John Williams

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, June 21st, 1994]

What are the names of the Canadian citizens and the specific criteria utilized to select the participants as election observers for the South African election ( a ) in the 75 member bilateral mission, ( b ) in the Commonwealth Observer Group and ( c ) serving with Canadian and South African non-governmental organizations?

(Return tabled.)

[Bankruptcy Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak this evening on Bill C-237, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act.

I appreciate the history lesson from my hon. colleague in the Bloc who went through all of the trials and tribulations to tell us how we managed to arrive at where we are today. I also appreciate the comments by my Liberal colleague who explained the Bankruptcy Act and the fact that a great deal of thought went into the Bankruptcy Act as it is today.

It is rather ironic that I stand here to speak on amendments to the Bankruptcy Act when I was an intervener back in 1991, three years ago when it was being reviewed. I guess we have come full circle. I now stand in the House making comments on potential revisions to the act when three years ago I was making revisions as an accountant on behalf of an organization that had an interest in representing its members as far as the Bankruptcy Act provisions at that time were concerned.

Speaking to the amendments, I find the bill poorly drafted, I am afraid to say. We cannot agree and support the measures being put forth. We do not feel a great deal of thought has been put into the bill. Unfortunately I see it as being ideologically driven, wherein the workers have been put first and absolute in front of everything else with no real consideration to the other parties that have or may have input and deserve consideration in the event of bankruptcy.

It is a socialist position, not only a position of the Bloc separatists. It seems to be socialist as well and perhaps the position of successors to the party that has one or two members on the backbench here.

The first line of the bill states:

Notwithstanding any law or any other provision in this or any other federal or provincial Act-

This puts it as number one, right up there with the charter of rights or perhaps even ahead of the charter of rights. It is a constitutional document because it puts it ahead of all provincial acts at the same time.

If every bill we debated in the House of Commons were to start by saying notwithstanding any other provisions or any other law, how would we ever determine which one would take precedence? It would be impossible. That is why I say even the wording is poorly drafted law. We cannot support the way it is presented.

Subclause (a) talks about giving protection to employees in the amount of $9,000. Three years ago the act allowed $2,000. We have not had inflation of the kind that we would want to multiply it by four and a half times to get up to $9,000 today.

The mover of the bill is also saying that in the event of a bankruptcy and money owing to an employee in an amount of up to $9,000, that money can either be paid into his pension plan or paid to him in cash less normal deductions.

It does not say which one because it says the money could be put into his pension plan as well as wages, salaries, commissions and so on. "As well as" does not tell us which one would take priority. If a trustee in bankruptcy were to put the money into the employee's pension plan while the employee was destitute and the employee was denied access to the money even though it was in his name, how better off would he be?

As it is written, Bill C-237 says that the trustee has a choice. He can put it into the employee's pension plan or he can give it in cash less deductions. He does not even have to take the employee into consideration to see what is most beneficial to him. Unfortunately the act is poorly drawn.

It rearranges the whole order. The act as it currently stands gives priority to secure claims. My hon. colleague on the Liberal side talked about the super creditors and so on. Notwithstanding, as it stands today first are the secured creditors, followed by funeral expenses, undertaker's expenses and so on to look after the unpleasant side of things that the trustee should pay for in the case where the bankrupt is deceased. Then it goes on to pay the trustee's own expenses and talks about wages and salaries.

Wages are number four because the first three items are important. We would not want to pay an unsecured creditor and not pay the undertaker. How would we ever get trustees to wrap up a bankruptcy if their fees took less precedence than the money paid to wage earners who are unsecured creditors? Who would ever do the job? Who would ever pay them? That is why

the Bankruptcy Act as it reads today puts these things ahead of payments to wage earners.

As an hon. colleague asked, what about the banks? What is their attitude to the situation? Let us take the situation of a good sized company of 110 employees. If it had not paid its employees it would have a liability of $1 million. That is the first priority ahead of all other laws, notwithstanding any other law, provincial act or anything else. Are the banks going to lend that company money? Of course not. There is no way that a bank is going to lend money to a company when there is a potential liability of up to $1 million that it will always rank ahead of the government or the bank security.

Therefore business will find that it is unable to raise cash because of that point. Business will decline and unemployment will go up. There will be more and more bankruptcies created by this particular change in the law. I do not think that was the intention of the member who moved the bill.

I do not think it was the intention of the mover to create unemployment. I think the mover was coming at it from the point of view of trying to protect the rights of wage earners. I have no problems with that whatsoever, but we must recognize that the member is actually proposing in the law to create more unemployment and to cause more business failures. He is going to deny business the ability to borrow money. By doing all these things the matter is being made worse rather than better.

The member talked about the compensation plan that was proposed before, but who was supposed to pay for it? The idea was to lump the cost and pass it on to the employer.

The employer is the guy who takes the risks. He is the guy who gets the money left in the till at the end of the day after he has paid for all other obligations, including wages to his people. If there is next to nothing in the till, that is all he gets for his hard work.

I had an accounting business before I got into this political game and I used to deal with many small business people. I said to them that unfortunately in many cases small business people work twice as hard and earn half as much as the people they employ. They said that was right but they enjoyed the freedom of having their own business and they accepted the risks. Unfortunately I saw cases where some businesses did not make it. The point is that they were working hard and as best as they possibly could for the benefit of themselves and the people working for them.

That is the recognition of the role small businesses play in our economy. We should not hamstring small businesses to the point that we expect or assume they are out to gouge their employees and to take them to the cleaners. I can assure the hon. member that in all my experiences with small business people they have gone to great lengths to ensure that their business is viable and that they can look after their employees to the best of their ability.

In wrapping up, I have looked pragmatically at the bill as a Reformer. I recognize the hon. member is trying to protect wage earners, but if he really looked at what this bill would do, he would find that is not the case. Hopefully the hon. member will come around to seeing it in the same way Reformers do. Unfortunately the bill is not acceptable and therefore the Reform Party will not be supporting it.

[Main Estimates, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the debate held on the proposed spending outlined in the 1994-95 main estimates.

Since 1969 Parliament's annual review of the main estimates has resulted in a pathetic total reduction of only one-millionth of one per cent of the proposed expenditures that governments have submitted to Parliament for its approval.

I would hope that my colleagues would reconsider their traditional practice of rubber stamping the government's main estimates. Yesterday the House authorized the government to spend $160.3 billion and will add another $39.7 billion to the national debt, without even considering modest spending reductions.

You would think that when this country is over $500 billion in debt that the government would welcome every opportunity and suggestion to cut its expenditures.

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not have a long prepared text for my speech this morning.

This long and detailed bill on the First Nations self-government act which has been introduced by the government deserves a great deal of consideration. It is a lengthy bill and has major ramifications when it deals with the granting of self-government to large parts of our country by creating a new level, a new idea, a new vision of government by certain classes of people.

It is a little bit different than the whole vision we have always had that Canadians are exactly the same from coast to coast, that we are going to set up some kind of self-government for one particular class of Canadians.

Reformers very much believe in the equality of all Canadians from coast to coast and this type of bill requires a great deal of consideration. We cannot move ahead too quickly on this and the House should take the opportunity to look at the bill and examine it in great detail.

In the deliberations the government and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have had with the aboriginals in the development of this bill I hope the wishes of the rest of Canadians have been taken into consideration. It will have ramifications for natural resources and on how we govern this country. It could become unmanageable to have another level of government introducing its opinion into the development of the country. We already have three levels and a fourth level is going to make it more and more difficult. Therefore I hope the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can give us his assurance that this bill is advancing the cause of Canadian aspirations rather than causing roadblocks and problems in the years ahead.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my point is that our representative on the board has assured us of these savings. The cuts are effective for this particular year. Therefore we are asking the House to recognize the savings and amend the estimates accordingly.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a list in my office. I do not have it in front of me at the moment. I was advised by our member who sits on the Board of Internal Economy, although it is a secretive board and we do not know what really goes on there until the minutes are tabled long afterward, that these payments-

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

"It is a secretive board that nobody can get into", according to my colleague. The Reform member who sits on the board advised me that certain savings have been introduced, passed and are being implemented at this time. This year there will be a savings of that amount of money.

The point I made during my speech was that it was a confidence convention. I never mentioned a free vote. I am just saying that we should allow the House to recognize that savings have already been approved by the Board of Internal Economy in the amount of $2.4 million. Why do we not collectively recognize that already exists and change the main estimates to reflect the new reality?

The President of the Treasury Board comes into the House any time he exceeds a budget and asks for more money. All I am saying is that now we recognize the Treasury Board is not going to be spending the money, let us make that recognition in the House. That is the point I am trying to make today.

I know the government whip concurs with our idea of saving money. They have gone along and made these changes. Let us recognize that and change the estimates now to reflect that.

What signal are we sending to other departments to save money if we say that we do not care if they save money, that they have been allocated money and we are not going to change it, that we are not going to take it back from them, that they can go ahead and spend it anyway? This is a great opportunity for them to reduce the estimates.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the question. The member sits on the Board of Internal Economy and tells us that he has a plan.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss the concurrence of the main estimates placed before this House.

I would like to congratulate the hon. whip on the government side for his fine speech and his Gagliano plan that he talked about. I was hoping that his Gagliano plan does not become a Galileo plan and they revert to star gazing rather than getting the job done.

He also said that they want to give an example starting with themselves to demonstrate to the country that they are prepared to provide leadership. I cannot think of a better opportunity than this evening when they get the opportunity to provide leadership in the vote we will have later on the estimates because there are two things that concern us as Reformers. One is to give Parliament the opportunity to get back into its real role of passing its opinion on the estimates rather than rubber stamping what the government lays in front of the House.

There are two elements that have denied Parliament the opportunity to fulfil its role. One is the convention of confidence which has prevented this House from being able to express its opinion on the estimates. The other is excessive party discipline by the government in power.

These two elements when combined have led to the fiscal rubber stamping by the House of Commons once the estimates have been reported back to this House by the committees which were supposed to have examined them beforehand. I say supposed because quite often the committees do not even address the main estimates before they are tabled in the House and through convention and party discipline the House is forced to concur. Therefore it is a sham and a mockery of the role of Parliament to control the public purse.

The traditional role which Canada inherited in many aspects and in many forms from the government and traditions of the British parliamentary democracy is that the Canadian House of Commons reviews the government's proposed expenditures. We inherited that tradition from the British parliamentary democracy. It is outlined and enshrined in the British North America Act, 1867.

This theory goes back a long way and is based on certain principles. The crown must come to this House and request funds on the advice of the crown's ministers. In Canada, the requests originate from the Governor General on the advice of cabinet, which forms the government, to this House of Commons in the form of recommendations. As in Britain, it is the House of Commons which grants or denies-and let me emphasize or denies-the requests for funds after having reviewed them.

In theory this House has the authority to grant or deny the elected government's request for funding of expenditures it wishes to make in the upcoming year. Unfortunately, as I said, because of the convention of confidence and excessive party discipline we have made a mockery and a sham of the process. It has been many a long year since we have seen this House exercise its prerogative to express its real opinion on the estimates laid before it.

The record of this House in making reductions to the government's expenditures at this stage in the estimates process has been a complete and dismal failure. It is a fiscal disgrace and an abomination. Since 1969 the House of Commons annual review of the estimates has resulted in a reduction on percentage terms of only one-millionth of one per cent. By one-millionth of one per cent have we in this House reduced the estimates in the last 20-odd years that they have been laid before this House. That is an absolute disgrace and my colleagues agree with me. Listen to them over here.

The last time this House exercised its prerogative was in 1973, 21 years ago. It was a Liberal government, albeit a minority government, and that is when conventions of confidence really do matter. The government at that time, when confidence really did matter, allowed a reduction in the estimates. Ever since then Liberal governments and Tory governments-the only governments we have had-have refused to allow any further reductions in the estimates.

Tonight the government said, and I quote the hon. government whip: "Give an example starting with ourselves". That is a direct quote of what he said. Now is a wonderful opportunity for government members to say that the convention of confidence and strict party discipline need not necessarily apply any more and this House is going to demonstrate the open government they so liberally campaigned upon last fall. This is their opportunity to realize upon that commitment they made to Canadians, to express the will of this House and reduce the estimates as laid before us.

The amount was $20,000 out of the entire government expenditure which was around $60 billion at that time. The government cut $19,000 from the Department of Labour for an information program. We talk about advertising and polls today and I think we should cut them as well, but it cut $19,000. It cut $1,000 out of the salary of the president of the CBC. There must have been a tiff with him at that point in time. I think Reformers have a tiff with the CBC today and maybe we should cut more than $1,000 out of his salary, but we are not recommending that at the moment.

For the record, back in 1973 when the government allowed the estimates to be reduced, albeit by $20,000, the member for Shawinigan, our current Prime Minister, voted against the motion. He refused to allow the reduction. Here is a great opportunity for him to make amends by allowing this motion to go through this evening. The Liberal government has a great opportunity to change and redress the problems of history and the things that have gone on in the past.

The confidence convention has traditionally been interpreted to mean that any motion to reduce the vote on the estimates would be viewed as a test of the confidence of this House in the government. We are saying that if there is a reduction in the estimates the government need not necessarily have to resign. We are not going to go that far.

The confidence convention reinforced by excessive party discipline leads to fiscal rubber stamping and fiscal irresponsibility by the House of Commons and the committees when it considers the estimates at this stage. The result has been an extremely modest reduction since 1973, as I said, one-millionth of one per cent.

We would like to see that changed. The negative implications of those two things have contributed to the fact that we are now $500 billion in debt. This House has never been able to express its real opinion as we rack up $40 billion deficits every year. This year is going to be no exception.

We have never been able to express our opinion on the lavish and excessive government spending which has gone on unabated now for over 20 years since we last had a balanced budget. Why? Because there has been no genuine parliamentary safeguard on government spending and there has been insufficient scrutiny by this House on these changes. Change and reform are required and are long overdue.

That is why the Reform Party has offered an alternative. There has been a longstanding Reform policy that says we want to modernize the confidence convention. We are saying to allow this House to express its will freely and democratically on the estimates. If there are reductions, then let there be a motion after it has all been debated and voted upon. If reductions are approved then let a motion of confidence be placed in this House. If that is approved as well then the government knows it still enjoys the confidence of this House and can continue to govern.

These are the things we are talking about as Reformers bringing a fresh new face to Parliament, a new opportunity to do things so much better. For the government whip who said earlier to give them an opportunity to show they are prepared to make an example of the government, here is a great opportunity for them to start now by allowing the reductions.

We are talking about a reduction in money spent by the Board of Internal Economy. The main estimates according to the President of the Treasury Board indicate they are going to spend $164,985,000 in the administration of the House of Commons.

The government whip has told us of his plan which has already led to specific reductions in this fiscal year of over $2 million. We are saying to this government, since that amount has already been reduced and eliminated from spending by this government in this year, which was acknowledged by the previous speaker, then surely it is not a threat to the convention of confidence that we amend the main estimates to reflect the new reality.

The point we want to make is that these reductions are already in place. They have been approved. The government whip has acknowledged that point in his plan. We are saying there is no threat of confidence by recognizing that and putting them back and changing the main estimates to reflect the reality.

We will be talking on other motions about minuscule amounts like $20,000. Out of the total expenditure of $163.6 billion this government is going to spend this year, what is $20,000? Is $20,000 a threat to convention? Does the member think the government is going to fall on that? No. That is the point I want to make.

Another point is the Liberal platform that cuts the grants and subsidies. We are concurring with that point because we also believe in cuts to grants and subsidies. We knocked 5 per cent off that as well.

There are three great opportunities where those members can concur without any threat whatsoever to them and to their government by acknowledging that a cut has already been made. The main estimates should be amended to reflect that reality. The minuscule amount of $20,000 based on all the inflation caused by the Liberal government in its past life and the Tory government is not what it used to be. It is worth a lot less than in 1973. How on earth could that affect the confidence this House would express in the government?

Liberal policies say cuts to grants and subsidies. We concur so let us just do it. That is all we ask. That is the point. My challenge to the government and to all members on the other side of the House is to recognize what they have been saying which was reiterated by the government whip: "Give an example starting with ourselves". A direct quote of five minutes ago.

Here is a great opportunity to do so. I challenge government members to stand up later this evening and vote according with what they have said in the red book and in accordance with the platform on which they were elected.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather surprising that Bloc members are telling us we should not have the other House and they are trying to remove the funding from the other House. They comment on how ineffective the other House is, when they sit here trying to destroy this House and this country. They talk about the ignorance of the people in Quebec and that they do not understand the other House.

Why do they not take the opportunity to go back to the province of Quebec and tell people what a wonderful institution this Parliament is in both Houses? Why not take the opportunity to tell people how much better off they would be if they remained in this country? Why not do that rather than saying: "We are not aware of what goes on there. Therefore it is irrelevant and does not matter, so why not set up our own institution in Quebec City?"

Why does the hon. member and his colleagues not take the opportunity to make this institution work, both Houses that is? Why does he not take the opportunity to make this institution work, rather than thinking they are better off to pack their bags, walk out and destroy this institution and everything it stands for, thinking they would set up something better in Quebec City? What does the hon. member say to that?