendments continue to have the support of the Reform caucus but it must be understood that even the most rigorous protection against deceptive direct marketing or misleading advertising will accomplish nothing if individuals do not step forward to ensure that the law is adhered to.
Canadians who are the victims of deceptive marketing in any form are often too ashamed and too embarrassed to bring their concerns before a court. When the victims of a crime are afraid to act to ensure that justice is applied consistently, something else must be done.
To combat this situation, the legislators involved in the creation and fine tuning of Bill C-20, particularly my colleague from Ottawa Centre, sought to create a unique process by which to ensure that the new law was properly adhered to. I am making reference here to the whistleblowing provisions in Bill C-20, the provisions that an unelected and unaccountable Senate decided to remove from this act, the provisions that we must reinstate in this House today.
The whistleblowing provisions have been designed to assist the Competition Bureau in investigating violations of the Competition Act as it applies to deceptive direct marketing. Those individuals who bear witness to violations of the Competition Act can bring their concerns directly to the competition commissioner with the assurance that their privacy will be protected. Furthermore the proposed law would ensure that those who did wish to expose practices that hurt our most vulnerable members of society would be protected from the reprisal of their employers.
If we can create a law, we must not allow that law to exist without the means by which to ensure that it is complied with. To do so would only work to breed a feeling of contempt among the Canadian people toward this House and toward the laws that govern our nation.
The fact that this bill was amended by the Senate to exclude provisions is offensive in and of itself. It is an insult to democracy that the work of elected members of parliament can be undone by individuals who are accountable to nobody.
I will leave the matter of the Senate to be discussed further by my hon. colleague from Calgary West who is our party's very capable Senate watchdog.
I close by saying that our party continues to support Bill C-20. We will also support the Liberal motion before the House that seeks to reinstate the whistleblowing provisions removed by the Senate.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the hon. minister's motion to send Bill C-20 back to the Senate with an amendment restoring the substance of the whistleblowing provision which the Senate took out of the bill at third reading.
I first proposed adding the whistleblowing provision to the bill at the committee stage on May 26, 1998. I was heartened by the support this provision received by my colleagues in the industry committee and by the House at third reading. I was disappointed to learn that the passage of Bill C-20 was delayed by the Senate because of concerns about this provision.
The purpose of the whistleblowing provision is to assist competition authorities in the investigation of price fixing agreements and conspiracies by providing protection to employees who come forward to report those crimes. These crimes undermine competition and victimize both consumers and legitimate businesses.
In my comments to the industry committee last May, I referred to a letter that was sent to the committee by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, an organization which represents over 800 individual and group members and over 1.5 million Canadians. They support this provision by saying:
We strongly support this proposed amendment. Often the only persons who are aware of an offence are employees or others who are vulnerable to retribution by the company in question should they act in the public interest by advising the competition authorities of a violation of the law. It is essential that such persons be protected from retribution.
I repeat that often the only persons who are aware of an offence are the employees who are vulnerable to retribution and it is essential that they be protected from retribution.
In the testimony heard by the Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce there were concerns about lack of consultation on this provision and arguments that the present confidentiality provisions and common law informer protections are sufficient.
The whistleblowing provision will protect the identity of persons who come forward with information on how prices in the gasoline industry or any industry for that matter are really set. The whistleblowing provision will punish employers who take retribution action against employees who act in good faith in reporting price fixing arrangements and conspiracies.
The whistleblowing provision in this bill signals parliament's express encouragement to individuals who have knowledge of anti-competitive criminal activities to act in the public interest and to come forward with that essential information. By restoring this provision to the bill today, we reiterate that encouragement and underline the importance parliament places on the free operation of competition.
The amendment proposed by the Minister of Industry restores the substance of the whistleblowing provision approved by this elected chamber last September with changes that address concerns raised by the Canadian Bar Association before the Senate banking committee.
One of the changes clarifies that the whistleblowing protection operates only with respect to the criminal sections of the Competition Act, not with respect to those subject to civil process. The second has the effect of reducing the maximum penalty for employers convicted of dismissing or disciplining employees for reporting an offence or for refusing to participate in an offence under the Competition Act. Instead of the specific penalty provisions I have proposed, the Criminal Code penalties for contravention of a federal statute will apply.
These changes will have the effect of speeding the passage of the bill. I support them.
Finally, Bill C-20 contains many important provisions in addition to the protection for whistleblowers, most notably the provisions dealing with deceptive telemarketing.
The Canadian public has waited much too long for the passage of this bill. I urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to support this motion today without any delay.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I was next, after the official opposition, to respond to the minister's amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Right, but first we will have questions and comments on the remarks made by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre. Are there questions or comments? No? Resuming debate.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this morning, in spite of the fact that we voted against Bill C-20 to amend the Competition Act at second and third reading because, in our opinion, it weakened rather than toughened the provisions of the act, we will be voting in favour of this amendment, which we believe deserves the support of each and every one in the House.
The Senate, an unelected body, delayed passage of the bill approved by parliament, notwithstanding our opposition, by putting forward to the House of Commons an amendment to remove from Bill C-20 the protection the Competition Act continues to afford employees or any other person who discloses to the competition commissioner unfair practices considered illegal. Its arguments are based mainly on concerns expressed by the bar association, but it has shown that this was an absolutely essential provision.
The Competition Act is already, we feel, weakened by the bill. If employees know or have reasonable grounds to believe that a company is engaging in deceptive marketing practices and are unable to inform in confidence the body responsible for enforcing the Competition Act, they would then be in the position of allowing these deceptive marketing practices to continue. They would even be forced to take part in them because they could not blow the whistle.
If an employee gets in touch with the commissioner of competition and his employer finds out and can lay him off without recourse, who will notify the commissioner of competition? Nobody; no employee will be able to do so.
In a letter which I myself did not read, but which was cited when this issue was being studied by the Senate, the Bar said as follows:
Employers should not be obliged to continue to employ employees or entrepreneurs in whom they have lost confidence. The fact that an employee complains to the commissioner can only worsen the work climate.
An employer acting in good faith should be able to let an employee go with prior notice or compensation in lieu thereof. This legitimate action by the employer will no longer be possible because paragraph 66(2) makes it a criminal offence.
It seems to me that this letter from the bar association proves beyond a doubt that employees need protection, because it is certain that if an employee contacts the commissioner in good faith to disclose his employer's practices, the employer will lose confidence in him. If, as the bar association says, it is legitimate for the employee to be dismissed because of this loss of confidence, hon. members will agree with me that no employee one will contact the commissioner. The commissioner will therefore not have access to certain information, as it would very likely not come from another source.
I would point out here that a large number of workers in Canada are not unionized. Being unionized would give them a degree of protection. Not being unionized is a serious problem in such cases.
I would also like to point out that, since the bill allows the use of electronic surveillance, it seems to me that consistency requires the name of the person who has contacted the commissioner in good faith to report anti-competitive practices to be kept secret, due to the highly invasive nature of wiretapping.
The purpose of all this is to indicate that we are going to be voting in favour of this amendment. I would, however, be remiss if I did not point out once again that, unfortunately, this bill generally weakens the scope of the Competition Act. I use the word “generally” because there is one provision in particular that enhances the powers of the commissioner, the one relating to fraudulent telemarketing. As for telemarketing fraud, it is important to provide some protection to its many victims, including elderly people like me.
We agree that it was important and even urgent to take this measure. There are too many contradictions in this bill, a decriminalization that is not obvious and that is replaced with a discretionary power in the hands of the commissioner, who may not have the necessary budget to be everywhere he should be.
So, we regret this weakening, and this is why we voted against the bill, even though we support this morning's amendment.
The Bloc Quebecois was not the only one to be really concerned about these amendments to the Competition Act. Let me quote an emeritus professor from the University of Toronto, whose expertise in that field is well recognized. He says:
In fact, I find a real inconsistency in Bill C-20, since it transforms misleading advertising offences into offences that require wrongful intent.
The bill now provides that intent must be present for an individual to be accused of misleading advertising. This was not the case before, and is still not the case so long as the bill is not passed.
It does, however, for the first time, establish telemarketing offences subject to the old system of strict liability offences. That makes no sense. On the one hand, we are told we must fight deceptive telemarketing practices by making offenders criminally liable. But in other areas, such as misleading advertising, considered to be similar, they back off and require proof of criminal intent.
Professor Ziegle goes on to say:
It is as if the drafters had received two sets of contradictory instructions. This fact alone requires explanation and justification.
To my knowledge, none was provided, and I see no reason why we have a set of standards on criminal proceedings in the Competition Act and another in other laws such as the Food and Drugs Act, the Currency Act, our safety standards legislation, and so on.
That said, this bill must be passed quickly. We have had our say, and we will see whether the future will prove us right. We can correct the bill again, but it is important that it be adopted, for the provisions on misleading marketing, among others, and this is why we support it.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act.
As has been mentioned by other members, Bill C-20 has returned from the Senate with sections 66.1 and 66.2 deleted. These sections pertain to whistleblowing and the government has proposed new amendments to reinstate these provisions. The only significant concession that the government has made, however, is withdrawing any reference to criminal sanctions.
Before I give my comments on the amendments to the question I would like to reiterate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party our overall support for this bill. Our party has always understood that the promotion of competitive markets is of fundamental importance in today's global and extraordinarily competitive economy.
Competition stimulates innovation and growth in jobs, provides businesses and consumers with competitive prices and product choices that they need and increases overall the average standard of living in society.
Without a modern competition law Canadian businesses will encounter anti-competitive barriers to their entry and expansion in their markets. They may find in time it is difficult to source and input at competitive prices and ultimately they may encounter other refrains in their ability to remain competitive.
In my view the Senate has made the correct choice to remove the whistleblowing provisions which were not part of the original legislation but were added by the House industry committee. That is not to say the intent of legislating whistleblowing provisions is wrong. But as pointed out by organizations, including the Canadian Bar Association, sections 66.1 and 66.2 were an undue intrusion into the role of the employer with respect to otherwise completely lawful behaviours.
The whistleblowing provisions were introduced by the industry committee during its hearings. Consequently they were not part of the same public consultation process as the other provisions of the bill. The Canadian Bar Association went further and said that section 66.1 would require the commissioner of competition to keep confidential the identities of persons who notify the commission when they have reasonable grounds to believe that another person has committed or intends to commit an offence. Section 66.2 would prevent employers who dismiss, suspend, demote, discipline, harass or otherwise disadvantage an employee or deny an employee a benefit of employment for whistleblowing activities, and effectively employers are also prohibited from the above employment actions if they believe an employee will undertake the above whistleblowing actions. I will read one paragraph from the letter by the Canadian Bar Association that was sent to the chairman of the Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce. Page 4, paragraph 6 reads as follows:
Employers should not be required to continue to deal with employees or contractors in whom they have lost confidence. An employee's complaint to the commissioner would generally sour the work environment. An employer acting in good faith should be entitled to terminate an employee either with notice or damages in lieu of notice. This legitimate action by an employer would not longer be available—.
Further, the Canadian Bar Association added:
Proposed whistleblowing provisions conflict with the 1997 report by the honourable Charles Dubin, whom the Competition Bureau had retained to study the issue. The Dubin report concluded that there was no need to amend the Competition Act to protect employee whistleblowers because protection is available through existing processes. The Dubin report also found that the whistleblower legislation in other jurisdictions has had little or no impact.
There are significant problems in both the concepts and the drafting of section 66.2. These problems will create unnecessary and difficult situations for employers. In addition, there are issues respecting section 66.1 that should be of concern to the commissioner and to the Competition Bureau.
This past year the direction of the Competition Bureau, Mr. Konrad Von Finckenstein, was asked at both House and Senate committees to give the bureau's position on the whistleblowing provisions. His response was: “The amendments were put forward not by me and not on our suggestion but by a member of the House. I am neutral on it. I see the deterrent value. On the other hand, I do not want to create something that is going to cause employers a lot of harm or interference with normal employee relations or is going to cause a lot of useless work”.
This is hardly a ringing endorsement. Section 66.1 and section 66.2 even as modified by the government do not represent government policy but rather the initiative of one member of the House without in our opinion proper consultation or study.
As stated earlier, Justice Dubin when asked to express his view on the desirability of such legislation produced a report which concluded that the whistleblowing provisions are not necessary because an employee would have rights currently under common law and employment status. This was recently confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Wallace v. United Grain Growing Limited.
Let me be clear. Our party does agree with the intent of whistleblowing provisions and to a certain extent in the potential of whistleblowing provisions. This debate should be subject to proper consultation and scrutiny and not hastily rushed into. Elected officials sometimes are prone to look for quick legislative solutions to otherwise complex public policy issues. We would like to see more consultation and more discussion and more rigorous diligence. In researching this there are organizations, including the Canadian Bar Association and the head of the Competition Bureau, that have expressed significant reservations about the effectiveness of whistleblowing provisions.
The Progressive Conservative Party will therefore oppose the government's amendments to Bill C-20 and support the bill as amended by the Senate.
For those members who criticize the Senate when individuals or senators collectively take active roles in amending legislation, and at the same time or perhaps days before or days after will criticize senators for doing nothing, they should be consistent. We want a Senate that is active and participates in these types of very important public policy debates. I believe we do. Even those members of this House who are opposed to the Senate need to recognize that we have a Senate at this time and that the Senate contains members who have significant experiences and a depth of experience and knowledge of public policy quite exceptional in many areas, particularly areas such as the Senate banking committee, which I have had the pleasure of working with as a member of the House of Commons finance committee.
While we have the institution of the Senate, I urge all members of the House to respect that institution and to encourage that institution and its members to diligently pursue important issues of public policy such that we can ensure collectively the House and the other place will produce the types of legislation Canadians need. It is extraordinarily important.
If Senate reform is something individual members of the House feel is needed, that is an issue which should be pursued with legitimate healthy debate. As long as we have a Senate and as long as we have members in that Senate who are capable, intelligent and diligent public servants that work hard on behalf of Canadians, not just offering what Canadians want today but what Canadians need in terms of public policy in the future, we should be encouraging intervention and input from the Senate, not discouraging it.
Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague but I cannot help but ask the following questions.
Could he tell me what part of the amendment or the motion he does not support? Does he not support the fact that if an employee in a company or an organization finds out about wrongdoings by an employer he should report it to the Competition Bureau? Or, does the hon. member not support the fact that if this employee comes forward with the information we should protect the confidentiality of the information? Or, does he not support the fact that if an employer decides to fire an employee because that employee reported wrongdoings the employee deserves to be protected?
What part of the particular motion does he not support? This is exactly what the motion does. This is exactly what this amendment to Bill C-20 does. I admit we have taken out some of the teeth, but the bottom line is that we did that in order to respond specifically to the concerns and to aspirations of organizations such as the Canadian Bar Association. In fact its concerns have been dealt with.
If my colleague were told now that the Canadian Bar Association supports the motion before the House of Commons, would he be kind enough to ask his colleagues to support the motion? The Canadian Bar Association already indicated its support of it. Therefore a big chunk of his concerns should be dealt with in the particular position taken by the Canadian Bar Association.
Notwithstanding anything else and putting partisanship aside, would the hon. member, in fairness, having heard what I just said, not reconsider his position and support the motion?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon. member. Nobody in the House would disagree with the intent of the whistleblowing amendments. The intent is sound, but unfortunately there are toxic levels of naiveté in the hon. member's arguments. The enforceability of the whistleblowing amendments would potentially create a regulatory nightmare.
The head of the Competition Bureau, Konrad Von Finckenstein, has said effectively that he will not provide either support or opposition to it. I will read his response again:
—the amendments were put forward not by me and not on our suggestion but by ... a member of the House.... I am neutral on it ... I see the deterrent value .... On the other hand, I do not want to create something that is going to cause employers a lot of harm or interfere with normal employee relations or is going to cause me of useless work.
The Canadian Bar Association has indicated that there are significant concerns about the amendments. The enforceability of these amendments is dubious at best. The Dubin report basically found that whistleblower legislation in most jurisdictions has had little impact.
We are not disagreeing with the intent. What we are saying is that we need to have more study and more diligence. We should not rush forward to implement politically expedient but unrealistic public policy that in the long term does not serve the needs of Canadians and does not even meet the intent of the amendments.
We have to be realistic. We must not just do what is politically palatable. Sometimes we have to do what is actually effective and realistic.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I took note of the hon. member's speech with regard to Bill C-20. He spoke of proper scrutiny and more consultation. He spoke of wanting a more active Senate. He spoke of consistency, capability, diligence and effectiveness.
Would he apply all the things he wishes Bill C-20 had with regard to whistleblower protection to the Senate?
Scott Brison: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I would in fact argue that there are members of the Senate who are working very hard serving Canadians on an ongoing basis. We also have senators in the Senate banking committee with which I am very familiar who have forgotten more on finance and banking issues than many members of the House know, even those on the finance committee of which I am a member. We see legislation which the House sends to the Senate being improved and made better for Canadians by the Senate.
I absolutely would like to see the same degree of rigour that would apply to this legislation or any other legislation and the same level of scrutiny applied to the Senate. Like any organization, there are members of the Senate who are more capable and pursue public policy with a greater amount of vigour and diligence than others. There are also members of the House who pursue public policy more vigorously than others. There are members of the House who love politics but do not really like public policy. Politics can be the natural enemy of public policy.
One thing I like about members of the Senate is that their focus in many cases is exclusively on public policy. There are members of the Senate who have a significant level of experience and depth of knowledge in particular areas which is unequalled in the House.
While the hon. member may be opposed to the Senate and may want to see systemic overhaul of the Senate, and that is a legitimate issue for discussion, while we have a Senate we have a duty as parliamentarians to work with the senators to develop legislation in the best interest of Canadians and not simply to criticize senators for purely political partisan reasons.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20. The government introduced the bill to address the issue of direct marketing fraud. The bill is intended to protect consumers as well as legitimate direct marketing businesses. It is a code of conduct for the direct marketing industry.
I would like to focus on two items in particular. The Senate has recently returned the bill deleting sections 66.1 and 66.2 which deal exclusively with the issue of whistleblowing.
On the issue of whistleblowing I think the country needs more whistleblowers. We need people who expose the abuses of government. We need people to stand up when wrongs have been committed. As a result that is why I support whistleblowers. I not only want to see whistleblowers protected with regard to Bill C-20 in the direct marketing industry. I want to see other whistleblowers as well.
I would like to see some whistleblowers in the other chamber. Right now they are beholden to the Prime Minister; they are appointed by the Prime Minister. I want to see effective whistleblowers who can blow the whistle on problems with the federal government and not fear that they hold some allegiance to the Prime Minister for their appointments. I want whistleblowers who are accountable to the people who elect them rather than to the Prime Minister who appointed them.
Other countries have effective whistleblowers. Germany with its Bundesrat has effective whistleblowers. They gather people who are representatives of the various Landers or states in Germany. They get together to determine whether or not bills that have been passed in the Bundestag are effective. They whistleblow.
In other words, if people who represent the state or the Lander of Baden-Wurttemburg or Berlin, or any of them, decide that they do not like a particular piece of legislation, that it goes against the interest of their particular state or their particular Lander, they will whistleblow. They will go ahead and blow their whistle and expose the federal document or whatever was passed by the Bundestag for being ineffective or for not dealing properly or not dealing fairly with their particular grievance, with their particular state or their Lander.
Germany is not the only country that has effective whistleblowers. The United States also has whistleblowers. That country to the south with which we do 80% of our trade has whistleblowers. It changed its laws so that it would be able to elect its whistleblowers.
The first state that actually did that via a constitutional amendment, the 17th amendment to the U.S. constitution, was Oregon. Now effective whistleblowers are recognized within the constitution of the United States, those people in its senate. Those who come from the state of Idaho can have the same representation as those that have a more populous representation in the House of Representatives.
California represents more people than all the inhabitants of Canada and has two senators. Idaho and Wyoming, small states in comparison, have two whistleblowers as well. The whistleblowers in Idaho may blow their whistle about potatoes or injustices that have happened with regard to agricultural policy in the same way that whistleblowers in the state of California may blow their whistles with regard to whatever may be troubling California in its state of the union.
I want to see whistleblower protection. I have faith in whistleblowers. They are important to the system. We need to know what the problems are and have fair criticism. I want to see fair criticism and not rubber stamps of government legislation.
Right now in the other place we have a clear majority of people who were appointed by the Prime Minister for his party, the Liberal Party of Canada. We would like to see whistleblowers elected by the people from the various provinces who fairly represent the regions in the provinces. That is what we are talking about: real whistleblowers, not rubber stamps.
The whistleblower protections proposed in Bill C-20 are opposed by the Canadian Bar Association and opposed by the Senate. For Canadians who may be watching—
The Speaker: The member still has 15 minutes left in his very interesting talk. As it is 11 o'clock we will proceed to Statements by Members and then the member will have the floor when we return.

Statements By Members
Social UnionMs. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Prime Minister and the government on the new social union framework. This agreement strengthens Canada's health and social programs and signals a new era of flexible federalism.
Canadians want the type of co-operation and consensus building where governments work to improve the daily lives of Canadians.
This government never viewed the process in winning or losing terms, but with determination to succeed in arranging better services for Canadians.
The government has once again demonstrated a commitment to accountability. The inclusion of monitoring and evaluating social programs and regularly reporting outcomes to constituents is a valuable and appreciated aspect of the agreement. Providing a review of the framework within three years confirms the commitment this government has made toward improving the lives of Canadians.
Return To OrtonaMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this week the CBC Newsmagazine broadcast “Return to Ortona”, in memory of the 1943 Canadian victory in which so many lives were lost. I commend this program to all who respect our veterans and appreciate the glory and sorrow of war.
However, there was one glaring omission in both the television program and in CBC website coverage. Who paid for the veterans' trip to Ortona? The government let these veterans down. Average people made this event happen.
Thirty thousand names are missing from this story. Thirty thousand contributors opened their hearts and wallets to give all they could to send their boys to Ortona. This trip, this event and this report would not have been possible without them.
Let us remember that these veterans travelled courtesy of the generosity of 30,000 contributors. The CBC should have given some recognition to the magnificent efforts of these 30,000 contributors.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all contributors now. Their generosity allowed a wonderful event to take place.
EmploymentMr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a great day. In addition to the good news about our Prime Minister's successful and significant negotiations with the provinces on the social union, I awoke this morning to learn that the unemployment rate in Canada had fallen to 7.8%, the lowest rate in almost nine years. This means that in January 87,000 more Canadians, including 44,000 young people, had a job to go to each day, jobs that they did not have in December. Bravo.
For some time I have been concerned that as our economy went through a period impacted by technological change unemployment had become structural. By smashing through and below the 8% unemployment barrier, our government has proven that its policies of sound fiscal management and progressive job creation initiatives are working. This bodes well for the country as this government will continue to offer all Canadians the strong and visionary leadership that it has since 1993.
Social UnionMr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers agreed on a framework to ensure Canada's health and social programs are strengthened as we enter a new millennium.
Canadians are tired of seeing their leaders mired in partisan wrangling. They want us to work together as representatives of the people, regardless of our political party, to improve programs and services for all Canadians. The successful meeting yesterday proved that we can do it.
While I am unhappy that Premier Bouchard felt he could not sign, I hope he will ensure that the people of Quebec benefit from this spirit of consensus building.
As an MP from southwestern Ontario, I want a Canadian federation that reaches out to all corners of our beautiful and great nation and includes every citizen. Yesterday we made an important step and I congratulate the Prime Minister and the premiers for putting the interests of Canada first.
Sexual Exploitation Of ChildrenMs. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in September 1996, as a delegate to the World Congress against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and last year at Canada's “Out from the Shadows” conference in Victoria, I heard firsthand from young people the devastating effects of sexual exploitation.
I hope all members of this House take these issues seriously. Members truly interested in ensuring healthy choices and freedoms for Canadian children and the world's children might read the Declaration and Agenda for Action ratified by the youth delegates in March 1998.
They should talk to the youth who are abused on the streets of this city and cities across our nation. They should learn the language they would have us use and refrain from terms like “kiddie” that make the issue overly cute and accessible.
Child pornography has had our attention over the last couple of weeks. It exploits and abuses children.
I thank the attorney general for her work on intervening on the appeal in British Columbia and upholding the law and the rights of all Canadians to due process.
The Canadian Wheat BoardMr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, prairie farmers were surprised when the Canadian Wheat Board ran ads in major newspapers across the west trumpeting the fact that there are 15 new directors at the wheat board.
The board spent approximately $100,000 telling farmers something they already knew. When farmers are pinching pennies and trying to deal with an income crisis, this is a shameful and inexcusable waste of their money.
Since the board has argued in court that its only mandate is to sell farmers grain in an orderly fashion, not to get farmers the best price, maybe we should not be surprised that it wastes farmers' dollars. But to throw so much money into a propaganda campaign when many farmers are at the brink of bankruptcy is beyond belief. Heads should be rolling for this ridiculous waste of farmers' money.
Is this a sign of the so-called accountability of the new board?
Social UnionMr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the Prime Minister, the premiers and the territorial leaders for signing the health and social union framework. This deal will go down in history as one of the high points in federal-provincial co-operation.
The government has agreed to (1) a statement for the equality of every Canadian wherever they live; (2) the commitment not to erect barriers to mobility; (3) give Canadians a greater voice in monitoring social programs; (4) work together on new social programs; (5) provide guidelines for dispute avoidance and resolution; (6) establish provisions for a review of the framework in three years; and (7) provide commitments from the federal government to work with the provinces to identify Canada-wide priorities and objectives.
Canadians are the clear winners in this process. On behalf of the constituents of my riding of Hamilton West, I thank the Prime Minister for initiating a process which will result in Canadians from coast to coast to coast being better served by their governments.
Military College In Saint-JeanMr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a military symposium held in Ottawa last week, the director of the Canadian War Museum, Jack Granatstein, said that the federal government had done the right thing in closing the military college in Saint-Jean, as it was a Quebec separatist stronghold. “This was very clearly obvious”, he added.
In other words, it was fear of separatism that killed this institution. For the best part of 43 years, all francophones who dreamed of a career as an officer had to go through the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean. The college has seen 8,000 of them go on to have a career in the armed forces and another 4,000 earn a university degree. This is a function the very British royal military college of Kingston will never fulfil.
The situation in Kingston has convinced and will continue to convince many young Quebeckers in the military to become sovereignists.
Job CreationMrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to share very good news concerning job creation and unemployment with the members of this House.
The unemployment rate has dropped to 7.8% from 11,4% in 1993. That is the lowest it has ever been since June 1990. Moreover, in January, employment increased by 87,000 jobs, and all of the gain was in full time work.
This is the seventh consecutive monthly gain, with employment increases over this period averaging 57,000 per month. The youth employment rate fell half a percentage point to 13.9%, the lowest since September 1990. Continuing the trend established in 1998, employment among youth aged 15 to 24 years climbed by an estimated 44,000 in January, with 33,000 of these—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
Grain TransportationMr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian grain shipments ground to a halt last week when 70 grain inspection employees walked off the job. Producers and everyone in the industry who believed that recent changes to the Canada Labour Code would ensure the unimpeded flow of grain to market were duped again by this Liberal government.
The Reform Party proposed final offer selection arbitration as a means to settle outstanding issues in sectors where continued service is essential to the national economy. The government's own West Coast Ports Inquiry Commission also recommended final offer as a way to guarantee the continuous flow of grain to market.
But the provisions in Bill C-19 are worthless in this case. Canada's world class transportation and communications systems cannot be allowed to become vulnerable to closure. Our reputation as a reliable shipper of goods is in jeopardy. Unfortunately for grain farmers, producers and exporters this government just does not get it.
Social UnionMr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the agreement on the social union entered into with all of the provinces of Canada except Quebec represents an improvement, another stage in the workings of federation.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday, no one government wins and no one government loses; the people of Canada are the winners.
There is no doubt that it is a pity Quebec has refused to be part of the agreement. It is clear also, however, that Quebec will be associated with all stages of the consultation and the setting of priorities and common objectives.
It is, however, important to point out that Quebec has accepted the agreement on health.
Christian RightsMr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight events that concern the Christian community in Canada and around the world.
The deadly religious violence perpetrated against Christians in India, the inaction of the Indian government and the continuing political persecution of elements of the Christian community in China are only some of the more visible problems being experienced by Christians in various parts of the world.
At another level altogether but still of concern is the censoring of references to Jesus Christ in the New Testament at the Swissair memorial service when other faiths were permitted the use of faith specific language. Tolerance, inclusiveness and multifaith worship are good things, but they should not and do not require discriminating against, specifically, Christian language.
Official Languages ActMrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the National Arts Centre, that major symbol of Canadian biculturalism, tabled an English-only document before the heritage committee.
Yet there has been a stipulation in the Official Languages Act for 30 years now that French and English are the languages of work in the National Capital Region.
Once again, the Liberal government is incapable of enforcing the act right in its own backyard, and there is no denying that the lack of political will of the federal government is directly responsible for the 24% assimilation rate of the Eastern Ontario francophone community.
There is nothing surprising about the fact that crown corporations are thumbing their noses at the Official Languages Act, when even the PMO does the same, as the appointments to the Copyright Board prove.
The francophone ministers, including the President of Treasury Board and the Prime Minister himself, do not seem to be much burdened by this disgraceful non-compliance with the Official Languages Act, as they shamelessly hide their inaction behind empty speeches about the francophonie.
Dr. Howard AlperMr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure two days ago of attending a ceremony during which a professor of chemistry at the University of Ottawa, and a constituent of Ottawa—Vanier, Dr. Howard Alper, was honoured by being named Officer of the Order of Canada.
He is a research scientist, scholar and educator of international reputation. His scientific discoveries related to polyesters, fibres, foams and pharmaceuticals have led to significant economic growth in numerous sectors of our society.
He was instrumental in initiating and developing the partnership action group for science and engineering whose member societies address issues concerning research and applications of science in Canada and define their economic benefits.
Dr. Alper is also known for encouraging important reflections upon the future of science and engineering.
I congratulate and thank Dr. Alper for his contribution to Canada and wish him and his family the very best.
Newfoundland ElectionScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, today I stand to deliver a very important message which comes from the next premier of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Ed Byrne.
Mr. Ed Byrne has asked me to communicate to the people of Canada and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that, pursuant to the health and social union agreement yesterday, he publicly commits to spend every last penny of health care funding restored partially by the federal government on the health care system of Newfoundland and Labrador when he is elected on Tuesday.
Ed is a man of his word. He is a man of sincerity, integrity and enthusiasm and he intends to become premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to improve his province; not just as a stepping stone to federal politics, but for the betterment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He and his team of candidates will provide exceptional government to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who badly need new leadership.
We want to encourage all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to vote for Ed Byrne and the PC Party on Tuesday for the sake of their health care.
University Of Manitoba Students' UnionMr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, four years ago when the concern over student debt was rising the University of Manitoba students union decided to act.
Four presidents—David Gratzer, Trevor Lynes, Catherine Kowalchuk and Chris Kozier—worked tirelessly with the Canadian Alliance of Students Association to present proposals to the federal government. They have worked in the province of Manitoba with the provincial government to find solutions to the problem of student debt, and they decided to act on their own.
Over the past four years they have raised money to create a fund that today stands at close to $1 million, which provides direct support to students on their campus. This year 1,400 students received scholarships and bursaries directly from the students union showing what people can do when they decide to act.
Freda AhenakewMr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the people of Canada I would like to extend our congratulations to Dr. Freda Ahenakew. She was recognized for her devotion and commitment to the preservation of the historic and linguistic significance of the Cree language. She was awarded the Order of Canada on Wednesday, February 3, 1999.

Oral Question Period
Social UnionMs. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister had an opportunity to sign a truly historic document that was all inclusive. Instead, because of his inflexibility, we have yet another agreement that does not have Quebec's signature.
Can the Prime Minister please explain to Canadians why it was more important to him to prevent provinces from opting out than to allow Quebec to opt in?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the hon. member does not join with the vast majority of Canadians in celebrating the important agreement that was entered into yesterday by nine provinces, two territories and the federal government.
If the hon. member looks at that agreement, if the hon. member listens to the premiers of this country, what she will understand is that it is a historic moment in terms of the degree of collaboration and partnership that will exist in this country as we move forward as governments working together to deliver good social policy for all Canadians regardless of where they live.
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, the minister would like us to believe that if it was not for her government, the provinces would slash spending in education, health care and social services. In reality, over the past five years the only government that has significantly reduced spending in these areas has been this federal government.
Can the minister give Canadians one example of a province that has cut more funding in health care than this federal government?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I simply reiterate for the hon. member that yesterday was a historic occasion in which all governments, nine provincial governments, two territorial governments and the federal government committed themselves to ensure adequate, affordable, stable and predictable funding for social programs in this country.
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, one more day we hear this minister talk about all governments, excluding in the child porn case B.C., and now here it is Quebec. One province is missing.
When will this government learn that it is not the federal government's money and it is not the provincial governments' money. It is the Canadian taxpayers' money that funds health care.
Why are the Prime Minister and this government so obsessed about getting all the credit?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me speak in terms of health care. Let me tell the hon. member that it was all governments, including Quebec, that reaffirmed the principles of the Canada Health Act. It was all governments, including Quebec, that undertook to spend any additional money for health.
All the governments of Canada, including the Government of Quebec, undertook to spend any additional money for health.
That is in the interests of Canadians and that is an achievement.
Health CareRahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, this morning the health minister said that the health agreement signed yesterday will put an end to waiting lists.
As the minister well knows, 200,000 Canadians are on waiting lists today. Exactly when will that number be reduced to zero, or was this minister just spouting political rhetoric?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, what I said and what is quite clear to the case is that we are now in a position to invest significantly more money through the budget over the coming years for health care. The provinces, including Quebec, have agreed to use that additional money for health care. The provinces have reaffirmed the principles of the Canada Health Act. By using that additional money and that common resolve to deal with the urgent present problems and plan for the future of sustainable medicare, Canadians will indeed see a return to access to quality care in this country.
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is any guarantee to the 200,000 Canadians currently on waiting lists in this country.
Since 1995 the Prime Minister has gutted social spending by $2,200 per family. Yesterday after fighting tooth and nail with the provinces he agreed to grudgingly give back $267 per family. Let us get this straight. He cuts $2,200 per family and now he is giving back only $267 per family? Where is the rest of the money? Did it all end up in some golf course in Shawinigan?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line for this government and for governments throughout the country is access to quality health care for Canadians.
One of the things that made yesterday a historic day is that we had every government in the country, all 13, saying that they are committed to the principles of our health care system, that they will use additional money provided through our budget to improve it. Health ministers know where the priorities are: to solve the present urgent problems and to make sure we plan for a medicare that is sustainable for the 21st century.
Social UnionMr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when questioned yesterday as to whether Quebec would receive its share of federal budgets for social programs, the Prime Minister replied “In so far as possible”.
This morning, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs replied that Quebec would have to meet the terms of yesterday's agreement.
I therefore ask the Minister of Justice, the person behind the negotiations, whether “In so far as possible” means that Quebec will have to meet the terms of an agreement that it did not sign.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before the agreement, it was fully recognized by the courts that the federal government had the right to announce a social or health program in a budget and tell the provinces that they could have the money if they met certain national standards.
With this agreement, the federal government may no longer take such unilateral action. It must consult the provinces and territories, obtain the support of a majority, stick to objectives, not launch programs unilaterally and let provinces that have already met the objective use the money for something else.
The premier of Quebec has a choice: stay away, or work with the other—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the premier of Quebec has kept his word. The other premiers have gone back on theirs. If there is any government that is governing without Quebec today, it is the federal government.
The responsible minister has answered my first question, but I put my supplementary to the minister responsible for negotiations: Does she realize that the federal government is getting ready to use Quebec taxpayers' money to fund programs in other provinces?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois is pathetic and unfair.
First, the premiers have always said that their position was one of negotiation. Only the premier of Quebec would not budge. The other provinces were ready to negotiate, but not he.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I have lost my train of thought with all these insults—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Témiscamingue.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the social union framework reached by Ottawa and the nine provinces, the federal government denied the right to opt out in the case of Canada-wide initiatives involving transfers to individuals and organizations, such as the millennium scholarship.
My question is for the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for this. Are we to understand that this formula, which they themselves describe as innovative, represents for them the way of the future and that the millennium scholarships are only the first of many direct interventions by the federal government in the areas of education, health care and social programs?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, it is entirely legal for the Government of Canada to spend money for the benefit of Canadian citizens.
For the first time in the history of this federation, and probably of most federations, a federal government is committed to consulting the provincial governments significantly before acting, to give them prior notice and to listen to their point of view, so that it will be possible to work jointly to the benefit of Canadians. That is modern federalism.
What is not modern federalism, is pulling back and saying “What we want is to opt out tomorrow and separate the next day”.
Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, among the sticking points between Quebec and the signatories is the matter of interprovincial mobility.
For example, in the area of education, Canadians studying in Quebec universities pay higher tuition fees than students from Quebec. This policy is criticized outside Quebec, even though Canadian students in fact pay lower tuition fees in Quebec than they would in their own province.
Are we to understand that, in the future, the federal government will attack Quebec's policy of differential tuition fees on the basis of this agreement?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, the member has not read the agreement, of course, because it provides that, in the case of potential negative effects of interprovincial barriers, a reasonability test will be given. If the barrier is reasonable, there will be no reason to eliminate it.
I would add one thing on the federal spending power. The province benefiting most from that spending power is Quebec. First, it receives nearly half the amount of all equalization payments. Second, with the Canada social transfer, Quebeckers currently receive more support than other Canadians for their universities, hospitals and social programs, because the Government of Canada is there—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister. The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
HomelessnessBill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the pros and cons of the social union, it is clear that we still have a very serious social problem in this country, and that is homelessness. Just yesterday there was a man who died on a heat grate within view of the Ontario legislature.
I ask the Minister of Finance, when will there be a serious national response to the recommendations made by the task force in Toronto on homelessness? When will the federal government assume its responsibilities in this matter along with other governments to make sure that the scourge, the embarrassment, the shame of homelessness is once and for all dealt with in this country?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, homelessness is a very complex problem. We are working with the other levels of government. It is not only a federal problem, it is a national problem and all levels of government have to work together.
We participated in the Golden task force and we put in $300,000. CMHC also participated with the research branch. In December I announced an additional $50 million in RRAP, the program which will help make available more shelter and housing for the homeless people.
We are working together with our—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it is not all that complex. Social housing has been gutted in the country. Welfare assistance is not what it used to be. There was a time in this country when people were not homeless because they had enough money not to be homeless and they were not being kicked out of psychiatric institutions in the name of deinstitutionalization, which is another form of cost cutting.
When will the government bring all levels of government together? Let us have the equivalent of the effort that was put into the social union to return this country to the kind of country it used to be, a country where we do not have thousands and thousands of homeless Canadians.
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, we are working together and an example of this is the Golden task force. There is another conference in March in Toronto. CMHC is organizing a working group across the country. We hope that all levels of government come to a solution to this very serious problem.
Again, homelessness is not just a housing problem. Homelessness is a very complex social problem. Federal, provincial and municipal governments have to work together to solve it.
Child PornographyMs. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, while I admit I am no legal expert, I am capable of imagining the delays that will result from the ability of crown prosecutors to appeal judgments in favour of those accused of possessing pornographic material.
In the meantime, the children of this country are unprotected, and I am not convinced that the minister would view these delays in the same way if she were in the shoes of parents whose children have fallen victim to the pornography industry.
I would therefore ask the Minister of Justice what her priority will be: children's safety or long legal wrangles?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is talking about.
I had officials in my department contact provincial and territorial colleagues yesterday. As I said yesterday, attorneys general across the country are enforcing child pornography provisions to the full extent of the law.
Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, honestly I do not understand the government's position in this matter.
It seems to me that, in the hierarchy of values guiding the actions of legislators in any civilized country, issues relating to children rank first. The safety of this country's children is in danger, and prompt intervention by the Minister of Justice is required, for she has the power to speed up court procedures in order to reinstate the contested legislation.
I am therefore asking again: Could the Minister explain to this House how she can justify her inaction in this matter?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that this government has taken action and has taken expeditious action in partnership with the attorney general of British Columbia.
I reiterate that the child pornography sections of the Criminal Code are in force and in effect across this nation. Police are investigating, charges are being laid and prosecutions are taking place as they always have.
National DefencePeter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the defence minister claimed that Canadian doctors tested and retested suspect American anthrax vaccines.
Health Canada then said this was not true and that it grudgingly only issued a permit approving the vaccine with a warning to take at your own risk.
Why did the minister say it was tested here in Canada when it was not?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our policy for pharmaceuticals is to obtain approval from Health Canada approval to import, store and distribute vaccines licensed in other countries but not in Canada before DND gives them to our personnel. This is exactly what we did last year with regard to the anthrax vaccine.
Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, Health Canada did not do tests. It said to take the vaccine at our own risk.
General Kinsman, chief of defence air staff, said he would not have given the vaccine to soldiers if they knew it had expired.
Why did the minister withhold this information from his generals?
Robert Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, as the minister said yesterday in reference to the comments by the chief of the air defence staff and after my talk with him this morning, none of us would ever recommend anything to our Canadian troops if it was not safe.
The vaccine given to CF members in the gulf was tested for potency, safety, sterility and purity. The vaccine is safe.
Program For Older Workers AdjustmentMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Friday, on Zone Libre , the Minister of Human Resources Development finally admitted that the active measures he is now offering older workers who have been laid off, such as those of the BC mine, are not the answer to the special problems of this category of worker.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Are we to understand that the minister is going to quickly throw together a new and improved version of POWA, a program that he himself cut?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member has given me a chance to tell the House how well the government's strategy is working.
We are so concerned about unemployed workers that our strategy is to create jobs. The results for the month of January are eloquent: 87,000 new jobs in January 1999 alone.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Pierre Pettigrew: Half of these 87,000 full time jobs, in other words 44,000, are held by young people. The unemployment rate has dropped to 7.8% and that is the best news for unemployed Canadians today.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, there is no time to waste. Instead of shedding false tears over those who have been excluded, when will the minister take action and introduce an improved version of POWA to do something about the poverty and exclusion of older workers who have lost their jobs?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the best remedy against poverty and exclusion is to create jobs, to have a dynamic labour market. This is why we have changed a number of difficult approaches.
The Bloc Quebecois is living in the past. They are still back in the 1970s. They think they are the only ones with compassion. They are not, and that is why we believe that an active approach to helping people back to work is still the best. The figures back us up.
JusticeMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the B.C. supreme court ruling on possession of child pornography will be going before the B.C. court of appeal today. I commend the B.C. attorney general for getting it there.
However, it is very likely that this will go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and we are still faced with unacceptable delays and cases being held in limbo.
Will the minister assure Canadians that none of those currently charged will go free because of a delay and an unnecessary length to get to trial?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for or in charge of the prosecution of any individual case under the Criminal Code relating to child pornography.
What I can, however, do is reassure the hon. member, because of my officials' discussions with provincial and territorial attorneys general across this country, that every one of them has reassured us that the child pornography sections of the Criminal Code are in force and effect and will be prosecuted.
Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, the effect of this ruling has already spread out of B.C. and into the minister's home province of Alberta.
I am not talking about whether the rules or laws are still in effect. I am talking about Askov and I again ask her will she assure Canadians that none of those currently charged will go free due to undo lengthy delays in getting to trial?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, as indicated, the charge of prosecutions under the child pornography sections in the Criminal Code lie with provincial and territorial attorneys general.
I quote from my counterpart, the attorney general of Alberta, Mr. Havelock, who yesterday in relation to a case in Red Deer said: “The law remains in effect here. The recent decision of B.C. Justice Shaw is outside of our jurisdiction and it is not binding on any court in Alberta”.
Human Resources Development CanadaMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the scandal over employment insurance quotas, the Minister of Human Resources Development is defending himself very badly. Yes, fraud must be dealt with, but there is a big difference between that and forcing the responsible employees to enforce an already restrictive law by setting targets for the number of cuts they must attain.
Is it not profoundly immoral that this government sees every unemployed person as a potential fraud, when the employment insurance fund is overflowing with a $20 billion surplus, and the Minister of Finance is dipping into it with both hands to pay off his deficit?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the reason for our checking whether there has been excessive abuse and fraud is to protect the unemployed. It is precisely in order to be able to protect the reputation of the unemployed in the difficult situation we are well aware that they are experiencing.
There are no quotas. I have stated this in the House on a number of occasions. There are administrative practices in place which are exactly like those used by social insurance in Quebec City, where the head office of this branch-plant party is located and where exactly the same kind of checks are being made in order to ensure that public funds are going where they are really needed.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, what the minister is doing is called damage control. Given the serious nature of the situation, ought not the government immediately mandate the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to carry out a thorough investigation on the scandal of quotas and harassment of which both the unemployed and the employees of Human Resources Development Canada are victims?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, on that side, they love to use such words as “scandal”.
No congratulations for the 87,000 new jobs in Canada, no reference to the exceptional work being done by the employees of the Department of Human Resources Development for the people of Canada to help them join the work force, or the fact that the employees of the Department of Human Resources Development assist people who are in difficult situations to get into the work force.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the employees of my department for their excellent job in helping people get into the work force.
JusticeMr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Colin Thatcher was convicted of brutally murdering his wife in 1984. He received a life sentence for that. These days he is spending his life golfing, cooking his favourite dinners, watching television, chatting on the phone. No, he is not out, he is actually at Ferndale prison in Mission, British Columbia. He asked recently if he could board his horse at the prison and the prison agreed.
I would like to ask the solicitor general if the Liberal's think that golfing, cooking and grooming horses in prison is sufficient punishment for someone who so brutally murdered his wife?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this matter has been brought to the attention of the attorney general and because of that, Correctional Service Canada officials are now investigating the matter.
Randy White: Mr. Speaker, now it is the attorney general. I thought it was the solicitor general that looked after those things in this country.
Most law-abiding citizens today have to pay green fees if they play golf. They have to pay quite a fee to board and ride horses. But in this Liberal justice system it appears to me that the murderer gets these luxuries paid for not just by all taxpayers but by victims of crime.
Does the government think it is right that the victims should be seeing this at Ferndale prison, watching prisoners playing golf and riding horses?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the solicitor general, the matter has been brought to his attention. He has responsibility for corrections Canada. Because of the information brought to his attention in this matter, he has Correctional Service Canada officials investigating the matter.
Let me remind the hon. member that this government is doing more for victims. I thank some hon. members on the other side of the House for their participation in an outstanding report on victims rights and concerns that was issued by the standing committee—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mercier.
Copyright CommissionFrancine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, according to our information, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has recommended to the Minister of Industry Andrew Fenus, a unilingual anglophone, to head the copyright commission, a quasi legal body it regularly appears before. Mr. Fenus worked on Mr. Manley's election campaign.
To protect his personal integrity and the commission's impartiality, is the minister prepared to make public the correspondence between the ministers and the Canadian Association of Broadcaster?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, we followed a procedure to establish the best candidate for the position on the copyright commission's tribunal.
We have not yet made a decision. I always get letters when there is an appointment. Everything is being taken into consideration. I really do not know if there was such a letter, but there will certainly be a number of other people recommended too.
The BudgetMs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a great day for Canadians and we now know that there will be stable funding for all our cherished social programs.
We need one thing. We need the money. We want to know whether the Minister of Finance will be able to tell this House today when he will table his budget.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is particularly apt that I should be asked this question by the member for St. Paul's who is herself a medical doctor.
I am delighted to announce that the government will table its budget at 4.15 p.m. on Tuesday, February 16.
JusticeMr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, following up on the Liberal justice system, on April 10, 1998, Eric Wanamaker broke out of Bowden penitentiary. He then is alleged to have kidnapped and sexually assaulted a 14 year old girl. He was recaptured and three months later he received a two week unescorted pass.
My question is for the solicitor general. Why was this unescorted pass drawn up and why did the warden sign it?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot comment on any individual case, but if the event or incident to which the hon. member is referring refers to a situation in which the named individual was taken unconscious in an ambulance to a local hospital, let me reassure the hon. member that person upon arriving at the hospital was in restraints for the full time he was in hospital receiving medical attention.
Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, the question is that the unescorted permit for this person was granted. Yes, he arrived at the hospital and a guard was kept there because the hospital demanded that happen.
Why did this warden draw up that permit for this criminal? Why did that happen? Why did this warden draw up that unescorted permit and why did he sign it?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing with members of the House more of the full story.
Let me reiterate that the individual in question was taken unconscious in an ambulance to a local hospital whereupon after admission to the hospital he was in restraints for the time of his stay at the hospital.
AgricultureMr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, farmers are feeling betrayed by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
In December the minister committed $900 million to a farm disaster relief program. The minister is now crawling away from that promise. He and his bureaucrats are busy slashing and cutting even before one thin dime has been paid out.
By including NISA and by excluding negative margins the federal government's $900 million has shrunk by $300 million. Will the minister live up to his promise by including the full $900 million in the farm disaster relief program?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our officials, along with advice from all sectors of the agriculture industry, have been working diligently to put together the criteria for the program.
I assure the House and assure all producers out there who are deserving of this assistance that we will do the best job that we possibly can to assist most of them to the greatest extent that we can through this difficult time.
Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, it is now 58 days since the commitment was made that the farmers would receive disaster assistance. In fact the hint was even before Christmas that a bankable announcement would be made.
Winter is now half over. The days are getting longer but farmers are still totally in the dark about what this program will be. Farmers do not know how much they will get, when they will get it or how. They only know one thing for certain: it will not be nearly as much as it was back on December 10.
When will the bankable announcement be made and when will the cheques be in the mail to farmers?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed and I am sure the farmers in Saskatchewan and elsewhere across the country are disappointed as well that the hon. member is disappointed that on December 10 an announcement was made. Yes, the criteria and all that work have to be done to make available to the farmers in need up to $1.5 billion more to assist cash strapped farmers than there was on December 9.
I am sorry the hon. member is so disappointed that was done for producers in Canada.
BankruptciesScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, in the first five years of this government there have been 420,000 bankruptcies in Canada.
This is more bankruptcies than the number that occurred during the entire previous nine years of the Progressive Conservative government, and that government had to deal with the 1991 and 1992 recession.
Under this finance minister more Canadians have gone bankrupt because the finance minister insists on raising taxes and putting Canadians in a position where they have to work harder and receive less.
Will the finance minister commit that in his upcoming budget he will increase the basic personal exemption to $10,000—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken. In fact the rate of bankruptcies both personal and business is on the decline.
I would just like to add a couple of facts to the numbers of the Minister of Human Resources Development. The member may want to know that not only were 44,000 new jobs created for youth this year. It has been over 200,000 since January 1998.
Since December 1996 there have been 909,000 new jobs created in the country, with 526,000 created in the last 12 months. In the past seven months, 400,000 new jobs were created—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I am awfully glad the minister has discussed the employment figures. The fact is that the U.S. has the lowest unemployment right now in 20 years. I do not think the minister can claim credit for that. In fact I do not think he can claim credit for the success in the reduction of Canadian unemployment rates either.
The previous government's policies, free trade, the GST, deregulation of financial services and transportation and energy were the structural changes that were necessary.
Will the minister do what is right and reduce taxes for Canadians so that the next generation of Canadians can succeed in this country?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know why the hon. member does this to himself and his party. When we took office we inherited an 11.5% unemployment rate from the Tory government. It is now 7.8%.
Let us understand something. The 400,000 new jobs that have been created in the last seven months were more jobs than were created in the entire last mandate of the Tory party.
HealthMr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Jeff Cuff is a young man living in Newfoundland who needs a bone marrow transplant to save his life. Thousands of Newfoundlanders have said yes, they would be willing to be donors. The Canadian blood system, though, said no because it does not have the money to screen these potential donors.
Will the Minister of Health guarantee to Jeff Cuff and others who require these life saving procedures that there will be enough money to screen potential life saving donors?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the Canadian Blood Service is owned and funded by the provinces. It is regulated by the Government of Canada. We do not fund it.
If indeed the CBS requires more funding to do its work, I am certain that it will tell the provincial ministers that is the case and the provincial ministers will have to decide whether to put it in funds.
Aerospace Research CentreMr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in December, the Montreal chamber of commerce expressed the hope that the future aerospace research centre would be built in the Mirabel region, given the location there of the airport, Bell helicopters, Bombardier and a number of other related businesses.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. Is he prepared to choose Mirabel as the site for the new aerospace research centre?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the question is really a bit premature, since no decision on the creation of this institute has yet been taken. It depends on the availability of funds for the National Research Centre of Canada.
If we do set up this institute, I have already indicated my approval in principle of establishing it in the Mirabel region. The decision on its location will be made after the decision on its creation.
Uranium MiningRick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, northern Saskatchewan's abandoned Gunnar and Lorado uranium mining sites are an environmental and public safety issue.
The children of Uranium City are exposed daily to the hazardous nature of the abandoned and deteriorating properties of the former mining town. While governments continue to expand uranium mining, these abandoned sites require reclamation.
When will the Minister of Natural Resources commit to funding arrangements with Saskatchewan to decommission and reclaim these sites creating green jobs for northern residents through environmental technology, training and employment opportunities?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are significant environmental issues to be resolved with respect to these previous mining locations in northern Saskatchewan. I agree with the hon. gentleman that there may be some positive spin-off benefits in terms of economic activity, training and job creation potential.
The issue in terms of the source of funds that is necessary because we are essentially dealing with abandoned sites is presently under discussion between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada.
TransportScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The loss of Devco has caused the loss of 1,700 jobs in Nova Scotia. There are opportunities, though, for Nova Scotia. The super port in Halifax could result in the creation of up to 5,000 direct and indirect jobs in construction and spin-off jobs in Nova Scotia. Winning this bid would be good for both Nova Scotia and Canada.
Will the government commit today to a strategy to help ensure that the super port facility comes to Halifax where it belongs?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government certainly agrees with the hon. member that should Maersk containers allocate Halifax as one of its ports of choice it would be good not just for Nova Scotia but for all of Canada.
The minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and I have said publicly that once the decision is made by Maersk it will be incumbent upon all levels of government and all Canadians to ensure this very worthy development goes forward.
Drug TraffickingMr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa has returned from South America where he was attending discussions on how to control drug trafficking. I understand he narrowly missed an earthquake on which I congratulate him.
Could he please tell the House what these meetings accomplished to build international support to deal with this issue which is of such great importance to Canadians?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the objective was to meet the governments of the four Andean countries to discuss the foreign ministers' drug dialogue which was launched by our minister last month in Jamaica.
The visit was well received by all. They appreciate Canada's holistic approach to drugs and see them as a major problem in development, health and trade. One official I met said that drugs kill not only people but also institutions.
As the member has indicated, it is an extremely important problem for all of us in the Americas.
AgricultureMr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister still does not understand that the farm income crisis is real and serious. He says that he is still diligently working away.
How hard was he working during January when he was out of the country on a junket? By what date will the farmers have a plan on the table and can start getting their cheques? I would like to ask that right now.
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that right now. We are very close to having the criteria finalized.
If the hon. member wants to be of great assistance he can go back home on the weekend and convince the government of his province that if it comes onboard on the 60:40 split we talked about all along, the farmers of Manitoba will get the full support from this program when it is delivered.
Farm Safety Net Income ProgramMs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in December, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced a $900 million aid program to help farmers cope with large revenue losses.
Given that this program sets a number of conditions, in particular a ceiling on allowable individual assistance, without covering negative gross margins, will the minister admit that the total assistance for farmers will unfortunately fall well below the amount announced?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the total amount is available for producers. The criteria are being finalized at this time. Every farmer in Canada who meets that criteria, no matter where they are, will be eligible for it.
With all programs, parameters have to be set and we are trying to set those parameters in such a way that they are as fair as possible, that they are equitable to everyone and that they deliver the assistance to those who need it.
Rail SafetyBill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I wonder if he is aware that CN and CP are running trains now which are some 10,000 feet in length. Instead of the already long trains which they have been in the habit of running, which are 5,000 to 6,000 feet, we now have trains which are 153 to 160 cars in length. There is a great concern arising among the people who work on the trains and in communities across the country about these trains not being able to clear crossings in the time that trains used to clear crossings.
Would the Minister of Transport undertake to investigate this matter and report back to the House as to what his views are on it, unless he has views on it already?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that safety is Transport Canada's top priority. There is a trend toward elongated trains by the railways.
My officials have been on top of this matter since the announcements were made to ensure that safety standards are met. As of this point in time I have no information which would suggest that there is any compromising of safety.
This is an ongoing matter because we want to make sure that rail safety is indeed as good as we think it is.
Famine In North KoreaDiane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, the famine in North Korea is comparable to the Ethiopian famine of the 1980s. Reduced assistance from Russia and China, coupled with floods and drought, saw the food supply begin to dwindle in 1995.
Sixty-two per cent of the children under the age of seven have stunted growth and almost as many are facing mental development problems.
My question is for the Minister for International Co-operation. What has Canada done to date in this matter, and why can it not do more to help the starving people of North Korea?
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note the member's question. We will look into the matter and get back to her as soon as possible.

Routine Proceedings
Social UnionAnne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure this morning that I table on behalf of the Government of Canada and all Canadians, in both official languages, a document entitled “A Framework to Improve the Social Union for Canadians”.
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House of Commons the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers concerning the social union.
Intergovernmental TransfersStéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today in the House, in both official languages, a government of Canada document entitled “Collaborative use of the spending power for intergovernmental transfers—the Race to the Top model”. This document sets out the principles which will guide the government in the future in its new approach to the spending power for intergovernmental transfers.
Government Response To PetitionsMs. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 19 petitions.
Committees Of The HouseMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 55th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and associate membership of some standing committees. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 55th report later today.
Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I understand there would be unanimous consent to introduce for first reading a bill entitled, “An act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of corporations, directors and officers)”.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its unanimous consent for the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona to introduce the bill?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Criminal CodeBill Blaikie: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-468, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of corporations, directors and officers).

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning the criminal liability of corporations, directors and officers.
The purpose of the bill is to establish in certain circumstances the criminal liability of corporations for criminal acts or omissions carried out by their officers or staff. This would arise if the corporation management knew or should have known of the act, or omission, or condoned or was wilfully blind to it. It is not necessary for the act or the omission to be committed by the same person who authorized it or tolerated it.
This arises out of the concern that many Canadians have expressed because of the Westray disaster and other incidents where workers have been victimized by corporations and yet the management and ownership have gotten off because there is no provision in the law for the appropriate prosecution.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canada Labour CodeRob Anders: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-469, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honour today to introduce a bill that would allow union members not to be forced to contribute to political parties on causes against their will.
The Canada Labour Code affects over 700,000 employees. There are people within those 700,000 employees who do not believe they should be funding partisanship, who want to promote the sanctity of human life, who do not support the idea of unilateral disarmament and who do not want to advocate violence. They want to advocate freedom of choice and freedom of conscience. They do not want to be forced against their will to contribute to causes they do not believe in.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House would give its consent, I would move:
That the 55th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the House of Commons, presented to the House earlier today be adopted.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Questions On The Order PaperCarolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate for the folks back home because of the interlude for members' statements and question period, what we are talking about today is Bill C-20. It has to do with direct marketing. More than that, we have had the Senate and the Canadian Bar Association, along with some other characters, say that there should not be whisteblowing. Because they do not approve of the whistleblowing provisions they have tried to strike clauses 66.1 and 66.2 of this bill.
I am going to move beyond the fact that just because it is being advocated by the Canadian Bar Association and the Senate we have to be somewhat suspect about these things. Whenever we have those types of groups getting together to say that we should not have protection of public interest with regard to whistleblowing we have to watch out.
People talk about combating crime. They say they want to see protection. They say they want to see the victims of crooked manoeuvres looked after. They also believe the House should listen. As a matter of fact, all of those four statements came from the Minister of Industry.
Let us take a look at some of those issues when it comes to the idea of whistleblowing and that other place called the Senate. I want to see protections too, just like Michael O'Connor, a lad who lives here in Ottawa. He started up a group called Taxpayers Have Had Enough. He wants protections for the average Canadian taxpayer to make sure that the Senate is living up to its duty and responsibility and that it is being accountable to him.
Michael O'Connor, just like everybody else in this country, contributes to the salaries of our people in the Senate. When he learned that Andy Thompson was only spending one day in the spring and one day in the fall in the Senate, for a total of two days every year, collecting a yearly salary of $64,000 plus $10,000 in expenses, Michael O'Connor was upset. He is a part time health care worker in the Ottawa area. He actually took time from his summer vacation to go to the Senate Chamber to research what the attendance records were. It broke his heart to learn that when the Senate only sits 68 days of the year somebody can attend only two of those 68 days and still qualify for their full salary.
Where is the protection there? We need whistleblowers and we did not have effective whisteblowing on the Senate side.
Today the Minister of Industry, in speaking to Bill C-20, said that the House is listening, and so the House should listen. A few years from now when the Prime Minister decrees an election, the writ will be dropped and I and all other members of this place will go back home to talk to our constituents. We will tell them what we represent, what mandate we want to carry forward in the election and, if we form the government, what we will undertake to do. Therefore the House does listen.
But in that other place, the Senate, there are people who have been appointed there for decades. There is no measure to ensure that they have to listen to anybody. There are those in the Senate who are diligent and do a decent job, indeed there are. But the problem is they are tainted by all those others who do not do due diligence and do not do their job, the Andy Thompsons of this world who are absent to the point of disrepute, of bringing dishonour not only upon that institution but ours as well. The whole parliament suffers as a result of those types of truancies and problems.
That is why we call upon the Prime Minister to recognize the results of Senate elections, not only in the province of Alberta but other places that have enacted legislation similar to Alberta, such as British Columbia.
We want the Prime Minister to act upon the promises he made in his 1990 Liberal leadership race. At that time he said it was possible to hold Senate elections and so he should. Had he held Senate elections and recognized Senate elections since he became Prime Minister, a vast chunk of the people who sit in the Senate today would be elected and accountable senators.
That is what we want to see. We want to see Liberals who hold dear their promises, and prime ministers who stand by their words. That is what we want to see. We want to see taxpayers who have not been burnt like Michael O'Connor and his group. Taxpayers have had enough. They want to see effective whistleblowing.
With regard to Bill C-20, the Reform industry critic talked about victims of deception. He talked about advertising and pricing. He talked about competition. He talked about contempt in individuals unaccountable to anyone. Let us talk about victims of deception.
Right now an election is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador. The premier goes around bellyaching that the federal government does not listen, and he was part of the cabinet of that government. He was part and parcel of a party that promised that it was going to make changes to the Senate.
What happens all too often? The concerns of those provinces, of those hinterlands fall on deaf ears. If that man who is running for premier in that province now, if Brian Tobin recognized Senate elections, held Senate elections in the province of Newfoundland, he would not have the prospect right after that election—and I will make a prediction for February 9 when that election has come and past.
There are five vacancies that I know of in the Senate, three for Quebec, one for Newfoundland and another for Ontario. If Brian Tobin had held an election concurrent with the provincial election for members of the House of Assembly in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Newfoundland on February 9 would have somebody who represented the interests of Newfoundland and not just those of the Prime Minister.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I want to assure both you, Mr. Speaker, and the member who is speaking that there is no political motivation for interrupting him at this moment. However, unanimous consent was refused a few moments ago to present a report on committee membership. I understand that there is now agreement among the parties.
I ask for the consent of the House to return to motions so that I may move the motion and present the report on committee membership.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to motions for the purpose alluded to by the hon. deputy government whip?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on a small technicality. I wonder whether the person seconding this motion is in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: We have not had a motion yet. We are waiting to see if there is consent to revert to motions for the purpose of allowing the motion to be put. Is there agreement?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. deputy government whip will want to put her motion.

Routine Proceedings
Committees Of The HouseMarlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, it is a new motion and it does require a new seconder. It will be moved by me and seconded by the member for Oxford.
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 55th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. deputy government whip have unanimous consent to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about accountability. Today we are talking about people who have been victims of deception, the citizens and the taxpayers of this country and particularly those people in the province of Newfoundland who are going to the polls on February 9.
A previous premier of that province, Clyde Wells, recognized that a Senate election would allow for people to stand and represent the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador in the Senate and not be beholden to the Prime Minister and not be appointed by the Prime Minister.
A strong voice for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is needed in the Senate. They need somebody who is going to point out the problems with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans not giving them the straight goods. They need somebody who is going to say that the federal mismanagement of the fisheries has been a travesty and has resulted in the elimination and the wipeout of the cod stocks and the groundfish in Newfoundland and Labrador. They need somebody who is going to say that provincial rights should be paramount with regard to the fishery and that the province should have a say.
They do not need more bellyaching from a premier who has not been able to demonstrate much or come through with much, despite the fact that he sat in the federal cabinet, despite the fact that he is a good buddy and chum of the Prime Minister. They need somebody who is going to be accountable to the people of Newfoundland and not the Prime Minister of Canada.
That is what we are talking about regarding victims of deception with regard to the Senate, with regard to Bill C-20, with regard to whistleblowing. They need somebody who is going to be an effective whistleblower for the people of Newfoundland, not just a bellyacher.
Today we have also heard people talk about advertising and pricing. Recently we have heard the Senate go on about how the senators want to have cameras in their committees because people are not seeing them do their work. No surprise as they only sit 68 days of the year. It is pretty tough to see them when they are only there 68 days. And some of them only sit for two days of the year. It is pretty tough to notice somebody if they are only there two out of 365 days a year. It is pretty tough to notice.
It would be a good idea to bring cameras into the Senate committees and advertise their proceedings so people can see what goes on in that chamber. In terms of pricing it is going to cost a few million dollars. The Senate would love it for those committees that operate. They would love to get their mugs on TV and try to justify their $64,000 a year salaries. That is what I say to advertising and pricing.
We have also heard people talk today about competition. I am a big fan of competition as are a lot of people in the country. They want to see public choice. That is why they want to get rid of the system of appointments.
People want to move toward elections because with elections there is competition. Candidate X, candidate Y and candidate Z can say what they want to do for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, what type of things they want to institute, what policies they want to change, what status quos they want to overthrow. That is the type of thing we want to see from a Senate election.
That is the type of thing we had in Alberta in 1998 when we held the second and third Senate elections in Canadian history. We did it once before when Stan Waters was elected to the Senate. There will be others, mark my words, because it has come time for change in the Senate.
We heard people talk about contempt today. Indeed there is great contempt in the land for politicians in general, but no more contempt is there than that for the Senate. That is why we have politicians in this place—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I know the hon. member has had more than his fair share of interruptions but I think it only just to point out to him Standing Order 18 which states:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House—
I know that the hon. member will want to be very judicious in his choice of words when he is discussing the other place. We do have freedom of speech in this House and he is entitled to say what he wants, subject to the standing orders. The standing orders are quite explicit in what he can say about the other place.
I would invite him to watch his language and try to ensure that he complies with the standing orders in every respect.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you have raised this whole issue of offence because there are people who are offended. They are taxpayers and they are citizens.
We talk about offence and we talk about contempt. There is so much offence and so much contempt in this land that there are those in this very chamber, in our House of Commons, who are advocating for the abolition of the other place.
I do not advocate for the abolition of the other place. I recognize that there are things part and parcel of this House of Commons that are present today that are in a sense a sickness and a disease upon our body politic in this country because we do not have an effective other place.
The reason there is contempt, the reason there is offence, the reason there are cries for abolition of the Senate—
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Even from Liberal members.
Rob Anders: That is right, Mr. Speaker, even from Liberal members, those who benefit wholesale from having the appointment process right now, those who hope to be able to wind up in the favoured books of the Prime Minister and to sit in the other place.
The reason there is such contempt, the reason there are such calls for abolition is that we do not have accountability. Individuals are not accountable to the people who elect them. They are not accountable to the regional interests as was set out in 1867. They are not accountable to the interests of the provinces. These are serious problems.
People talked today about Bill C-20. The Bloc Quebecois industry critic talked about public interest advocacy and weakening competition. I share the member's concerns with regard to these two issues. I believe that having a change in the Senate will advance this idea of strengthened competition and will advance public interest advocacy.
Senators have a difficult time speaking on behalf of the public and advocating on behalf of the public interest when they do not represent or have not been elected by the public. When they are appointed by the Prime Minister, the process by which they are appointed, that very deed itself taints what they otherwise would do.
Today I heard the Tory industry critic talk about Bill C-20. He said that the intent of whistleblowing legislation is good. Beyond just intents the member also talked about proper scrutiny, more consultation and wanting to have an active Senate. Nobody more than I would like to see an active Senate.
The Senate sits 68 days a year. I would like to see the senators do more scrutiny but in order to do that, I need them to attend. When there are people who attend only two days of the year and senators who only show up for 10% of their meetings, I raise these concerns because I want to see an active Senate. I want to see an effective Senate. I would like to have all of the people in the other place in attendance every single one of those 68 days of the year. I would like to see them there more than that but if we could at least see them all there for the days they are required to show as it stands right now, I would feel we had a more active and effective Senate.
I believe in consistency. My Tory colleague talked about consistency in the law. I want to see consistency. I remember the Liberal campaign promises in 1968. They were before my time but I read about them. Pierre Elliot Trudeau campaigned across the land that he wanted to see changes to the Senate, but in 1968 the election came and went and we did not see changes to the Senate. The Liberal leadership in 1990 promised to see changes in the Senate. We did not see them then.
I want to see consistency as much as anybody. So for all these reasons I agree with my colleagues. I want to see more scrutiny. I want to see more accountability. I want to see a better whistleblowing institution. The Senate must be reformed.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary West spoke at great length about the Senate and very little about Bill C-20. I guess there is obviously a relationship because the amendments made to Bill C-20 came from the Senate and some people would find that objectionable, that an unelected body would have any legislative power or ability to influence bills.
My question gets back to Reform's idea about the elected Senate and the need for Senate reform. I have often found it a sort of an irony when many of us worked so hard to get the Charlottetown accord put through, the constitutional amendments, which actually would have given what the Reform Party has been asking for, elected senators, Senate reform along the lines the hon. member seems to feel are necessary. Our party, as the hon. member suggested, believes the Senate should be abolished, not reformed to be elected. He is accurate in that.
I would be interested in hearing the hon. member's views about how the Reform Party justified working so hard to sink the Charlottetown accord, the constitutional amendments, when it is actually the position of the Reform Party that it wants the elected Senate which it would have had if the Charlottetown accord had gone through.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct something the member said, that the Reform Party quashed the Charlottetown accord. It was not the Reform Party. We were merely the vessel for people who had concerns across this land with regard to Charlottetown and the provinces.
There were people across this land who got out to the polls in that October. I remember it well. I remember there were people in provinces right across this land, including Quebec, who voted against Charlottetown. It was the people of Canada, the people of the respective provinces of Canada, who got out to the polls in October 1992 and rejected Charlottetown because they rejected the process. That was the problem.
The Reform Party served as a vessel for those people who saw problems with the quotas inherent in Charlottetown and who saw problems with the special deals that were part and parcel of Charlottetown. It was the people of this country from coast to coast to coast who rejected Charlottetown, not just the Reform Party.
Thank goodness the Reform Party was there to serve as a conduit for all those who saw the problems, the fallacies and the inherent contradictions in Charlottetown. If the Reform Party had not been there I do not think we would have had a public referendum. I think Brian Mulroney would have gone ahead and simply imposed that law without having consent.
One of the reasons I stand in my place today is as a youngster of 10 years old in grade five I remember well the patriation of the constitution in 1982. My father and I and many others had problems with the idea that the charter of rights and freedoms was based on collective group rights rather than the rights of the individual. As a result of that I understood at that tender age that it was important to be active in politics because my father and many others like him, the people of this country, never had a chance to vote on the patriation of the constitution and the structuring of the charter of rights and freedoms.
In 1992, 10 years later, we did have a vote and I am going to argue that were it not for the Reform Party the people of this country would never have been able to cast a ballot and make their own decisions for their own constitution.
Jake Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, it is really refreshing and enlightening to see a young member of parliament get up and give us some real history. It is a credit to the Reform Party and the first reformers who came here that honesty and truth were number one in our party policies.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Calgary West what really is the problem that when taxpayers or voters tell the House what they want it does not get accomplished. The member mentioned the Premier of Newfoundland that he has realized all of a sudden that to deal with the federal government is not a simple as he thought before. We have seen it through history time and time again. One very prominent Liberal recently told me that in two national Liberal conventions they passed a motion that would promote a triple-E Senate. The Liberal conventions have recognized that there should be a change in that other place but it has not happened.
Can the hon. member tell me what kind of vehicle do we need to get the wishes of taxpayers and voters accomplished in the House instead of being ignored?
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, time and time again people in this country raise a cry for changes. They raise a cry for changes to the Young Offenders Act and they raise a cry for changes to the Senate. We look at polls across the country for the last several decades there have been cries for a return to capital punishment.
I look at all these issues. Yet even though there have been free votes in the House of Commons on these issues, the will of the people has not been reflected.
There is a profound problem with our democracy when the will of the people, the will of the clear majority in this land, cannot bring forward law and have it enacted. There is a profound sickness and problem with what we have as an institution. That is why we need to see more free votes.
We are talking about real free votes. That means we do not have the government whips and the Prime Minister's office come down on the backs of the backbenchers in the governing party, the Liberal Party of today, and tell them that the government will fall because of having a free vote, because they cast their ballot, they vote nay or yea as their constituents would want them to vote.
That is why it is important that we bring forward a formal vote of non-confidence. That way if a money bill or any other bill falls, the government does not fall. There would have to be a formal vote of non-confidence in order for the government to fall.
That would free up backbenchers not only on the government side but in every party to vote the wishes of their constituents. That little change would help advance democracy.
Another one would be for us to have initiative so that taxpayers, citizens, constituents could go ahead with a petition and sign up their neighbours door to door. With that process they would be able to put on the ballot in the next election, to save taxpayer money because people have brought up the costs of democracy, a question of whether they want to see a return to capital punishment, whether they want to see an elected Senate, whether they want to see substantive changes to the Young Offenders Act or the faint hope clause, section 745. On all these types of things there has been vast public outcry.
With more free votes, with a formal vote of non-confidence, with recall legislation to get rid of a member of parliament who does not represent their will, with initiative all these things can be accomplished. We need also to reform the Senate.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, we were talking about Bill C-20, although that seems like a long time ago after what we have just been through.
Bill C-20, in a nutshell, is about two things that we need to deal with today. The whistleblowing aspect for telemarketing fraud is first and foremost. Second is an issue we have not heard talked about much today, the prenotification of mergers process, the attempts to strengthen and simplify this process.
The reason I raise this is that it is a matter of record. The NDP did not vote in favour of Bill C-20 when it came up last spring and that was our reservation about the bill.
We applauded the effort to clean up telemarketing fraud and to implement whistleblower protection for employees. That certainly is in keeping with our policy. We are very pleased to see any reference to whistleblowing raised.
We could not vote in favour of Bill C-20 due to this other aspect, the prenotification of mergers process with which we simply were not comfortable. The reason we are dealing with Bill C-20 today is that it went through third reading. It went to the Senate and came back to us with amendments, the key amendment being the elimination of any reference to whistleblowing.
This is a great disappointment to us. We are very much of the mind that it is time to recognize whistleblowing protection in our public service and in the private sector. We believe good managers would welcome whistleblowing because it helps to alert them to wrongdoing of any sort throughout the enterprise over which they might have jurisdiction.
Certainly in the public sector our managers could use an improved level of whistleblowing to alter them to, for instance, the misuse of funds within their own government agencies.
Whistleblowing is an issue we have been hearing a great deal about in labour circles. The trade union movement has recognized for a great deal of time the need for whistleblowing protection because actually in common law the obligation of loyalty to the employer is paramount.
If an employee blows the whistle on some sort of wrongdoing and causes some inconvenience for the employer, discipline is actually justified in that case, especially if the employee is mistaken, even if they turned in the circumstances without any malice and with the best of intentions.
If the employee was wrong without any saving clauses in legislation to back them up, they could be disciplined and even discharged from their workplace for pointing out these wrongdoings.
Whistleblowing is key and paramount to backing up workers and helping them feel comfortable with alerting the public or their employer about wrongdoing of any kind. Telemarketing fraud, we heard today, a $100 million a year problem, lends itself to this kind of manipulation of employees or intimidation or coercion.
These are often poorly paid employees working in a call centre of some type. If the employer is an employer who would willingly undertake fraudulent enterprises or criminal activity, chances are pretty good they are not a very good employer either. They are the type of employer who would intimidate, coerce, harass the employees for blowing the whistle on them or for even threatening to or for even revealing to the public the true nature of the fraudulent enterprise that is going on.
I believe we need to do everything we can to clean up the telemarketing industry. I think it is actually rife with fraud. Frankly, the direct marketing people welcome any legislation that would help improve the image of that industry.
I do not think there is a lower form of animal than the telemarketing fraud practitioner who would take advantage of often seniors or shut-ins or people who are vulnerable and incapable of making good judgment about the products they have been asked to purchase.
I have a personal experience with this. An elderly relative of mine was in her late nineties when she started being harassed by unscrupulous telemarketing companies which by the way seem to share lists.
Once one gets its hooks into a senior citizen, the others seem to come in like vultures. It seems a whole series of sales people have started to harass this elderly relative of mine and have taken her for most of her life savings. For instance, absolutely fraudulent work has been done to her home. One salesman told her on the phone that her chimney looked like it was pulling away from her house. Being in her late nineties she was not able to go outside to see whether or not it was true. They sold her a $5,000 fix-it job to reattach the chimney to her house.
Being in the building trades, when I went to visit her next and learned of this I went outside to look at the chimney and found that it had never been leaning away from the house and had never been fixed. It is absolute, blatant fraud. They realized that they had a live one on the wire because she was a single woman in her late nineties living alone and with only home care.
We have an obligation to do everything in our power to try to stop that kind of activity. I compliment aspects of Bill C-20 if there is anything we can do to limit this type of activity.
I said this was the lowest form of animal in my mind, the person who would deliberately defraud vulnerable people or shut-ins. Frankly I have more respect for somebody who would mug than somebody who would cheat in this fashion. I have more admiration for somebody who sticks someone up and steals a wallet. At least they can see it coming; the person is being forthright about it. However this kind of stealth is a reprehensible problem.
We would stop more of these people if we had this whistleblower protection and employees who have been engaged, and often against their will, in sucking these people would feel comfortable in blowing the whistle. If there were some wrongdoing going on we would be able to stop more of them.
It is a coincidence that today I plan on handing down to the journals branch my own whistleblowing legislation in the form of a private member's bill. It is very thorough and comprehensive. It deals with the Public Service Staff Relations Act. I am hoping that other members of parliament will see fit to support it. As I say, good managers welcome whistleblowing because it points to all kinds of opportunities for savings or efficiencies within the system.
Bill C-20, as we expect, will go through. The NDP is pleased to say that we can support the motion made by the Minister of Industry today. I listened to the minister's remarks and I found that I could associate myself with them quite easily. It is quite honourable that we are trying to do something about the fraud that exists in that industry.
One of the biggest issues is the reporting of price fixing. This is one aspect the minister pointed out. We believe the Direct Marketing Association, as I mentioned, is eager to have the reputation of its industry improved, and it will be done through this regulation. I should point out that it is not a heavy-handed regulation. It is not interference in the free market by any stretch of the imagination. This is regulation for consumer protection and for the well-being of this rapidly growing industry.
I am pleased to say that the NDP will be voting in favour of the motion. I am also pleased that there will at least be some reference, even without the kind of penalties that we would like, in Bill C-20 to whistleblower protection.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Wentworth—Burlington. I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for proposing a much needed update of the Citizenship of Canada Act.
The minister has put forward a series of initiatives to update citizenship and immigration legislation and procedures. These efforts represent a very welcome change in some Canadian institutions that will play a key role in our country's future.
Our existing citizenship act was well suited to the time when it was last revised in 1977. However, with all the changes we have seen over the past couple of decades and with the wide array of interpretations the term resident has been subjected to, it is time to revise our legislation to reflect today's social, political and economic realities.
It is also important that we include changes to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. As an immigrant to Canada I have a keen sense of this great value as do my family and millions of other Canadians who are grateful for the chance they have been given to become citizens of this country.
The new act is a step in the right direction for all of us since it helps to promote the great value of Canadian citizenship. That is important for those of us who already possess this valuable asset. It is just as important for those who want to become Canadian citizens.
As we all know we owe a lot of our global prominence to new Canadians, their hard work and their contacts. An increasingly global outlook is one of the keys to Canada's future as are new Canadians and their initiatives and the new Citizenship of Canada Act.
I will reflect with my fellow members of parliament on the history of Canadian citizenship, which is about people coming from all corners of the planet to build a country characterized by tolerance, generosity and compassion, a country that represents a beacon of hope in an often troubled world torn by strife, wars and intolerance. Citizenship is about people and nation building. Its evolution represents the very essence of our collective identity as a people.
Nation as a concept relies in large measure on citizenship and the evolution of citizenship represents the very essence of our collective identity as a people.
As many of us will remember, the creation of Canadian citizenship was an initiative of Paul Martin Senior who served at the time as Canadian secretary of state. At the end of World War II, as Mr. Martin walked among the graves of soldiers in Dieppe, France, he recognized the names of several soldiers from his hometown. He was struck by the fact that despite the different ethnic origins of their names they were all Canadians. He decided it was high time to work toward recognition for Canadian citizenship.
The Citizenship Act of 1947 marked the beginning of a new era in our history. To emphasize its importance Prime Minister Mackenzie King was the recipient of the first certificate of Canadian citizenship. After World War II Canada experienced an unprecedented increase in its population. As the population of our country grew and changed and our Canadian identity gained in stature worldwide, the concept of citizenship evolved leading parliament to review the original Canadian Citizenship Act. A revised act came into effect in 1977.
More than 21 years have passed since the last major amendments were made. Over that time Canada has changed. The world has changed. It is important and necessary for our legislation to reflect those changes and strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship.
I point to the features of the new act that contribute to strengthening the value of our citizenship. New criteria for attribution of citizenship are certainly a big step in that direction. By proposing clearly defined precise requirements we can now rely on a more effective decision making process. These criteria guarantee that new Canadian citizens will be deeply committed to our country and its values.
In the case of children born to Canadian parents who no longer reside in this country, the transitional citizenship is limited to the second generation. This means that the second generation of Canadians born abroad will obtain citizenship at birth but lose it at the age of 28 unless they live in Canada before that time. The residency requirement is three years of physical presence within a five year period. Successive generations of Canadians born abroad cannot obtain Canadian citizenships unless they meet the same requirements as any other participant.
These new requirements have been established because we strongly believe that to preserve the value of Canadian citizenship we must ensure that all people who are Canadian citizens develop and maintain real links with Canada.
It is also with this in mind that we have introduced important changes in the requirements for permanent residence. Under the new act applicants for Canadian citizenship have to prove that they have spent three years out of five years in the country. This requirement is a good way to ensure applicants are well acquainted with Canadian society, our lifestyle and our values. By meeting the requirements these future Canadians will demonstrate their commitment to participate fully in the life of our society.
At the same time, as the minister pointed out, the new act also introduces a more flexible framework for application of these conditions by giving them five years instead of four to go through this requirement. Furthermore, applicants will be expected to have sufficient knowledge of one of the country's two official languages. They will have to be familiar with values of Canadian society and demonstrate that familiarity without the help of an interpreter. With these well defined criteria the decision making process will be simple, clear and effective.
Currently over 90% of citizenship applications are straightforward. Each application must nonetheless be approved by a citizenship judge. This process is long and costly. With the new act decisions will be based on criteria already set out in law and will therefore be more expeditious.
Another way to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship is to promote it actively. With a more effective decision making process in place our citizenship judges will now be called citizenship commissioners and will have more time to promote the values symbolized by citizenship across the country. Not only will they continue to be ambassadors of citizenship within the context of citizenship ceremonies, but they will extend that role to other community events in order to reach more people and make Canadian citizens more aware of the responsibilities and advantages of being Canadian.
The appointment criteria for citizenship commissioners are defined in the new act. We believe they will foster consistency and ensure the commissioners are outstanding citizens with solid track records. Our new commissioners will be Canadians who have been publicly recognized for their important contribution to civic life and have demonstrated their attachment to the values embodied in Canadian citizenship.
The new act also includes measures to enhance the protection of Canadian citizenship. The vast majority of applicants for citizenship are law-abiding individuals who contribute greatly to our country, to daily life and to the growth of Canada. In the pursuit of our objective to be properly prepared to face the occasional difficulty we have added new measures.
The proposed act sets out a new prohibition. This includes the power to refuse citizenship in the public interest. The proposed act also gives the minister new authority to cancel citizenship in cases where it was obtained by using a false identity while the individual was not entitled to citizenship due to a criminal offence. It has more severe sanctions for offences.
As the minister mentioned, we are also proposing to revise our oath of citizenship. Like the other modifications we are suggesting that this proposal evolve from extensive consultations.
Canadians say they want our oath to reflect our contemporary values. They also want clearer references to loyalty to Canada. Our existing oath has not been updated since it was first introduced over a half century ago. The oath clearly states our allegiance to Canada and its values as well as our allegiance to the head of state. The words express a strong commitment to these values. I would also like to remind all my colleagues that the citizenship act is the result of extensive efforts initiated by the minister to respond to Canadians and their concerns.
The act is the result of a lengthy consultation to modernize one of our most valuable assets, our Canadian citizenship, with full respect for our Canadian identity, values and traditions.
As can be appreciated, the changes proposed in the new act are designed to strengthen this most valuable asset, Canadian citizenship. Therefore I ask all members of the House to support the new citizenship act.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am actually nervous about speaking to Bill C-63. I, who have spoken in the House perhaps 60 to 70 times without notes, am nervous this time. It is because of the nature of the subject.
First of all the circumstances of my speech. I learned that Bill C-63 was on the order paper just late Wednesday morning. I hurried over for question period to get a copy of the bill and to study it, because I had not looked at it before, just in time for the opening ceremonies on Wednesday which involves, as the House knows, the singing of O Canada. I came in here just on time. I was not on House duty, but the others were gathered on the other side and I stood next to the member for St. John's and sang with her. In O Canada is “God keep our land glorious and free”.
Then I sat in my place as question period unfolded and the Prime Minister answered questions from the opposition on various subjects. I read the proposed oath of citizenship that my colleague has just mentioned that has been put forward with Bill C-63. My heart sank.
I am sorry I do not share the view of the parliamentary secretary that this oath of citizenship really does reflect what we are as a country. The parliamentary secretary explained to me subsequently that it was something created by consensus, by consultation.
I suggest that sometimes consensus and consultation is not the way to go and where really one has to come to that place and to those people who deal every day with what it is to be a Canadian as part of their lives, as part of their professions perhaps to get an idea of what an oath of citizenship should be all about.
The oath begins: “From this day forward I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada”. Loyalty and allegiance are synonyms. They are the same words. So we begin the new oath to take us into the next millennium with a redundancy.
It goes on: “We pledge allegiance to Canada, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada”. This is another redundancy. When I pledge allegiance to Canada I pledge allegiance to all Canada's democratic institutions. I pledge allegiance to this parliament. I pledge allegiance to the Queen. So long as the Queen is the Queen of Canada I pledge allegiance to the Queen whenever I pledge allegiance to Canada.
In other words, I am a monarchist. It is just that I am not so sure that we need in this part the Queen along with pledging allegiance to Canada, because I feel it is something of a redundancy.
The oath goes on: “I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms and defend democratic values and faithfully observe our laws and fulfil the duties and obligations of a Canadian citizen”.
This does not capture what it is to be a Canadian. These are generalities. Yet in this place every day we debate very fundamental values that drive this country. One cannot be a member of parliament for more than a week or two before one realizes the five real principles that drive this country, that make this country free, that make this country Canada.
Those five principles are equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law.
That day in question period we dealt with all those issues because always, in a country like Canada, the issues that have to be dealt with in parliament are the issues where we try to balance those five principles, where we balance the rule of law with basic human rights.
On that day in question period we dealt with hepatitis C, the problem of a ruling on child pornography and similar things. All these things deal with this balancing act on the five principles of Canada and Canadian freedom.
My biggest disappointment when reading the new oath was that there was no reference to God. Do members realize that among all the major nations that accept new citizens, we are the only country that has dropped God from our oath of citizenship. Australia has “under God” in its oath. Great Britain has “Almighty God” in its oath. New Zealand and the United States have “so help me God” in their oath.
We did have it at one time, 1976 I think it was, but for some reason it was decided that “so help me God” was not important in Canada's oath and it was dropped subsequently.
I am not a deeply religious person but I believe there is an eternal presence, there is something more, some higher authority, a higher authority than parliament, a higher authority than the country. We have reason to count our blessings as Canada. Those blessings emanate from a higher presence, from God.
I am a member of a village church, the United Church of Canada. I am not a terribly regular churchgoer but I do go. The stained glass window is yellow. As the minister may be speaking or the choir singing, that window lights up with sunlight. I sit in my pew and think how grateful I am to be among my people, my community, how grateful I am to be a Canadian where there are no wars and no strife, where I can feel at home with people who love one another. I know that is a heck of a thing to say but that does happen in church. That is what church is all about.
During the referendum crisis in 1995 the Liberals had a lot more seats than now and there was an overflow on the opposition side. I had a seat on the opposite side, right next to the opposition, that faced toward the Prime Minister.
One of my most moving memories was during that debate on the referendum crisis to see the Prime Minister attempting to defend the country he believed in, in the most crucial moment of his life trying to defend Canada against what was a real questioning of whether Canada should stay united.
I could see the Prime Minister trying to find the words and trying to speak and he would look over my way because I suppose the camera was directly behind me and he could address the Canadian people. I could look into the Prime Minister's eyes as he spoke and I knew the passion he was feeling.
In the context of that I could look up to the northwest window, the Ontario window, and the sunlight would invade the glass of that window. That window is comprised of trilliums and at the very top the three maple leaves of Canada. The trillium of course is the trinity and the trillium that was chosen for that glass is not all white. It is stained red.
When we make these associations we realize there has to be a bit more than just words, more than just things, there has to be something that is greater than all of us that does give these blessings that make us Canada, that make us Canadian.
I have to think that 99.99% of new people coming from anywhere in the world come from cultures where there is a god. It may not be the God of Christ. It may be the god of another great religion but still there would be a god and I think they would expect to see an oath of citizenship that contains the word god, an invocation to God.
I sat here today among my colleagues with the encouragement of the members for Brampton West—Mississauga and for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey. I made an effort to write a new and different oath of citizenship. I wrote it right here. This is not a prop. This a piece of paper on which I jotted my notes during question period. This is what I wrote.
I wrote “In pledging my allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second”, and the next part was difficult because I did not want to say promise. I did not know what words to use and then it occurred to me with the encouragement of my colleagues: “I take my stand, I take my place among Canadians”, and the rest of it flowed very easily, “united before God whose sacred trust is to uphold five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law”.
It flowed so much more easily in French:
En prêtant allégeance au Canada, je me compte au nombre des Canadiens qui sont unis par leur foi en Dieu et leur attachement à cinq grands principes: l'égalité des chances, la liberté d'expression, les valeurs démocratiques, le respect des droits de la personne et la primauté du droit.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for a very good speech.
I have often wondered about these same things, how we can possibly detach ourselves from any anchor in our society. That has happened to a great extent.
While I am also a Christian believer, one who believes in the Scriptures and the teaching of the Bible and tries to the best of my ability to follow those instructions given and to worship God and lead my family in that, I have a very serious and practical question. It is one with which I have battled.
When it comes to matters of faith belief we ought to be in a mode of persuasion and not of coercion. I am aware that to a degree when one gives an oath if one does not want to minimize the meaning of it it has to be one that people can freely respond to in sincerity. I think of the oath we take in becoming members of parliament. I do not want to cast any aspersions against any of my colleagues here but there were some members of the House whom I do not really see how they could in sincerity give that pledge and that oath. How do we balance the coercion and the temptation to insincerity in giving the oath with actually having the oath in place as he suggests?
John Bryden: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that God is excluded from very few people. I think the god that we refer to in any oath that emanates from this parliament or from this country is a god of all people in all religions, or all religions and all people, if you will.
In this sense, even the atheist has a place with God and it is appropriate for any of us to acknowledge that there is something higher than humanity. We may define it in many different ways, but there is something higher than humanity. We know that when we see things beautiful. We know that when we see our freedoms.
The mistake that has occurred in the past is that people thought when they put God into oaths it was a god of some particular religion, but it is not. It is the God eternal.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-63. Before I begin I would like to compliment my colleague from Wentworth—Burlington for his very passionate and heartfelt speech and for his willingness to be open to share some of himself with us. Often we do not take the time to do that and I appreciate it.
I would like to frame my comments toward this bill in the context of what I see to be a major problem within the current immigration system. I make that comment very clearly, once again, with the immigration system, not with the concept of immigration. Immigration is a positive contribution to Canada. Canada is a country built on immigration. No one disputes that fact. That is a part of our great history.
I would say that there are some serious and very glaring problems within our immigration system which need to be addressed. They have been brought to the attention of the minister and the government, not just by opposition members but by many different groups from around the country in a number of different areas. In fact, I would be so bold as to say that the immigration system is broken and it appears as though the minister is either unwilling or unable to fix it.
I make those comments not flippantly and not in a rhetorical manner. I have had the opportunity to study the system over the last year and half and it has come to my attention that there are some very serious problems which need to be addressed that have not been addressed.
When we see a problem, when we see a concern with something, when we know there is a problem and yet we fail to take action, then we also fail to take the responsibility for that lack of action and the consequences which flow from it.
I would say that there are some serious consequences as a result of many inactions within our immigration system.
I will move on to address some of the information that the minister has shared with us in the tabling of the bill. I would first point out that the current minister has been the minister for three years and this is the first substantive legislation she has brought forward. I have some questions as to why it is that this would be her first piece of legislation when there are many other issues at hand right now. I am not saying that this is not important legislation, but in my mind and in the minds of many of my colleagues, we do not see this as being the top priority. There are some glaring concerns that need to be addressed which simply are not addressed through this legislation.
The problems within the immigration system are most strongly felt by those individuals who are part of the immigrant community and who have come to Canada recently. The comments they share with me are that if the government is concerned about fixing the system, why is it that it does not do anything when it sees a problem?
In essence, the individuals within the immigrant community are then painted with the same brush as the very few individuals who would cause problems within the system. They want the abuses to the immigration system to be addressed and fixed. They are, in many ways, finding their concerns falling on deaf ears.
I would like to point out one situation. This is an issue that has been brought up by opposition and by many people across the country, by lots of different groups. It is a situation that is happening in the Vancouver, British Columbia area right now having to do with people who are abusing the system because of a loophole.
Some individuals have come to Canada and have claimed refugee status falsely. As a result of that, they have abused the system. That is not the only problem. Many of the individuals who have falsely claimed refugee status have been selling drugs on the streets of Vancouver. Again, it is a small number of individuals.
This is a serious problem and it is having a huge impact in the downtown east side of Vancouver. It is spreading into the suburb areas around Vancouver, to the areas of New Westminster, Surrey and elsewhere. This is a concern that has been brought up over and over again. There appears to be very little response coming back in any substantive way from the minister.
Again I make the point that when someone knows something is wrong, when someone knows there is a problem, when they can see it staring them in the face and they can see the effect it is having on individual lives, on individual people, on the young people and others living in these communities, and yet they fail to take action, it is a dereliction of responsibility.
That is exactly the position that the current minister is in. There are individuals who are calling for changes, calling for something that I have suggested, which is an expedited process for those individuals who have been charged with drug trafficking.
Many of these individuals, prior to or upon their arrest for dealing drugs, have claimed refugee status. In our current immigration system they go into the mill. They go into the waiting line with all the other individuals to have their refugee status determined.
The problem is that there is no differentiation between those individuals who are flagrantly abusing the system and those individuals who are genuine refugees in need of Canada's protection. They all go into the same grouping.
It could take up to a year and a half or two years before anything is done to settle the claim the individuals have made. A simple answer to that problem would be to have an expedited process where those individuals who were brought up on these drug charges would be processed quickly to see whether they are truly refugees and then removed from the country if it is found that in fact they have made a false claim.
Why not do it quickly? Why not deal with the issue and solve the problem? It is something that the minister could do today. It is something she could do today if she had the willingness to do it.
I can only conclude that it is her lack of action, her lack of responsibility in moving on this issue and others that points to the fact that she is either unable or unwilling to make that change.
There are many other areas that fall into that same category, where there are individuals who are abusing our system, abusing the goodwill of Canadians, without any action being taken. Again, it is a small number of individuals who are causing the problem, the people who are abusing the system.
Word is out on the street internationally that Canada is an easy place to get to. Canada is an easy place to make a false claim. When a refugee claim is made, the claimant is entitled to all the rights of a citizen, apart from being able to vote. They have access to free medical care, welfare payments and legal aid. What is very insulting about this current situation is that these individuals are taking advantage of Canadians. They are taking advantage of us. Something could be done, but it is not being done, and that is unacceptable.
They are talking advantage of legitimate claimants. They are taking time and resources from the immigration department which could be used to deal with individuals who are truly refugees. Those resources are going to process individuals who are undeserving of our protection, who have committed criminal acts, who have made a false claim and who are not in need of the protection of this country. They are here for sometimes two or three years. I have heard of cases where individuals have been here for five to ten years. That is unconscionable and something needs to be done about it.
When we bring up these issues we are rebuffed by the government in a harsh manner. We are told that we are not supportive of immigration, which is patently false. I cannot emphasize that enough. The fact that we want to fix the system shows we care about immigration. We will fix the system, given the chance to do so, while government members sit idly, twiddling their thumbs, in the face of these issues. We will bring positive change. We will bring those things that need to be addressed and fixed to the forefront and deal with them quickly because they are of great concern.
A couple of government members have made statements like the following when we have brought up this issue. It is a glaring issue. There seems to be a contradiction. The Liberal member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, in a recent letter to his constituents, stated “I happen to believe that by deporting refugee claimants convicted of dealing drugs we would be taking a major step forward in the fight against the illegal sale of drugs. They should be deported immediately, with no review or appeal allowed to drag things out”. It seems a bit extreme to me that a government member would be suggesting that.
Other members of the government have said in committee that the official opposition does not support immigration. I cannot agree with that. It is patently false. We want the minister to move forward with positive change. If she is going to sit idly by and do nothing when these problems continue to happen over and over again, let her stand aside, let her government stand aside, because we will do the job. We will move forward with positive change and we will take care of the issues that Canadians are asking be dealt with, rather than having a government that sits idly on its hands and watches these things happen over and over again with absolutely zero response. That is unconscionable.
We will move forward in a positive manner and make the changes necessary to address not only this department but other departments in need of great change.
I could go on at length and name those areas but I do believe my time has drawn to a close.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have time to go on at length the next time this bill is up for consideration because, happily for him, there are six minutes remaining in his time.
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from December 8, 1998 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to continue the debate on this very worthwhile and important motion, Motion No. 300.
I think this motion which deals with energy efficiency and the federal government's response to the calls and expectations of energy efficiency is a very timely debate and discussion. The impact of the Department of Natural Resources Canada's programs on energy efficiency has been very positive both for the environment and for the economy.
Picking up where I left off I would like to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre that he was quite correct in his earlier conversation with the House when he made the link between energy efficiency and job creation. Every $1 million invested in energy efficiency projects generates approximately 20 years of employment and millions are being invested each year.
Canada's energy services industry grew by 600% between 1991 and 1995 and is now a $300 million industry.
Energy efficiency also creates indirect jobs and it reduces operating costs for industry and businesses which in turn makes them more competitive in domestic and international markets. Competitive companies grow with the economy and generate employment and income for all Canadians.
Canadian industry is showing the way when it comes to energy efficiency. Nearly 250 companies, representing about 75% of total industry energy use in Canada, have registered with Natural Resources Canada's industrial energy innovators program. About 80% of these companies have filed voluntary action plans to improve their use of energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Ninety-seven per cent of the participants in the industrial energy innovators have also registered with the climate change voluntary challenge and registry incorporated and with the VCR. Another 46 industrial companies have registered directly with the VCR. Through the Canadian industry program for energy conservation, industry has formed 19 individual sector task forces that work in close partnership with Natural Resources Canada in finding ways of improving energy efficiency.
Let me give the House some other examples of Canadian energy efficiency achievements. During the 1990s the amount of energy used by new clothes washers and dryers, for example, decreased by about 20%. New refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers are using between 30% and 40% less energy than those manufactured just 10 short years ago. Those improvements are largely the result of federal regulations that establish minimum energy performance standards for household appliances and for other energy using products.
Progress is also being made in the transportation sector which is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The sales weighted average fuel consumption rating for new cars sold in Canada improved by about 8% from 1990 to 1996.
From a technology perspective Canadian leadership is particularly evident in the buildings area. For example, for the past two years the energy technology branch of Natural Resources Canada has spearheaded the green building challenge 1998, an international project to develop and test a system to assess the environmental performance of buildings around the world. Just last month Canada hosted more than 600 international delegates at the green building challenge conference in Vancouver. This event was a huge success and strengthened Canada's position at the forefront of green building design and construction.
Canadian firms are also developing leading edge energy efficiency manufacturing processes. For example, with research and development support from Natural Resources Canada, Stackville Limited of Mississauga, Ontario has developed an innovative powder metallurgy process for manufacturing automative parts. The process eliminates casting, forging and tooling operations which means it saves both energy and materials. It has helped make Stackville one of the largest producers of powder metallurgy auto parts in North America.
We are finding that you do not have to be a large corporation to be a world leader. A small company from Lethbridge, Alberta is generating a great deal of interest after developing the world's first cargo carrying natural gas motorcycle, again with support from Natural Resources Canada. The so-called cargocycle produces 20% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a similar gasoline powered motorcycle and has enormous potential in the international markets. This company is now exploring options for commercial production that could mean 3,000 new jobs in Canada.
I thank the hon. member who put forward this motion for his efforts. It is providing government with an opportunity to highlight our achievements to date. I look forward to continue working with him and this House in advancing the cause of energy efficiency and in the process advancing the cause of Canadian industrial efficiency and productivity.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 300 is an interesting and clearly well intentioned motion.
Like many NDP and Liberal initiatives it takes the attitude that government is the be all and the end all of society and that people will not do things for their own good unless they are whipped along by government coercion through regulation and what not. It also refers fairly heavily to a federal building initiative. I wonder about these things. I will get into that a little later.
The concept of retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient is a very valid one. It certainly is not new. On a very elemental level, 40 years ago my parents decided they were going to install central heating, a furnace in the old farm house. Before they could do that they decided they had better insulate the place. They put in a furnace and did not want to spent a lot of their hard earned money to buy oil to melt snow. That was not considered a good idea. These were practical people. They were not trying to protect the environment. They were not worried about that dreadful gas carbon dioxide being emitted from their chimney. They were interested in keeping some money in their pockets.
In his address of December 18, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre said the savings are unbelievable and almost too good to be true.
I have had some experience around here with spurious data and glossy ministerial bunk in other fields of endeavour so my reaction is that sometimes if something seems too good to be true, it is probably false. Before private owners spend money to upgrade buildings they do cost benefit analyses. They do not do that as a make work project. Their decisions are validated by the bottom line. Above all, after they have made decisions they let contracts to do the work in a properly tendered manner.
As a cautionary note, when we talk about federal government retrofitting, I invite hon. members to look around them. We have been retrofitting this place for the last four years. It is interminable. The last time I looked the government had spent about $400 million. It is already over budget and it is half done. This is the way the federal government operates.
I have some problem with the idea that we must look to the federal government to take care of waste of energy problems. I would like to see some figures that are believable and provable. When our critic in this area tried to get some details on some of these federal building initiatives from the government, he was effectively stonewalled. There was no detail available. So a word of caution.
Industry left to its own devices, free of a lot of regulatory and tax impediments, will develop energy efficient strategies because it is profitable to do so. Although this is anecdotal, I will tell the House about a couple of projects developed by the innovative Canadian mining industry many years ago not to conserve fuel in the national interest or to curb emissions of combustion gases but to help them make more money.
One of the best examples I can think of was designed and built more than 80 years ago in the town of Cobalt, Ontario where a mining company drove a vertical shaft up near the bed of a river at a waterfall so they had an enormous cascade of falling water coming through the raise. That water was used to compress air. The compressed air, which was produced at virtually no cost and with no fuel, was then used to power the drills to drill the holes in which they would load the dynamite to break the rock in the mines in the neighbourhood. It was a wonderful system developed 80 years ago.
There is an example in the Sudbury area with which I am more familiar because it gets into my age group. In order to help with the ventilating system of a deep mine, International Nickel Company drove a raise into the bottom of a very large worked out area near the surface of the ground and installed its ventilating fans. They would suck the down draft air through these old workings. In the winter the company sprayed a fine spray of water into the old workings. As the water froze it heated the air to give them free air heating to ventilate the mine. There was this great mound of thousands of tonnes of ice sitting near the surface of the mine so in the summer they sucked this air past that mound of ice and had a cooling system for the deep levels of the mine.
Industry is not stupid. Industry will do what is necessary to conserve energy, especially now when we consider the extremely high cost of fossil fuels. They will do anything they can to prevent the waste of valuable resources. This is where the real work will come from.
I have no confidence whatsoever in any federal government initiative to do anything, to do it right and to do it economically. It does not happen, or if it does, it happens by accident.
On that note I will relinquish my space to others. I do hope the hon. member from Winnipeg will give some thought to what I have said.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, our party's environment critic, the member for Fundy—Royal, has been working assiduously on this file.
We believe that Motion No. 300 has provided some really good food for discussion and progress within this parliament about the very important issue of the environment and how the public and private sector can work together. The government can work with and engage Canadians in a very important dialogue to make progress in a concrete way, particularly relative to the environment, given our Kyoto commitments.
It is interesting that the previous speaker said he has no confidence in the federal government's ability basically to do anything. I must challenge the hon. member on that assertion. It is not necessarily the size of government. The size of government has been debated largely in the House and by Canadians, but we have to consider the role of government.
I would argue that the government does have a role, a leadership role, to play in the area of the environment. The benefits of a clean environment are not felt solely by individual Canadians nor by individual companies. There is a societal benefit to a clean environment. As such it is imperative that the government act decisively to work with the private sector to meet the obligations we have made in Kyoto.
Energy efficiency benefits all members of society. When the private sector engages in more energy efficient behaviour, we will see a lowering of operating costs for business and better workplace productivity. Productivity is an extraordinarily important issue. Our productivity has been lagging that of our trading partners over the past 20 years. This is one area, one opportunity Canada has to improve productivity in environmental areas.
This is a particularly important issue, given the degree to which the U.S. government and President Clinton and Vice-President Gore have engaged in a leadership role on the environment, on sustainable resource development and energy efficiency. Canada cannot stand back. We must take a more proactive role.
When the government engages in more energy efficient behaviour ultimately the taxpayers will save money. It will help us meet our international obligations, for instance those made at Kyoto. Over time, municipalities and provincial governments will be able to invest the money saved by more environmentally sound practices in things like community infrastructure, recreation and education.
The federal government particularly has a leadership role to play in this area. We have seen organizations such as Edmonton Power and the Canadian Homebuilders Association promote efficiency in new homes. This type of technology can be sold not just within Canada but globally.
We have the potential to improve the quality of life of Canadians and to reduce the damage to the environment by using greener sources of power. Ultimately less taxes will be paid by Canadians because energy efficiency will result in greater operating efficiency for government. In time there will be a better quality of life for all Canadians.
Frankly, it is unfortunate that the government is not actively pursuing these initiatives, as opposed to the opposition and my colleague from the New Democratic Party who has put this motion forward.
One thing concerns me relative to the commitment we have made in Kyoto. That is the lack of meaningful dialogue in Canada prior to those commitments being made. There was very little meaningful dialogue with the sub-national governments, the provincial governments and the municipalities. The level of dialogue with the private sector was not as extensive as it should have been.
It is very important that we are debating these issues now but it would have been far better had we debated them more thoroughly and diligently prior to going to Kyoto. Then our commitments made in Kyoto could have been based on sound research and consultation with Canadians.
Now after the fact we need initiatives like Motion No. 300 which brings to the forefront the important issues: jobs and energy. There is an inextricable link between energy efficiency and investments in energy efficiency augmentation and employment growth, particularly in the new economy in a global sense. Around the world countries will be seeking better approaches to energy efficiency and better approaches to some of the age old problems.
This is an opportunity for Canada not just to compete globally in this newly emerging sector, but to succeed globally. Young Canadians can pursue education in these areas and participate in what could be an exciting new growth industry where Canada could be a leader. We need leaders in Canada who recognize the potential of this extraordinary opportunity to contribute not only to a better quality of life for Canadians, but for a better quality of life for everyone on this planet.
We have a responsibility to this generation and future generations to protect the environment. We have been extremely fortunate. For far too long we have taken for granted our country, its tremendous potential, its natural resources and the relative purity of our environment.
Pursuing this type of initiative more actively would cause us to consider and improve every aspect of everything we do in our day to day lives to contribute to better energy efficiency and to a cleaner environment. Ultimately if we do this properly, there will be more jobs for Canadians.
I believe the Reform Party's position is that global warming is not a proven phenomenon and may not exist. We can ask a thousand doctors if smoking causes cancer and we might find one who says that it does not. The fact is the weight of evidence clearly indicates that global warming is a problem. When the weight of evidence is so overwhelmingly in support of global warming being a problem, it would be irresponsible for us not to act decisively.
This does not have to mean a loss of jobs. This does not have to mean, as some would assert, a loss of opportunities. It can mean more jobs, more opportunities, a cleaner environment, a better Canada and a better world. All of that is possible if we act decisively and we ensure that this House provides the leadership so that Canada can provide the kind of global leadership that the world needs on the environment.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. I do so on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the member for bringing this motion to the House. I am pleased to see his commitment to energy efficiency and his interest in the federal buildings initiative, something that is important for all of us.
Energy efficiency helps Canadians save money. It ensures a responsible use of our resources and as has been pointed out, it ensures and protects our environment. Energy efficiency is important not only for government but for all Canadian homeowners, industry, small business, and automobile drivers for that matter.
Energy efficiency is a winning strategy. It contributes and helps in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is critical in achieving our Kyoto commitments on climate change. Our commitment on energy efficiency is also key in creating high tech jobs and in making Canada a world leader in this field, something of great note.
My remarks today will focus largely on the role of the Department of Public Works and Government Services in this initiative. As a major property owner in Canada, the Department of Public Works and Government Services has the opportunity to promote and implement energy management initiatives such as the federal buildings initiative.
The federal buildings initiative, or FBI, is a voluntary program which helps government departments and agencies improve the energy efficiency of their facilities. The FBI offers a new approach to updating federal buildings with energy saving technologies and practices with no front end cost.
The federal building initiative employs an innovative contractual arrangement involving a pre-qualified energy management firm and federal government departments or organizations. Through this arrangement the full cost of energy efficiency improvements is financed with the resulting energy savings.
The energy management firm finances a project and supplies and installs the new equipment. The department then pays the resulting lower energy bill to the utility and an amount equivalent to the energy savings to the energy management firm until the full cost of the energy efficiency improvement is recovered. At no time does the department pay more than its pre-improvement energy bill. After the improvements and costs have been recovered, it pays a lot less.
The FBI reduces the cost of government operations. It generates thousands of jobs and in the process lowers greenhouse gas emissions. In many buildings, annual energy savings of between 10% and 15% can be achieved by implementing relatively simple measures such as high efficiency fluorescent lights and motors, and heating-cooling system upgrades. Energy accounts for roughly 30% of a typical facility's operating and maintenance costs so that even modest improvements can add up to improvements that are substantial in nature and substantial in savings.
Let me describe a few success stories. In Winnipeg for example, Public Works and Government Services Canada is upgrading four federal buildings which will result in annual savings of $100,000. Environment Canada reaped annual savings of $880,000 through its retrofit of a Burlington, Ontario facility.
Public Works and Government Services Canada alone has signed 29 contracts representing about $33 million in energy investment by the private sector. This generates over $5.2 million in annual savings for energy costs, reducing CO2 emissions by 80,000 tonnes per year and creating 660 jobs in the process.
By the year 2000, Public Works and Government Services Canada estimates that it will have reduced energy consumption by $12 million per year and CO2 levels by 14%. This is quite remarkable. This is an important element in the government's response to meeting our greenhouse gas emission commitments which were made in Kyoto.
In addition to launching its own projects, Public Works and Government Services Canada as a common service agency helps others departments implement the federal buildings initiative by undertaking project management on their behalf. With its broad expertise in the areas of procurement, fleet management, water management, water conservation and energy efficiency, Public Works and Government Services Canada is well suited for this task.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will be pleased to hear that public works is now pursuing the feasibility of the federal buildings initiatives in all leased buildings it manages. This of course means more energy savings and more job creation.
Virtually every department that owns buildings has made a commitment to pursue this initiative and the programs of the federal government are having an increasingly positive effect on the energy efficiency of government operations. We are also encouraging the private sector to go faster in its reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as well.
It is only appropriate then for the federal government, a big energy consumer itself, to set this kind of important and positive example. Canada is recognized as a world leader in energy efficiency, and deservedly so. That is something we can all be proud of.
Let me assure the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre that the federal buildings initiative is alive and well and will be implemented wherever and whenever possible. It is important that we as Canadians do so.
Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Motion No. 300. We highlight job creation in the motion. That is a basic belief of the hon. member who placed this before us.
If this country takes the leading edge in addressing its federal responsibilities we would be creating development into high tech expertise. This expertise could be exported to federal buildings throughout the world.
We have a similar climate to European countries, circumpolar countries and countries with boreal forests. The high tech expertise we would practice and use under the federal buildings program could generate opportunities in long term employment and investment back into our communities and industries.
There are about 50,000 federally owned buildings in this country. In retrofitting these buildings through the federal buildings initiation and the many departments that would be investing, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre is correct in calling on the House to recognize that this buildings initiative can work but it has to be accelerated. In about five years we have had about 100 buildings that have been addressed. We have to address 50,000 buildings. We have to accelerate this program. That is the challenge before us.
This motion is asking that the federal government undertake its responsibilities on the properties it owns and make them energy efficient and in the process address the unemployment regions, the training of the many trades that would be affected in all regions of Canada. There should be an equitable program, not just located in certain urban centres. These buildings are in all corners of Canada.
Canada's international commitment as highlighted in the Kyoto protocol was targeted at a 6% reduction from 1990. Since 1990 we have increased greenhouse gas emissions up to 13%. That is a total of 19%. Almost 20% has to be targeted now. That is almost a quarter out of all our initiatives that we have to take from here on in.
This initiative has to be taken seriously by all Canadians. We listen to members who say the federal government cannot take leadership. It cannot take leadership behind closed doors. Leadership has to be shown by example, as this motion is saying. The federal government could show example by retrofitting its own buildings and leadership by taking the question to Canadians.
We have 12 issue tables that have been formulated by the greenhouse gas and Kyoto protocol secretariat. Those are closed debates. None of these members of parliament are participating.
We represent our communities. None of the residents in my constituency are taking part in these debates. These are industry debates.
The industry is protecting its interests. It has put its foot down directly on what will impact on the Kyoto protocol but this protocol is well on its way.
The scientific reality is this target is not even adequate enough to address the economic disaster we will create for our children to come.
Aside from employment and environmental opportunities, I think what we need to do since it is a millennium project as well that could be coined is to prepare our youth.
These buildings are age old, rusting, moulding. Let us recreate the future for our children but have them do it. We have young people who are represented through visiting this House, visiting museums, visiting the many art galleries throughout the country and these buildings are going to be renewed.
We have a new building up recently, the home of the Maple Leafs, the gardens. It is the last of the old arenas from the original six. These things cannot be retrofitted to a point that they have to be rebuilt as well. They need to be completely redone. That is the challenge here as well.
The hon. member has challenged us to extend the life of these buildings by retrofitting them. It is a challenge to check out new technologies so that when we get to building the new buildings, when we build the new structures, the technologies are tried and proven.
We went to Kyoto. Members accompanied our delegation. We were shown in Japan the high tech initiatives of solar energy. Anything that faced the sun had a photovoltaic cell. It captures enough power to power all their computers when they operate. It is continuous power to generate any power need they want in this building as long as the sun is shining. Even though there are clouds it still collects the power.
If we do not capitalize on these leading edge technologies, we will be buying Japanese technology. Why can we not buy Canadian technology, invest in it now so that we can sell it worldwide?
When I was growing up there was a concept in Popular Science , geothermal energy. My vision of geothermal was that someone sticks a pipe far down into the ground to the hot rock. They could heat their water and get it up here. That was my imagination, down to the centre of the earth. It came out in a movie. Actually geothermal goes only a few feet below. It works the same way a refrigerator works. There is a heat pump. It is exchanged and then pumps can be run just below the permafrost. In the farther north, they have to go a little deeper but it is also available. It is just a few degrees. The heat can be captured and circulated in the home.
We talked about Toyota coming on the Hill just before the year was over and the Minister of Natural Resources was riding around in a hybrid car built by Toyota. I challenged the minister to bring up vehicle designed by a farmer in southern Saskatchewan. He designed his own electrical vehicle.
Why does it have to be labelled Toyota? Why can it not be Canadian made? Why can it not be made in Canada? It is. There is one in Saskatchewan. We saw it on CBC. It woke me up during the Christmas holidays. A man designed his own battery powered car.
That is the creation. That is the energy of Canada that makes our country great. We have minds that have travelled to see the world. We have technology, theoretical and academic experience in our engineering departments of universities. Why do we not challenge these as a Canadian leader since our budgets are in place for the federal departments? The budgets are filled every year to consume energy. Why not take a portion of the consumed energy and invest it for retrofitting to save energy? As long as energy is being saved there is investment into our youth to broaden their minds and experience and to create a major job experience for them into the future.
Regarding district heating I want to address a federal program that came through an initiative by a Cree community, Oujé-Bougoumou. It will be a community highlighted for the retrofitting and energy saving initiatives in northern James Bay Cree. They will be the highlight of Bonn, Germany in the next expo as a village of the future. Here is a northern community to be highlighted internationally. It was initiated by a federal department that listened to a community that wanted to address its problems of high energy costs. Let us challenge ourselves into the new millennium. I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this worthwhile cause to the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, February 8, 1999, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I must confess this is not the usual practice but being Private Members' Business, whips from all parties tend to respect the independence and autonomy of Private Members' Business. Given that we have already agreed to defer votes until Tuesday of next week at the end of Government Orders, there might be agreement to further defer this vote as well.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being effectively 2.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.13 p.m.)