Debates of Dec. 13th, 1994

Privilege

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I think you might find there is unanimous consent in the House to revert to statements by ministers so that the Minister of Transport can make a brief statement.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to revert to statements by ministers?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Cp Rail

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the House will know that on September 21, CP Rail System tabled an unsolicited bid of $1.4 billion for the CN North America eastern rail assets.

I am announcing today that the Government has rejected CP's offer and is not prepared to entertain any further the sale of CN Rail assets.

In reaching our conclusions, we reviewed the business and policy cases beyond the financial implications of the deal. Canadian Pacific's bid would have had a substantial impact on employment, the rail network and the cost of rail service for eastern shippers. The government was also concerned about the impact that the transaction would have had on CN's remaining western operations.

We must address the fundamental problems facing the rail industry to ensure that the sector is viable, competitive and continues to meet the needs of Canadian shippers. A series of meetings have been held with shippers and other stakeholders in all regions of the country. This phase of the consultation process will wrap up with a national shippers' meeting in Ottawa tomorrow.

I have also asked a committee of members of Parliament headed by the member for Kenora-Rainy River to discuss with Canadians the feasibility of commercializing Canadian National. I look forward to the recommendations that the member and his colleagues will bring forward, particularly with regard to the possibility of employee participation in any commercialization of Canadian National.

We will announce a comprehensive and workable rail policy framework in 1995. We must put the Canadian rail sector on a stable footing and try to maintain a healthy level of competition within the rail industry and against other modes.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even if we did not have the opportunity of looking at the details of the CP offer, for lack of relevant documentation and because the government did not deign to consult us, the opposition is nonetheless relieved to learn today that it has decided to reject the offer.

Indeed, we are of the opinion that CP's bid was too low, as pointed out in a study by Morgan Stanley, and involved too many drawbacks for the people of Canada and Quebec.

We were not unconcerned by the creation of a monopoly east of Winnipeg and there was no indication of how local railways would be treated under this new monopoly. We do agree with the government: this offer of CP Rail had to be rejected on financial and public interest grounds.

However, the question of Canadian National and the Canadian rail system still remains unresolved. It is particularly disappointing to see how undemocratically the Liberal government is treating the opposition around this issue. No opposition member, neither from the Bloc Quebecois nor the Reform Party, was asked to sit on this committee.

This is above all a partisan parliamentary group studying the privatization of CN. The eight Liberal members and the federal senator on the committee have worked their way toward recommendations which have no doubt already been drafted, long before the so-called hearings are over.

On February 18, as the Official Opposition's transport critic, I asked the Standing Committee on Transport to give priority to the matter of rail service. I asked again when the House reconvened on September 19, and the minister's response was the creation on September 29 of this partisan Liberal working committee.

Last week in committee, although it had been agreed to put aside consideration of the national airport policy to concentrate on ports, we again asked the committee to give priority to rail issues and travel to the regions to hear what the people have to say.

The government is set to introduce a global rail policy in 1995 without even consulting the elected members of the opposition. I hope that the government will reconsider its approach in this matter, and not in cavalier fashion either, because it is totally unacceptable. We hope that the minister will be much more open and democratic with the democratically elected members of the opposition.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can go along with the minister's decision not to accept CP's offer but not the part that states the government is not prepared to entertain any further offers for the sale of CN Rail.

The formation of CN Rail began in 1917 when numerous small rail companies found themselves in severe financial trouble. The root cause of the rail industry problem even then was an excess of trackage. Once formed, CN commenced an aggressive program of expansion, despite evidence that there was already excessive trackage in Canada. In order to compete CP Rail was forced to expand as well. The results were inevitable.

In 1937 CN's debts were a major problem so the government of the day cancelled them. It was a Liberal government. No one addressed excess trackage which resulted in CN again finding itself in severe financial trouble in 1952. Once again the government of the day entered the picture and bailed them out. Once again the government of the day was Liberal. Still no one addressed the problem of excess trackage.

During the next two decades CN, despite losses of approximately $25 million a year, continued capital spending of up to $200 million a year. The results were once again inevitable. Enter the government in 1978 with yet another bail-out and, yes, once again it was a Liberal government.

It appears the latest Liberal government is now prepared to be the fourth to bail a government company out of trouble so that it can compete with a public company using the taxpayers' money as a subsidy. That is not acceptable.

A task force to study this, made up of only Liberal members who have an obvious political agenda to maintain this unviable rail company, is not acceptable.

Yesterday I made a statement in the House indicating my expectation of the government's position based on my observations of the task force in action. The task force had a predetermined policy and only went forth to manipulate people into accepting it.

The only solution to Canada's rail problem is the privatization of CN. Whether it is sold as a whole entity or sold in part is not the issue. After almost 80 years of problems it is time for the government to butt out. Government interference causes rather than resolves problems. Reduce government's role to a regulatory position and allow the marketplace to resolve the problem. They will do a far better job than politicians and bureaucrats ever could.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33 because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by eight minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Employment Equity Act

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to resuming debate on Bill C-64.

To sum up what I have already said, as a Reformer I stand by and support the concept of equality for all Canadians, whether that equality be in law or in opportunity in the marketplace. As a Reformer I am strongly opposed to the injustice of establishing employment goals for designated groups. I have listened to young people who also resent the inference of inequality of such employment equity legislation as we see today.

Visible minorities do not want this type of help as it creates resentment not only within their own communities but also in their efforts to be accepted as equals within the larger community.

A young second generation Chinese Canadian journalism student recently shared her frustration in my constituency office. Despite her excellent qualifications, the recognition that she had received was lessened by the question of whether her success was in fact a token of her perceived difference rather than reward for her unequivocal excellence. Tokenism has no part in Canada if we truly believe in equality.

It is the government's job to provide the means for equality of opportunity. It is not the government's job to push unjust and unfair equality of results in the marketplace. Employment equity is unnecessary and it is unwise as it institutionalizes the very notion of discrimination that it purports to reject.

Years ago as society's architects only mused about the notion of legislating hiring practices, Martin Luther dreamt of a society that was blind to race and gender. "Judge us not by the colour of our skin but by the content of our character" he implored. How sad that Canadians are being driven to adopt policies that deny the very principles we hold dear. These are principles that are upheld by Canadians of all abilities and backgrounds. These are principles that will lead us to the prosperity we deserve as a great country, principles which we have presented in this brief discussion.

The legislation of Bill C-64 works against the principles I have described, principles of equality, of fiscal accountability and of the excellence of all Canadians in our society.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my brief remarks are designed to repeat some of the basic arguments against pay and employment equity which underlie Reform's opposition to Bill C-64.

Reform believes that government should assure equality of opportunity in economic life, but it has no business using the labour market to assure equality of outcome. Doing so interferes with basic freedoms, makes false assumptions about the causes of inequality, creates large inefficiencies and is basically unjust.

Consider the problem with freedom. Canada has developed into a prosperous society by upholding basic personal freedoms. One of these consists of the ability of individuals to sell their labour services to the highest bidder and for employers to choose freely those whom they wish to hire as long as they do not interfere with the fundamental freedoms of others.

These freedoms are an end in themselves, but they also are the engines which drive economic activity in a market economy that has produced the riches our society enjoys today.

Throughout the world and history people have died for these freedoms. We all remember the American civil war. Slavery represents the extreme limitation on people's freedom to sell their labour services to the highest bidder. Employment and pay equity legislation imposes on free Canadians just a bit of such slavery. Our society is on a slippery slope.

Consider the idea that existing inequalities between groups is due to discrimination. Reform believes that this proposition is based on false assumptions and empirical evidence. Studies by Tom Sowell at Stanford University have shown that Americans of Japanese origin as a group have much above average U.S. income.

My former colleague, Don DeVoretz at Simon Fraser University, has shown that immigrants on average have higher incomes than people born in Canada. The recorded extraordinary success of these two groups is indicative of the impossible task of establishing that group disadvantages are caused by discrimination based on race, gender or national or ethnic origin.

Economists led by Nobel laureate Gary Becker have long argued that free markets offer the best protection against discrimination. Consider a firm that gets paid $1 for the assembly of a computer component. The wage rate is $10 per hour and the average male is able to complete 10 units per hour. Consider that women have greater dexterity and are able to assemble 12 units per hour. Any firm which refuses to hire women for this task is at an obvious competitive disadvantage with a firm that does. It will ultimately go out of business.

Students of labour markets have been able to show that discrimination in the labour market has historically persisted only in instances where government regulation or government enforced monopolies like labour unions have prevented the adjustment from taking place.

Bill C-64 and similar legislation involves serious costs. Bureaucrats, lawyers and the police needed to enforce such legislation are not available to produce goods and services that determine our living standard. The private sector incurs large administrative costs. In addition there are the costs of lost efficiency. Goods and services will no longer be produced using the lowest cost.

In the United States affirmative action has been estimated to result in lost output equal to 4 per cent of national income. Since Canada may be assumed never to want to lag behind the U.S. in such social legislation for long, we may soon expect at least such cost.

The ultimate cost of governmental attempting to create perfect equality of incomes has become obvious through recent developments in socialist and communist governments around the world. Employment and pay equity in these systems had been perfected. Now communism and socialism around the world have failed or are in retreat.

What does the Liberal Government of Canada do? It pushes state efforts to achieve equality of income by applying it to the civil service. In addition, the recent Liberal recommendations to the finance minister in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance bragged about the fact that if adopted they will further equalize income. Have the Liberals learned nothing from history?

Let me now discuss briefly the sense in which the proposed legislation is basically unjust. Using the course of power of the state to help one group of disadvantaged individuals automatically discriminates against others and deprives them of their rights and freedoms without due process.

These groups are paying a discriminatory tax and are implicitly declared guilty of discrimination. Reform sees no justice in forcing young people belonging to one group to pay today for discrimination that may or may not have taken place in the past.

By the same token, where is the justice in giving members of minority groups alive today benefits in return for injustices real or imagined suffered by past members of this group?

Let me close by reminding members of the slippery slope on which we find ourselves. In one of his novels, Kurt Vonnegut describes a world in which state created equality of outcome was perfected.

It had moved from assuring pay equity to equity in looks and sports. In Vonnegut's brave new world, good looking people had to wear glasses and other devices to assure equality of looks with those disadvantaged by nature.

Gifted athletes were made to wear heavy weights to assure that they were able to jump no higher and run no faster than the rest. In the end, the hero of the story discards the starting post equalization devices and enjoyed his life to the fullest for a short time until he entered jail for the rest of his life.

Whenever it is impossible to make a strong intellectual case against the government policy like pay employment equity the question arises why governments persist with such policy. Public choice theory of government provides the answer.

Such legislation serves the interests of politicians and parties. Identifiable groups are given benefits and they are expected to reward the donors at the ballot box and with financial support. The cost of the legislation in terms of lost freedoms, discrimination against the innocent and reduced output are difficult to measure.

As a result the victims of the policy have little or no incentives and knowledge to punish the politicians who have imposed those costs on them. Such special interest group legislation slowly and exorbitantly lowers the income of Canadians and most tragically deprives them of their freedom.

Bill C-64 and similar legislated pay and employment equity reduce the welfare of Canadians. That is why Reform opposes it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

During the ringing of the bells:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, I have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the division until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until later this day at 5.30 p.m. at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1994

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (miscellaneous matters) be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I would like say a few words about Bill C-42.

The other place has now amended the bill in two respects but has otherwise passed it. I should add it has also made minor changes to certain parts of the French language version.

The two important changes which arise from the work of the other place should be mentioned briefly. Clauses 61 and 62 have been deleted. Clause 61 would have replaced section 604 of the Criminal Code. It would have prohibited the defence from publicizing information received from the prosecution in the fulfilment of the crown's disclosure obligations.

The limited purpose of the amendment was to ensure that this information would only be used to prepare the answer and defence in the courtroom.

The committee of the Senate felt that a number of related issues should be dealt with at the same time. I am able to tell the House that is going to be possible because the government is now looking at the prospect of codifying disclosure requirements arising from the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in Finchcomb as part of our work toward the reform of the preliminary inquiry and criminal procedure generally.

We agree with having clause 61 removed from the bill. Now it can be dealt with in the context of the broader treatment of

disclosure and we accept that change for the very good reasons given by our colleagues in the other place.

The second clause deleted is clause 62. That would have amended section 648 of the Criminal Code to restrict publicity about certain jury trial proceedings that occur before the jury is empanelled.

It was the intention of the government in putting this clause in the bill to fill a gap which has existed for some time and to provide for orders banning publication in those cases in which pretrial motions concerning the admissibility of certain evidence were heard in courtrooms before the jury was actually sworn in.

The publication of such pretrial motions, particularly as they relate to evidence that might eventually be heard, might contaminate members of a prospective jury panel, might give them impressions or information about the evidence which would make it more difficult or impossible for them to serve impartially.

It was pointed out by the committee of the Senate which considered this clause that the language which the government used to achieve that purpose might be overbroad. It might be mandatory where permissive language might be preferable. In any event the provision, however worded, should permit the publication of matters other than those which might sway a jury if they were made public before the panel was sworn in.

We are happy to have that clause removed as well. We will consider it and try to meet the legitimate concerns that have been expressed. We will try to improve it and bring it forward at another time.

The government is indebted to the other place for its characteristically careful work, particularly the detailed analysis done in a very constructive way by the committee of the Senate. We are grateful if its work will result in an improved bill, a better law for Canadians.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be the only member to speak on behalf of the Official Opposition on Senate amendments to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts. As far as we are concerned, we, the voice of democracy, have already made ourselves heard when the bill was read the third time and passed in this House, on October 4, 1994.

If I rise today, it is to denounce the amendment process used by the other chamber of this Parliament. The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of that institution tabled its recommendations on December 12. The committee suggested that some amendments be made. The spokesperson of this committee of the other place complained about the Criminal Code review process as well as that used for Bill C-42.

In his view, it would be highly desirable in the future that such bills be submitted to the other place first. He says that the other place has proven itself in that area.

The Bloc Quebecois has always been openly opposed to the existence of an institution like the other chamber of this Parliament. Let me tell you why.

The primary function of the other chamber of this Parliament should be akin to a consideration and review process to put the brakes on the House of Commons. The role of this institution is supposed to be to counterbalance the parliamentary executive. The Fathers of Confederation gave the other place the means to act as a federal chamber looking after the rights of the provinces, the rights of the regions, and to guarantee their participation in the federal legislative process.

We are forced to recognize that such is not the case however. The inherent goals of this institution of the Parliament of Canada have been replaced with less noble and less democratic goals, such as thanking friends of the regime and representing a handful of groups with interests often less than compatible with those of a true democracy. The elitism prevailing in this obsolete institution is not reconcilable with democratic activity. We, the Official Opposition, think that it is up to the elected representatives of the people of Quebec and Canada in this House to pass or reject the legislation introduced by the government.

Therefore, we are not interested in giving consideration to the amendments suggested by the members of the other place. The amendments proposed by the house of partisan appointments in regard to this bill clearly demonstrate the uselessness and the waste of time, energy and money generated by the activities of the members of the other place.

Notwithstanding the respect we may have for some members of the other place, the fact remains that their work can often amount to mere stylistic or cosmetic changes. We see the legislative role of the other chamber as unacceptable overlap, especially in these times when we have to put public finances in order.

Is it justifiable to spend $26,952,000 a year so that the other place can tell us that a bill we have just passed, on which all democratically elected members of this House voted, needs cosmetic or stylistic changes?

Allow me to quote a short passage from a speech delivered on June 8 by my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe: "The Bloc has always spoken out against the existence of a Senate, and I would like to demonstrate that this institution is, in our opinion, as archaic as it is useless. This institution is nothing more than an excuse for the government to reward its friends, be they Liberal or Tory, who will then work-in true partisan fashion-for the government or for the interests they represent".

No, we do not need the other chamber. Given the current lack of constitutional progress, I understand how some members of the other place, with pensions and perhaps a passion for passive political life, would want to justify their salaries. But all this only adds to a system which is already too heavy and costly.

Furthermore, this does not enhance in any way the process to consult on and pass a bill already approved by all members of this House.

Let us have a quick look at the proposed changes. There are six amendments, including two technical changes and two somewhat questionable stylistic changes. The last two amendments suggest that the members of the other place did not understand the purpose of Bill C-42, since their amendments deal with protecting the right to a fair and equitable trial and with the obsolescence of a current provision in the Criminal Code.

As you can understand, we refuse to give any consideration to the amendments proposed by the other place, since it does not represent anyone, has no mandate from the population and is to all intents and purposes a mere patronage nest or, if you prefer, a haven of recognition, pure and simple.

We will therefore vote against the amendments proposed by the other place, since they are, in our opinion, cosmetic in nature and questionable and come from an institution without legitimacy in the eyes of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition. I am sure that the vast majority of Quebecers will support our position on this.