Werner Schmidt

[Equality, March 25th, 1996]

One Canada. All of its citizens equal before the constitution. Mr. Speaker, it is almost too late to assure that equality is given to all Canadians.

The Nisga'a deal signed on Friday will create two classes of Canadians: one class has its right to own land protected by the Constitution, the other does not. One has its right to commercial fishing guaranteed by the constitution, the other does not. It is not a constitutional right for non-aboriginals to own land. If it is a constitutional right for aboriginals to own land, so it should be for all Canadians.

I appeal to the Prime Minister not to sign any binding agreement now or in the future which would confer rights upon groups of Canadians based on race. It is urgent because creating two classes of Canadians carries with it the seed of the destruction of Canada's peace and order. We implore the Prime Minister, on behalf of our children, grandchildren and ourselves, not to finalize as it currently stands the Nisga'a deal.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to those of my colleague who asked whether the government of the day cares adequately for the needs and interests of Canadians in Atlantic Canada.

It seems the hon. member for Saint John told us very clearly why this is a rather significant issue. We should be very careful to look after all sections of Canada, not just one. I lend my support to her appeal to the House to support motion No. 25.

With regard to the other amendments being proposed to look after the interests of the elderly and put them into a situation where they are looked after and adequately provided for, the Transportation Act does deal with people who perhaps cannot move as quickly and who may be handicapped. However, we must recognize all Canadians need to be looked after.

It makes excellent sense that we have two motions dealing with the elderly, that they be treated fairly, responsibly and equally. In addition, we must look after the interests of those in Atlantic Canada who want a fair and equitable market that will provide adequate facilities, efficiency and competition in the area.

With regard to Motion No. 38, will we again see that the government does not have the interests of Atlantic Canada at heart? It is particularly significant that it recognize that all parts of Canada belong together.

[Competition Act, March 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to observe your request.

I would like to commend the intent which the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex has presented in Bill C-221. The intent of trying to create more competition and providing a more competitive marketplace is a good idea. Some of the things which the hon. member is trying to achieve are laudable and worthwhile.

I certainly agree with the previous speaker that this is not a partisan issue. It is a good idea to observe that, especially when we are debating Private Members' Business.

I would like to look at this from the perspective of the principle of legislation. The legislation should be supported by principle. The principle which is involved in this legislation is that it should encourage and maintain competition and entrepreneurship, as well as providing a level playing field.

Another characteristic is that it should be enforceable. That means it has to be clear, it has to be reasonable and, of course, it has to enjoy general public support. Those are rather significant matters of principle which any bill should have.

I would like to briefly refer to the provisions in the current legislation. It is very interesting what section 77(2) states. It states that the the director of investigation and research can apply to the tribunal for an order prohibiting a supplier from continuing to engage in exclusive dealings, if the supplier is a major supplier or if the practice is widespread in the market, and if the practice of exclusive dealing is likely to impede entry into or expansion of a firm in a market, or to impede the introduction of a product into or expansion of a product sales in the market, or to have any other exclusionary effect on the market, and if as a result of the practice of exclusive dealing competition is or is likely to be lessened substantially, that is, in a major way.

I would respectfully suggest that the provisions in the current legislation are adequate. Their enforcement however is very inadequate. The hon. member in this legislation is trying to find a way to

have the provisions that are contained in the existing legislation enforced more equitably and a little more easily.

If that is the issue, then the bill goes too far. It applies exactly the same way as the bill is being proposed to urban situations where there are very dense centres of population and to areas where there is sparse population. The problems of doing business are different in a highly concentrated population centre as compared with a sparsely settled area.

The intent of her legislation would definitely appeal and apply to the sparsely settled population centre. I could not agree more. I am not sure however that the same universal application would be equally well supported in large cities like Edmonton, or Toronto, or Ottawa for that matter.

Perhaps the question is, should we not provide for a more effective enforcement mechanism of the current legislation? I do believe, and the hon. member for Huron-Bruce indicated this, that Mazda had recognized that they should allow dual lines to boost the sales of their Mazda line. It is great. It is wonderful. That is the kind of line that the market will provide.

The legislation should allow for that freedom to exist. Where that freedom is interfered with, the director under the existing Competition Act should be allowed to interfere. The reason why he does not interfere is not totally clear to me. In the background information the indication was made that resources are inadequate for the director to actually pursue these kinds of deviations from the intent of the law.

I would respectfully suggest to the House that the appropriate resources be made available to the director so that he or she can prosecute those people who are not meeting the intent of the legislation. We need to be very careful about that sort of thing.

Something else exists in the current legislation which I believe is very inadequate. I would like to refer to some of the notes that the hon. member did make available to my office, which I really appreciate. I would like to read this into the record: "The exclusive dealing provision of the act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the director to move against restrictions on competition such as those inherent in anti-dualing provisions".

That is correct. That exclusive prosecution capability ought to be included in the dealer's ability to go to the tribunal and alert them that there is a problem. I would agree.

Perhaps the amendment includes that. But the amendment would have been more appropriate if that could have been expanded so that dealers could do that.

The next paragraph goes on: "Therefore individual dealers whose businesses are injured by the restrictions contained in anti-dualing simply do not have the right to instigate proceedings". That is the point and I agree completely with it. I know the hon. member said the amendment does that but I am not quite convinced that it does. Section 77(2) or earlier sections which give the director that exclusive right have not been eliminated. Therefore a different set of litigation laws has to be appealed to in order to make happen what the hon. member suggested would happen.

Finally, to be really effective and fair, an amendment to the act should not only allow for enforcement action against anti-dualing provisions in franchise agreements but also should be framed in such a way that a dealer or a member of the public-we are adding the member of the public now-who is injured by the existence or enforcement of such provisions will have the right to take private action against the restrictive provisions.

Those are the kinds of things that I believe should be included in the amendment to the current Competition Act. I agree with that and support it.

I find myself not in opposition to the bill but suggesting that some changes could be made that would make it a little more effective and that would make a distinction between the sparsely populated centre versus the densely populated centre because the problems are different. I know the sparsely populated centres are the ones where the current anti-dualling provisions handicap the dealers tremendously. They do not do the kinds of things the member is trying to do with this bill. I agree completely with that.

Perhaps this will improve it a little. Maybe the next time we come at this we will have it put together the way we need it.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member on his remarks. He did a good job as he usually does on the industry committee. I was very interested to hear him.

I would like to address a question concerning three programs through which government moneys are distributed: the Business Development Bank of Canada, the community futures program and the regional development programs.

Would the hon. member please comment on the following. Is it not somewhat confusing to rural people to have so many different ways of looking at these things? Could these things be co-ordinated? What is his opinion about doing some of this in a more co-ordinated fashion instead of having one bureaucracy that deals with community futures, another that deals with the Business Development Bank of Canada and a third one that deals with regional development corporations which often become very little more than a political patronage type of agency?

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sympathy for the spirit that has been engendered with the comments made by my colleague from Lloydminster and also my colleague across the way from Churchill. This kind of conciliatory attitude ought to prevail in a whole variety of areas.

In rising to address some of the aspects of the speech from the throne, I wish to refer to the particular area where the speech from the throne is particularly unspecific. It has to do with updating legislation governing financial institutions to ensure that the legislation continues to be relevant to the emerging needs of businesses and consumers.

It is absolutely correct that we need to do this. The difficulty with the provision in the speech from the throne is that there is no particular direction as to what should happen. Will that legislation deal with all financial institutions, that is, insurance companies, banks, trust companies, securities dealers, credit unions? Does it contemplate the establishment of a new schedule of banks so that there will indeed be some competition in this area, or at least a change in competition? Will there be changes regarding the privacy and confidentiality of personal information?

It is perfectly clear in the provisions of some of the banks at the moment that if you make application to become a client in one section, then personal information such as name, address, assets, liabilities, indebtedness to one part of the bank is automatically transferred to another. If you decide not to allow that to happen, then the financial institution, in this particular case the bank, has the right to terminate your business relationship with the bank upon 30 days notice.

Will it deal with the levels of access of capital by small business? I was rather impressed by the minister of foreign trade who suggested that perhaps we ought to have more export and that the banks should lend more money to small business. Is he suggesting that there be some kind of legislation that will force the banks into lending to a certain level to certain kinds of businesses in certain parts of the country doing certain kinds of business?

Will the legislation deal with how we shall evaluate various kinds of business, particularly the knowledge based industries where the technology and knowledge is the issue and there are no hard assets that there are in certain other sections? Is that what the legislation will address?

The speech addresses none of these kinds of things and therefore we do not know where it is going. The fundamental issue in terms of that legislative change or examination should address the question: What should be the appropriate balance of influence and power among the financial institutions in Canada? It is a relative position. Who should dominate? Which institution or group of institutions? There is no direction in the speech that indicates there ought to be that kind of balance and where the balance should lie.

That is an absolutely crucial question which needs to be addressed and it is not. That is a very serious shortcoming.

I also would like to very briefly touch on the significance of science in our economy and address the comments that were made by the auditor general in 1994 when he said: "In today's world, economic progress is measured by the ability to provide at competitive prices the variety of common and new products and services that global markets demand. This requires the ability to adapt and commercialize the results of science and technology". This is a very insightful remark and one that we ought to take very seriously.

What ought to happen here is that the government should create in whatever way it can and in every way possible a new awareness of the role of science in our educational institutions. It should not do the kinds of things that were done last year when it terminated the recognition of science teachers and the granting of scholarships for students of science.

We need competition among institutions to provide the most cost efficient and relevant programs. We need a new system of introducing a consumer model in post-secondary education so that student choice can have an economic dimension to it. There could perhaps be such things as vouchers so that the educational institution is not granted funding simply on the basis that the institution exists, but rather on the basis of competence, competition and strength of the programs it provides for students.

One part of the throne speech is very specific and it is this particular specificity I want to address. On page 12 of the speech from the throne is found the following paragraph:

Action has already been taken to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada and to guarantee that no constitutional change affecting any major region of the country will take place without the consent of that region.

Now comes a humdinger of a statement:

The government supports the entrenchment of these provisions in the Constitution.

We have just heard about the need for reconciliation. It is important for us to recognize one another as citizens of one nation. We need to be tolerant with one another. We should not create exclusiveness between one group and another.

I suggest that the time has come for us to accept one another as Canadians. If distinction is to suggest that I am distinct from my colleague from northern British Columbia, from any one of my other colleagues of the Reform Party, from any one of my colleagues across the way or in the Bloc, yes, I am distinct. However, that does not create any special status for any one of those people or any special status for me as an individual.

It is very clear that the issue that needs to be addressed today is one of building a relationship, not finding ways in which we can draw distinctiveness between us, which separates one another and creates some kind of special position relative to one another based on where we live, what we speak and what we believe.

We need to build. The word that we ought to talk about is building, not separating. We need to build, to work together, not to become exclusive or distinct in some way. These thinks should be looked at.

I would suggest not a perfect document but a document that comes to grips with what ought to be the characteristics of a Confederation in which all Canadians are treated as equals. I suggest that the government look at the 20 proposals for Confederation that were presented by the Reform Party. Look at the implications and the consequences of the matters that need to be addressed in the event that separation ought to be contemplated in a serious way. It is not a perfect document. It was put out for discussion and examination. It should be treated very seriously.

If the Prime Minister truly wants to unite this country, then I suggest that he listen to the people. They are sending a message to us and to him. It says yes, we are distinct in the sense that each one of us is distinct from the other. But do not ever divide us into categories based on geography, on race, on language or on religion. We are Canadians, no more and no less. Dare not divide us into groups based on where we live, what we believe or what language we speak.

This speech is at the same time so unspecific as to be non-directional and dangerous in that it threatens to divide people who want to be together and be united. It is within this context that I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment we are debating at this point.

I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the words "Quebec society" the following:

-and in particular, recognition that it is the separatist movement in Quebec that threatens the economy of Montreal.

Much was made a moment ago about how the economy is dropping in Montreal. The reason it is dropping is because of the threat of separation of Quebec from Canada. That is the reason for this amendment. I urge the House accept the amendment to the amendment and support it.

[Petitions, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition on behalf of 500 of my constituents.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation that will ensure the preservation of medicare through adequate funding and

compliance with the five principles of medicare: accessible, comprehensive, universal, portable, and publicly administered.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to comment on the human investment. The sad part is that so much of the human effort has been completely ignored by the government.

All kinds of witnesses come before committees, not only the industry committee but a number of other committees, and what effect has it had on legislation? What effect has it had in bringing about any amendments? The hon. member should recognize that that kind of thing is much more debilitating than for the government to take the position that if it prorogues it can bring that stuff back because some of that investment of time and energy is significant and should not be lost.

It is not lost. We have heard all those things. If the government is really serious it will bring forward that legislation very quickly and very clearly. It will not have to go through all of that debate again. We know that and I believe the hon. member knows that.

If there were ever a time when we should be sensitive to the human element it is now. We should recognize the terrible position that people are put in when they are not sure about what is going to happen to the criminal who is incarcerated for committing a violent crime, who has raped their daughters and is now out on the street again without any restriction whatsoever. That is the concern. That has a far greater human cost than the debate that has happened, that has not been forgotten and does not have to be repeated even if the bill is presented at first reading. That is the human cost.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that my colleague across the way asked that question. It really gives me a chance to say something about the speed with which legislation is introduced to the House and the substance of the legislation that is introduced. It is almost like having a car that is trying to go uphill but the ice on the highway is so slick that the car cannot move at all. It is spinning like crazy but it is not going anywhere. That is what is happening here.

If the hon. member is really concerned about the costs that were incurred, then the legislation should have been pushed through the House on a regular basis, instead of trying to force it all through at the end.

Let us take as an example the internal trade agreement. The agreement was signed on July 1 the year before. A whole year later the bill finally came to the House. We would told we should pass it into law so that it can be put into operation. What was the delay? Certainly the opposition did not delay it. The standing committee did not delay it. Somebody else delayed it. I wonder if it is not the same group that has the opportunity to bring bills back to the House if this motion is passed.

The concern I have is this. How much time has the government wasted by not moving faster than it did? If the government wanted to bring all these bills forward, why did it not just keep on going? We lost a whole month.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

This is interesting. The hon. member says that is more progress than the Tories made. I draw to the member's attention that since he and his colleagues came into the House they have added to the debt $76 billion plus. That is their contribution to the fiscal health of the country. It is on the backs of the people that the deficit and the debt ride, and they are getting heavier and heavier. I suggest to the Prime Minister and to my colleagues opposite that the back that is being broken is the back of the taxpayer, not of the deficit.

There comes a time when one almost has to say that what we have here is a tyranny of the majority. It is not the interests of the people that are being addressed in this motion but the convenience of a particular group of people who not want to live by the procedures that we have all agreed to. They want to change them.

It would be one thing to say this will simply bring back the bills the government wants back on the table. Then it ties that with this sort of noble condescending attitude, almost patronizing, saying it will also allow private members' bills to come forward. That does not change the principle one iota. It seems the government wants to get some kind of prestige, or to drain some credibility from the fact that yes, private members' bills will also be able to come to the table. If it was morally wicked before, if it was a fraud before, it is no less wicked and no less a fraud today than it was then.

I suggest that the sooner we get on with the business of the country and deal with things like the deficit, justice issues and keeping criminals off the streets, we will be far better off than wrangling here on whether we should bring back all that stuff that was really supposed to have been stopped by prorogation at the whim and fancy of the government whenever it wishes to do so.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Fraud. He called it a fraud but today it is good stuff. He goes on. It gets better: "I want to deal with the propriety of the motion the government introduced. I suggest it is contrary to all the practices of this House for the last 124 years. It is a breach of the proprieties of this place. While the Speaker has ruled that the motion is in order and I respect that ruling, I suggest that it is still morally wicked".

What a statement. That is what he said when he was on this side but now that he is part of the government he says that is okay. It is as morally wicked today as it was then. The morals have changed. It is amazing. One walks across the House and the morals become different. Is it not interesting? What has happened in this place?

Then he drew his conclusion: "I suggest that this is wrong and it is wickedly wrong. It is a gross violation of the constitutional principles on which the House has operated since Confederation". Listen to the loftiness of these phrases. "Indeed it is contrary to the whole practice of British parliamentary tradition for 900 years and nothing like this has ever been tried before. I suggest it is wrong. The government knows it is wrong".

It is very interesting that at that time the hon. member was joined by the now premier of Newfoundland who said: "The government party of the day regrettably for the country, a country in desperate need of leadership on the constitutional front and on the economic front, does not have the confidence of the people". Even as a member of the opposition, one wanting to replace the governing party, he made those kinds of comments. What does the government do? Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated to the House that the back of the deficit had been broken. That is an interesting conclusion when the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the speech from the throne said very clearly that the deficit shall be at least or not more than 2 per cent of the gross domestic product.

That does not suggest the deficit's back has been broken. It has not made any indication either of how seriously the fiscal situation of the country has been damaged and continues to be damaged.