36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 20
CONTENTS
Friday, October 24, 1997
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS TARIFF
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-11. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1010
1015
1020
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1035
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1100
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNITED NATIONS DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA COUNCIL
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPENCERVILLE LEGION
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
1105
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMUNICATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORNOGRAPHY
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNITED NATIONS DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PEACEKEEPING
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CONSTITUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1110
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VOLUNTEERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1115
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Mr. Collenette |
1120
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Mr. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1125
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEARCH AND RESCUE
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1130
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1135
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEARCH AND RESCUE
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
1140
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VCN MARINE RADIO
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1145
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1150
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RESOURCES
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOLICITOR GENERAL
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1155
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEARCH AND RESCUE
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPUTER SYSTEMS
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOLICITOR GENERAL
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1200
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT IMPLEMENTATION COMMISSION
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-265. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1205
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Pension Plan
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS TARIFF
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-11. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1220
1225
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1240
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1305
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1310
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division deferred
|
1315
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1320
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1355
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1400
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1405
1410
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1415
![V](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 20
![](/web/20061116194416im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 24, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
CUSTOMS TARIFF
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-11, an act respecting the imposition of duties
of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International
Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding
System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain
duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related
matters and to amend or repeal certain acts in consequence
thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is one of those occasions which
rarely arises in this Chamber when all party consent, quickly
given, is in the interests of all Canadians.
By simplifying the customs tariff, the bill will result in duty
savings next year for Canadian businesses and consumers of $90
million and will eliminate red tape. It will lower the
production costs for Canadian firms, increase competitiveness in
domestic and global markets and create more jobs.
All of us know that Canada's prosperity depends on trade.
Exports account for 33% of the gross domestic product and 29% of
GDP consists of imports. If the costs of tariffs can be lowered
for Canadian businesses and administrative burden can be
lessened, we will have a more competitive job creating economy.
This is why the government has worked closely with Canadian
businesses to design a more simple, cost effective customs
tariff.
1010
Consultations were extensive. Letters were sent to the leaders
of the parties opposite from the heads of Canadian businesses and
business organizations throughout Canada asking for their
unanimous support for these measures. They have asked that
priority be given by Parliament to passage of this legislation.
I would remind my colleagues that on January 1 next year, just a
couple of months off, under the North American free trade
agreement, tariffs with the United States will be eliminated. On
this side we share the concerns of business that a simplified
customs tariff be ready for implementation on that date. Of
course, this implies that business too must be ready. We have to
preclude economic disruption, allow for automated systems to be
adapted and employees to be educated to the new tariff structure.
This is why government has been working very closely with
business to ensure that they are ready.
Since April Revenue Canada and StatsCan have undertaken ongoing,
extensive outreach programs with those affected. Officials of the
finance department have met with businesses and trade
organizations and participated in conferences to inform
interested parties. Obviously, early passage would enable the
government to provide the information necessary regarding what is
needed in terms of certainty, clarity and timeliness to the
business community.
Quick passage will also demonstrate to Canadian industry that
Parliament is not only aware of market realities, but is also
able to respond quickly and effectively to industry calls for
legislation. Put simply, it is timely that Bill C-11 be enacted.
Why? Because the current customs tariff represents a highly
unnecessary hurdle to doing business. It is complex and
outdated. It is time consuming and its redundant compliance
requirements represent both a financial and opportunity cost to
industry, not to mention government and bureaucracy. We have to
streamline it, simplify it and update it to make Canadians
competitive at home and abroad.
With rates of duty on all trade with our largest partner ending
on January 1, 1998, coupled with other real rate reductions and
eliminations flowing from the Uruguay round of the World Trade
Organization, it is important to simplify our regime by
eliminating complex and redundant mechanisms and ensuring that
the tariff is responsive to competitive pressures facing Canadian
industry.
Our regime has become truly complex. In all there are now 13
tariff treatments, 7 schedules, about 8,500 tariff items and
2,500 concessionary provisions or regulations and over 200
different rates of duty. The system is complicated, lacks
transparency and leads, because of its complexity, to great
uncertainty. This has been noted in many reports by the World
Trade Organization. It is imperative to minimize these costs to
industry. Let us recognize that it is not only in Canada but all
around the world that tariff rates are going down.
The Uruguay round, the FTA and the NAFTA have resulted in an
almost 60% trade weighted reduction in average Canadian tariffs.
The tariff system must be better adapted to the competitive
Canadian industrial economy. In the context of an increasingly
open economy, we have to have dynamic linkages between exports
and imports, meaning declining rates of duty.
[Translation]
For all these reasons, the February 1994 budget announced a
thorough review of the Canadian tariff system over a three-year
period.
1015
The main objectives were to ensure that the Customs Tariff and its
regulations better reflect the pressures of international competition
and also to reduce the regulatory burden and all the related costs.
Accordingly, a working group was set up within the Department of
Finance and was mandated to achieve the objectives within three years.
One of the key points of this review was its consultation of all the
parties concerned to ensure that the results of the review were in line
with the objectives set.
Meetings were held in order to inform those involved of the
measures planned and to seek their views. Following public
consultations, a draft version of the simplified Customs Tariff
reflecting public comments was issued in March 1996 to give everyone an
opportunity to prepare their final comments.
Thus, in order to reach the greatest number of interested parties,
ads were published in a number of major Canadian papers, and the
provisional version was displayed on the Internet site.
The proposed legislation and letters of support from industry
leaders received by the leaders of the opposition parties indicate that
the consultation process was a success, since business supports the bill
and is getting ready for its application.
It is obvious the bill is based on the measures the current
government has taken up until now to restructure and modernize the
Customs Tariff. We hope in this way to help our businesses become more
competitive and prosperous.
In June 1995, Bill C-102 lowered tariffs on a broad range of
manufacturing inputs, so as to reduce the pressure exerted by the
competition on Canadian industry as a result of the amendments to the
drawback program affecting exports to the United States. These
amendments were necessitated by NAFTA.
This initiative was the first legislative measure taken to simplify
tariff provisions. I am very happy to say that it enabled business and
consumers in Canada to save some $60 million a year.
The planned tariff reductions will benefit Canadian producers.
What's more, the administrative burden will be lighter—and related
costs lower—for both government and business. Finally, the Customs
Tariff will become easier to implement.
This bill will replace the seven existing schedules with a single
one, simplify the tariff structure and greatly reduce the number of
provisions in the Customs Tariff. The number of provisions will be
reduced from 11,000 to 8,000. Moreover, obsolete or unnecessary tariff
regulations and administrative procedures will be eliminated.
1020
The new Customs Tariff will also have a broader application and
permit unilateral tariff reductions for manufacturing inputs and the
application of similar measures to the service sector.
I would like, in this regard, to remind my colleagues of the
importance of ensuring that the Canadian service sector is as
competitive as possible, especially in light of the international
lifting of trade barriers in the service sector. We all know that the
service sector is one of the most important ones in our country.
[English]
Until now I have spoken only in general terms concerning the
overall economic benefits of simplifying our tariff structure. To
illustrate these benefits allow me to turn briefly to several
measures in the legislation.
I have already talked about the duty saving on a wide range of
manufacturing products. The legislation will make further
reductions in this direction, including the acceleration of most
final Uruguay round reductions currently scheduled for the next
two years.
As well, we are going to get rid of nuisance rates. Rates under
2% will be eliminated. We are going to round other rates to the
nearest half per cent. These will be permanent features of our
tariff system.
Rate reductions which affect goods coming into Canada that are
used as inputs for manufacturing are very important. These will
reduce the cost to Canadian manufacturers. It will make them
more competitive and better able to take advantage of the growing
regime of free trade. In short, our industries will be better
able to compete for jobs.
Government red tape also stands in the way of our
competitiveness. A case in point is the remaining not made in
Canada provisions in the tariff to which I referred earlier.
Under these provisions duty free entry is provided for specific
goods, mostly manufacturing inputs.
While these provisions once provided flexibility to take into
account the needs of Canadian manufacturers and producers, they
have now been rendered redundant by the openness of our Canadian
economy resulting from freer trade.
As well, they give rise to inconsistencies in the tariff
treatment of goods, impose administrative costs to industry and
the government and create uncertainty over what is dutiable.
Therefore we are now converting the remaining not made in Canada
provisions to duty free items in the tariff schedule without the
not made condition. This, again, will improve our
competitiveness, particularly in our manufacturing sector.
Concerning concessionary codes in the current tariff, these
provide for reduced rates or free entry for a wide range of goods
that are not really part of the main tariff. With freer trade
generally and with the United States in particular, changes in
trade patterns and technology and other factors, many of these
provisions are no longer justified. This is why we have proposed
to eliminate about 1,000 of these codes. Another 1,000 or so
codes remain relevant, since the amount of imports under them
from non-U.S. sources is significant. These codes have been
converted to tariff provisions at concessionary rates in a single
tariff schedule.
To further reduce costs to industry we are terminating the
machinery program and replacing it with duty free or dutiable
tariff provisions for unavailable equipment or available
equipment, respectively.
Currently duties on a broad range of machinery from all sources
are remitted to applicants if reasonable equivalents are not
available from Canadian production. Again, however, this program
has been rendered largely irrelevant, or less relevant, by tariff
reductions.
1025
Implementing tariff items will not eliminate inconsistencies and
uncertainty, it will alleviate the administrative requirements of
the former remission process. Under the proposed legislation
virtually all machinery production parts and most other parts
under the program will come in duty free.
Regarding the remaining dutiable production machinery under the
existing program, industry will continue to be able to seek and
obtain relief under the proposed broadened order in council
authority to reduce tariffs on inputs. Any relief granted will
be implemented by means of amendments to the schedule.
I wish to note that following consultations with industry and a
transitional period of three years, the sole criterion to be
assessed in considering these applications for relief from the
tariff will be whether the equipment is available from domestic
production. This program will lower costs to machinery users,
provide greater transparency and predictability and help make us
more competitive.
As well, the regulatory burden will also be reduced by revoking
an additional 300 duty remission orders that are no longer
needed. Yet another 70 regulations will be replaced with simpler
provisions in the schedule. For example, for customs duty
purposes, 12 regulations and 13 provisions that provide fuller
partial tariff relief on certain temporarily imported goods will
be replaced by one single tariff item, an item that allows
conditional duty free entry for virtually all goods that are
imported on a temporary basis, again to help make us more
competitive in Canada.
Turning to the legislative provisions of the customs tariff
there are a number of proposed changes in the bill. Many current
provisions are not continued in the new tariff because they are
no longer justified because of free trade. Others such as the
machinery program are not continued due to the simplification
that we have brought about. Perhaps the most striking change is
the way the new single consolidated tariff schedule will look. It
has a revised format with two columns pertaining to tariff
treatments, reduced from the current five.
The government also proposes to eliminate the British
preferential tariff. The reductions in most favoured nations
rates of duty over the years have significantly eroded or, in
most instances, completely eliminated the preferences under the
BPT on most imports from developing commonwealth countries.
Over the years this treatment has been overtaken in many
instances by other preferential tariff treatments for developing
countries and has become largely redundant. The British
preferential tariff is therefore not in the proposed legislation.
Another important change to the legislation, which I briefly
mention, is the broadened order in council authority to reduce
duties on all imports including production machinery used by
manufactures and service providers. It will ensure that the
government has sufficient flexibility to respond efficiently to
competitive pressures facing our industries. It also provides a
new three year authority for the Minister of Finance in light of
the experience over that time to rectify errors that we find in
consultation with our private sector partners. This provision is
considered particularly important by the business community in
view of the wide ranging changes that this bill envisages.
Given these and other changes to the customs tariff, which my
colleagues will address during this debate, we proposed to repeal
the current customs tariff and replace it with an entirely new
act. Substantive amendments are also being made to the Customs
Act including provisions to harmonize the time limits for
claiming duty refunds and providing for adjustments to tariff
classifications, origin or value for duty determinations without
the requirement for a formal appeal.
It will also provide for a single level of administrative appeal
in Revenue Canada. These will simplify the appeal process and
facilitate a focus on those issues where Revenue Canada and the
importer may have disagreements.
Overall we will have a much more simplified, transparent and
predictable administration and regime.
1030
In conclusion this bill and the measures I have detailed here
today have three overriding results. First, they will help make
Canadian industry far more competitive within a much freer global
trading environment. Second, they will make our tariff system
more transparent, more predictable and simpler. Third, they will
reduce greatly the regulatory burden and the associated costs of
that for both business and government.
Industry, as it has contacted members on all sides of this
House, has indicated that it is anxious to see this legislation
in place for the January 1, 1998 debut. I am confident that
members of this House will accede to the needs of industry and
allow us to pass without undue delay these measures in order that
uncertainties will not apply throughout our business community.
I reiterate our view that this bill merits all party support and
accelerated approval in order that businesses, workers and
consumers can reap its benefits.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be speaking of course to Bill C-11 this morning, the
simplified customs tariff.
Sometimes a low profile bill like this does not get a lot of
attention. It is not front and centre in the media. It does not
get all the excitement around it that some of the other bills do.
But I want to say this morning how important this bill is because
of its very significance around what it represents. Bureaucracies
in general have a tendency to grow and if left unchecked, they
just grow and grow and grow.
This particular piece of legislation that is being proposed is
counter to that bureaucratic current of continual growth. I am
going to come back to that concept later but I would like first
of all to go through some of the highlights of this particular
piece of legislation. I may touch on some of the notes of the
previous speaker but as I go through these highlights I would ask
members of the House to focus on the efficiencies and the
countercurrent to bureaucratic growth that is inherent in this
piece of legislation and consider applying this same kind of
approach to other pieces of legislation and other parts of the
bureaucracy.
First, this particular piece of legislation focused on reducing
the custom duties on the goods that are used in the manufacturing
process in Canada, allowing Canadian businesses to better compete
in the international marketplace.
Second, this piece of legislation totally eliminated some of the
tariffs and duties for products in a not made in Canada category.
This allowed Canadian businesses to improve their competitiveness
on a broader range of duty free imports, but maybe even more
important is the sea of red tape that that one change allowed. No
longer do we have to go through an onerous process of determining
what is a not made in Canada product and trying to track that as
the situation changes in Canada both by government and industry.
I would like to also mention the clean-up that was done on the
concessionary tariff codes. Many of these concessionary codes,
as the previous member mentioned, had become obsolete. Two
thousand of them in total were either eliminated or restructured
and put in place as regular tariff schedule items. There are
great gains in efficiency there.
In addition we had the elimination of the machinery remission
program, duties remitted on machinery that was not available in
Canada. This program had a huge administrative cost both for the
private sector and for government in the determination of what is
the machinery that is not available in Canada and how do we track
it as the situation changes, applying for the remission and then
tracking to make sure one actually got the remission cheque.
Then there was all the discussion around whether or not it
applied to the legislation that was in place. This was a great
simplification of the tariff that is inherent in this new
legislation which we fully endorse.
1035
There was also the clean-up and elimination of those duties that
were expressed in dollars and cents numbers rather than a
percentage. The majority of tariffs are in a percentage but
there were some that were still expressed in dollars and cents.
It was much more appropriate to move them all into the one common
format of percentage. It allows for much greater ease of use. It
is also more appropriate as the price of the tariff item changes.
In addition some of the trade developments that have occurred in
Canada made some of the regulations obsolete. Three hundred
different remission orders and regulations were revoked. Seventy
others were replaced with simple tariff items. Again all of this
reduced the regulatory burden.
In addition there was a rationalization of the tariff schedule
which was terrifically unwieldy the way it was before. There was
the elimination of nuisance rates. Anything that was less than
2% tariff was eliminated. There was a rounding off of numbers to
make it easier to apply the tariff. There was a harmonization of
rates on like products. There was an amalgamation and a fixing
of anomalies.
None of this is particular earth shaking. None of it is
particularly difficult to do. It just took work. But the
benefits to Canadian business and the Canadian government are
substantial. The cumulative effect is a more predictable,
simplified tariff legislation with less regulatory burden and
increased competitive strength. Some aspects of Canadian
business I would suggest are even ready for a lot more of this.
After touching on the highlights of this particular piece of
legislation, let us go back to the significance of this kind of
work and take the success of this particular initiative and apply
it to the broader range of government legislation and bureaucracy
that is out there.
As I said, bureaucracies have a tendency to grow. Why is that?
It is largely due to their reward structure. In a bureaucracy
the way one gets ahead personally is to build the bureaucracy
underneath oneself. Always spend all your budget plus a little
bit more. Launch new ideas and try to win support for your
ideas. Get more people motivated around your good idea with very
little accountability to what is actually being provided in the
way of service and the value of that service evaluated through an
impartial third party.
This particular piece of legislation goes counter to that kind
of bureaucratic tendency in that it serves to shrink the
bureaucracy and add efficiency. Those who are involved in this
type of work are usually within bureaucracies and their efforts
go unrewarded.
I would like to suggest that the Reform Party from the very
inception recognized this tendency within bureaucracies to grow
and grow. Within our policy and platform books it is clear that
we have called for a simplification of the regulation, a
rationalization of the redundancies of the processes within
government, adding to the efficiency and quality of the service
provided by government but doing it in a way that downsizes the
extent of the bureaucracy.
Reform has recognized the need for this type of initiative from
the very inception. In fact within our policy documents it is
clear that we have also recognized the need for a change in the
reward structure around bureaucracies.
1040
What we are calling for within our government is a recognition
for those people and those individuals who can demonstrably
deliver a higher quality of service at lower cost. These kinds of
efficiency gains are usually brought about by individuals within
the government at the front line or at the first level of
management who are aware of the waste and aware of where the
problems are.
The problem today is if those people do take the initiative to
increase efficiency, they are not rewarded. In fact they can
even encounter some very significant resistance. Our policy
calls on that type of initiative to be rewarded. If we are to
really see the bureaucracies in our government begin to shrink
and become more effective, we need to recognize individuals and
groups of people who are focused on providing a higher quality of
service at a lower cost to Canadians.
I would like to commend the individuals who were involved in
this project. They consulted with industry. I am sure there were
many hours spent poring over this piece of legislation to come up
with something that is refreshing and is counter to the usual
growth we see in the bureaucracy.
With those comments, I would like to say that this is the kind
of legislation that is a step in the right direction. It is
consistent with what Reform has been calling for. Would it not be
refreshing to apply this kind of approach to other pieces of
government legislation, perhaps the Income Tax Act.
Many people do not realize that the Income Tax Act was
implemented as a temporary measure to fund the war effort. It
was actually 36 pages at that time. Now it is over 600 pages of
legalese and another 700 pages of special interpretations and
guidelines. It is almost twice as thick as the yellow pages in
my own home city of Calgary. And Canadians are supposed to
somehow figure all of it out.
I believe we need to apply the same kind of rationalization and
simplification that we are seeing in this bill to a number of
areas within our government. That is why this bill is so
significant for what it represents here today.
The Reform caucus and I believe all my colleagues are in support
of this bill. Therefore it can be anticipated that there is
support from this side of the House on this bill this morning.
1045
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in the House today to state the Bloc Quebecois position on
Bill C-11 on the customs tariff.
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of expansion of the free trade
zone to all of the Americas, essentially to enhance our trade
exchanges with other countries, Brazil and Argentina in particular.
We have already taken one step in this direction with the
Canada-Chile free trade agreement. We believe Canada must continue
along this path, which is a continuation of a long history of
market liberalization, one which is accelerating as we approach the
second millennium.
Free trade agreements in our time bring numerous questions to
the fore. To provide a clear picture of the Bloc Quebecois
position on this, I will begin with a reference to the steps
leading to the recent liberalization of markets. I shall then move
on to the sad record of Liberal promises on this subject. Lastly,
I will set out the Bloc Quebecois position on Bill C-11.
On numerous occasions we have referred to the essential nature
of the free trade agreement. We have often said that a major shift
in direction is needed, and I believe we must continue to say so.
A review of numerous events in our history shows us that
markets need to be opened up, as we have always believed. As far
back as 1950, American capital was flooding into Canada. Since the
War of 1914, the United States had replaced Great Britain as our
principal source of foreign capital, funds which Canada could not
do without.
But the British contributed to the bonds issued by Canada and even to
subsidiaries wholly owned by the Americans. So many Canadian companies
were bought up by American interests in 10 years that the 1950s will be
remembered as the decade of the big takeover. Entire industries, created
by English Canadians to be sheltered from the tariff, fell into the
hands of the Americans.
The Canadian government was facing two problems at the same time.
Unable to rely on customs duties to direct industrial development, it
had to abandon any initiative in that area or find new means of
achieving the same ends. Also, with the Americans apparently set on
buying everything out, should they be allowed to carry out their
initiatives or should measures be contemplated to hold them back?
The answers came from the 1960s up until 1988. The policies that
were set reflected a consistent effort to direct industrial development
and to erect barriers against foreign control. Starting with the 1960
federal budget, the purpose of fiscal policies and subsidies was
twofold: to direct investments toward preferential activity areas and to
encourage investment in regions where both unemployment and the rate of
growth was particularly high.
1050
In this context, Canada was built and the early experiences were
never forgotten. Without the government, the railways could
never have been built in a country with such a small population.
When people saw where commercial aviation was headed and set up
Trans-Canada Airlines, the development of Hertzian waves for
transmission purposes resulted in the creation of the CBC. The
telegraph, and telecommunications could have developed along
north-south lines, while railways were looking after the
east-west link. Building a country by means of customs tariffs is
inevitably a form of schizophrenia.
Naturally, without the burden of customs duties, factories
sprang up, jobs were created, foreign companies that otherwise
would have been content to sell to Canada, set up business here so
as to avoid paying duties. From these perspectives, a
protectionist policy helped increase provincial production and at
the same time contributed to trade.
It is also true, however, that the consumer paid more than
would otherwise have been the case if he had bought goods directly
outside the country duty free. In addition, the establishment of
many factories in a small Canadian market, with consumers demanding
the same diversification of products as American consumers, meant
that factories' production costs were much higher than in American
factories, with correspondingly higher unit production costs.
As it developed, the Canadian manufacturing industry cut
itself off from most export markets.
It existed for the domestic market, but in most cases, it was not
able to compete on international markets, and it should come as no
surprise that attempts were sometimes made to point out the
advantages of free trade over those of national production.
The attempts made by the Laurier government, before World War
I, and those of the Mackenzie King government immediately after
World War II, make no sense otherwise. But the imperatives of
building a country and a national economy won the day.
The fifteen years following the end of World War II, however,
were to profoundly, decisively, and in some ways irreversibly,
alter the policies of organizing and developing the Canadian
economy.
The great depression of the 1930s led most national industrial economies
to resort to extremely restrictive protectionist measures. With 20%, 25%
or even 30% of the labour force unemployed, governments did not hesitate
to reserve what was left of the domestic market for national businesses,
by drastically increasing custom duties. Such a measure encouraged
trading partners to do the same, with the result that, in the decade
which preceded the world conflict, tariff wars proliferated.
From 1930 to 1935, protectionist hysteria between Canada and the
United States knew no limits. Some traditional trade activities between
the two countries completely disappeared. The same was happening all
over the world. This period will be remembered as a crazy time when
every country was trying to ruin its neighbour and ended up going
bankrupt too. Nations came out of the war with a firm resolution to
never let this happen again.
In 1947, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, was
established.
The setting-up of that remarkable organization resulted in a gradual
lowering of custom duties, first among major industrial countries, and
then between them and an increasing number of developing countries.
Suffice it to say that, by the end of the second world war, average U.S.
customs duties on American taxable imports stood at 30%, compared to
barely 5% today. This gives you an idea of the progress that was made.
In Canada, changes may have been less spectacular but they were
nevertheless significant. Eventually, it was realized that the very
nature of the GATT agreements made it impossible to use customs duties
to structure the Canadian economy. In fact, if the government still
needs an industrial policy, it has to rely on instruments other than
those that have been used so rigorously for close to 100 years.
Customs duties are bound to be reduced or to remain at their current
level.
To be sure, GATT regulations contain any number of derogatory
clauses. We gradually learned how to use them, which was no small feat.
1055
I have just described a significant part of the development of
trade in Canada and in Quebec with other countries and between
provinces. I feel it is important to specify as well that the
federal government has not shown great efficiency in this
connection, has not demonstrated any desire to move further with
it, despite its lukewarm support of free trade in the past—we need
only recall the battle over the free trade agreement.
Where improvement of dispute resolution mechanisms is
concerned, for example, the three partners announced in March of
this year that no progress had been made. In addition, the United
States indicated that there would be no further discussions on this
matter.
By so doing, they drew attention to the false statements the party
across the way was still making on the matter of free trade.
The same goes for energy. Canada has never obtained similar
protection to what Mexico has under NAFTA. Instead, it has
released a declaration setting out its interpretation of the NAFTA
clauses relating to energy. This declaration, of course, is not an
integral part of NAFTA, unlike the special Mexican reservations
and clauses.
In response to Bloc Quebecois questions on the matter last
winter, the Minister of International Trade at the time could do no
more than take refuge once again behind the work of the task force,
which was still incomplete. He told us in his response that he had
not yet been able to meet with his U.S. and Mexican counterparts to
examine the NAFTA committee report.
In his testimony before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade, the minister recognized that he needed more
time to come to an agreement with the U.S. over antidumping and
countervailing measures. I need not remind you that such measures were
often taken against Canada and that the so-called efforts of this
government, which was looking for reforms in that area, never produced
any concrete results.
The government's strategy, as stated by the minister responsible,
was to sign a similar agreement with Chile, and later with Mexico, to
put a little more pressure on our other trade partner, the United
States. He added that progress was made and that a report will be
tabled, which he will release as soon as he is given the green light.
I urge the government to table this document in the House of
Commons now, if eight months was long enough to seek the necessary
permissions to share this information with the elected representatives
of the people of Quebec and Canada who are sitting in this House.
However, it seems rather—
The Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member,
but it being 11 o'clock, the House will now proceed to statements
by members pursuant to Standing Order 31. The hon. member will
have 5 minutes left to complete his speech after Oral Question
Period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to
the Sierra Club of Canada we are the second largest emitter of
greenhouse gases per capita in the industrialized world.
To the government's credit, the Minister of the Environment has
indicated that Canadians and the international community must
take immediate action to reduce these emissions and stop the
harmful effects of global climate change.
It is up to each and every Canadian to do their part to reduce
emissions. It means being more responsible in how we use energy.
It means conserving our national resources. It means using
renewable fuels that are more friendly to the environment. We
cannot rely on any other sector of the population to reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions for us. All Canadians must work
together to reduce these emissions.
I fully support the Minister of the Environment and the
international community in their efforts to reduce the threat of
global warming.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the House my colleague from Wild Rose stated how Roy
Tremblay, a prison guard in the process of relocating a prisoner
with full-blown AIDS, was stuck by a hidden tattoo needle.
1100
The following letter from Mr. Tremblay expresses his frustration
with our present day penal system. The letter reads:
Isn't it ironic that Corrections Canada provides convicts with
condoms, lubricant and bleach to clean their needles, and we've
been told that Joyceville is thinking about opening a tattoo room
for its inmates?
Well what about providing some protective equipment for the
staff? I ask you, isn't a guard's life worth the cost of a pair
of puncture resistant gloves?
He goes on to write:
It may be said that I am bitter and should just get on with my
life. Well guess what? I am very bitter and I would gladly
trade places with these people and let them have the worries and
uncertainty that I have to endure every day.
Corrections Canada gives staff lip service to our concerns. Well
if they want to talk the talk then they better start walking the
walk.
By the way, it should be noted that it is a policy not to inform
prison guards and staff about—
* * *
[Translation]
UNITED NATIONS DAY
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this United
Nations Day, I would like to draw attention to the work of the UN,
particularly in the areas of health, education, human rights, the
environment, peace and security.
[English]
The United Nations is the cornerstone of Canadian foreign policy
and we have historically been one of its strongest supporters.
Lester Pearson's contribution to our modern peacekeeping efforts
is legendary and Canadians are proud of our peacekeeping
missions.
We are working with the United Nations to increase worldwide
support for the treaty to ban landmines, a landmark agreement
which the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be commended for
initiating.
Canada is currently a candidate for the non-permanent seat on
the Security Council. If successful, we hope to play an even
greater role at the United Nations over the next few years toward
increased peace and security internationally.
Our credentials and reputation in this regard are respected
world wide.
[Translation]
On this United Nations Day, we must support Secretary General Koffi
Anna in his efforts to make the UN more efficient so it can face the
challenges of the 21st century.
* * *
SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
this is Small Business Week, I am pleased to recognize this sector's
active contribution to our economy.
In the riding of Laval Centre, over 880 small businesses help
provide work for 18,875 people. Their energy and their creativity are
the keys to their vitality and success.
In this context, I am proud to pay tribute to the exceptional work
of PBI experts-conseils Inc. Yesterday, this business from my riding
received an award at the 30th gala of the Association of Consulting
Engineers of Canada.
Under the leadership of its president, Paul Boyer, this small
business employing five people developed state-of-the-art
software which received high praise from Hydro-Québec and
Quebec's Ministry of Environment and Wildlife.
This success story clearly shows that Quebec's know-how and
knowledge are worth their weight in gold.
* * *
[English]
CANADA COUNCIL
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, in keeping with our red book commitment, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage announced an annual increase of $25
million to the Canada Council for the arts.
Much has been accomplished by the Canada Council in the past 40
years. From the grassroots up, the council has contributed to
building a vast, lively and diverse arts sector of creators and
organizations in communities across Canada.
The Canada Council for the arts has focused its efforts on the
creation, production and dissemination of artistic work which has
fostered the emergence of generations of great Canadian artists
and a body of work in which we can all take pride.
Increasing resources by $25 million will enrich the entire
cultural sector, which relies on the arts for content,
inspiration and talent. Most important of all, it contributes to
enhancing Canadians' understanding of each other and forging a
strong national identity.
* * *
SPENCERVILLE LEGION
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
Remembrance Day draws near I would like to take this opportunity
to bring to the attention of the House an important project. The
Spencerville Legion, Branch 604, with Bill Woodhead spearheading
the initiative, has taken up the challenge of having the soon to
be completed highway 416 named in honour of Canadian veterans.
This initiative, along with the anticipated successful
acquisition of the McCrae medals, would clearly indicate that we
are not only prepared but proud to hold the torch high.
I feel it will also serve to compliment and support the
activities of the Royal Canadian Legion as it deals with the
challenge of ensuring that the next generation of Canadians do
not break faith.
I encourage all members of the House, especially the members for
Ontario, to endorse this cause of the Spencerville Legion.
1105
As Remembrance Day approaches, take this opportunity to write
the Ontario minister of transport to strongly support our very
own veterans' memorial highway.
* * *
COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in March the Minister of Industry compared direct to home
satellite retailers to drug pushers.
Mike Heck is a constituent of mine and is in the direct to home
satellite business. He provides jobs in the community, pays
taxes in the community and he is understandably upset over the
comments of the minister.
Mr. Heck does not consider it a crime to offer Canadians freedom
of choice. But the Liberals believe that if programming does not
come from Canada's monopolies, officially sanctioned by the CRTC,
then it will corrupt us.
Three hundred thousand Canadians have said enough is enough and
have tuned the Liberal government out. They are watching what they
want, paying for they want, enjoying what they want on their
direct to home satellite systems. They are standing together in
opposition to the Liberal government, telling it to “get its
dirty little fingers off our remote controls”.
* * *
PORNOGRAPHY
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House to draw attention to the white
ribbon against pornography campaign.
[Translation]
The purpose of this national campaign is to eliminate the
destructive influences of obscene, pornographic and indecent
material.
[English]
Concern with the destructive nature of pornography is nation
wide and the campaign for its elimination has been spearheaded by
many groups in our ridings. The main goals of the white ribbon
campaign include ensuring that possession of child pornography is
a chargeable offence, that no pornography is sold to minors and
that all videos are classified before they can be displayed of
rented.
From my perspective, pornography is essentially degrading to
women and I am at a loss to comprehend how any feminist writer
could perceive it otherwise.
As a member of Parliament, I will be receiving this week a box
of white ribbons from the Catholic Women's League in Barrie.
These ribbons have been worn by residents as a sign of their
desire to eliminate pornography.
* * *
[Translation]
UNITED NATIONS DAY
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today is
United Nations Day.
As the UN launches into a major reform, the Bloc Quebecois
hopes that the organization will remain true to its primary
mission, the promotion of peace and international security, the
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the
promotion of economic, cultural and social development.
Since it was founded on October 24, 1945, the UN has attracted
almost 200 member countries, 20 of them since 1989.
Whether through its international peacekeeping activities or its
actions to promote the respect of human rights, the UN has held
fast to the objectives of justice, collective security, human
development and equal rights for all.
The Bloc Quebecois thanks all Quebeckers who are working to
defend and encourage the principles and objectives of this
organization so as to make our world a better place.
* * *
[English]
PEACEKEEPING
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to pay
tribute to Canada's peacekeepers.
They provide an invaluable and a necessary service to
communities throughout the world. However, this commitment does
not come without personal cost. These men and women leave behind
wives, husbands and families in discharging their duties.
It is with this in mind that Randy Chester and group of
committed volunteers have started the Home Fires Burning project.
It was a personal experience for me to be at the ground breaking
ceremony for the first Home Fires Burning project in all Canada
at CFB Petawawa in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
The project's objective is to provide visible recognition for
those who provide a supportive role in our military community.
All they ask in return is a safe journey home of their loved
ones.
I believe it is fitting and proper that we pay honour to not
only the peacekeepers but to their families.
* * *
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
weekend we celebrate the anniversaries of two milestones for
democracy in Canada.
Five years ago this Sunday, on October 26, 1992, millions of
Canadians had a rare taste of grassroots democracy when they cast
their votes in a national referendum on constitutional change.
Ordinary Canadians resoundingly rejected the special status,
distinct society laden Charlottetown accord.
By doing so, they also rejected the top down process by which
that accord was drafted. Canadians set an important precedent
that day. Never again will they allow political elites to dictate
our constitutional future.
1110
Four years ago tomorrow, millions of Canadians defied
conventional wisdom and set another democratic landmark. They
voted Reform by the millions. On that day 51 new Reform MPs
joined the Reform member who is now the member for Edmonton
North.
These are two great dates, two dates that mark the coming of age
for democracy in this country. Reformers everywhere should be
proud.
* * *
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
urge the government to recognize the value of volunteers by
including a volunteer tax credit in the forthcoming federal
budget.
The purpose of this proposal is to offer a tangible thank you in
the form of a tax credit for those unsung heroes who volunteer
their time and services for community and non-profit
organizations.
The government allows tax deductions for charitable donations,
real estate and securities. Does a volunteer hour not have a
similar quantifiable value?
The economic realities of funding cuts increase the demand for
and importance of these Canadian champions. As the non-profit
sector does more with less, volunteers fill the gaps.
Members of Parliament constantly extol the value of volunteers
and volunteerism. For the greater good it is time to put money
where our mouth is.
* * *
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for
two years the Canadian government has been engaged in secret
negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment, an
agreement which goes well beyond the provisions of NAFTA in
ceding power to multinationals and threatens to diminish even
further the rights of nations to direct their own economies,
provide safe and decent working conditions and protect the
environment for future generations.
This Liberal government promised not to sign NAFTA unless it
could get adequate protection for labour and environmental
standards in 1993 and then it signed on to an inadequate and
toothless side agreement designed to convince Canadians that they
were standing up for Canadian interests.
This government should not proceed in any further trade
negotiations without first constructing an international legal
framework to protect human rights, the rights of labour and the
rights of communities to regulate in the interest of sustainable
development.
* * *
CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the many Canadians, including those
from my riding of Nepean—Carleton, who generously donated to a
special fund established toward the purchase of the military
service medals of Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae, author of In
Flanders Fields.
Many Canadians are pleased that the federal government will be
financially supportive of the efforts being co-ordinated by the
McCrae House Museum in Guelph and the war museum to hopefully
purchase these medals.
As we approach Remembrance Day it is very important for us to
keep in mind that a nation has a duty to honour those who have
died in defence of freedom. The Canadian War Museum has a special
role to play in promoting our collective remembrance of the
sacrifices of previous generations. In future we must ensure that
they have the resources to do a job that should be important to
all Canadians.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, a huge
injustice is being committed as we sit here today. The Liberal
government is killing off the early stage software development
industry by axing tax incentives.
The government crushed industrial creativity when it abruptly
decided on August 6 this year to remove investment incentives to
high risk “angel” investors of small to mid-size development
companies. The Minister of Finance is going through with this
removal of important forms of finance for early stage software
developers without any consultation with the industry: no orange
light, no warning, no review, even after he has been asked for a
review and even offered co-operative help from the industry.
The killing off of a valuable fast paced growing industry is
absolutely despicable and unacceptable. On October 31 an entire
part of the technology industry will die. If the government is
going to brag about helping the innovative technology industry,
then it should either treat the industry as partners or stop
using the partnership rhetoric.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to remind the House that last Friday was International Day for the
Eradication of Poverty.
In the riding of Québec, poverty has a face and a name. I pay
tribute to the work of our social and community workers.
Distributing glasses of milk, providing assistance to single parent
families, visiting the elderly, listening to the young without
judging them, helping the unemployed look for work, providing
housing assistance, and encouraging those on welfare to stand up
for themselves are just some of the things they do that make life
a little easier. We must continue to support those who make a
contribution to the community and to follow their example.
1115
That is why we are demanding that the federal government
reimburse the provinces, who are facing an annual shortfall of $4.5
billion in transfer payments for social assistance, education and
health, instead of using the savings made on the backs of the poor
to promote the maple leaf.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Justice told the House the Liberals
would not bring in a carbon tax, but she specifically failed to
rule out other taxes on the energy industry, taxes that would
devastate Canada's resource industries and the thousands of
families that relied on it for their livelihood.
As the minister for Alberta, it is up to her to clear the air,
which she can do right now by telling the House the following
words: “Never again will the Liberal government cripple our
economy with a massive energy tax grab”. Will the Minister of
Justice tell us that today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to read something into the record: “Actually for several
years people have been talking about climate change, global
warming and greenhouse gases. We think it is better to be safe
than sorry. The world should act now and control carbon dioxide
emissions”.
Who said that? The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
If even the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers wants
Canada to recognize the problem and be part of the solution, why is
the Reform Party the only group in this country that is not
willing to act in the interests of all Canadians?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are looking for assurances that they are not going to
be stuck with a multi-billion dollar tax grab and all we get are
evasions from this government.
The Kyoto deal could double home heating costs and raise
gasoline costs to almost a litre. I want the minister to commit
right now to no more taxes on energy, not a cent more on gas, not
a cent more on the wellhead, not a cent more on heating fuel.
Will he or she give us their word today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have in my hand the Reform Party program on the
environment.
It says: “The Reform Party supports ensuring that all Canadians
dwell in a clean and healthy environment. The Reform Party
believes environmental considerations must carry equal weight
with economic, social and technical considerations in the
development of a project”.
Why has the Reform Party abandoned its own program? Why has it
abandoned its principles? Why has it ceased to care about the
best interests of all Canadians as part of a world community?
What has gone wrong with the Reform Party? More Reform rubbish
today. Why can't it get back to its principles?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the question is why has the government not ruled out a tax grab.
That is the question. The average family already pays more in
taxes than it does on food, shelter and clothing combined.
This government has taken $8 billion more out of their pockets.
Canadian families are working harder but coming home with less
because of the tax burden.
Why has the Liberal government committed to support the Kyoto
tax attack which could suck thousands of dollars out of the
pockets of every Canadian family?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, even the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
wants us to come up with a fair solution through the Kyoto
negotiations.
This government is consulting with all the stakeholders
including the provinces. We are going to be negotiating actively
in Kyoto in the interests of all Canadians, bearing in mind
western Canada, central Canada, eastern Canada. Any deal this
government signs will be in the best interests of all Canadians,
not like the Reform Party which has a monomania about taxes and
does not care about the health and safety of Canadians for the
future.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the environment minister admitted to reporters yesterday that
Canada made a mistake at the earth summit in Rio. This is quite
a revelation.
The minister said: “Canada should not have agreed to cut its
emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000”. We did not realize
what was implied by that commitment.
If Rio was a mistake, why is Canada prepared to repeat it in
Kyoto with a legally binding treaty?
Hon. David Mr. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of the
Environment, who is not here today, I want to clarify the remarks
she is quoted as stating.
1120
She said that the targets at Rio were very noble ones.
Unfortunately there was not enough follow-up on implementation.
What she is really saying is that this time we anticipate having
a legally binding, realistic and achievable implementation
system. That is the answer.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it sounds like we are getting a little flip-flop over here.
The minister was speaking from the heart, speaking the position
that Canadians want to hear and what she feels. Yet she is not
allowed by the frontbench to have her say.
The environment minister admits that the Kyoto treaty will lower
the standard of living of all Canadians across this nation. This
is not just an Alberta issue. Industry will be devastated in
Ontario and Atlantic Canada as well.
Will the minister commit to conduct an economic impact analysis
that considers the devastating that will descend on industry and
the thousands of jobs lost in her home province of—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. David Mr. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are all manners of consultations going on
dealing with this very crucial file.
This is an issue that affects all Canadians no matter where they
live. It is wrong for one party, one particular group in the
country to play off one part of the country or one interest group
against the other. That is what the Reform Party does and it has
to end.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime
Minister.
Everyone except the federal government knows that poverty is on the
rise in Canada and that drastic cuts to employment insurance only make
it worse. Yesterday, the premier of Quebec suggested that the question
of how to use the billions of dollars from the surplus in the employment
insurance fund be put on the agenda of the next federal-provincial
conference.
Does the government intend to act on the Quebec premier's
suggestion to finally put an end to the scandal of the $12 billion
surplus accumulated at the expense of the unemployed?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not
going to stand here and pretend to speak for the prime minister
and the premiers as to how they will discuss their issues.
I will say, though, that I find it somewhat humorous that a
minister of the Mulroney government who jacked premiums to over
$3 is now giving us lectures on why we have not reduced them
lower than $2.80.
I can assure the House that with the EI fund we will do what is
best for the workers, best in the long run for Canadians. That
is the balanced approach this government has taken all along.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the voters saw right through it and taught
the Liberals a good lesson in the last federal election. It will happen
again in the next election if the Liberal government does not reconsider
its position in this matter.
In St. Andrews, last summer, all provincial premiers agreed to ask
the federal government to lower the EI premium rates and to improve
protection for the unemployed.
Will this government, which boasts about working in partnership
with the provinces, act on this request and put an end to the drastic
cuts to employment insurance?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we
first announced that we were going to change directions
dramatically from where the Tories were in their previous terms
in government, we said that we were going to make sure that there
was a surplus in the EI account. We knew, as all other Canadians
know, it is not a time to increase premiums when the economy is
in a downturn.
If people do not accept that we should plan for a day when we
might have a little more difficulty with the economy than we have
today, they obviously should not be on this side of the House. I
suspect they may want to stay where they are.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Canadian ambassador to France, Jacques Roy, continued his
tour of Quebec under the aegis of the Council for Canadian unity. The
ambassador delivered the message of national unity to Quebeckers from
Trois-Rivières to Quebec City and will do so through the lower St.
Lawrence as well.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How does the Deputy
Prime Minister justify having a diplomat, who is supposed to be
representing us abroad, on a clearly partisan tour of Quebec with and
under the aegis of an organization that is no less partisan, the Council
for Canadian unity?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Roy is currently in Quebec as part of
public awareness tour. He already was on such a tour last year in
Manitoba and Ontario. This a routine visit and one of his duties as
Canadian ambassador is to promote the idea of a strong and united
Canada.
1125
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, these
are very odd routine visits when an ambassador speaks of flags, of
French Canadians in the public service and essentially of Canadian
unity. If Jacques Roy wants to go into politics, he should get himself
elected in the next elections.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister not acknowledge that he should
immediately send his ambassador back to work in France?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
usual for the ambassador of Canada to speak for Canada. Would the hon.
member prefer he speak for Guadeloupe?
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
as the aboriginal population grows the crisis deepens and costs
rise. By the year 2016 the cost to Canadians could be as high as
$11 billion a year. For thousands of young aboriginal people
poor health, lost economic opportunity and lost hope for the
future can never be measured in dollars. When will this
government honour its commitment to aboriginal people and provide
a full and complete response to the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as mentioned
yesterday in response to another question in the House, the Government
of Canada will respond to the royal commission of inquiry, the
commission of Justices Dussault and Erasmus. The response will be given
as soon as possible.
In the meantime, we have established priorities. We are meeting
with all interested parties and we will report to the House as soon as
possible.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Royal Bank said that the deplorable state of
Canada's aboriginal people is a national shame. If investments
are not made to infrastructure in the northern communities, if
investments are not made in jobs and economic development, if
investments are not made in the social realities of aboriginal
people, will the deputy prime minister commit today to look at
the deplorable means of aboriginal people and work with them to
look at the betterment of our future and our country?
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is why we have supplementary estimates. In the supplementary
estimates we have some money for infrastructure. There was $8
million for infrastructure. For the youth employment strategy
we have $24 million in the estimates. This is what we are
doing and doing well.
* * *
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday people died in the north Atlantic. Today the
eyes of the world are on Canada's search and rescue operations.
We have excellent people who cannot do their jobs without
excellent equipment.
In response to a serious question the Minister of National
Defence gave partisan lines that were inappropriate. Every
single Canadian knows that it was this government that cancelled
the helicopter deal that could have made a difference yesterday.
When will this government stop playing partisan politics and act
responsibly by properly equipping our coast guard?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the incident
off the coast of St. John's this morning and the ongoing
search and rescue activities are things I am proud of. Our
Canadian forces personnel are doing an outstanding job.
To put the record straight, the helicopter the member is
referring to would only have a range of 500 miles offshore—
An hon. member: It's 700.
Mr. John Richardson: I am sorry, it is 700. But this is
beyond that range, and he knows it. Until we get the ship within
that range, we could not have used those helicopters. What we
are doing now—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Fundy—Royal.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague asked twice yesterday and I am asking for a second time
today. Soon is not good enough. Yesterday's events made it
clear that Canadians need an answer. Please take this question
seriously.
Today we have a platform out there, the Hibernia platform.
Any helicopter could have actually flown to the platform,
refuelled and continued on. We did not have the flexibility to
actually make that step because we did not have the helicopters
in the first place.
1130
I ask the parliamentary secretary—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of National Defence.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make one
correction. That was 550 miles the EH-101 would have gone. That
was not within the range from the platform to get to those ships
and you know that.
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary will
please address the Chair.
Mr. John Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The member knows
that. In fact we have picked up 10 survivors. One is critical
and the other is not so critical. We are flying them into
hospitals. We are moving as quickly as we can to close the gap
and continue searching for bodies in the Atlantic. It is a
heroic effort—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette.
* * *
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the Prime Minister is here in Canada he does not like to
talk too much about the GST. It is no wonder, after all he did
promise to scrap it, kill it and abolish it. However yesterday
in England the Prime Minister was actually bragging about how
much he likes the GST.
Which is it? Is it a tax he grudgingly collects, or one that he
brags about to tax collectors around the world?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a tax as
all members know that we inherited from our predecessors. I must
admit that I was very proud as the chair of the finance committee
to have had the opportunity to review 20 alternatives to it.
We have made numerous changes to that tax. We have taken a
lemon and made lemonade.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to have forgotten that because
he wants to adopt the tax as his own. In fact the Prime Minister
tells the world he loves the GST and yesterday he actually said
“We introduced it”. He wants to take credit for it.
Which Prime Minister should hardworking Canadians and
hardworking taxpayers believe: the 1993 version who hated the
GST, or the 1997 version who tells the world how much he loves
it?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): And this, Mr. Speaker, is
coming from the party that is on record for praising our efforts
at harmonizing the GST. This is the party that worked with us
constructively to ensure that we had a more competitive tax
system. This is the tax that, harmonized in the Atlantic
provinces, is being bragged about by the premiers as offering a
competitive advantage to those who have not harmonized.
If they want to get rid of the $18 billion without blowing our
deficit to pieces, let them tell us how.
* * *
[Translation]
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Solicitor General of Canada.
In his letter of October 2, the Solicitor General of Canada said
that he did not believe it necessary to hold a public inquiry within the
Correctional Service of Canada. Labour Canada did an evaluation and
concluded that there was no risk for employees.
My question—
The Deputy Speaker: The Solicitor General of Canada.
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have mentioned a number of times in this House, the
protection of our employees is of paramount concern and is an
ongoing concern. Management and the Union of Solicitor General
Employees are working together constantly in the interests of
their protection.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, why is the
minister refusing to hold a public inquiry, when the life and safety of
correctional services officers and the public are involved?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a number of instruments available for monitoring
situations and investigating situations, and the safety of our
employees is of paramount concern.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance
minister has promised, and I quote from him this week in the
House, “a guarantee to the provinces for cash as it relates to
medicare”.
Now from finance documents we find that is not quite true. There
is a $171 million shortfall in those cash transfers.
1135
Where is the missing money for medicare?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
simple. We intend to bring legislation before the House which
will reflect our commitment to have a CHST cash floor of $12.5
billion. Until that legislation has been passed, that cannot be
included in the estimates.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the promise
is there, a promise made by the minister across the way. This is
not a promise to me nor to my party. It is a promise to people
like Bill Prentice who has been waiting for a hip replacement for
two years because the OR is closed. That money would go toward
opening the OR for Bill Prentice. There is probably somebody in
the gallery with hepatitis C who is waiting for a
compensation package.
My question again, where is the missing money for medicare?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said to the
hon. member, as soon as the legislation is passed it will show up
in the accounts on that basis.
I take it that the representation of the hon. member is a
commitment by his party to grant unanimous consent when we bring
that legislation before the House.
* * *
[Translation]
RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Transport.
The moratorium on railways along the St. Lawrence river to Lévis
ends December 1. We learned yesterday that the minister has not yet made
a decision in this regard.
Would the minister agree, in light of the importance of this issue
to meet with the agencies concerned and to hold public hearings on the
subject?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are looking at a number of options for rail service across
the country. On the matter of the Lévis station, no decision has yet
been made. I will gladly consider any idea or opinion my colleague or
anyone else might have on the subject before I make my decision.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I note the minister has
not made a decision, but how is it that his colleague, the Secretary of
State for Agriculture and Agro-food, and Fisheries and Oceans announced
this week with great fanfare in Le Soleil that the Lévis station would
close on December 1?
Is the Minister of Transport still in charge of the department or
is it his colleague?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am the Minister of Transport.
* * *
[English]
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the dedication of Canada's search and rescue personnel is
undisputed. It is the best. The dedication of this government's
commitment toward search and rescue is also undisputed. It is
the worst.
In 1993 the Liberals exploited the purchase of new helicopters
and this exploitation has cost lives.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National
Defence stand in this House today and defend the inaction of this
government on the helicopter fiasco?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that supercilious sort
of sham reasoning is belied directly by the facts. This
helicopter would not have had the range to reach from Hibernia to
the existing site.
An hon. member: Wrong.
Mr. John Richardson: That is right. The other fact is to
wait for the announcement on the helicopters.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
with all due respect, the parliamentary secretary surely knows
that the capability of refuelling was available with the C-130
and that capability is available today if we had the right
helicopter.
For cheap political points the Liberal government has placed
people's lives in jeopardy. The decision is four years overdue.
Our pilots will only fly this government's helicopters as high as
they want to fall.
When will the government support our search and rescue personnel
and buy the equipment they need?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they can huff and puff
but they won't blow the house down. The fact is the helicopters
are on line. The announcement will be made imminently. The hon.
member knows that.
* * *
1140
[Translation]
VCN MARINE RADIO
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister
responsible for the Coast Guard.
There are all sorts of rumours rampant at present concerning
the Magdalen Islands marine radio service. Yesterday, while
regional authorities of his department were notifying employees on
the islands of their relocation, the minister was telling me that
his department had not reached a decision.
Can the parliamentary secretary assure us in this House, in
order to dispel the rumours and reassure both the pilots and the
people of the Magdalen Islands, that Fisheries and Oceans has not
made a decision to move or close the Islands radio station?
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform
the member that we are not closing the station but rather it will
be operated from Rivière-au-Renard. There will be no change in
the level of service to the fishermen in the area. In fact we
have established that safety will remain a priority for those
fishermen involved.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
[English]
Architectural and engineering services are a significant
component of Canada's small and medium size business community.
Could the minister tell us what is the government doing to give
greater access to this important sector of our economy?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier in the week
I announced an initiative called Contracts Canada which will
allow one-stop shopping for all Government of Canada procurement.
This afternoon I will be announcing that our small professional
architectural and engineering firms will have a new system which
will make accessibility to government procurement easier.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance made a very surprising
announcement. He went ahead and set up a committee to nominate
candidates to his proposed CPP investment board.
Members of the House know that the legislation has barely
entered into debate in the House, yet the minister is moving full
speed ahead. Is this minister telling members of the House that
our work is irrelevant, that he is going to do whatever it takes
to see that this is a done deal?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite knows
perfectly well that in order for the government to be ready for
the legislation once it is complete it must prepare now. To have
done the opposite would have been totally irresponsible.
This in no way infringes upon the privileges of the House. It
is normal to prepare ahead of time for the day when the
legislation is passed so we do not waste valuable time and
taxpayers' money.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it does not matter what we say or do in the House. This
legislation is going ahead according to the government.
The minister just cannot wait to get his hands on all this tax
money. We have a taxaholic finance minister waiting for his new
hit of 10 billion new tax dollars.
Is this just another example of the government's contempt for
the people the citizens of Canada elected to look after their
affairs?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all the hon. member is wrong in suggesting that
the premium revenue goes into the general revenues of the
government. The funds go into the special Canada pension plan
fund dedicated to maintaining and securing the Canada pension
plan for all Canadians.
Therefore with this legislation we are acting in the interests
of all Canadians to help them have a secure, safe retirement,
unlike the Reform Party which wants to submit them to the
marketplace and the Bre-X investment policy.
* * *
[Translation]
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
While Canadians are still waiting for the jobs promised by the
Liberals, the government is cutting funding for non-profit organizations
helping the unemployed re-enter the labour market.
1145
What the government is saying to women, aboriginal people, the
disabled and others who have a particularly hard time finding a job is
“sorry, but we do not want to help you”.
Is the government prepared to reaffirm its commitment to all those
who are trying to find a job by maintaining funding for these
organizations?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can say to
the member and to everyone in the House the number one priority
of the government is obviously employment of Canadians.
We will not be satisfied as long the unemployment rate is as
high as it is. We continue to work every day to find solutions
to problems that are very complex. For the NDP to stand and
suggest that there is some sort of magic solution, some band aid
program that we could put in place to deal with an issue that has
been ongoing for the last 30 years to 40 years of high
unemployment, is crass and unacceptable.
We will continue to put programs in place, help the unemployed,
put training in place—
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
government is resorting to patronage at the expense of the poor in our
society.
In Ottawa alone, the minister wants to close six non-profit
organizations to award a lucrative contract to former employees of the
Department of Human Resources Development. The Liberal scheme will cost
an additional $520,000, and those who used to have access to the
services provided by these organizations will no longer have that
possibility. Such is the Liberal logic. It explains why the minister
refused to meet with representatives from one of these organizations.
Is the minister prepared to meet with the Ottawa's Women's Career
Counselling group?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the
particulars of the case the member is asking about I can give him
this commitment. If he gives us the information he is talking
about, we will certainly meet with any individual, any
organization, to help the unemployed, the disabled or anyone out
there who needs our help to get employment. We are there on
their behalf.
Give us the information. Give us the specifics. We will take a
good serious look at it.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Mothers Against Drunk Driving held a press
conference and released very important results of a national
survey which indicated that more than 80% of Canadians support
toughening the Criminal Code with respect to drunk driving.
Twelve months ago MADD came to Ottawa looking for action and
attempted to meet with the former justice minister. Apparently
he was too busy dealing with politically motivated matters to
meet with them and was oblivious to the 1,700 Canadians who were
killed by drunk drivers.
My question is for the current Minister of Justice. Will the
minister commit today to stopping the carnage on Canadian
highways by tabling amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with
drunk driving?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question.
I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from MADD the
day before yesterday. We spent over an hour together. On behalf
of all members of the House I congratulate and thank those who
act as volunteers in MADD for the fine work they have done over
the past number of years to sensitize Canadians to the problems
of drunk driving.
I have undertaken to raise the issue when I meet with my
provincial counterparts in December. I would like to have a
federal-provincial working group that presents an integrated
strategy to deal with this important issue.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, by doing nothing on the issue of drunk driving the
Liberal government bears responsibility for the deaths and
injuries caused by drunk drivers.
Yesterday the minister said that she was waiting for the
transport department to do something. The minister knows well
that neither the Department of Transport nor provincial ministers
can do anything to amend the Criminal Code.
Is the justice minister hiding behind another public servant's
report to cover the lack of action by her government on this
issue? I urge her to take the responsibility to prevent another
1,700 deaths in the coming year and commit to concrete steps to
review the Criminal Code roadside procedures and enact a victims
bill of rights.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the hon.
member's comment in terms of his references to the Department of
Transport.
What I said yesterday was that the Department of Transport is
undertaking an important study in relation to blood alcohol
concentration. The Department of Transport is doing this study
in co-operation with the chiefs of police of the country. Of
course we are waiting for the outcome of that study before we
mindlessly make changes to the Criminal Code.
I want to go back to my original point. What is important here
is an integrated strategy to deal with the terrible problem of
drunk driving. Part of that strategy—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member for
Kitchener Centre.
* * *
1150
HUMAN RESOURCES
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Human Resources Development.
Following the release of the report of the task force on persons
with disabilities the government has repeated on a number of
occasions that helping persons with disabilities is a priority.
What concrete measures is the government taking to ensure that
persons with disabilities can be full participants in Canadian
society?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
very important subject.
We have been accused on many occasions that the task forces and
groups we have put together have no impact.
The task force on disabilities recommended certain things. We
have now enacted $30 million annually in the opportunities fund
announced in the 1997 budget. Tax assistance increased to a
total of $70 million annually.
At the recent ministers meeting of the Council on Social Policy
Renewal, a new initiative called employability assistance to
people with disabilities was put in place. Those are the kinds
of initiatives that we think the government and this—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville.
* * *
SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the solicitor general kept repeating the same
mantra, no matter what question he was asked.
He claimed that the gradual release program improved public
safety. A survey by his own department found that 37% of
prisoners in the early release program reoffended within two
years, but only 16% reoffended in the same time period if they
served their full sentence.
My question. Does the solicitor general think we should keep
the bad guys in jail for their full sentence if it cuts their
probability of reoffending—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again they are wrong. In good faith I had a
meeting last night with the commissioner to discuss some of the
issue raised yesterday. I found out that seven facts presented
yesterday by the Reform were absolutely wrong.
That has prompted the following statement by the Union of
Solicitor General Employees:
The Union of Solicitor General Employees feels that it is
counterproductive to have outside critics attack the
professionalism of the service, its staff—
An hon. member: Talk to the real people.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general seems intent on disputing the findings of his
own department. Now we find that he has hired a private public
relations firm to put a positive spin on negative numbers.
Will the solicitor general please tell the House what is more
important, public relations or public safety?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again I want to go back to the statement made by
the Union of the Solicitor General Employees which got together
with CSC and said very specifically that it does not help and in
fact it is counterproductive to have outside critics attacking
the professionalism of the staff they pretend to protect by
intentionally raising fears and making inflammatory statements.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission in its report recommended
that the concerns of the Micmac Indians of Newfoundland be
addressed. When Newfoundland joined Confederation the Canadian
government decided the Indian Act would not apply, and these
people have never been treated fairly. There are 11 members of
the Federation of Newfoundland Indians.
Will the minister commit to negotiating and settling agreements
with all Indians of Newfoundland?
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is a very good question.
Yesterday I had a conversation with Mr. Watso of the Micmac
Indian Band. We addressed the problem. It is a very serious
problem coming from the report of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission released on October 6. We are looking at it. When
the minister returns we will have more consultations with the
Micmacs of Newfoundland.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question today is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development said that they hoped to
implement some aspects of the aboriginal commission. Today in
questioning he led the same line, that he hopes.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister please make a release to the
House?
1155
You have been sitting on the commission for almost an entire
year. When will you be speaking—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is not in his
seat, but if the minister wishes to make a reply he may do so.
* * *
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I want to pursue a line of questioning started this morning by
the member for Fundy Royal and answered by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
The parliamentary secretary very clearly stated to the House
that the EH-101 helicopter would not have the range capability to
search for the people fighting for their lives right now in the
North Atlantic and those who have already died.
Will the Minister of National Defence admit and confirm for the
House that if we did indeed have EH-101 helicopters they could
have at least gone to the Hibernia platform to refuel and those
people who have already died may still be alive—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of National
Defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): That is absolutely wrong, Mr. Speaker. Our search and
rescue people are out there. They are using other kinds of
aircraft.
The range is far beyond the capability of our helicopters or the
helicopters of any of the companies that are bidders on the
current contract, including the one the member has talked about,
the one the Conservative government fouled up.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of International Trade.
Since 1995, imports of oil, butter and sugar mixtures have
doubled annually. All dairy producers are concerned about this
situation, for makers of ice cream are turning increasingly to milk
substitutes. The dairy industry estimates its quota losses at 3%,
or $50 million in lost revenue, for 1997-98.
Will the minister admit that these oil, butter and sugar
mixtures have been created to get around the tariff measures put in
place by Canada, and will he act quickly to resolve the situation?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is
very much aware of and giving serious consideration to this very
new thing called butter oil which has been put on the market.
I assure the hon. member the government is committed to
maintaining an effective supply management system for the dairy
industry, one which is consistent and continues to be consistent
with our international trade obligations.
* * *
[Translation]
COMPUTER SYSTEMS
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the President of the Treasury Board.
With respect to the year 2000 computer problem, the auditor
general said in his latest report, and I quote: “Systems that are
most critical in supporting major programs may fail and could
affect public health and safety and other essential services to the
public”.
While the government's priority seems to be lavish spending to
celebrate the year 2000, can the President of the Treasury Board
give an immediate assurance to citizens who depend on pension,
unemployment and disability payments for their survival that they
will not be affected—
The Deputy Speaker: The President of the Treasury Board.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. colleague for his question.
He is quite right. Programming computers for the year 2000 is
a major problem. We have talked with the auditor general.
Numerous working groups have been set up in various departments to
examine the very matter to which he is referring. No government
can give a complete guarantee, but I can tell him that we are now
working very seriously to find solutions to the problem and to
avoid negative consequences to the greatest extent possible.
* * *
[English]
SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
the solicitor general would talk to real people once. He talks
to the elite all the time.
We have guards with us again today who would love to have a
conversation with him but he will not talk to them. They are
just lowly guards. That is the problem with his department.
1200
It was reported to me today that when the guards were
demonstrating and had a little picket line in Kingston, the
warden promised the inmates a rumpus room if they would behave
themselves. I understand there has been a rumpus room installed
with a pool table, shuffle board and a big screen television.
Please would the—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said and I think it is very important to
repeat, we cannot count on the facts that are presented by
Reform.
The union of the employees issued a statement this morning
saying that the union and CSC both feel it is counterproductive
to have outside critics questioning the professionalism of the
service by intentionally raising fears and fearmongering and
making inflammatory statements.
The Deputy Speaker: That will conclude question period
for today.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
NUNAVUT IMPLEMENTATION COMMISSION
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
under the provisions of Standing Order 32(1), I have the honour
to table, in both official languages, copies of the 1996-1997
annual report of the Nunavut Implementation Commission.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table,
in both official languages, copies of two reports by the Nunavut
Implementation Commission, a compilation of the supplementary
reports published by the Nunavut Implementation Commission in 1996,
and Footprints in New Snow, volume 2.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of
the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and the associate
membership of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the fifth report later this day.
* * *
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-265, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada
Act and the Canada Elections Act (change of political
affiliation).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill
today. Its effect, when enacted, would ensure that the seat of a
member of the House of Commons becomes vacant when that member
gives up membership in the political party for which that member
was elected or where a member of the House sitting as an
independent informs the House that he or she is joining the
membership of a political party.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1205
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the fifth report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
table two petitions today on behalf of constituents. The first
one reads: “We the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the
attention of the House to the following”—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I caution the hon. member. He
is not to read the petition but he is to give a brief summary of
the petition and presentation. I sense that he is reading it
from what I am hearing. I would invite him to comply with the
rule and give the House a summary.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, the petition concerns the
massive increase in CPP premiums that are proposed by the
government.
The petitioners ask Parliament to enact legislation to wind down
the CPP, protecting the pensions of current seniors and that
Canadians contribute to mandatory RRSPs of their own choosing.
JUSTICE
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition I have to present on behalf of constituents is with
respect to the criminal justice system. It is a lengthy petition
requesting a number of amendments to the criminal justice system.
On behalf of constituents, I would like to table these now.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three brief petitions today. The first states that managing
the family home and caring for pre-school children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families who decide to provide care in the
home for pre-school children, the chronically ill, the aged or
the disabled.
LABELLING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition has to do with the Food and Drugs Act. The
petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that
fetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol related birth defects are 100%
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to require
health warning labels to be placed on the containers of alcoholic
beverages to warn expectant mothers and others of the risks
associated with alcohol consumption.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION FUND
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the final petition has to do with our police officers and
firefighters who place their lives at risk on a daily basis and
that we all mourn that loss when one of them loses their lives in
the line of duty.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of families who lose their spouses in the line of duty.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of presenting
two petitions on the same subject.
The petitioners are extremely concerned that the moral structure
of society is being threatened and community standards eroded by
the increasing incidents of topless women in public places.
They request Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to
prohibit the exposure of female breasts in public.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
CUSTOMS TARIFF
The House resumed consideration of the motion: That Bill C-11,
an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other
charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide
relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other
charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or
repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When the debate was interrupted, the hon.
member for Rosemont had five minutes left to complete his speech.
The hon. member for Rosemont therefore has the floor.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
continue with my speech on Bill C-11.
The Liberals would only be too happy today to forget about the 1993
election campaign, in which they stated time and time again that they
were prepared to tear up the free trade agreement between Canada and the
United States if this agreement was not renegotiated. In this context,
it is surprising to see the Liberals going at it again in red book II,
where, on page 34, they try to pass themselves off as the great
champions of trade liberalization.
1210
Unlike the Liberal Party, which fiercely opposed free trade in the
1980s and changed its tune once in office, the Bloc Quebecois has always
supported free trade.
We believe that trade liberalization has always been essential to
the economic prosperity of Quebec and the rest of Canada in its present
form. Just think that more than 3.5% of Canada's GDP depends on exports.
In Quebec alone, exports account for 40% of all the goods and services
produced.
I feel it is important to spend some time looking at how trade has
evolved in Quebec. Some federalists seem to think that, by constantly
putting down Quebec's economic performance, they are furthering their
cause. I personally think they are shortsighted individuals who put
their parties' interests before the greater good of Quebeckers.
There are currently 16,000 exporters operating out of Quebec. These
are mainly businesses, commercial concerns, boards of trade and
individuals doing business in foreign countries. The top 260 exporting
firms alone sell for more than $10 million abroad. This performance is
the result of a gradual and steady rise.
Indeed, between 1984 and 1996, the value of Quebec's exports abroad
more than doubled, growing from $17.3 billion to nearly $49 billion.
During the same period, Quebec's imports rose from $19 billion to $40.9
billion. Because of this strong and sustained growth of exports, in
1996, Quebec showed a large trade surplus, amounting to $8.1 billion. In
1995, the trade surplus was $8.7 billion.
When we take a close look at Quebec's economic structure, we notice
that international exports of goods and services account for more than
25% of the GDP in Quebec, which is twice as much as in Japan and 2.5
times higher than in the US.
On the international markets, Quebec ranks among the top 30
exporters and importers in the world. This ranking sets us far apart
from a mere province without any economic vitality at the international
level.
Quebec is actually a leader in the export of certain products. It does
particularly well in the export of aluminium, being number one in the
world, and the export of asbestos. In the area of newsprint export,
Quebec ranks second in the world. In fact, in 1994, Quebec was among the
10 leading exporters in the world for some 20 products.
Add to that interprovincial trade within Canada and Quebec ranks
17th in the world in the export of goods and services, before countries
like Norway, Korea and Australia. It would rank 23th in the world, just
before China, for imports. Overall, approximately 50% of what is
produced in Quebec is sold abroad.
To better understand these figures in the context of free trade, we
must clearly identify where this economic activity is taking place.
While Quebec's trading activities span the whole world, they are
primarily concentrated in North America. In 1996, over 86% of its
exports went to the North American market. The second most important
destination, western Europe, received 10% of Quebec's exports.
For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois feels that expanding the free
trade zone to include all the Americas is essential to increase our
trade, including Brazil and Argentina, for instance. A step has already
been taken with the signing of a free trade agreement with Chile. Canada
must keep going in this direction.
In this context, it is not surprising that Quebec's movers and
shakers are in favour of gaining access to new markets. Quebec has
established successful economic ties with its main trading partner, the
United States, but also with other partners overseas, such as Germany,
France, Japan and Italy.
1215
Therefore, we reiterate our general support of free trade. Bill
C-11, which we are debating today, is a step in the right direction.
Needless to say it will not arouse passions. It is a very small step, as
the Prime Minister likes them. We do not expect any better from a
government that has always lacked vision as regards the future of this
country, preferring once again to go “one step at a time”.
To be sure, it is not easy to find a balance between the importance
that must be given to human rights and the opportunity for Quebec and
Canadian companies to do business in those countries that violate human
rights the most. Still, the Bloc Quebecois is convinced that
international trade is not incompatible with promoting human rights.
Unfortunately, it is clear to me that this government did not do enough
to promote human rights in the context of its international and trade
relations.
As for the trade agreements themselves, I stress once again the
lack of concrete measures to provide protection that goes beyond merely
protecting the rich in our society. It is essential that all trade
agreements include adequate clauses to protect labour and the
environment.
Canada will continue to negotiate international agreements until Quebec
becomes sovereign and should protect the effective provisions of labour
and environmental standards with our trading partners.
Certain bilateral agreements already contain parallel accords that
provide for such provisions. However there is no such accord in
multilateral agreements Canada has signed. Environmental protection and
social protection clauses provide more benefits to a greater number of
people and are to be viewed in the context of sustainable development.
The government must stop hiding behind confidential reports in
order to justify its lack of action in this area. We want the government
to raise the issue of human rights in its meetings, during its
discussions and on its trips abroad.
It is high time this government publicly condemned, not only in camera,
human right violations committed in foreign countries and, more
specifically, in countries that trade with Canada. This government
continues to drag its feet in establishing a code of behaviour for
Canadian businesses active abroad.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the Bloc Quebecois
supports Bill C-11. However, this government cannot use this initiative
as a substitute for developing an overall international trade policy.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
this is my first time to conduct my order as a responsible member
of Parliament in a most crucial debate.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on our esteemed
appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House.
I would like to state at the outset that I am against Bill C-11.
The intent of the bill is to provide relief against the
imposition of certain customs duties and other charges.
This morning the government asked for quick passage of this
legislation. It said that there would be a quick elimination of
the nuisance rates.
In recent years in some of the shopping centres in my riding we
have seen the introduction of Wal-Mart stores. Are these
nuisance rates for Wal-Mart trucks coming across the border? It
looks like $1 billion will be gained by outside multinationals
trading in our country. The estimate is that $90 million will be
saved by our companies in trading elsewhere. Where is the
balance? Foreign corporations will be saving $1 billion while
Canadian companies will only be saving $90 million.
1220
This is a test of our sovereignty, a test of who Canadians are.
Canadians live here. When we look at the intent of all our
resources, our markets, our economy and our needs, and we look at
tariffs, when people want to trade with our country and we look
at the history of our country, the colonization of the world was
the reason that brought many of our investors here. We
should not continue on the rampant path of pillaging and plundering
resources and taking markets to the lowest common denominator of
simply making a profit and not looking at the social aspects of
our people, the need for higher education, the need for medicare,
the need for people to find meaningful employment in all aspects
of our economy, not just in manufacturing or the providing of
products but also in the protection of our environment. It is a
role where the citizens of our country can create a meaningful
future for our children.
On the record on the previous agreements that have been made,
Bill C-11 seems to be a process of completing the North American
Free Trade Agreement. When we sing our national anthem we are
the ones singing it as Canadians when we say “our true north
strong and free”. It is not an American singing it. It is a
Canadian singing it and being proud of who we are. We are strong
and we are free to work for the future of our country and the
future of our people.
It is not an American person saying it is a free country in
northern Canada. It is not. They cannot come across here and
get benefits from our lands, our measurable jurisdiction which we
call our home. This is our future and our children.
To cause a political awareness I call on Liberals who have
formed the government and in their time have served their purpose
on this side of the House that in 1988 the Canada-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement was an issue. The 1993 election came about with NAFTA
as a major issue in the red book of the Liberals. The NDP was
very clear in its opposition to the free trade agreements and the
direction that was being taken, as did the Liberals, but the
difference is that the NDP has stuck to its guns. We are still
against the free trade and the implementations of the regulations
of free trade. That is what Bill C-11 is all about. It is
implementing free trade provisions.
The Liberals have turned full circle. Now they want to be
champions of the free trade agreement. They ran two elections
against the whole free trade aspect in this country. The
Liberals were certainly right when they told Canadians that in
1993 their election campaign was if you are opposed to NAFTA
you should vote NDP.
In future elections I call on Canadians to remember the New
Democrats of this country. We seem to be the only ones
protecting Canadians, not multinational interests, not profit
making interests, but the future of all Canadians, the future of
our land, the environment and also the generations to come.
Despite these claims, these ironclad assurances that we have
been crying for regarding labour and environmental standards have
not been signed. They have not been protected in the NAFTA and
we are afraid that the government of the day will not be
protecting them in the multilateral agreement on investment.
The extent to which the Liberals have joined the ranks of
globalizing elites is this whole issue of NAFTA and MAI. These
are major issues. Globalizing in the Miami summit of the
Americas in 1994 where the negotiations began toward free trade
of the Americas and where Canada began negotiating with Chile to
join NAFTA, the government claimed that the trade deal with Chile
would lead to cheaper bananas for Canadians. This government
evidently believed that a Latin American country like Chile was a
major banana producer.
1225
Someone in the Department of International Trade forgot to tell this
government that Chile is not a tropical country. It does not
produce or export bananas. The vision and the explanation of
this agreement is simply to protect multinational interests and
to break down our borders with other countries which have huge
amounts of assets and capital to come in and invest, take our
resources and our markets and break the economic cycle that we
need in this country.
We need to produce, to finish our products and use our products.
We need to create a cycle where our Canadian dollars are changing
hands within Canada, not externally. If we can attract outside
interest from European countries, Asian countries, the America
countries and other American states, let them come in but let
them invest in our future. Let them pay the tariffs and duties
that come with the existence of creating these provisions by our
country.
With these tariffs we can invest in better education. We may
have a future where children can have tuition free education. Let
the corporations pay not only tax dollars through income tax,
GST, BST, HST and provincial sales tax to improve our standard of
living, but through investment into Canadians' means of providing
a better future. Let them pay for medicare and the building of
hospitals. Let them pay for the betterment of our medical
personnel.
There are doctors in rural and northern Canada who are being
imported from outside Canada to come and work and provide health
services to our communities. Why can we not teach our children
from our local communities to be doctors? The one simple fact is
they cannot afford it. If we cannot afford to buy a career or a
profession in our own country what is this country's role? What
is this government's role? We have to protect our children's
future.
If we do not stand up against multinational interests of pure
and simple capitalism, of taking profits for their own
corporations, we are going in the wrong direction. The vision of
this country has been to provide a means for continued investment
and globalization. Globalization is a nice, cute, sexy word but
it does not mean anything to Canadians. Our purpose in this
country is to look within our boundaries for the betterment of
our future.
I have looked at the Liberal's trade policies. They have
enjoyed the support of the Bloc Quebecois, as was obvious this
afternoon when we heard Bloc members speak in favour of this, the
Reform Party and the Conservative Party because it introduced the
whole NAFTA project. The NDP members are the only ones to take
the choice to speak in favour of Canadians, in protecting
Canadian companies, in protecting the Canadian labour force, in
protecting the future of Canadians and in protecting our land.
Globalization of Canadian sovereignty is for international
communities. It is not for Canadians.
I would like to speak on the irony of this. As Canada has
sought allies against Canadian trade harassment, it has built
alliances with countries that do not contain American trade
harassment. Americans are strong and powerful and they will
harass you however they can. Canada has been looking for
alliances to keep human rights, labour rights and environmental
practices on all trade agreements, to a greater extent, in all of
North America.
On the question of the social clause of the World Trade
Organization, common labour practices in the free trade agreement
and supporting UN resolutions condemned Chinese human rights.
However, Canada has been on the side of trying to keep the social
dimension of trade off the agenda against countries like the
United States which have been supportive of broadening trade
agendas globally. We must protect the consciousness of all
people.
Canadians and Americans, like others around the world, have been
asked by multinationals and their allies in government to
sacrifice considerable national sovereignty; our investment
policy in social, labour and environmental standards in exchange
for rule based regimes and profit making schemes by
multinationals.
1230
The NDP wants to work toward international trade rules that are
not so one sided in favour of multinationals. We are part of a
system of international governance that balances economic
opportunities for a new economy.
We must build a responsible international economy that is
accountable to our communities and the public interest of our
country. That is why Canadians have put us to the challenge of
being here in the House of Commons to create the consciousness of
this government and all governments of the world.
The social clauses are a major source of awareness for our
party. We have fought to protect labour, farmers and other
people of our communities. A co-operative movement has striven
in many corners of the country to protect the community interest,
to keep the investment, profits and the dividends at a community
level. These are part of a Canadian vision for Canadians.
The biggest challenge is to build a more democratic
international community. Multinational and international
agreements have been trying to create international trade
agreements. They must deal effectively with the social
dimensions of trade. A growing international movement seeks to
build social clauses such as NAFTA and the World Trade
Organization. We are calling on the government to keep that
consciousness in mind when it is negotiating the multilateral
agreement on investment.
Such clauses should respect human rights, basic labour rights,
economic decision making within the new economy and the ability
of workers to negotiate the terms under which they will
participate in the global economy. Social clauses allow states
to establish environmental regulations that have challenged
non-tariff barriers to trade.
The new trade rules are remarkably one sided in defence of the
rights of investors. I guess their lobbying strategy is working.
They seem to have multi-parties talking in favour of
multinational rights to intellectual property.
Intellectual property rights are a major cause for sovereignty
and national interests. If we have resources within our country
we must work to create, negotiate and fight for the rights of our
people and our interests. We cannot simply give them wholesale
access to multinationals. For the pharmaceutical companies to
have access to resources for medicinal purposes, the interests
might be in our backyards in Canada.
We must protect our environment and our livelihoods. If we
trade them off and give them to the profitable right of somebody
else we will never create an economic cycle with our own
resources. We will have lost it.
To reverse this process seems to be a battle in itself. How can
we get away from NAFTA once we have signed on? It seems to be a
big ship that goes down. We just cannot to keep it buoyant.
There is nothing about workers rights and trade unions and the
right to a safe workplace. They speak loudly of level playing
fields but globalization, according to many observers, has
certainly been a race to the bottom, to the lowest common labour
standards, to the lowest possible wage levels with the highest
level of profit.
There is no limit to profit taking. The banks of the country
brag that they are making 25% to 30% more profit than they did
last year. This means they made profits the years before. They
are measuring percentages over their profits, just leapfrogging
their profit-making margins.
Then international banks are coming into our markets. They are
trying to break down the rules to allow them to compete against
our banks. We must speak on behalf of our own banking
institutions as well. We must protect our own market, our own
industries.
We see products like old growth forests being cut down on the
west coast. Whole logs are shipped to Japan for the people there
to provide products and possibly sell back to Canadians. Let us
finish our products here. Let us market and be aggressive.
In order to be aggressive and competitive we have to train and
teach our children. If we do not acquire further taxes from our
corporations and the multinationals operating within our market,
we will lose a big source of revenue generation. We must create
revenue and wealth by taxing the people doing business with us.
1235
The Liberal government accepts one of the cliches of
globalization, that the best way to address the problem of human
and environmental rights is by developing open trade in society.
Where does Canadian sovereignty fall into place? Support for
the social cause is a start. We are seeing the government going
hell-bent to negotiate these agreements. We must call on the
government to have a social conscience and link trade benefits to
the human rights of the people of the world.
Without such causes the World Trade Organization is like a
turkey shoot where multinationals and their allies in some
developing countries can exploit the most vulnerable. Chile is
an example. Why is it not negotiating free trade agreements with
the other countries of South America? It chose Chile because it
was the most vulnerable.
I call on the government to be fair and equitable to all
developing countries of the world and not to pick on the weak.
Speaking of the weak, Canadians cannot be seen as a weak entity.
We must stand up for ourselves. I call on the government to
stand up on behalf of all Canadians, to be strong and to be free
to speak for the will of all Canadians.
I call on the government and the House of Commons to challenge
each other to provide a way of negotiating our needs with the
rest of the world. If they are willing to invest in our country,
let us stop the colonization move.
There are remnants of colonization remaining in our northern
communities. I draw attention to the reality that in northern
Canada the Hudson's Bay Company has changed its name to Northern
Stores. The Hudson's Bay Company and Northern Stores do not
invest in our communities.
We talk about our aboriginal communities needing to create an
economic cycle for the betterment of their lives and those of
their children. The Hudson's Bay Company does not invest in our
communities. It deals in profits as it did in the days of the
fur trade and takes them elsewhere. We have to put up trade
barriers to stop profit making and keep some of those revenues in
the country.
I speak on behalf of our party against Bill C-11 because it is a
remnant of the NAFTA. I challenge the House of Commons and the
leadership of the country to protect the interest of Canadians
wholeheartedly. Let us keep our companies, workers, banks and
our railroads in this country for future generations. Let us
stay Canadian, strong and free.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Madam Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
The PC Party of Canada supports making legislation that
simplifies our lives and the lives of business owners. However
there are matters that need to be addressed in the legislation.
I thank the hon. member from Manitoba for acknowledging it was
the Progressive Conservative Party that introduced and brought
forward the free trade legislation.
We are happy to see the Liberal government has realized our
initiatives on free trade in the late 1980s are so important, a
lead that it continues to follow. Our initiated agreement made
trade between countries competitive, boosted economic success and
began to tear down the walls that hindered successful open trade
transactions between countries.
At that time the Liberals did everything in their power to
oppose the initiative. Today we witnessed something else. What
was so profusely objected to almost 10 years ago is today the
largest bill on our shelves and the biggest factor in the
contributing of tax revenues to the recovery of our economy.
While we are flattered the government of the day continues to
carry out our initiatives and our tariff agreements that we put
in place when we were in government, there are several important
factors to be considered.
1240
Just a few weeks ago the government was reprimanded for the
untimeliness of the year 2000 project. How can we expect modern
innovation from the Liberals when the bill is distributed in
paper form instead of CD-ROM? The documents are composed of
about a foot and a half of paper. In the last couple of days we
have heard about the importance of the environment. This is
truly an unfriendly environmental document.
Let us look at the size of the bill. Instead of setting an
example and proving that we are moving into the 21st century, our
offices are cluttered with these volumes.
Perhaps my most important message today is that this is the
beginning, not the end. We cannot stop now with the progress
that we have made because the bill has been simplified. Work
still needs to be done.
I ask the government to commit to continuing with the work in
progress, to continue developing trade agreements with our
partners, to look ahead to the global marketplace and to achieve
a standard of excellence with our trading partners. This means
the government must continue to promote trade and encourage
business development in Canada. It is imperative that taxes in
all areas be competitive.
While we know that industry generally supports the bill, we also
know it has qualms about it. First and foremost is the sense of
urgency being placed on the bill. The Canadian Importers
Association is concerned with its speedy passage as it says
importers will not have enough time for what will be a very time
consuming and costly exercise. The Alliance of Manufacturers &
Exporters also shares this concern. It states that it is a scary
exercise and there is very little time to do the programming it
needs.
Unlike the government that has known about the year 2000 problem
for the last five years, perhaps we should give businesses a
month or two leeway to implement the bill.
These are the affected parties. We demand that the government
listen to their concerns and continue with the theme of
simplification. If we are to simplify the process we need to
continue with their agreement and simplify the lives of business
owners. We will hold the government accountable and demand that
it listen to the suggestions that have been received.
The recurring message we are hearing from the business community
with respect to the uneasiness it faces is related to the
delivery and the implementation of the tariff simplification
initiative. While it supports the elimination of regulation and
business procedures, it is deeply affected by the timing of the
bill. It feels quite rushed and that it has not been granted
enough time to prepare for the upcoming changes and enormous
challenges it must face.
This is the most complex tariff system in the world. We know it
and our trading partners know it. I urge the government to
consider the huge tasks that lie ahead for importers in Canada
and demand they be given time to adopt to the enormous changes
ahead.
Since the Liberal government obviously agrees with us on the
importance of free trade, why do its members not agree with us on
simplifying the lives of businessmen, simplifying the lives of
Canadians, decreasing red tape, lessening government
interference, simplifying Bill C-11 and agreeing with changes to
the complexity and short term allowances given to these important
businesses?
The PC Party stands for less red tape, less government
interference, less government involvement in people's lives, more
power to businesses and more power to the people.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabasca, PC): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank my colleague from Markham for allowing me to share
his time.
The Conservative Party in fact is very proud to support Bill C-11.
We are delighted that Liberals are today behaving like the Conservatives
of yesterday. Nevertheless, we are surprised that the New Democrats of
today are behaving like the Liberals of 1993. We hope that the miracle
will continue and the people will understand that isolation is passé.
1245
We do agree with this bill. For over ten years now the Conservative
Party has been working on a process, and we must not forget that NAFTA
was only part of it, to globalize Canada's trade. Quebec and, in large
measure, Ontario most strongly supported the debate and the treaty in
the 1980s, so that today, all provinces may enjoy increased trade
through the free trade agreement.
However, as my colleague pointed out, the problem we have with
people opposite is that there is no planning.
Businesses are told to get ready because, in January, things will be
made simpler. However, in fact, as my hon. colleague pointed out, the
thickness of the document would indicate that people will not be ready
by January 1.
As my colleague also pointed out, we are asking the government to
be patient. This is a bit surprising for the Conservative Party, but we
are asking the government to perhaps pay attention to the bill's
wording. Even though we support the bill, we honestly believe that it
should have been introduced much earlier in the previous legislature so
that people could prepare for it. People in private industry in Canada,
big and small business, are not aware of the government's position and
are still waiting, with a bit of surprise, for the bill to fall on their
heads.
So, as I was saying, NAFTA was good for the country and for Quebec.
Now there are more treaties with other countries. That is why the
Conservative Party will always support any bill that means that
Canada and Quebec will not be isolated in the international
marketplace, but will assume their rightful place.
I would also like to point out that it would be a good thing
in this House if the government were to start being much more
conservative, in the good sense of the word. I think that the gods
must be smiling on us, because yesterday the Prime Minister said
that the GST was a good thing. A tax is always heavily criticized,
but in the end it was a good thing. It is now recognized that
NAFTA was a good thing. However, there can be no doubt that the
election of the Liberals in 1993 was a bad thing. But this will
surely get sorted out with time.
As for Bill C-11, it is extremely complex. It is, however, a
step in the right direction.
We hope that it will benefit all import businesses in Canada.
We must not be afraid of isolating ourselves. Our New
Democratic friends worry about this. The hon. member of the NDP
gave the example of western forests. Western forests were being
cut down and the logs sent outside the country, only to come back
in as finished products. I would like to explain to my hon.
colleague that Quebec imports wood from the United States,
processes it and sells it back to the Americans. International
treaties must therefore be examined as a whole and international
trade looked at much more globally.
Nor should it be said that only large corporations have
benefited from NAFTA. Ten years ago, there were fears that textile
companies, in Quebec for example, would take a terrible beating.
They had to adapt quickly, and today Quebec's textile companies are
among the province's largest exporters.
What we are saying, therefore, is that the tens of millions of
dollars that will be saved will result in our being much more
competitive. Here again, the government has a problem. They are
helping companies save money, using the argument that the economy
has to make a better recovery, that we must help our businesses.
However, this is just one point of view, the issue of imports. What
we are saying is that there are also other ways of helping
businesses. We are prepared to support Bill C-11, but we are also
prepared to support, and have always supported, a reduction in
employment insurance contributions, among other things.
So, if all these objectives could be combined, Canadians and
Quebeckers as a whole could benefit.
Slowly but surely, this government is learning, and we hope that
will continue to be the case.
We are proud to support Bill C-11 and any bill, as I was
saying earlier, that means that Quebec and Canadian businesses can
benefit from the globalization of markets.
1250
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill because of the
ramifications it will have, along with the NAFTA deal, the free
trade deal, the MAI, APEX and all those other deals that
governments past and present have made.
We would assume by listening to government members that the sun
rises and sets on their current policies. They have repeated on
several occasions that Bill C-11 was created in consultation with
industry. Industry, industry, industry. If I am not mistaken,
the government member who previously spoke said that five times.
However, not once have I heard them say they have consulted the
working people, labour groups, citizens groups or action groups.
Any group having a leaning toward the social left was not
consulted with respect to Bill C-11. That is typical of the
government when it comes to modifying or altering current
legislation.
If I may digress for a moment, a few years back this government
did not like the regulations which governed the foreign sale of
nuclear CANDU reactors. Literally overnight, with an order in
council, it changed the trade regulations and the environmental
regulations in order to sell two CANDU reactors to China.
I remind the House that China has one of the worst human rights
records in the world today and yet this government, without
consulting the House of Commons, without allowing proper debate,
changed the environmental and trade regulations and sold the
CANDU reactors to China. Organizations such as the Sierra Club
have taken the government to court to fight those arrangements.
I could go on and list more spectacles of that nature. That is
the despicable nature of the government.
Slowly, bit by bit, this government and previous Conservative
governments have relinquished control to the corporate elite. I
have said time and time again that I would much rather have an
elected Bob Rae or an elected government official than I would an
unelected Conrad Black. The reason I say that is that if people
do not like an elected official, he or she will come up for
election again in so many years, and the people can kick them
out.
Elected officials have to listen to the concerns of the people
whether they like them or not. An unelected corporate official
does not have to listen to the people. They never have to attend
meetings. They can totally ignore the wishes of the Canadian
people.
I have held talks with members of the professional bankers
association in my riding. They have indicated, as we have
suspected for quite some time, that the big six banks will soon
merge to become the big three. The bankers are saying that will
happen because we cannot compete globally. That they can make $1
billion in six months is not good enough for them. Now they are
saying we have to compete globally. Globally, globally,
globally. That is all we ever hear.
What will happen to the thousands of people working in the
banking institutions? What will happen to them years down the
road? What kind of jobs will we be able to offer our children?
Are there going to be any jobs?
The hon. member from Saskatchewan indicated that we should be
working toward the benefit and health of our children. Our
children are our most valuable resource.
During the wars and after the wars this country produced all
kinds of equipment, machinery and products. For example, the
world's largest gypsum mine borders on my riding. Ninety per cent
of the gypsum is shipped out of Canada, into the United States,
turned into gyproc, and we turn around and buy it back. That is
insanity. There could be hundreds of jobs created in my riding
if there were a gypsum board factory. That would be tremendous.
We do the same thing with whole logs. We ship them to countries
like Japan when we could be manufacturing those logs in Canada
today. We could be creating thousands and thousands of jobs.
The Minister for International Trade, through the Economic
Development Corporation, is giving $285 million to a firm to set
up a pulp mill in Indonesia. That is another country with a
terrible human rights record.
1255
We give it $285 million to build a pulp mill so it can compete
with our pulp mills in Canada. We have pulp mill workers in
Skeena, which is represented by the Reform, and I have yet to
hear a Reform member stand up on behalf of those working people
out there.
They have to give labour concessions and more wage cuts and more
benefit cuts in order to compete through the government's turning
around and giving millions of dollars to another country to
compete with ours, and not just a country with a good record, a
country that has some of the worst human rights records in
history.
The APEC deal is coming around, and who do we invite with open
arms and the red carpet? Soeharto, one of the vilest people on
the planet, and Canada is going to sit there and welcome him with
open arms.
I wish I had brought the picture with me that I had taken a few
years ago of the defeated minister of health, Mr. David Dingwall,
who was soundly defeated in the riding of Cape Breton. He could
not wait when the premier of China, Li Peng, the butcher of
Beijing, came to Canada in his big 747 to the Halifax airport.
Members should have seen Mr. Dingwall tripping over everybody,
pushing away security guards in order to get in that limousine
and have his picture taken with the butcher of Beijing. Those
kinds of attitudes in this Liberal government are still there.
Liberals are willing to sell their souls to anybody in this
country or anybody in the world willing to pay, without proper
debate and without consultation of the House of Commons.
I recently referred members to the CPP bill, one of the most
damaging pieces of legislation ever in Canadian history. Whether
someone is for or against it is really not the question. The
question is that we should be having proper debate on something
that affects every single Canadian.
What does the hon. House leader do after only seven hours of
debate? He shuts it off. He invokes closure. He uses the
majority, by the way only a slim majority, of the government
officials to defeat the debate. To us that is simply scandalous.
What is this government afraid of? Why is it not willing to
talk to Canadians, all Canadians, not just industry but labour
groups, other opposition parties, to form political solutions to
the political problems that we have today?
It is unbelievable to those Canadians outside Parliament that
this government and former governments would continue on this
path of hide and seek policies every time.
We kept hearing when free trade was talked about that it would
be good for Canadians. It was not good enough. We have to have
NAFTA. That is going to be good for Canadians. No, no, that's
not good enough either. We have to go one step further.
APEC really is not anything, just some sort of agreement among
economies and businesses, not countries; no human rights
legislation, no protection for working people, none, just sort of
business deals.
But that is not good enough. Now we have the mother of all trade
deals coming down, the MAI. I remind members that if not for the
leader of the New Democrats, this deal may already have been
passed, as this deal was silently being passed through without
any consultation with the House of Commons.
During the campaign she mentioned this deal and all of a sudden
the government said “Hold off, the cat is out of the bag now.
We are going to have to reluctantly discuss this with the House
of Commons”. I cannot wait for the day when that debate comes
around. It goes on and on.
I think back to a movie I saw in the early 1970s,
“Rollerball”, in which there were no governments and the world
was being dominated by five corporations. The corporations were
fighting among each other for total control of the planet. I
cannot understand why elected officials would relinquish their
control through legislation and allow corporations to take over
and take over.
I remind members in the War of 1812 we won. We won the
sovereignty of our country. We won the solidarity of working
people throughout this country from coast to coast to coast, the
French and English together.
Jonathan Winters said in a stand-up comic routine “We
Americans, gee, we hope we can take you peacefully”. They are
doing a very good job of it right now. They are taking us over
economically, and what is happening?
There are literally millions of workers in this country who do
not even know if they are going to have a job next week. Probably
every labour aspect and every trade union have had to go before
their employers. Their employers have had to go to them. It is
becoming not just protection or improvements to collective
agreements but givebacks and takeaways and further wage cuts,
downsizing, restructuring, this and that and this.
We have had over 80 months with unemployment rates of over 9%. We
had heard that free trade was going to cure that problem. We had
heard that NAFTA was going to cure that problem. We hear now
that the MAI is going to cure that problem. We now hear that
Bill C-11 is going to cure that problem. Government had to get
rid of the manufacturers sales tax. The former Tory government
said we absolutely had to get rid of that and place the burden of
taxation away from corporations and on individuals.
1300
What happened in Atlantic Canada? Lo and behold, the Liberals
get elected. Eleven Liberals from the province of Nova Scotia
are elected. Off they go to the House of Commons. I can see all
11 of them sitting there and agreeing like this: “You know Mr.
Prime Minister and Mr. Finance Minister, the GST really isn't
hitting those people hard enough. I think we should impose
another tax on them called the HST”, or as we prefer it, the
BST. “It is no longer acceptable to pay 8% or 9% or combined
percentages of rates. We now have to hit them with 15%”.
I remind the House that in three provinces of Atlantic Canada we
pay more for postage stamps than anywhere else in this country.
That is just one slight example of the scandalous treatment of
Atlantic Canadians. It goes on and on. The HST is the most
regressive tax ever to hit pensioners on lower incomes and people
with low wages.
It is just incredible that government would shift the burden of
taxation away from corporations that make record profits year
after year and place the burden of taxation on to individuals. It
blows me absolutely away.
I could stand here all day and mention example after example but
I will cut my speech short and say once and for all that I wish
the government, instead of listening to its friends on the
corporate world, would start to listen to ordinary working
Canadians, those from labour and social action groups, to come up
with the solutions we need for today.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to take this
opportunity to summarize the interventions heard on Bill C-11.
For the record, the bill is intended to improve the
competitiveness of Canadian companies and industry and to lessen
the regulatory burden on industry and government. It is a bill
that has received broad support from Canadian industry. It has
been developed in close consultation with Canadian stakeholders
over a three-year period.
No new commitments are being implemented in this bill. It is
really the elimination of nuisance rates, rates that would
benefit Canadian manufacturers, as it mostly affects goods that
are used in inputs for Canadian manufacturers. This should help
Canadian industry to be more competitive. Certainly in the end
it should benefit Canadian consumers.
Comments were made earlier today with respect to the timing of
this initiative. For the record I want to state that since April
when the initial notice of ways and means was tabled in the
House, Revenue Canada and Statistics Canada have been undergoing
extensive outreach campaigns to alert those who could potentially
be affected by the legislation with respect to the proposed
changes. Officials from the finance department have also met with
industry and trade associations and participated in customs
conferences to inform interested parties of the developments in
preparing the legislation.
It is also important to note that we have received letters from
various associations in support of this legislation that call for
its swift passage through Parliament to ensure the business
community has a wider window of opportunity to prepare businesses
for the competition they face in the global marketplace. Letters
have been received from the Canadian Importers Association Inc.,
the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and other types of associations
calling for passage of this bill in order to deal with some areas
that lack efficiency within this climate.
The current tariff provisions are being consolidated into a
single tariff schedule that will be simpler to read and will
provide greater flexibility.
1305
The measures, as I said earlier, will enhance industry
competitiveness. When industry competitiveness is enhanced, it
allows greater opportunity of employment for Canadians.
We are just as sympathetic as all other members toward
unemployment. The NDP made reference to that in their speeches
today and I congratulate them and thank them for their
intervention. It is important to make the point and they made it
very eloquently. We must ensure that what we do in enhancing the
competitiveness for industry translates into greater
opportunities for Canadians in allowing them those employment
opportunities.
We hope the simplified customs tariff meets its objectives of
improving the competitive position of Canadian industry while
going forward and providing a very transparent and predictable
regime that lessens the regulatory burden and reduces the
business costs that companies face.
We set out to improve the competitiveness and efficiency of our
industries. The review was launched over three years ago. We
believe, with the help and support of the House, companies will
benefit, which will translate to greater competitiveness and
employment opportunities. I thank all members for the time that
they have taken to participate in today's debate.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I wish to thank the parliamentary secretary for his
comments toward the New Democratic Party concerning our trying to
get the message across that we should be working with and
assisting Canadians.
There is one thing I mentioned. He again said that the
government had consulted with various industries and groups. I
did not hear him once that he had consulted with the CLC. I did
not hear him once say that he had consulted with the Quebec
Federation of Labour.
An hon. member: What is CLC?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sorry. The Canadian Labour Congress,
for those on the other side who do not understand the labour
groups.
I did not hear him once say that he had spoken with the CAW, the
Canadian Auto Workers. Not once did I hear him say that they
referred this bill to working people.
There is one point I forgot in my submission. A few years ago
the Mexican government allowed the peso to drop and devalue on
the market. This caused shock waves through the financial
community. What was Canada's response? Canada had to pump tens
of millions of dollars through the auspices of the World Bank and
friends in the American government to prop up the Mexican peso.
We were told in the House of Commons—although I was not here at
that time—but read the Hansard comments that that was to
assist, enable and help out the people of Mexico and the Mexican
workers. In reality, it was to help out those Canadian
businesses that left provinces like Ontario and the rest of
Canada to go down to Mexico because of their cheap labour force.
We were told that the whole aspect of NAFTA and free trade was
to prop up the living standards of those workers in Mexico.
Madam Speaker, I invite you and everyone in the House of Commons
to go down to Mexico and see how propped up they are. They are
not very propped up at all. What has it done? It has not
increased the working conditions of Mexican workers. It has
decreased the condition of Canadian workers.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
the intervention and the question.
The intention of the government with this legislation, as it is
with other legislation, is to work closely with all Canadians.
We do not want, as a government, to start pitting worker against
worker, Mexico against Canada.
We want the entire global economy to become consumers of
Canadian products. We want the entire global economy to benefit
and grow in its capabilities and become consumers for Canada.
Canada's economy is based on exports and exports are an area of
our economy which has driven the growth in the economy over the
last little while and it will continue to do so.
The proposals that we see before us are proposals that deal with
the competitiveness of the Canadian industry, which translates
into greater opportunity for Canadians in employment and into
lower prices for Canadian consumers. That is what this bill is
all about. I again thank the hon. member for the intervention.
1310
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
do not think that we should go all day with this but there is one
thing I do not understand.
With all of the agreements we have signed, such as the free
trade or the MAI or whatever, I find that the Atlantic provinces
are not on the map anymore. Nobody is working down home.
If we find a new program I hope we will try to put the Atlantic
provinces back on the map.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, the only comment I have
is that there was a conference held in the Atlantic provinces to
deal with the future and the vision of Atlantic Canada. It was
partly funded by Industry Canada to ensure that Atlantic Canada
has an opportunity to express and build its own economic future.
There was representation from various ministries along with the
premiers and other stakeholders in Atlantic Canada.
The government is very committed to ensuring that all regions of
Canada have an opportunity to grow and develop. We will
participate, as we have in the past, in ensuring that Atlantic
Canada is a strong participant in this great country.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I would like to make a correction and a few points,
because I attended the Vision for the Atlantic.
I will tell you how I attended it. It was against the will of
the premier of New Brunswick. That is the type of vision which
they have. The social groups were not invited. No workers were
invited and the people who spoke at the conference were not
representing the people of the Atlantic.
It is very important to start wondering whose vision it is for
the Atlantic. The New Democrats were certainly not invited, a
lot of PCs were not invited and actually we were told that they
were not welcome there. Tell me what kind of consultation that
was?
An hon. member: Shame.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, we are drifting away
somewhat from the legislation. I am perfectly willing to respond
to the intervention.
As far as I understand it, the participants at the conference
were the premiers of the Atlantic provinces. The last time I
checked those premiers were elected by the constituents of the
Atlantic provinces. They were there to make representations with
respect to developing that economic vision.
As a member of the finance committee, and I would welcome the
presence of the hon. member, I want to assure her that we were in
Atlantic Canada this past week. We heard from Atlantic Canadians
on what to do with the fiscal dividend, and to ensure that
Atlantic Canadians had an opportunity for input. The chair of the
finance committee has requested an assurance that Atlantic
Canadians, as well as all members of the House, have the
opportunity to hold town hall meetings, to hear from their
constituents and to bring the message back to the House of
Commons.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, October 27,
1997 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
1315
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, discussions have been held
among all parties in the House and we have reached agreement for
the recorded division to be held on Tuesday, October 28, at the
conclusion of Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division is
therefore deferred to the conclusion of Government Orders on
Tuesday, October 28.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe if you sought
the consent of the House to see the clock as being 1.30 p.m., we
could proceed to Private Members' Business.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government of
Canada should make major changes in the employment insurance
system, particularly by lowering contributions and improving
benefits for seasonal workers and workers who have joined the
labour market only recently.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the House is
considering this motion I have tabled today, which concerns a
matter of national importance.
It is important for all of Quebec, for all of Canada, since the
entire employment insurance program is obviously completely unfair
for all seasonal workers and all new entrants to the work force.
At the same time, I wish to condemn what I call the employment
insurance fund scandal. Imagine today that, by the end of 1997,
there will be a surplus of $13 billion in the employment insurance
fund. Two years ago, we started with a deficit of $6 billion. We
have since accumulated a $19 billion surplus, which will leave us
with $13 billion as at December 31, 1997, and some $15 or $16
billion by the end of the fiscal year.
At the same time, the decision was made to increase the number
of weeks required in order to be eligible for employment insurance,
and to decrease the number of weeks of benefits people were
entitled to receive.
It might be said that the government was not listening to the
public when it did this, not listening to what had been said during
consultations, but that it instead carried out evaluations that
could have justified its point of view. Now we are faced with a
fait accompli, faced with reality, and they ought to support a
motion such as ours.
It may be said that opposition motions are always against the
government. But I want to point to the position set out in my
motion, which reads in part:
—should make major changes in the employment insurance
system, particularly by lowering contributions and improving
benefits for seasonal workers and workers who have joined the
labour market only recently.
This is not, therefore, just the position of the Bloc
Quebecois, although it is precisely the platform we defended during
the election campaign.
1320
Our party was the only one saying there could be both a reasonable
reduction of benefits and a healthy surplus, but a reduction that would
allow us to reinvest money in the economy by allowing employees and
employers to use additional funds. We also said that part of the surplus
in the employment insurance fund could have been used to improve the
working conditions of seasonal workers.
The facts speak for themselves. In the early 1990s, 60% of people
contributed to the employment insurance fund and eventually became
eligible for benefits. This percentage is now below 40%, between 30% and
35% actually.
If we were in a private system, in similar circumstances people
would have chosen another insurance company long ago. You can be sure
that no private system could survive in such circumstances because
contributors would have found another insurer.
That is an important aspect. The system is financed by the
employees and their employers. The Government of Canada does not
contribute a penny. The system is entirely financed by the employees and
their employers. It would only be fair to allow them to control the
money in the fund.
No wonder they find it surprising that it has become some kind of
insurance against the deficit instead of an employment insurance plan.
The federal government, through its finance minister, decided that
there would be two main contributors to deficit reduction: the people
who pay into the employment insurance fund, that is to say, the
employees and their employers. Fancy that, every two weeks money comes
in from the premiums paid by workers and employers. However, this money
people think will provide them with an adequate income in between jobs
is no longer used to this end. Instead, the Canadian government is using
the employment insurance fund to reduce its deficit.
Everybody agrees that the deficit should be lower, but nobody
thinks it should always be the same people who pay for it.
The people who contribute to the employment insurance plan are those who
make 39 000 $ or less. This means that most of the deficit reduction
burden has been borne by workers and employers, and not by the most
well-off in our society.
This even penalizes labour intensive businesses. This means that
employers who pay little more than the minimum wage—for instance,
seasonal businesses where workers make between $7 and $12 an hour—are
penalized compared to those employing fewer workers, such as high tech
companies.
Sure, we must promote the high tech sector, but there is no reason
why we have to create a system that penalizes businesses with many
employees. This leads to the situation we are witnessing today.
In the forestry or fishery industries, people face a totally
unacceptable situation, and more and more of them can no longer afford
to live in the area where they reside.
This reform has created what I call the spring gap, something that
is more and more prevalent, as we will see. I am willing to predict
something, which will occur as surely as what we were predicting last
year about employment insurance. At the end of next winter, when people
have exhausted their entitlements, after the 10 or 12 week period, when
they no longer qualify for employment insurance, we will have a very
ugly situation, because many of these families will not be able to
qualify for welfare since they own their own home.
As a government, we cannot act that way, and if we do, people will
decide they no longer need government.
If we decide that the market place must always win, that we are a
strictly market economy, we might as well close down a number of
regions. It amounts to the same thing, and I am under the impression
that this is the choice the government made.
Two years ago, I went to Gander, Newfoundland, with the Committee
on Human Resources Development. In the employment centre, on a display
rack, I did not see a single program to diversify the local economy, I
did not see a single program to allow people to find another job in
their area. I saw a folder explaining how to move out west, because
there were jobs out west.
1325
When a government reaches such a point, there is definitely
something very wrong, because it is not true that moving people around
will make the country liveable.
The solution is in the principles that would ensure that people in
each region can develop the resources in that region. Also, when they
develop the resources in their region, they promote economic development
in that region.
Let us remember that at the end of the 19th century and the
beginning of the 20th century, the situation was quite different
from what it is today. The whole maritime region was
self-reliant, self-sufficient in Canada. But in the 1960s, under
the wonderful regime of Mr. Trudeau, the government made what I
would call a deal. It said that manufacturing processing, the
serious economic activity, would be done in Ontario. It would
give transfer payments to the provinces east of Quebec, that it
would be forthcoming, that it would be generous, that it would
give them a handout. This is how the model was developed and how
we ended up with the aberrations we have today.
However, what it did not expect, or what it said others would take
care of after the Trudeau era, is that people finally realized that the
tap could not be left on forever. At one point, it said it was no longer
able to produce wealth and send it to the maritimes to keep people
alive.
The solution that it found was not to diversify regional economies,
but to turn off the tap.
It decided to create such things as TAGS because it was faced with the
real problem of dwindling fish stocks. So it developed a program, but
did not implement it as planned. It did not respect the objective, which
was to diversify the economy.
Today, the government has the gall to say that local communities
chose to benefit from the system. Canada's central government has a
fundamental problem because it thinks it knows best, as far as people in
the regions are concerned. It ought instead to think about how
important it is to look for solutions at the grassroots level, to see
what they have to suggest and what it can do about it, so that regional
economies can adjust and develop.
Therefore, the motion proposes that 50% of the surplus in the
employment insurance fund be kept as a working margin, because there
might be other recessions and we should not repeat the mistake we made
in the past, when the unemployment insurance fund had a running deficit.
We are willing to accept that 50% of the present surplus be used for
that purpose, but we want the other 50% to be divided in two parts: one
half would be applied to lowering contributions by 35 to 50 cents for
each $100 of insurable earnings, and the other half to improving
benefits for seasonal workers.
I think there is a lesson the Liberal government, and especially
Liberal members from the maritimes, should have learned from the last
election. There were even members on TV yesterday evening debating the
issue.
There was a member of the NDP who, after the election, said the same
thing as she was saying before. And then there was a Liberal member, who
had changed her tune since the election. I find this unacceptable.
It seems the situation we have before us is one the government
will not be able to ignore. We have been back here for two months
and a half, and every opposition party has asked questions on the
employment insurance issue. Everybody has said that the system
should be changed. This morning, we had an extra reason to ask
for changes. We have figures showing a phenomenal increase in the
number of independent, self-employed workers who represent a new
feature of the labour market.
During the election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois suggested that
these people should be able, on a voluntary basis, to be eligible to
employment insurance.
If the system is not changed, we will have a system that will be suited
to the problems of ten years ago, but that will in no way be suited to
the problems of today and the years to come.
As provided in the act, the government is required to report every
year to the parliamentary committee to propose amendments to the act.
Basically, if the government had taken its responsibilities and had
recognized that there are indeed changes to be made and had decided to
go ahead with them, there would be no need to debate this motion.
There is another demand on the table. Yesterday, the premier of
Quebec stated that he would come to the federal-provincial meeting next
December, provided that the issue of the employment insurance surplus
was on the agenda.
What he said was “to help improve the living conditions of seasonal
workers”.
1330
So, I think we should answer this appeal, the appeal made by the
premiers and even by the human resources development committee, which
did in fact pass a motion asking the finance minister to give priority
during his prebudget consultations to the issues of employment and
employment insurance.
The premier of Quebec, all of the premiers and the human resources
development committee, that is a lot of people asking the government to
use common sense and to listen to good sense.
I ask the government to endorse my motion as soon as possible and
to come back to the House with a government bill that will meet the
goals of the constituents in my riding and in all of eastern Canada, and
I hope that all members will give proper consideration to this issue.
We are talking about managing the government surplus. The best way
to manage this surplus properly is to be fair, so that everyone gets his
or her share. Since employers and employees have generated most of the
surplus, they should benefit most from its redistribution.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the hon.
member's motion.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): A point
of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to have the letter that was referred to in question period
tabled at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate.
Mr. Robert D. Nault: Madam Speaker, the first thing I
would ask the hon. member to consider is that if we adopted his
motion it would not give due consideration to all the hard work
that has gone into restructuring the system and the positive
approach in helping unemployed Canadians that other members and
myself were involved with in the last session.
When the government set out to redesign the way in which we
helped unemployed workers get back to work, we made a dramatic
shift from passive assistance to active measures that would act
as an incentive for individuals to return to the workforce as
soon as possible.
The new system is not yet 16 months old. Most reasonable people
would agree that it is not long enough to determine how effective
it is going to be.
I will now address some specific points in the hon. member's
motion. He is asking the government to lower premium
contributions. In 1994 the government took action to stop rates
from increasing, setting the rate that year at $3.07 instead of
the scheduled $3.30. Since 1995 premium rates have declined each
year. They are now at $2.90 for every $100 of insurable earnings
and the government is committed to bringing the rate down even
further.
As for weekly maximum insurable earnings, we rolled them back to
$750 and froze them at that level rather than allowing them to
increase to $875 as they were scheduled to do. But we did not
stop there.
Is the hon. member familiar with the new hires program? Under
that program up to 900,000 employers are eligible to pay
virtually no premiums for jobs they create this year.
Combine these three measures and the government is saving
workers and employers $1.7 billion in payroll taxes in 1997.
By anybody's arithmetic, those are substantial savings to both
employers and employees.
1335
The hon. member is asking the government to improve benefits for
seasonal workers and new entrants and re-entrants. First let us
consider seasonal workers.
When the old UI system was reformed, the government was
determined to make the new system more flexible to accommodate
changing conditions in the workplace. Those changes included
improvements in the way benefits are calculated for seasonal
workers.
With EI we have an hours based system. That hours based system
enables an additional 45,000 workers in seasonal industries to
qualify for benefits they would not have qualified for under the
old system.
Because of the hours based system some 270,000 seasonal workers
are eligible for an average of three additional weeks of EI
benefits. For families with children whose incomes are under
$26,000, the family income supplement assists them financially.
By the year 2000 their EI benefits may be as high as 80% of their
insured earnings.
Furthermore, an $800 million annual reinvestment in employment
benefits by the year 2000 will help workers in seasonal
industries extend their regular season or find work in the off
season. Besides that, the government has a very active $300
million transitional jobs fund to help create sustainable
employment in areas of high unemployment.
Let me give the House some statistics for those who are
interested in the transitional jobs fund. So far more than 400
projects have been approved. We have spent $150 million on TJF.
Some 20,000 new jobs have been created due to this program and
some $1.3 billion has been leveraged by the private sector
because of this fund.
Anyone who has been involved in this fund in high unemployment
areas, such as my area of northern Ontario, can attest to the
fact that this is a very creative program which will create
sustainable employment. It is being used. The significance of
this program is that it has also been agreed to by the provinces,
by members of Parliament, by non-profit organizations, all
working together in their regions to create sustainable
employment.
At the same time the government recognized the issue of
so-called small weeks, that is, weeks in which a worker earns
less than $150. There was a disincentive, which we recognized,
for some workers to accept these small weeks of work because it
would lower their benefits.
A major objective of the new EI program is to encourage people
to accept available employment. The government brought in
adjustment projects which target 29 high unemployment regions
across Canada, including the introduction of projects in the hon.
member's province of Quebec. Over three years these projects will
return an estimated $247 million in EI benefits to workers in the
29 regions.
We will continue to monitor the impact of the new system on
seasonal workers so appropriate adjustments can be made, but it
is far too early to start tinkering with the program.
As for new entrants and re-entrants, yes, the requirements are
higher. There is a very good reason for that. Higher entrance
requirements ensure that workers who qualify for benefits
establish a solid attachment to the labour force before receiving
benefits.
One of the big problems under the old system was that people
became dependent on UI. Some people used it to supplement their
income and there is evidence that some young people left school
early so they could collect income benefits. I am sure the hon.
member would not want to create that kind of incentive for young
Canadians.
Under EI higher entrance requirements will reduce the chance of
workers, especially young workers, from developing a dependency
on the system early in their work life.
The government has a number of programs under the youth
employment strategy to help young Canadians make a successful
transition from school to work. As was announced in the Speech
from the Throne, we intend to take further measures to reduce
barriers to post-secondary education.
As well, we will work with our provincial and private sector
partners to ensure that young men and women develop the skills
necessary to thrive in the emerging knowledge based economy.
1340
At the same time, we are not unaware that more women than men
are re-entrants to the workforce. We have implemented special
measures to help ease the effect of higher entrance requirements
on women.
Let us take the case of a woman re-entering the workforce who
has collected maternity or parental benefits in the last five
years. To mitigate the impact of higher entrance requirements,
this individual has access to EI's active employment measures,
measures that will help or make a more stable attachment to the
labour market.
As I mentioned earlier with regard to seasonal workers, about
350,00 low income claimants, two-thirds of whom are women, are
eligible for the family income supplement. And benefits for low
income, single parent families headed by women will increase, as
we all know, in these new changes by 13%.
Is it not fair that we have helped women who are at the low end
of the income scale by increasing their benefits by 13%?
Obviously, that is never mentioned by members opposite.
In closing, I would remind the hon. member that the
transformation from UI to employment insurance was the most
massive overhaul of the program in 25 years. Part of that
overhaul was a commitment by the government to monitor and assess
the impact of the changes.
That process is currently under way. As required under the
Employment Insurance Act, early in 1998 the minister will report
to Parliament on just how well the new system is working.
I believe the new EI system deserves a fair trial period. For
that reason, I am opposed to the hon. member's motion and I think
we should give change a chance to take place.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, we are debating today a private member's motion
introduced by my hon. colleague from the Bloc proposing some
changes to the new EI system. We find the change in wording from
UI to EI just a little difficult.
What my colleague is proposing is to make “major changes” to
the EI system. He is proposing lower contributions and increased
benefits for both seasonal workers and for new entrants to the
labour market. That is what we are talking about today.
The hon. parliamentary secretary for the government pointed out
that since the new EI system is barely in its infancy, it is not
the time to make major changes. He also argues that there have
been some fairly significant elements of the new EI program to
help both seasonal workers and to help those who are new entrants
to the job market.
That is the point of debate, to have proposals for change, to
have the merit of those debated. I hope I can add a few cogent
and helpful thoughts to our deliberations on this motion.
The main point of this motion is to talk about the need for
lower contributions, to lower the contribution, to lower the
amount of money going into the EI system.
As has already been pointed out, the surplus in the EI fund will
reach $14.9 billion by the end of this fiscal year. That is a
fairly big chunk of money. In fact, it is about as much as the
GST takes out of the economy. Now we have another $15 billion
being taken out and in surplus with the EI fund.
It has been said many times in this House before—I do not think
it has really been rebutted or denied—that high payroll taxes
particularly discourage employment and discourage hiring.
Here we have a government elected on the promise of jobs, jobs,
jobs in 1993. That was their rallying cry for Canadians.
Yet in the four years the Liberals have been running the affairs
of our country they have done tremendous damage to the job
creators of this country.
1345
Taxes keep rising. Here we have a totally unnecessary chunk
taken out of the hides of employers and workers in this country
simply so the finance minister can brag about what a good job he
has done in getting rid of the deficit. Sure, if you tax
everyone to the max you should not have to borrow any money. That
is nothing to brag about but that is essentially what has
happened.
On top of the tax increases which have been $24 billion more
revenue taken in by this government than when it was elected,
there will be $15 billion from the EI surplus. There is another
$10 billion a year coming out of our pockets for the increase in
the Canada pension plan premiums. We wonder if the finance
minister and the government think Canadians are made of money.
Then the Liberals play the violin and put their hands over their
hearts about child poverty. It is no wonder our families are
poor. It is a wonder our families are able to eat anymore with
all the taxes, taxes and taxes this government seems to feel
so free to rip out of our pockets on an ongoing basis.
Here we have one that has proven to be unnecessary. It is a
surplus in a fund that is to help unemployed people. It is like
being forced to pay $30,000 for a $20,000 car. We wonder why we
must have a system that costs far more than it is acknowledged is
appropriate.
We must agree with my colleague from the Bloc that there should
be and must be lower contribution rates to the EI program.
Cutting EI expenditures in terms of premiums needed to operate
the system would save most working Canadians about $300 a year,
and $300 could buy a lot of milk for poor children in the
country. It could buy a lot of warm clothing for our children. It
could make sure our mortgages get paid and the heat bills get
paid. But no, this taxaholic finance minister needs that money
to play with, and so of course we have to keep paying unnecessary
dollars into the hands of this government.
Therefore the real engines of job creation, the small and medium
size businesses, are actually penalized unnecessarily for every
single person they hire. It is no wonder hiring is cut back.
When every person you hire takes a big chunk of your profits and
your business capital naturally you will conserve and hire as few
people as you can possibly get away with instead of expanding
your business and the economic opportunities in this country. I
am not quite sure how long it will take some people in the House to
realize that and to seriously deal with it, in particular those
on the government side.
I would say to the government that as long as this government
keeps EI premiums unnecessarily high, Canadians have every right
to say that it is not really serious about job creation in this
country.
The EI surplus has been used for fully 22% of deficit reduction,
which means that over $1 in every $5 that the finance minister is
bragging that he is no longer borrowing is made possible because
workers and business people are subsidizing his deficit reduction
efforts by 22%. Sometimes you have to balance the cost and the
benefit of some of these measures.
Canadians' disposable income at the same time has decreased. It
has decreased by about $3,000 per family since this government
was elected. Three thousand dollars per family would buy a lot
of milk, a lot of warm clothing and would make sure our families
had adequate shelter. But this heavy increase in taxation, of
which this EI surplus is just a part, is responsible for a
tremendous amount of the suffering in this country.
The Business Council on National Issues states tax cuts would
help alleviate the problem of child poverty.
The BCNI also said it is terrifying that many low and middle
income Canadians face this steep tax burden and that this
government is sitting on a time bomb on taxation.
1350
I urge the government to recognize the suffering and the
hardship being caused to Canadians by its insatiable appetite for
our tax dollars so that it can politically brag about what it has
done or is going to do. It is nice to do these things, but they
must be done in a way that is fair to the only source of revenue
in the country, hard working Canadians.
The government really must be serious about this change. The
parliamentary secretary said in the debate that the new hires
program waives or does not collect the UI premiums for jobs that
businesses create this year under the program, absolutely
underlining and acknowledging the fact that these job taxes are
keeping new jobs from being created. If these job taxes were not
a significant factor, why did the government tell businesses they
will not have to pay them as long as they hire new people? It
knows this is an impediment and that is why it has removed it
under the new hires program. It has also put in place the family
income supplement for low income Canadians, again acknowledging
that under our tax regime low income Canadians cannot make ends
meet.
On behalf of struggling families I appeal to the government not
to continue taking these dollars out of the pockets of hard
working Canadians who are trying desperately to care for their
families and make ends meet.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to address the House today and join with my colleague from
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques in demanding, as
stated in his motion, that “the Government of Canada make major changes
in the employment insurance system, particularly by lowering
contributions and improving benefits for seasonal workers and workers
who have joined the labour market only recently.”
During the last election campaign, we in the Bloc Quebecois made a
commitment to press the government into dealing with these issues, and
we will keep doing it through special initiatives.
I would like to remind you of a few figures, if I may. The EI
recipient-unemployed worker ratio dropped from 77% in 1989 to below 41%
in 1996. Under the Liberals, this ratio has fallen from 60% in 1993 to
36% in January 1997.
Since 1990, successive cuts have deprived thousands of people of EI
benefits, and many of them are now on welfare. Under the current system,
the unemployed in Quebec will receive $316 million less in 1997-98 and
$534 million less in 2001-2002. As a matter of fact, this new employment
insurance plan is a systematic impoverishment programm, and a hidden tax
affecting many families in the Jonquière riding.
It looks like one of our initiatives will meet with great success
in the Jonquière riding.
Like my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, I have mailed out to my constituents in Jonquière postcards
they can send me back to indicate their support for changes to the
employment insurance plan.
More specifically, we ask the federal government to stop unfairly
penalizing seasonal workers and new entrants to the labour market by
amending the Employment Insurance Act and lowering contributions
significantly by 35 to 50 cents.
1355
The people of Jonquière as well as the local community and labour
organizations, which are sensitive to the situation of seasonal workers,
reacted positively to our initiative. In several parishes of Jonquière
the priests invited their parishioners to send back their cards on
employment insurance to make the Liberal government aware of the very
harmful effects of the present employment insurance system on the
workers.
Many times during the last campaign, people from my riding told me
they were outraged by the reduction in benefits while the premiums paid
by workers allowed the government to collect around $5 billion a year in
revenues that are not used to help the unemployed, but to reduce its
deficit.
The people across the floor brag about this, but they should be
ashamed of the mess they created. The federal government and the
Minister of Finance may benefit from the cuts, but such is not the case
for low income people.
It is now clear that it is the workers and the employers who make
it possible for the Minister of Finance to artificially lower its
deficit. But the Bloc is there to remind you of the interests of the men
and women of Quebec.
And believe me, we will constantly remind the government of the facts to
bring it back to the people's true reality.
Together with the Government of Quebec, we are asking for changes
to the EI system. Premier Lucien Bouchard, the head of the Government of
Quebec, said that he will, at the next federal-provincial meeting, make
a proposal to change the EI system for the benefit of both employers and
workers.
He wants to put forward the following changes: reduced premiums for
employers and workers and increased benefits, or a combination of both.
We are in favour of such an initiative, which would improve the
situation of Quebec workers.
Mr. Bouchard said that these changes would allow seasonal workers to
escape the terrible conditions they are living with now, and which
increase welfare budgets.
In short, the Bloc Quebecois reiterates its proposal that the
Liberal government substantially decrease the EI premium rate and at the
same time improve the program, which has become too restrictive,
particularly for seasonal workers and new entrants.
I hope the Minister of Human Resources Development will take action
on this issue. He will shortly have to respond favourably to Quebec
workers' demands and needs, because year 2000 is fast approaching and he
might be unprepared for what is coming.
Madam Speaker, I move:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the House consent to the
motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate. The member for
Acadie—Bathurst.
1400
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
speaking today in support of the motion of my colleague from the
riding of Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques—like the name of some families down home, the
Basques—proposing major amendments to the employment insurance
system.
My colleague proposes that the benefits for seasonal workers
and new entrants be improved.
These are serious problems, and the government must address
them immediately.
I believe the Liberals have forgotten that these are real people
who are suffering, that entire families have nothing to eat because
of the changes to employment insurance.
I will give you examples of the government's insensitivity and
incompetence.
First, I would like to point out that we have a bit of a
problem with the matter of reducing contributions. Allow me to
explain what our problem is. Before reducing contributions, I
think the first problem needs to be solved, the problem of
employment insurance and the employment insurance formula. After
that has been done, then would come the time to look at
contributions, if there is any money left to reduce contributions.
I think it is really important to look at the employment
insurance formula in order to be certain that it meets the
requirements of the people who need it.
If we look at what employment insurance reform has brought to our
area and other areas in Canada, we see mostly problems. I am going to
give you a few examples from back home, which I am very familiar with.
First, when the government decided to make changes to employment
insurance, what did it do? Not only did it decide to make changes
for the future, but it suddenly decided to look at people's
files, people who had been told by its officials they were
eligible for employment insurance. Surprise, they found they had
made a mistake three years back. They wrongly told some people
they were entitled to employment insurance. The people concerned
were poor—I will give you examples—they were not rich.
I will give the example of a man who came to see me in my office
shortly after the elections, a man with a child. There were also a
father, and a mother with 11 children from Caraquet, in New Brunswick.
Because of the problems in the fish plants, that man went to see the
government to find out whether he qualified for employment insurance.
You know, employment insurance is supposed to provide some money to feed
families. He went to the government and was told “Well, you have to
work, to work hard. Go out there and find some work”. The man said
“I
would be glad to work, but I cannot get a job”. And he was told
“We are
creating jobs in New Brunswick now. We are making Christmas wreaths.
Go and see the employer, he will give you a job”. And he did get a job
making Christmas decorations.
The poor man went to work and put in a number of weeks in order to
qualify for employment insurance.
The guy, his wife and his kid would have loved to keep on making
Christmas wreaths all year long, but that is not the way it works. After
Christmas, wreaths are no longer in demand. So, they are out of a job
again.
They applied for employment insurance to see if they qualified.
“Of
course. You are entitled to employment insurance, and your son
too.” So
they get benefits for a year or two and then, all of a sudden,
department officials come to their senses—I mean senior officers, I
make the distinction because I do not want to offend low-level public
servants who have no authority whatsoever—and ask for an investigation
on these poor people because it would seem a mistake was made two years
back. They tell these people they owe the government $10,000 or $15,000.
That is what Canadians got from the Liberals. The Liberals told
seasonal workers back home to make Christmas wreaths, that great new job
in New Brunswick.
1405
I call on the Government of Canada not to blackmail Atlantic
Canadians by telling them they are going to make them work full
time.
An hon. member: That is a terrible thing to do.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, it is terrible. Better yet, they should
deliver on their threat, because our people want to work.
In any event, back to the Christmas wreathes, because this is
an interesting case. This is what happens to our industries. We
cannot get at the fish in the winter because of the ice, there are
no Christmas wreathes in the summer, blueberries do not grow under
the snow, and there is no peat on top of it.
These are the kinds of industries in which the government invests.
There are secondary and tertiary industries, but that is too
complicated for the government. They want to leave that for their
friends in other countries: the Japanese and the folks in Boston
get a crack at the secondary and tertiary sectors.
Back to the Christmas wreathes. The government told these
people: “You do not have enough hours. Go and make Christmas
wreathes”. Off went 130 or 150 people to work for someone in New
Brunswick. All of a sudden, the government decided this was not
insurable employment, once again, three years later. Three years
later, it decided that 130 to 140 of these people were not
eligible. What the government has done is completely unacceptable.
Furthermore, these people went to the employment insurance
offices and explained how they were making the wreathes.
For the information of wealthy Canadians who do not have to make
Christmas wreathes, this is not something that you go into the
woods to do. You do not strip the boughs off the tree in the woods
and make the wreath with a supervisor standing beside you. For
those who do not know about these things, you go into the woods,
you cut branches, and then you have to strip them. Somebody then
makes the wreathes. People went back home, opened their garage
doors, set up tables and began turning out wreathes.
When they reported back to the employment insurance office,
they explained all this. They were insurable. But, as I am
telling you, the government needed money to pay down the national
debt. It was not enough to cut employment insurance. They said
they would digging into the pockets of the poor.
Reform Party members are asking for a decrease in premiums because
companies are having a rough time. They never say that Canadians are
suffering because of employment insurance cuts.
These people went to EI offices, and they were told they were
eligible. In the Acadian peninsula today, for one company alone, 150
families owe between $10,000 to $15,000, and on top of that, they are
seen as cheats. What the government has done to these people is totally
unacceptable. That is what it did.
That is not all. They are now saying that we must encourage small
and medium-sized businesses. If I had a small business today, I would
naturally start by hiring my children. It would be normal because it
would be my company and my investment. What did the government do?
Relatives are not eligible for EI.
So why encourage the development of small and medium sized businesses
when their owners face such total discrimination in Canada? I thought we
could expect fair and equal treatment in Canada.
There is also this black hole, this vacuum created because the
government promised to make changes and to take care of them but did not
follow through with the 910 hours now required, which people cannot
accumulate.
To conclude, as I said over and over in my remarks, changes must be
made immediately to the employment insurance plan. Seasonal workers are
expecting the federal government to show some degree of compassion by
passing immediately the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, thereby ensuring
that Canadian workers can look for work with dignity.
I want this motion to be a real motion that we could debate,
instead of hiding like the hon. member for Moncton. During the election
campaign, she promised the unemployed she would fight to improve the
employment insurance system, but she now refuses to support the motion
before us.
1410
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I think it is important to debate of this motion. I support it fully,
and I thank my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois for introducing it.
As my colleague mentioned earlier, there are serious problems in
our region. The Liberal Party member mentioned earlier the dependence of
the unemployment insurance—which they want to call employment
insurance—system.
I should ask a question, perhaps. When you live in a region where
the economy is primarily seasonal, people depend on employment insurance
in order to live and to eat.
This is dependence. They have a choice: either employment insurance or
meagre social welfare. Most of them are not eligible for social welfare
if one member of the family earns $800 or more a month.
From what I understand, the government does not like having people
depend on the employment insurance system for sustenance. In other
words, it says that they should starve. As a member of Parliament, I
disagree. Having something to eat is not a privilege in this country, it
is a right.
When I get calls from people in my riding who receive $39 a week
from employment insurance I can see there is a problem, especially when
there is a surplus of nearly $12 billion in the employment insurance
fund, which was paid by employers and employees.
The government says it is going to take it, and we will use the
word “take” today, to pay its deficit, that it will decide to pay a
debt, the deficit, on the back of the unemployed, people who have lost
their job, small and medium businesses that have closed their doors. New
Brunswick's economy has lost a lot of dollars because of the cuts to pay
the deficit.
Many businesses today say “enough is enough”. People don't have
money any more. So now more people than just the seasonal workers are
suffering. There are seniors as well. If we look at the example of the
man making $39 a week at home, with his 73 year-old mother looking after
him. Do you think that this woman is earning enough to provide for her
son?
Don't tell me that cuts don't hurt anyone; they hurt everyone.
Take a good look of how much money it costs for our health care program
today because of people who are stressed and end up in hospital because
they cannot find a job and can no longer get employment insurance. It is
easy for us, who make $64,000 and $70,000 a year to say: “No you do not
get paid for three months of the year”.
Today, I am not hungry, but I have experienced hunger. I am not
hungry today and I may forget what happens at home, if I like, as some
people on the other side have done in creating reforms without thinking.
There are children who go to school without breakfast, who will have no
lunch or supper.
And yet they are saying people depend on employment insurance, that
employment insurance should be eliminated because it creates dependence.
I say that I was proud to depend on employment insurance when I needed
it.
I was unemployed until June 2, 1997. I needed employment insurance to
feed my son and daughter. I am not going to turn around and tell people
at home that they will lose their right. I can guarantee them today that
I will fight to the last, because what the government is doing to our
people is utterly inhuman.
1415
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I note that the time provided
for consideration of Private Members' business has now truly expired.
The item is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 2.16 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.16 p.m.)