Debates of Oct. 21st, 1996

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act

[An hon. member]

What are friends for?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

A member over there asks what are friends for. Can they not see what it is doing to national unity, for example?

Imagine the Liberals saying to members of the Bloc Quebecois that they have 2,225 appointments to make, that some of them are very technical and require a good deal of expertise, but the crowning criteria for getting the job will be one's pedigree, not necessarily as a Quebecer but as a Liberal. When the BQ members go home imagine what they will do with that. They will say here is the list of appointments.

It is in the latest edition of the Hill Times , the paper from Parliament Hill, for members' information. I am sure they have seen it. There is now a Conservative who is tracking all the appointments. She has a list of about 200 names of people who are long time paid up Liberal members. I am sure Bloc members take that newspaper and say here is the latest dollop of appointments.

They rip that page out and back they go to Quebec saying: "This is what your tax dollars are going for. Your tax dollars are going to supply Liberals with jobs". If you were a voter in Quebec-listen up because when you are a voter in British Columbia the reaction is somewhat the same-you would say: "I thought these were appointments based on merit. I thought this person who was appointed was put there because they are the best person for the job".

I thought that someone who runs Canada Post would have extensive experience in the delivery of mail or delivery services. But who is the head of Canada Post but the former minister of foreign affairs. How did he get that job? Did he fill out the meritorious "I am the best qualified for Canada Post"? No, of course not. He just said: "I have a long pedigree of service to the Liberal Party. What I need is a job within the federal civil service based on my pedigree as a Liberal".

Why was there a furore over the appointment of our current Governor General? The Governor General plays a good role in our community. He lends some stability, some long term historic reference and so on. The problem was that the job was given because of his extensive Liberal pedigree: "I have a long, long list of things I have done for the Prime Minister. I raised money for the Prime Minister. I was part of his campaign for the Liberal Party leadership. I was his buddy". His buddy is the one who gets appointed.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

What is wrong with that?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

What is wrong with it is the respect for the institution. Out in British Columbia the most respected lieutenant governor we have ever had was David Lam. David Lam was respected because he did not have a long political pedigree. He was revered in British Columbia because he was exactly what this government does not understand. He was just a servant of the people, not a servant of the party.

If the Liberals followed that example, they would raise the esteem in all of these positions. Instead what they are doing is unfortunately dragging patronage down through the mud and casting that kind of stuff on to a position which should be above patronage. That is what is unfortunate.

It starts at the top. One of the very top patronage appointments is to the Senate. In 1990 the current Prime Minister said that within two years of the election of a Liberal government, the senators would be elected. That is what the current Prime Minister said in

1. Of course he was in opposition so it was cheap talk I guess. That is what he promised.

Since the election of the Prime Minister there have been 18 to 20 Liberals appointed to the Senate in a row, one after the other. These were based not on their election to the Senate which was promised, based not on their willingness to represent their regional interests, but based totally on their ties to the Liberal Party.

When I went to the PC convention as an observer what did I find? The same thing as I would think I am going to find this weekend at the Liberal convention when I go as an observer. I like to observe this stuff. The chief fundraiser for the PC party is a senator. The chief campaign manager is a senator. The bagmen for the campaign are senators. The regional co-ordinators for the campaign are all senators. What does this mean? Those who have enough friends in the Senate can run their campaign teams on taxpayers' money which is exactly what they are doing. That is the Tories.

It will be interesting to see what is coming up here at the Liberal convention but it will be the same. This has been going on for so long that they know no other way to run a campaign but to appoint somebody who is their chief fundraiser, in this last case, from Quebec.

What does this do for national unity? The Bloc Quebecois look at that appointment and go back home and say to their constituents: "Look at this. This latest appointment is going to cost you several hundred thousand dollars a year. Who do you think it is? A Liberal hack appointed to the Senate". The people ask: "What were his or her qualifications? Is he or she going to represent Quebec?" The Bloc say: "Absolutely not. They represent the Liberal Party of Canada". It is no wonder the people of Quebec get mad. They have had enough of that. It has been going on for over 100 years and enough is enough. It is time to change the system of patronage appointments.

Just to follow up on another quote or two, the Prime Minister in a speech to the House of Commons in 1991 said: "To meet the hopes and dreams of those who live in the west and in the Atlantic, a reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equitable". I sat here in the House and listened to the Prime Minister say: "I will put people in the Senate who represent the Liberal Party of Canada". He said that right from his chair, now that he is in power. It is no wonder that people find patronage appointments to be such a cynical display of government power.

The key appointment of them all from the government side is the person in charge of patronage appointments. When I tell people that, they cannot believe there is someone in charge of patronage appointments.

Penny Collenette is in charge of patronage appointments. She is a very capable woman. She is probably very capable at everything she does but the job is kind of odious. Her job is to find the over 2,200 patronage appointments that are available. Then she is to scour the country for every single available Liberal she can find to put them in there. That is the job. In other words, it is not to scour the country for the most capable person, it is to scour the country for the most Liberal of the Liberals and put them in a place. That is Penny Collenette's job.

I do not know how that is to build confidence in the government or the confidence from regions of the country that are looking to be represented by what they think are democratic means by fair and democratic systems. People find out instead that all the key positions go on people's pedigrees, their heritage, their political ties.

In Jeffrey Simpson's book about patronage he says: "The long march towards responsible government in British North America was largely the story of the elected representatives' struggle to wrest the right to dispense patronage from the British governors". This fight has been going on a long time. It is always the people at the top saying: "We know best and we know who to appoint and we, the benevolent dictators of the day, know what you deserve, you common folk, better than you know yourselves".

At one time every job in the country was a patronage job. Even the local postmaster was a patronage job. Everything was a patronage job because that is the way the system was run. Thankfully we have moved away from that and you can no longer get a job as a postmaster, I do not think or at least I hope not, because of your ties to the Liberal Party. But at the top where the example is being set, thousands of these jobs are still available.

I was in the maritimes during a couple of the byelections. I went door to door in Labrador. There is a separatism movement quite alive and well in Labrador right now. It is not separation from Canada that they want but separation from Newfoundland. They are fed up with the way Mr. Tobin is running things. There is quite a vibrant separatist movement and you try to calm them down and ask them to be part of Canada, to stay here as part of Canada. It is the same story we give the separatists in Quebec. Canada can be fixed. It can be better.

They would say that they would vote for us and some would give money, but they were afraid to put a sign on their lawn because the patronage system is so insidious in some of these towns that if they put a sign up they would go broke.

[An hon. member]

That is not true.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, they say this is not true but listen to what happened.

A month ago the member for St. John's West reportedly demanded of the town council of Placentia, Newfoundland that they had to sell their fire trucks as she told them to for $5,000 or she would make sure that they did not get a $350,000 ACOA grant. That was in the papers. That was her communication to the people.

In other words, it is all arm's length, it is all done on merit, it is all above board except that this Liberal says that you do as you are told. I am not making this up. It was in the paper. It is all true: "Either do as you are told or we will make sure doggone it you do not get the $350,000 grant".

Only two councillors showed up for that meeting and the member for St. John's West felt very badly. She reportedly said that there would be serious repercussions for the town and in her position of MP she deserved more courtesy than was shown to her and doggone it, they were in a heap of trouble. Why? Because they were not Liberal bootlickers. They were told to do as they were told, to jump through the hoops-

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

That is disgusting.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

It is true. It was in the paper. It is absolutely true: "Either you do this, sell them for this amount, or else. That is the law. Those are the rules".

I heard from across the way that it was necessary that this system continue, that it would not matter. It would be necessary that Mr. Mulroney's example of appointing his wife's hairdresser to the board of the FBDB, that kind of stuff must continue. I do not think so. It was said that the number of appointees while shrinking, it is still necessary to continue. I do not think so.

An ethical standard should be made and the argument has been made here today on two things: a different vision of Canada or it does not have to be this way. This bill is not the answer to fix a patronage system which I think Canadians find offensive.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying to the member for Fraser Valley East that I believe in patronage. I have always believed in it and I am not going to change.

The whole notion by the member from the Reform Party is gimmick politics. He was quoting Jeffrey Simpson. Can anyone imagine Jeffrey Simpson writing for the Toronto Star ?

We have to understand that the member is suggesting to Canadians that when someone is hired in business or the media that there is no sensitivity as to whether or not that person shares the same values, the same vision, the same policy objectives. The notion that when an employer is hiring someone who is anything other than sensitive to the direction the employer is heading is just crazy. It is like that in life.

This is a beautiful opportunity to talk about issues in a substantive way. In my earlier remarks I tried to engage the member in a debate on the whole notion of a program review of what goes on with the Bank of Canada. Members of the Reform Party are always talking about a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there. There are a few of us who still believe that we should spend this money to hold the country together.

Why not have a debate on who prints the money. What is money? Who is managing it? Who decides how much is printed? Who decides on its distribution? I wish the Reform Party members would get involved in that debate, then we could really have some excitement around here.

The whole notion of patronage is going to go on as long as man is living, as long as we are social beings.

Does the member not think it would be a worthwhile exercise for all members in the House to engage in a total program review on how the Bank of Canada operates and its links to the financial institutions of this country and the way it controls the flow of currency which is so badly needed in the marketplace today? How about that as a way of reforming or reinventing government?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I always feel a little bad for the member that we generally do not have a committee of the whole. I have always enjoyed the member's ability to debate. He scores some good points. If we could get past some of the stifled formalities in the regular debating system, we could actually have a good debate. The system as it is set up does not lend itself to that very well.

Will patronage be around as long as people are social creatures? To a certain degree I agree with the member. There are roles for patronage appointments that the member I think is trying to advocate and which I would agree with. However, he would also agree for example that the privy council is not one of those places. The privy council raises a group of professional government managers that they select early in the process. I hope it is not on their political pedigree. I do not believe it is in any event. They identify them early in the process. They bring them into the privy council and train them. I have talked to the head of the privy council and this is my understanding. The privy council office trains them, they go back out into another department in another role, they come back into the privy council and train some more. They select these people and find the best that they can get, the best in the system and they rise to the top to become deputy ministers, ADMs and so on.

That is as it should be. It is based on merit. It is based on experience. It is based on a professional civil service that bypasses patronage. There is no room in there for patronage. Otherwise we

would get our civil service working at cross purposes to the government and that system just would not work in a democracy.

Where patronage is necessary and where it does make sense is in political roles. I would not ask the member opposite or the government to find a neutral or an NDP member from some place to write the red book. The government needs people who are politically astute in what they believe in to take that and put it on paper or into television commercials and what have you, try to sell it, get their advertising people. Those are all patronage appointments that are necessary because patronage is for the political process.

I do not mind when a minister or member would naturally have a researcher in their department. I certainly have someone who believes in what I believe in. That is the system that has to work. That is for the political realm.

However, to run a department should not be a political role. As Brian Mulroney did, one should not appoint Mila's hairdresser to the board of FBDB.

[An hon. member]

He made a great contribution there.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

He made a great contribution. He appointed his chauffeur to another patronage position and so on. That should not be why one gets the job. One should get the job because of one's qualifications.

These are two separate things. There is patronage, if we want to call it that. I am talking about the political positions that all political parties have to have. There are researchers, there are communicators and so on who need to be political and necessarily partisan. Why would the member think that would extend to the head of Canada Post, the head of the Atomic Energy Commission? Those are technical jobs that should be outside partisanship.

I agree with the member that there could be a really good discussion on the Canada banking system but, goodness gracious, he is a part of the government. During the review of Canadian financial institutions by all means we should study that. Why not? Let us open it up.

The member for Broadview-Greenwood knows that it is not an easy thing to get his members to agree. He could ask the parliamentary secretary who spent about a bizillion years in and among that feted swamp why he does not encourage that debate here in the House of Commons.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was a very partisan speech. The role of the opposition is to deliver blows that would tenderize a turtle and this member has delivered blows that would probably tenderize a can of Spam.

In any event, it is unfortunate that the discussion on the bill has reverted to partisanship. I think he has painted all members of Parliament with the same brush. I would like to suggest to him that we all get opportunities to refer people who want jobs.

As one member of Parliament I can say I do not endorse anyone who wants to apply for any kind of an appointment for one very simple reason. If I do not know that person personally, if I do not have the credentials down to make a reference I will not make that reference because it will be a reflection on me.

I would like the member at least to acknowledge that the performance and the accountability of those people is the most important thing and that to give references is a risk to all members of Parliament that should not be given.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will concede points in a debate. The hon. member makes a good point. Some Liberal members of Parliament are not keen on patronage appointments. For example, when the list is drawn up of who should be appointed to positions in Elections Canada, they do not submit a name. They do not submit the name of their campaign manager or someone they have known for a long time. They say: "I am not going to get into that. That is a neutral position. It should not be partisan".

I share the member's concern. I do not put forward names for enumerators. I do not put forward names for appointments to Elections Canada.

As a matter of fact, when Mr. Kingsley was before the procedure and House affairs committee I asked him a question. We give advice to countries around the world on how to run fair elections. I asked Mr. Kingsley: "When we go to other countries to help them run their election campaigns, for example, do we tell them that the government should appoint all of the returning officers or should it be a neutral process?" His response was: "When we are overseas we do not want the government involved because the government has to be at arm's length from the elections". I thought that was a good idea. If we could follow that in Canada we would be much better off.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York North.

I listened with interest to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. The Reform Party has moved this debate along quite a ways today. We started off with the hon. member for St. Albert saying that the 271 governor in council appointments were a poor choice and in fact do not exist. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East said it was a good thing. We can see that there is a great dichotomy within the Reform Party itself.

The member talked about his fresh start campaign. I was shocked to watch this unfold on television the other day. My campaign buttons and material in the last federal election said we were the fresh start team. In fact, everybody was met at the door for the fresh start campaign in 1993. That gives us an idea of what kind of imagination the Reform Party has. It thrashes out old ideas. We

are on the fresh start team. This is the fresh start team on this side of the House.

The member for Fraser Valley East talked about their vision of Canada. There has been debate going back and forth this evening on that subject. The conclusion is the Reform Party would like to lead us into a cheque book government. In other words, up here in Ottawa all we would do is collect money and send cheques to the provinces. That would leave us with some limited responsibilities in international trade, the coast guard and so forth, but not much of a government. That is not a vision, that is a fragmentation of the country. It would lead us into a country of ten separate governments.

I had a discussion late last week with pharmaceutical companies which told me that Canada is very much like the European Union. Drugs must be approved by the federal government and then it takes another three years to have them approved by the provinces. There is a cost to the consumers of Canada. It is one of the reasons drug costs are so high.

Under the Reform Party's administration we would continue to have ten strong decentralized governments, creating ten duplications across the nation. We should be moving in the other direction.

Bill C-49 basically attempts to standardize remedial and disciplinary measures in certain tribunals of Canada and to standardize chairpersons in administration tribunals. It also winds up seven organizations and downsizes another 13 organizations.

The object of the exercise is not to make the government smaller, although that is one of the results of some of our downsizing efforts; the object of the exercise is to do two things, to make government more efficient and to make government more affordable to the taxpayers of Canada.

The taxpayers of Canada are telling us in no uncertain terms that government is too big. It is too big and unresponsive to their needs and concerns.

This bill is a focus on how our government is reacting to the very real concern of the average Canadian. It does reduce certain tribunals but, more important, it begs one question. The question is who are the customers. Are the customers the bureaucracy or the public?

The bottom line is by also dealing with the concept of remedial and disciplinary action, the government is addressing a very real and important issue. People want to see that governments are responsive. They do not want them responsive to bureaucrats but instead to their concerns.

The current issue with tribunals is that it is very difficult to remove people from tribunals for wrongdoing. Indeed, it takes a legal process and it also has to go before the exchequer court of Canada. This bill will make that system a lot easier.

There is nothing worse than having a tribunal with people on it, possibly giving erroneous advice and making erroneous decisions. We want the ability of government to be able to replace those people. It is that issue that this bill is addressing.

That is very important because throughout government people are asking how government is responding to people. There is a great parallel to this, small and medium size businesses.

Small and medium size businesses have had to learn to work smarter. They have had to learn that the customer is very important. We have to satisfy the needs of the customer. To not recognize that is basically not to be in business at all.

Governments in some ways, while not a business, have to act a little more like them. They have to be more responsive to the needs of people. Let me give an example.

In my riding I have Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. When I first got elected I went around visiting all the federal institutions in my riding and those that service my riding to see what they were doing.

I was surprised that a lot of them did not have Canadian flags and we are working to make sure they now have. One organization struck me in particular, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

It had just implemented a total quality management system. This was totally unlike most other parts of government because it required a response time. If somebody phoned, it had to return that call within so many minutes.

If it was an application for a mortgage loan, it had to be answered within a certain timeframe. There were timeframes for everything it did. The people were very rejuvenated about what it was doing. It was very happy and very focused on executing programs that people liked. It recognized that the customer was the general public.

I have been very happy to work with those people in delivering some of their programs to some of the people in my riding. The point I am trying to make is that Bill C-49 addresses that issue. It allows the government through its various boards and directives to replace people if they are not in sync with best interests of people generally.

This gets us back to accountability in government. Generally speaking, people want the government to be accountable to them. They are asking for a more clear, transparent system of government.

Once again, this legislation deals with that issue. Remember that one of the things we are doing here is reducing the cost of government by upwards of $5 million per year. That may seem like a small amount of money but it is part of the process.

We are doing two things. We are reducing the cost of government and making it more efficient. Just because we are making government smaller does not mean we are making it worse. The bottom line is that we can deliver these programs a lot more efficiently using technological advances that we have before us and at a lower cost.

The services that governments once did can continue at a lower cost and with fewer individuals involved in the process.

I notice from time to time the opposition has said that we have not done anything in terms of cost reduction. Forty-five thousand civil servants have been shed from this process. CN is no longer a federal government owned organization. Some of my colleagues mentioned the CBC. All of these are real things that affect people. People are demanding better service at less cost.

I say to the Reform members and others that we are reducing the cost of government but at the same time making our program delivery more efficient.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague from Oshawa. He mentioned something that I want to ensure I understood correctly.

He talked about the notion that the pharmaceutical industry felt that the inefficiencies related to getting their drug systems approved were costing it a lot of money, and the fact that it had to go through all these regions was a negative situation.

Is the member promoting a more reinforced Government of Canada national standards for these program approvals? Is that what I understood him to say?

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be honest with the member, yes it would be.

One of the big problems in this country is duplication and overlap. However it takes two to duplicate so we are talking about provincial and federal jurisdictions.

We have to analyse those areas where the federal government can be more efficient. It makes sense in the area of drug certification that one government, the federal government, should provide that service. I have heard some of my Bloc colleagues talk about how important it is. I do not think the afflictions that affect human beings stop at borders.

The bottom line is that from a national perspective we should set national standards. We have been all too lax at not doing that and letting these things slip away from us. That is part of the reason why this country is slipping away from us as well.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, debates like today's debate on Bill C-49 give Canadian viewers an opportunity to really distinguish between the two visions that exist in this House. The vision proposed by the Reform Party sees government and governance in its most evil way. The vision espoused by Liberals is that government and its agencies can be a source of positive change for the good of the collective. It is really important to note that because it makes people understand the difference between the Reform Party and the Liberal Party.

As a member of the greater Toronto Liberal caucus I am quite happy today to see that Fortune magazine named the greater Toronto area as the number one international best city for work and family. I am proud of that achievement because in the Toronto area since the 1993 election of the federal Liberal government, there has been greater co-operation between all stakeholders in various communities.

There has been a greater sense of purpose. Government has not been standing in the way of business but rather it has been a full partner in bringing about the type of economic change and increasing the viability of businesses, in helping with productivity.

I have some examples of positive things the government has done. There are programs related to technology partnerships Canada, the Canadian television and cable production fund and the program for export market development, not to mention the work of the Federal Business Development Bank and other government agencies that serve the Canadian public very well.

I would like to return to the Federal Business Development Bank. I remember a couple of years ago when two of my constituents, who were around the ages of 20 and 21, came to my constituency office to ask if they could get some advice on how to run a business and perhaps access some funding so they could start a technology based business.

I am very happy to tell the House that a couple of months ago these constituents came back to my office and expressed a great deal of gratitude for the advice that I was able to provide to them. I was happy to find out they were doing quite well. They are brothers who are now self-employed in the growing technology industry. They told me that this year they will be recording a profit of approximately $723,000.

Two years ago these two young Canadians, obviously very bright and technologically advanced, were part of the unemployment

statistics of this country. The help came from the Federal Business Development Bank which was able to provide them with the type of capital required.

Let us look at the function of government in that equation. These young people knew that they could approach a member of Parliament who has a constituency office and is there to provide help in connecting young people or his or her constituents to government agencies that are there to help them. This is a perfect example of the positive role the government plays, whether it plays it in a constituency office or through various departments. Nevertheless it speaks to the fact that government can play a positive role in the lives of Canadians.

Therefore, the anti-government and anti-government agency feelings expressed by the Reform Party are based on a very simplistic view of the world, not to mention the fact that I do sense parochialism based on the bottom line. It is not whether these agencies are producing services that are good for people or providing young people or small business people with opportunities. The only thing it wants to do is slash and burn. Once that is done then the Reform Party will be happy.

I cannot remember the exact title of their booklet, but in this booklet the Reform Party has now changed its tune and wants to actually spend more money. The reality is that Canadians have learned through the years of Liberal government that a more balanced approach, a two track approach where we are reducing the deficit, creating jobs and investing in people, is really the route to go.

Nothing makes me more proud than to be part of a government that actually hits the targets it sets. We can look at some of its records and listen to the finance minister's announcement that the federal deficit for 1995-96 was $28.6 billion. That is $4.1 billion lower than the $32.7 billion target for the year.

The reason why I am happy and proud to be part of this government and this caucus is because I remember sitting on the other side of the House when the Conservative government was in power. I remember the then minister of finance, Michael Wilson, never ever hitting a target on the deficit.

The present Minister of Finance has created a great deal of confidence in the economy of Canada. We are hitting the deficit targets. The deficit has been lowered. Inflation is low. Consumer and business confidence is better than it has been for many years. This is the type of role the government has played in the lives of Canadians. It speaks to the fact that when a party such as the Liberal Party comes into power with a plan and sticks to that plan which was endorsed by the people of Canada, then great results are achieved.

That is why today we are able to stand before Canadians and say that the red book plan is working for them. Unemployment numbers are down. Over 700,000 jobs have been created. We are investing in our young people more than any previous government.

Beside me is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development who has worked extremely hard to make sure that the priorities of young people are looked after by the government. That is why the Minister of Finance was able to announce an increase in the federal budget by approximately $350 million toward youth programs, for a total of $1 billion for youth programs. That does not include the $2.5 billion or 57 per cent increase for Canada student loans which will allow young people to access education. Since I am talking about our young people, I also want to remind Canadians from coast to coast about the $165 million invested in education tax credits to further enhance opportunities for young people.

The bill before us today proposes a style of government that is efficient and smaller. But unlike members of the Reform Party who basically think that in order to reach a deficit target you need to slash and burn, we believe there is a better way, a smarter way to bring positive change to the lives of Canadians.

As I conclude my remarks, I want to give some practical examples of how the government has been able to achieve positive ends for people. For example, interest rates have decreased 18 times over the last 17 months. Between January 1995 and October 1996 short term interest rates fell to 4.75 per cent. The prime lending rate charged by Canada's chartered banks has fallen to 5.25 per cent, the lowest rate since 1959. I was not even born in 1959.

As a member of Parliament who was born in 1960, I am happy that happy times are here again and that people can look to the future with optimism and a sense of confidence that speaks to developing a nation that is once again prosperous.

Our achievements are far too many to list in this debate. I can talk about the fact that in my area we have the lowest crime rate ever, thanks to the measures taken by the Minister of Justice under the leadership of the Prime Minister. Businesses are looking to the future with a great deal of optimism because interest rates are low and consumer confidence is high. People are being equipped with the skills required to take on the global economy of the 21st century.

After having heard this morning that the greater Toronto area was the best place in the world in which to live, I can only say it is only matched by the fact that I am a part of perhaps the best government in the history of this country.

The House resumed from October 10, 1996, consideration of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act, as reported with amendments from a committee.

Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-5. The first vote will be on Motion No. 1.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little late for the vote but I would have been voting with the government.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.