Debates of Nov. 19th, 1998

Supply

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health. She referred to important dates in history. She talked about health care in Canada in 1994 and about the Canada Health Act passed in 1993.

I ask her why she would not continue the tradition. Why does she not follow the same rules and continue to do more for health care, since she keeps repeating that merely throwing money at the problem is no solution?

With budget surpluses totalling between $12 and $15 billion, as is the case this year, and after denying the provinces the money they need for health care, it should be embarrassing to say in this House that providing money is not enough. Yes, it is enough and it must be done for each province. They are all asking for it. Our health care system is in a very sad state.

The government transferred money and tax points. But this is not what we are asking today. We are asking that Quebec be given back the money necessary to continue to administer and manage its health care system properly.

According to some surveys, between 90% and 95% of all in-patients are pleased with the services provided. Managing our health care system is not a problem when we have the money to do so. To compare us to the Americans is ludicrous.

As a society, we made a choice a long time ago and that choice has little to do with unfettered capitalism. This means that we should be prepared to assume that choice and provide the money necessary to do a good job.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me make it abundantly clear. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have said it repeatedly in the House that health care and medicare are a priority for this government. As funds are available we expect that in the future there will be investments in medicare for Canadians wherever they live in this country.

I say to the member opposite that I believe she is wrong to suggest it is not important to look at how medicare is evolving and changing and making sure that it is and in the future continues to be responsive to people whether they are in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Newfoundland or any of the provinces and territories. We know that each province does it a little differently. That is appropriate in this great country, as long as we all adhere to those principles which have served us so well.

We on this side of the House know that it is important when future investments are made that they be done in a way which will give Canadians confidence that medicare will be there in the future and that they will have access to the health services when and where they need them. We also know that while we respect the right of each province to do it differently, we expect all provinces to adhere to the principles of the Canada Health Act which gives Canadians a sense of security and well-being. It also gives us a very significant competitive edge when dealing with our trading partners.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to dedicate my speech to the Minister of Human Resources Development, who is honouring us with his presence. I am sure that, being a Montrealer himself, he will understand.

Let us tell it as it is. If the opposition, one of the best this House has ever seen, felt the need to sound the alarm today, it is because there is an urgent need to take action. There is no doubt that, in a criminal court context—and I can safely make this statement because of your legal background—formal charges would have been laid for misappropriation of funds. Money was stolen. I think this is the least unparliamentary way to put it.

This means that the federal government maliciously and unilaterally misappropriated funds, without showing any respect for the provinces and their priorities. It went all out. If we add up all the amounts cut from transfers the government was supposed to return to the provinces but failed to do so, we arrive at a total of $42 billion.

Obviously, one might say this is inconsequential, but to say so is to behave irresponsibly and without sensitivity. We will not stand for that.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, we are asking all government members, from the most obscure backbencher to the most visible minister, including the Minister of Human Resources Development, to tell cabinet it is imperative that the provinces get back what was taken from them.

I want us to be clear. Earlier, I listened to the parliamentary secretary, who was saying that a minimum level had been set. This is like telling our fellow citizens that happiness is the absence of unhappiness. Forty-two billion dollars is missing.

Health is not a partisan issue. In fact, we always have a hard time acting in a partisan fashion. Health is not a partisan issue because we all know people in our ridings, who are growing old.

Having grey hair is not what makes a person old, that is not what I mean. In each of our ridings we are familiar with people who are ageing and in need of care. Because the federal government refused to give them $42 billion, care that ought to be delivered is not being delivered.

Of these $42 billion which we consider ought to have been transferred, the allocation to the health care transfer ought to have been $6 billion. Of that figure of $6 billion, the Government of Quebec would get back more than $1 billion, closer to $2 billion, that is $1.8 billion. In my opinion, it would not be asking too much for hon. members to reach a consensus in this House so that we may conclude today that the missing $1.8 billion must be returned to the Government of Quebec, and to all of the other governments.

Federal-provincial diplomacy is nothing to be passed over lightly. Such diplomacy goes back as far as Honoré Mercier—the hon. member for Sainte-Hubert will recall her local history—who called together the first interprovincial conference in 1888.

Something very significant, very weighty, has taken place in federal-provincial diplomacy. All provinces, with one voice, regardless of the political stripe of their government, without any partisan considerations whatsoever, all the provinces, in a block—a formation we love—joined together in what has since become known as the Saskatoon consensus, and called on the federal government to restor its contributions to health care services. The Minister of Health should bow to this demand. He should draw up the cheque forthwith, and hand over to the provinces, to the Government of Quebec in particular, $1.8 billion.

All of the provinces are calling for it. Can consideration be given to this? It is not, after all, a commonplace occurrence in our political system for all of the provinces to get together on one demand, in this case for the return of this money, as they did in the Saskatoon consensus.

There is something tragic about our situation. Every dollar not transferred to the provinces for the health system marks one more step closer to poverty for our citizens. These people do not care about that.

Where is this just society we were told about in 1968? If Judy LaMarsh were here, if Lester B. Pearson were here, if those people who helped build the Liberal tradition were here, would they not support this opposition motion? Of course they would. One cannot speak from both sides of one's mouth. One cannot claim to be fighting against poverty and, at the same time, with a total lack of sensitivity, slash transfers to the provinces.

If government members still have just a touch of sensitivity, if they still have some kind of social conscience, if they still have some dignity—this word has a meaning—they will vote with the Bloc Quebecois and will ensure that the transfers are made.

It is not easy to convince the Minister of Health. He is a stubborn man. He is a man who, when one gets to know him, is rather obtuse. I would like to quote some numbers and I would ask him to take them into consideration.

This amount of $1.8 billion, which is sorely needed in Quebec to provide services to the population as a whole, represents the hospitalization costs for 370,000 people and 20% of the operating budget of all hospitals in Quebec. It represents the cost of all the CLSCs put together. This is not an academic debate. What we are talking about today is not theory or scholarly debate. What we are talking about today is the capacity of the provinces as providers of health care to continue to serve the public.

I do not understand government members. I do not understand how our colleagues can behave as if nothing has happened when funds have been misappropriated. If today we were in a criminal court, charges would be laid. This is what one has to realize.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

I will end with a heartfelt cry to them: loosen the purse strings, move money to the provinces and everybody will feel better for it.

[The Acting Speaker]

Order, please. It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

At the request of the chief government whip, the vote stands deferred until Monday at the conclusion of Government Orders.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent that the House would agree to see the clock as being 5.30.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have received notice from the hon. member for Durham that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Friday, November 20, 1998.

It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence. Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.

The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business will, therefore, be suspended and the House will continue to examine the matters before it at that time.

Reform's Anti-Profiteering Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

moved that Bill C-442, an act to prohibit profiteering during emergencies, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have the opportunity to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and all Canadians to debate my private member's Bill C-442, an act to prohibit profiteering during emergencies.

The purpose of the act is to prohibit persons or businesses from engaging in profiteering in respect of essential goods, services or resources during emergencies that seriously endanger the lives, health, safety or property of persons in Canada.

During the ice storm we heard reports of increased prices for gasoline, diesel fuel, batteries, water, generators, candles, salt, firewood and other materials needed to fight the circumstances being dictated by natural causes.

We want to stop prices on essential goods from being unnecessarily increased during emergencies. Bill C-442 is submitted to provide rules of conduct to be followed during future calamities or disasters. I have had this extensive piece of legislation drawn up on behalf of Canadians who were victims of the last ice storm, Canadians who suffered during Manitoba's flood and the Saguenay flood in Quebec.

The constituents of Surrey Central and all of us who work and live in the lower mainland of British Columbia know that some day there will be an earthquake which will affect all of us in British Columbia. Scientists have predicted with great certainty that there will be an earthquake but they can not tell us when.

An emergency can occur anywhere within a second. For example, the day before yesterday our planet was showered by meteors. Scientists say it could have been devastating.

If enacted into law my bill would come into effect within 60 days from the date it receives royal assent. We may be lucky that Bill C-442 is enacted into law before the next disaster hits us. It would not be too late for the coming disaster of the year 2000 computer bug that is threatening the world.

Canadians know what happens during crises situations. Ice storms, floods, earthquakes, even the millennium computer bug problem all have certain things in common. Water ceases to flow to our homes. We may lose electricity. Everything can virtually stop. None of the appliances in homes will work. We cannot take everything for granted. The stores where we do our shopping will be closed or inoperable. We may not be able to travel. There may not be gasoline available in the market.

Hospitals have difficulties during normal times due to the drastic cuts in federal transfer payments. Maybe our hospitals will stop working during emergencies. Hospitals can run into serious problems because there will be more patients than they can accommodate. The horrors of the situation are not easily forgotten.

Canadians are very generous and very good natured people. We can all be proud of the contributions made by our business community and our citizens during emergencies. Right now we are helping people in Nicaragua deal with the devastation of floods from the recent storm that hit their country. At home in Canada when there is an emergency we see our firefighters, police, hospital, municipal, hydro and telephone workers, volunteer organizations, and many other groups working around the clock for days and weeks at a time to deal with the emergency.

The year 2000 millennium computer bug is threatening everything from operation of our airlines to bank tellers. The people of Surrey Central want the House to act with a vision. Canadians want the government to be proactive in preparing our nation for the challenges we may face in the future.

Our nation has already seen natural and man-made disasters. We should learn from these disasters and prepare for the next. During the ice storm we heard many reports about exploitation, of unreasonably increased prices for various products needed to fight the circumstances being dictated by the natural disaster.

Let us look at some of those reports. A Quebec garage advertised gas at 51.4 cents a litre and then charged 79 cents at the pump. A wood seller upped his price for a cord of wood from $50 to over $100. It was a 100% increase. One hardware store broke open packages of batteries and sold them individually for triple the normal price. That was a 300% increase in the price. Some businesses told employees living in emergency shelters they would be docked pay if they did not show up for work.

There are many examples. I will read a few more. A depanneur charged $1 extra for a bag of rock salt which people needed to get rid of ice from their driveways. A tree nursery hiked the price of a cord of wood by $10. A gas station upped its price at the pumps by 3 cents a litre. A traffic officer did not even spare devastating people. He slapped an $82 parking ticket on a frozen car.

It looks mean but it is true. When disaster hits it does not always bring out the best in people. Whether it is opportunism, price gouging or overzealousness, some people did their best to take advantage of the people in dire straits. There are many other examples I could quote from the newspapers. These price increases were not technically illegal but they were morally wrong.

Other countries have anti-profiteering laws in place. We encourage competition but we need to prevent the negative impact of free marketing which can result when things like electricity, clean water, heat, medicine, hardware tools or even food are scarce or non-existent. My bill is submitted to provide rules of conduct to be followed during future calamities or disasters.

I have letters from the Better Business Bureau and the Consumers Association of Canada supporting my bill. Clearly the bill does not speak to a matter that can be deemed trivial. My bill is extremely important in terms of addressing the protection of consumers. Bill C-442 is both timely and proactive in terms of protecting Canadians from unscrupulous persons or businesses during times of emergency. It is important to note that it is a non-partisan issue and should be treated that way.

Canadians want all of us in the House to look at Bill C-442 through the lens of issue and not through the lens of political stripes. Canadians want our elected representatives to demonstrate that the business of the House has vision. Bill C-442 exhibits vision. The legal drafters found no other laws with which Bill C-442 conflicts. No other law accomplishes what the bill proposes.

I have found nothing on the government's legislative agenda to deal with profiteering during emergencies. However there was a full-fledged debate in the House on the ice storm. Many references have been made in the House to the flood in Quebec and the flood in Manitoba and the many inadequacies we can face.

I cannot think of another way for the House to deal with the matter. Only laws that are on the books will deter profiteering during emergencies.

I have collected news reports from January 1998 quoting the Liberal industry minister's reaction to the ice storm. During his press conference on January 17, 1998 the Liberal industry minister commented on the problems of profiteering during the ice storm. On January 18, 1998 the Edmonton Journal quotes the minister as saying “Consumers will take care of ice storm profiteers”. During the ice storm consumers could only take care of themselves by paying for whatever necessity. They traded in their innocence and their confidence and were victimized and exploited.

In the Montreal Gazette the federal industry minister was quoted as saying “Price gougers beware: Minister urges consumers to expose businesses that overcharge”. In this headline the minister is turning the matter of dealing with unscrupulous profiteering completely over to innocent Canadians. That is not good enough. The people of these communities will be vulnerable again and will be at the whim of the unscrupulous businesses or people who exploited their needs.

Bill C-442 is a private member's bill. The issue is non-partisan, but if it were not non-partisan I would trash the minister and expose his weaknesses. I am not doing that.

I introduced Bill C-442 to encourage all sides of the House to put more thinking into the problem of profiteering during emergencies. Many members have congratulated me outside the House for introducing the bill. The members of parliament from Ontario and Quebec who were involved in the ice storm know very well that something has to be done.

We must not shirk our responsibility to our constituents and particularly to all Canadians in the path of natural disasters. By acknowledging that a problem exists and by admitting that there were incidents of profiteering during the ice storm and other disasters, the minister set up a toll free number for consumers to report overcharging. That is not enough.

In the press conference I referred to earlier the industry minister went as far as to say that price gouging appeared to be in the minority. The fact it exists is enough. The federal government has to do something about it. There is no excuse to ignore this.

Perhaps the minister was looking for an initiative from one of us in this House. Maybe he was looking for Bill C-442, which I have introduced. I am looking for support from all members of this House before an earthquake hits us or before the Y2K computer problem or another disaster hits us.

If an earthquake occurs in B.C., look at what will happen. If it is a serious earthquake we have virtually no emergency preparedness. CFB Chilliwack has been closed by this Liberal government. There is no military base nearby. The lower mainland is connected to other communities by various bridges. Those bridges will collapse. We do not know how long it would take before the bridges could be restored.

The community of Richmond, which is on the edge of the earthquake line, may be submerged under water. There may be fires. There may be injured people to take care of. There may be dead people as well. At a time when food and medicine are in short supply, it is hard to imagine what would happen if someone increased prices.

Bill C-442 is a comprehensive bill. It has been carefully drafted by our legal staff in the House of Commons. I thank them for doing a good job. The legal staff has very carefully looked into the various definitions of emergencies, offences, punishments, proclamations of emergencies, revocation of those proclamations, jurisdictions and many other things.

The legal staff also looked into how profiteering affects people, how we can control it and how can we outlaw it. I cannot believe that the Minister of Industry would throw away all the work which we have done.

When we are hit by one disaster we should learn to prepare for the next disaster. We the politicians cannot give anything else to the victims. We cannot change mother nature, but we can enact an appropriate law and this is the time to do that. We should put the law in place before the next disaster hits us. We need to prepare our communities for serious disruptions in everyday life.

I will give two options to members of the House. Either give Canadians a guarantee that the next disaster will not hit us or support this bill so that we can prepare to protect innocent Canadian victims.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, this private member's bill addresses an issue that is of concern to the Minister of Industry and all ministers who are responsible for consumer affairs throughout the country.

I should advise the House that consumer ministers from across the country addressed this specific issue last Friday during their annual meeting in Charlottetown. The ministers committed themselves to working closely together in times of crisis so that allegations of price gouging and other unfair business practices may be freely and quickly exchanged among the various jurisdictions when natural disasters and other emergencies occur.

However, the ministers stopped short of agreeing to enact laws that would target all businesses whose prices rise during emergency situations. Let us examine the reason for that.

First of all, it is worth examining how serious the problem of profiteering during emergencies actually is. Are Canadian businesses systematically taking advantage of their customers' vulnerability during these times of crisis and charging them exorbitant prices for essential goods? That is the question.

The fact is, there is little concrete evidence to show that many businesses are conducting themselves in such a reprehensible manner.

Let us look at our most recent experiences.

During and in the immediate aftermath of the ice storm which affected Quebec, eastern Ontario and New Brunswick in January 1998, there were many reports in the media of alleged instances of price gouging. The Government of Canada and, in particular, the Minister of Industry took these allegations very seriously.

In response to these allegations, Industry Canada immediately commissioned Option Consommateurs, a respected Quebec based consumers' organization, to conduct an analysis of specific allegations of price gouging, especially with regard to generator sales.

It was found that very few merchants had charged what might be considered an excessive price for some products. Therefore, the first problem with the proposed legislation is that it would be killing a fly with a steamroller. When emergencies occur, verifiable cases of price gouging do not arise very often.

Discussions between officials in Industry Canada, with their consumer protection colleagues in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, have confirmed this observation.

In those few instances where price gouging appeared legitimately to be a problem during the January ice storm, the full glare of media coverage raised consumer awareness and worked as an effective antidote to reverse the position of merchants.

On the whole, however, most merchants who had been accused of profiteering from the ice storm were found to have raised their prices for very good reasons.

Working overtime to fill numerous orders for generators with very short notice, under unfavourable conditions, merchants were seeking generators from distant suppliers throughout other parts of Canada and the United States.

The demand for fast delivery, combined with unfavourable weather conditions meant that merchants' outlay to obtain products increased sharply. Merchants usually had no choice but to pass the cost on to their consumers. That is how the free market works.

If parliament should choose to interfere with the law of supply and demand, it could potentially make the situation for Canadians worse, not better, when disaster strikes. Merchants will fear that they may be exposed to enormous fines or even imprisonment for suddenly raising their prices.

Thus, they may refuse to go that extra mile for their customers. They may tell them that they will not look for a generator on such short notice because they would not be able to charge the real price and could risk an indictable offence. In this way Bill C-442 would prevent, not promote, access to goods.

Given that the problem has been shown to be a minor one and given that the proposed legislation could have the opposite effect it is intended to have, we must ask whether parliament is best suited to enact such legislation.

It is well settled law in this country that consumer protection is principally in the purview of the provincial and territorial governments.

As for the federal Competition Act, the statute prevents profiteering resulting from collusive agreements among competitors. It also prevents profiteering which is made possible by the making of misleading representations, in the form of false advertising for example. However, price volatility is largely a provincial matter.

The government believes it would be prudent to stay out of an area that is not its own and to allow the provinces to enact legislation, should they choose to do so.

Indeed, officials from provinces recently affected by natural disasters have expressed little interest in doing so. It would seem odd, then, that parliament should step in and set a consumer affairs policy for them.

By not supporting this bill the government is not forgetting its responsibility to the Canadian people in times of emergency. Indeed, in preparation for one of the most extreme emergency situations that we as a nation could possibly face, that of an international emergency, the Emergencies Act already provides for cabinet to make such orders or regulations with respect to the authorization and conduct of inquiries in relation to hoarding, overcharging, black marketing or fraudulent operations in respect of scarce commodities as the governor in council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency.

In summary, the government believes that to go beyond these measures, to legislate against a problem that experience at both levels of government, federal and provincial, has shown to be very marginal, would constitute not only heavy-handed interference with the free market, but also an unreasonable intrusion into provincial and territorial consumer affairs.

I am totally surprised and personally disappointed to hear the member for Surrey Central, who on the one hand remarks that government should not be interfering in business, but who himself wants to interfere in business over the heads of the provinces.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour for me to speak in the House on such an interesting bill. I will say right off, however, that we oppose it and for various reasons, which we will look at in the next few minutes.

First, I have to say that the title of the bill surprises me a bit. The short title is the Reform's Anti-Profiteering Act. I am a lawyer, and this is the first time I have seen the name of a political party in the title of a bill. It seems rather partisan to me and contrary to our parliamentary traditions.

We cannot discuss this bill without raising one aspect of it that is a bit of a concern, namely the constitutional problems it raises. I refer specifically to clause 6.

This clause concerns the proclamation of a national or local emergency. This bill accords fairly broad and exceptional powers to the federal government to proclaim not only a state of national emergency, as already provided in the preamble to the Constitution, but a state of local emergency. This means skirting what we consider to be provincial jurisdictions.

No one will be surprised by the Bloc's total rejection of the principle of having the federal government intervening in order to declare a state of emergency, in Quebec for example, or in some other province. This prerogative should rest with the province in question and not the federal government.

In its current wording, clause 6 of the bill reads:

6.(2) Where the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a national emergency exists, the Governor in Council—

may, on the request of the lieutenant governor in council of the province—

issue a proclamation declaring that emergency to be an emergency for the purposes of subsection 3(1).

Why should a province then ask the federal government to please declare an emergency in that province?

This is a rather domineering and unacceptable form of federalism, and I am surprised that a political party such as the Reform Party, which calls itself decentralizing, would present a bill such as this. But the Reform Party is not short on contradictions, and I will come back to this later.

I was saying this prerogative of declaring a local emergency should be held by the provinces. In the United States, 43 states out of 50 have given themselves the prerogative of declaring an emergency, because the government of an American state or of a province is much closer and has different services that are close to the people and that should be implemented.

This control over various local governments and various local instruments is the responsibility of a provincial government—or a state government, in the United States—and not of the federal government.

I can hardly imagine the current Prime Minister declaring a state of emergency in Quebec during the ice storm crisis, for example.

The other problem is the very broad definitions contained in this bill. What does the Reform Party mean by “goods and services” or by “unreasonable or inflationary prices”?

The interpretation that can be given to those important terms is nowhere to be found in the bill and does not reflect what should have been the underlying values of this bill. The government is given such latitude that it is ridiculous.

In the Reform philosophy, when it comes to punishment it is amazing to see to what lengths Reform members are willing to go to please their constituents, namely voters from western Canada.

The bill provides that the amount of the fine for a second or subsequent offence may be double the amount of the previous fine. The amount of the various fines that may be given to those who commit this offence can be multiplied. That goes completely against the philosophy that exists in Quebec.

Similarly, according to the Reform logic based on law and order, the person is liable to be convicted for a separate offence for each day on which the offence is committed. Therefore, if a person commits the offence over a period of ten days, he or she will be charged ten times, which is not only redundant but also ridiculous.

Another contradiction I would like to mention is clause 9. Under clause 9 of this bill, the Senate or the House of Commons may revoke a national emergency proclamation. For a political party that is against the Senate in its present form, it is a little surprising to see that it is willing to give the same power to ten senators as it is giving to twenty members of the House of Commons. It is surprising and even disappointing for us to see senators being given that kind of power. We want to see the Senate abolished.

This was another contradiction of the Reform Party that I wanted to point out.

Finally, under clause 12, the governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes of the act. We believe that this regulatory power, as defined in this bill, is much too broad and that letting a government rule by order in council in a critical situation like an emergency is definitely not in the public interest.

Therefore, the title of the legislation is inappropriate, in that it is too partisan. The bill lacks clarity and opens the door to misinterpretations. The principle of the act and the order proposed by Reformers would be served only too well by this bill. The Senate would play a key role in implementing this legislation, which is unacceptable, as senators are appointed by friends of the government. As a result, the federal government would have too much latitude to interfere in areas that must remain exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.

For these reasons we oppose this bill.