Werner Schmidt

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Let me quote clause 13 and members will know how much intervention there is. I am convinced the Liberal idea of leadership is to govern in the truest sense of the word, to make decisions on behalf of everyone but never face the people or listen to them. I want to illustrate clearly that the parliamentary secretary to the minister of state for science and technology is at least making an effort to listen to the public.

How do I show this? Bill C-46 in subclause 13(1) referring to cabinet, the most central part of government, clearly states:

Where the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the national interest to do so, the Minister may, in exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions assigned by subsection 4(1)-

These have been detailed by the parliamentary secretary and my colleague from the Bloc so I will not take time to read them. It continues:

-develop and implement programs and projects of special assistance to industries, particular industrial or commercial establishments, organizations, persons who are members of a particular category of persons defined by order of the Governor in Council or particular persons to aid economic development, whether through the restructuring, adjusting, rationalizing, establishing or re-establishing, modernizing, expanding or contracting of an industry or particular industrial or commercial establishment or organization in Canada, or otherwise.

If that is not intervention in the sense of allowing cabinet rather than the enterprise system or the individuals to make decisions, what is it? As the government intervenes, government decides who wins and who loses. The marketplace is not permitted to function as it should. Of course there should be some guidelines but it is not allowed to function without undue restriction.

The Tories did that. The Liberals before them did that and the Liberals of today say that they will do it too. It is not new. It is not more efficient. It is more of the same. I submit that nothing has changed. If anything, the government is likely to make a bad situation worse.

The bill perpetuates the philosophy that has so debilitated Canada throughout successive governments. If we look at the deficit today we recognize only too clearly that is precisely what happened. Do we remember C. D. Howe's cavalier statement: "What's a million?" That embodies what the department has done throughout its history.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me this morning to enter the debate on Bill C-46. I am particularly pleased to see the minister's parliamentary secretary here but very disappointed the minister himself is not here to enter the debate on Bill C-46.

I wish to enter into the debate by indicating that the bill which apparently is simply to streamline and to create jobs, as has been indicated by the parliamentary secretary, is nothing of the kind.

There was an opportunity in presenting the bill to the House to show some leadership in this vast and extremely powerful economic arm of the government. Based on the content of the bill that leadership opportunity has been ignored. I hope to show that there is a need in Canada as never before for the portfolio of the minister of industry to provide the leadership and direction from which Canada could benefit so much.

In so doing, I wish to draw attention very briefly to the development of the particular department. C. D. Howe ran much of the former department of trade and commerce during the fifties essentially as minister of defence production. Much of the development in the fifties and in his direction to that particular department was as a result of the contacts he had made with various industries during World War II.

Walter Gordon followed C. D. Howe. He wanted to create a department of industry in the early sixties. Eventually he was successful in doing it. Mr. Gordon was an interventionist and a protectionist and he wanted the department of industry to further those goals. His proposal received a rough ride in cabinet at that time and from the existing department of trade and commerce. Eventually the department was established but had no clear direction or vision of what it was supposed to do partly because according to some observers Mr. Gordon really wanted to be the minister of finance and did not want any advice from the Economic Council of Canada which was trying to develop a strategy for the economic development of Canada.

In 1968 industry, trade and commerce was established as a merger of industry and trade and commerce under Jean-Luc Pepin. It is also worthy to note that at that time a parallel development took place, the development of regional economic expansion. These were years of difficulty involved in integrating industry on the one hand, trade and commerce on the other, and DREE on the other side. Organizations and reorganizations occurred within industry over the following decade, always searching for a focus and cohesion that seemed to elude them.

In 1978 the ministry of state for economic development was created, another new name. Out of the government's desire to co-ordinate economic and industrial strategy which had always been eluding it under the efforts of ITC it noticed the only thing that changed was the name. It was the ministry of state for economic development.

In 1982 the industry, trade and commerce department was scrapped under the reorganization of government initiated by then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. The trade commissioner service was moved to external affairs and the remainder of industry, trade and commerce was merged with DREE, the department of regional economic expansion. Out of that department the new name was generated, the department of regional industrial expansion. The ministry of state for economic development was renamed the ministry of state for regional economic development and was given responsibilities for that area.

Almost all officials involved in the reorganization undertaken under a veil of great secrecy were from the privy council office. Even some of the ministers and deputy ministers directly involved in the reorganization were not involved in the discussions with privy council establishing a new department. Again, confusion and turf wars among the various component entities of DRIE prevailed.

In 1987 the government announced the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and soon after western economic diversification. The rest of DRIE became over the next three years the department of industry, science and technology. During that three-year period the privy council office provided no direction or very little direction for the creation of the mandate for the ISTC and the department was left to find its own direction. While the ministers did attend some of the meetings they did not provide any particular direction.

The election of 1988 and the following free trade agreement negotiations interfered with the further development of the mandate so the department wandered for three years before it was officially created in 1990.

In review, the core of the department of industry has been a long history or succession of organizational changes and name changes. Each has been without focus, lacking in vision or coherent strategy, and producing interior confusion and strife for the various entities. Attempts at meshing the different philosophies have produced a department which attempts to implement mutually exclusive mandates: that of national industrial development on the one hand and that of regional, economic and industrial strategy on the other.

That history continues in the bill. The incompatible strategies of regional and national economic expansion continue without change.

Shortly after the minister took on his portfolio he said that he had four goals he wanted to pursue while he carried out his mandate: small business, tourism, the information highway and the promotion of exports. In his first major piece of legislation the minister does not articulate a clear vision of the department in any of these areas. Neither does he solve the incompatibility between regional and national strategies.

The minister had the opportunity to make a difference, to provide a direction, to determine and clearly set goals for his department, to re-establish confidence in government and politicians which the parliamentary secretary so ably said he was doing and he did not, to provide a fresh new voice for the people fiscally and democratically, and to set out a vision for the department of industry in Bill C-46, an act to establish the department of industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts.

What did the minister do? The minister has missed the opportunity to act, accepted the Tory leadership in re-organization, essentially changed nothing major, accepted their direction, accepted their philosophy and accepted their goals. He changed nothing of consequence. The minister accepted the principles that guided the writing of the act. This represents more of the same. There will probably be no more confidence in the government than there was in the previous one if that is the kind of leadership we are to get.

What are the two big themes the minister could have effected? The first is quality of treatment: treat all the regions the same way with no special considerations for any one part of Canada over another. The second is the intrusion of government: get government out of the economy as much as possible and let the market preside.

[British Columbia Summer Games, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the 1994 British Columbia Summer Games will be held right in the heart of the beautiful Okanagan Valley in Kelowna from July 21 to July 24.

Over 4,200 of the best amateur athletes, more than double the number at Lillehammer, Norway, for the Olympics, from all over British Columbia will be competing in more than 30 different sporting events.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the many hundreds of volunteers that have helped already and will continue to help make this event the largest single community event ever held in Kelowna.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite you and all the members of the House, as well as all other Canadians, to come to Kelowna and witness the athletes in action and enjoy a holiday in the spectacularly beautiful Okanagan Valley.

Again my thanks to all those involved in getting Kelowna ready to host the province. Let the games begin.

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

Mr. Speaker, in part I believe the shortfall comes in the new language that has been created. Somehow we now have two kinds of nations; we have two kinds of citizens. If we think the relationship will be changed simply by writing new words it is false. Nation means something to me that is somehow separate from other nations. It creates a difference. I do not think it is possible to have two kinds of nations within a nation, and that is what has been created.

We have used the terms nations and First Nations. We have used the term nation. We have citizens. That is where the confusion lies. If that could be clarified so that a citizen of a first nation is like a resident of Alberta or a resident of British Columbia, if that is what is meant, why would we use a new kind of language? This is confusing. It needs to be clarified. It needs to be recognized that they are equal people who share the same kind of rights and privileges the rest of us share; nothing special or nothing denigrating.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

We have to be very careful how we deal with a subject that far reaching which affects virtually every Canadian as I indicated in my remarks: Indian, non-Indian, native, aboriginal or whomever.

The concept of democracy, the concept of freedom, the concept of equality and the concept of being a citizen of a nation are very fundamental. I in no way want to suggest to the member or to anyone listening to the debate this afternoon that everything was always right in the past. Indeed it was not. There were many times in the history of Canada where we treated one another very poorly, where we did not treat one another equally,

where we did not give the kinds of rights we should have given and where we did indeed deny people certain rights because of their ethnic or other backgrounds.

That does not make me proud. The fact remains that we are at a point in history today where we can rectify some of those things, but let us not rectify them in such a way that would create new inequalities and would deny the very things we want to rectify. Let us create strong legislation. In no way do I disparage the direction in which the legislation is headed or the spirit that I think is intended in it. That is not my concern.

My concern is that we create a Canada where Canadians of whatever description, no matter where they live in the country, no matter whether they came here as immigrants or were born here, are Canadian citizens, are equal and do not have particular rights because of a particular ethnicity, language, religion or anything else. That to me is key. If the legislation can be improved to reflect that, I am completely in favour of it.

I am suggesting there are unanswered questions in the legislation. It does not give the kind of equality I stand for and the freedom I want to promote.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me this afternoon to enter into the debate on Bill C-34. It is a landmark piece of legislation that is being proposed to this House and I commend the minister for bringing forward legislation that deals with a very significant and serious matter that will affect all Canadians.

Regardless of whether we consider the advent of the Europeans into the territory we now know as Canada to have been fair and just, since then a lot of time has passed and the passing of time has brought tremendous change into this country and in the way we relate one to another.

Some of those changes have been cultural and today Canada is a multicultural country. The changes have been economic and today Canada is a developed nation. More significantly, the changes are irreversible. We cannot go back. We cannot go back because we must think about each of the 28 million people who

today call themselves Canadians, native or non-native, French or English, black or white.

Any original injustice when might was right set an immutable course which has brought us here where the dominion of some is now the dominion of many. To recognize this is to recognize that despite history the present rests on compromise. Compromise means that we can acknowledge with the deepest respect both the indigenous peoples who gave this land its spirit and the dreamers and builders who later came here and created Canada, as it is today.

In this House compromise comes to us in the form of Bill C-34 this afternoon; agreeing with which grants self-government to the First Nations in the Yukon territory.

Government is right to pursue such a compromise. Compromise under Bill C-34 affirms the right of the Yukon Indians to determine how they will live culturally and spiritually, and that is right.

Compromise under Bill C-34 means the Yukon First Nations people will determine how they will govern themselves and how they will determine their economic future, and that too is right.

We must ask ourselves questions. Does Bill C-34 further the common good for Canada and does it respect the equal nature of the rights and privileges of every citizen in this country? The question is twofold. Does it further the common goal of Canada, the common good for Canada? In any situation that requires compromise it must seem so. Government and natives are carving out a way to solve a disagreement that has carried on for many years. Many feel, and I am inclined to agree, that this agreement and others like it place doubt in the value of nationhood, citizenship and democracy.

Nationhood is the way we define who we are. We value nationhood because it gives us a strong identity and emphasizes that each of the citizens who make up that nation are members of that nation and are therefore equal.

Bill C-34 proposes to create a nation within a nation. Why? What of the nationhood that already exists? What of the equality of those citizens who live within this nation? Creating a nation, a first nation, within a nation does nothing to advance the equal status of First Nations people with other Canadians. Instead, establishing a first nation creates a bias based on ethnic origin, something which Canada and many others have worked very hard to eradicate from the political practices of mankind.

No matter in whose favour one pursues the bias, it remains a bias. It emphasizes what is different and makes it conspicuous rather than allowing our varied ethnic identities to form a tightly woven and colourful background that identifies us as Canadians. Is that good for Canada? How can it be?

This bias breaks the link that forms nationhood, the link of citizenship and the relationship between an individual and his or her country, the implication of freedom.

In Bill C-34 a new language has been created where words like nation and citizen have been redefined as they apply to native Canadians. By redefining these words we place doubt on the value of the original nation and the original citizen. This new language says this is my land and that is your land. It says this is my nation, the first nation, and that is your nation, the nation of Canada. It says in this nation I am a citizen of the first nation. In your nation you are a citizen of Canada.

The new language erects boundaries and cuts holes in a land where First Nations live. Like the main sail of a ship the holes work to weaken and cause a greater chance for larger tears and cease to protect from the winds of change. Once nationhood and citizenship are redefined, the very pillars of democracy begin to crumble and that is not good for Canada.

Does Bill C-34 respect the equal rights and privileges of every citizen in this country? In part I have answered that question in my previous remarks. Bill C-34 emphasizes an ethnic bias simply by acknowledging it. No other citizen in Canada receives rights or privileges on the basis of ethnic origin, although our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois are seeking that very thing.

By setting this precedent in Bill C-34 I fear that we are fueling the fires of those who would separate, who can now argue that they like the First Nations people have the right to special status based on their ethnic origin.

It is further evidenced that special status does not accomplish what it intends. It does not strengthen, it serves to weaken. Some may argue that Bill C-34 gives First Nations people no more rights and privileges than any other Canadian. Why is it necessary to entrench these rights and privileges in legislation by naming them?

First Nations people are citizens of Canada and as such are given the same rights and privileges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as any other Canadian-we heard this in this House just a few moments ago-except for one. By creating land claim agreements and subsequent self-government agreements we give to the First Nations people something that no other Canadian has a right to, namely the right to own property.

No other Canadian is allowed to realize that because it is not enshrined in the Constitution. By giving First Nations people ownership over their lands, we have now set a precedent which

would allow others to claim ownership for any number of other reasons, a certain one of which comes to mind readily.

Is this the way we ensure that all Canadians are treated equally and fairly under the Constitution?-no. Does this respect the equal nature of the rights and privileges of every citizen in this country?-no. Is this the way democracy is meant to function?-no.

Democracy says we all shall have a voice and that no one voice should be louder or stronger than any other. Democracy is meant to serve all, not a chosen few. Bill C-34 is a far cry from the agreements of long ago which placed First Nations people on reserves with limited lands and limited responsibilities and capabilities.

In our minds such legislation should speak with more dignity and find a way to bring together two sides in what has been a long and venerable argument. For the sake of both sides it is important that we use the same democratic principles that form the foundation of any legislation in this country. If we do not, that legislation is weak from the start and vulnerable to failure.

We owe it to native and to non-native Canadians to make Bill C-34 and any self-government legislation or land claims agreement sound, for if we are going to go forward we must do just that. The right legislation will respect all of us and will acknowledge the very thing that makes us the same.

We all want a home where we are free to explore our personal identities and spirituality and culture, but it has never been right to pursue this at the cost of others. There will be a cost if in our haste to find a compromise we pass legislation that has the potential to create more division.

In a strong, confident and democratic environment distinctions are valuable and positive, but in a fragmented one they become razor sharp, manipulated to cut here and there, to sever. The differences of Canada have great potential to hurt us if we continually uphold them at the cost of what is true, that we are all first and foremost citizens of Canada.

I believe Bill C-34 is guilty of this. I believe that Bill C-34 forgets that while it seeks to solve the past discrepancies faced by native Canadians, it affects all Canadians. Bill C-34, which provides self-government, Yukon self-government, must seek to reaffirm the citizenship of everyone, our nationhood, our confidence in democracy.

Bill C-34 must bring an end to the beliefs that put greater importance on who was here first or how we came to be here rather than where we are now. All Canadians seek a place of belonging unfettered by intellectual and physical boundaries. All Canadians seek citizenship in its truest form in a place where we uphold that all people are created equal.

Let us not jeopardize this by passing weak legislation that forgets our nationhood, our citizenship and democracy. Let us affirm this again and again above all else because this place exists, this country exists, and that place is Canada.

[Petitions, June 1st, 1994]

Over 4,600 people from my constituency felt that what Tammy and Jennifer were doing deserved their support and I am happy to say today that I have helped Jennifer and Tammy show to the country, through the House, their intent and feeling.

[Petitions, June 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is with great honour that I rise today to present this petition asking the government to reform the Young Offenders Act.

This petition which calls for tougher laws for today's youth who commit violent crimes was started in my riding a couple of months ago by Jennifer Schuller and Tammy Carvalho, two grade 10 students at Mount Boucherie senior secondary school in Kelowna, B.C.

Jennifer and Tammy had become so fed up with the way the justice system dealt with their own age group that they took it upon themselves to start a petition to ask their elected representatives to fix the problem.

As their MP I am more than proud to convey their feelings to this House and to the Minister of Justice. Jennifer and Tammy feel as I do, that by making the Young Offenders Act tougher on youths who commit violent crime it will instil a feeling of greater responsibility for one's own actions in our young people.

Jennifer, Tammy and I believe that reforming the act is only part of the solution. We as communities, we in our homes and in our families and in our schools must work together to create an environment in which our young people do not feel the need to act out in a violent manner. We have the responsibility to teach our young people that they have to be prepared to accept the

consequences of their actions. We cannot expect government to solve this problem alone.

Over 4,600 people from my constituency felt that Tammy and Jennifer-

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will address my remarks to the contents of Bill C-12. I resist corroborating the opinion that was expressed by the member opposite that if the bill is really not a major bill then it should not receive major debating time. If there are major points to be made then let us make them. However we have to be very careful not to abuse our privileges.

Bill C-12 as I understand it represents amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act which will govern approximately 190,000 Canadian federal business corporations, including over 50 per cent of Canada's top 500 corporations.

This is the first phase of amendments designed to improve the competitiveness of Canadian business, simplify filing and record keeping requirements and certain corporate governance procedures and allow for technological innovation. The bill also begins the process of modernizing federal corporate law.

Amendments to Bill C-12 are purported to be of a largely technical nature. While this is in essence true we feel certain amendments could have ramifications far beyond the technical level.

We applaud those amendments to Bill C-12 that will result in simplifying filing and record keeping requirements and certain corporate governance procedures, allow for the technological innovation and better service to all regions of Canada, enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the CBCA and clarify the language of the act through changes to the French and English versions and through the use of better terminology. It will promote good governance in corporate enterprises-at least that is what the intent is-facilitate efficient and flexible business management while protecting investors, including minority shareholders, and foster a fair and efficient marketplace.

It is purported to provide flexibility for corporations to act quickly and with less expense to unforeseen events by permitting current directors to appoint a limited number of directors in the time between shareholder meetings, if the corporation's bylaws permit that to happen.

We recognize that these measures are part of the government's commitment in the speech from the throne to focus on small and medium sized businesses. We encourage measures that are designed to improve the competitiveness of Canadian business. By encouraging internal trade within Canada and by helping business pursue an active international trade policy, we can place our federal corporations in a better competitive position.

We would be pleased if the reforms that are currently within the amendments to the CBCA accomplish all of these objectives. Certain provisions however require closer scrutiny and should be noted.

First, the provision to eliminate public financial disclosure for larger privately held corporations may allow certain public companies to transfer assets to private companies under their control and thereby avoid financial disclosures of these private subsidiaries.

Sections 16 and 17 regarding financial disclosure, while apparently not significant to the minister, being simply of a

technical nature, should be recognized as a substantive departure from the current provisions. They are not technicalities as suggested by the minister. They should be studied by the committee with a promise to consider moving them to the second part of the amendments to this act.

Notice is hereby given as well that two other matters are of concern to members of our party and will be drawn to the attention of the committee studying the bill. They are, first, the new section, 258.2, which allows the director to exempt notices or documents from having to be sent to the director in the prescribed circumstances. This is potentially a very wide provision if the governor in council chooses to prescribe wide circumstances.

We have been advised by department officials that this is intended to apply only to cases where documents are publicly available elsewhere. To make sure this is the sole reason, an amendment to that effect is required. The amendment could be something like this: "If a notice or document is required under this act to be sent to the director must be made public by some other provision of or made pursuant to another act of Parliament other than this act, the director may, by order made subject to the condition that the other provision has been complied with and any other conditions the director may consider appropriate, exempt the notice or document from the requirement under this act that it be sent to the director".

The second amendment that ought to be looked at refers to section 8(2). This section provides a previously unregulated period for which records must be kept. The minister mentioned that presently the act is silent on this and that we need to recognize under the Income Tax Act and the provisions thereof that claims to be made by the minister may be made for six years back and the limitation on actions in contracts in most and maybe all provinces is six years after the cause for the action arises.

In light of these provisions it seems strange to have a six year minimum, as longer record retention is generally mandated by other legislation and by common sense. It would appear to be better either to leave out this provision or to avoid redundancy and to have a longer period, say eight or ten years. Eight years would certainly cover the income tax provision and meet most contract litigation needs.

There is a second reason why the provision which will see record keeping reduced to six years may be inadequate. Litigation procedures may be started after six years so the requirement should be, in our opinion, probably something like ten years.

The second phase of the reforms that are being talked about here should also be referred to at this time. We are alerted that consultations for phase two reforms have apparently started already. They includes issues like the liability of corporate directors; shareholder communications both between the corporation and the shareholders and also among shareholders; citizenship and residency requirements currently imposed on boards of directors; financial assistance granted by the corporation to directors, officers, shareholders and others; and governing insider trading and takeover bids. Each of these areas are very substantive in nature and will require very careful and detailed examination and study.

Their importance to the federal business corporations and to Canada's competitiveness is clear. The expansion of directors' liability may be leading some qualified people for example to refuse board appointments. For a corporation to be successful, qualified people must be willing to serve on boards and once there to take bold steps in order to compete in the global marketplace.

We also encourage commitment to continued reform. It is absolutely amazing this particular act has not been revised over the last 20 years. If we compare business practices of 20 years ago to today and the competition that exists out there I find it almost unbelievable that the act still fits. It does not fit too well and that is why it is before us today. So we are encouraging continued reform.

The proposed amendments require the minister to submit within three years of this bill receiving royal assent a report to Parliament on the provisions and operation of the act, including recommendations for further changes to the law.

We heard the hon. minister say about an hour ago that within 18 months he expects to bring this forward. I certainly would encourage him to meet that deadline.

In general we support the objectives of the bill. We recognize the government's efforts to meet one of its promises as set out in the speech from the throne. However we would caution the minister from viewing all of the amendments to this bill as technicalities. While in some instances this is essentially true there are other areas, as demonstrated in the text of my speech so far, that require closer and more cautious scrutiny.

I am confident that once this bill is referred to committee, government members will agree that some safeguards must be implemented to protect shareholders, the corporate structure and finally the Canadian marketplace. Once this is accomplished I believe Bill C-12 will meet its objectives of promoting a fair and efficient marketplace and an economic climate that is conducive to sustained growth and job creation.

We look forward to the referral of this bill to the committee. We will take the opportunity then to ensure that Bill C-12 meets its objectives in a manner satisfactory to all sides of the House.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[Apple Industry, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I agree with the minister that we need to have good factual information. He is quite right in that. I believe the B.C. fruit growers are fully aware of the difficulty that is there. They believe these numbers are correct.

I challenge the minister to recognize that we are dealing with perishable fruit that cannot wait five or six months. Will the minister act now to speed up the process involved and have the complaints heard by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal so that others will not suffer in the same way in the future, that is, the next crop that is coming up.