Barry Campbell

[Chief Rabbi Of Israel, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to note the visit this week to Canada by the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Israel Meir Lau.

Rabbi Lau, who is with us today in Ottawa, will be visiting a vibrant Canadian Jewish community. Rabbi Lau was born in pre-war Poland to a family of respected rabbinical scholars. A holocaust survivor, Rabbi Lau moved to Israel and dedicated himself to a life of service to his people and his faith.

Canadian Jews have made an enormous contribution to this country. Canadians have stood by Israel during its darkest moments and continue to work with Israel in the search for peace in the Middle East.

Rabbi Lau will be aware of the attempted bombing yesterday at Calgary's Jewish Centre. Happily, no one was seriously injured. I hope that when Rabbi Lau returns to Israel it will be with the knowledge that all Canadians condemn violent and hateful acts.

[National Day Of Mourning, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Davenport who is held in such high regard by many in the House, given his interest and expertise in areas concerning the environment.

As the Minister of Finance indicated to the House on March 26, the government initiated work on a baseline study of taxes, grants and subsidies in 1994. At that time the government established the task force on economic instruments and disincentives to sound environmental practices which made recommendations.

The 1994 budget announced measures to encourage energy conservation and encourage contributions to mine reclamation funds. The 1995 budget announced measures to encourage charitable donations of ecologically sensitive land. The 1996 budget announced tax changes which establish an essentially level playing field between certain renewable and non-renewable energy investments.

The 1996 budget also indicated the government's intention to consult on tax and other measures to improve the treatment of energy efficiency investments and on the feasibility of extending the tax treatment of mine reclamation trust funds to other sectors such as waste disposal sites and reforestation.

In addition, Technology Partnerships Canada, launched in the recent budget, will encourage the development and commercialization of environmental technologies in partnership with the private sector.

As the Minister of Finance indicated to the House on March 26, the government is actively reviewing the proposals of the standingcommittee concerning further work on the baseline study and will be reporting shortly on how it intends to continue the important work which has been initiated

The government also appreciates the work of the standing committee, its chairman and all members of the House on this important matter.

On a personal note, I hope this will be before the year 2000.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member opposite familiar with the name Michael Walker? He has something to do with the Fraser Institute, an institute often referred to by the Reform members.

There was an article in the Globe and Mail on March 14, 1996. I remind the hon. member that Michael Walker, one of their great folk heroes over the last two years, had this to say about the budget which he so roundly criticized:

In regarding the government's latest budget, commentators have missed some of the most aggressive fiscal action in the country's history.

The federal government is going in the near term future to be able to boast that it has the lowest borrowing requirements of the G-7 countries. Total government deficits in Canada will total less than in any of the G-7, and by 1998 the total financing requirement relative to the gross domestic product will be less than half the comparable U.S. figure.

Far from being a bore-

or worse, as this member suggests

-this budget was a turning point in Canadian fiscal history. We may well chart a dramatic turn in our fortunes to March 1996.

This is tough talk from Michael Walker, one of the hon. member's heroes.

I wonder if you might like to comment on how Michael Walker,, who has been so tough on us over the years with respect to our budgetary plans, could have this much praise for a budget you think is so terrible.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to sit here over time, as the hon. member and I have. We were both rookies in 1993. I am truly saddened to listen to his diatribe this morning with its misinformation and distortions.

The Reform Party arrived here supposedly speaking for business, big and small, and yet when things are done by the government which are applauded by business or by the Fraser Institute, which it used to quote all the time, it suddenly does not mention them any more. The Fraser Institute applauded the budget, the subject of this implementation bill.

Suddenly Reformers are not the friends of business. The other day we heard them attack profits. Today we have heard an attack on small business, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They threw the gauntlet down and said "how dare you tell us this will be good for business". In their opinion-it is always their opinion and no one else is right-this cannot be good for business and this cannot be good for Canada.

I am glad the hon. member opposite admitted he was a member of the finance committee at the time we brought out our report on the GST. He signed a minority report. I believe he was still a member if he was not being disciplined by his party for disagreeing with it on this or other things. Reformers supported harmonization on the broadest possible base; food, medical devices, everything. They wanted it because as they said in their minority report it would effect the lowest possible rate.

It is nonsense to suggest they thought a flat tax would replace the GST. He is quite correct to say flat tax was a huge undertaking that would require enormous study and had the purpose of a complete revamping of the entire tax system, not a replacement for the GST.

As for compensation, it is incredible that now the member opposite qualifies his support for harmonization by saying "of course, we never thought about adjustment".

I ask him, as I have asked him before, to comment on whether it is inappropriate for one region of the country to offer adjustment assistance to another region of the country for structural change. In particular, could he comment on the state of the wheat industry, the wheat sector, wheat farmers and the compensation they are receiving as a result of budgetary structural change over the last few years. Could he elaborate again, if he dare, on his suggestion we are somehow stifling debate.

We have moved on the issue of the length of this debate only when it became apparent from the member opposite and his colleagues they had no intention of discussing anything in this bill other than one segment. There are many pages to this legislation. They have not yet commented on the CHST, on UI, on seniors. He says all they are talking about and all that is worth talking about is this issue.

I wonder if he would acknowledge, and I would be happy to retract and say I am wrong, that we have been debating more than the GST here. It would be wonderful to hear more from the member's party and the official opposition on many of the other important things in the budget.

[Budget Implementation Bill, 1996, April 24th, 1996]

-which is real harmonization, no matter what the member says it is not something else, will be a more prosperous maritimes. That I am sure is something that the member opposite would like to see, as would every one of us.

As for Quebec, it simply would not qualify under this formula, nor would Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

[Budget Implementation Bill, 1996, April 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

He is incorrect. I did not fail to mention the matter of the adjustment announced yesterday. It is within my comments and he can check the reference in Hansard . To suggest otherwise is incorrect.

It is not a case of buying harmonization. It is a case of providing adjustment assistance, as as has been done on a number of occasions. I mentioned similar situations in the west. I need only mention the maritime freight rates, which have also benefited Quebec.

Underlying the suggestion that the taxpayers of one region should not help another region would clearly undermine a number of things that benefit Quebec.

With respect to equalization, I look forward to the day, vis-à-vis Quebec or the maritimes, when we see reduced equalization payments. One of the things that will be accomplished through this harmonization-

[Budget Implementation Bill, 1996, April 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, thank you. As well, let me point out that claimants who qualify for the 60 per cent dependency rate prior to the coming into force of the new employment insurance act will not see a loss of that rate for their claims. To qualify for this rate, claimants must have dependents and show average earnings of $422.50 per week or less.

Allow me to digress to mention a housekeeping detail with respect to these measures. They were announced last December and tabled in Bill C-112. A companion bill, the proposed employment insurance act, was also introduced. It sets rates for 1997 and beyond.

Since both bills died on the Order Paper we have decided to set the maximum insurable earnings and benefits for 1996 in this legislation. As members know, the employment insurance act has been retabled as Bill C-12. This bill also amends the Old Age Security Act, the present bill we are discussing, to lengthen the period of time before newcomers to Canada become entitled to the full guaranteed income supplement or spouses allowance.

This is simply common sense. Under the current system, some immigrants obtain full benefits with as a little as one year's residence in Canada. Restricting this easy access will improve the fairness of the system and lessen the burden on Canadians.

With the new rules, eligibility will be phased in over 10 years for those who qualify for benefits through social security agreements with Canada. As well, sponsored immigrants from countries that have social security agreements with Canada will not be eligible for benefits for the period of their sponsorship since most older immigrants are allowed entry only because they have been sponsored by a family member.

Those who have already come to Canada will not be penalized. Individuals now receiving benefits or who landed in Canada before budget day and become eligible for benefits before January 1, 2001, will not be affected.

In continuing to address the content of the bill, which I hope members opposite would like to discuss some time during the course of this debate, let me address a number of measures in this bill which seek to further the agenda of getting government right, something they speak about a great deal.

These measures involve redefining and redesigning government programs and activities in three areas: grain transportation, student loans and radio spectrum licences. Today, in a time of tighter resources and taxpayer fatigue, there is no question that governments cannot act or think as they did in previous times. It must be recognized that in order to do a better job of meeting key priorities we should not pursue activities when others can do the job better.

That is why Bill C-31 will enable the Minister of Transport to dispose of the publicly-owned freight pool.

The government will consider any serious proposals that those involved may wish to submit and take into account the interests of producers, shippers and rail carriers in making a decision.

We will ensure that the required capacity for grain transportation is maintained. As well, freight rates can, on average, rise no more than 75 cents per ton to cover the cost of the acquisition.

We expect that over time the privatization of the grain hopper cars will make for a more efficient grain handling system with lower costs for the railways. This in turn will lower freight rates for grain producers.

Two other clauses in this bill will remove the 10-year ceiling that was imposed on the repayment schedules of students who borrowed money under the Canada Student Loans Act. Lenders will be able to more flexibly match the repayment period to the financial circumstances of borrowers. While the borrowers must certainly benefit, I should point out that the government may actually save money with these new rules since the rate of defaults will clearly be reduced.

Another measure in this bill will amend the Radiocommunication Act allowing the Minister of Industry to auction off valuable radio spectrum licences.

I should point out that competitive bids will not be used systematically for issuing licences. This is however a very convenient mechanism that can be used whenever it becomes impossible to accommodate everyone within the spread of the spectrum.

Finally, there is a measure in this that does not flow directly from the budget but from an announcement recently made by the Minister of Finance and that is with respect to the GST. Bill C-31 provides for the paying out of approximately $960 million to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador as adjustment assistance for initial revenue losses under the integrated value added tax regime that they have agreed to with the government, a harmonized tax I should incidentally point out which the Reform Party supported.

This money will be paid for over a four-year period. It is in keeping with the firmly established practice of providing assistance when federal initiatives entail major structural change for the provinces. Under the adjustment framework this legislation puts in place, the cost of harmonization will be shared with all provinces which experience revenue losses in excess of 5 per cent of their current retail sales tax revenue.

In addition to the three provinces previously mentioned, this would also include Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Saskatchewan when they enter into harmonization.

However, British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario would be excluded for a very good reason: their revenues would not be cut back enough to make them eligible to compensation under the formula.

Quebec of course has already harmonized its sales tax for the main part. But in light of the remarks made yesterday by the

opposition, I must point out that Quebec would no more be admissible to adjustment assistance today than it would have been in 1990, when it signed the memorandum of agreement with Ottawa, and this, to Quebec's greatest advantage, because harmonization was profitable to this province.

Returning to Bill C-31, the government firmly believes that given the benefits that will flow from harmonization, the total cost to the federal government is responsible and reasonable.

Under the formula, the federal government and the provinces will split almost half and half the cost of adjustment assistance over the four years. That is certainly a given. At the end of these fours years, the program will end, the provinces having had the time to adjust.

As the minister stated, the government has consistently acted on the principle that people and governments need to be able to plan and adjust to structural change. Where required the government has been prepared to provide help to those who face adjustment cost. For example, as members well know, payments were made to provinces to address revenue losses they incurred under tax reform in 1972.

Adjustment assistance was provided in each and every one of our budgets. For example, last year resources were provided to facilitate the adjustment flowing from elimination of subsidies under the Western Grain Transportation Act to the western provinces. I do not recall members of the Reform Party objecting to that. We also did the same with Atlantic freight subsidies to Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, and I do not recall members of the official opposition objecting to that either.

Today the same precedent is being followed. I emphasize that this adjustment assistance will not jeopardize the deficit targets. They are secure.

I have taken up a fair amount of time because I wanted members to focus on the measures in this bill, not their pet peeves, and I hope members in responding and continuing the debate will speak to the bill before us and not something else.

Through the things that I have focused on this afternoon there is a common thread: fiscal responsibility and getting government right for Canadians. The actions we are proposing are those which Canadians are looking for and insisting on from this government. As their elected representatives we would be remiss if we did not do our part. With this in mind I have no hesitation in calling on my colleagues on all sides of the House to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

[Budget Implementation Bill, 1996, April 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member opposite. I will try to ignore the interjections.

By 2003-2003, total CHST entitlements are expected to be $2.3 billion higher than the level set for next year, 1997-98. This funding arrangement will mark the first growth in transfers to the provinces for social programs. That is the first additional funding that can go to medicare, education and welfare since the era of restraint began in the mid-1980s.

Furthermore, as a result of this funding the cash component of the CHST will never fall below $11 billion. We expect the cash transfer to grow by the end of the period to provide additional assurance to Canadians.

However, this legislation sets a floor, an ironclad guarantee that cash transfers will be maintained above the $11 billion level. This proposed legislation also provides a new formula for allocating the CHST among provinces.

As you no doubt know, changes in the existing transfer system created increasingly greater disparities in terms of individual rights. Most often, these disparities resulted from the ceilings imposed by the previous government on money paid to certain provinces under the Canada assistance plan.

In my opinion, Canadians agree that the wealthy provinces need less assistance than those less well off. This concern for the welfare of our fellow Canadians is part of our unique social contract.

At the same time, Canadians are firm believers in the importance of action that is balanced and fair. This legislation puts those values to work. Under the new allocation formula, which will be phased in over five years, disparities in per capita funding will be cut in half.

Allow me to point out to the members of this House that progressive implementation-funding of the transfer over five years-gives the provinces time to adjust and the assurance of accuracy in their planning activities.

Let me now turn to the changes the bill proposes to make to the Unemployment Insurance Act, changes that will bring insurance coverage more in line with the average industrial wage for 1996. Effective January 1 of this year, the maximum insurable earnings are to be reduced to $750 per week in comparison with the $845 level that would have resulted under current legislation.

Similarly, the maximum weekly benefit drops from $465 a week to $413. These measures will save $200 million in the second half of this year and reduce the UI payroll tax burden on working Canadians.

Some might try to claim these measures are regressive, but this attack rings hollow, resonating more to political grandstanding than accurate criticism.Let us remember that the UI program when considered in its entirety is progressive. Lower income contributors tend to draw more in benefits than they pay in premiums, while higher income earners tend to pay much more in premiums-

[Budget Implementation Bill, 1996, April 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my colleague, the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound.

Because I have such respect for him as an economist who has happened into politics for a time I am saddened he had made some of the suggestions he has with respect to the government's budgetary policy as reflected in the budget implementation act, which we are considering today, Bill C-31.

I digress from my prepared remarks for a moment to respond. It reminds me a bit of Chicken Little and the old story that the sky is falling. He is always on his feet, armed with all of his experience and knowledge, to say in somewhat typical Canadian terms things will get a whole lot worse.

It is startling that he suggests that once again he is right and everyone else is wrong. Third parties have looked at the budget and have commended the minister and the government for the achievements of it, and yet the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound is saying: "Everyone is wrong, the analysts the wrong. They are all wrong. Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute is wrong. I wish they would call me so I could get them to correct the error of their ways".

My biggest regret is with his suggestion that somehow the government is stealing something from the workers of Canada, failing to remind the House and anyone listening to his remarks that when that UI account was in deficit it was Canadian taxpayers through the consolidated revenue fund who stood ready with funds to deal with the deficit in the account.

The president of the treasury board's remarks provided a cogent and compelling explanation of the government's fiscal policies and the framework for this legislation, the budget implementation act before us today.

He made it particularly clear why the government is introducing certain measures in this bill. These measures will help the public service help us to meet our commitment to Canadians.

I would first like to reiterate some aspects of our financial situation.

There is a timely reason for this repetition. Our record of fiscal responsibility and progress sets the context for one of the key measures of the bill, the implementation of long term funding for the Canada health and social transfer.

As the Minister of Finance pointed out in his budget speech in March, our ongoing spending reductions, real spending reductions, combined with those in previous budgets will ensure our deficit targets are secure; that is, 3 per cent of GDP for this fiscal year and 2 per cent next. For the following year, 1998-99, the measures we have introduced in the last three budgets will deliver an addition $28.9 billion in savings. Deficit reduction will continue.

The numbers speak for themselves. In 1993-94 federal program spending stood at $120 billion, almost 17 per cent of GDP. By 1998-99 the money we spend on programs will be down to $105.5 billion, 12 per cent of GDP.

It is important to note that progress on deficit reduction is not restricted to the federal government. The financial situation of provincial governments is also undergoing a significant improvement. In 1992 the combined deficits of Canada's federal and provincial governments on a national accounts basis reached 7.4 per cent of GDP. This level was double the G-7 average, behind only Italy in that group of large industrialized countries.

However, this year Canada's total government deficit is expected to fall below the G-7 average and come in as the second lowest in the group, behind only the United States. Based on each country's current plans we should have the lowest next year.

Clearly and fortunately fiscal responsibility has now become a governing facet of our national political culture. We have stopped acting like adolescents with credit cards, and this sense of financial maturity will ensure a more secure and prosperous future for us all.

The hon. member opposite and some of his colleagues may say, as they always do, it is not good enough and it is not enough. I suggest we are simply their worse nightmare because we are doing the job and getting it done, as I have said on other occasions in the House, fairly, reasonably and without tearing apart the country in the process. The proof is in the pudding, the high marks this and previous budgets have been given by all third party commentators.

Through these three budgets we are ensuring the economic sovereignty of Canada. Foreign borrowings by Canadian business and governments have been cut from $29 billion in 1993 to $13 billion last year. Our reliance on foreign borrowings will decline dramatically as governments continue to reduce their deficits.

Obviously we are making real progress, something that drives the members opposite crazy. The 1996 budget is another instalment, another significant step in that direction.

As the Minister of Finance put it, and I will repeat it because members opposite have probably forgotten, this budget is about consolidating the gains we have made. It is about managing ahead, continuing to put in place new building blocks for security and prosperity.

Some of these building blocks are contained in Bill C-31, the legislation before us. As we move ahead, one of our highest priorities, one surely shared by the vast majority of Canadians but not necessarily by all members opposite, is the preservation of the country's network of social programs. To help achieve that end the bill before us amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. This amendment will provide secure, stable funding for what has come to be called the CHST, the Canada health and social transfer, for an additional five years.

I remind the House, because some here have short memories, of the background of this transfer program.

In its 1995 budget, the government replaced the Canada assistance plan and established program financing with a new mechanism: the Canada health and social transfer.

This consolidated transfer represents a new, more flexible and mature approach to federal-provincial relations. It gives the provinces more manoeuvring room to design and administer their own programs while protecting social programs Canadians count on and support.

This year the budget calls for an extension of the CHST funding framework through 2002-2003 and puts in place a formula for increasing this transfer in the later years of that five year plan.

Under the bill before us total entitlements will be pegged at $25.1 billion annually for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, equal to the level already in place for next year.

We are determined to support the provinces' activities in the areas of health, education and social assistance for those in real need. Despite sustained reduction in federal program spending, the total amount paid to the provinces under the transfer will not decrease during this period.

In the three fiscal years beginning in April 2000, CHST levels are projected to rise. By 2002-2003-

[Bank Act, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-15 at third and final reading in the House. This is the sort of workaday legislation that may lack drama but remains vitally important to Canada because it will enhance the safety and soundness of the country's world class financial system.

May I begin by reminding hon. colleagues that this legislation is the product of extensive consultation. I would like to take this opportunity to again extend the government's thanks to the many industry participants and other stakeholders that provided such constructive and insightful advice.

I would also like to thank the Standing Committee on Finance for having decided to hold hearings on the bill during the summer recess. The comments gathered by the committee constituted invaluable preliminary work prior to the clause by clause study of this major piece of legislation. We can rest assured that the bill we are going to pass will serve the best interests of consumers, financial institutions, our constituents, and the Canadian economy as a whole.

There is no question that sound, secure financial institutions are a fundamental requirement for national well-being. As I said at the start, Canada is blessed with a world class system. The financial sector is very much a part of a world of dynamic and dramatic accelerating change driven by new technology, globalization and new customer demands. All these factors culminate in heightened

competition. That is why we are moving ahead with the measures contained in Bill C-15.

This legislation is timely not because the system suffers from any critical weakness. It does not. But to make sure we maintain a dynamic, competitive financial sector and regulatory system we must respond to market trends and recent experiences without unnecessary delay. Bill C-15 will do this.

Let me emphasize that these are not patchwork, band-aid measures. They flow from a series of basic principles outlined in the white paper the government issued over a year ago. These principles include the following: first, that ownership of financial institutions is a privilege, not a right. Second, early intervention in and resolution of institutions experiencing difficulty should occur. Third, that financial institutions must operate with sufficient incentives to solve their problems in a timely manner. Fourth, there must be appropriate transparency and accountability in the system.

We have discussed the details of this legislation at some length in committee and the House. Today I simply want to remind us all of some of the more important changes that the House should approve.

First, the bill establishes an enhanced system of early intervention on behalf of troubled institutions. The legislation will allow the office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to take control of a troubled institution earlier than at present. It also provides greater transparency in the supervisory process by establishing guides to supervisory intervention. The intent here is clear, concrete and constructive.

Early resolution of an institution's difficulties is the best way to prevent substantial losses to depositors, policyholders or creditors and potentially to shareholders.

This legislation states clearly that if an institution is facing difficulties, owners do not have the right to continue in business until they hit the brick wall and cannot pay liabilities as they come due. Institutions will now understand that OSFI will take action if its concerns are not dealt with promptly. That is a major improvement.

This is not a punitive step. By increasing OSFI's scope for early intervention, the legislation provides a new incentive for managers and directors of troubled institutions to undertake early problem solving for themselves.

The second element I would highlight in Bill C-15 is the expanded role for the superintendent in the governance of troubled financial institutions. In this case, the superintendent will have the power to designate certain directors as affiliated and also veto the appointment of directors and senior officers in troubled financial institutions.

These additional powers reflect our appreciation of the importance of effective, independent corporate governance. They also stress that it is the boards of directors that represent the ultimate frontline for problem resolution and good management.

Before concluding I should address a criticism of the legislation levied by the official opposition related to jurisdictional issues.

The clear and certain benefits of this bill notwithstanding, the official opposition has chosen so far not to support its passage. The main criticism relates to the claim that the powers proposed for the Bank of Canada, to mitigate systemic risk in clearing and settlement systems, infringe on provincial powers over regulating security matters. This is not the case.

The opposition's problem and misunderstanding of the goal of this legislation begins with its failure to understand the nature of systemic risk itself. This is the risk that one institution's inability to settle a large value transaction could have a domino effect among other participants.

In the proposed legislation the government is acting to provide a formal oversight role for the Bank of Canada and to enhance its powers to require appropriate risk control in payment, clearing and settlement systems.

The bill provides the Governor of the Bank of Canada with the powers necessary to control systemic risk. This can be achieved by issuing directives to clearing houses, or where necessary, participants in a clearing house, requiring them to cease a particular course of conduct that results in systemic risk being inadequately controlled.

I want to emphasis that dealing with systemic risk issues is traditionally a matter for central banks, not just in Canada, but in other developed countries. If there is ever a day when the failure of a large financial institution at home or abroad threatens the stability of the financial system, it will be the central banks of industrialized countries, including the Bank of Canada, that will be called on to deal with the fallout.

I also want to note that in committee the government moved amendments to further clarify that the powers of the Bank of Canada with respect to systemic risk do not infringe on traditional areas of concern to provincial regulators about the health of individual securities firms.

Specifically, the bill now provides greater certainty that the governor may not issue directives in respect of matters directly related to the participation of securities firms or other individual participants in the clearing and settlement system. This includes the corporate governance of the participant, its relations with its customers, capital adequacy or the management of its investments.

We fully understand that these aspects of business fall under the purview of the principal regulator of the institution such as the provincial securities commissions. We have made it clear that these are not matters for the central bank. For these reasons I reject the notion that this legislation infringes on provincial jurisdiction. It does not.

In closing, I want to say that Canadians have come to expect a sound and stable financial system. This is one of our most enduring and sustaining economic strengths. That is why we must ensure that we sustain and evolve the appropriate mechanisms needed to manage and minimize risks. Bill C-15 honours that obligation with positive, forward looking measures.

I have no hesitation in calling on my colleagues to pass this important legislation. I hope that all members of the House will join with the members on this side of the House in doing so.