Scott Brison

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on the equalization renewal package.

The equalization renewal package on the surface is positive for most of the beneficiary provinces receiving equalization payments, with the exception of Manitoba which will receive less money as a result of these changes.

In general, the suggested changes include changes in the treatment of general and miscellaneous sales tax, lottery and gaming revenues, forestry revenues, mineral resources, miscellaneous provincial and local tax revenues and also gasoline and fuel tax, hospital and medical insurance premiums, oil revenues, natural gas revenues, payroll taxes, property taxes and sale of crown leases. These are some of the changes that are in the calculation of equalization which are taken into account in this new package. I am going to focus on a couple which I do have some concerns with.

One is on the lottery and gaming revenues. The government is moving to treat casino revenues similarly to lottery ticket revenues. Previously only the lottery revenues were considered. I have concerns with this for a couple of reasons.

One is that casino revenues often bear significant social costs to the provinces, with respect to the costs to health and social programs. In Nova Scotia I have seen the impact of the casinos in Halifax and Sydney. Frankly it is my own personal belief that unless casinos are successful in attracting people from outside a particular area, there is extremely high social costs in terms of gambling addiction. In some cases there has been loss of people's entire monthly incomes. There are costs to families in the increases in things like spousal abuse and marriage break-up.

Health costs are provincially borne costs. These changes would effectively mean that the federal government would be considering more casino revenue than it had previously. Thus provinces would be penalized for their casino revenue. I would argue that in the future casino revenues, when considered and balanced against the negatives, the social costs and the health costs, are dubious at best in terms of their benefit and their sustainability in the long term.

I have some concerns about that particularly in light of the government's irresponsibly slashing health care and the CHST since 1993 to the tune of over $6 billion. I would argue that it is short-sighted to consider these casino revenues. From a long term perspective the sustainability of that revenue stream is questionable and the benefits are at best dubious.

There are some concerns from our provincial counterparts relative to natural gas revenues, for instance offshore natural gas revenues and offshore oil revenues for some of the provinces affected. Be it Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, the opportunities for Nova Scotians, Newfoundlanders or Atlantic Canadians to bootstrap themselves into some level of prosperity in the 21st century is largely contingent on these revenues. We should be very careful not to create through changes in equalization a clawback that effectively eliminates and reduces significantly the benefits from the steps forward being made by these provinces.

We have to be very careful that in our haste to respond to the critics of equalization we do not eliminate the basic goals of equalization, that is to enable provinces and citizens in have not provinces not just to compete but to succeed in a global environment. I would argue that those natural resource revenues are pivotal and very important to those provinces.

We have to recognize the importance of equalization within Canada. It is a cornerstone of Canada's social policy. It is something we should be proud of as a country. It is difficult to take a country of some 30 million people spread out over a massive geographic land mass and try to create some semblance of equality of opportunity.

While there are people who will be critical of everything that has been done by previous governments, I would argue that one thing we have done in Canada that is quite unique and quite extraordinary is to create at least some semblance of equality of opportunity in almost every corner of the country. That is something we should be proud of.

I grew up in a rural part of Nova Scotia, in an area where there was not a significant level of opportunity but where there was a sound education system and a health care system that worked, albeit the health care system has been gutted in recent years due to draconian cuts from our federal counterparts. The quality of the education and health care system helped to equalize the opportunity for me and for other Nova Scotians. We are not looking for and no Canadian should believe in some type of policy that promises equality of outcome.

In the past governments have made the mistake of trying to protect regions of the country from the risks of the future. In doing so with successive social program spending and reinvestment there have been times when governments, in trying to protect for instance Atlantic Canadians from the risks of the future, have unwittingly prevented Atlantic Canadians from participating fully in the opportunities of the future. That is something we have to be very careful of.

We should be equally careful that we do not capitulate to the critics of equalization who claim somehow this is a handout that is unjustified and unfair to any Canadian. Equality of opportunity is something that makes Canada unique. We should treasure it as Canadians and be prepared to defend it.

It is important to recognize as well that the federal government has a leadership role to play in creating equality of opportunity across the country, but equalization does not go far enough. I am talking about the federal government taking a leadership role in some of the issues that are within provincial jurisdiction but where the federal government could play a role in working with the provinces to ensure better quality services.

In the last federal election our party had as part of its platform a call for national testing in education. Recognizing that is in the provincial jurisdiction, the plan we called for was actually an optional plan that provinces could opt in or out of. It would at least raise the bar across the country where parents in any region of the country could demand and ask to know why their student or child did not test well relative to a student in another area, or why the education system was failing one area of the country and succeeding in another area.

Parents, students and everyone in Canada want to know where their education system stands up. It is not equalization or strictly a financial area but it is a leadership area that the federal government could play by implementing and working with the provinces to develop a system of national testing such that we could see an increase in the quality and excellence which could be provided by primary and secondary education systems across Canada.

We need to take a serious look at federal programs, for instance the millennium scholarship fund. Before the government even had a surplus, when there was just a vague whiff of a surplus, it chose to invest $2.5 billion in the millennium scholarship fund.

These types of programs are in some ways difficult to argue with because it is money for higher education, but we should be looking very carefully at the design of these programs. First, we should not increase tensions on a federal-provincial relations perspective. Second, these programs should be designed in such a way as to reflect not just where Canada is now and where Canadians are now but where Canada is going and where we want Canadians to go in the future.

I will give an example of the wrong-headedness of some of these policies. The millennium scholarship fund is not available for students going to private career colleges. I participated recently in a conference on education. One of the things I learned at the conference was that the wave of the future in post-secondary education, and quite possibly in secondary and primary education, would be in implementing more private programming and more private delivery of what was previously a totally public service.

Private post-secondary education is outgrowing and outpacing public post-secondary education around the world. This is a global phenomenon. Yet in Canada a scholarship program that was recently developed does not reflect the realities of where we are now and where we are going in the future in a global context.

We must be very careful to recognize that federal policies and more money are not always the answer. We have to be rigorous in providing the types of programs and investments that Canadians want and need. That takes a little more vision than we are seeing from the government on a number of these issues.

We would also like to see a more concerted effort on the part of the federal government to work with the provinces in bringing down interprovincial trade barriers, one of the structural impediments to our global competitiveness and our productivity as a country. Interprovincial trade barriers are an area that can actually inhibit and prevent the growth and success of our provinces and Canadians in various regions. These trade barriers need to come down.

I am talking about equalization of opportunity, not strictly equalization payments. This is very important because we cannot simply depend on money to solve the problems. We must recognize that equalization payments are a way in the short term and in the mid-term to equalize opportunity, but we have to work nationally and provincially with our provincial counterparts to create policies, economic development strategies that are rooted in the free market. We have to recognize that the free market is only sustainable if all citizens have access to the levers of the free market. This means a sound education system, a sound health care system, and the ability for people to bootstrap themselves and become successful. This will take more than simply equalization payments.

Our party is having a conference on February 23 in Halifax called “The New East”. The name came from the phrase the new west. I found when travelling in Alberta a sense of buoyancy and optimism that is very encouraging. There is a sense of self-reliance and opportunity that is leading the way. We want to see equality of opportunity, that level of opportunity and access to economic growth available to all Canadians. “The New East” conference will provide us with ideas for sustainable strategies that will provide in the future the types of free market based policies which will give opportunities for Atlantic Canadians to participate in the same level of economic growth that other regions have had in the past and will have for the foreseeable future.

It is not simply a matter of Atlantic Canada moving forward because of increased revenues in offshore oil or gas. We now need to move forward and take those opportunities we have had in offshore petroleum or other resources and invest significantly in the type of knowledge based infrastructure we need in these regions to enable us to succeed in a global knowledge based society. That again is a strong education system. It is also recognizing some of the global trends in information technology, for instance, the death of distance as a determinant in the cost of telecommunications—

[Transit Passes, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I too commend the hon. member from Kamloops for bringing the issue forward in this motion.

The fact is that we have made commitments in Kyoto. Global warming is real. It is a very important issue, one that all Canadians and certainly members of the House from all parties should be extremely concerned about.

The parliamentary secretary spoke about the need for a plan and that the federal government would work toward developing a plan. He was also very clear in terms of his opposition to the motion. Where he was not so clear was what in fact was the government's plan to deal with this extraordinarily important issue.

The government is very good at pinpointing a particular initiative such as the one suggested by the member from Kamloops as being inappropriate or wrong headed, but the government has not been as good in actually providing some level of leadership or strong consultation with the provinces and the municipalities to develop a strategy that addresses this very real issue.

Initially when I saw the motion I had some concerns. I typically have concerns about a Pavlovian type tax policy that encourages some types of behaviours and discourages others. We already have a tax code in Canada that is far too complicated. The logical corollary of the motion, for instance, is if people were walking to work we might remove taxes on shoes. I am not being facetious, but we get into a very murky area when we talk about complicating a tax code that is already far too complex.

That being the case, while I should have perhaps been happy to hear the parliamentary secretary speak about simplifying the tax code—and again his government has done nothing but complicate the tax code—our party continues to stand for and believe in broadly based tax relief, increasing the basic personal exemption, reindexing the tax brackets, and eliminating and phasing out the surtaxes that are currently driving some of our best and brightest elsewhere, the types of tax policies that will benefit all Canadians not just now but as we enter the 21st century.

Our party is supporting the motion. One of the reasons we will be supporting it, despite our concerns about an increasingly complicated tax code, is that the environment is a very unique issue. The environment and economics are inextricably linked. For far too long we have in a lot of jurisdictions in the country dealt with the environment separately from economics. In fact those people typically interested in economics discount environmental arguments and vice versa. In fact we cannot do that. It is not appropriate to do that and it is not logical.

It is very important at the time of the production of an environmental externality, that is emissions, that the cost of that externality be internalized into the cost of the consumer who is utilizing the service or the product which is causing that environmental externality. It is very important that there be a direct cost for environmentally unsound behaviour and a benefit for environmentally positive behaviour.

It is very difficult for us in our day to day lives to see the benefit of sound environmental actions on a micro level because we cannot tie it directly to our quality of life in the short term. Global warming for many of us is something that still seems fairly esoteric and arcane. It is important that somehow we can link in a very direct way people's behaviours: negative behaviours to a negative policy in this case or positive behaviours, that is taking public transit, to a positive treatment under the tax code.

I lived in New York for several years. During that period the degree to which New Yorkers relied on public transit was amazing to me. In north New Jersey and New York City there are about 10 million people living in a very small land mass. When we consider how efficiently that city operates in terms of its public transit system, probably from an environmental perspective the low impact the citizenry of New York has in terms of global warming compared to other centres that are more spread out, it is almost a miracle. We could look at cities like Los Angeles, Atlanta, Toronto and such cities that were built around the suburbs and urban sprawl. Cities like New York rely on public transit and were designed very well from the beginning to accommodate public transit and ultimately have become in my opinion examples of environmentally sound urban planning.

Perhaps that is one area in which the federal government should be working more closely and playing a leadership role. Part of our Kyoto commitment could be working with provinces and municipalities in terms of urban planning and the types of initiatives that have been successful globally. Linking environmental policy to day to day action is very important. We need to explore this issue further.

I know the Reform Party has spoken against the motion but we are supporting it. We also recognize that there are other examples where tax policies have been suggested by Reform members. For instance, the mortgage interest deductibility was supported by and large by the Reform caucus. There are examples where the Reform Party will recognize the importance of some types of behaviours but not necessarily other types of policies.

I would argue that certainly home ownership is as extraordinarily important as a clean environment, an environment that is sustainable and is there for future generations of Canadians. One thing Canada has that we must covet and protect is our relatively clean environment. We are recognized around the world for our relatively pristine surroundings and environment. It is something we cannot take for granted.

If we look at the demographics and the fact that people are moving into the cities, that urban centres are growing, this is the type of policy we have to explore very carefully. It should not be summarily discounted by the government as a bad idea until it has a set of policies to address these very important issues.

It is also important to recognize and commend the New Democrats for doing something that I had not expected them to do and that is to suggest a tax cut. Perhaps we should recognize that important evolution. If we support this private member's motion on providing a tax benefit for taking public transit, in the future perhaps we could engage the New Democrats in a discussion about their supporting our belief of tax cuts for everybody in Canada. Clearly that is something we all need. It would be sound not just for the environment but for all aspects of our quality of life.

[Energy Efficiency Strategy, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, our party's environment critic, the member for Fundy—Royal, has been working assiduously on this file.

We believe that Motion No. 300 has provided some really good food for discussion and progress within this parliament about the very important issue of the environment and how the public and private sector can work together. The government can work with and engage Canadians in a very important dialogue to make progress in a concrete way, particularly relative to the environment, given our Kyoto commitments.

It is interesting that the previous speaker said he has no confidence in the federal government's ability basically to do anything. I must challenge the hon. member on that assertion. It is not necessarily the size of government. The size of government has been debated largely in the House and by Canadians, but we have to consider the role of government.

I would argue that the government does have a role, a leadership role, to play in the area of the environment. The benefits of a clean environment are not felt solely by individual Canadians nor by individual companies. There is a societal benefit to a clean environment. As such it is imperative that the government act decisively to work with the private sector to meet the obligations we have made in Kyoto.

Energy efficiency benefits all members of society. When the private sector engages in more energy efficient behaviour, we will see a lowering of operating costs for business and better workplace productivity. Productivity is an extraordinarily important issue. Our productivity has been lagging that of our trading partners over the past 20 years. This is one area, one opportunity Canada has to improve productivity in environmental areas.

This is a particularly important issue, given the degree to which the U.S. government and President Clinton and Vice-President Gore have engaged in a leadership role on the environment, on sustainable resource development and energy efficiency. Canada cannot stand back. We must take a more proactive role.

When the government engages in more energy efficient behaviour ultimately the taxpayers will save money. It will help us meet our international obligations, for instance those made at Kyoto. Over time, municipalities and provincial governments will be able to invest the money saved by more environmentally sound practices in things like community infrastructure, recreation and education.

The federal government particularly has a leadership role to play in this area. We have seen organizations such as Edmonton Power and the Canadian Homebuilders Association promote efficiency in new homes. This type of technology can be sold not just within Canada but globally.

We have the potential to improve the quality of life of Canadians and to reduce the damage to the environment by using greener sources of power. Ultimately less taxes will be paid by Canadians because energy efficiency will result in greater operating efficiency for government. In time there will be a better quality of life for all Canadians.

Frankly, it is unfortunate that the government is not actively pursuing these initiatives, as opposed to the opposition and my colleague from the New Democratic Party who has put this motion forward.

One thing concerns me relative to the commitment we have made in Kyoto. That is the lack of meaningful dialogue in Canada prior to those commitments being made. There was very little meaningful dialogue with the sub-national governments, the provincial governments and the municipalities. The level of dialogue with the private sector was not as extensive as it should have been.

It is very important that we are debating these issues now but it would have been far better had we debated them more thoroughly and diligently prior to going to Kyoto. Then our commitments made in Kyoto could have been based on sound research and consultation with Canadians.

Now after the fact we need initiatives like Motion No. 300 which brings to the forefront the important issues: jobs and energy. There is an inextricable link between energy efficiency and investments in energy efficiency augmentation and employment growth, particularly in the new economy in a global sense. Around the world countries will be seeking better approaches to energy efficiency and better approaches to some of the age old problems.

This is an opportunity for Canada not just to compete globally in this newly emerging sector, but to succeed globally. Young Canadians can pursue education in these areas and participate in what could be an exciting new growth industry where Canada could be a leader. We need leaders in Canada who recognize the potential of this extraordinary opportunity to contribute not only to a better quality of life for Canadians, but for a better quality of life for everyone on this planet.

We have a responsibility to this generation and future generations to protect the environment. We have been extremely fortunate. For far too long we have taken for granted our country, its tremendous potential, its natural resources and the relative purity of our environment.

Pursuing this type of initiative more actively would cause us to consider and improve every aspect of everything we do in our day to day lives to contribute to better energy efficiency and to a cleaner environment. Ultimately if we do this properly, there will be more jobs for Canadians.

I believe the Reform Party's position is that global warming is not a proven phenomenon and may not exist. We can ask a thousand doctors if smoking causes cancer and we might find one who says that it does not. The fact is the weight of evidence clearly indicates that global warming is a problem. When the weight of evidence is so overwhelmingly in support of global warming being a problem, it would be irresponsible for us not to act decisively.

This does not have to mean a loss of jobs. This does not have to mean, as some would assert, a loss of opportunities. It can mean more jobs, more opportunities, a cleaner environment, a better Canada and a better world. All of that is possible if we act decisively and we ensure that this House provides the leadership so that Canada can provide the kind of global leadership that the world needs on the environment.

[Transport, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The loss of Devco has caused the loss of 1,700 jobs in Nova Scotia. There are opportunities, though, for Nova Scotia. The super port in Halifax could result in the creation of up to 5,000 direct and indirect jobs in construction and spin-off jobs in Nova Scotia. Winning this bid would be good for both Nova Scotia and Canada.

Will the government commit today to a strategy to help ensure that the super port facility comes to Halifax where it belongs?

[Bankruptcies, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am awfully glad the minister has discussed the employment figures. The fact is that the U.S. has the lowest unemployment right now in 20 years. I do not think the minister can claim credit for that. In fact I do not think he can claim credit for the success in the reduction of Canadian unemployment rates either.

The previous government's policies, free trade, the GST, deregulation of financial services and transportation and energy were the structural changes that were necessary.

Will the minister do what is right and reduce taxes for Canadians so that the next generation of Canadians can succeed in this country?

[Bankruptcies, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the first five years of this government there have been 420,000 bankruptcies in Canada.

This is more bankruptcies than the number that occurred during the entire previous nine years of the Progressive Conservative government, and that government had to deal with the 1991 and 1992 recession.

Under this finance minister more Canadians have gone bankrupt because the finance minister insists on raising taxes and putting Canadians in a position where they have to work harder and receive less.

Will the finance minister commit that in his upcoming budget he will increase the basic personal exemption to $10,000—

[Newfoundland Election, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I stand to deliver a very important message which comes from the next premier of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Ed Byrne.

Mr. Ed Byrne has asked me to communicate to the people of Canada and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that, pursuant to the health and social union agreement yesterday, he publicly commits to spend every last penny of health care funding restored partially by the federal government on the health care system of Newfoundland and Labrador when he is elected on Tuesday.

Ed is a man of his word. He is a man of sincerity, integrity and enthusiasm and he intends to become premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to improve his province; not just as a stepping stone to federal politics, but for the betterment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He and his team of candidates will provide exceptional government to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who badly need new leadership.

We want to encourage all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to vote for Ed Byrne and the PC Party on Tuesday for the sake of their health care.

[Competition Act, February 5th, 1999]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I would in fact argue that there are members of the Senate who are working very hard serving Canadians on an ongoing basis. We also have senators in the Senate banking committee with which I am very familiar who have forgotten more on finance and banking issues than many members of the House know, even those on the finance committee of which I am a member. We see legislation which the House sends to the Senate being improved and made better for Canadians by the Senate.

I absolutely would like to see the same degree of rigour that would apply to this legislation or any other legislation and the same level of scrutiny applied to the Senate. Like any organization, there are members of the Senate who are more capable and pursue public policy with a greater amount of vigour and diligence than others. There are also members of the House who pursue public policy more vigorously than others. There are members of the House who love politics but do not really like public policy. Politics can be the natural enemy of public policy.

One thing I like about members of the Senate is that their focus in many cases is exclusively on public policy. There are members of the Senate who have a significant level of experience and depth of knowledge in particular areas which is unequalled in the House.

While the hon. member may be opposed to the Senate and may want to see systemic overhaul of the Senate, and that is a legitimate issue for discussion, while we have a Senate we have a duty as parliamentarians to work with the senators to develop legislation in the best interest of Canadians and not simply to criticize senators for purely political partisan reasons.

[Competition Act, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon. member. Nobody in the House would disagree with the intent of the whistleblowing amendments. The intent is sound, but unfortunately there are toxic levels of naiveté in the hon. member's arguments. The enforceability of the whistleblowing amendments would potentially create a regulatory nightmare.

The head of the Competition Bureau, Konrad Von Finckenstein, has said effectively that he will not provide either support or opposition to it. I will read his response again:

—the amendments were put forward not by me and not on our suggestion but by ... a member of the House.... I am neutral on it ... I see the deterrent value .... On the other hand, I do not want to create something that is going to cause employers a lot of harm or interfere with normal employee relations or is going to cause me of useless work.

The Canadian Bar Association has indicated that there are significant concerns about the amendments. The enforceability of these amendments is dubious at best. The Dubin report basically found that whistleblower legislation in most jurisdictions has had little impact.

We are not disagreeing with the intent. What we are saying is that we need to have more study and more diligence. We should not rush forward to implement politically expedient but unrealistic public policy that in the long term does not serve the needs of Canadians and does not even meet the intent of the amendments.

We have to be realistic. We must not just do what is politically palatable. Sometimes we have to do what is actually effective and realistic.

[Competition Act, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act.

As has been mentioned by other members, Bill C-20 has returned from the Senate with sections 66.1 and 66.2 deleted. These sections pertain to whistleblowing and the government has proposed new amendments to reinstate these provisions. The only significant concession that the government has made, however, is withdrawing any reference to criminal sanctions.

Before I give my comments on the amendments to the question I would like to reiterate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party our overall support for this bill. Our party has always understood that the promotion of competitive markets is of fundamental importance in today's global and extraordinarily competitive economy.

Competition stimulates innovation and growth in jobs, provides businesses and consumers with competitive prices and product choices that they need and increases overall the average standard of living in society.

Without a modern competition law Canadian businesses will encounter anti-competitive barriers to their entry and expansion in their markets. They may find in time it is difficult to source and input at competitive prices and ultimately they may encounter other refrains in their ability to remain competitive.

In my view the Senate has made the correct choice to remove the whistleblowing provisions which were not part of the original legislation but were added by the House industry committee. That is not to say the intent of legislating whistleblowing provisions is wrong. But as pointed out by organizations, including the Canadian Bar Association, sections 66.1 and 66.2 were an undue intrusion into the role of the employer with respect to otherwise completely lawful behaviours.

The whistleblowing provisions were introduced by the industry committee during its hearings. Consequently they were not part of the same public consultation process as the other provisions of the bill. The Canadian Bar Association went further and said that section 66.1 would require the commissioner of competition to keep confidential the identities of persons who notify the commission when they have reasonable grounds to believe that another person has committed or intends to commit an offence. Section 66.2 would prevent employers who dismiss, suspend, demote, discipline, harass or otherwise disadvantage an employee or deny an employee a benefit of employment for whistleblowing activities, and effectively employers are also prohibited from the above employment actions if they believe an employee will undertake the above whistleblowing actions. I will read one paragraph from the letter by the Canadian Bar Association that was sent to the chairman of the Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce. Page 4, paragraph 6 reads as follows:

Employers should not be required to continue to deal with employees or contractors in whom they have lost confidence. An employee's complaint to the commissioner would generally sour the work environment. An employer acting in good faith should be entitled to terminate an employee either with notice or damages in lieu of notice. This legitimate action by an employer would not longer be available—.

Further, the Canadian Bar Association added:

Proposed whistleblowing provisions conflict with the 1997 report by the honourable Charles Dubin, whom the Competition Bureau had retained to study the issue. The Dubin report concluded that there was no need to amend the Competition Act to protect employee whistleblowers because protection is available through existing processes. The Dubin report also found that the whistleblower legislation in other jurisdictions has had little or no impact.

There are significant problems in both the concepts and the drafting of section 66.2. These problems will create unnecessary and difficult situations for employers. In addition, there are issues respecting section 66.1 that should be of concern to the commissioner and to the Competition Bureau.

This past year the direction of the Competition Bureau, Mr. Konrad Von Finckenstein, was asked at both House and Senate committees to give the bureau's position on the whistleblowing provisions. His response was: “The amendments were put forward not by me and not on our suggestion but by a member of the House. I am neutral on it. I see the deterrent value. On the other hand, I do not want to create something that is going to cause employers a lot of harm or interference with normal employee relations or is going to cause a lot of useless work”.

This is hardly a ringing endorsement. Section 66.1 and section 66.2 even as modified by the government do not represent government policy but rather the initiative of one member of the House without in our opinion proper consultation or study.

As stated earlier, Justice Dubin when asked to express his view on the desirability of such legislation produced a report which concluded that the whistleblowing provisions are not necessary because an employee would have rights currently under common law and employment status. This was recently confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Wallace v. United Grain Growing Limited.

Let me be clear. Our party does agree with the intent of whistleblowing provisions and to a certain extent in the potential of whistleblowing provisions. This debate should be subject to proper consultation and scrutiny and not hastily rushed into. Elected officials sometimes are prone to look for quick legislative solutions to otherwise complex public policy issues. We would like to see more consultation and more discussion and more rigorous diligence. In researching this there are organizations, including the Canadian Bar Association and the head of the Competition Bureau, that have expressed significant reservations about the effectiveness of whistleblowing provisions.

The Progressive Conservative Party will therefore oppose the government's amendments to Bill C-20 and support the bill as amended by the Senate.

For those members who criticize the Senate when individuals or senators collectively take active roles in amending legislation, and at the same time or perhaps days before or days after will criticize senators for doing nothing, they should be consistent. We want a Senate that is active and participates in these types of very important public policy debates. I believe we do. Even those members of this House who are opposed to the Senate need to recognize that we have a Senate at this time and that the Senate contains members who have significant experiences and a depth of experience and knowledge of public policy quite exceptional in many areas, particularly areas such as the Senate banking committee, which I have had the pleasure of working with as a member of the House of Commons finance committee.

While we have the institution of the Senate, I urge all members of the House to respect that institution and to encourage that institution and its members to diligently pursue important issues of public policy such that we can ensure collectively the House and the other place will produce the types of legislation Canadians need. It is extraordinarily important.

If Senate reform is something individual members of the House feel is needed, that is an issue which should be pursued with legitimate healthy debate. As long as we have a Senate and as long as we have members in that Senate who are capable, intelligent and diligent public servants that work hard on behalf of Canadians, not just offering what Canadians want today but what Canadians need in terms of public policy in the future, we should be encouraging intervention and input from the Senate, not discouraging it.