Philip Mayfield

[Points Of Order, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the government's practice of not always doing what it says it will do.

[Points Of Order, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, much earlier, in fact in the month of June this year, before the summer recess during a discussion of the Airbus affair in question period the Minister of Justice agreed to table a letter that he received from the RCMP.

Twice I have raised a point of order requesting this letter be tabled. Since returning from the summer recess, while checking with the Journals Branch on September 19, I was advised that nothing has been tabled concerning the Airbus affair.

Is the justice minister going to keep his promise or is this another example of the deceptive, sleight of hand government that the Liberals are so good at? I would ask the Minister of Justice-

[Petitions, September 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I pleased to present a petition signed by 92 constituents from the province of British Columbia and the communities of Horsefly, Williams Lake and Miocene.

My constituents request that Parliament enact Bill C-205, a bill which would amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act. Passage of this bill would prohibit a criminal from profiting by selling, authorizing or authoring the story or details of a crime.

[Point Of Order, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier this week while we were discussing the Airbus affair during question period, the Minister of Justice agreed to table a letter he received from the RCMP. To the

best of my knowledge that letter has not yet been tabled and may I request that that be done so, please.

[Financial Institutions, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, members of the Reform Party of Canada welcome the opportunity to respond to the minister's long awaited white paper on the review of financial institutions legislation. We all know how important a stable, efficient, competitive and innovative financial system is to a complex economy like Canada's, so the impending review is viewed with a great deal of seriousness.

The four pillars of the financial sector, banking, insurance, trust companies and securities dealers, have crumbled as deregulation and technological progress has blurred the lines of distinction. The banks have been applying pressure ever since to enter into other sectors such as retail insurance, auto leasing and increasing their interest in the securities market.

Further deregulation and the subsequent increase in the size of the banks, however, could reduce competition in the financial sector and hurt consumers.

Reform believes that the protection of the consumer and a more competitive environment are the two key elements that must be addressed in this review. While Canadians acknowledge that we have a strong and stable financial system they are clearly suspicious of the power of some of our institutions.

While we commend the minister for placing the interests of consumers at the top of his list of priorities, we believe that in order to strengthen the confidence of consumers, these issues must remain paramount and the process must be, above all, transparent. Canadians must be able to see the process in order to put faith in it and to be certain that all interests were considered.

A special concern for me is the issue of privacy and how the banks handle confidential personal information. Canadians are extremely concerned about the subsequent use of personal information that they must provide to financial institutions in the course of

doing business. I hope that this important issue will be given serious consideration .

Canadians are more knowledgeable about their financial system that many in the industry give them credit for. They realize that banks are more than a place to keep their money or to cash a cheque. This was evident in our party's recent assembly in Vancouver where the grassroots passed the following resolution:

"Resolved that the Reform Party ensure that federal legislation on financial institutions protects Canadians from experiencing a monopoly of financial services by any one sector. Particularly, banks should not be allowed to further enter into the insurance industry or the auto leasing business.

"The Reform Party further recommends that a moratorium be placed on any further, partial deregulation until a thorough review of the entire financial system with the aim of increasing competition within the financial sector. Such a review must also assure the stability of the financial system and retain prudential regulation for the protection of consumers".

We need to know a good many things. How do financial institutions interact? How do they operate in relation to other sectors of the economy? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current regulatory structure? Not only will these answers reveal whether true competition exists within the banking sector and thus whether they should be allowed to expand into other financial services, the answers will determine the veritable strength of the financial sector as it heads into the 21st century.

As lobbyists from all sides pressure members of Parliament to take sides and others try to frame the issue within the overtly political constraints of a war between big and small business, the challenge will be to keep our eye on the ball, to ensure true competition exists and is free to function within the marketplace, that stability is maintained in the respective financial sectors and a prudent regulatory structure is in place to protect the consumer. If the bottom line is met, Canadians and the Canadian economy will indeed emerge as winners.

[Point Of Order, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it has to do with the business I raised. That letter is necessary for the continuing discussion. We would appreciate having it tabled.

[Point Of Order, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday during question period the Minister of Justice was asked if he would table a letter from the RCMP and he agreed to table that letter.

May I request that this letter, which to the best of my knowledge has not been tabled, be tabled forthwith.

[Standards Council Of Canada Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Standards Council of Canada Act.

To begin thinking logically about this subject, two questions need to be considered: What are standards and what role do standards play in Canadian society?

Standards reassure consumers that products and services will work as they are described and as they are supposed to work. They also inform consumers about manufacturer tests for quality and safety and guarantee that human and environmentally safe production techniques have been used in all manufacturing processes.

For example, standards tell Canadians that hockey helmets will not break when players are in a collision on the ice. They tell Canadians that an electrical cord is safe to use and will not spark a fire. Standards tell Canadians that their TV reception will not go fuzzy when they turn on their sets. Indeed, standards ensure Canadians that products and services provide a level of quality on which they can rely.

Standards also play an important role in national and international trade. If a manufacturer in Canada makes a product that does not meet the standards required by another province or another country, it will not be allowed to ship or export that product to the desired destination.

In fact, some countries use unique product standards as artificial trade barriers to restrict foreign imports. It is important, therefore, for Canada to encourage national and international co-operation in the development of common standards.

In that regard, Canada's trade agreements, NAFTA, GATT and the internal trade agreement, prohibit the use of standards as trade barriers.

The development of the Standards Council of Canada reflects the importance the Canadian public places on standards. Established in 1970 as a crown corporation, the Standards Council of Canada promotes voluntary standardization in Canada and encourages international co-operation with our trading partners and standards organizations. It also oversees the Canadian standards system which consists of organizations that write standards, certify products and services, tests and calibrates, and registers standards.

The bill before us today changes the form and function of the Standards Council of Canada in several ways. First, it expands the current mandate of the Standards Council.

Second, Bill C-4 reduces the number of council members from 57 to 15 and adds necessary qualifications for the private sector representatives.

Third, Bill C-4 changes in the English version the titles of the president and vice-president to chairperson and vice-chairperson respectively.

Fourth, it specifies the duties of the chairperson.

Fifth, Bill C-4 establishes the provincial territorial advisory committee and the standards development organizations advisory committee.

Finally, Bill C-4 specifies that meetings of the council and its committees may be held through electronic means.

These are changes to the Standards Council of Canada Act that the Reform Party of Canada supports.

Let me discuss just a few of these proposed changes. First, the expansion of the Standards Council of Canada's current mandate means that it will include all areas where standardization is not already provided for by law. It will involve more Canadians in standards activities. It will oversee the national standards system. It will foster quality, performance and technological innovation in Canadian goods and services through standards. Finally, it will establish long term objectives and strategies.

These changes increase the competitiveness of Canadian industry. Let me explain why. The current role of the Standards Council relates to the maintenance of the national standards system. The Standards Council does not develop or promote a national strategy. This puts Canada at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis other countries, as Canada is one of just a few G-7 members that does not have a national standards strategy.

For example, Britain, Germany and France have well established strategies designed to support their industry both domestically and internationally. Often representatives from Canadian steel companies find that potential customers from around the world want to purchase steel according to German standards, an indication of how well the Germans have promoted German products and German standards throughout the world.

British industry improved the image of its export products by complying with international standards for quality labelled ISO 9000.

Japan currently provides assistance to many countries in order for them to adopt national standards based on its system of standards and as a result Japan acquires a competitive advantage.

The United States also aggressively promotes its standards internationally, even though it has not formed a formal national strategy.

A Canadian national standardization strategy would go a long way to support and help build Canada's commercial competitiveness abroad. Other countries would be encouraged to develop our system of standardization and we could gain more credibility by having Canadian industry accredit themselves with ISO 9000.

Renewing the Standards Council of Canada mandate to establish long term objectives and strategies is an important step to increasing Canada's international competitiveness. It is important that the Standards Council does not develop its strategies in secret.

Bill C-4 gives Canadians this commitment. It states that more people will be involved in standards activities. I remind the Standards Council to make sure it consults small and medium size businesses and implements their views in planning national standards strategy. Their interests must not be neglected as they have been in the past by this Liberal government.

Changes to the Standards Council of Canada membership under Bill C-4 is an important step in moving in this direction. The number of public servant members on the council will decrease from six to one. This change will hopefully make the Standards Council of Canada become more representative of Canadian industry, including those from the medium and small enterprises.

The private sector membership of the standards council will also change under Bill C-4. Private sector members would now have to represent a broad spectrum of interests and possess the experience necessary to assist the standards council in fulfilling its mandate. Hopefully the standards council will become more open, accessible and accountable to Canadians and Canadian industry under this change.

I recommend to the minister to make one change that would improve Bill C-4 in our estimation. That is to follow the suggestions made by the Canadian Standards Association and add a review clause to the Standards Council of Canada Act. The review clause would state that the act be examined on a regular basis such as five year intervals.

Since standards change rapidly in a fast growing technological and global economy, it makes common sense to review the Standards Council of Canada Act to ensure the standards council and the national standards system remain relevant to the needs of Canadian industry and Canadian society.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, without being cynical, that is a serious question. It relates very much to the political aspirations and the desire of the government to be re-elected. Liberals will doing anything they can to put before them anything they think the public might accept to re-elect them. It is no secret that we are going into the last year of the government's mandate and it will be going before the public in an election.

It is no secret that Bill C-45 will do nothing. How else can one explain its coming before the House and before the Canadian people at this time unless one looks at it through the political lens. The Liberals see this as being a way for them to talk about amending the justice system without really doing anything. They have not thought it through. They do not know where they are going. They have no plan. This is the result of a do nothing attitude that simply caters to public opinion with no real goal in mind.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is entirely typical of my colleague, a former policeman, to have dug into the facts, to have brought the issues to light and to have demonstrated them to the House in such a manner.

The member raises the whole issue of public safety that I was attempting to get at. The whole issue of public safety revolves around the need for people to be certain about who is in the community and can cause them harm. How can we know who and where these people? If we do not know these dangerous people are locked up, then we still live under the threat of their reoffending.

This relates to the whole attitude of government. I suppose it is based upon the philosophy that a person is not really responsible for what he does: if a person's mother is a prostitute and their father an alcoholic, how can anyone blame them for anything? However, we all have known since we have been conscious that there is a difference between right and wrong. We all know what a bad conscience is. We all know the inner voice that speaks to us. Yet there has been a deliberate attempt to move the inner conscience away, to tell people that they are not responsible: "Poor little you. How could you possibly be responsible when you have had such a miserable past?"

I am not suggesting that people who had a difficult childhood should not be given consideration. It is our intention that all Canadians should have the opportunity to come to their full potential and do what they truly choose to do. However, when someone chooses to commit murder, there must be some means of saying that it is not acceptable and we will not allow them to continue to do that. They must realize that they are responsible for their actions no matter what happened to them as a child or what circumstances brought them to that point.