Bill C-18 (Historical)

An Act respecting equalization and authorizing the Minister of Finance to make certain payments related to health

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise and speak on Bill C-18 here today and to join in this debate.

As we know and as has been stated in the House, Bill C-18 really has two aspects that will be dealt with, one aspect being the continuation of the transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces. The second aspect of this bill will allow the federal government to move the $2 billion that has been identified through the meetings with the federal officials and the Prime Minister, through the premiers to the provinces as well, specifically for health care.

We will look first at the aspect of the legislation that deals with the transfer payments. As we are aware, money flows from the federal government through the provinces in any number of ways. Four main vehicles that the federal government uses to share money with the provinces are: the Canada health and social transfer, equalization, the territorial formula financing, and the health reform transfer. The legislation being put forth today deals with equalization and the CHST.

The equalization program basically ensures that those provinces less able to provide the necessities and the essential services to its constituents are able to draw from the fund. It takes into account the revenues from the prosperous provinces. Everybody pays into equalization and then through the sharing formula it is determined which revenues are able to be taken out of this pot. It is a very complex and complicated five province formula that is applied. Through this formula, the lesser provinces, the provinces less apt to have revenues to provide basic services, are able to draw from that fund. I hold my seat in Bras d'Or--Cape Breton and the Province of Nova Scotia is one of those provinces that is a beneficiary of the equalization payments.

Some of the major inputs obviously come from the bigger provinces. When we look at a province like Ontario, we see that its revenue input is a significant amount of what we base our sharing outcomes on. Looking back and reflecting on the year that Ontario has just gone through, there is going to be somewhat of a change from past years because of the tough year Ontario experienced this year with SARS, the downturn in its tourism industry, and those struggles. This is all going to factor into the formula as well.

The original legislation was signed in 1999. As we know, the reason for the discussion, the debate and this legislation coming forward today is that it is set to lapse at the end of March. Hence, we find ourselves in a situation where the federal government wants to guarantee that the flow of cash to the provinces is not interrupted. We want to reaffirm that.

In effect, this legislation is almost like an insurance policy. Officials for the provinces and the federal government continue to negotiate and get into the nitty-gritty of the new legislation that will be put forward. What we will see, hopefully in the next short while, is that a new formula will be developed or a new agreement will be struck. At that time, legislation will be put forward which will supersede today's legislation. This is almost like interim legislation until the new deal is agreed upon between the federal government and the provinces.

The second aspect or component of this legislation is the transfer to the provinces of the very much needed health care dollars. In January, when the Prime Minister met with the premiers, and even before that, it was identified that if there were a surplus then an additional $2 billion would come from the federal coffers to be shared among the provinces.

I remember the great excitement among the premiers and some of the trepidation when we were not quite certain just what the surplus was going to be this year. We had hoped that we were going to be able to provide that $2 billion and now this legislation will make sure that the $2 billion is there and can be moved to the provinces so that they can apply it to their provincial health care systems.

Here is what we have seen in recent years. In September 2000 a reinvestment was made, with $21.5 billion reinvested in health care to the provinces. That agreement was struck between the federal government and the provinces. The federal government, because it finally got its financial house in order, was in a position where it could reinvest in those essentials that Canadians see as imperative. Obviously health care is something that Canadians take a great deal of interest in and recognize the importance of, and fortunately the federal government was able to reinvest in it in 2000. Subsequently, we have made additional investments in health care.

In my own province of Nova Scotia, when we did make the reinvestment in 2000, there was a particular envelope of money that was peeled out and identified specifically for the acquisition of hospital equipment. We can see that on the ground now back in my own constituency. I look at the Cape Breton regional health care facility, the Cape Breton Regional Hospital, and the recent acquisition of an MRI machine.

Before we made this investment in health care back in 2000, I think there were around 50 MRIs in the country. Right now we have almost 125 MRIs across Canada.

There was further investment in equipment. We have digital x-ray machines in Inverness County, in Richmond County at the Strait Richmond Hospital, and a bone densitometer in Sydney. Health care facilities were able to make these investments because the federal government put money in a specific envelope for the acquisition of health care equipment.

People who used to have to leave home and travel to Halifax for these particular treatments are now able to stay in their own communities and receive the treatments. We were very fortunate that we were able to apply the money there.

And really, what we are able to do through this legislation is provide an additional $2 billion that we will be able to transfer to the provinces for health care. It is entirely up to the provinces how they deal with the moneys through the CHST and through equalization.

We hope that the House will see the wisdom of supporting this legislation. We hope members recognize that when we look at equalization, this legislation offers itself as an insurance policy as we wait for the final agreement between the feds and the provinces. As well, we hope they see the merit in supporting this legislation because it will enable the federal government to get that $2 billion into the hands of the provinces so that we can make that reinvestment in our provincial health care programs.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-18, an act respecting equalization and authorizing the Minister of Finance to make certain payments related to health.

I listened very carefully to the parliamentary secretary's comments on introducing Bill C-18. What we heard essentially was a bit of a historical account and a somewhat clinical recitation about equalization payments and the Canada health and social transfer which is a critically important part of the Canadian fiscal regime. In a way the parliamentary secretary's comments are significant not for what was included but for what was omitted.

He expressed concern and sounded ever so committed to the federal government keeping its fiscal and moral commitment to Canadians to ensure that regardless of which province people happen to live in they will be entitled to a roughly comparable level of service in the vital areas of health, education, child care and so on.

What the parliamentary secretary failed to say despite this show of concern is that the government has been so unwilling to see it as a priority to ensure not just that equalization payments continue but that there be a fair formula for equalization payments. The government has been dragging its feet and the current regime expires at the end of March. It has had five years to negotiate a renewal agreement that would be more fair and more effective.

What we are dealing with here is a stop-gap measure. We are dealing with a bill that is necessitated because the government has not seen it as enough of a priority to work in good faith with the provinces to put in place the new formula for equalization which is desperately needed and long overdue.

We know that the provinces have been working hard and in good faith to put forward a new formula. We heard from the parliamentary secretary about how the old formula works. What he did not say is that a very specific proposal has been brokered and worked on over a period of years that is based on a 10 provinces agreement and a 10 provinces formula.

The federal government has not been willing to come to an agreement about that new improved formula. Why? Despite the expression of concern about the inadequacy and deterioration of services across this country as a result of federal policies over the last 10 years, it seems content to continue using the same formula because it saves the government money. It needs to find ways to save money no matter whether it comes out of the hides of Canadians who are the most vulnerable in this country or wherever the government can find it because we know what the government's priorities are.

When the government decides that a corporate tax cut of $4.4 billion comes first, then no wonder it is avoiding entering into a good faith agreement with the provinces that would allow the equalization funds to be more adequate and more fair.

So much for the notion that the Prime Minister can claim that it is a new, different and better government. What we see by the introduction of this bill today is simply an admission of failure. It is a revelation of how vacuous the Prime Minister's claim is that he is a Prime Minister that has a much improved working relationship with our premiers.

There is more to having an improved working relationship with our premiers than going to a football game with the boys. There is no question it is a good photo op and it is smart to come out of the starting gate saying that he is getting together with the premiers so they can just get along better.

I would not presume to speak for any premier. However, I think one could say without fear of contradiction that the vast majority of the premiers would be a lot more impressed with the supposed commitment of the new Prime Minister to work in better harmony and good faith with them if the government had moved to endorse the 10 province formula. That formula was worked on over a very long period of time. If it could be in place so that it took effect April 1 we would not need this stop-gap legislation.

Let us make no mistake about it. It is not going to be missed on Canadians why this stop-gap legislation is needed. It is needed because when it comes to the fiscal regime and equalization, the new Prime Minister and the new finance minister have behaved no differently, no more responsibly, no more in response to the need for change by the provinces than the old regime, the previous finance minister and the old prime minister. And I do not mean old in years, I mean old in terms of chronology.

I want to refer to the second part of the bill which is to deal with the $2 billion that we hear trumpeted as a great achievement of the new Prime Minister. Let us not be that easily taken in by the notion that the $2 billion desperately needed for health care was an option and the Prime Minister might have said, “We are not going to do that after all because we do not have enough money”.

We have heard all the posturing from the new Prime Minister, the new finance minister and the other cheerleaders for the new regime. They are saying that they have to be fiscally responsible, that they may not have that $2 billion that was absolutely recommended as the rock bottom measure. That was the first measure needed to begin to make up for the money that was lost, that was clawed back by the federal government, that was held back from the health and social transfer over the last several years.

There was not an option, not unless the new government, the new Prime Minister and the new finance minister wanted to engage in a massive kamikaze effort here. It is clear that health care is the number one priority of Canadians. It is clear that the loss of those dollars at the insistence of the former finance minister, who now happens to be the Prime Minister, has very severely eroded the quality of health care, particularly in have not provinces like my own, Nova Scotia, and in the other six have not provinces. It has made it very clear that the provinces have to carry the load. They have to bear the burden of the elimination of much of the federal funding for health care over the last several years.

It is not surprising that the premier of Nova Scotia has said that the $2 billion clearly is not sufficient to deal with the horrendous waiting lists for specialist services and diagnostic services. It is not sufficient to deal with the log-jam at emergency hospital rooms. It is not sufficient to deal with the damage done over the last nine years because of the former finance minister's budgets.

What is absolutely clear is that even with the $2 billion granted, it does not begin to close the Romanow gap. When the Romanow report on the future of Canada's health care was presented, it was absolutely clear that there was a need for changes to the equalization formulas. There was a need to address many of the other aspects of the health care system which had been badly damaged by the government's misplaced priorities.

In conclusion, there is no indication whatsoever with Bill C-18 that the government is seriously committed to creating a fairer, more effective equalization regime. There is no indication that the government will begin to do what is needed to put in place the kind of health care system that Romanow recommended, that was put before the Canadian people. Health care remains the number one priority for Canadians.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill. I find it very symbolic and very representative of the kind of stunts this government, the Liberals and this Prime Minister seem to enjoy playing. Of course, this is to be expected just before an election. Bill C-18 is basically a partisan piece of legislation that goes against the interest of Quebec and the rest of the provinces.

First, in Bill C-18, two distinct components have been combined. The first one deals with extending the current equalization program that the provinces, and Quebec in particular, do not like and have been criticizing. The second one is to approve the $2 billion that was first promised to the provinces by Jean Chrétien and then by the former finance minister and that will probably be paid by the current Prime Minister.

On the one hand, we are against the extension of the current equalization program, because it penalizes Quebec and Atlantic Canada, in particular. On the other hand, we agree with the $2 billion for health promised by Jean Chrétien. The government thinks it can fool of us by coercing us to vote in favour of a bill that would penalize Quebec and Atlantic Canada over the next fiscal year. It is not fooling anyone, not the people of Quebec and not the Bloc Quebecois.

We demand that this bill be split. While we are in favour of Bill C-18 being referred to a committee, we will be bringing forward in committee an amendment to split the bill into two very distinct parts, as I mentioned earlier. So much for the first stunt.

Second, by introducing a bill that would extend the equalization program and provide an additional $2 billion for health, as promised over and over again, the federal government would have us believe that it is being very generous and that the provinces will be the big winners here. That is not true.

In this fiscal year alone, federal transfer payments to Quebec have been cut by about 5%. That means $423 million less in Quebec's coffers, even with the $2 billion, of which Quebec will receive $472 million.

We are not stupid. The federal government is financially starving the provinces, especially Quebec. Next year, if the equalization formula is maintained and if there is no agreement to increase health care funding, transfer payments to Quebec will drop by $1.55 billion. This is unacceptable. We will not allow Ottawa to financially starve the Quebec government at the expense of Quebeckers. We will not endorse this.

Third, the federal government is making a big deal about the $2 billion it is transferring for health care but has failed to mention that this year it will save $2 billion in equalization payments. That is the federal government's strategy: to take with one hand and give with the other. The problem is that the rules are not the same when it comes to equalization or the CHST.

The CHST is based on population percentage. Equalization, however, is based on the relative wealth of the provinces. Consequently, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces lose under Bill C-18. The proof is that, this year, under the equalization program, our share of the 2002-03 amount will drop 38%. These figures bear repeating because they are evidence of this third stunt pulled by the Liberals and the federal government.

The figures I am providing are from the study by Quebec's finance minister, Mr. Séguin, who is far from being a separatist, as the Liberals say, and who should have a certain credibility in their eyes. In 2002-03, under the equalization program, Quebec received $5.315 billion. In 2003-04, the current fiscal year, it received $3.29 billion. That is a 38.1% decrease. Projections for next year are approximately $3.5 billion. Compared to 2002-03, this is a 34.1% decrease.

And now they are trying to sell us on the idea of extending the current equalization formula at the expense of Quebec's finances. This is unthinkable.

Looking at the Canada health and social transfer, we see that in 2002-03 we received $2.648 billion. In 2003-04 we received $2.58 billion, a drop of 2.6%.

This year there is of course the increase provided for in the February 2002 agreement plus the $2 billion, which means for Quebec a total of $1.647 billion. And there is $1.367 billion in other transfers. So this year Quebec will receive in federal transfer payments $8.884 billion compared to the $9.3 received in 2002-03. That is a net loss of 4.5%.

They want the Bloc Quebecois, the sole defender of the interests of Quebec in this House, to accept such a unilateral reduction in transfer payments by the government. Next year, again compared to 2002-03, according to our very conservative estimate, the losses will be in the order of 16.7%.

We therefore cannot accept the sort of stunt they are trying to pull with Bill C-18, which will, when all is said and done, penalize Quebec and the Atlantic provinces in particular, as I have said, by strangling them financially.

We can see, since the numbers are there, that the basic intent of Bill C-18 is to allow the federal government to save money. The $2 billion—which, I will remind hon. members, is $2 billion with no guarantee of repetition next year, far from it—is merely an attempt to conceal what they are doing. This is why they have put the two elements into Bill C-18. But, once again, we are not taken in, nor are the people of Quebec.

Fourth, since there has been a new prime minister, since there has been a new finance minister, they have copied the tactics of the former finance minister, now Prime Minister.

They claim the financial situation is very difficult, pointing to examples of current issues that are indeed of great concern: the mad cow crisis, which the federal government should come up with more money for, the SARS crisis, and a number of other things such as the power outage in Ontario.

The government says finances will be very tight now. It expects to have a lot of difficulty raising $2.3 billion in surpluses. What did we learn this week? From April to December, the federal government already raised $5.2 billion. The surplus will be closer to $6 billion or $7 billion, as the Bloc Quebecois predicted earlier.

Consequently, the federal government put up a show to try to relieve the pressure on the negotiations concerning equalization and health. When he met with provincial premiers, the Prime Minister said, “I will not solve the problem now. I will wait until July”.

Why will he wait until July? Because he hopes to hold his election before then. Of course, I am not convinced that, with the current events, it will be easy. However, at the time, his idea was to call an election as soon as possible and postpone the problems.

It is the same with Bill C-18. The government does not want a debate, it does not want to negotiate the equalization formula with the provinces. It is downloading, hoping that the election will be held before then.

In an attempt to cover all this, it is pretending that it is having financial problems, which is false. Not only there are surpluses, but there is $6 billion sitting in the foundations that were created by the current Prime Minister.

We know that Jacques Léonard, the former president of the Treasury Board in Quebec, did a wonderful job for the Bloc Quebecois. He showed that the federal government had increased its spending at a pace that was double that of Quebec and Ontario, and that there was a lot of waste. It is not just the sponsorship scandal; there is also a culture of waste within the federal government. If things were tightened up, we would have ample means to settle the issue and negotiate quickly.

Fifth, all this is done with one goal in mind, which is to put all the problems off until after the election. Afterwards, the government will give the bad news to Quebec and to the other provinces.

We will not be fooled. We will not play this game. We will not condone what the Liberals want to do to the provinces and to Quebec in particular, which is to put a financial stranglehold on them and not deal with the fiscal imbalance.

Nor will we condone the laxness of this government, which could easily have negotiated the new equalization rules before March 31. We will not play this game and we will not support Bill C-18.

We hope that this bill will be split and that the issue of the $2 billion for health will be addressed separately.

As I said, we will ask that the $2 billion be a recurrent amount and that the equalization program be extended before March 31 if possible, but in any case before the election.

In conclusion, we will support the referral of this bill to the Standing Committee on Finance.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise on Bill C-18, an act respecting equalization and to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments with respect to health, and to support the motion that the legislation be referred to committee.

The bill is designed to achieve two goals. First, the bill would enable the continuation of the equalization payments while the renewal legislation is being finalized. Second, the bill would provide the federal government with the authority to pay $2 billion to the provinces and territories for health, as confirmed by the Prime Minister following the first minister's meeting.

My hon. colleagues are aware that the federal government is in a partnership with the provinces and territories and it plays a key role in supporting the Canadian health system and social programs.

The large majority of federal transfers are delivered through four major programs: the CHST, the Canada health and social transfer; the equalization payments; the territorial formula financing; and the new health transfer.

The bill today only deals with equalization and CHST. However, collectively, those four programs actually represent 2.4% of the nation's GDP, a significant sum of money by anyone's standard and constitute 18% of the government's revenues.

The equalization program is a constitutional obligation that ensures that less prosperous provinces have the capacity to provide reasonably comparable public services according to their levels of ability. It is not a program that transfers wealth among citizens.

Payments are unconditional. Receiving provinces are free to spend the funds on public services according to their own priorities. Payments are calculated according to a formula set out in federal legislation. The formula responds to the changing economic fortunes and circumstances of each province. It is designed to measure a province's fiscal capacity relative to the average fiscal capacity of the five middle income provinces, which forms the threshold standard.

The formula puts 33 revenue sources in a basket to measure fiscal capacity. Each province's fiscal capacity is measured relative to the middle wealthy five provinces.

The formula is dynamic and, as revenues go up or go down over the year, the average moves as does the fiscal capacity of each province. If any province has a good year, that affects equalization and, conversely, if any province has a bad year, so also is equalization affected.

If a large province has a bad year, naturally there is a ripple effect. Population movement, as reflected in the 2001 census, also affects the flow of payments.

The good news is that over the past 20 years, with all the ups and downs of the nation's provinces, there has been a slow but steady narrowing in the fiscal disparities.

At the same time, equalization payments are subject to a floor provision, which provides protection to provincial governments against unexpected large and sudden decreases in equalization payments. The floor limits the amount by which a province's entitlements can decline from one year to the next.

Federal and provincial officials review the equalization program on an ongoing basis to make sure that differences in the capacity of provinces to raise revenues are measured as accurately as possible.

In addition, and central to today's debate, is the fact that equalization legislation is renewed every five years to ensure that this review is undertaken and that the integrity and fundamental objectives of the program are preserved. The last renewal was in 1999. The current legislation is set to expire on March 31, 2004.

Discussions on the full five year renewal of the equalization program are underway but may not be set by April 1, 2004, which would leave a gap in the government's authority to make equalization payments.

Briefly, the bill before us today would provide the Minister of Finance with the authority to continue to make the equalization payments according to the current formula for up to a year in the event that the new legislation is not ready before April 1.

The bill would ensure an uninterrupted stream of equalization payments following March 31. It is basically an insurance policy to ensure the continuation of payments while renewal legislation is finalized.

Passage of the bill would ensure that public services provinces fund through the equalization program will continue to be protected for the benefit of their citizens.

Of course, when passed, the renewal legislation would supercede this extension. When the full renewal legislation is passed it will be retroactive to April 1, 2004. The renewal legislation would ensure that the program remains up to date and that the best possible calculations and data are used to determine equalization payments.

As I indicated, until the renewal legislation is introduced and passed, hon. members should regard the measures in Bill C-18 as insurance to continue payments and minimize the impacts upon the receiving provinces.

I want to turn now to the other provision in Bill C-18, which is the Prime Minister's commitment to provide a further $2 billion to the provinces and territories for health.

As the largest federal transfer, the CHST provides provinces and territories with cash payments and tax transfers in support of health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, including early childhood development and early learning and child care. It constitutes 1.7% of the nation's GDP.

Since the CHST was created in 1996, the federal government has strengthened the transfer numerous times and it will continue to be a key priority for the government.

Let me take a moment to review the major funding increases.

In September 2000, Canada's first ministers reached a five year health renewal agreement under which the federal government made its largest ever increase to the CHST. The September 2000 agreement provided $21.1 billion to the provinces and territories for health care and early childhood development, bringing CHST payments to their highest levels ever. To support the agreement, the federal government also provided an additional $2.3 billion in targeted advancements for medical equipment, primary care reform and new information technologies such as electronic patient records.

When that money came to the hospitals in my riding the CEO of that hospital identified information technologies as his critical need and, in some direct measure, the federal government responded to that.

Drawing on the commitments supporting reform and renewal outlined in 2000, the 2003 budget confirmed $34.8 billion in increased funding over five years to meet the goals outlined in the 2003 health accord.

As a result of the investments I have just outlined, in 2003-04 the federal will provide a total of $37.9 billion in support to the provinces and territories through the CHST.

That brings me to the second measure in the bill, which is the $2 billion from the consolidated revenue fund in 2003-04 for health.

Additional funding for health care was committed under the 2003 health accord where the government indicated that in an addition to $34.8 billion over five years, it would provide an additional $2 billion for health at the end of the fiscal year 2003-04 if the Minister of Finance determined during the month of January 2004 that there would be sufficient surplus above the normal contingency reserve to permit such an investment. The commitment was reiterated in the February 2003 budget and again in the November 2003 economic update.

This government intends to live up to that commitment. This money is in addition to the increased federal investment of $17.3 billion over three years and the $34.8 billion over five years already confirmed.

The passage of the bill before the end of the fiscal year will provide provinces and territories with the flexibility to begin drawing down these funds as they require, which will help them better plan for the future.

The bill would ensure that Canada's health care system continues to be, in the words of the Prime Minister, “A proud example of our national values at work”.

In considering the equalization measures of the bill, I urge hon. members to also keep in mind that the bill underscores the priority the government places on equalization and ensures uninterrupted funding until renewal legislation is in place. This would ensure that the receiving provinces continue to receive the resources they need.

I encourage hon. members to support the motion.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and if you were to seek it, I think you would find consent of the House to adopt the following motion:

That if a recorded division is requested on the motion to refer Bill C-18 to committee before second reading, it be deferred to 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 2004.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved:

That Bill C-18, an act respecting equalization and authorizing the Minister of Finance to make certain payments related to health be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, February 17 at 5:30 p.m.

Bill C-18. On the order: Government Orders

February 12, 2004—The Minister of Finance—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-18, an act respecting equalization and authorizing the Minister of Finance to make certain payments related to health.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-18, an act respecting equalization and authorizing the Minister of Finance to make certain payments related to health.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Reinstatement of Government Bills

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying through you to the member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis that as long as she is present in the House of Commons, Quebec's voice will never be diluted. As I reflect back over the last 16 years I have served in this chamber, one of my special joys has been meeting members from different parties for whom I feel great admiration for the work they do. The member is one of the special contributors to helping this place be a better place.

On the point of the motion, I humbly disagree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. It is important that we let Canadians know what we are trying to achieve. It is an easy thing to pick and choose the bills that we are trying to reintroduce to the House in this motion.

I heard one of the members from the new Conservative Party this morning put a big focus on Bill C-38, the marijuana bill. This is not about reintroducing just the marijuana bill. There are a number of bills on this motion that we are trying to reintroduce.

We should tell Canadians the reason we are trying to reintroduce these bills that lapsed in the last session is we want to pick up where we left off, especially with those bills on which we probably have a consensus, such as: Bill C-10B, cruelty to animals, which I will come back to in a minute; Bill C-17, public safety; Bill C-18, an act respecting Canadian citizenship; Bill C-20, protection of children; Bill C-26, the railway safety act; Bill C-33, international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences; Bill C-43, the Fisheries Act; Bill C-52, the Radiocommunication Act; and Bill C-56, an act to amend the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act. There are many more like these bills.

If we are going to be candid with the Canadian public who are listening to this debate today, we have to let them know that it has been a convention for hundreds of years that in a new session the government has up to 30 days to introduce bills that died on the Order Paper when the previous session ended. This is a convention that has long been practised. It does not mean that when these bills come back we will vote on them all at once. Members will have a chance to say yea or nay on each individual bill.

The idea of delaying this has an adverse effect on citizens in every riding of the country. Some of those bills touch every riding in the country. A case could be made on the electoral boundaries. We all know what that is about. That is an attempt to delay the election. I personally would not have any problem if we delayed the election for a while, but the reality is that we will have a chance to vote yea or nay on all of these bills when they come back. I do not think this delay tactic serves the opposition party well.

I want to talk about a very specific bill on the Order Paper that has concern in my riding and has had national attention in the last couple of weeks. It is Bill C-10B, cruelty to animals.

As hon. members may know, Withrow Park is in my riding. It is a fairly large park. It certainly would not be large by the standards of the member for Rimouski, but in my little community in downtown Toronto, Withrow Park is a major park and is probably about 10 to 15 acres big. About two weeks ago someone put poison in the park where people walk their dogs and from time to time let the dogs off the leash. The one that hit national media was T-Bone, a King Charles spaniel. He was quite well known.

In my constituency there are over 10,000 pet owners. Those pets are sources of comfort and have special relationships with many of the seniors and families in my riding. The attachment, the love and the affection for these animals is in many respects similar to that of parents with children. The notion that someone would drop poison is overwhelming. In fact the poison is not even available in Canada; it can only be obtained by licence in the United States.

It is that kind of insensitivity with which a bill like Bill C-10 deals. The notion that this House would work at delaying reintroducing a bill like that is not in my mind a constructive way to go.

I am hoping that through the motion that is on the floor today we can create some new consensus so that we can move forward on getting these bills back on track.

A lot of people would feel pretty anxious if an election was upon us and we let a lot of these bills die before the election. When we came back, I believe we would have to go through the entire process again. What is that process? Probably a lot of Canadians do not realize that hours and hours go into getting a bill to this stage. Witnesses come to the various committees of the House of Commons and give members of Parliament from all parties expert advice on designing the bills.

In the manufacture, preparation and formulation of a piece of legislation in the House, we do not just snap our fingers and a bill is put together by the legislative branch. Bills are built after receiving hundreds of hours of input from citizens across Canada. Some of them use their own money to come here to give expert testimony. The House of Commons committee system funds some of them to come here. The notion that we would just scrap all of that work is most disrespectful to the work of all of those witnesses we have heard with respect to the 40 or 50 bills that we are trying to put back on the Order Paper.

I would appeal to the leadership of the Conservative Party and the leadership of the NDP. The NDP should take a strong stand on this because I know there are bills here on which the NDP has had a strong influence. Those members should stand and say they support the government in moving these bills forward.

There are bills that affect every region of our country, such as the administration and accountability of Indian bands. Look at all the great work that went into putting that bill together. Look at all the travel time from every region of the country, especially the long distances from the north. Look at the ethics bill. How could the opposition not want us to proceed on the ethics bill? There is also the whole area of the Food and Drugs Act.

These are bills that affect the health of the citizens of every riding in the country. The notion that there would be opposition to bringing these bills back and passing them is counterproductive. It is part of the reason that people lose trust in this place, because stalling just for the sake of stalling I do not think serves anyone very well.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion seeks to reinstate bills that died on the Order Paper when the previous session of Parliament ended.

As all of us know, the goal of the motion is a simple one: to spare members the burden of having to repeat work on bills that got as far as the committee stage in the last session.

This is especially commendable given the numerous pressures MPs are under and the limited resources available to us.

What features are contained in the motion? Simply put, under the motion a minister would be able to request during 30 sitting days after the motion's adoption the reinstatement of a bill that had reached at least the committee stage when the last session ended. Should the Speaker be satisfied that the bill is the same as in the previous session, the bill would be reinstated at the same stage as before.

Thus during this session we can skip all the stages of debate that have been completed so far. The work of the committees that are considering the bills would consequently be preserved. In short, this is a very appealing option.

Parliament relies heavily upon precedents which means we are constantly looking over our shoulder to ensure new measures are consistent with past practices. Is this motion in keeping with the longstanding practices of the House? It is in fact a practice we have had for over three decades.

On a number of occasions reinstatement motions have been adopted by consent and without debate. It is clear that today's motion is well within the bounds of accepted parliamentary practice. This is supported by Marleau and Montpetit's authoritative guide to parliamentary procedure which discusses this issue in some detail. While they recognize that as a general principle prorogation of a session means that all bills that have not yet received royal assent die on the Order Paper and must be reintroduced in the new session, they also recognize that “bills have been reinstated by motion at the start of a new session at the same stage they had reached at the end of the previous session; committee work has similarly been revived”.

One point that needs clarification is that this motion allows the government the flexibility to reintroduce certain bills. It does not require the government to reintroduce all bills that were on the Order Paper at a certain stage when Parliament prorogued. Let me give an example of some bills which the government would have the flexibility to reinstate if it so chose.

One is Bill C-7 on the administration and accountability of Indian bands. The new government has indicated it would like to revisit that whole question of governance but nonetheless, this motion would give the government the flexibility to reintroduce that bill should it so choose.

Another one is Bill C-10B on cruelty to animals which has received a lot of attention in my riding. Bill C-13, assisted human reproduction, as an example had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate and a great deal of the work that had been done here in the House of Commons would have to be redone. Bill C-17 on public safety was another bill that had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate.

Bill C-18, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, is another bill that the government if this motion passes will be able to reintroduce if it so chooses. Bill C-19, first nations fiscal management, was at report stage. Bill C-20, protection of children, was at report stage. Bill C-22, the Divorce Act, was in committee. Bill C-23, registration of information relating to sex offenders, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-26, the Railway Safety Act, was in committee. Bill C-27 on airport authorities was at second reading when the House prorogued.

Bill C-32, Criminal Code amendments, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-33, international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences, was at report stage when we prorogued. Bill C-34, ethics, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate where it had been amended.

These are bills that have gone through a lengthy debate and process within the House of Commons and some already within the Senate.

Bill C-35, remuneration of military judges, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-36, Archives of Canada, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-38, the marijuana bill, was at report stage and second reading. Bill C-40, Corrections and Conditional Release Act, was at first reading when the House prorogued. Bill C-43, the fisheries act, was at first reading when the House prorogued.

Bill C-46, the capital markets fraud bill, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. This is a bill that will help the government deal with the kind of corporate fraud that we have seen with Enron and many other examples. We want to make sure that our government has the ability to deal with these types of issues so that investors are protected from the fraudulent activities of the management of various companies and their directors.

Bill C-49, the electoral boundaries act had passed third reading and was in the Senate.

Bill C-51, the Canada Elections Act, and Bill C-52, the Radiocommunication Act, were at second reading when the House prorogued. Bill C-53, the riding name changes, had passed third reading and was sent to the Senate. Bill C-54, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act was in committee as was Bill C-56, the Food and Drugs Act, when the House prorogued. Bill C-57, the westbank first nation self-government act was also in committee.

There was a lot of work involved in getting these bills to this stage. The government is not necessarily committing to reintroducing all these bills, but we want the flexibility to reintroduce those bills which we support and not have to reinvent the wheel.

The amendment put forward by the member for Yorkton--Melville indicates that there are a number of bills that, given the government's flexibility, he would not like to have reinstated. That includes Bill C-7, the bill dealing with the administration and accountability of Indian bands. Our government may want to revisit that bill.

The member for Yorkton--Melville has said that Bill C-13, the assisted human reproduction bill, should be left alone as well. He names a number of other bills such as Bill C-19, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-26, Bill C-34, Bill C-35, Bill C-36, Bill C-38.

I should point out that a number of these bills, Bill C-13 for example, passed third reading and was in the Senate.The member for Yorkton--Melville wants us to start all over with that bill.

He said that Bill C-34, the ethics legislation, should not be reinstated, yet that bill had passed third reading and was sent to the Senate where it had been amended. We all know about that bill.

He said that we should start all over again with regard to Bill C-35, remuneration for military judges legislation. That bill had passed third reading and was in the Senate,.

I do not know what is so contentious with regard to Bill C-36, the archives of Canada legislation, but the member for Yorkton--Melville wants us to start all over again with that bill. Bill C-38, the marijuana bill, was at report stage.

A lot of work has already been done in this chamber and in the other place on bills that, without the passage of this motion, would have to be started all over again. There is a long list of precedents for reinstating government bills and reviving committee work.

For example, in 1970, 1972, 1974 and 1986, the members of this House gave their unanimous consent to a motion to reinstate bills from a previous session.

In 1977 and 1982 members amended the Standing Orders to allow Parliament to carry over legislation to the next session. All of which testifies to the longstanding practice of the House of allowing the reinstatement of bills at the same stage as was the case in the previous session, which is precisely what the motion calls for.

It is interesting to note, and I have some personal interaction with this particular idea, that the procedure proposed in the motion is similar, in fact it is identical, to that which exists in the Standing Orders for private members' bills which the House adopted in 1998.

I have a private member's bill, Bill C-212, an act respecting user fees, that unanimously passed all stages in the House, was in the Senate, had passed first reading in the Senate and had been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance. Then we prorogued. Without this particular feature, I would have had to start all over again in the House of Commons after two to three years of work and a bill that had passed unanimously at all stages in the House of Commons.

With this particular Standing Order, the bill is already on the floor of the Senate. We did not have to reinvent the wheel here in the House of Commons. I am hopeful that it will be passed to the Standing Committee on National Finance shortly and then onwards from there.

We say that those rules are good for private member's bills, in fact they have the support of the House because they are now part of the Standing Orders. We say, on the one hand for private members' business, it is all right to reinstate these bills, but for the government's business it is not, this is a whole new thing.

The member opposite said that if we have a new government then why do we not have new ideas. I can assure the member that if he read the throne speech, and if he looked at the new democratic deficit paper, this is just the start. He will see that the government will be operated very differently.

However, having said that, there is no problem in my judgment to reintroduce those bills that make sense. There has been a lot of work done already. With this motion, the government would have the flexibility to deal with these bills that have been passed, where there is consent of the House, and send them to the Senate.

It is interesting to note that in 1977, a private member's bill was reinstated after Parliament was dissolved.

All of which inevitably leads us to the conclusion, as I said earlier, that if it is reasonable to reinstate private members' bills at the same stage, surely we have the common sense in this chamber to say that it is reasonable to follow the same procedure with respect to government bills.

What would be different about government bills? If we have adopted the procedure in the House for private members' business, why would we want different rules for government business, unless we are out to score political points or be partisan in our debate?

I should point out that this practice of reinstating bills is also practised in other mature democracies that have ruled in favour of bringing legislation forward from one session to another.

I think of the parliament in the United Kingdom from which many of our own parliamentary practices originally came. It has reinstatement motions to allow government bills to carry over from one session to the next.

The official opposition has told the media that it would oppose the motion for the sole purpose of delaying bills from the last session. This is patently unfair and contrary to House practices. The attitude shows it has little regard for the work of the House and for Canadian taxpayers. Opposition members will ask members of the House, at great cost to the public treasury, to come back and re-debate bills that have already passed this chamber and are in the Senate in many cases.

The bills that will be reinstated would include the legislation to accelerate the coming into force of the new electoral boundaries which was passed by the House of Commons and sent to the Senate.

We talk about dealing with western alienation. This particular legislation would allow more seats for British Columbia and Alberta. This is the way to proceed. Why would we want to delay that bill? Why would we want to have the debate all over again on something that is patently obvious.

We take the census and figure it all out, and draw the boundaries. This is not rocket science. This is done by Elections Canada. It redefines the boundaries. It recognizes that Canada is a growing country, that different areas are growing more quickly than others, and it redefines the boundaries.

If we have that bill when the next election is called, Alberta and British Columbia will have a bigger voice. I think Ontario would receive more seats as well. I am sure that there could be an amendment that could be put forward to deal with Nova Scotia perhaps.

There is the legislation to create an independent ethics commissioner and a Senate ethics officer, something that the members opposite have argued for vociferously for months, perhaps years. This bill could be reinstated very simply by agreeing and adopting this motion. We could have an independent ethics commissioner for the House and a Senate ethics officer.

The motion should have the support of the House. It is the practice in most mature democratic countries.

In conclusion, we need to be clear that adoption of the motion does not mean that all the bills that were on the Order Paper when we prorogued would automatically come back. It means that the government would have the flexibility to pick those bills that, in its wisdom and judgment, it sees fit to bring back. That would allow us not to have to reinvent the wheel and re-debate those bills that have the support of the chamber. Many of them also have the support of the Senate, at least at first reading stage.

The motion before us today does not represent a break with our parliamentary traditions. In fact, it is very much a part of our parliamentary traditions and it is entirely consistent with the practice of the House dating back to 1970.

Moreover, the measures described in the motion would greatly contribute to freeing up the members so that they can focus on the important task of developing new initiatives for promoting the well-being of Canadians.

With this in mind, I certainly intend to support this motion. I would urge other members to support it so we can get on with the business of the House, the important business and legislation that can be brought forward and reinstated and not have to be re-debated.