Yes, but when do we vote on Motion No. 13?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 47% of the vote.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act December 14th, 1994
Yes, but when do we vote on Motion No. 13?
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act December 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, we do not know whether we are voting on Motion No. 13 or Motion No. 14, because you started off saying it was Motion No. 13 standing in the name of Mrs. Tremblay, and now you mentioned Motion No. 14. Could we have some clarification?
Recognition Of The Patriotes Of Lower Canada And The Reformers Of Upper Canada December 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Would it be possible, since we have already gone through the procedure and voted on division, to go back and ask for a recorded division?
Supply December 8th, 1994
Madam Speaker, on a point of order! We were of the opinion that the hon. member had a minute left when he was interrupted for question period. At that time, the Bloc Quebecois member had the floor and the Chair said he would let him finish and allow an answer from the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. But you went directly to the answer, without giving the minute to our party.
Supply December 8th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment. The reason we have a consultation process is that we want to avoid being blamed for not consulting. Had we asked Quebecers whether they want sovereignty without telling them what it means, we would have been blamed because we had presented an option without spelling out its meaning. In order to avoid being blamed, and rightly so, for such action, the Quebec government decided to explain its proposal, and to give the people an opportunity to amend it. Once people know what they are voting for, they will decide through a democratic referendum whether they are ready to take one last step and say yes to Quebec sovereignty, with full knowledge of the facts.
National Defence December 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, how can the minister, who was described last week as the minister of waste by the Auditor General, justify that his white paper contains none of the Auditor General's recommendations, whether on the reserve army-which, incidentally, is the most costly in the world-, on the deplorable management of capital assets, or on the procurement programs of the defence department?
National Defence December 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In spite of the disastrous state of public finances, the Minister of National Defence has drawn up an extensive shopping list. Indeed, he wants to buy new armoured personnel carriers, new land helicopters, new remote controlled weapons, and even new submarines. Yet, the white paper tabled yesterday does not include any concrete measure to eliminate the waste of some $100 million disclosed by the Auditor General in his recent report.
How can the minister explain that his white paper totally ignores the Auditor General's recommendations and that his department still does not implement better management practices to cut spending and save money?
Executive Salaries November 30th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by commending the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James on the way he presented his motion. His motion was well researched, and his arguments were excellent. I just wanted to say that. I would also like to take this opportunity to bring another perspective to the subject of this motion.
The hon. member for Winnipeg St. James moved: "That this House support the principle of disclosing the salary ranges of all senior executives of Crown corporations and publicly-traded companies incorporated under federal charter". I think I should add, for the benefit of those who are watching and listening, that there are three types of companies. First, private companies which usually belong to a single owner or are family-run businesses. Publicly-traded companies are usually big corporations or could be SMEs but, as a general rule, they are traded on the stock exchange market and the owners are shareholders. Finally, we have a third type of company, Crown corporations, which have a single owner: the government.
I may recall that in October 1993, the TSE, following the example of the New York Stock Exchange, required companies traded in Toronto to disclose the salaries and bonuses of their five most senior executives. The remuneration of these executives includes salary, bonuses, options or share premiums as agreed by the issuer. It also includes allowances, annual dues and life-insurance premiums. This policy applies to all companies trading on the TSE and the Montreal Exchange. Companies trading on both exchanges are subject to the regulations set by the TSE.
With this measure, the Ontario government makes it incumbent on heads of Crown corporations to give an account of their remuneration to shareholders. The TSE's policy follows the example of American exchanges, and about 3,700 Crown corporations have been affected by the TSE's new policy.
Quebec, however, seems to be the exception in North America. The Montreal Exchange requires only disclosure of the total remuneration of the five best paid executives of companies trading on the exchange. Toronto requires disclosure of the salaries of these executives, while Montreal simply wants to
know the total amount, without requiring detailed information in each case.
In December 1993, the Quebec minister responsible for finance, Mrs. Louise Robic, said that she did not believe that it was necessary to require the disclosure of individual salaries of executive officers of companies listed on the Montreal Stock Exchange. She mentioned their need for privacy.
The Conseil du Patronat in Quebec was of the same opinion. Its spokesperson, Ghislain Dufour, opposed the Ontario policy for the sake of protecting the right to privacy.
Yet, the Ontario policy already applies to a vast majority of companies listed on the Montreal Stock Exchange. These companies are usually listed on both exchanges and, since they must abide by the rules of the Toronto Stock Exchange, they have to make public the salaries of their best paid executives. At the time, Mr. Dufour praised Mrs. Robic's decision.
We should add to this the opinion the Deputy Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bernard Landry, expressed when his party was in opposition. He said, in January 1994, that his party was totally in favour of the disclosure of executive salaries. He said and I quote: "We are following the example of the Americans", and he went on to say that the public and semi-public sectors would have to follow suite.
The Parti Quebecois favours openness. "What worker would agree to make sacrifices if he felt that the salary spread was much too great?" asked Mr. Landry. He points out that during its first term in office, the Parti Quebecois came very close to making the individual disclosure of top executives' salaries mandatory. But at the time, it was not a requirement in Toronto, and such a discrepancy in the rules of both stock exchanges could have been a problem.
It is important to note that, in October 1994, the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund issued a different policy in this matter. It is opposed to the individual disclosure of top corporate executives' salaries, preferring instead the policy adopted by the Montreal Stock Exchange. However, the fund adds in its regulations that it expects corporations to abide by the disclosure rules established by regulatory agencies such as the Toronto Stock Exchange.
The Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund clearly states its preference for a policy like that of the Montreal Stock Exchange, although it expects companies listed on the Toronto stock exchange to obey TSE regulations and authorize disclosure, as well as other companies entitled to follow the applicable regulations. Companies are expected to comply with these regulations.
Let us go back to Motion No. 309 tabled by the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James. It is apparently aimed at extending the policy adopted by the Toronto Stock Exchange to everything under federal jurisdiction, including Crown corporations and publicly-traded companies incorporated under federal charter. Crown corporations have a single owner and are not currently required to follow the policy of the Toronto Stock Exchange since they are not listed on the TSE.
To give our viewers an idea of what these Crown corporations are, I would like to identify some of them. The list of parent Crown corporations includes the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, the Canadian Wheat Board, the National Capital Commission, Canadian National Railways, the Canada Council, Canada Development Investment Corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada, the National Gallery of Canada, Canada Post Corporation, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canada Lands Company, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, VIA Rail Canada, etc. These are examples of what we are thinking about when we talk about parent corporations.
This motion would require not only parent corporations but also other companies incorporated under federal charter to disclose the salaries of their senior executives.
The situation of publicly-traded companies incorporated under federal charter is more complex. We must keep in mind that most of these companies are listed on the TSE but that some Crown corporations are not. This matter comes under provincial jurisdiction and does not require the adoption of a federal law.
In fact, the federal government has been unsuccessfully trying for several years to control the securities industry. In any case, I do not think that this law should apply to publicly-traded companies incorporated under federal charter.
The motion should be restricted to parent corporations, although federal public corporations are already subject to Ontario or Quebec laws. I think that we should let them administer their own affairs as they see fit and let the provinces continue to regulate them as they have done until now.
Auditor General's Report November 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that much remains to be done and that his department should immediately put in place a system that will accelerate the collection of large accounts receivable, as recommended by the Auditor General?
Auditor General's Report November 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, in his latest report, the Auditor General found that accounts receivable totalled $6.6 billion.
Last Tuesday, the Minister of National Revenue said, in an attempt to downplay the problem, and I quote: "The total accounts receivable stopped growing last year and is now declining. I believe that we will continue to be able to reduce that sum".
Would the minister agree that last year, the proportion of unpaid taxes, compared with net tax revenues, continued to rise, which would indicate a significant deterioration of the situation?