38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 140
CONTENTS
Monday, October 24, 2005
|
 |
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Old Age Security Act |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ) |
|
|
Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Second Reading |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
|
|
Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Telecommunications Act |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Telecommunications Act |
|
|
Hon. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Jerry Pickard |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jerry Pickard |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
London Police Service |
|
|
Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Philippine Heritage Band |
|
|
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.) |
|
|
Bernard Voyer |
|
|
Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Durham District School Board |
|
|
Hon. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Oshawa, Lib.) |
|
|
Gordon Russell |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC) |
|
|
Entrepreneur of the Year Award |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) |
|
|
Chatelaine Magazine |
|
|
Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ) |
|
|
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
Cambridge Memorial Hospital |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Legislative Assembly of British Columbia |
|
|
Mr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.) |
|
|
Burma |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Burma |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Grand Council of the Crees |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ) |
|
|
Aboriginal Communities |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
United Nations Charter |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
|
Asian Bicycle Imports |
|
|
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTIONS
|
|
|
Intergovernmental Affairs |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Housing |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Intergovernmental Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation |
|
|
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.) |
|
|
Middle East |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Intergovernmental Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of State (Public Health), Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Parliamentary Delegations |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Non-Medical Use of Drugs |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Certificates of Nomination |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Questions |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Finance |
|
|
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Autism |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
Canada Post Corporation |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Community Access Program |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.) |
|
|
Uganda |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Post Corporation |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Adoption |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Canada Post Corporation |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Cleary (Louis-Saint-Laurent, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Telecommunications Act |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Telecommunications Act |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Victoria, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Bill, as amended, read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage |
|
|
Mr. Merv Tweed |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative |
|
|
(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 18, Mr. Chuck Strahl in the chair.)
|
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva |
|
|
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gord Brown |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gord Brown |
|
|
(Government Business No. 18 reported)
|
|
|
The Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, October 24, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1100)
[Translation]
Old Age Security Act
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ) moved that Bill C-301, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (monthly guaranteed income supplement), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
* * *
Speaker's Ruling
The Speaker: Before beginning today’s private members’ business, I have a statement to make concerning the provisions of Bill C-301, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (monthly guaranteed income supplement).
As with all private members’ bills, the Chair examines the contents of the bill to determine whether its provisions would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown and thus prevent the Chair from putting the question to a vote at third reading. This is consistent with the duties and responsibilities assigned to the Chair. It has been the practice for such concerns to be raised at the commencement of debate on second reading.
[English]
Bill C-301 standing in the name of the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain proposes to alter the process by which compensation is awarded to old age security recipients in the manner that retroactivity is handled.
[Translation]
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 remove the requirement that the recipient must make an application before they can receive a payment. Henceforth, payments would be based simply on entitlement. This changes the conditions of the compensation process and creates new or additional spending. Arguably, it could also affect the minister’s discretionary authority; however, this is not entirely clear.
Clause 6 awards full retroactivity. Currently, retroactivity is limited by the date upon which the application was made. Late applicants may only be eligible for the period dating from the application. It would appear then that this modification authorizes increased spending which would require a royal recommendation.
Therefore, in its present form, I will decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-301 unless a royal recommendation is received.
Today, the debate is on the motion for second reading, and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.
* * *
(1105)
Second Reading
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to initiate debate on Bill C-301, although what you have just said does not augur well for the process. It is not that I wish to contest your ruling, but when it is said that the bill involves money, we need to know whose money it is. In my opinion, it already belongs to seniors, and we are not asking the government to spend any new money. The bill is merely asking it to return to senior citizens who have been deprived of the guaranteed income supplement the money to which they are entitled.
The public did not call for royal recommendation to deprive them of their due. The period of retroactivity has been reduced to 11 months since 1995; before that it was 5 years. They were not asked to consent to being deprived of their rights and the money coming to them.
I find it immoral that we cannot now call upon the government to show some conscience and provide the least advantaged of seniors with what they are entitled to, after it has used every means possible to deprive them of it.
I sat on the committee that examined the GIS question in 2001. We came to realize that 270,000 seniors among Canada's least advantaged—since those who are entitled to the supplement certainly do not have money in tax havens—have been deprived of the GIS, including 68,000 Quebeckers. The government is sitting on $3.2 billion that does not belong to it; this money belongs to seniors.
While I do not challenge the Speaker's ruling, I will never accept being told that a bill like this one cannot be voted on, on the pretext that it would deprive the government of money. That is wrong. The money in question is not the government's money but money owing to the most disadvantaged of seniors.
If you do the math, you will see that in Quebec alone since 1995 those who already have the least have been deprived of some $1 billion. Some people aged 72, 75 or 80 are having to live on $6,000 a year because they do not get the GIS, not having been properly informed about their entitlement to it. Disadvantaged seniors often live in conditions that keep them from getting the necessary information. They are not the ones responsible; the government is responsible for depriving these seniors of what they are entitled to by making the situation so complicated.
I find it totally immoral that an issue like this one can only be discussed, and not voted on. As I said at the beginning of my speech, no royal recommendation was required to deprive seniors of what they were owed.
I have toured Quebec with my colleagues from the Bloc. We have held 43 meetings across the province with seniors who were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement. The meeting in Sherbrooke comes to mind, as I was particularly struck. It was held in a church basement on a Monday afternoon, and so many people showed up that extra chairs had to be added. Three hundred and fifty people attended that meeting.
(1110)
We learned that, among those present, perhaps 10 or 20 were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement. I met the daughter of an 88 year old woman who has since passed. This woman did not contribute much to society: only 10 or so children. That is already something. As Yvon Deschamps would say, she never really found time to work; she had too much to do at home. In her later years, she had to live on $6,000 a year and, after she passed, the government was left with $90,000 that belonged to her.
If a royal recommendation is required to go after that money, let us get it immediately. It makes no sense that more justice cannot be restored. It makes no sense that, while there is so much talk about all kinds of violence, we can be so violent here. No doubt about it, it was violence against this woman.
I can provide names of people this has happened to in Quebec. In my riding, there is a couple in their 70s, who thanked me because as a result of my efforts they now get $4,000 more a year. They each got $2,000 more. I asked them when this started. They told me they got only 11 months of retroactive payments. However, $4,000 a year for five years equals $20,000. The government therefore took $16,000 belonging to that couple. This is happening everywhere.
I went to Vancouver where I met with some of these people. The government brags about being good administrators. It is scandalous. They say they are good administrators, but they take money from those who are less fortunate. They can pay down the debt that way, but it is nothing to be proud of.
They say they are good administrators, but they take money from the unemployed. Again, that is nothing to be proud of. The members opposite who are bragging about achieving zero deficit on the backs of seniors, the unemployed, the sick and the provinces, certainly have no reason to claim to be good administrators. I would never admit such a thing.
My bill asks only one thing and that is to re-establish the most basic justices. Seniors are absolutely not responsible for being inadequately informed about what they are entitled to receive. Why not treat them the way we would want to be treated.
If we stop paying our taxes for five or six years, does that mean we owe the government only 11 months of back taxes? I doubt it. When we owe money to the government, it has the right to go into our wallets and take what it wants. It will even impose penalities and interest.
My bill simply asks the government to be honest. It has $3 billion that does not belong to it. There is a lack of honesty. I am sorry, but there is a lack—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Order, please. I would remind the hon. member to address his comments through the Chair.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am told to obey the rules, but we should obey them too and give people what is owing to them but was stolen from them. That is how one obeys the rules. I will never accept being unable to say that this money is in the government coffers, $3.2 billion, of which $800 million is for Quebec. And this amount is constantly increasing. During my travels around Quebec, I learned that about 30,000 people had not received what was owing to them. There are still about 40,000 who are not receiving their due. As I meet them, I tell them that they are entitled to more. People call me every day in my office to check their files. And we see that they have not received what is owing to them.
Eleven months retroactivity here is unacceptable. It is unfair and dishonest. Regardless of the rules that I am supposed to obey, when something is dishonest, it is dishonest. It has to be possible in this House to speak the truth. In my view, the senior who died at 88 years of age had $90,000 stolen from her. Do not tell me that she was not robbed, because she was. Why did she not get what was owing to her? It was simply because things had been made complicated. The information was not getting through. She had to call in order to receive what was owing to her. But at the other end of the line was an answering machine. Sometimes people had to wait two hours on the telephone to get an answer. When people got the form to make their application, it was so complicated that I myself, who have spent my life filling out forms, was exhausted just looking at it. It was unbelievable. An expert was needed to fill it out. So just imagine what that means for older people who are often ill.
I knew someone who had had a stroke. He lived alone and could not figure all this out. So he just threw the form in the garbage. He said to himself: “If they do not want to give me the money, let them have it. I am fed up having to fight to get what is owing to me. At this time in my life, I should be able to get it.”
We should have a government that is honest enough to ensure that these people receive their due. I know that this bill requires royal assent. However, it pains me to learn that we will not be able to vote on so honest and logical a bill and say that the 11 months retroactivity makes no sense. If a senior realizes that he has been owed money for five years, why grant him only 11 months retroactivity? Yet if a citizen has owed money to the government for five years, the government is going to go after its five years of retroactivity.
I find it painful to think of these citizens. They are of inestimable value. Seniors have made sacrifices. They have built this society of ours. They have had to toil and struggle to earn their living. They have raised large families and worked up to 20 hours a day. That has been the lot of mothers. In fact, most of those who have been deprived of the guaranteed income supplement are our mothers. It is curious that the poorest of the seniors in our society are women, mothers. For example, there is one mother in Sherbrooke who raised her family. After providing society with eight or ten children, her reward was to be allowed to be poor in her old age, even though some of her money was in the government’s coffers.
When we see waste such as the sponsorship scandal, we can talk about it. Money flows like water here. We only need look at what is happening. Consider the past president of Canada Post, for example, and you will see that when some people retire, they don’t retire poor. That is the case in other fields as well. Money flows here as if it were nothing. But when it comes to giving it to the most vulnerable in our society, that is apparently too much to ask.
(1115)
That requires money from the government. As a result, it will be difficult to get royal recommendation. Allow me at least to say that much. This is not to come down against your decision, but I find this painful.
I hope that one day we will be honest enough to reimburse the money we owe to the most vulnerable people in our society. These people have earned this money; they have not stolen it. So we will continue to fight until they obtain their due.
(1120)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Before going to question and comment period, I would like to say a few words. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain mentioned that he has been asked to obey the rules. I assume that he was not referring to my reminder to him to address the Chair and that he is not challenging the authority and decision of the Chair.
The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Social Development has the floor.
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you, first, for having reminded the member of the rules because no one on this side of the House is dishonest—neither in our department nor in the government. I do not think that the truth lies only on the other side of the House and not with all the members. We are here to respect this.
In addition, I would like to thank the Speaker for having agreed with the committee that raised this matter as well as with the government that raised the matter of the royal recommendation regarding bills. There are often bills in the House that do not comply with the rules.
I have a question and a comment. All the members who have dealt with this problem have gone and met with seniors in their ridings. I still meet with these seniors, just as I suppose all the members of the House do. I am the one who has raised this matter, and so far, I must say that it has not caused any problems.
I have checked with my Liberal colleagues. Thanks to all the efforts that this government and this department have made, we have now managed to contact 98% of the people. Maybe there are some people whom we have not managed to contact, but there are reasons for this. For example, the homeless. It is obviously impossible for us to contact them in the same way as we contacted seniors. But we have made great efforts—and I will have an opportunity to speak about this again during my address—working together with non-governmental organizations—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: We show respect on both sides of the House.
Of course efforts have been made.
I would like to address my comments to the hon. member who introduced this bill. Much has been done, and I will speak about this in my address. If the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain knows any seniors who do not get the guaranteed income supplement, he can inform the minister. The minister has already said in this House that if someone knew of such people, he or she should let him know. We would then ensure of course that they receive what is due to them. I agree that it belongs to them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, I would like to issue a caution. I would like to point out that since 1958—so this is nothing new, no invention of mine—certain expressions or certain words have been considered unparliamentary. Among such words, I note “dishonest”, “dishonest intent”, “theft” and “steal”.
I would therefore ask the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who now has the floor, to be prudent in his use of certain words.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you of my respect for the Chair. I have myself held such a position on committees in the Government of Quebec. I also liked to be respected. Therefore I have great respect for the decisions you make. However it is not the decision I am criticizing, but the fact.
Here in the House, certain words are banned, for example, saying that someone is lying. As we know, the French language revises its vocabulary from time to time. It might be a good idea to adjust it. Adjust it, for example, to reflect the fact that if there is one word that should not be banned, it is “lie”. However that may be, we do not have the right to call someone a liar. However, is the truth being spoken here, on certain occasions? Sometimes one might doubt it.
To respond to the question of the hon. member opposite, indeed, there are still people who are forgotten. Of course, there has been an improvement. In that regard I must pay tribute to Ms. Jane Stewart. My colleagues and I have gone on tours. I hope that others have done so as well, although I know that when I went to Vancouver, I was the first to speak about this. In short, in the wake of the work that we have done, Ms. Stewart has improved things immensely. For example, now a person answers the telephone. Furthermore, the application form has been simplified and its length reduced. On the other hand, in a letter, she told me that there is just one thing she could not change: retroactivity. But that is what has to be done. That money has to be returned to the people it belongs to.
I do not want to call anyone a thief. I know that is not permitted. But I have certain suspicions. When money that belongs to me turns up in my neighbour’s pocket and he keeps it, I suspect his intentions.
(1125)
[English]
Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it probably is 10%, and I realize the number is coming down, but it could be upward to 25% of those eligible for GIS and some of the other supplements?
How does the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain square the fact that the government may not allow us to vote on this considering that we need royal assent and considering that Bill C-66 leads us to believe the government is concerned about this group?
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is indeed correct. On the one hand, they say they are concerned about it. We have had an announcement of the upcoming speech. They are concerned about it, but it is rather curious. They will say these people will be given $2.7 billion by 2010. But these people have been deprived of $3.2 billion over the last 10 years. In the meantime, 15 years will have gone by. The people who have been denied this money will not receive it, because they will be gone. I am afraid they are banking on the disappearance of the clientele. One day, these people will be granted their rightful retroactivity, but perhaps someone is waiting for the clientele to decrease in numbers. I find that appalling.
I cannot but applaud the increase to the guaranteed income supplement and pensions. Of course I do. Over the last 10 years, these people's purchasing power has fallen by 10%. So we should start by giving their due to the people who have been denied their due.
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this bill by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain would enable seniors eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement to receive it without applying for it, and would also abolish the current restrictions on retroactivity.
[English]
Before addressing the specifics of the bill's proposal, I would like to highlight how Social Development Canada is responding to the needs of seniors at all income levels and the tools and programs that the department offers them.
Seniors make up the fast growing population in Canadian society. We know that in the next 30 years, one in four Canadians will be a senior. Today's seniors are healthier, better educated, better off financially than seniors of previous generations and they are also enjoying longer lives.
Our government recognizes and has always recognized that we must prepare for the diverse and rapidly growing seniors population of the future. At the same time we are committed to addressing the needs of the four million seniors in Canada today and to ensure we respect and benefit from their wealth of knowledge and experience.
[Translation]
We have a very practical model for attaining those objectives, one which defines the issues and immediately comes up with possible solutions. That model is the detailed report, “Creating A National Seniors Agenda”, tabled in 2004 by the Prime Minister's Task Force on Active Living and Dignity for Seniors, under the auspices of the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, Minister of State (Families and Caregivers).
Even before the Bloc Québécois's tour, a former colleague, Yolande Thibeault, struck a committee which undertook a cross-country tour precisely in order to determine the needs of seniors. This issue was raised and noted, and steps were taken as a result. As the hon. member has said, Ms. Thibeault's report enabled the former minister to introduce all the measures possible. Today, thanks to the report by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, improvements to the program continue to be made.
The report by the second group informed us that Canadians wanted policies, programs and services for seniors that met their needs more effectively.
So far our consultations and meetings with other governments and stakeholders have allowed us to define common challenges and possibilities for seniors, including financial security, health and well-being, social involvement and participation, housing and public safety.
Currently, the Government of Canada spends roughly $67 billion a year on programs for seniors. According to the estimates, seniors receive a substantial part of the allocated funds, or some $54.5 billion for 2005-06, as direct income support under the government pension programs administered by Social Development Canada.The other $17 billion is used for tax credits, health care, housing and support for veterans.
(1130)
[English]
Our retirement income system is definitely a success. The current $52 billion in pension payments is only part of a broader system that includes tax assisted personal savings and private pensions. Canada's public pensions are on solid ground, thanks to the government, and are projected to remain that way in the future. That is why today we are in that position, because of the actions the government took 10 years ago.
We are proud of the fact that in less than 20 years the system has dramatically reduced the number of seniors who live in poverty. Whereas in 1980 over 20% of the senior population lived on low incomes, today that proportion is less than 7%. It is nothing to be proud of, by the way. We are working to make it 0%. That is our goal and our commitment to seniors.
We also know that older women are especially vulnerable to poverty. Many are not aware of what benefits they are entitled to. It could be a question of language or it could be a question, as I said, of homelessness. There are a number of factors. That is why we are spreading the word through Quebec's women's centres. This is an example of where we have not gone only to the government. We have actually gone on the ground.
With 55 locations in and around Montreal, the women's centres have a strong presence in the region and proven experience working with disadvantaged and abused women. With this promising partnership, Outreach teams in the regions have had the chance to meet about 400 women. We are now gaining a foothold in women's centres throughout the province.
[Translation]
Our goal is to help more women in Quebec help themselves. As an elected member from Quebec, I am pleased to see such success, including the success of all my colleagues on this side of the House who are taking this type of approach to provide information to people who are not familiar with the various government programs.
The government is also looking for ways to promote active living and social participation for seniors, which are essential to their well-being and that of our society.
That is why we included the New Horizons program in our 2005 budget; to encourage older Canadians to use their skills, knowledge and experience as volunteers, mentors and community leaders.
The measures we are taking to improve life for seniors today and to prepare for the next demographic shift shows our determination to help the most vulnerable in our society, especially low-income seniors.
[English]
Despite these wide-ranging programs, we know there are still Canadian seniors on low incomes who are vulnerable, particularly single seniors in urban areas and single senior women.
Our government recognizes the need for action to improve the situation for Canada's poorest seniors. By 2007, the guaranteed income supplement will be increased by $36 a month for single seniors and $58 for couples. This increase will benefit over 1.6 million seniors. We will do better because we do have that surplus. That is exactly what we said and exactly what we have done.
We also recognize the need to provide a federal focal point for the collaborative efforts behind the movement to address seniors' issues. In the February budget, we responded by creating the Seniors' Secretariat within Social Development Canada. The new secretariat's mandate will be to collaborate will all levels of government, stakeholders, experts and the public to provide a focal point for senior's issues.
I can proudly say that our public pension system is working.
(1135)
[Translation]
Therefore, I cannot support Bill C-301, even if it will not be put to a vote. I completely agree with the government's position that this bill, if passed, would unreasonably burden the governmental retirement system administratively, technically and financially. There is nothing dishonest about that. No one stole any money. Without the application process and income verification, the system would be open to abuse.
In addition, we would not have enough information to determine entitlement for seniors who, for instance, do no file tax returns. This would also substantially increase the risk of errors within the system.
According to the Public Affairs Branch at Social Development Canada, individuals who do not file income tax returns include seniors from vulnerable communities, such as the homeless, aboriginal people, seniors living in remote areas and seniors who speak neither English nor French.
[English]
As parliamentary secretary, I can assure the House and all colleagues that Social Development Canada has outreach activities in all regions of the country to increase seniors' awareness of, confidence in and take up of Canada's retirement income system.
We are reaching out indirectly to vulnerable communities through our aboriginal governments, cultural communities and homelessness advocates to notify non-tax filers and other potential recipients who are missing out on their GIS entitlement.
Activities in the regions include such things as information booths, mailings, newspaper articles and presentations. As I said earlier, I and other MPs have gone out and done their own outreach. To date, 350,000 letters and personalized application forms have gone to seniors across the country identified for CRA income tax information. This campaign complements the initiative taken in 1999 to automatically renew approximately 1.3 million GIS recipients whose tax returns confirm continued entitlement automatically.
[Translation]
Through our efforts, we now have approximately 200,000 new recipients of the guaranteed income supplement and spousal allowance. In Quebec, more than 75,000 letters and personalized application forms were sent to seniors, informing them that the guaranteed income supplement was available. As a result, the number of recipients has grown by another 50,000.
We have made and will continue to make every effort. Our government, on this side of the House, wants to reach everyone who is entitled to the guaranteed income supplement.
All the efforts by Social Development Canada will continue. Our entire support program will also continue. If the hon. members across the way know of any seniors, this government is committed to reaching out to them and ensuring that they at least have access to what they are entitled to.
[English]
Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-301, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act in regard to the monthly guaranteed income supplement. This bill would amend the Old Age Security Act to allow eligible pensioners to receive a monthly guaranteed income supplement without having to make application. It also would repeal the restrictions respecting retroactivity.
I applaud the intent of Bill C-301. Although there are a few technical details that need to be reviewed, I am quite prepared to support this legislation in principle and I look forward to seeing it discussed in committee.
Amending the Old Age Security Act to ensure that eligible pensioners receive their monthly guaranteed income supplement is, quite simply, an issue of fairness. All too often we see the Liberal government doing whatever it can to squeeze every last dime out of Canadian taxpayers regardless of their ability to pay.
The freeze on income trusts and the resulting uncertainty for investors, especially seniors, is a perfect example. This government's problem with existing income trusts is that investors get to keep more of their own money, a unique concept that is foreign to this government. Many of these investors are seniors who rely on income trusts for financial security in their retirement years.
A recent letter to the Minister of Finance from CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, stated that Canadian “seniors are actually enraged, frightened and panicked” in relation to this government's indecisiveness on income trusts. They are not supportive, as the minister would suggest, showing once again that this government really does not understand and is out of touch with the Canadian public.
One senior writes to the government that:
|
Retirees are beyond the saving stage in their lives and spend almost all of their income. This benefits the Canadian economy. Your actions are happening at a time when retirees are facing some very major increases such as energy costs. This is a time for government to be compassionate and fair with retirees who have helped to make Canada the great country that it is. |
Another senior writes:
|
Many seniors have been hurt by the uncertainty caused by the government's insensitive handling of the income trust situation. |
Yet another senior is on record as saying:
|
The government has taken the solid platform from under our feet and replaced it with an open shaft. |
Canadian seniors are continually facing the effects of a shrinking dollar: increasing energy costs that directly affect the ability of seniors to heat their homes and put gasoline in their cars; property taxes that continue to escalate, making it difficult for them to stay in their own homes; and indeed, the rising costs related to the basic necessities of life such as food. All of these continue to make it difficult for seniors to survive.
Not only is this government not providing seniors with the financial assistance they really need, the government is actually penalizing many seniors through a system that all too often utilizes clawbacks.
If the government deems it appropriate to cast a cloud of apprehension onto seniors when it reviews income trusts and to make it almost impossible for most seniors who really need financial assistance to obtain it, then it would be quite hypocritical for Liberal MPs to shut down further study in ensuring that GIS payments reaches their intended recipients.
Even if there are existing questions about implementation of costs, Canadian seniors deserve to see this bill pass second reading and go forward for further study. Indeed, if the government truly believes that Bill C-66 can be effective in helping those most in need of assistance with high energy costs, I do not see how the Liberals can vote against ensuring that seniors receive their due.
We all know that Bill C-66 sets out a specific eligibility criterion for seniors to receive the proposed energy rebate payment. Single seniors must be receiving the GIS in order to get their $125 in assistance. Of course, the Liberal government's generous offer of assistance with high energy costs becomes nothing more than a hollow promise when in fact hundreds of thousands of seniors miss out because they fail to fill out a form.
Again, while this government never misses an opportunity to collect money from Canadians, it just is not as enthusiastic about ensuring that Canadians get to keep what is rightfully theirs. This bill is an opportunity to make some amends.
(1140)
However, I find it ironic that the particular assistance for those pensioners in need, those whom we are talking about today, is called a “guaranteed income supplement”. The National Advisory Council on Aging recently released a report entitled “Seniors on the Margins, Aging in Poverty in Canada”. In this report, the council states that there are more than 50,000 seniors who are eligible for the old age security pension but have not applied and more than 300,000 seniors who are eligible for the supplement but are not receiving it.
In 2001 a Toronto food bank raised the alarm when people aged 60 and over accounted for 10% of its users and only a minority of these individuals knew about and were receiving GIS and allowance benefits. They were living under very difficult circumstances. Once the rent was paid, the median amount remaining per week for all other expenses was a mere $34.65, yet the estimated average cost of food for one week in Toronto is over $40.
Forty per cent of those individuals were having difficulty paying for their medication every month and 27% were not taking their medication for lack of money.
That same year, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities issued a report to this House which concluded that there were more than 380,000 Canadian seniors who were eligible for this supplement but were not receiving it.
Incidentally, the title of the report was “The Guaranteed Income Supplement: The Duty to Reach All”. That was four years ago. I think I am being more than reasonable in suggesting that it is time for the government to start taking some action. Otherwise, the guaranteed income supplement is not really much of a guarantee, is it?
Eligible seniors must apply every single year to receive the supplement and we know there are many reasons why this application is not filled out. These reasons include not understanding the eligibility requirements or tax returns and educational pamphlets due to language barriers, functional illiteracy and failing eyesight or, quite simply, because of a lack of awareness that the GIS must be applied for on an annual basis.
The one common factor is that these seniors have very little money during their retirement years and are among the most vulnerable members of our society. Instead of enjoying their retirement in dignity and comfort, too many Canadian seniors are struggling for the basic necessities of life.
We have a duty to help—not neglect—the seniors who helped build this country. By ignoring the eligible seniors who are losing out on the financial assistance they have been guaranteed, we are also stripping away other rights and privileges they deserve. Many provinces have programs such as prescription drug plans, other income supplements, heating oil subsidies and home care assistance programs that are available only for those individuals receiving GIS. When an eligible Canadian senior does not receive his or her guaranteed income supplement, for whatever reason, he or she also loses out on other services that are essential to their quality of life.
Allowing eligible pensioners to receive their monthly GIS without having to make a yearly application is a measure that I support, not only out of compassion but also because it is simply the right thing to do for those in need. Bill C-301 would enable automatic processing of the guaranteed income supplement based on information from the Ministry of National Revenue, and let us face it, if we owe any money to the tax department, we know that they make sure they let us know in a big hurry.
I believe further attention must be paid to details to ensure that the GIS does in fact reach everyone to whom it is applicable. The retroactivity aspect of this bill also requires more research and definition. Who qualifies for retroactive payments? How far back should it apply? How will it be implemented? What, if any, restrictions will be in place? These are all important questions that deserve detailed scrutiny. I would very much like to see this bill go to committee so that it can be carefully examined and given the details it needs.
Giving the ministry authority to automatically provide GIS to those who deserve it does not necessarily provide the ministry with the capability to do the same. I am certain that this legislation can be reinforced and strengthened for the benefit of our seniors.
The need is unquestionable. As the Conservative critic for seniors' issues, I have consulted with seniors across Canada and I can say that unarguably there is a broad consensus from coast to coast to coast that seniors need to automatically receive any and all benefits as they become eligible.
Here are a few of the facts. OAS and CPP are the main sources of income for over two-thirds of seniors, and on average, 29% of the total income for seniors is derived from private employers' pensions and RRSPs, 27% from OAS, including GIS, and 20% from CPP and QPP. CPP benefits replace approximately 25% of income earned, for which a worker contributed to CPP and QPP, and 35% of seniors receive GIS.
(1145)
As we can readily see, many seniors count on every dollar just to survive. Let us not deny seniors their rights. If the Liberals are truly concerned, as they have led us to believe, then let them as the government give us a royal recommendation and give us an opportunity to vote on Bill C-301. Let us put this to the House for a free vote. If the government truly cares about seniors, it will give seniors not lip service but action.
I ask that we as their elected representatives do what is right and necessary to ensure that those individuals who helped build our nation receive what is rightfully theirs.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier the Speaker ruled with regard to the need for a royal recommendation. The member has just referred to the aspect of a vote. For clarification, it is my understanding that there still will be a vote at second reading to determine whether the bill goes to committee, but that the bill is not eligible to go to third reading because of the royal recommendation requirement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The member's understanding of the situation is correct.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
[Translation]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain for this bill of such importance to all seniors throughout Canada. It is a very constructive idea for the government. Even if it is not possible to pass this bill at third reading, all the government has to do is act. Why would the Liberal government not change its mind and take action to solve seniors' problems? Why is the government ignoring the many seniors who are suffering because of the cost of living?
(1150)
[English]
Let us not sit and accept that no action is possible because our parliamentary procedures require that the bill cannot go to third reading as it requires the expenditure of money and, therefore, the whole thing comes grinding to a halt.
Let us acknowledge that we are dealing with an issue that has been raised in the House for at least five years. Let me point out to the members, who already are catcalling from their places, if the Liberals acted in response to those concerns, why did Statistics Canada come out with a report on Friday which showed that 200,000 seniors who were eligible for GIS did not receive this fundamental income security? If the Liberals have done everything they could, why are so many people in need of income to pay their bills, so they do not have to give up on necessary medications to put food on the table or turn down their heat to ensure that they can pay the rent?
We are not talking about a handful of senior citizens who can fend for themselves. We are talking about 200,000 senior citizens who have every right to this money. However, because of Liberal stubbornness, they are not getting the money they need to subsist. That is an absolute shame and an embarrassment for our country. The government should stand in its place today and say that it recognizes there still is a problem, that it recognizes the Statistics Canada report and that it agrees it has not done enough.
We are dealing with two problems today.
We are talking about a fundamental program for income security of our seniors, the guaranteed income supplement, that is not reaching every Canadian. That issue has been raised day in and day out over the last number of years, but to hardly a successful result or conclusion.
If the Liberals have done so much, why, when we raised this back in 2004, were we told there were 270,000 seniors not eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. Today, a whole year and more later, still 200,000 senior citizens are not receiving the guaranteed income supplement? If they have done so much in the last year, why have they only reduced the rolls by 70,000? How many of those 70,000 are new entries into the senior years and now are suddenly eligible for the first time?
The real question is why can the government not figure out how to get money to those who need it the most, especially when they are eligible for that money?
We are in the House a lot of the time arguing for more money and help for low income people, especially seniors. We would like to see an increase in the GIS. We would like to see the government pay attention to the difficulties seniors face. We have a program for which senior citizens in Canada are eligible, but many have not received the benefit.
Now the government tries to suggest that those not receiving the benefit must only be homeless. We have 200,000 senior citizens who are homeless and who are not receiving the benefit? Perhaps the Liberals should read the Statistics Canada report that suggests these people may not be literate, or they may not have the language capacity, or they may not have access to information, or they may not be in touch with other people, or they may be isolated or living in solitude, or they may not have the information they need to access this money.
Perhaps the government should go out of its way to find the real reasons for this neglect and address them, especially in the context of the government's decision to find a formula for a gas rebate that is so narrow and problematic that it will deny many senior citizens the gas rebate because it refuses to address the problem at hand.
Let us look at it this way. The government has decided a gas rebate will go to senior citizens if they now receive the GIS. That is interesting. It puts this formula in place knowing full well that many senior citizens do not receive the GIS and it proceeds anyway without a plan to ensure that every senior citizen who is eligible for the guaranteed income supplement receives the gas rebate.
(1155)
How does the government explain that to those 200,000 seniors who need to pay their bills too? They have to turn the heat on to keep warm. They might still drive a car and need gas for that car. They need the benefit of the rebate. They are no less needy than those who are already receiving GIS simply because they were in the loop, they were tracked down and they managed to find a way to apply.
Let us look at those senior citizens who are eligible for GIS but who do not apply. Let us fix the system now before another cold winter. Let us ensure that every senior citizen who is eligible for guaranteed income supplement receives the gas rebate. They are eligible because they are low income. They are trying to make ends meet, and they need our help. They need to be recognized for their contributions over the years. Let us do something before the cold winter sets in.
My hon. colleague, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, also suggested that we look at the issue of retroactivity. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with the government saying that it made a mistake and that it owes senior citizens something because it did not exactly pursue those seniors who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement? Hundreds of thousands of seniors have struggled over the years to make ends meet. They would not have had to struggle quite so hard if they had received the guaranteed income supplement.
The government is sitting on a possible $12 billion surplus this year alone. I have just come from the finance committee where we have received four reports from our four independent forecasters. Three of the four indicate for this fiscal year the surpluses are in the range of $10 billion to $12.4 billion.
How do we explain to seniors that the government is sitting on $12 billion in surplus but it is not prepared to apply the GIS to those who were denied it. The government did not have the foresight, or the courage or the commitment to track them down and ensure they received something that was their due?
How do we explain the cutting of corners and suffering those seniors have had to go through over the last number of years because the government could not get off its duff and do something that was proactive and meaningful to address the full scope of the problems facing our seniors citizens? That is all of which to suggest that the government simply reacts to its shortcomings, downfall and its failure to address these over the last number of years. It has not suggested anything proactive to deal with the need to increase the limits beyond that to try to prevent clawbacks of GIS of to ensure that every senior citizen is able to live with the knowledge of a secure retirement benefit.
Let us put it into context. We know from many surveys and information that senior citizens are very worried about their pensions. When they retire, will they be there when they need them? Will the present pensions they receive be adequate to deal with the cost of living. Seventy-three per cent of Canadians say that they are worried about not having enough money to live on after retirement. That is up by almost 20% from two years ago. That is a lot of anxious people, anxious because of Liberal inaction and failed promises. They are anxious because of a government that is so committed to corporate tax cuts and benefits to corporations that it cannot see the people it has been elected to serve. It cannot recognize need when it is put directly in front of its face.
The government should deal with something that is so obvious. Make it possible for those who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement to get it. Let us look at giving a payment to all those who should have received it over the last number of years. Let us respect our senior citizens. Let us respect their dignity and what they themselves want to see, having contributed so much to our great country.
(1200)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Telecommunications Act
Hon. Ken Dryden (for the Minister of Industry) moved that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act, be read the third time and passed.
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent to order that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act, be deemed to have been amended as follows. I move:
|
That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 3 with the following: |
|
“paragraph (c) for an electoral district; |
|
(f) made for the sole purpose of collecting information for a survey of members of the public; or |
|
(g) made for the sole purpose of soliciting a subscription for a newspaper of general circulation”. |
This motion, as you will note, is identical to Motion No. 7, which was not selected for consideration at report stage.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the consent of the House to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
Business of the House
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties concerning the debate scheduled for later this day as well as tomorrow, in committee of the whole, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
|
That during debates in committee of the whole on Monday, October 24 and Tuesday, October 25 on Government Business Nos. 18 and 19 respectively, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be entertained by the Speaker. |
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
(1205)
Telecommunications Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act, as amended, be read the third time and passed.
Hon. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to begin the third reading debate of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.
This bill would augment the powers of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to establish a more effective regime and protect consumers against unsolicited telemarketing in Canada.
The bill provides the legislative framework for the creation of a national do not call list. I am sure that every member of the House and probably everyone watching the proceedings today can recall being interrupted by telemarketers during dinner or when spending some quality time with their family and friends. There are times when we are willing to listen to people who want to sell us something. There are also times when we do not want to listen. There are times when pitches made in our homes by certain corporations are just not acceptable. This bill responds to those concerns that Canadians have strongly voiced. They are fed up with unwanted unsolicited telemarketing calls and want an effective solution.
In 2003 Environics conducted a survey of consumers' attitudes toward telemarketing. Eighty-one per cent of the respondents reported receiving unsolicited calls. On average, respondents received over three unsolicited calls each week.
Public opinion polls tell us that unsolicited telecommunications have indeed become an inconvenience and a nuisance to many Canadians. In fact, during the survey conducted in 2003, 97% of the respondents reported a negative reaction to unsolicited calls. Of those, 38% said they would tolerate the calls, 35% said they were highly annoyed and 24% hated receiving those telephone calls. It is clear that Canadians think that unsolicited calls are a problem.
Unsolicited telemarketing has become a serious irritant for many Canadians as existing rules provide little protection for consumers against intrusive unwanted calls. Under the 1994 rules, telemarketers are required to maintain individual do not call lists. These rules have been in place for the past 10 years. Since they were implemented by the CRTC they have been found to be ineffective for the following reasons.
First, the rules have resulted in some confusion among consumers. For one thing, few consumers know that they have the right to register a specific company on a do not call list, but even for those consumers who wish to take advantage of these lists, the task is daunting. Consumers who do not want to receive calls need to put their registration in place on the do not call list of hundreds of different companies. These registrations are placed for three years, after which the consumer must register again.
The current regime is ineffective because it is difficult to enforce. When consumers receive further calls from firms for which they registered on the individual do not call list, it is hard for them to prove that they were registered with that specific company.
Some 14% of the people Environics polled reported that they had tried to make a complaint regarding an unsolicited call. Among this subgroup, a majority of 59% said their complaint was never resolved.
We have heard from Canadians. The reality is that the inability to control telemarketing continues to be a pervasive source of frustration. The time has come for a more effective approach to regulating unsolicited telemarketing, an approach that will benefit both consumers and the telemarketing industry and one that will be easier to enforce.
(1210)
At the heart of the issue is the need to have an effective tool for enforcement and compliance, and that is the focus of the bill before us. If we create an effective enforcement and compliance regime through rules that are fair and transparent, we have the foundation for smart regulation of telemarketing. For that reason the CRTC requires legislated authority to impose administrative monetary penalties, that is to fine businesses that continue to make unsolicited calls to persons who have registered on a do not call list.
With the ability to fine a marketing company, CRTC will be able to apply penalties that will provide a deterrent and stop companies from making many of those unwanted calls. The use of a national do not call list will improve the effectiveness of the system. For these reasons, we are seeking through the bill to amend the Telecommunications Act to provide administrative monetary penalties for violations of the national do not call list.
The costs of maintaining such a list would include database maintenance, complaint processing and the investigative and enforcement costs. The CRTC has recommended that a third party administrator who specializes in databases should be selected to maintain the national do not call list. With this bill we amend the Telecommunications Act to allow for a third party administrator and cost recovery.
Legislative amendments have been recommended and would exempt calls from the national do not call list for registered charities as defined under section 248 of the Income Tax Act, for companies with existing business relationships, and for calls from political parties. Exempt organizations would be required to maintain individual do not call lists. In addition, survey and polling firms would also be exempt from the do not call list and would continue to be exempt to collect the views of Canadians.
There are certain implementation details that arise from the establishment of a do not call list. For example, how would telemarketers access the do not call data and how often? It is not our intention to delve into these details, but rather to ask the CRTC to undertake consultations with concerned Canadians to determine the do not call system that best suits the needs of all Canadians.
We want to ensure that Canadian consumers have their privacy needs met and give them the ability to choose to be protected from inconvenience and nuisance. The current rules have been ineffective in giving consumers this choice. With this bill we create a system where consumers can take effective steps to stop unwanted telemarketing calls. In this way we will address an issue that Canadians consider to be a major irritant in their daily lives.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Ms. Jennifer Stoddart, congratulated the industry minister on proposed legislation to create a national do not call list for telemarketers. She said:
|
I think this is a great step forward for privacy. Our Office has been concerned about this issue for some time and we have certainly heard from many members of the public who are frustrated by intrusive phone calls. We welcome this initiative. |
Recently, in front of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology the federal Privacy Commissioner delivered a statement backed by nine of the provincial and territorial information and privacy commissioners that once again supported the creation of a national do not call list that would enhance privacy by making it easier for individual Canadians to control intrusive telephone calls.
Consumer groups, including the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, are in favour of the creation of a national do not call list. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre has indicated that the creation of a do not call registry would be the most effective, elegant and enforceable solution to the present telemarketing situation. It also indicated that a single list is simple to administer and it is easy to determine when a telemarketer is in non-compliance.
The Canadian Marketing Association, the largest marketing association in the country that represents hundreds of telemarketing companies, supports the bill. Since 2001 the Canadian Marketing Association has recommended that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, establish a national do not call list to cover all telemarketers in Canada.
(1215)
Mr. John Gustavson, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Marketing Association, stated:
|
We are pleased to see the federal government has responded to our request to establish a national do-not-call service to address the increasing number of consumer complaints regarding some telemarketing practices in Canada... We believe a compulsory do-not-call service for all companies that use the telephone to market their goods and services to potential customers is the most effective means to curtail consumer annoyance with telemarketers. |
Telemarketing has become more and more pervasive. There is no sign that it is going away. The inability to control telemarketers' access to telephones in our homes and businesses has become a source of frustration for a large percentage of Canadians.
The bill creates the right regulatory environment for sensible, smart telecommunicating. It will safeguard the privacy of Canadians and their right to choose with whom they wish to communicate. For thousands of Canadians who may opt to register on the national do not call list, it will mean quiet evenings with their families free of commercial interruption.
Canadian consumers are overwhelmingly in favour of this method of controlling unwanted telephone solicitation. The majority of respondents, nearly four out of five, supported the creation of a national do not call list. Some two-thirds indicated they would likely sign up for a do not call service.
The government is taking steps to give individual Canadians an effective, easy way to curtail intrusive telemarketing and to protect their privacy. I urge hon. members to support the bill.
I also feel it is my responsibility to comment on the work the committee did in making sure that all of the concerns of Canadians across the country were brought to committee. They were raised and dealt with in a very reasonable way. I am very pleased that all parties seem to be very much on side with this bill. I hope for its speedy passage in the House.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that has been raised over and over during the debate is the change charitable organizations will have to make to adjust some of the income that they generate from telemarketing calls. It is important to note that the income they generate based on telemarketing calls often goes toward providing services and community needs.
For example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, derives significant revenues from telephone solicitation. MADD will be impacted by the bill and will have to go before the CRTC for an exemption and/or will have to change some of its habits related to telemarketing to ensure that the same revenue comes in.
I ask the parliamentary secretary what other things is the government doing for the not for profit organizations that could potentially be affected by the bill? What will happen if charitable organizations like Greenpeace, police associations, and groups and organizations like the Lions Club find barriers for the use of this type of activity?
What commitment will the government make to those organizations, should they have some disruption with regard to their income and the services they provide to communities? It is important to note that some people will lose jobs and the communities will lose services that are very much needed to address problems that have been identified in the communities.
I ask the parliamentary secretary what specific measures will the government take to ensure the vibrancy of those organizations that are affected by reduced revenue from the banning of telephone solicitation?
(1220)
Hon. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that my colleague worked very hard on the committee trying to get the legislation through and I certainly support and thank him for that.
When we talk about charities and solicitation, it is very important to understand the areas that we had to deal with when we were working on this legislation. We have registered charities and under the Income Tax Act, we can work with the revenues that are coming in. Under the Income Tax Act, we have a guide by which we can encourage everyone to move forward.
If we were to use that section in the Income Tax Act and encourage those people who are raising funds for charitable purposes to register under the act, and have a legitimate sponsor for those collections, then they would have the opportunity to do the calling and that type of work. However, if they are not within the sphere of the Income Tax Act, if they are just not for profit organizations, that would open up a very wide spectrum of organizations which quite frankly would have been very difficult to have any control over.
When we talk about non profit groups, and we can have a myriad of all kinds of organizations, whether it is the firemen or the police in a community, or whether it is the guys playing baseball at the corner, they could be part of that organization of non profit who are raising funds for different purposes. There is no way we could have discriminated the value to Canadians.
In order to set a guideline or a framework under which we could operate and ensure that any funds were legitimately collected, we used the basis of the Income Tax Act. This is relatively consistent with other jurisdictions which have imposed do not call lists as well.
The effort here is to ensure that we look after registered charitable organizations which would function appropriately in the system, but also to ensure we do not get a large, wide section of abuse that could potentially occur with many other organizations that could have been registered as non profit.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the bill, the CRTC is authorized to engage and to contract out the administration. I am wondering whether or not there are provisions, either within the bill or within the proposed regulations, that would be made to ensure the protection of privacy of information. This issue of privacy is obviously extremely important and the member may also want to comment on the list itself to explain to Canadians whether this is one list for all or whether this is a list for each specific industry or company.
Hon. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments are very relevant to the problem that we have had in the past. In the past, there were some 300 lists that one could register for. Bringing this into the spectrum of making it reasonable for the public, there will now be one list. That one list would be put in place and if someone registers on the do no call list, that will be circulated to all of the different companies. All of the groups would have to check in with that and any organizations that are making telephone calls would have to check with the do not call list, the one large list, to make certain that they do not interfere.
As I understand it, that list would be updated on a very regular basis, monthly or whatever time period in the short term, so that when people do register, other corporations have to go back and work in the system and get all of the new registrations that come in within a certain time period.
As well, there will be consultations with groups across the country on an ongoing basis to deal with other problems and other concerns that may come forward with that list. It is the mandate of the CRTC at this point in time to carry on public information sessions and to listen to concerns of the public, as well as set up the mechanisms by which organizations are going to operate the lists and will be able to work within the structure to ensure the application of the do not call list is carried out. All of the concerns that stem around general public concerns will be answered through the organization that will be created. At this point in time, there will be public consultations and input accepted from the public in order to move this forward.
(1225)
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on a piece of legislation that has been a long time coming. As my colleagues who spoke earlier said, when we sat on committee, we all laboured with best intentions to get a piece of legislation that would be good for the Canadian public.
We know that no piece of legislation is perfect. This is one of those situations where this piece of legislation will be an improvement over the current situation.
This is the first speech in which I have the ability to speak a full 20 minutes in my short time in the House. I will take a few minutes to explain the overall general process that I take to approach all legislation. It is important for citizens to understand the overall philosophy and principle of their legislature and I will use as an example, of what is in many ways viewed as a non-ideological and non-philosophical piece of legislation, Bill C-37.
I will go through not only the technical aspects of the legislation, what specifically are the amendments and the overall intent of the bill, but the principles and thought processes I used to arrive at certain decisions to help me decide how to vote on the amendments to the bill.
I find it important to do this with any piece of legislation, no matter how mundane, for two reasons. I believe the principles of all legislation need to be dealt with.
First, one must deal with the principles in legislation because principles provide the logic of legislation for consistency in all law. If we do not deal from an objective principle basis when dealing with law, we end up with chaos. We end up with a purely utilitarian approach to the law and the law does not become a law of justice but becomes the law of the jungle. I think it is important to understand that if we are to have actual good legislation, we must always do it on a principle basis.
The second reason is accountability. As a voter, even as a committee member or as a member of this House, it is impossible to completely keep up on all pieces of legislation. The government and the bureaucracy is so vast that even committee work can sometimes seem like the details are weighing us down.
If one can reference certain key principles, certain key statements, certain key benchmarks to begin with, it helps to be accountable to the electorate because ultimately democracy is the voice of the people. Therefore, if the people can understand the principles, they can understand the fruits of those principles which is the applicable legislation.
I want to explain my thought process. Sometimes principles can come into collision with each other. There can be a little bit of weighing of principles and values and so forth. It is important to understand the thought process and the application because it enhances the accountability of the situation. I believe that accountability is what all members of this House stand for.
It also helps to understand the weighing of the options. That is how I approach the overall body of the bill when dealing with each of these specific amendments. There is an intermixing of the practical in this in order to understand the logic as people in the future read this speech in Hansard or watch it on TV.
I endorse the underlying basic principle of this bill because ultimately, it is a protection of individual personal rights as to the rights of property. I come from the school of thought which has a belief in inalienable rights, balanced, as I have said before in this House, with inalienable responsibilities. One of the inalienable rights that are granted to all citizens is the right of personal property, protection, preservation and promotion of that personal property. This to some degree involves privacy.
Under the British common law concept, in this modern world, our home is our castle. This can sometimes be violated by our technology. We have derived and created various technologies, the Internet, the computer and the telephone for the specific purpose of enhancing our communications. However, there are times when they can all be intrusive and violate our home, our defence, our property, and the key right of an individual.
(1230)
That is one reason why I specifically support the underlying general principle of this legislation. With the do not call legislation, we are allowing people to say, “My home is my castle. Thank you very kindly, but I do not wish to be bothered. This is my privacy. You are decreasing the enjoyment of my property”.
There are other principles involved here: the principle of personal property, the free exchange of goods, and the property of other people. We have to have some interaction and some balance on that level.
The other thing is that it is not really about commercial transactions. There is the freedom of speech element, and this balances with what I would call the unalienable right of the citizen to liberty and the unalienable responsibility to liberty. This political discourse will come in as I talk about some of the exceptions because all these communication tools enhance liberty by letting us receive and transmit ideas for a free exchange of thought. The telephone has become one of those methods, with of course the Internet, the post office system, door-knocking, face to face communications and other elements. That is another principle that we deal with here, particularly when it comes to political thought.
When we get into the charitable exemptions element of this bill, I will deal with why I think responsibility to community gets involved in that, but there is a principle I believe involved on that level.
That is the overall basis and approach that I take to this. Every element must have some basis in principle. There must be some logic. There must be some application to this. What is my thought process and how did I apply it to each and every one of the specific exemptions put into the legislation: the who, the what, the why, et cetera?
One of the first amendments we made when we got to committee was to put in a three year review, not for some delegated powers to the CRTC or the bureaucracy but to bring the three year review under the authority of Parliament. I supported that. We could argue about the timelines but that was more of a practical application of what would be the best purpose for it. I supported the underlying concept because it does provide for accountability right here in this House. The buck stops here, not just proverbially but in reality.
We are the elected representatives of the people of Canada. We cannot be delegating any more powers than we have to to the bureaucracy, to people who are not directly in that line. For practical purposes, yes, we can. We cannot have 308 persons running the entirety of the government, but we are the people who are responsible. We are the voice. We are one of the defenders, along with the law, the legal system, et cetera, of the basic unalienable rights and responsibilities of the people of Canada.
That is why I supported the concept of a review that comes to the House of Commons, delegated of course to the committee. It is very important for accountability because this piece of legislation, along with all legislation, is fallible. We are not all-knowing; we are not all-wise. We are very fallible as in previous legislation, so it is very important that the element of accountability be put in.
A second amendment that was put forward at committee was to exempt political parties, candidates, ridings, et cetera, from the do not call registry. Again there are exceptions. If people say “Please do not call me”, that will be honoured. I will admit that part of my first thought was that this helps the challengers more than it helps the incumbents because we have better name recognition. So from a purely selfish perspective, the incumbents of this House should in many ways have a self-interest to oppose putting this in, but there is the balance of the unalienable political right of liberty and the unalienable responsibility of liberty that is applied here.
(1235)
I will admit that for some people political calls can be some of the most annoying calls but the freedom of speech element must be protected everywhere, not just on the liberty side but on the responsibility side. It is the responsibility and duty of every citizen, if they want to have inalienable rights, to follow through on inalienable responsibilities, and that includes being fully aware and fully informed of the debate that is going on in the political process, the guarantor of the rights that underline and protect the property rights that underline the legislation. The candidates, the ridings and so forth all tend to blend in on that one level.
Again, there are good arguments as to why this should be a little more restricted but the underlying principles hold and the safeguard of allowing people to personally state that they do not wish to be called should be helpful on everything.
I will note the other exemption built in here, which is the one for polling and surveying. I would hope that when this comes up for a three year review that it will be looked at in a more detailed and thoughtful fashion. The reasoning I have on this is the following. Yes, it is important to have particular information to help in the processing of the dialogue and to help in the dialogue of what people are thinking so that everyone may know back and forth, and polling and surveying does, to a certain degree, help that.
However a fairly interesting thing to note, on a very practical level, is the last two British elections where polling was done both by telephone and survey methods that we are accustomed to in Canada and by an Internet based pollster, YouGuv in particular. It was interesting to note that in the last couple of elections the Internet based pollster was the most accurate.
What I am saying is that perhaps in the future there could be less intrusive ways of still preserving the responsibility of liberty, the responsibility to gather information that there be a free and open dialogue of principle, and perhaps the Internet might be one of the ways because, spam mail notwithstanding, it is a somewhat less intrusive method than a phone call in the middle of suppertime and intruding on one's life at that point.
Another exemption in the act is for charities. This is, again, a question. One of the things that was noted by a witnesses at committee was that when we actually ask people specifically what calls bother them, it tends to be much more the commercial transaction ones than the particular charities.
We all saw the generosity of Canadians when it came to some of the disasters overseas, such as the horrible and horrific tsunami that devastated Southeast Asia. One of the methods the charities use to gather funds is through the phones, which makes up a significant portion of their revenues. In fact, some of the charities were particularly concerned because this could have the devastating effect of wiping them out. I believe the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, if memory serves me correct, was one of the most articulate, but Mothers Against Drunk Driving, et cetera, were also put there.
What principle did I use when I was weighing my vote back and forth? I believe the inalienable right of property also has an inalienable responsibility of property, which is the responsibility to use it for the good, not just of oneself but for the whole community. Taxation does it by force but it is a more compassionate society when people do it willingly and based on an argument not of force but of grace. One of the reasons I supported it is that it does imply a responsibility of the electorate of the populace. Merely to put up a sign saying, “Please don't bother me”, lowers the threshold of our level of responsibility, which is why I supported the underlying concept of exempting charities on that.
I will note again that when it comes to the charity exemption, individual call lists are kept by the charities, et cetera. Undoubtedly they will share these because there is no point calling persons who are considerably hostile and not particularly generous toward certain callers. Very practically, charities call those who have been the most generous.
(1240)
The next exemption in the bill concerns the identification and purpose of organizations at the beginning of the call. I support this because of an honesty and integrity factor. Unfortunately, Canada has a reputation of being one of the major centres for call scams around the world. I believe this would increase the level of trust and the level of efficiency. It respects people's privacy and their right to utilize their property in a free and non-harassed way.
The final practical amendment to the legislation is the existing business relationship. We heard considerable concern in the committee that even mom and pop operations would not be allowed to call their 50 or 60 customers or their close friends and so on. I do not think that was the intention of the bill. A mechanic would not be able to call up a neighbour to tell him that it has been so many years since he had his car fixed and that it should be taken care of, and so on.
There were also some very practical applications that people might not understand or completely remember. We can think of car dealerships when they have to call a customer because of a defect in an automobile that needs to be recalled. We would not want anything that might in the least way impinge on those business relationships.
Once someone has made a commercial transaction they have indicated a certain willingness already to deal with it. Again, the exceptions and so on can be dealt with on this.
I would note that all these amendments were made at committee, which disturbs me considerably. We often seem to get incomplete legislation being rushed through to committee. There does not seem to be a lot of thought. The government sees a headline, gets itself into an emergency and then tries to put something together without any thought.
We will see this later this week with Bill C-66, the home rebate bill where, after years of not thinking anything about energy policy or the cost to the population for home heating, et cetera, the government quickly pulled something out when it saw gasoline prices spiking.
Perhaps the government should take more time to think things out, to actually have a vision and not just react to every headline. A vision actually gets good legislation done years in advance.
Another comment I wish to make is about the administration of the system. We have seen the government's most famous long gun firearms registry balloon to I believe a cost of $2 billion. I hope this registry is much better handled than that one.
The government has a reputation, which it has earned, of incompetence when it comes to administration, be it in its delegation to the crown corporations by choosing inadequate appointees or just the particular administration of contracts, be it advertising in Quebec or the firearms registry. I would caution the government to actually use some oversight and principles of administration that it has neglected in its previous endeavours.
Those are the principal and practical reasons that I support the legislation and will be voting for it.
However I would caution all members of the House to be careful how we proceed with this one. On a personal note, one summer when I was in university I had finished my tree planting and was waiting for my cheque and I needed to turn a little extra cash. I worked in a call centre for about six weeks while taking an intercession class at the University of Saskatchewan. The one thing we should remember is that many people earn their living from these places. We should be very sensitive to anyone who may be unemployed due general overall economic conditions. Many of these people who receive a minimum wage or slightly more are not well represented in the House of Commons.
I do not think many members in the House came from minimum wage backgrounds and perhaps we should remember the economic effects as we pass legislation and be somewhat cognizant about the people this may affect in the long term. I think with the exemptions and the way it is handled it will provide a reasonable way to handle it.
(1245)
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Madam Speaker, I have one observation for the hon. member. Is it not encouraging to see a first time member of Parliament stand in the House and say clearly and unequivocally that he will evaluate legislation on the basis of principle, not simply take a position on particular legislation, whether it is partisan or otherwise, and that the will look at the principle that is involved first and make sure the people understand why he voted a particular way by enunciating what those principles will be? I want to commend the hon. member for making it so abundantly clear as to how he will do certain things.
At the end of his speech he talked about the compassion that we should be directing toward those who are working in call centres. Even though many people object to getting these phone calls, he says that is how some people make a living, and that is important.
When the hon. member worked in a call centre like that did he find that it was a rewarding experience? We like to work, we want to work and the hon. member received a little extra money for doing that. I wonder if he could tell us exactly what his experience was in terms of a personal relationship with the people he called.
Mr. Bradley Trost: Madam Speaker, having had the pleasure of serving on committee with the hon. member, who is a fairly long serving member of the House, a lot of my growth as a member has been because of him personally and from watching him and other veteran members in the House, in committee and in public.
My personal experience was somewhat interesting. I always enjoy people, period. I can be a somewhat reserved person in some atmospheres but I enjoyed the people, particularly the ones who had been working in the job for two, three, four and five years. They had house payments or car payments, more or less, and were working in call centres basically as a career. About half of the workforce were people like myself, students, part time rotation, short term, et cetera.
It was interesting to hear from the people who were there for longer periods. They took real pride in their work, which is what we should all remember when we are not altogether happy about being interrupted because of one of these phone calls. These people work very hard but they are not the ones who make the major profits. They are just trying to do their best to earn income and to fulfill their obligations to their families and to their bosses in doing their job in the most professional way they can. I actually found it a useful experience in that respect, to see people's dedication to jobs that unfortunately are sometimes mocked as “Mc” jobs.
The people who were there for many years took a very professional attitude toward it. They always arrived on time and made sure the work was done precisely, and that they were courteous, respectful and professional on the phones. That is not to criticize the more transient student population but our effort, energy and level of responsibility was not there.
I found it quite interesting in that respect and I commend the people who did it. It was a useful experience for me and it taught me how to relate to people on the phone and how to react and be sensitive when interrupting people at different times of the day. If one wanted to meet one's quota for the hours, one had to be sensitive to the people on the other end of the phone. I think those were the two things it taught me: sensitivity to the customer, the person at the other end; and a respect for the people who work in this as a career for longer periods.
(1250)
[Translation]
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act , and thus to participate in the debate on third reading.
I will start, if I may, by congratulating all parties for their unanimity on the amendment:
|
That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 3 with the following: |
|
“paragraph (c) for an electoral district; |
|
f) made for the sole purpose of collecting information for a survey of members of the public; or |
|
(g) made for the sole purpose of soliciting a subscription for a newspaper of general circulation.” |
This amendment has already been referred to by my colleague and vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Science and Technology, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup , who was very keen on it. His argument then—and now—is that first of all it is an improvement to the bill and second it reflects the wishes of the public.
There has been much consultation on this subject. Nearly 80% of the Quebec or Canadian population were in favour of this bill. With this amendment, this bill is thus completed. Furthermore, this amendment responds to the desires of the committee. You will recall that there was unanimity on this subject and that the amendment had been abandoned for purely technical reasons. Therefore, once again, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to congratulate all of the parties for having agreed to this amendment.
Second, my colleague indicated earlier that the bill would permit the CRTC to administer databases. This is important, particularly with respect to two very specific objectives, namely to prohibit or regulate the use of telecommunications facilities. First, such use must be regulated up to an honest and objective point. Second, any Canadian carrier or any person must be prohibited from engaging in unsolicited telecommunications. That is what we are talking about. This is an extremely important step for the future.
There is a second aspect to this bill: it will provide for penalties. The severity of those penalties should dissuade persons who engage deliberately or fraudulently in unsolicited telecommunications.
My colleague indicated earlier that one of our roles as members of Parliament is to legislate so as to protect the interests of consumers. In that regard, we all know how constantly our fellow citizens are being solicited, mainly by telephone, or by fax. I have received such calls, as I am sure you all have. Families and children under age 18 are also highly solicited—be it for credit cards or pressure buying. The problem exists.
Not only is Parliament responsible for passing legislation in this matter and regulating telecommunications, but it may also prohibit fraudulent telecommunications. This is very difficult. It comes more under the Criminal Code. All the same, we have to send a very clear message that Parliament, Canada, will no longer tolerate these fraudulent telecommunications.
One need only check a few statistics to realize that, at present, Canada is a haven for fraudulent telemarketing. For example, Montreal is the North American hub for unsolicited or fraudulent telemarketing. According to an RCMP investigation, nearly 90% of the premises and facilities for these con artists are to be found in Montreal.
This bill will sound the alarm. After evaluation, however, we will have to be able to take very productive action on this subject. These fraudsters have illicit revenue estimated at $60 million, with individuals easily earning $5,000 a week.
At the moment, the section in the Code allows these criminals to get off with just a very light fine or a short term of imprisonment. So it is difficult in Canada to convict this type of criminal. Furthermore they are very often repeat offenders.
(1255)
When a bill provides ways of getting around the law, repeat offenders continue to come out on top. They get rich at the expense of those who, unfortunately, are the most vulnerable in our society. Some very honest people are easily fleeced by these professional con artists.
The bill provides for administrative monetary penalties. This is also linked to the authority to investigate, inspect and enforce. We are convinced this will be effective. This is in the bill. Again, this will be instrumental in putting a stop to these crimes.
The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-37, as is the Canadian Marketing Association. As we have already mentioned, we support this for a number of reasons.
One of our primary concerns is consumer protection, which we feel is essential. There are other reasons. As I was saying earlier, statistics show that the telemarketing industry employed some 270,000 people in Canada in the year 2000, which is quite significant. This industry plays a role in the economy and has done $16 billion worth of business. It therefore has a considerable impact on communities in Canada and Quebec. If a bill is passed that sets out principles of use and possible penalties for such a large industry, then we will have been effective.
The Bloc Québécois and the Canadian Marketing Association are in favour of this bill. We know that the big players are involved in this association, which is currently the largest marketing industry association in Canada. Its member companies contribute to the Canadian economy by essentially providing 480,000 jobs and by making more than $51 billion in annual sales. These companies have also said they are in favour of this bill.
This association is also a powerful lobby for the marketing sector. Like the Bloc Québécois, it has said that it supports Bill C-37, while at the same time having certain concerns regarding the powers given to the CRTC in the area of regulations. This will have to be monitored closely to ensure that the bill remains as realistic in its final form as in its purpose.
As far as committee proceedings are concerned, the Bloc Québécois helped get the bill amended, to include the necessary exemptions for charities and the media for example. For a bill to be significant, it has to cover all that has to be covered, respect freedom of expression and involve everyone concerned.
Like the Canadian Marketing Association, however, the Bloc Québécois also has some reservations. This is fundamental. Obviously, the bill deals with the registration process. The Bloc Québécois would like the mechanism for putting the registry in place and the associated costs to be clearly stated.
When we talk about the registry, of course, this includes the operation, implementation, monitoring and other costs associated with this registry. Hon. members will recall the gun registry. That was not a very pleasant experience. We have seen the money wasted on that. Originally, it was supposed to cost between $2 million and $3 million. Now, estimates are in the billions of dollars.
When administering a registry, one has to beware of costs. Right from the start, the costs have to be planned and established as realistically as possible. The same is true for the registry's operation. It is imperative that the registry be under the responsibility of an independent organization. We are wary in this regard.
(1300)
Administration of the registry and everything related to the do not call list must be free of any electoral or partisan intent. This is what the Bloc Québécois is concerned about. Even though the Canadian Marketing Association wants to be entrusted with managing the system that will be established to administer this list, that is not necessarily our preference. The institution that will be in charge must demonstrate greater independence. We must avoid falling into the same situation we have in the oil industry. In this case, a private organization has provided the information in good faith. Eventually, one always gets back to certain protected interests or interests that are in these institutions. In the view of Canadians, the institution that will supervise the registry must be above all suspicion in order to be credible. We must not commit the same mistake that was made with the gun registry. We must arrange things so that the organization responsible for establishing this registry is seen as having the necessary independence, its mandate its clear, and it is managed according to ethical principles.
The Bloc Québécois also wants the law to cover as many people as possible and to be administered in a very fair way. It is interesting to see that all the political parties supported this bill and the amendment. We recognized, first, that there was a problem, that Canadian and Quebec consumers had a serious problem in this regard or as consumers. While taking freedom of expression into account, I think that it is just as important to combat harassment and fraud.
We were speaking earlier about consent for this national list, which is at the heart of this bill. The Canadian Marketing Association has shown beyond any doubt, once again on the basis of a survey, that this bill is important to Canadians and Quebeckers. In the Industry Canada background documents on this bill, an Environics poll done in 2004 showed that 79% of the respondents said they were in favour of the national do not call list and 66% said they were likely to subscribe to such a service. That is very revealing. Ninety-seven per cent of Canadians said that they were annoyed by unsolicited telemarketing calls.
When there is a bill as important as this, which covers virtually all areas of consumer protection regarding unsolicited telecommunications, it is important to support it. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. We are very happy that there was unanimous support for the proposed amendment. I would also like to ask our colleagues to vote in favour of this bill, which will benefit all Canadians and all Quebeckers.
(1305)
Mr. Réal Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask this of the hon. member. Should there be a registry of names of persons who no longer wish to be solicited in future, what would be the terms of operation of that registry? Second, by whom would it be administered? And third, what might be the estimated costs of such a method?
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse for his question.
When we speak of a registry, there are obviously three points to look at. As has been mentioned, there is the make-up of the administration and the operation of the registry. Also, who is responsible for it, and what are the costs. We are trying to determine how it will operate. A committee will be in charge of operations. The Bloc Québécois and various members of the Committee think that an independent organization is needed to manage this registry.
As for costs, we must also be vigilant and realistic. I spoke earlier of the firearms registry. That is an example which has shown us how big a cost overrun can be. At one point we were talking about millions of dollars, and we ended up at $2 billion. We will have to be very realistic and rigorous in this regard.
I think that the only way to respond to these criteria, that is, administration, operations and costs, is to do so together, including both Parliament and the persons concerned. This will allow us to work toward unanimity on all the regulations by which the registry will function.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, with regard to the operations, this has come up during debate at both second and third reading.
I do not know if the committee looked into some possibilities, but under the Income Tax Act and on the income tax form itself, Canadians have the opportunity to tick off whether or not they would agree to information on their returns being used by the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of updating electoral lists. I wonder whether or not that came up at committee with regard to using the income tax return for information about whether or not the taxpayer wishes to be put on the do not call list.
[Translation]
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ): Madam Speaker, I must say that I was not part of the committee. Therefore I cannot answer this question. Someone would have to look into it.
[English]
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act, now at third reading stage in Parliament. It has had several amendments made to it, including one today that provides an exemption for the newspaper industry, which I am glad to support.
As well, the bill has been part of a committee process that I think has been quite fruitful in making sure that this bill was changed significantly from its original form to its current form, and I believe that it will be passed by a unanimous vote in the House of Commons. All major political parties are supporting the bill. I think there is also support for this bill from the industry itself. I hope that it will get the support of Canadians.
It is the first time that this country will be creating a do not call registry with specific elements which will add penalties and an administration system that is accountable to and also will also report back to Parliament on a regular basis. Not only will the CRTC, once it has this system up and operating, have the responsibility of reporting back to Parliament, but the legislation itself will be reviewed entirely in three years, thanks to an amendment that the NDP proposed and which was supported by everyone else.
This is important because the bill proposes a significant change for not only the rights of individuals in their homes but also potentially for two other sectors, the first one being the call centres that employ Canadians across this country. The second would be the charitable organizations and businesses that rely upon this type of venue in terms of telephone solicitation, as an opportunity to either support their causes and/or secure and procure business or expand upon it for their companies, resulting in profits and jobs for the communities.
These are important discussions that have to take place on a regular basis, because significant shifts could take place in the Canadian economy and alter Canadian lives and objectives. Individuals may have rights in their homes protected further, but charitable organizations could have repercussions to services, and lastly, businesses could too.
With that, I do want to highlight the general public support out there for a do not call registry. In many respects, Canadians have been bombarded by the growth of this industry and the intrusions that it can create in their lives. I think we have all experienced sitting down for dinner to spend some quality time with our families, only to be interrupted by telephone solicitation. Sometimes we are okay with that and other times we are not.
That is why I think the introduction of this legislation as a solid first step is important. At home, in our basic place of residence, which we work every single day to provide for ourselves and our families, we should have the right of protection. That is going to be the first step. We as individuals pay for our homes and for the services of the telephone company operation we subscribe to. We pay for the hardware in our homes, but it is then used as a vehicle to tap into our personal and private lives. That is an issue of civil liberties. There is an element of intrusion into our most important place, our personal residence, and that needs to be looked at.
Also, in our committee we have heard testimony over the duration of the months during which we have dealt with this. Some businesses are predicating upon other businesses and the fact is that it creates problems in the workforce, not only in terms of time management, with time taken up by unsolicited phone calls that are trying to procure additional business, but also in terms of the relationships and the dynamics at a company. In that case, individuals who are in different positions in the company are making decisions about who should or should not contact them about different types of businesses. As well, we have heard indirectly through testimony about faxing, email and spam also contributing to frustration, not only in homes but also in businesses.
(1310)
A 2003 Environics study showed that 81% of respondents reported receiving unsolicited calls, on average receiving 3.43 calls per week. That was in 2003 before there was an explosion of the industry in terms of more companies using access to telephone numbers to move their products and services. As well, charitable organizations did it too, as they were finding it more difficult to raise funds like they had done traditionally through other venues. In my constituency in Windsor, Ontario, the bingo industry suffered significant losses and challenges due to public policy. As well, there were tourism and border issues that affected not only the tourism industry itself but also the charitable organizations that depend upon it to provide services in the community.
It is important to note what services these charitable organizations are actually providing. Their lost revenue is a loss to the community in terms of what individuals have decided to do in joining together to raise funds to attack a social problem or an issue that is localized or very specific in terms of the remediation that they want to perform in their communities. The loss of these revenue streams has caused significant changes. In the bingo industry it has presented significant challenges in Windsor, Ontario, as well as lost revenues for charitable organizations.
We do know that there has been an increase in calls, with the largest segment of calls from charitable organizations, at 44%. We know that they are particularly vulnerable under the bill. I would take the opportunity at this point to note that charitable organizations contribute significantly to the Canadian economy. It is important to note not just the fact that they do affect individual lives through the programs and services they provide, but also the fact that the entire Canadian economy is significantly impacted.
For example, I will quote Imagine Canada's submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology on May 4, 2005. It said:
|
Cumulatively, nonprofit and voluntary sector groups contribute $75.9 billion annually to the national economy--$34.7 billion if such institutional charities as hospitals, universities and colleges are excluded. This constitutes 8.5% of GDP; 4.0% excluding institutional charities. |
This is not an issue just for softball teams or community organizations and groups. Let us say, for example, that it is the Lions Clubs or the different types of Rotary Clubs or groups and organizations that might use some type of system employing telephone solicitation. But hospitals and universities and other types of institutions also require the additional funds derived through either a campaign of giving or of contacting alumni and making cold calls to people outside of their universe to expand their internal revenue sources in order to meet the demands and public policy applied to them, as well as the general goals of society. For example, the colleges and universities training our young people for the future, to meet the demands of a changing economy, have to reduce themselves to being active in these types of venues at times to make sure they can provide those services.
I would also note a specific example of a vulnerable charity, that of MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, with over 90% of its funds raised through personal donations. That was the testimony of Dawn Regan, director of finance and fundraising for MADD Canada. She said:
|
Last year we made 775,000 cold calls in our outreach program and MADD Canada received complaints by less than one-half of one per cent of those we called. |
That is a massive campaign, very much related to the type of work MADD does, and if it is in jeopardy because of this bill we will see MADD going to the CRTC with an application to make sure that they are going to be exempted so they will not be frozen out. It will have to make major adjustments to its actual operations.
It is important to note that when we looked at the first changes to the bill back at first reading, it was the intent at the time for the government to create two types of lists that would be on the do not call registry, one with a complete element that would have all of the different charities pooled into one and separated. There was criticism of that. I give the government credit for listening to the opposition parties, as well as those individuals who provided testimony at the committee, and making the change to Bill C-37 so that this would not happen. Hence, we have an improved bill.
(1315)
The CRTC will be responsible for creating the independent body. I am somewhat concerned about that. The really important measure is that it will be able to impose fines on individuals and companies. There will be automatic mandatory penalties. This will put some focus on those that are doing the abusive telephone solicitation, which is what has created some of the ill will regarding telephone solicitation.
A committee member noted previously that regarding these intrusions that usually the person on the other end of the line is someone who is often trying to provide for his or her family. It is someone who wants to be productive and is involved in a very successful and growing industry. However, at times we find the calls frustrating.
What is important about this change is that it imposes administrative monetary penalties, AMPs. This is different from the situation right now with the Canadian Marketing Association which has only a voluntary list and does not have those penalties.
It is important because those people, companies or charities who are abusive will have to deal with the complaints and the penalties within a short period of time. There is a two year timeframe for resolution to make some type of decision on a claim.
I know it takes a long time to get through the system and it probably seems very long for the individual who has made the complaint. Multiple complaints about a person or a company can stack up. Hopefully, with the original complaint process and the fact that the investigation will take place we would see the behaviour adapt. Otherwise it will take a maximum of two years to get from the complaint to the final adjudication of whether or not it has happened and whether it is valid. That could be frustrating. It will cause the industry to be more accountable and many Canadians are talking about accountability these days.
One of the Environics polls indicated that 38% of people said they tolerated telemarketers, 35% of people were annoyed by telemarketers and 24% of people said they hated telemarketers. We know we have a significant issue here from Canadians who are expressing some dissatisfaction. This is another reason that all parties support this bill. It is one that I would like to reflect upon in terms of what has happened in the United States.
I think the U.S. has had a successful introduction. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission allowed for a national do not call registry in late 2002 and it began in October 2003. Over 62 million Americans registered their phone numbers in the first year. A survey reported that 92% reported fewer telemarketing calls. U.S. telemarketers are required to scrub telephone numbers from their calling lists every three months and are charged fees for access to the do not call registry.
It is also important to note that the registry itself will be paid for by the users of the registry. We have had discussions about the costs of other registries and their implications to Canadian taxpayers. This registry will be paid for by the industry.
We have to make sure that when the CRTC is setting up the registry that it is efficient. The problems that will be associated with the charities and the business organizations will be compounded if the registry is not efficient. They will potentially be going through a transition, depending upon their industry, related to this legislation. At the same time they will also have to pay which could lead to a compounding system.
The United States has a registry. In Canada I believe the CRTC is to have the registry up and running within 19 months. Nineteen months was the target date expressed at committee to have it set up so that Canadians could start to register and have that screening process evolve. Following that there will be the three year review which will take place in the House of Commons. A report must also be tabled in the House of Commons within six months after the end of each fiscal year.
(1320)
There will be some ongoing information once we pass the bill that will keep it very much primed. It will not move away from this House for five years or more with very little to do in terms of parliamentary business.
That has been one thing I have expressed some difficulty with on the issue of regulations. When we pass regulations in different bills, often parliamentarians do not get to see the effects of whether the regulations are having the influence or are following the right process in the legislation that we passed. That is currently being done atrociously in our drug industry. One of the issues at the industry committee was the continued evergreening and the draconian laws that affect our generic drug industry versus the pharmaceutical companies. This bill makes sure that we would review the legislation on a regular basis.
I do want to point out that call centres created 40,000 new jobs between 2002 and 2003 and forecasts are for a 7.9% growth in the industry over the next three years. The Canadian customer contact centre study noted that 90% of the call centres have an inbound focus, being hotel reservations, help desks, et cetera, and that only 10% deal with making outbound calls. Of that 10% of the centres that make outbound calls, 50% of those are to the U.S. We have an industry that is very important to the Canadian economy and it has been growing. Once again, I think it is important to be taking a first step in this bill that is a little more timid in the sense that there will be some exemptions. Some changes to the bill might happen later on.
I will conclude my speech by noting a couple of different points related to the industry. There were changes noted to the business relationships and I congratulate the government and all committee members for doing so. There were reservations expressed by the Canadian Association of Direct Response Insurers, H&R Block Canada and a series of other small businesses which have different types of relationships with customers that were not necessarily what we would normally think them to be. Some of them have contact with their clients in a matter of months, and for others it is years. It differs depending on the industry.
There were some amendments made that really improve this bill. This is something that we can point toward. On many days it is like a soap opera in the House of Commons and there is a lot of discussion about high profile things. At the same time when parliamentarians work together, we can accomplish things that are often in the best interests of all parties. The Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology did a good job on this bill. I thank the chair of the committee for making sure that we completed this legislation.
This is something that was in the New Democratic Party's election platform. We are certainly happy that we have been able to be part of this for Canadians. We look forward to making sure that the bill really works for us. We will be calling for supports if there are harmful effects from this intervention on the industry, charitable organizations and businesses. We believe that our role has not finished in this regard. Our role has just begun. We are happy that this is something that can be rolled out to Canadians very soon.
(1325)
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Madam Speaker, the member was a hard-working member of the committee and asked many thoughtful questions and made many very useful interventions. There is one intervention for which we did not receive an answer, at least I do not recall receiving one but perhaps he does. The question has to do with the cost of the registry itself.
It seems that this registry is supposed to be self-supporting in terms of the money that it generates, in that the people who are involved will pay for the services rendered. It is something like a $2 million initial fee to set it up, or something like that, I am not quite sure. The hon. member probably remembers in detail.
Would the member speculate about the possible costs after it is set up? It seems that the firearms registry was originally supposed to cost $2 million, which is a number somewhat similar to the present one, and that one I think has mushroomed to a number that is way beyond the $2 million. I think it is approaching $2 billion now. I wonder if the hon. member could tell us what he thinks will happen to the actual cost of the do not call registry.
(1330)
Mr. Brian Masse: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country and I have been on the industry committee for a couple of years and I have enjoyed his interventions there as well.
The hon. member has raised a very good point. The testimony we had regarding the cost was vague. Between $1.5 million to $2 million was the suggested cost in setting it up. It does seem eerily familiar in terms of other registries set up by the government. That is why we insisted on an early review of it.
It is very important to note that a big change could happen in terms of some of the charitable organizations or businesses in that their calls may whittled down, but at the same time they will have to pay for this registry. Small businesses are affected by this and they would not necessarily have the same resources in structure or finances to weather the storm of change as some larger businesses might have. It could be significant. That burden cannot be passed on to them alone. There has to be a greater accountability.
The CRTC seemed a little surprised that it would be enrolled through that system. It begs the question, is that the best vehicle for doing this? Will it have the proper support from the government under its current mandate as well as this additional duty to do the job effectively and not pass off a system that might become so dysfunctional or difficult to deal with that the costs escalate quite significantly?
There are two issues here. I spoke extensively about those groups and organizations that could be affected and I will not reiterate that. I would point out that it could lead to a list which is not very good for the Canadian public, if it is not updated as often as it should be, if it is not as accurate as it should be, or if it is not as accountable as it should be. All of those things could lead to greater frustration by the Canadian public about the value of a do not call list. If that happens, there would be an erosion of Canadian confidence in the registry, as we have seen with the long gun registry. There would be further frustration out there.
That is why we should focus on the fact that there has to be reports back to Parliament. That is not sufficient in itself, though it was the reason we insisted upon the three year review.
Quite frankly, this would mean a significant shift in our GDP if there are major changes and businesses and charitable organizations lose access to revenue. It affects not only the employees but also the services in our communities related to funds generated through telephone solicitation.
Once again, the reason that the New Democrats support it and I believe everybody in the House of Commons supports it is that at the end of the day we should have some ability to choose how we are contacted in our homes. That is why we are supporting the bill.
The hon. member raised a very important question in that it can erode the confidence of the Canadian public if the system becomes one that is not sufficiently able to keep up with the workload. We have to ensure that it will be accountable to the taxpayers.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member mentioned a significant negative impact on charities as a consequence of the bill. I am pretty sure that under new section 41.7, which lists the exemptions, registered charities under the meaning of section 248(1) of the Income Tax Act are exempt.
Would the member care to clarify what he said, that this would adversely affect charities?
Mr. Brian Masse: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to clarify that because it is one of the things on which I have frustration with the government. It has separated the charities. Those not registered as charities under the Income Tax Act will have the possibility of being completely denied access to telephone solicitation. We are talking about firefighters associations, police associations, the Lions clubs and a whole series of groups like Greenpeace and MADD. A number of groups and organizations may not necessarily get the exemptions.
We have been pushing for provincial standards. For example, in the province of Alberta they are considered the same. We have another bill related to federal income tax incorporation which eventually will bring these other groups into line with those types of current procedures.
We believe we should not be tiering charitable organizations like that. If the CRTC, when it has its hearings with the company that is procured to do this, blocks some of these charitable organizations out, then we will see them left with no ability to raise funds in the way they have done in the past.
That is important. At times, some of these organizations use telephone solicitation to not only to reach their current donor groups but also to expand them. They can do that through small contracts. They employ a contractor for example to do a region, and they take advantage of that.
I used to work for a telephone solicitation marketing company which did charitable procurement for our firefighters. It was contracted out to sell circus tickets so the firefighters association burn victims program would be able to raise funds. It was able to do that regionally, which was necessary.
I hate to see those types of opportunities denied to these groups and associations, which is the potential with the bill. There are anomalies that could affect those groups and organizations. That is why the review is important. We could have a series of groups and organizations that have lost their stream of revenue or that cannot expand upon their system coming back to Parliament. That is a reality we are dealing with in the bill. Having the differentiation between them is the reason for that.
(1335)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have found the debate so far to be very constructive. I am pleased that all parties appear to be in support of Bill C-37, the do not call list legislation, for the obvious reasons. Canadians are absolutely fed up with the intrusions on their personal lives.
I will comment briefly about the bill and then address the issue about registries and the relationship some members have drawn between the firearms registry and the do not call registry. As well, I will comment on the point raised by the member in his speech with regard to the impact of Bill C-37 on charities, which is not exactly a fair reflection of what we are talking about. These organizations are not for profit and are not registered charities. They do not issue receipts but fundraise for charitable purposes. That is the difference.
Based on polls cited by Industry Canada, 97% of Canadians have a negative reaction to these kinds of calls. Anyone with a valid telephone number will get a call and it will come at the worst possible time. All hon. members have received those kinds of calls.
Under the existing regulatory framework, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is responsible for this area. The CRTC definition of telemarketing is the use of telecommunication facilities to make unsolicited calls for the purpose of solicitation where solicitation is defined as selling or promoting a product or service or soliciting money or moneys worth whether directly or indirectly and whether on behalf of another party. This includes solicitation for donations by or on behalf of charitable organizations. That is the way the law exists today.
As many members have noted, the industry committee has made a number of changes. These substantial changes have been highlighted on the reprint that came back from committee.
Current CRTC regulations state that telemarketers must remove a customer's name and telephone number from their calling lists upon request. Most members are well aware that it is pretty difficult for someone to get a word in edgewise with a telemarketer. If an individual has not given some indication that there is some interest in listening to the rest of the message, that call is terminated fairly quickly. Clearly something had to be done.
Under the current regulations, telemarketers who fail to comply with that regulation or other regulations can have their service suspended or disconnected by the telecommunications service provider. Penalties range anywhere from $10,000 to $250,000.
Telemarketing is a very lucrative business. About 18% of telemarketing calls result in some business being done. That is the reason why many telemarketing businesses are opposed to the legislation. It will impact their business.
(1340)
The commission observed specifically that there would be better enforcement if the commission itself imposed appropriate fines on telemarketers that breached the rules. This is included in the bill. There also is the ability for the commission to delegate various administrative duties. It means that another independent organization could be established to administer the operations and administration of the do not call list. This is yet to be determined. I know a number of questions have been raised about the operations, the administration and certainly the cost.
As indicated at committee stage, a number of changes were made. When one thinks about it, the bill would establish a do not call list and would provide the legislative framework for the creation of the list and the administration of a national do not call list. This is important because now we would provide a one-instrument vehicle in which Canadians could say that they wanted to be on the list because they did not want to receive unsolicited calls from people trying to sell them goods or services for profit.
The major changes that have been made to the bill by the committee have to do with exemptions. The member who spoke previously talked about the exemptions, most significantly the exemption for a registered charity within the meaning of section 248 of the Income Tax Act.
We all understand the importance of charitable giving. I also have received a number of interventions from charitable groups and organizations that have registered charities, have a licence number and are able to issue receipts to Canadians who patronize their organizations, whether it be the local hospital, the Red Cross, the Terry Fox campaign or whatever it might be. These kinds of things the committee believe, and I think Canadians would acknowledge, are very significant instruments which have been used by the charitable sector to seek support for their charities.
The member who just spoke stated that there would be some impairment on the charitable sector. That is not exactly the case for a registered charity. We are talking about not for profit organizations that may very well do what would be characterized as charitable work or community service work. He mentioned, for example, the local Lions Club or Mothers Against Drunk Driving, et cetera. These organizations are not registered charities. They would not be exempt and would have to apply.
They are eligible, however, to apply to register as a charity and to have the full exemption that other charities enjoy. To the extent that traditional telemarketing techniques are a principal source of their revenue, it may very well be in their interest to register as a charity pursuant to section 248(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Three other exemptions that have not been talked about very much are also important. Political parties would be exempt. This probably will not excite a lot of the public because that means political parties will be able to continue to utilize their broadcast calling techniques for support purposes. A nomination contestant, a leadership contestant or a candidate of a political party also would be exempt, as well as an association of members of a political party. Therefore, the local riding associations would be exempt.
Under the Canada Elections Act, we have laws which try to enhance and promote our democratic electoral system. It is extremely important. I know members have come across the situation from time to time where they meet resistance. It might be a superintendent of a particular apartment building who says that he does not want anyone disturbing the residents. Under the elections law, candidates have the legal right to access the electors. It is here to complement existing law and it received the support of all parties.
(1345)
Although it may seem like an exception that maybe Canadians were not thinking about, I very much expect that they would understand that it is important that those who seek to represent them at any political level of government have the ability to communicate with people using the telephone and why it would not be prohibited under this act.
The bill contains substantial definitions consequential to the exemptions that I mentioned. There are some administrative, monetary penalties that I am not going to go through. Members have already handled this very well.
The issue of funding has come up as well. The registry is expected to be funded on a cost recovery basis from the telemarketers themselves. As I have indicated, about 18% of the calls they make do generate revenue for them. It is a very substantial business and obviously there has been a reaction to this, but there appears to be considerable support for the do not call list. In a survey that Environics did on behalf of the Government of Canada, 79% of the respondents queried on telemarketing supported a national do not call list and 66% of the respondents said that they would likely sign up for this service.
There are a number of important priorities to balance. Obviously, it is important for telemarketers to be able to do their business, but there does come a point in time in which there is an intrusion which is beyond reasonable. Anybody who is in political life knows that prime time is during the dinner hour. This is when most people will get their calls. I am not sure what others' experiences are, but I consider phone calls to my home to be important. I ensure that I answer the phone within a reasonable period of time and it is quite a disappointment to be called away from dinner or from my family to answer a call from somebody who cannot pronounce my name.
I would mention that there is a proviso under the bill which says:
|
Any person making a telecommunication referred to in subsection (1)-- |
That means people who are entitled to do this.
|
--must, at the beginning of the telecommunication, identify the purpose of the telecommunication and the person or organization on whose behalf the telecommunication is made. |
Therefore, even with regard to those who have an exemption under this, people are going to get, for the first time, information about who they are being called on behalf of and what this is all about. I think that is extremely important because often it starts off with “Hi, how are you” and a few other things to find out whether or not this is possibly a reasonable time to get our attention.
It is part of the marketing technique, but it is very clear that if people know right off the bat who they are being contacted on behalf of and the organization is identified, even from those who are authorized to make these calls, it will give Canadians an opportunity to indicate whether or not they are interested at all and to get off the phone and back to their families or their meal.
I suggested that some telemarketers did not support this legislation. There were some comments made by them. One suggested that the current rules for telemarketing are sufficient to regulate marketers, through voluntary means or company specific do not call lists that had been an industry standard for years among legitimate firms. That is an interesting statement for someone to have made, but the fact remains that 97% of Canadians have said they are annoyed by receiving these calls, so the current regulations are not working. This is not a valid position to be taken by the telemarketing industry.
It was further argued that being on a do not call list removes a customer's chance to learn about new products and services that could improve their lives in some way. It removes a business opportunity to reach a consumer direction.
(1350)
I am sure that it does remove an opportunity, but all of a sudden now there is this balance between a consumer's right not to be effectively harassed. It seems that most people who have a need for a product or a service have ample opportunity, through the flyers in the various newspapers or that are deposited in their mailboxes or through the yellow pages or through the advertising that happens on television or radio or whatever, to apprise themselves of who is in the business and where they can get it. I really do not believe that is a compelling reason for this do not call list to proceed.
Some of the commentators have pointed out that there is an alternative to adding more regulation or more bureaucracy. When called by a telemarketer, an individual may request to be put on the company's do not call list and then hang up. In fact, that is the current regulation. Someone can make a specific request and under the current CRTC regulations telemarketers must do that, so I am a little concerned that even the telemarketing industry for some odd reason does not understand that these arrangements are already in place.
There are a number of organizations, particularly the Canadian Marketing Association, which support this legislation. It also represents the telemarketing group as well. Looking at what is necessary here, there is probably ample evidence that even the industry itself realizes that there is a balance to be maintained and that it should be self-funded by the telemarketing industry, and that there should be penalties for those who do not follow the legislation.
Let me conclude with regard to the costs. A number of members have suggested that while we know how bad registries can be, look at this terrible national gun registry and how much it costs. It was only supposed to cost $2 million and it actually cost $2 billion. However, when someone hears that, it seems to be incredible. How could that possibly happen? What they do not say, and watch the temperature of the water go up in here, is that there was a very significant backlash to establishing a national firearms registry. Handguns had been registered since 1966, I believe.
The additional registry was to register long arms. Let me suggest that long arms were in fact the addition to it. I was here at the time when Alan Rock was the justice minister. It really surprised me that criminal activity using long arms was actually greater than for handguns. I know that today criminal activity due to the use of long arms actually is half of what it was prior to the gun registry coming into effect.
I know that over 90% of the applications to register firearms under the new registry were deliberately submitted with errors on them to the extent that we could not have them processed electronically. This meant that human resources had to be hired in extensive numbers to process them manually and to contact all of the registrants.
I would suggest that when the lobby against having a national gun registry counsels gun owners to falsify information or to make mistakes on their registry applications so that it messes up the system, it is going to cost more money. It is like the demonstrators in the Los Angeles riots. The local people were trashing their own neighbourhood and said, “there, take that”. Well, yes, it did take more money to do it.
What are the consequences? We do know that long arm crime has gone down. We do know that front line policing officers consult and go to the national firearms registry on an average of 5,000 times each and every day. That is over 1.8 million consultations with the national gun registry. Furthermore, one would ask, why is it that front line police officers would want to go and look at the national firearms register?
(1355)
I can think of some examples. For instance, if I am a police officer and I am called to a particular address for an incident of some sort, I want to consult the registry to find out whether or not there is a firearm in that home and whether or not I should take specific precautions. I also want to know that if I find guns, whether or not I can find out whether a firearm has been properly registered and, if not, whether additional charges are to be laid.
When we objectively look at this, we can say that Canadians support it. I know that in my riding, when we did a survey, we had over 75% of the constituents, and in fact in Ontario, supporting a national firearms registry for safe communities, for safe streets and to protect Canadians.
The national firearms registry has nothing to do with some grandiose plans to somehow run away with everyone's guns. All I know is that we have a national firearms registry that is consulted at least 5,000 times each and every day by front line policing officers.
I know that gun owners can continue to collect firearms today. I know that target shooters and sports shooters can continue their hobby. I also know that collectors can continue to collect and to hunt. Nothing has changed. The cost of registration for individuals was not an enormous amount of mone; it was a reasonable amount.
Probably the most important feature of this national registry is in terms of its operating costs. Costs are now being limited to a maximum of $20 million a year. It has been demonstrated to Canadians that there are rules to the game and responsibilities of owning a firearm. People have now properly registered their guns and been properly trained. Gun owners properly store their guns and their ammunition, and use it appropriately in terms of transportation and use.
Having said that, it is very clear that Canadians now are familiar that gun owners who are registered owners are really the responsible ones and Canadians as a whole feel more comfortable knowing that firearms are being used more responsibly. That is the benefit of the national firearms registry system. That is why this government supported it back then and that is why we support it still today.
(1400)
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): The member will have time for questions and comments after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
London Police Service
Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak about an important part of my city of London's history.
This year marks the London Police Service 150th anniversary. Among the Service's greatest achievements was its expansion and its modernization. This is because of a growing population and also because we all know that the technological and scientific advancements have factored into our modern day police work. The Service actively took up these challenges and has evolved today to be a very distinguished organization that we are all proud of.
Londoners of 1855 probably could not have imagined the work that is being done now and what the future had in store for their police service. The changes may have seemed incomprehensible and non-recognizable but not everything would be different.
Today, 150 years later, constables still march their beats, following in symbolic paths of their predecessors, both men and women, who have met the challenges through the generations.
We congratulate them and we thank them.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Madam Speaker, over the past four years, farmers in my constituency have experienced two droughts, one devastating frost and now a flood.
Extraordinary levels of rainfall this past September have basically wiped out another crop for farmers in my riding. The CAIS program and other federal farm programs provide absolutely no relief.
Historically low commodity prices, a rising Canadian dollar, record high fuel prices and BSE have simply created a perfect storm for our agricultural producers.
Farmers have nowhere to turn. They can only hope that the Liberal-NDP coalition government will come to their assistance. The Liberal-NDP coalition government must take immediate and effective action to help our farmers.
If the Liberal-NDP coalition continues to ignore the problems of Canadian farmers there is only one choice. We will need an immediate federal election that will bring to power a new Conservative government that is committed to standing up for Canadian farmers.
* * *
Philippine Heritage Band
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this weekend I had the great pleasure of attending the 25th anniversary celebration for the award winning Philippine Heritage Band.
In offering a unique blend of English and Filipino music, this world-class marching and concert band adds vibrancy and energy to countless events in Thornhill, Vaughan, Ontario and internationally. I congratulate it heartily on its outstanding efforts which have won it best band and community leadership awards.
I applaud the band's distinct and consistent determination to have youth and adults working together for the betterment of the community and itself.
The band exemplifies the very best of Canada in terms of talent, volunteerism and strengthening the multicultural fabric of our country.
I wish the band great continued success in the next 25 years.
* * *
[Translation]
Bernard Voyer
Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, “We need only to surpass ourselves.” That phrase summarizes in a nutshell the philosophy of Bernard Voyer, who was given an honourary doctorate by the Université du Québec à Rimouski last Saturday, October 22.
This recognition, following on so many others such as the National Order of Quebec, the Order of Canada, the Royal Canadian Geographical Society gold medal, and being listed as one of the 50 greatest Canadians, clearly reflects how proud the university and the people of all of eastern Quebec are of Mr. Voyer.
Mr. Voyer, that model of determination and commitment, does indeed surpass himself continually, although benefiting from the presence of the companions in his adventures. When faced with what seems to be an insurmountable obstacle, his reaction: “I will find the energy I need in the challenge itself and in my desire to succeed”.
All of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois join with me in congratulating Mr. Voyer on his achievements and thank him for his example to us all, both young and old.
* * *
[English]
Durham District School Board
Hon. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, grade 5 students from across the Durham District School Board were invited to submit a 500-word essay on what it would be like to be a police officer.
After reviewing hundreds of essays, the Durham District School Board brought forward five finalists. These finalists came to the Durham Regional Police Headquarters on September 29 and read their essays in front of a community panel.
Ten year-old Vanessa Foran, a grade 5 student at Florence M. Heart Public School in Whitby, was chosen the overall winner.
After swearing her oath of office on October 17, Vanessa Foran took up her new duties as chief of police for the day. Wearing her personally tailored chief's uniform, “Chief Foran” visited several units to learn more about policing. Vanessa's special day also included a helicopter ride on Air 1.
I ask all members to please join me in congratulating Vanessa Foran, a spirited young woman who has shown what one can accomplish if one is prepared to just give it a try.
* * *
(1405)
Gordon Russell
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for over 50 years, Gordon Russell and his wife Frances have helped to create positive outcomes through athletics for many of Edmonton's troubled youth and they founded the Gordon Russell Crystal Kids Youth Centre.
Gordon, member of the Order of Canada and Native Counselling Services of Alberta, Citizen of the Year and inductee into Edmonton's Sports Hall of Fame, is also on the honour roll of the City of Edmonton's Boxing and Wrestling Commission.
Gordon passed away very recently at the age of 79.
At his funeral, young and old, from all walks of life, paid tribute to this person who left this world a much better place. A boxing ring bell rang 10 times; the boxing legend was finally down for the count.
Gordon Russell played his life as he played sports: a humble man with courage, dedication and fair play.
Gordon Russell, truly a humble hero, will be missed.
* * *
Entrepreneur of the Year Award
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mike Wilson, president of Atlantic Industries Limited in Dorchester, New Brunswick.
On October 6, the Minister of ACOA presented Mr. Wilson with the 2005 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year award for Atlantic Canada.
With more than eight plants in Atlantic Canada and sales offices and distribution centres all across North America, Atlantic Industries provides high quality service and innovative solutions in the field of steel structures.
I have personally visited Atlantic Industries and I have seen its impressive workforce, leading edge technologies and outstanding products.
Mike Wilson comes from a distinguished family of entrepreneurs and community leaders. He is not only an outstanding business person, but also a dedicated and generous benefactor to numerous good causes.
[Translation]
If there were more Mike Wilsons, the rural areas of New Brunswick would be better off.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I thank him and Atlantic Industries for their contribution.
* * *
Chatelaine Magazine
Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, back in 1960, Chatelaine magazine began, with articles encouraging women to develop their full potential.
The magazine is turning 45 this year. To mark this event, it has decided to devote a 300-page October issue to the theme of happiness.
No hearts and flowers here. They are looking at happiness from a scientific point of view and the analysis of a professional survey. Women from age 10 to 100 are included, women who are in good health and women who are not. In short, it is an examination of the living conditions of women both here and elsewhere.
The Bloc Québécois salutes Chatelaine for the aptness and usefulness of its articles. Women readers are not the only ones to benefit, society as a whole. does as well. The anniversary issue is a great read.
* * *
[English]
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the first time in 50 years a Canadian has been nominated as president of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. I am pleased to congratulate Janet Davidson on this achievement.
Ms. Davidson's experience is exceptional. She is the chief operating officer of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, the largest regional health authority in Canada. Her achievements include serving as president of the Canadian Red Cross, as vice-president for the Americas and as vice-chair of the standing commission, the highest level of governance in Red Cross/Red Crescent.
Janet Davidson superbly exemplifies the qualities of dedication, compassion, ability and the internationalism that Canadians so highly prize.
Her nomination is an honour for Canada. We wish her the best in her quest to become the president of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
* * *
(1410)
Cambridge Memorial Hospital
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to pay tribute to the Cambridge Memorial Hospital and a small group of elected officials who are fighting to get justice for this hospital and all its hard-working, dedicated staff.
Despite the fact that the hospital is a prime example of an efficient public health care facility, the provincial Liberal government has reneged on a promised $70 million of funding. This is a disaster for the entire Waterloo region. Many people are upset about the political games being played by Liberals with this issue.
This issue is about saving lives and improving the health care of thousands of people. It is not about political posturing and vote buying.
I urge members to join with me and encourage everybody to leave this issue to the elected people on the task force and to stop trying to score points at the expense of lives in Cambridge.
* * *
Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
Mr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour a fine British Columbian who joins us today in Ottawa.
Sindi Hawkins is the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and is the MLA for Kelowna-Mission. She has also served British Columbians as minister of state for intergovernmental relations and as minister of health planning.
I hope Ms. Hawkins enjoys her trip to our nation's capital.
* * *
Burma
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today marks a total of 10 years that Nobel Laureate, human rights activist and political leader Aung San Suu Kyi has endured house arrest in Burma and signals a renewed campaign to end the oppression and brutality.
Canadians are outraged that our money is helping to prop up the brutal Burmese regime. Despite our official government position against doing business in Burma, our CPP Investment Board still pours millions of dollars of our savings into Burma, just as it knowingly invests our money in tobacco deaths and the arms trade.
What must it feel like for Canadians from Burma to know that their money is buying the guns used to kill family and friends back home?
The CPP's new investment policy still only looks at the bottom line. There is no question of divestment unless profits plunge.
Canada has lost its way. There are plenty of profitable, ethical, green and human rights friendly investments to be made at home and abroad.
When will the Liberal government signal that not all Canadians have sold their ethics for profits and that our values should determine where our dollars are invested?
* * *
Burma
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 1990, in the general elections in Burma, the leader of the national league for democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, led her party to a landslide victory. The military junta refused to acknowledge the will of the people. She was arrested. A year later, while in prison, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. She has been in and out of prison and today her supporters commemorate 10 years of her house arrest where she is presently under guard today.
A report to the United Nations this September by former Czech President Václav Havel and Archbishop Desmond Tutu has urged the Security Council to take action in Burma.
Now is the opportunity for the Canadian government to act. Two things can be done: First, the government should pursue a policy of disinvestment in the cruel regime in Burma; and second, the government must acknowledge the all party resolution of the foreign affairs committee on Burma and call upon the Security Council to overcome opposition from China and vote to deal with the Burma issue at the highest level.
Let us set Aung San Suu Kyi free and give democracy a chance in Burma. When will the government act?
* * *
[Translation]
Grand Council of the Crees
Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Matthew Mukash on his recent election as Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees. On October 18, I had the honour of participating in the swearing-in ceremony of the new grand chief and his deputy grand chief in Chisasibi, which is located in my riding.
In addition, I want to thank outgoing Grand Chief Ted Moses for his work and determination, and for the momentum he gave to the negotiations leading to the peace of the braves agreement. His involvement in advancing several other issues was also greatly appreciated.
In closing, I wish wholeheartedly that the good relationship between Quebec and the Cree Nation will continue under the leadership of the new grand chief.
I wish Mr. Mukash, new Deputy Grand Chief Ashley Iserhoff and all newly elected chiefs a good term of office.
* * *
Aboriginal Communities
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over the past two years, the Liberal government has been spending heavily on the department responsible for aboriginal affairs.
What good did that do? Aboriginal Canadians continue to endure the same problems: safe drinking water is not ensured, the residential school issue has yet to be settled, and the supply of housing remains clearly insufficient.
The Liberal government promised to act on these issues. Two years and billions of dollars later, nothing has changed.
Canadians are paying for these inefficient programs. They should know where this money is going. More importantly, aboriginal Canadians deserve better.
* * *
(1415)
United Nations Charter
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago today, when the world was picking up the pieces after the war, the United Nations Charter was ratified and the cornerstone of the modern-day bilateral system was implemented. The Charter begins with the famous preamble, “We the Peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”.
Today the United Nations is faced with the complex challenge of a changing world. Canada is working relentlessly in helping to reform the United Nations.
The 2005 Summit marks a forward step in that a need was recognized for a peacebuilding commission, for a response to health challenges and for ways to address the root causes of poverty, ignorance and fear. It is worth noting that it fully supports the responsibility to protect individuals from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
I remind hon. members that in March 2004, Secretary General Kofi Annan said in the House of Commons, “It is hard to imagine the United Nations without Canada and, I might even say, it has become hard to imagine Canada without the United Nations”.
* * *
Asian Bicycle Imports
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is now more than six weeks since the Canadian International Trade Tribunal recommended imposing 20% to 30% duties on Asian bicycle imports in order to protect local manufacturers of similar products. Yet, the government still has not made a decision.
On Saturday, some 250 workers from the Raleigh bicycle factory in Waterloo called on the federal government to take action in this matter. The government, unmoved, continues to turn a deaf ear.
Even the Minister of Transport and former member for Shefford has shown a lack of interest in the plight of the 1,500 workers in Quebec in danger of losing their jobs. When asked to comment, he wondered about the relevance of these jobs to the Canadian economy. Where is the man who boasts that he is attuned to the people of Waterloo?
How many plants like Roxton Furniture have to disappear because of Asian competition before the federal Liberal government takes action and protects the economy of Montérégie?
ORAL QUESTIONS
[Oral Questions ]
* * *
[Translation]
Intergovernmental Affairs
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Transport labelled Mr. Pelletier a Parti Québécois sympathizer for defending Quebec's jurisdiction. Today, we hear that the Minister of Foreign Affairs says he too is bothered by the federal cabinet's interference in areas that fall under provincial jurisdiction.
Can the Prime Minister tell us which one of these two ministers is speaking on behalf of his government?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they both do. They both state very clearly that the Government of Canada continues to work with its partners in the federation, respecting the jurisdictions of each.
* * *
Softwood Lumber
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister has admitted that, even in cabinet discussions, the government does not respect provincial jurisdictions.
[English]
I would like to bring up another matter. Since NAFTA's extraordinary challenge ruling, the government has continued to provide no direction to the industry. First, the trade minister wanted to negotiate away our victory, then he changed his mind. Now we are hearing more mixed messages from the Prime Minister, softening his previous position on no negotiations.
Does the Prime Minister understand that mixed messages only encourage American aggressiveness and weaken the Canadian position?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear on the issue of softwood lumber. The bottom line is very simple. The NAFTA must be respected. That is, has been and will be our position.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's position until today was that we would not negotiate after we had won. This is the same position we have taken. Now he saying that he is looking for some kind of a sign from the United States.
Does the minister have any idea what this sign will be? Is it a nudge? Is it a wink? Precisely what kind of sign is the government looking for?
(1420)
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as the current lumber dispute is concerned, we have always taken the position that the NAFTA has to be respected. The ECC has spoken as the court of final appeal. We have won. We want the deposits returned.
We also have said that we want a long term durable solution to this dispute, which has been going on since 1982, and that we would be prepared to look at ways in the future that would get long term stability for our workers, our communities and our industry.
Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for 72 days, Liberals have sent conflicting messages on softwood. The ministers of Industry, International Trade and Foreign Affairs have said no to further negotiations. This morning the Prime Minister flip-flopped in favour of negotiations.
With the U.S. Secretary of State in Ottawa, is the Prime Minister even in a position to demand a resolution today or has he mismanaged this file so badly the Americans do not even know what we want?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat very simply that we have always said that we would favour a long term durable resolution to this issue and that we would be prepared at some point to sit down and negotiate this. The one thing that is not negotiable is the NAFTA. It must be respected.
Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that rings pretty hollow. The Prime Minister clearly has flip-flopped on his softwood position, from hollow threats to the silent treatment and now the moving target approach.
How can the Prime Minister expect Americans to take his position seriously when he does not take it seriously himself?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has said that the Prime Minister does not take this issue seriously. In every meeting that he has had with his American counterpart, the President, he has raised the softwood issue. In all the meetings my colleagues and I have had with our U.S. counterparts, we have raised the issue. I can assure the House that it will be raised with the Secretary of State during her visit.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister has just finished telling us that the NAFTA panel ruling on softwood lumber is not negotiable, but at the same time that a long term agreement on this issue should be negotiated.
Could he tell this House what kind of agreement he has in mind, and whether it would differ from the ruling obtained under NAFTA?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if an agreement on softwood lumber were reached, this agreement would be in the best interest of Canadians.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting the minister to tell us that he would try and negotiate an agreement that would be very bad for Canadians. Let us be serious here.
Since he told us that the NAFTA ruling has to be respected and since he mentioned a long term agreement, could the minister specify whether this agreement will essentially be based on the ruling obtained under NAFTA? That is the question.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. First, NAFTA has to be respected. Second, we are looking for a solution, one that will be long term and durable, to resolve this dispute.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Ms. Rice's visit to Canada is an exceptional opportunity for the government to show just how determined it is in the softwood lumber issue. Forestry companies, as you know, have now paid out up to $5 billion in unjustified countervailing duties and are right in asking the federal government to grant them loan guarantees.
Will the government admit that refusing to grant these loan guarantees to the forestry companies is one way of refusing to make it really clear to the Americans that not only is the government talking tough, but it has also decided to take tough action in this matter?
(1425)
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has already announced that he was taking care of this matter and the issues concerning support for the communities, the industry and the workers. He will be making an announcement in the near future.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec said in this House that we must be careful with loan guarantees because such a measure might “confirm the Americans in their position of imposing duties”. Yet, loan guarantees are authorized under the WTO and NAFTA.
Why does the government continue to refuse to grant these loan guarantees when they would make its position so much more credible to the U.S. government during Ms. Rice's visit?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. member is right. We must always be very careful with our spending and so we will be.
* * *
[English]
Health
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Health said that privatization of the health care system was not a problem. I guess he knows this because the government last checked in 1998, seven years ago.
Since then, Ralph Klein has opened private hospitals. We have had Gordon Campbell opening and experimenting with private clinics. We have had Premier Hamm spreading private MRIs in Nova Scotia. Privatization Is growing everywhere. Then this morning the Prime Minister said that he agreed with the health minister.
Is it the position of the government now that private hospitals are simply nothing to worry about?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a more recent report was just issued by CIHI this year. It indicates there has been no increase in private spending on health care in the country in terms of the percentage.
Last weekend all the ministers of health from across the country agreed to ensure that we would meet the commitments established for us by all the first ministers across the country in September 2004, and we will. We will have benchmarks by the end of this year in all the priority areas as asked for by the first ministers.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that party in government today ran in the year 2000 against Ralph Klein's private hospitals. It said that it was the fight of its life. It laid its reputation in front of Canadians on stopping private health care and private hospitals. Yet five years later we have the health minister and this Prime Minister apparently now welcoming and accepting these private hospitals in Canada.
When will the government live up to its commitment to Canadians and stop the growth of private health care here?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we have delivered on our commitment to strengthen public health care in this country with $41 billion, with an agreement by all of the first ministers, and with an agreement with all of the health ministers just this weekend.
The member who just spoke should be concerned about the opposition, which wants to gut the Canada Health Act and actually end the federal role in health care, like Preston Manning and Mike Harris. When people talk like a Tory and walk like a Tory, they are Tories. That is what those members want to do.
* * *
Softwood Lumber
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Except, Mr. Speaker, that as a Liberal he has taken the same position we have on the health care issue.
I am trying to discern the government's position on the softwood lumber dispute. Up until today, its position was that there would be no negotiations. I listened to the minister's answers to the Bloc. He said he was seeking a good deal for Canada, a negotiated settlement. Which is it? No negotiations or a negotiated settlement?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be very simple so the minister understands, so the member understands—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the minister appreciates all the applause his answer has caused so far, but we have to be able to hear the answer. The minister will now want to resume with some order in the House.
(1430)
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I really slipped on that one.
Having said that, the answer is very simple. We are seeking a long term durable resolution to bring stability to our workers, our communities and our industry. At the same time, we are saying that NAFTA must be respected. The ECC has spoken. We want these rulings to be implemented.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister can say he is keeping his answers simple for himself, but they are getting increasingly convoluted.
The government has proclaimed to Canadians that there will be no negotiations after we win. Now the minister is getting up and laying down what a negotiated settlement would look like. The secretary of state of the United States is here today. Is the position to be no negotiations or we are looking for a negotiated settlement? Which is it?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): It is a very simple answer, Mr. Speaker. NAFTA must be respected. The NAFTA appeal court, the ECC, has spoken. We want those rulings to be implemented.
* * *
Health
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said this past June that his government had “brought in all of the scientific evidence, all of the medical experts, in order to establish very clear benchmarks by the end of this year”.
The Prime Minister called this process urgent, and I agree, but obviously the Prime Minister and his health minister no longer share this sense of urgency.
If the government had all the evidence this past summer, why is the minister now backpedalling on his benchmark promises?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that 13 ministers of health gathered in Toronto for the last two days and reaffirmed in a very robust fashion the commitment of the first ministers to the health care accord of 2004, which means that we will have benchmarks in all five areas by December 31, 2005. That is within two months.
I want to tell the hon. member, the fact is that your party wants to gut the Canada Health Act, wants to privatize health care and wants to end the federal role in health care. Now you are telling me that we are not--
The Speaker: The minister of course will want to address his remarks to the Chair and not suggest that the Speaker's party is involved in anything. The hon. member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia.
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister would be well advised to remember that it is his leader who uses private clinics.
The Prime Minister said in June, “We've set out very, very clear timelines in which these benchmarks are going to be established. We insist that those timelines be adhered to”.
The Prime Minister and the premiers agreed to have meaningful benchmarks in place by the year's end in five key areas. Now the provinces are saying that not all the benchmarks will be in place by the deadline.
Will the Prime Minister admit that under a Liberal government Canadians will have to wait a very, very long time for medically necessary—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we will have benchmarks in all of the five key areas agreed upon by first ministers by December 31.
The fact also is that Preston Manning and Mike Harris want to end the federal role in health care. The fact is that the current Leader of the Opposition also wants to end the federal role in health care.
I want to know what those members' position is on our role. We are playing a federal role, a very strong federal role, which they want to end.
* * *
[Translation]
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade tells us that the NAFTA ruling must be implemented, must be applied. Yet he also tells us that we need to negotiate subsequent to that ruling. It would be most surprising if Canada were to demand more from the Americans than what is in the ruling, it seems to me. So it would appear that negotiations would be to ask for less than what is offered in the ruling.
Could the minister clarify his position on this reasoning?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have always said, there are two issues. There is the matter of the deposits collected and until now retained by the United States. At the present time, according to the NAFTA ruling, these belong to us.
The second matter is to find a sustainable and long term solution for this situation. We will be prepared to discuss that later on, but for the moment the main point is that NAFTA needs to be respected.
(1435)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a sustainable and long term solution can be nothing other than the NAFTA rulings. If there is anything else, let the minister say so.
I would like to understand. He tells us that it can be nothing other than applying NAFTA, yet he wants to hold discussions with a view to possibly finding something else.
Does he realize that he will get nothing more than the ruling and that starting to negotiate instead of demanding implementation of the ruling will put him in a position of asking for less than what is there now? Can he follow my reasoning?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will of course do our utmost to see that NAFTA is complied with, in other words, that all deposits are returned.
* * *
Housing
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in Quebec and Canada, 1.7 million households are struggling for decent housing. There are 150,000 homeless people currently living on the street. Meanwhile, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation board of directors is travelling across the country and spending left and right.
Could the Minister of Labour and Housing tell us if, during these pretty boozy meetings, the CMHC directors are making any decisions with respect to how their $4 billion surplus ought to be used to help people living in substandard housing?
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question and concern with regard to housing, and first let me deal with the question. CMHC, as with all crown corporations, must act with care and frugality, and while there are rules and regulations in place and even guidelines to abide by, the board needs to be mindful of the higher standard that we all are put to by the Canadian public.
If the question also was whether the board does some very good work on behalf of Canadians in travelling across the country and listening to stakeholders with the view of improving housing conditions across Canada, the answer is of course.
[Translation]
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during these cozy CMHC meetings, golf games, cruises or helicopter rides, do the directors talk about the renewal of the SCPI program to help the 150,000 homeless people currently living on the street? That is what is really scandalous.
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only is the board of directors of CMHC a very talented group of people who in fact are very experienced in housing, they are working toward finding housing solutions not only in the marketplace but including social housing in Quebec and throughout. As members know, it was the Bloc that voted against Bill C-48, which would put in $1.6 billion, including in Quebec, to renew IPAC, to do more RRAP, and to build more social housing in Quebec and throughout the country.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this past weekend three young people were brutally murdered in the Toronto area. The citizens of the city are feeling increasingly fearful and helpless. In one incident, a drive-by shooting, stray bullets flew. We are lucky that this time innocent bystanders escaped injury or death.
According to one resident, “this place is like a shooting gallery”. He is right. This weekend's gunfire brings Toronto's murder toll for the year to 64. Forty-four of those deaths were from gun crime, a record number. Toronto is on pace for a 400% increase in gun deaths since 1998.
Why has this government done nothing for years as violent crime grew out of control?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have engaged in a number of initiatives. We now have a tripartite package of reforms which will be introduced. The first will be amendments to the Criminal Code, the second by way of law enforcement, and the third by way of community and educational and economic initiatives.
(1440)
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the government's legislation. Police tell us that much of this violent crime in Toronto is related to a growing drug culture, yet this government is still advancing legislation to decriminalize the use and some production of marijuana. A Liberal senator has even called for legalization of hard drugs.
Is it any wonder that criminal activity is rising when this Liberal government tells young Canadians that drug use is okay? Parents already have enough challenges trying to raise children without this government telling their youngsters that drug use is all right. Will the minister commit to withdrawing his reckless and dangerous plan to decriminalize the drug use that is fuelling the escalation in violent crime today?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is mischaracterizing the legislation, which clearly states that drug use remains illegal even under the decriminalization and which was the unanimous recommendation of members of a parliamentary committee, including members of the party opposite.
We have also put this issue on the subject matter for the meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice.
* * *
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Frank Brazeau, the secretary of a local Liberal association and a public servant, used his influence to secure $1 million in contracts for the Liberal member of Parliament for Pontiac. The KPMG auditing firm has found irregularities in contracts totalling $15 million also given by Mr. Brazeau.
Will the Prime Minister release KPMG's report now? Otherwise, what is he trying to hide?
[English]
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this matter is now before the Ethics Commissioner, as members well know. The member for Pontiac has committed to making the results of whatever the commissioner says public. I would hope that members opposite would wait for a response from the Ethics Commissioner before commenting further.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is more stonewalling.
A Liberal riding secretary used his influence to direct almost $1 million in contracts to a Liberal member of Parliament. Both men are close friends and ardent loyalists of the current Prime Minister and both have been lavishly rewarded for it. A KPMG report found that more than $15 million saw irregularities in the way it was handed out in the form of contracts.
Why will the Prime Minister not immediately release this KPMG audit so that taxpayers can know just how much he has been rewarding his Liberal friends?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the review—and it is not an audit, it is a review—was commissioned by the department as part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen competition and to increase accountability.
The fact is that these contracts with the company were cancelled as a result of this review, but it is important to recognize that in all cases services were received for taxpayers' dollars and that in fact there were valuable services provided by the company. Furthermore, there has been disciplinary action taken against this employee.
* * *
[Translation]
Intergovernmental Affairs
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
This weekend, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who, in the opinion of an esteemed political pundit, is also a pro at putting a wrench in the works, harped on the need for a partnership between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Can the minister refresh the memory of the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie on the partnership that has united not only Quebec, but also the entire country for nearly 140 years, that is the Canadian confederation?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc is still trying to dupe Quebeckers and spread confusion, while his head office in Quebec City is itself more clear. It is no longer a proponent of any type of partnership.
The leader of the Bloc wants us to believe that separation would be painless. Unless after 15 years in Ottawa he has seen the merits of a real partnership called Canadian federalism.
* * *
[English]
Softwood Lumber
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that across this country we find workers who have been out of work in the softwood industry for months. We have whole communities that are virtually shut down, yet all we get from the government is words, statements, silence, absolutely no action whatsoever.
Is the government finally willing to consider the NDP's suggestion that we should look at the possibility of export charges on our oil and gas so that the U.S. administration will know that we are serious?
(1445)
Hon. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question that this government takes all actions that happen in this country very seriously. Softwood lumber is a critical issue for communities, for people who work in the industry and for the industry itself.
The Prime Minister has made it extremely clear that nothing short of a settlement that has been awarded will be settled for. There is no question about that.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the American administration is playing hardball with Canada. There is no spine on the government benches when it comes to standing up for Canadian workers and communities.
When are we going to use the tools that are available to us, the kinds of tools that the American administration is using against us? It is holding $5 billion of our money in its bank accounts and we are doing nothing to recover it, including even considering the possibility of recovery.
When will the government take some action and look at the possibility of export charges?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. I am aware that the official opposition did not ask the last question, but the Deputy Prime Minister has risen to answer it. Everyone is going to want to hear the answer.
The Deputy Prime Minister has the floor.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear here. There should be no misunderstanding that the $3.5 billion that has been finally adjudicated, we have been clear we will settle for nothing less than the $3.5 billion back. When the $1.5 billion is finally adjudicated, we anticipate that we will win that adjudication once and for all and we will get that $1.5 billion back.
The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.
* * *
Canada Post
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last year's Deloitte & Touche audit of Canada Post revealed that Andre Ouellette had paid himself enormous sums of money as pork-master general and he did not even bother to provide receipts. David Dingwall may be the prince of pork, but André Ouellet is still the king.
The government promised a complete audit of the office of André Ouellet more than a year ago. It begs the question, what is the government hiding here? If the Liberal government can come up with a whitewashed Dingwall audit in three weeks, why does it need more than a year for the André Ouellet audit?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the subject of audits, I understand that the hon. member is carrying out his own audit of Mr. Dingwall, so there are now three.
We have two other audits going on. We have the Auditor General who wrote four months ago that the systems and practices of the Mint are designed and operated in a fashion which provide reasonable assurances that assets are safeguarded and controlled. We have a third auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, which will be reporting.
So I ask, who is more credible, the Auditor General, PricewaterhouseCoopers, or that gentleman over there?
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the revenue minister cannot impersonate the revenue minister as well as our leader can.
The revenue minister is responsible for overseeing a tax system that should apply to all Canadians equally, but no other Canadian, not one, would get away with what André Ouellet has gotten away with. Government documents reveal that the revenue minister has known for over four months that André Ouellet will not provide receipts. He has done absolutely nothing about it. It is shameful. I want to ask him one question. Why?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the statements of the hon. member are false, but since he mentioned the Leader of the Opposition, let me just suggest that in view of his performance on Saturday, when eventually he steps down from his present position, perhaps in a decade or two, and when he speaks to his young grandchildren 20 years hence as to his greatest achievement in politics, my guess is he will say, “My greatest achievement was imitating John McCallum in question period”.
(1450)
The Speaker: I think the minister meant, of course, the Minister of National Revenue.
The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
* * *
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, throughout this Parliament we have seen a steady parade of shocking abuses of taxpayers' money. Today there is another scandal. Managers of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have held lavish receptions, racked up exorbitant travel and dining expenses, and taken boat cruises, all paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.
CMHC is supposed to provide affordable housing for low income Canadians, not lavish entertainment for its own managers. When will the government stop helping itself to taxpayers' money and start helping Canadians in need?
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think I addressed this question earlier.
I appreciate the concern of the member. All crowns need to make sure that they act with care and frugality. Even though there are rules, regulations and guidelines provided to all board members of all crown corporations, including CMHC, I indicate to all of them that we have a higher standard to abide by, and that is the standard of the public and the Canadian taxpayer. We have made that known to them.
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Here we go again, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Liberal mismanagement now extends to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: lavish receptions, expensive meals and even boat cruises, and all at the taxpayers' expense. In Canada, two million families cannot find decent housing. This government continues to put its own interests ahead of those of needy families.
How does the Prime Minister explain these extravagant expenses this time?
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has a very comprehensive housing policy, unlike that party. Since 1999 we have put $1 billion toward our homelessness initiative which we will renew, $2 billion in commitments made to affordable housing across the country, and an additional $1.6 billion with regard to new initiatives on affordable housing and social housing.
CMHC is doing the work of this government. That is to make sure that we listen to people, provide housing and move, unlike that party that has no—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
* * *
[Translation]
Agriculture
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday more than 1,000 farmers and their supporters, a number of Bloc Québécois members among them, held a demonstration in Montreal. This was an initiative by the GO5 coalition, aimed at getting the federal government to take a firm position in favour of supply management mere weeks away from the WTO meeting in Hong Kong.
Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food state categorically that the supply management system is non-negotiable as far as Canada is concerned, and that no concessions whatsoever will be made during the WTO negotiations, as called for by the House with its unanimous passage of Motion M-163 on April 15?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are actively engaged in the WTO negotiations where we want to see the elimination of export subsidies, the reduction of divested support and increased market access to our Canadian producers. We have made it crystal clear that the decision on how individual producers in Canada wish to market their products domestically is a choice for Canadian producers. That is one that they have and one which they will continue to have.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since he has all the leeway required for preserving supply management available to him under the July 2004 framework agreement on sensitive products, can the minister guarantee us that, should there be a definitive agreement, his chief negotiator is mandated to see that it includes milk, eggs and poultry among those sensitive products, thereby providing them with protection?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has been at the forefront in these negotiations. We have insisted that there be a sensitive products category as part of any agreement and that in seeking an aggressive tariff reduction formula that in fact sensitive products have to be identified, that those sensitive products need to be treated differently and that individual nations have to have the flexibility in order to deal with them. All of this is being done in conjunction with close consultation with our supply managed industries which very much support the government in wanting to have sensitive products as part of this agreement.
* * *
(1455)
Middle East
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the report to the Security Council on the bombing murder of the former president of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri, has now been released. Our suspicions have been confirmed. Clearly the dictators in Damascus are implicated. Syria has tried to rule Lebanon for decades and now that it has been forced to withdraw, it is still trying to diminish the hopes of the Lebanese people.
Has the foreign affairs minister called in the ambassador from Syria and what exactly did he say to him following this report being released?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we take that report very seriously. The hon. member is absolutely right that we have to make sure that the Security Council is totally seized of the content of this report. Syria has serious answers to give to the international system. It is imperative that Syria provide some answers.
When I was there in February, I met with the Syrian leadership. At that time I said that that country had to withdraw from Lebanon. It is absolutely unacceptable that that country would try to continue to have any say in the future of Lebanon, which is now making its own destiny and future.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the United Nations investigative report has clearly indicated that the Syrian regime was involved in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister El Hariri. Yet the minister has neither met with the ambassador nor spoken to him.
Why is this? And will he indicate the retaliatory measures he will be recommending to the government?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government takes very seriously the investigative report into the possibility of Syrian involvement in the assassination of Mr. El Hariri in Lebanon. This is a matter of great concern to us. We hope that the Security Council will immediately examine this report, which we take most seriously.
It is obvious that Syria must answer for its actions and there is no doubt that it must respond to the accusations made public in this report. Canada will be following this situation very closely.
* * *
The Environment
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The media have reported that the federal government is delaying the implementation of the Eastmain-Rupert project. What is the federal government's involvement and what are the recent developments in this project?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two review boards for this issue: one is federal and the other is provincial. Their work is progressing quite well. In the coming months, we can certainly achieve excellent results. We want to see these results both for the environment and for the economy because this project might help us a great deal in meeting our Kyoto objectives.
* * *
[English]
National Defence
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the materiel management software project, MASIS, is a sinkhole with no end in sight. Costs have ballooned by over 100% and who knows what the costs will be by the time it is complete, if ever. According to the department, this project is supposed to save money, yet the costs are increasing at such a rate it is doubtful that any savings will be achieved. With no end in sight, the government is afraid to cut its losses.
Is the government embarrassed to tell Canadians that it has wasted and mismanaged their money yet again?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the MASIS system is designed to save a considerable amount of money in terms of our procurement. When it is fully implemented it is going to save us about 10% on our procurement budget, which is a substantial amount of money as we go forward acquiring important assets for our forces.
The system is being implemented. It is a system that is being implemented by the United States, Germany and other allies of ours. Like all IT projects, it is going through some learning pains, but it will be implemented and it will create great savings for the Canadian taxpayer when we make our procurement purchases.
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is like Orwell: increased costs are savings.
The materiel management project, MASIS, is not the only software project that the government has mismanaged. The Canadian Forces supply system upgrade project overran by hundreds of millions of dollars, but who answered for that? The Canadian taxpayers.
Another example is the mismanagement of the current omnibus command and control project which could cost up to $10 billion. It already has come under fire by the Auditor Genera. Is this another sinkhole?
How can we trust the government to implement projects on time and on budget when it has such a shameful history of mismanagement and waste?
(1500)
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the hon. member knows more about Animal Farm, by virtue of his experience on the opposite side, than members on this side of the House would know. An Orwellian experience is a literary reference which is not particularly helpful in these circumstances.
What we are doing is searching for intelligent solutions, future solutions to our problems through applying the best technology we can get. Of course, there are problems implementing it, but we will work our way through this system and it will produce results for the department and for the Canadian taxpayer.
* * *
[Translation]
Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, speaking before young Liberals in Trois-Rivières, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated, “I understand that some might be annoyed by what is perceived as encroachments on provincial jurisdictions. I have to admit that, from time to time, while sitting at the cabinet table, I get the impression that I am at a provincial cabinet meeting. I too find it annoying”.
My question is for the minister responsible for federal-provincial relations. When one of her fellow ministers says that he gets the impression that he is sitting on a provincial cabinet and that he finds it annoying, does she not realize that that is what federal encroachment on provincial jurisdictions is all about?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it really fascinating to have the Bloc Québécois wanting to discuss various visions of federalism and how they are implemented across Canada. This is clearly the result of 15 years of political life in Ottawa. That is wonderful. I greatly appreciate hearing the Bloc's position on Canadian federalism. We can see that Bloc members just love working here.
I assure the House that we will continue to work with our partners in the federation, that is, the provinces.
* * *
[English]
Health
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I and many other Canadians are deeply concerned with the rising levels of obesity, particularly among Canadian children.
We have seen illnesses that were previously rare in children, like type 2 diabetes and hypertension, now become prevalent. In fact, for the first time in generations, we see that the life expectancy for Canadian children is being jeopardized and is going down.
My question is for the Minister of State for Public Health. What is the government doing at this time to address this very important issue?
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of State (Public Health), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is deeply concerned too.
The OMA report last week showed that this may be the first generation of children that do not live as long as their parents.
With the $300 million that we released last week, we are working with our provincial and territorial colleagues, with all stakeholders, with the food industry and with everyone we possibly can to help instill healthy choices being the easy choices, physical activity and better eating, to get healthy weights for all Canadians.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Tony Abbott, Minister for Health and Ageing and Leader of the House of Representatives for the Parliament of Australia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Ms. Janet Davidson, the first Canadian proposed to be President of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Sein Win, MP-elect of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
* * *
(1505)
Parliamentary Delegations
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of a Canadian parliamentary delegation concerning its visit to New Zealand and Australia from August 1 to August 12.
* * *
Privilege
Non-Medical Use of Drugs
[Privilege]
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of Justice keeps referring to the fact that the Conservative Party agreed with all the recommendations in the report from the special committee established in the House to study the non-medical use of drugs, in particular, marijuana.
I and my colleague from Crowfoot wrote a minority report on that report and we dealt with the issue of marijuana in that report. I did not and have not agreed that the criminalization of marijuana would be satisfactory to our country. However, I said in the report that for it to be successful there would have to be a number of conditions in place before I could even consider it.
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: That is debate.
Mr. Randy White: It is not debate, Mr. Speaker. I am laying the grounds for the erroneous statements made by the Minister of Justice. I do not agree with the decriminalization of marijuana and would not have agreed in the minority report.
I would ask the minister to refrain from making those statements as they reflect poorly on my judgment more so than his.
The Speaker: The hon. member has made a point but really it is a debate. I do not think there is a question of privilege in what he has said, not that I could hear even with all the groundwork.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Certificates of Nomination
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to table today four certificates of nomination pursuant to Standing Order 110.2. These will be referred to the appropriate standing committee.
* * *
[Translation]
Government Response to Petitions
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
* * *
[English]
Points of Order
Oral Questions
[Points of Order]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my point of order which arises out of question period on Thursday, October 20. I apologize for the delay in bringing this up, but I am sure after I explain myself, the House will know the reason for my delay.
On the day that I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about the use of dragging our bottom trawling equipment in our economic fishery zone, the minister categorically answered:
|
--over the past three years in the NAFO regulatory area there were no Canadian vessels using the kind of gear that was displayed yesterday on the Hill by the group that was here. |
I took the minister at his word. Over the weekend it became apparent to me that the minister may have been wrong, so I decided to check the facts.
We have some photographs, people's names and equipment that used exactly that type of gear within the last couple of years. Apparently, those kinds of dragging nets, door and footgear, which were displayed on the lawn, are still very much used by Canadian vessels in Canadian waters, by international vessels in international waters and by some Canadian vessels in international waters.
It appears that the minister may have inadvertently said something that was possibly incorrect. I raise this with you, Mr. Speaker, because somehow along the way the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has received or has ascertained some incorrect information.
I know you, Mr. Speaker, will take this as a very serious situation. I would like the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to correct the record.
(1510)
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand this might be a perfect example where adjournment proceedings might help the hon. member explore this issue further.
The Speaker: This does sound like an extension of question period to me. I know the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore obviously has been very diligent and I am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is delighted to hear all this news.
In the circumstances, perhaps we will have a very brief comment from the minister, since he seems keen to say something, and then we will move on.
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to absolutely clarify this, I had this information provided to me today. First, there were no Canadian groundfish vessels using bottom trawl gear in the NAFO regulatory area from 2001 to 2005. That is the first point, and it is very important.
The second point is that in 2001 one Canadian shrimp vessel used otter trawl gear for 31 fishing days in the NAFO regulatory area beyond the 200 mile limit. In 2003 two Canadian shrimp vessels used otter trawl gear in the NRA for 27 fishing days.
I have one more point. There were no Canadian shrimp vessels using this gear in NRA in 2002—
The Speaker: I suggest the two hon. members correspond with one another with all those details or have an adjournment debate. That might be the way to do it.
* * *
Committees of the House
Finance
[Routine Proceedings]
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Finance requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-285, an act to amend the Income Tax Act , exclusion of income received by an athlete from a non-profit club, society or association.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(3)(a) a motion to concur in the report is deemed moved, the question deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Wednesday, October 26 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
[Translation]
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this means that our committee works very hard.
I have the honour to present the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Finance on an extension of 30 days to consider Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents).
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(3)(a), a motion to concur in the report is deemed moved, the question deemed put, and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Wednesday, October 26, 2005, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
* * *
[English]
Petitions
Criminal Code
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed on behalf of hundreds of Canadians from across the country, in particular young Canadians on campuses across the country where these signatures were gathered. A number of these are from my own constituency of Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam.
The petition recognizes the growing threat posed by date rape drugs GHB and Rohypnol when used in the commission of sexual assaults.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to create a separate schedule for date rape drugs, establish a national initiative to educate women on the dangers of date rape drugs and establish a national task force to develop new guidelines in the collection and documentation of evidence in sexual assault investigations.
This is one of a number of petitions I have tabled in the House. I am pleased to announce that I have collected more than 10,000 signatures from young men and women across the country who want the government to address this important issue.
* * *
Autism
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to introduce a petition on the subject of autism spectrum disorder. The petition draws the attention of hon. members to the fact that there are treatments, ABA and IBI therapy, for children with autism from which they may greatly benefit.
The petitioners encourage Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act to include IBI therapy as a medically necessary treatment.
The issue of autism is very important. As Canadians, we need to do better in supporting children with autism.
* * *
(1515)
[Translation]
Canada Post Corporation
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today. With these 10,000 signatures, there are now 130,000 who have stated their objection to the decision to close Quebec City's postal sorting station. We know that this decision will have a very negative economic impact. We are talking about the loss of 500 jobs, which means a $15 million shortfall for the Quebec City region.
I have here in this box about 20,000 of those signatures. My colleagues will continue to table the rest of the signatures this week, to show that the Quebec City region is mobilized in its opposition to the closure of the Quebec City sorting station.
* * *
[English]
Community Access Program
Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to table two petitions on behalf of my constituents.
The first one is with regard to constituents who are concerned that the community access program, CAP, is currently in its last year of existence. Given the enormous success that it has known right across Canada, and specifically in everyone's communities, they call upon the government to renew this critically important program.
* * *
Uganda
Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to a group of people in my riding who are working extremely hard to represent the people of northern Uganda.
They note that 100,000 adults and children have perished in the 18-year-old civil war in northern Uganda, that 30,000 children have been abducted and that there are close to two million displaced citizens living IDP camps across the nation.
They are calling upon Parliament to take action by fulfilling the goals, as outlined in a Winnipeg communiqué that was established at the International Conference on War Affected Children in September 2000. They are asking us to take a leadership role at the United Nations to protect the people of northern Uganda.
* * *
[Translation]
Canada Post Corporation
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's decision to close down the Quebec City sorting centre has raised a furor in our region, from both the socio-economic and political stakeholders and the general public. I have proof of their support in this petition bearing the signatures of 130,000 people who are demanding that the mail processing operations and the jobs connected with them be kept in Quebec City. Today I am presenting a portion of this, with several thousand signatures.
* * *
[English]
Adoption
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition, as I have on every occasion this fall, this time on behalf of residents of Cobourg, Port Hope, Smiths Falls, Dundas, Stoney Creek, Kingsville, St. Thomas, Thornhill and a number of other communities too numerous to mention.
All these citizens are concerned that on average about 2,000 children are adopted from other countries and brought to Canada each year, and that despite this fact, other countries, namely the United States of America and Great Britain, provide automatic citizenship for these young children and our country does not.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to immediately enact legislation to grant automatic citizenship to minors adopted from other countries by Canadian citizens with this citizenship being immediately granted upon the finalization of the adoption.
I note that the minister said that he would bring forward stand alone legislation to actually accomplish this and I think it is high time he acts upon that commitment.
* * *
[Translation]
Canada Post Corporation
Mr. Bernard Cleary (Louis-Saint-Laurent, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 130,000 people have signed a petition calling for immediate suspension of the plan to close the Quebec City mail sorting facility and transfer Quebec City operations to Montreal. Today I am presenting a portion of this, with several thousand signatures.
(1520)
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too am presenting a portion of a petition initiated by the local section of the Quebec postal workers union. It is signed by 130,000 people in opposition to the closure of the Quebec City sorting facility and transfer of its operations to Montreal. Ontario has six sorting centres. There will be just one for all of Quebec. There is no plan for modernization. They are just doing this for the advantages offered by a move. They want to pack everything up and head for Montreal instead of relocating and modernizing the Quebec City sorting facility. This is an absurd idea and the petition says so.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the petitions contained in this box on behalf of several thousand signatories. In them they express their concerns and their rejection of the Canada Post decision to close the Quebec City sorting facility.
As we know, this decision would have very negative impacts on the economy, as well as on the quality of service the people of the greater Quebec City region are entitled to expect. In this operation we are carrying out today and the rest of the week, we are the spokespersons for over 130,000 people who have voiced their opposition to this decision. I am pleased and extremely proud to present these thousands of signatures on behalf of the population of the greater Quebec City area.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Telecommunications Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act, as amended, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.
In discussing the bill, a couple of things need to be said, some complimentary and some that are perhaps not quite as complimentary.
The bill came to the committee before second reading. It had sort of a framework but there was nothing in it. We did not know exactly what the bill would actually be doing. All the parties came together and looked at the bill. We listened to witnesses and to what our constituents were saying about the do not call list for people soliciting merchandise, opinions or whatever by telephone. The committee looked at what could be done. In a short time it became very apparent that the bill was sadly deficient. The bill lacked certain provisions.
However something happened this morning that really shows the irony of this place and, in particular, the fickleness of the Liberal government that is in charge of this place at this time. I believe it was on Thursday of last week when the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc presented a motion to the House to add to the list of those who were to be excluded from the do not call list certain solicitations by newspapers using a telephone. At that time the hon. member asked for the unanimous consent of the House because clearly the amendment had not been made in committee but was being made to the House at the report stage.
The Liberals decided that because it came from the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc, who is a Conservative and on the opposition side of the House, they refused unanimous consent. Lo and behold, a weekend passed and the first thing Monday morning when the House resumed, the parliamentary secretary said that they would like to have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion. What was the motion? The motion was identical, even to the wording, to what the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc had presented to the House.
It must have become apparent to the Liberals that the member for Edmonton—Leduc had once again demonstrated the wisdom of listening to constituents so that over the weekend suddenly the Liberals realized this was a good motion. Today, lo and behold, they presented the motion and it was unanimously accepted by the House. It is amazing what a weekend will do. I just hope the Liberals will recognize over the years that these weekends can be very significant.
It is the one exception, I think, that has happened in this House. I have a list here of about 19 different promises that have been made by the Prime Minister to bring about democratic reform. Over and over again the House has passed motions and has agreed to take certain actions but what happened? Nothing. I believe the time has come for us to realize that we need to do the things we say we are going to do and live up to our promises.
While this is a good thing that is happening, there are also some very negative things that happened. On the good side, it should be noted that all the political parties in the House worked very cooperatively together to build the legislation to set up a do not call registry. In fact there is no dissension among the political parties. I and my party will be supporting the legislation. In fact, it will not be necessary to call for a standing vote, as far as I am concerned, on the legislation
I would also like to refer to another thing in this bill that we want to look at, and that has to do with the definition of existing business relationships. A number of presentations were made and one of the bones of contention concerned the definition of an existing business relationship. We know the do not call registry exists in the United States and that it has defined an existing business relationship in its legislation. The Americans have said that one of the criteria of an existing business relationship is that the relationship has been in existence for 18 months. After that it is no longer considered to be an existing relationship.
(1525)
If this kind of thing is legislated and the proposal now is that this be legislated, this causes certain hardships in certain cyclical businesses. I would like to read what the Canadian Marketing Association said on this particular subject. What I am going to read is in reply to a particular request from one of the small businesses to the president of the Canadian Marketing Association. This particular concern was raised in the spring of 2004.
Mr. John Gustavson, the president and CEO of the Canadian Marketing Association which, by the way, is the largest marketing association in Canada, has been one of the most well-known proponents in favour of creating a federal do not call list in Canada. He concurs that the cyclical nature of businesses should be looked at. Mr. John Gustavson said:
| Thank you for taking the time to write respecting our position on a national do not call registry. |
“Our position” being this particular business. He said:
|
We agree entirely with your position. Every piece of legislation passed in North America on this subject so far (in 26 states prior to the U.S. federal legislation taking effect) has provided an exemption for business to contact existing customers. While there have been variances on the definition of “existing customer”, we believe it is important to include in the exemption customers that would only be contacted during a normal buying cycle. |
That is very significant, a normal buying cycle. He continued:
|
Similar to your situation, these contacts may be several years apart. |
What is being proposed is 18 months. That is not several years. That is less than that. He added:
|
In fact, our own Code of Ethics contains such an exemption. |
That is the Canadian Marketing Association. He concluded:
|
Unfortunately, in trying to summarize our position in a few words, the details of our position were omitted by the reporter. I can assure you however that we consider such an exemption to be fundamental and may even be protected constitutionally. |
|
Thank you again for your comments and I can assure you we will vigorously advocate for the right of business to contact its own customers by telephone. |
We are not saying there should not be a definition for an existing business relationship. We are suggesting that when legislation is so specific as to require 18 months as the maximum duration of a business relationship, that makes it impossible for the regulating body to exercise any judgment. It seems to me that on the three year review, which is definitely part of the legislation, that may very well come up for review and consideration at that time.
I would like to encourage us to be very cognizant of the fact that in order for legislation to meet the real needs and requirements of business and to support small businesses in particular, we be cognizant of that particular fact.
I suppose I should recognize that some legislation that we have before the House now and that exists in our books is so general as to make interpretation so broad that no one knows for sure what is meant. In this particular case, the legislation is so specific that it provides absolutely no discretion or judgment on the part of those who are implementing this legislation.
Every once in a while we ask ourselves when are we going to develop a concern that in fact creates a situation that allows businesses to prosper, and allows the concerns of our constituents to be expressed and adopted and included. It is time for some common sense to prevail, both in the writing of legislation and in the actual implementation of it.
My appeal is for us to work on principle, but at the same time let us also exercise judgment, so that we do not have a biased position that works against the particular group and in favour of others.
* * *
(1530)
Business of the House
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties concerning the debate scheduled for later this day, as well as tomorrow, in committee of the whole, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1. I believe you would find consent for the following motion:
|
That the debates scheduled for Monday, October 24, 2005, and Tuesday, October 25, 2005, on government business No. 18 and No. 19 respectively, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, be a maximum of five hours rather than four hours. |
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
Telecommunications Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act, as amended, be read the third time and passed.
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague. I am not in the position that he is in. He is on the committee and he has followed the development of this legislation with a great deal of interest. I am not a member of the committee.
My question has to do with the status of charities, social services, community organizations, and arts and cultural organizations in all of our communities with respect to this legislation. My understanding is that groups such as that would be exempt from the legislation. They would be able to continue with their normal work and normal practices.
I ask this because it is extremely important for the vibrancy of these often very tiny organizations in our communities that they not be restricted by legislation of this type. I wonder if my colleague could give us some indication that I am right.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments to the bill that was adopted by the committee had to do with the registration of charities and they would be exempt. The type of registration we are talking about in particular refers to charities that are registered within the meaning of the Income Tax Act. That is the significant proviso. If they are registered under the Income Tax Act as a charity, they would be exempt. That is very significant.
I agree with the hon. member that the lifeblood of many of these charities depends on the ability to solicit by telephone and most people would not object to that.
There was another provision that was accepted by the committed and it had to do with people who perhaps are called by a charity and would wish their names to be registered as not wanting to be called again. The charity would then have to keep that list and not call those people again, but that is a small detail because it does not cover the overall situation. It just allows individuals to make exceptions for themselves for particular charities.
(1535)
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kelowna--Lake Country for sharing his time.
I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-37. This bill addresses telemarketing calls by enabling the CRTC to establish and enforce a do not call registry similar to ones already found in the United States and the United Kingdom.
Specifically, Bill C-37 would amend the section of the Telecommunications Act that deals with telemarketers by adding the power to establish databases and to make any order with respect to these databases.
It would also also give the CRTC the power to levy substantial penalties against telemarketers and to contract with a private sector third party to operate the service. Penalties of $1,500 per offending call for individuals and $15,000 per offending call for corporations would be imposed for telemarketers who do not respect the list.
Previous to this bill, Canadians have had access to privately operated do not call registries. The Canadian Marketing Association, CMA, would register consumers for their do not call list. However, not all telemarketers are members of the CMA, so this registration did not eliminate all unsolicited telemarketing calls.
In addition, the CRTC required that each telemarketing company maintain their own do not call list. Consumers could ask to be placed on the list, but only after receiving a call. The list was maintained by the telemarketing company for three years.
We have all received unwanted calls from people attempting to sell goods or services. It could be a telemarketing pitch from the local newspaper, a credit card company, a cleaning service, a charity, or even a politician wanting one's vote.
Sometimes we may welcome these calls because they would provide useful information or a product that we are interested in, but other times, they are nothing but an annoyance.
The Conservative Party supports the establishment of a Canadian do not call registry within parameters clearly defined by this Parliament and with reasonable exemptions provided for charities, political parties, polling firms and companies that wish to contact their current customers. In the original version of Bill C-37, these exemptions were not laid out by the government.
Furthermore, the power to determine these details was delegated by the Liberals to the CRTC and its regulatory powers rather than to the elected representatives of the House. In fact, before going to committee, the bill was almost an empty shell, with most of the details left to the regulations.
The bill is extremely light on details. There are no exceptions to the list. There are no details about how the list would be maintained, what information would be required from consumers, how telemarketers would check the list, how often they must check the list, and who would have access to the list or any reporting on how the list would be run.
As a result, we did not know if there would be any exclusions to the list, how much it would cost or who would operate the list and so on. Maybe it would be like the gun registry fiasco, costing $2 billion rather than $2 million. Those things are not clear.
The government habitually introduces shell bills that lack substance, are written in, often, incomplete, general terms and are very vague in intent. So, no substance, no nitty-gritty, no details, but only a shell.
(1540)
Much of the law that affects Canadians is not found in the Statutes of Canada but in the thousands and thousands of regulations made pursuant to powers granted by acts of Parliament. This leaves the door wide open to put through regulations that define our laws, without the proper checks and balances.
To curtail that, to plug that big black hole in the regulatory process, I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-205, which in fact was the only private member's bill to receive royal assent. That bill was introduced by the Canadian Alliance. It restored some accountability to the regulation making process because it brought under the umbrella of the government all the quasi-government organizations like the CRTC and many others. They used to make the regulations but they were not under the purview of parliamentary scrutiny.
I plugged that black hole in the regulatory reforms, but still the government habitually introduces legislation without any detail. It leaves all the details to the regulatory process. In doing so, the Liberal government has effectively gutted the parliamentary process of accountability and transparency in the formulation of laws. Parliament is no longer at the centre of the law making process.
The Prime Minister can talk all the talk about regulatory or democratic reforms, but his track record is the weakest in the history of Canada for democratic reforms existing in this House the way that democracy exists in Canada. In fact, in this minority government, I do not see any real democracy in existence, as the House leader of the Conservative Party said earlier.
During second reading debate I outlined all of these concerns. I concluded my speech by saying that:
|
—the registry, if established, must be “within parameters clearly defined by Parliament and with reasonable exemptions provided for charities, political parties and companies that wish to contact their current customers” and that we must craft a more detailed piece of legislation so both consumers and telemarketers are clear as to how the do not call registry will work. |
After second reading, at committee, the Conservative Party members worked to amend the bill and to add several new clauses to the Telecommunications Act. The following are among the amendments passed at committee.
Three years after the do not call list comes into force, it will be reviewed by Parliament.
Next, any person making a telecommunications call must, at the beginning of the call, identify the purpose of the call and the person or the organization on whose behalf the call is being made. This was a Conservative amendment.
Exemptions are being granted to the following: charities, political parties, candidates, the riding associations, et cetera, and surveys, or calls made for the sole purpose of collecting information for a survey of members of the public.
As for individual lists, all the parties that have been made exempt must still keep individual no not call lists. If a person is called by a charity and asks to be placed on the do not call list held by that charity, the charity is forced to comply and is not allowed to call that individual for three years, which is the current time limit. Of course, the length of time could be changed by the CRTC through the regulations once the bill is passed.
All of these were Conservative amendments.
As I have only one minute left, I will summarize. Seniors are not protected under the bill. Telemarketing companies scam seniors, selling gambling, lotteries, et cetera to them. The bill also does not address unsolicited ads on the Internet, the pop-ups. As well, young children, when learning on the Internet and doing their homework, are bombarded with vulgar and pornographic ads. Nothing has been done about this.
(1545)
To conclude, I would like to say that a centrally administered national do not call list provides the means for consumers to avoid unsolicited telemarketing calls. A well-run do not call list will provide consumers with choice and protection.
The Conservative Party supports the establishment of a do not call registry within the parameters I have clearly defined. I personally still have many concerns. I have tried to allude to them, but my time is up, so let me close by saying that I will be watching closely and will protect the best interests of my constituents of Newton—North Delta and all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I understand that we cannot resolve everything. He will probably agree with me that we need not ask too much of the Liberal Party, which would not want to resolve all the problems. I agree with him that the spam mail we are bombarded with on the Internet will probably become the subject of another bill in this House.
As far as phone calls are concerned, I want to know if my colleague agrees that, just as the bill sets out to do, once the list of organizations to exempt, such as charities, is established, individuals should be given the opportunity to decide whether to be put on the list to no longer receive inconvenient phone calls from all these companies that are increasingly specializing in telemarketing.
Does my colleague agree that once we decide which agencies will be exempt from the do not call list, it would be a good idea to have legislation to allow individuals to sign up on a list to no longer receive unsolicited calls? We have to realize how difficult it is to define the not-for-profit organizations to exempt. There is also the whole issue of political parties, as he mentioned. Once we agree on the agencies that could never be excluded, we should pass in this House legislation allowing individuals, who are fed up with receiving phone calls from telemarketing companies, to no longer be disrupted by that type of call. This borders on harassment, even if, in practice, it is not. We need some type of legislation in this House. Does my colleague agree that we must pass such legislation as soon as possible?
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, even though the translation of the member's question was not very clear, I thank the member for bringing forth this issue. I know that the legislation is important and must be passed in the House.
Consumers in Canada deserve protection. They do not want any harassment or intimidation by telemarketers or in other unwanted calls. They should not be forced to receive those calls.
The member is also right. We cannot accomplish everything through the legislation, but we have the responsibility as the chosen elected members to represent our constituents and to raise important concerns relating to this issue on behalf of our constituents.
I brought forward the Internet issue because I have not seen any legislation from the government that would protect our children. The children in my constituency and in Canada deserve protection. They are on the Internet, doing their homework and trying to learn as much as they can, and they are unnecessarily bombarded with those pop-up ads. I am surprised that those ads to which our vulnerable children are exposed are pornographic images.
The government has done absolutely nothing to put into place some sort of measure which would restrict those ads if children are at the computer learning and doing their homework. They are unnecessarily distracted and in fact unwittingly persuaded through those pornographic materials.
In a family set-up, that is not the right thing. We have the violence chip, which can prevent violent movies or other stuff on the TV. Why can we not have the advantage of scientific research put on the home computer so that our children are not exposed to those unwanted, undesirable ads? We do not want to be disturbed by a simple phone call, but how about our kids? They are given all kinds of material that we do not want them to have.
Similarly, there is no restriction on fax lines. The telemarketing companies are going around the law. They are going around the restrictions in the United States, for example, by using fax messaging. The fax message does not display the name of the sender, the company that is sending, or any phone number. What is there in the bill which will make sure that if we get an unsolicited fax message we can put ourselves on a do not call or do not fax list?
Those are important considerations. Otherwise, I am supporting the bill. It is a step forward, but a small step.
(1550)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-37. I had spoken last week on this bill, beginning that presentation with my story of being solicited at home for a vacuum cleaner, one fine Saturday morning at 9 a.m. I find that these examples are far too frequent in recent years.
We know that the field of technology is evolving. The marketing companies are pushing sales more and more, and their salespersons as well. So we have reached the point where, today, this bill will become a kind of consumer protection act, to protect consumer privacy.
I consider the type of call I was mentioning earlier to be out of place, coming on a Saturday morning or often at dinner time. For salespersons know that, as people are very busy these days, it is often early in the morning, at dinner time or after dinner that they can be most easily reached. This is an infringement of the privacy of consumers.
Ours is a world in which everything is moving faster and faster, where the entire working class is confronted with more and more demands. When anyone who works comes back home in the evening, he or she deserves a little relaxation, a little time to spend with the family. This is important, and we speak often about it. There are all kinds of projects for balancing work and family. In Quebec, this is in fact a very important issue.
Imagine, in the evening, when you are at home, receiving two or three telephone calls like this. Often the people who call are persistent. It is difficult to simply hang up on them. They have a good psychological approach: they are open-minded and very kind. People spend time with them, and finally realize that they are being solicited. The more time goes by, the greater the pressure. Often people hesitate to hang up. They can lose 5, 10 or 15 minutes of their time, of their privacy, at the end of which they may say no. All the same, they will have wasted time to the detriment of their family.
The bill we have before us today protects consumers and privacy generally.
Neither can the do not call principle be applied to everyone. We have understood this. At present, the bill provides that charities will be exempt from its application. That means that a charity cannot be prohibited from calling a certain list of persons. The reason for this is fundamental. As I often say to the community groups and charitable organizations in my own riding, if we did not have these groups, it would be very difficult for society to function.
Everyone knows that public finances are limited, both in the provinces and in Canada. Obviously there is growing pressure on public finances, particularly in the provinces, whereas in Ottawa there is a big surplus. In the provinces there are many restrictions. Consequently the government sometimes withdraws from certain sectors of activity, especially social activity. As a result, it is the community groups that come to the rescue of those who are somewhat more disadvantaged.
I find it totally unjustified to tell the Red Cross for example that it will be on an exemption list and will no longer be allowed to phone a number of people whose names are on a do not call list because they do not want to be called. The Red Cross may be a case in point these days, in light of the earthquake in Pakistan and all that is happening in that part of the world.
I believe that they need funding. We can depend on the governments, but we must also depend on organizations of this type. These are often non governmental organizations, people who go to the rescue of victims who are in a very bad situation. The government is not the only one asked to act; organizations of this type also get involved.
They are also active, on a smaller scale, in our respective ridings. Who does not know of the organizations looking after children or battered women?
(1555)
Solicitation is very important to them. Cutting their funding by telling them that, in the future, they will no longer be allowed to phone 40% or 50% of the citizens of St-Jean is not helping them. And it is not helping the society at large either.
It is therefore perfectly understandable that the bill provide for exemptions. Charities—registered ones naturally—will be in a separate category and protected, because there are sometimes charlatans in that field as well. Traps are to be avoided. People must necessarily be registered to have their names on the do not call list.
The bill also deals with the issue of business relationships. This week, I visited a very dynamic business in my region. It is a computer company and it markets absolutely fantastic software. I was introduced to the woman in charge of marketing. That is all she does all day long. It is quite usual for companies to solicit bilateral service exchanges or to sell each other services, whether they are in the same field or different ones.
Business relationships are very important. We do not want to suppress them with a bill of this kind. However, I do not think the bill is aimed at that issue but rather at excessive marketing to individuals. Business relationships must continue to be protected. I obviously do not need to spell it all out. It is important for companies to be identified and protected so that all business relationships continue.
There are also political calls. Here we are kind of making our own sales pitch. It is important to preserve this right, which I think is a right to information. I often say to young people or people who do not have a lot of confidence in politics: “You know, everything you do is political. Everything you put on your table, the children you send to school or daycare, when you use hospitals, those are all political issues.
It is important, therefore, for political calls to continue. Otherwise, we would be risking anarchy. Many people do not believe in politics. Nevertheless, we must continue, with the means at our disposal, to make as many people as possible aware of how important politics still are. It is a basic right to information.
The same is true of opinion polls. I am not speaking just of political opinion polls but of opinion polls in general about what people like or do not like about society or how they feel social problems should be addressed. We feel that these polls are a very important right to information that must absolutely be maintained.
I was very happy to arrive this morning and discover before delivering my speech that our Liberal friends had finally agreed to unanimous consent on newspapers. That might seem strange because the opposition members, both in the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois, had tried furiously last week to get unanimous consent but could not. Our colleagues must have received some food for thought over the weekend. Maybe they got some telephone calls from representatives of major newspapers such as The Globe and Mail and the National Postsaying, “Listen, our Liberal friends, we would like to be exempted from that, too”. However it came about, the result is the same.
So, this morning we found out that newspapers were excluded, just like registered charities and political telecommunications. It is important that newspapers be excluded because, again, we are talking about the right to information. I can say unequivocally that we have some very good newspapers in my riding. Le Canada français is one of them. There are people there whose job is specifically to do telemarketing all day long. If we want our local newspapers to survive, it is important that they be able to go and get subscribers, which are often individuals. It is important to read a newspaper once a week or once a day. I am not talking about advertisement, but about the importance for a citizen to keep informed, both at the local and national levels. So, it is important that the instruments that ensure the survival of these newspapers be protected.
In the end, there was unanimous consent on this issue. I will be pleased to support the bill, which now also includes newspapers.
(1600)
What is also interesting about the bill is that it provides for a review after three years, to see how things are working out. Some irritants will likely surface, but we will be able to review the legislation three years from now. Such a review is often not included in bills, although it may be less indicated in some cases. However, I think that, in this case, it is perfectly suited to the bill now before us. In three years, we will see if other organizations should be excluded from the scope of the act.
There may be other ways of looking at how the list should be controlled. I will talk about this later on. So, if there is a major problem, we will be able to change some provisions of the act three years from now. This will prevent the government from deciding alone the political agenda, setting the procedure and selecting the issues that come before the House, and from deciding to not present this bill again to the House, even if there are irritants. Such a provision will benefit everyone. It is a safeguard, a protection. If we find out that we erred or that we did not have all the information, we will be able to correct the situation.
I was also surprised to see that the Canadian Marketing Association did not object to the bill. In fact, the CMA president himself said that it was about time we did something. With the deregulation that currently prevails, whereby there are practically no rules in effect in Canada, we are witnessing, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, a proliferation of this kind of approach. Frankly, consumers, myself included, are tired of constantly being disturbed. We are also noticing a change, although not for the better, in that there is an increasing number of these calls and companies are becoming more and more insistent. The situation has reached the point where, when I get home, there are always messages on my answering machine. These companies called and they left messages. Out of all the messages that will be waiting when I get home on Thursday, probably one quarter of them will have been left by organizations or individuals doing solicitation and urging me to call them back. Of course, I will not do so. Not only do I not have the time because of my duties as a member of Parliament, but I am also somewhat reluctant to do so because I find these companies to be quite insistent.
So, the CMA too confirmed the existence of a problem that needs to be corrected. It did not object to Bill C-37. I will talk about it in a little while. It wants to be involved to some degree, particularly as regards the registry issue. However, the Bloc Québécois' position on this is quite clear.
Not only is the CMA saying that such legislation was needed, it is also realizing that, in any case, the people whose names will be on that do not call list were not buying from these companies. In its opinion, the impact of such a list will not be that great on its members. So, in the end, it agrees with this measure.
We did not start from square one on that issue. The Americans had a bit of a head start on us. In 2003, they noted the same kind of problem and legislated to establish what is called a do not call registry. It seems to be working. I do not know whether that particular piece of legislation includes a provision like ours for review in three years. One thing that is for sure is that it is already working. Sixty two million Americans have registered. This type of solicitation was bothering them, and they wanted the companies to stop phoning them. The legislation provides for penalties. That is another thing. If we pass legislation, the legislation must not be too soft. It must not be merely an incentive; it should make a real impact. It is important that marketing experts understand that certain conditions have to be met, failing which there will be stiff penalties to pay. This is already in place in the United States. The majority of the 62 million people I referred to earlier are already reporting a sharp decrease in the number of calls received; in fact, 87% reported receiving hardly any calls.
(1605)
So they are very happy with this legislation. It is time now in Canada to act accordingly.
I want to speak now about the registry and how the CMA wants to become involved. When anyone says registry, of course, the nightmare that people usually think of is the gun registry. I took part in the debate last week. There were a lot of questions about this registry. Let us be very clear. The legislation must be as specific as possible and there must be as much information as possible about this registry.
It would be good if they could tell us every three or four months how much the operation cost for the previous months. We do not want to have the kind of surprise we had with the firearms control registry. It was supposed to cost $2 million a year and now it costs $2 billion. It is the taxpayers who pay for that. This is another scandal. People often talk about the sponsorship scandal, but there is also the gun registry scandal. That is probably the biggest scandal in dollar terms. There is quite a difference between $2 million and $2 billion. A thousand times more. Everyone agrees that this did not make sense.
Our fears are understandable, therefore, when they talk about registries. We want to ensure that there are as many guarantees as possible. But we do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. We believe that this is important legislation and one way to exercise control is to have a registry. We are in a tough spot, though, because we saw what happened with the gun registry. It cost $2 million instead of $2 billion. On the other hand, we cannot just cast all these kinds of bills aside whenever the word “registry” appears. That is not the way to see things. By the way, there are a lot of discussions every year when the time arrives for requests for budget surpluses to be given to the Canadian firearms program. People do say that they can hardly believe it.
The basic principle was to control firearms. I get telephone calls myself from mothers who lost their daughters in the massacre of students at the Polytechnique. I cannot resist these mothers who tell me that we have to keep the firearms registry. It is useless for me to tell them that it costs $80 million extra; for them, it is not a question of money. For a society to control firearms, for them, it is non-negotiable.
It is always a bit awkward to be asked to vote more funding for a program that has already cost $2 billion, when it was meant to cost only $2 million annually.
The same thing applies here. We have some concerns, but we do believe that the bill is a valuable one. We just need to pin down the matter of the registry to ensure that it does not get out of hand like the last time. I should make that clear, out of the Liberal Party's hands.
Once again, the opposition members are the ones who raised the issue. The Liberal Party was asked at one point whether it did not find $2 billion instead of $2 million to be sufficient. We are not the ones who dropped the ball. All we did was block it so that it did not roll further out of bounds. If we had not, the tab might well have gone over the $2 billion mark by now.
We keep on insisting that the expenditures be reduced to acceptable levels. We will also insist that the registry that is an integral part of this bill be monitored as closely as possible to avoid a repetition of this pillaging of public funds.
We also do not want the registry to be kept by the Canadian Marketing Association. They will certainly not be given responsibility for it. That would be a bit like asking Colonel Sanders to keep an eye on the chicken coop. That is not what we want.
In closing, I will point out that we will need to address fraudulent telemarketing at a later time. The laws on this are very severe in the U.S., thereby driving the phony telemarketers back to Canada. They operate what are called boiler rooms, from which they systematically swindle people.
Unfortunately, the bill before us does not take this into account. I get the feeling that we would have to amend the Criminal Code instead.
Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C-37. We are, moreover, very pleased that newspapers have been added to the list of exemptions.
(1610)
Hon. David Anderson (Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was very interesting. He spoke a great deal about the issue of cost. It is a very important issue that affects every hon. member and all Canadians.
However, he did not say what cost he would find acceptable: $2 million? $10 million? $100 million? From his speech, I have no idea. Although I agree with him that the cost should not be too high, I have no idea what he would consider a reasonable cost. He is the one who used the term “reasonable”.
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, that is a $50,000 question.
We are talking about a reasonable cost. When the gun registry was established, we felt that the cost of $2 million a year was reasonable. We had agreed to $2 million a year. Now taxpayers are being told that we want to set up a do not call registry. I think $2 million ought to do it. However, I just have one thing to say to my colleague: we do not want this to end up costing $2 billion, which is what happened with the gun registry.
I will talk to my colleagues. They will probably tell me that this amount could be slightly more or slightly less. However, we do not want any overspending. We want tight control. Perhaps there could be a report to Parliament on a regular basis, every quarter. When a reasonable amount has been determined, then we can ensure it is respected. That is how I see things for now. If we had planned for $2 million for the gun registry, then I think we could plan $2 million for the do not call registry.
(1615)
[English]
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been following the d