36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 105
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 13, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL UNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN CONTENT
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LUIGI GIORDANO
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOUTHBROOK WINERY
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA-WIDE SCIENCE FAIR 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réginald Bélair |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRAIN DRAIN
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1405
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL SPEECH AND HEARING AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR NOTRE-DAME-DE-GRÂCE—LACHINE
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1410
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN PORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENIORS
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEARING AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1420
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR TESTING
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1425
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1430
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1435
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1440
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATURAL RESOURCES
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR TESTING
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1445
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUDAN
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
1450
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE-DE-ROUVILLE HYDRO CO-OP
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JOB CREATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1455
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORKFORCE
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1500
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1505
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA WATER EXPORT PROHIBITION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-404. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1510
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Food and Drugs Act
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Cruelty to Animals
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1515
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Cruelty to Animals
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Senate
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Wheat Board
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Cruelty to Animals
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Iraq
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1520
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTION FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
1525
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 3
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 4 to 6
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 7
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 8 to 10
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 11
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 12 and 13
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion Nos. 14 and 15
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 16
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion Nos. 17 and 18
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 19
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion Nos. 20 to 41
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 42
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 43 and 44
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 45
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 46
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 47
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 48
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 49
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 50 and 51
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 52
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 53 and 54
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 55, 56, 57 and 58
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 59 to 64
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 65 and 66
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 67
|
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1540
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1625
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1630
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
1705
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1730
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANK ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-289. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1735
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1800
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1805
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1830
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Defence
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
1835
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Trans-Canada Highway
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1840
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Post-Secondary Education
|
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1845
![V](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 105
![](/web/20061116193553im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 13, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I am putting two regional political parties on notice. These
parties are the Bloc and the Reform. Both parties knowingly or
unknowingly are negative forces in our government's attempt to
resolve unity problems once and for all.
During this first session I have witnessed escapades like the
Reformers screaming, Reformers throwing Canadian flags on the
floor and Reformers driving around Parliament Hill in an old
wreck of a car with the Canadian flag painted on it for no other
reason than to excite emotion and gain a little publicity.
I see the Bloc members screaming. I see them abusing
parliamentary privilege to promote the break-up of our great
country.
Both of these factions should be ashamed of themselves. Bloc and
Reform listen up. The residents of Simcoe—Grey want a united
Canada. The vast majority of Canadians want a united Canada.
Indeed the vast majority of residents of Quebec want a united
Canada.
On behalf of all Canadians, enough is enough. Stop trying to
break up our country.
* * *
CANADIAN CONTENT
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let us look at the heritage minister's misguided attempt at
promotion of Canadiana, the most recent being the CRTC Canadian
radio content ruling.
The measurements of music, artist, production and lyrics, known
as MAPL, forces some Canadian artists off Canadian radio stations
while others simply because they reach the bureaucratic high bar
are included.
CanCon censors micromanage what Canadians can listen to. While
only 12% of CDs purchased are certifiably Canadian, radio
stations are forced to play 35%, soon to be raised to 40%,
certifiably MAPL rated music. This decision to increase Canadian
content to 35% was simply picked out of thin air.
Why should this government bother to hold expensive hearings and
public forums when the result is the CRTC and the minister do not
listen to the people anyway? The minister's Canadiana
culturecrats do not trust Canadians to be Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
LUIGI GIORDANO
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to rise in this House today to congratulate Luigi Giordano, a
resident of my riding of Laval West who operates a restaurant in
Sainte-Dorothée.
Mr. Giordano has just been awarded the title of Olympic
official, class 3, world class by the International Amateur
Athletic Federation. According to our sources, Mr. Giordano is
the first Canadian to be so honoured, and all of us in Laval are
proud of it.
Laval is the second largest city in Quebec, and this is not the
first time that our community brings honour to Canada. Indeed,
Tania Vicent, a bronze medal winner at the Olympic Games in
Nagano, is also a resident of my riding and she was the guest of
this House a few days ago.
These citizens of Laval West make us proud, and we wish them
every success.
* * *
[English]
SOUTHBROOK WINERY
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
at the gala reopening of Canada House, Queen Elizabeth, Prime
Minister Chrétien, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and many
others will sample one of the finest wines in Canada.
Southbrook Winery and its owner, my friend Bill Redelmeier, have
created an international award winning dessert wine, Canadian
Framboise. Southbrook started producing wine in 1991 and won the
gold medal in 1997 at the London wine challenge. It now produces
over 100,000 bottles a year, from table wines to fruit wines. CP
Hotels selected the Framboise especially for the Canada House
gala dinner.
Mr. Redelmeier is also helping the town of Richmond Hill
celebrate its 125th anniversary by including the anniversary
crest on the label and donating $1 from every sale to help fund
the anniversary events.
Please join me in congratulating Bill Redelmeier and Southbrook
Winery for their success and for being selected as Canada's
dessert wine of choice.
* * *
CANADA-WIDE SCIENCE FAIR 1998
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very proud to inform the House that the Canada-wide
Science Fair 1998 is being held this week in Timmins, Ontario,
welcoming over 600 participants, judges, parents and visitors to
this prestigious and popular event.
This is not only an opportunity for young Canadian scientists to
display their projects and compete for awards, it is also an
excellent occasion to celebrate individual endeavours through a
collective appreciation of a discipline which is becoming one of
Canada's richest resources.
[Translation]
The Canada-wide science fair highlights the diversity of these
scientific projects and the creativity of our young people, with
whom rests our hope for the future. The initiative of putting
this fair together under the theme “earth's resources” should be
commended.
[English]
I would like to publicly thank the organizing committee of the
science fair, the many volunteers and especially the young
competitors for their hard work and dedication throughout the
past year.
[Translation]
These young people will show how they lived up to the challenge
through their science projects, and we will be there to applaud
their masterpieces—
[English]
The Speaker: I have to make a comment. I always cut the
hon. member off by four or five seconds. We have to get the
punchline in there first.
* * *
BRAIN DRAIN
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
a government drains our best and brightest from our workforce, it
drains our future, our promise and our prosperity as a nation.
Right now we have an entire generation of economic refugees
fleeing our borders, a generation driven away by high taxes.
These are the brain drain facts. Over the last seven years, work
visas to the U.S. have increased tenfold. There has been a 20%
increase in Canadian doctors and nurses leaving for the states
since 1985. Last year the University of Waterloo had 120 U.S.
companies recruiting its graduates, four times more than in 1995.
One-third of its co-op computer grads are hired away by
Microsoft each year.
The fact is we are subsidizing American jobs with Canadian
education. What we really need is to create an environment that
lets our graduates stay here at home. For us in Canada this
means lower taxes.
* * *
NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week has been designated as National Nursing Week and
“Nursing is Key” is the theme of the celebrations.
Nationally the Canadian Nurses Association is addressing
strategies to improve the quality of health care including the
implementation of the recommendations of the National Forum on
Health.
This includes the expansion of medicare to address a broader
range of needs, such as home care and pharmacare as part of our
innovative health system.
1405
There are over 110,000 registered nurses who have played a
leadership role in shaping our health system. We as legislators
have come to depend on their experience and expertise to guide us
in making wise investments in the health of Canadians.
In recognition of their professionalism and leadership in health
care, we salute today the registered nurses of Canada. We extend
our gratitude for their continued contributions to the delivery
of safe, quality and cost effective health care for all
Canadians.
* * *
YOUTH
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Baffin Regional Youth Council is visiting the nation's
capital this week. It is a great honour for me as a
representative of Nunavut to be involved in youth issues.
Youth are the future of this country and of our part of Canada,
which will officially be Nunavut on April 1, 1999. Some of the
youth who form the Baffin Regional Youth Council today may very
well be leaders in Nunavut tomorrow. I wish them good cheer and
good luck in their future endeavours.
Next week is Aboriginal Awareness Week in Canada. Although we
have made great strides in awareness of aboriginal issues,
success stories and even problems in the last 10 years, we still
have a lot of work to do in teaching all Canadians about many
other issues related to all aspects of native culture, beliefs,
lifestyles, hopes, aspirations and dreams.
I hope that next week every Canadian will make a special effort
to get to know about aboriginal issues and that the dialogue will
continue for better relations for all concerned.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to quote some words of wisdom from the upper house,
the Canadian Senate:
“An elected Senate would be an ideal one.” Senator Taylor.
“If it all could be worked out I would be in favour of an
elected Senate.” Senator Forest.
“I am not revealing a secret by stating publicly that I am in
favour of an elected Senate.” Senator Gauthier.
“I think that would be the first step towards democratizing
this place and going to the elected Senate, which I have
advocated for years.” Senator Perrault.
“Canadians will not tolerate much longer the status quo. The
status quo means our work and our efforts will become meaningless
and we're better off staying home.” Senator Ghitter.
Even a number of senators want the Senate reformed. When is the
Prime Minister going to realize he is on the wrong side of the
issue and live up to his promises to reform the Senate?
* * *
NATIONAL SPEECH AND HEARING AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May is
National Speech and Hearing Awareness Month.
Our government is committed to building a society where the 10%
of Canadians who suffer from hearing impairment can reach their
goals both personally and professionally.
I am a person who suffers from hearing loss. I have no hearing
in my left ear and only 50% in my right. In spite of this
disability I have been able to build a successful accounting
practice.
As a member of this House I have been able to use the sound
equipment here without much impediment. In fact it has sometimes
been a great advantage to me to turn off my hearing aid which I
might say often adds to the comprehensibility of this place
rather than detracts from it. Of course this is the lighter side
of what for many is a major impediment.
I can say that government through programs at HRDC has made
funding available to allow for training and computerization of
many job functions to allow people with hearing impairments to
have full and productive lives.
I salute the 10% of Canadians who suffer from hearing loss.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR NOTRE-DAME-DE-GRÂCE—LACHINE
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine said that President
Roosevelt was in favour of assimilating French Canadians. On
this basis, the hon. member urged our leader to denounce the
monument in Quebec, which, in her mind, is unfair to Liberal
Prime Minister Mackenzie King.
However, an excerpt of Mackenzie King's personal diary published
in the March 1, 1997, issue of L'Actualité, stated that Hitler
and Mussolini really tried to make various benefits available to
the grassroots and that Hitler could be seen as one of the
saviours of the world.
If we follow the logic of the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, every work perpetuating King's memory
in Canada, including the words written on the monument which is
the cause of such humiliation for the Liberals, should be
denounced.
The Liberals, who are facing embarrassment over the hepatitis C
issue, are stirring up trouble to distract the public from their
lack of compassion. Their pettiness is a disgrace to Quebeckers,
who take pride in their history.
* * *
1410
[English]
CANADIAN PORTS
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I and other
members of the NDP continue to raise concerns about the
disastrous effect of Bill C-9 on Canadian ports.
One of the most damaging sections of Bill C-9 is section 25.
Section 25 bans any federal government from giving any money to
any ports to improve their infrastructure.
How dare the government make decisions for future governments.
By closing the door to federal investment in ports, this
government is on a collision course with Canadians who depend on
ports for their livelihood.
Yesterday NDP MPs lobbied members of the Senate transport
committee before they rubber stamped the minister's bill but some
refused to listen to common sense.
Common sense tells us if we want to remain competitive, we must
look at our competition. The Americans understand the importance
of investing in their ports and that is what they are doing.
New Democrats call on the minister to suspend approval of Bill
C-9 until the disastrous provisions prohibiting federal
investment in Canadian ports are removed.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to
be sure, the content of the report on poverty released yesterday
by the National Council on Welfare is cause for concern.
As a government and a political party, we are firmly committed
to fight the threat of poverty. Indeed, during our most recent
convention, the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada
passed a resolution urging the Canadian government to make every
effort to eliminate poverty as quickly as possible.
But let us not forget that this is a collective responsibility.
All levels of government are directly involved in the process to
improve Canadians' quality of life.
We, as a government and political party and as citizens, must
support any measure aimed at eliminating poverty in Canada.
* * *
[English]
SENIORS
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-36, the budget implementation act, nickels and dimes Canada's
poor seniors.
No one blinked an eye when the budget promised to “improve the
way in which the guaranteed income supplement operates”. This
was until people realized that the finance minister's idea of
improvement is to cut benefits to seniors.
Take for instance the effects Bill C-36 will have on seniors who
are working to earn extra money. These seniors will now be
subject to a stiffer clawback on the benefits they receive. If
the clawback that already exists was not enough, the government
proposes to take up to $250 more from the poorest senior citizens
in Canada.
Some of these senior citizens are working in fast food
restaurants. They were told by this government that they would
get a full meal deal. Instead, this finance minister is giving
them the drive through. It is unfortunate and it is wrong.
The finance minister's improvements nickel and dime Canada's
poorest seniors. That is why I have sent a letter to all members
of the House seeking their support for amendments that I am
proposing to Bill C-36 which will provide for equitable treatment
in Canada.
The Speaker: Colleagues, today we are going to do
something for the first time in our House of Commons.
I have been asked by the House leaders, and there is agreement
in the House, because this is hearing impaired month we are going
to have a statement signed by one of our own members of
parliament.
At the end of it I am told that if you want to give an ovation
you move your hands like this. If you want to give a standing
ovation you do what I am doing and make your hands go like that.
I am going to recognize the hon. member for Longueuil.
* * *
[Translation]
HEARING AWARENESS MONTH
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in sign language as follows:]
Mr. Speaker, May is Hearing Awareness Month. I am taking this
opportunity to salute all my friends who are deaf or hard of
hearing, in the riding of Longueuil and elsewhere in Quebec and
Canada.
Over 10% of the population has a hearing problem. That figure
may be even higher, since people are not always prepared to
recognize that they have a hearing problem.
I am proud to speak LSQ, the Quebec sign language, and I invite
hon. members to do the same.
Let us eliminate the wall of silence.
The Bloc Quebecois salutes its deaf and hard of hearing friends.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow the country's health ministers will meet to
solve the problem of compensating hepatitis C victims. But the
real problem has become the federal health minister.
The minister did not want this meeting. He has fought full
compensation for the victims tooth and nail. He is the one that
said this file was closed.
Today I ask, will the health minister make a personal commitment
to this House to achieving compensation for all hepatitis C victims
at the conference tomorrow?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I know that our objective in attending the meeting tomorrow is to
determine from the health ministers across the country what their
position is on these issues and to find out whether we can reach
a new consensus on how to approach the issue of those who
received hepatitis C through the blood system.
My personal commitment to this House, to the member and to all
members of the parliament, is to spend my time tomorrow trying to
forge with my counterparts a consensus on how to approach this
problem.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the victims and the premiers are asking the minister
and the federal government to commit to a position and we get no
commitment.
To make things worse, the minister's officials are saying that
the health minister will be proposing a two-tier package
tomorrow: two tiers of compensation and two tiers of health care
for two tiers of victims.
Why is this Liberal health minister pitting one group of victims
against another by proposing a two-tier system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, I would caution the Leader of the Opposition against
engaging in speculation. That is something I am not going to do.
Rather, I am going to go to the table and sit with ministers of
health from across Canada. I am going to find out what their
views are. Some have changed their position over the last few
weeks. I am going to find out from them what their approach is.
I will then determine whether it is possible to do what is in
the interests of all ill people in this country, which is to have
an integrated and co-ordinated approach among all levels of
government to the health system to serve those who are ill. That
is our objective.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we know that the health minister does not get along
too well with the backbenchers. No wonder.
The MP from St. Paul's is now saying that any assistance should
be based on pathology rather than chronology. In other words,
she does not want—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, the hon. Leader of the
Opposition has the floor.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, the backbenchers do not
want two tiers of victims based on when someone was infected.
That is precisely the same point that Premier Harris made in his
unanswered letter to the Prime Minister.
I ask the health minister the question that Ontario is bound to
ask him tomorrow. Does he still believe it is fair to treat
someone infected on December 31, 1985 differently than someone
infected on January 1, 1986?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the reasons it is important for us to find out tomorrow
what provincial positions are is that the federal government
cannot resolve this issue by itself. It is the provinces which
deliver the services. The hon. leader knows that.
It is very odd to listen to the leader of the Reform Party
complaining about a two-tier approach to health care when he and
his party are the people who call the Canada Health Act an
outdated piece of legislation and who want to introduce two-tier
medicine in this country.
1420
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, about an
hour ago I talked with Jeremy Beaty of the Hepatitis C Society.
The victims are meeting with the health ministers tomorrow.
Jeremy asked that he not just have a quick little audience and
then be ushered out. He wanted, at the end of their
presentation, to have a dialogue with the health ministers. He
wants to hear what they have to say.
Will our health minister give Jeremy the opportunity to have a
dialogue, an interchange?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I sent Mr. Beaty a copy of my letter to provincial and
territorial ministers urging them to join me in receiving
representatives of the Hepatitis C Society and, indeed, we added
other societies as well who are interested in the subject so we
can hear them.
The member and the House can be assured that as far as we are
concerned those representatives will be accorded the respect that
they are due.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Beaty
will notice that there was not an answer to my question.
They have a second request. Although they will be ushered out
and the ministers will not be able to listen to them all, at the
end of the deliberations they want to come back to hear the
solution. They want to have these health ministers look them in
the eye and tell them what they are going to do for them.
Will Jeremy Beaty and the other victims get a chance to look
these ministers in the eye when they have their solution?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have written to ministers urging them to join us in welcoming
representatives of the Hepatitis C Society and other
associations.
I should say that the member ought not to jump to the conclusion
that there is going to be a resolution tomorrow. Indeed, the
provinces may take a very different position and it may not be
possible to have a consensus tomorrow. We will do the best we
can.
The member should bear in mind that this depends as much on what
the provincial positions are as it does on what the federal
position is.
* * *
[Translation]
NUCLEAR TESTING
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
detonating five nuclear bombs one after the other, India has
challenged international public opinion.
It has also rekindled the already considerable tension with
Pakistan, as well as with China. And all this has taken place
in an area of the globe where the political situation is far
from stable, given the situation that also exists in Indonesia
and Afghanistan in particular.
Will Canada, which until now has been content to have the Prime
Minister announce timid measures against India, review its
position and implement real political and economic sanctions, as
the United States is doing?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have already taken concrete action. We have withdrawn our high
commissioner, suspended all contact with India, and banned all
military exports. We are considering and taking decisions
regarding other measures, following active consultation with our
allies.
We are taking concrete action because we are in complete
disagreement with what India is doing.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
the past, Canada has placed substantial limitations on trade
with certain countries, in order to put pressure on them. I am
thinking of South Africa in particular.
If India persists in defying international public opinion, does
the government plan to take more substantial action against this
country, such as reviewing the work of the Export Development
Corporation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
repeat that we are actively considering additional but sensible
measures. Our approach is to work together with our allies
because, as I said, we are in complete disagreement with India's
nuclear activities.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canada's attitude toward the use of nuclear testing as an
instrument of intimidation in a regional conflict is pretty
weak, considering the important issues raised by the
irresponsible attitude of the Indian government.
Above and beyond the intentions of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs and the Prime Minister to raise the question at the G-8
summit, does Canada intend to show leadership in this conflict
by immediately calling for a meeting of the UN Security Council?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government intends to do something equally important, which is
to discuss the situation with the leaders of the European Union,
as well as with the other G-7 leaders. These are very
significant concrete actions.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
shall see whether the government is interested in very concrete
actions.
1425
Is Canada giving thought to officially opposing India's
candidacy for a seat on the UN Security Council, since that
country is demanding a permanent seat as part of the
institutional reform currently underway at the UN?
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the acting prime
minister has indicated, this matter will be before the G-8
countries. It is at that stage that measures, including
candidacy for seats for the security council, can be discussed.
I might remind the hon. member that the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade of the House has been
engaged in a useful study on nuclear and general disarmament and
we await anxiously the report of that committee.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the matter
of hepatitis C, the meeting of the health ministers has yet to
begin, but the government is already talking about a plan B,
which does not involve compensation, another plan B destined to
fail.
The government must now concentrate on plan A: compensation for
all victims.
Is the federal government prepared to pay out enough to
compensate all victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be meeting my counterparts tomorrow and I hope that all the
health ministers will be at the table. Tomorrow we will
determine whether we can settle the matter with a new consensus.
Today, however, what matters is that we are keeping an open mind
and that we are prepared to work with our partners in Canada's
health care system. I will be bringing this objective to the
table with me tomorrow.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
crafting a fair compensation package demands leadership from the
federal government. Dividing blood injured Canadians into two
classes of victims reflects a failure of leadership.
Victims will not accept two-tier compensation. Canadians will
not accept two-tier compensation.
Will the health minister categorically reject here and now all
plans for two-tier compensation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think it is useful to speculate on the outcome
of tomorrow's meeting.
I also think it is important to bear in mind that the solution
to this issue must come not just from the federal government, but
from all governments, the provincial governments who deliver
health services, the provincial governments who are responsible
for administering health programs in the provinces. To be sure,
under the leadership of the Prime Minister, we have brought them
to the table so far, but the solution must be found in the
provinces as well as in the federal government.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the same
blood system infected people before and after 1986, but the
government's policy toward the victims is to divide and
discriminate.
Now we hear that the minister may offer a two-tier package that
will leave the provinces with the ongoing cost of assisting hep C
victims.
Will the minister do the right thing and go into the meeting
with an open mind? Will he commit to go into the meeting
tomorrow to see how all the victims can be compensated and not
whether all the victims will be treated equally?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will, of course, approach the meeting with an open mind. That
is the way I have approached the subject from the outset.
I also want to tell the hon. member that this is the party that
is responsible for introducing medicare in Canada. This is the
party that believes strongly in one tier of treatment for those
who are ill and no proposal we make or support at any time will
depart from the principle of one tier of treatment for those who
are ill.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, God
bless those who got hep C before 1986 if he went in with an open
mind that way.
By slashing health care transfers by billions of dollars since
1994 the government has jeopardized provincial ability to meet
the health care needs of not just hep C victims, but all
Canadians.
Some provinces have realized that to compensate some victims and
not others is wrong and they are willing to put more money on the
table.
Will the government have the courage to do the same when it goes
into that meeting tomorrow?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what we have managed to do, remarkably, is to make our way
through the economic ruins left by the last government to restore
fiscal balance and at the same time maintain cash transfers to
the provinces at a floor of $12.5 billion a year.
That is a remarkable achievement. We will bring that kind of
skill and commitment to this issue as well.
1430
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the health minister says that this file is closed. It is not and
it will not be closed until we get fair compensation for all
victims.
I remind the minister of his promise to the mother of one such
child in my riding. On March 8 he told Debbie Duncan her son
would be compensated. He said “Hang in there and we'll help you
to take care of your son”.
Did the minister just say this to get her off his back or will
he keep his word tomorrow?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
over the last 10 months we have overcome remarkable provincial
resistance. We have overcome ingrained provincial refusals to
talk about these issues. We finally got them through a series of
several meetings to the point where together we offered
compensation to a group that was infected at a time when those
responsible could have prevented those infections.
We will be sitting down again tomorrow to look at outstanding
issues that have arisen in recent weeks. I can assure the hon.
member we shall bring to the process tomorrow the commitment we
have shown as a government throughout to do the best we can in
these difficult circumstances.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the health minister has to blow his own horn because the
editorialists certainly are not these days.
Jonathon Duncan had 16 blood transfusions between 1983 and 1986.
One transfusion falls in the 1986 to 1990 compensation window
but because of a technicality he is not eligible. So much for
one tiered approaches.
The minister promised his mother that if she hung in there he
would help. Instead the minister has hung Jonathon out to dry.
Will the health minister do the right thing and compensate all
victims, or will he go back on his word once again?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member will find that it is dangerous to use examples for
partisan purposes.
A few weeks ago they were talking about a 15 year old boy. They
were saying that 15 year old boy was excluded from the
compensation offer. When we found out the facts of the case we
discovered that the little boy was covered. I caution the member
to be careful.
Rather than engage in that, I will be at the table tomorrow with
provincial ministers from around the country to see if a new
consensus can be reached on this important issue.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Justice capitulated under pressure
from the Reform Party and from the western provinces and
toughened the Young Offenders Act even further.
If it is true, as she said yesterday in her presentation, that
she borrowed considerably from the Quebec approach, why did she
not manage to convince the West to accept the Young Offenders
Act as it stands, and as Quebec has done successfully?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government response we
tabled yesterday speaks to the balanced and integrated approach I
have often referred to in the House.
Our government response tabled yesterday speaks to the
importance of prevention, speaks to the importance of meaningful
consequences and speaks to the importance of rehabilitation. I
would hope those are all values everyone in the House would
support.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
problem is not the law, but its application, and this is the
opinion of all Quebeckers involved.
Even her predecessor, the minister sitting beside her, said at
the time, and I quote “The government continues to believe the
youth justice system is a valid one and supports it”.
Having heard the opinions of experts and of her predecessor, how
does the minister explain her shift to the right, except as a
means of getting easy votes in western Canada?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reassure the hon. member, as
I have said before, that this response speaks to balance. It
speaks to fundamental values that are shared by all Canadians
regardless of where they live.
Let me inform the hon. member and the House that this morning
the Canadian School Boards Association, l'Association canadienne
des commissions de conseils scolaires, endorsed the government
response in relation to young offenders.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the justice minister had her splashy press conference
about the broken Young Offenders Act.
1435
She did speak a lot but she did not exactly do anything. She
did not change a single section in the law. She did not hire one
more police officer or a single social worker.
Is she soft on crime or just buying time?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say that the
government's response, the government's strategy for the renewal
of the youth justice system, is plain. It does not take the
simplistic uni-dimensional myopic approach of the Reform Party.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I encourage you not to shout out
when answers are being given or when questions are being asked. I
encourage you to do that throughout question period.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if that is her strategy it is a tragedy and nothing more. It has
taken 337 days for the justice minister to come up with a press
conference. After all was said and done, a lot was said but
nothing was done.
For months the justice minister has kept telling us that she
would have her legislation ready in a timely fashion. How many
more days will it take for Canadians to get real legislation to
do something about the Young Offenders Act? Where is the bill?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said often in the House
that we would table our government response to the standing
committee report in a timely fashion.
In fact I tabled that government response yesterday. Yesterday
I made it plain that I would be introducing legislation in the
fall.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
statistics on poverty reveal not only the federal government's
inability to fight poverty effectively but also its contribution
to increasing the number of poor people in Canada.
How does the Minister of Finance explain the fact that, despite
Canada's increased wealth, incomes continue to drop and poverty
continues to rise?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the data cited by the member of
the opposition dates from before 1996, according to Statistics
Canada.
Almost half the jobs created in the economy since this
government's arrival in office date from 1996 and, more
particularly, 1997. This indicates therefore a visible
improvement in the lives of our fellow Canadians.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
addressing the Minister of Finance, because this is of concern
to him.
Since 1988, the cost of living has gone up by 27%, whereas the
Canadian tax system was indexed at only 6.5%.
Is the Minister of Finance aware that bracket creep is one of
the factors increasing middle class family poverty and that he
should index all tax tables as of this year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member kept up with matters he would realize that we
have made targeted reductions to help single parent families,
poor children, parents saving for their children's education and
persons with disabilities.
We have cut taxes by over $7 billion, which will help poor
families and the middle class in Canada.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the justice minister admitted that the Young Offenders
Act was seriously flawed. The act was amended in 1995 by her
seatmate in the House so her comments would appear to be a
reflection on her predecessor and indeed the government.
The minister appears to have a keen grasp of the obvious. I ask
her why after five years in power Canadians still do not have
effective legislation.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday in the
government response that it is indeed time to renew our country's
youth justice system.
I also indicated—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice has the floor.
1440
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I also
indicated yesterday that I would be introducing legislation as
part of our renewal package in the fall.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the minister admitted that her mere promise for change
did not have caucus approval for funding and did not have
provincial support in a cost sharing scheme.
Is it not obvious we still have months or even years to go
before we receive effective legislation?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the
official opposition's obsession seems to be with legislation. We
have not heard one word from them today about the content, about
the proposals, about the balance between prevention and
meaningful consequences and rehabilitation. I find that very
interesting.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while
the meeting with his provincial counterparts on the hepatitis C
issue is scheduled for tomorrow, we are still wondering what the
position of the Minister of Health will be.
The cat may have been let out of the bag this morning, as a
newspaper reported that the Minister of Health will let those
infected before 1986 down yet again.
Will the minister confirm information to the effect that his
government has no intention of extending its compensation
package to hepatitis C victims infected before 1986 and after
1991?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
said repeatedly that the purpose of tomorrow's meeting is to
determine whether a new consensus can be achieved. I hope that
all health ministers will be at the table. We shall see
tomorrow.
* * *
[English]
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Recently the environment committee heard that district energy
could help solve the problem of Canada's greenhouse gas
emissions.
What is the minister doing to encourage district energy
projects? Is he prepared to act upon a major study of the
potential for district energy in the national capital region
which was completed last year?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very interested in the potential of district
energy systems and have in fact been instrumental in the founding
of the District Energy Association of Canada.
We have worked on such projects as the Oujé-Bougoumou project in
an aboriginal community in northern Quebec. I personally think
the prospects with respect to other projects, including in the
national capital region, are promising. It is one of the
solutions we intend to pursue with respect to climate change.
* * *
NUCLEAR TESTING
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, India's
nuclear testing is symptomatic of a bigger problem. The problem
is the increasing tensions between China, India and Pakistan.
Instead of attacking the symptoms, the government should get to
the root of the problem.
Is the government prepared to get to the root of the problem?
Will Canada press for an Asian security agreement? Will it push
to get these countries to sign a non-proliferation treaty? Will
it get these countries to stop testing nuclear weapons?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada believes that all nuclear countries should be
members of the non-proliferation agreement. It has been pushing
for this type of action. It will continue to do so and it will
act vigorously in concert with its allies on this important
issue.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as usual,
we got a non-answer, sort of a liberal answer.
Canada has a special obligation and that obligation is because
we have supplied so much of this nuclear technology to these
countries.
Is the minister prepared for the government to show some
leadership and get an Asian security agreement, get them to sign
this non-proliferation treaty and get them to stop testing?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a clear policy
of not exporting Candu reactors to any country that has not
signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or the comprehensive
test ban treaty.
We do find it passing strange, though, that the member's party
opposite opposed in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade an Asian regional security study launched by
the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question as well is for the Deputy Prime Minister on
India's nuclear weapons test.
Canada's response so far has been pathetically weak, falling far
short of the tough sanctions proposed both by the U.S.A. and by
Japan.
1445
Why is the Liberal government not moving now, not after the G-8,
to impose tough sanctions on India, urge it to sign the
comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and send a strong signal to
Pakistan that it should not follow India's dangerous lead in this
mad nuclear arms race?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been our constant
policy with the Indian government and others in the region to
urge them to sign the non-proliferation treaty and the
comprehensive test ban treaty.
I could add to what the acting prime minister has said, that we
have cancelled talks in Delhi for May 22 on CIDA aid to India. We
have cancelled in Delhi for May 22 trade policy bilateral talks.
We have cancelled a pending joint ministerial committee. We are
doing all this in conjunction with any action within G-8.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime
Minister.
Cancelling talks is one thing, tough sanctions are what
Canadians are demanding of this Liberal government. Canada's own
credibility on nuclear disarmament is weakened by our support of
NATO's policy allowing the first use of nuclear weapons.
Will Canada now speak out against NATO's first use policy and
call on nuclear weapon states to commit now to timetables and
conditions to rid the world once and for all of all nuclear
arsenals?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have already said
that our policy is to get people to sign the non-proliferation
treaty and the comprehensive test ban treaty.
We have had before the standing committee on foreign affairs a
project for the study of nuclear and general disarmament in light
of the world court's recent ruling. Give us a strong report and
we can act on it. You are a member of the committee.
The Speaker: I encourage hon. members to please
address the Chair at all times.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
find it very ironic that the leader of the Reform Party speaks
against the two tier health care system in the policy that his
party subscribes to. However, I find it equally ironic that the
Minister of Health is subscribing to Reform policy right now.
The new compensation package that is going to be put forward
tomorrow speaks to enhanced medical services for those people who
were infected with hepatitis C prior to 1986.
Can the Minister of Health please tell me why he is putting the
universal health care system in jeopardy with a two tier health
care system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I caution the member not to engage in speculation about what
might happen tomorrow. He can be assured that neither I nor any
member of this government would ever propose any approach that
departs from the principle we think is important, that all people
who are ill in this country should have single tier health care
to look after them.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the Minister of Health could put this speculation to
rest. Perhaps he can tell this House what he is going to enter
those negotiations with. What is he going to offer the hepatitis
C victims before 1986 and post-1991?
Could the Minister of Health please tell us what he is prepared
to put on the table, in fact what the Minister of Finance has
allowed him to put on the table?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should know that the provincial governments actually
provide health services. They are the ones that run the health
systems in the provinces. Any solution must involve and include
the provincial governments, which is the reason we brought them
together to one table over several sessions to make the progress
we have.
My objective in sitting with health ministers from across Canada
tomorrow is to forge, if we can, a consensus approach to the
remaining issues. That may not be possible. It may take more
than tomorrow to get there if we can get there at all. However,
that is my objective and it is to that process that I am
committed.
* * *
[Translation]
SUDAN
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
recent days, Canadians having been watching on television
troubling images of the Sudanese people threatened by a famine
brought upon by drought and civilian unrest.
My question is for the Minister responsible for International
Cooperation and for Francophonie. What is Canada doing to help
the people of Sudan?
1450
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada has been providing assistance to Sudan for years. Through
UNICEF, Médecins sans frontières and other organizations, Canada
has contributed approximately $5.7 million since February. This
assistance is designed to provide food, tools, seeds and
emergency relief to the most vulnerable victims.
In spite of tremendous obstacles, Canada will continue to do its
part.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
preceding has been a paid political announcement.
We know from Statistics Canada that family incomes have fallen
in the last few years in a way we have not seen since the
Great Depression. We also know that federal revenues are way up
in a way we have never seen.
When is the finance minister going to bring in sweeping tax
relief, not the puny tax cuts he brought in with the budget?
When it comes to tax cuts, size really does matter.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the numbers cited by the hon. member demonstrate is
that when this party was in opposition the recession from 1989 to
1993 was one of the deepest and most severe this country has ever
gone through. As a result, when we took office we vowed to put
in place policies that would reverse that trend.
I am glad to say that in 1995-1996 that trend was reversed.
Canada is now on the road to prosperity and Census Canada and
Statistics Canada have said that.
* * *
[Translation]
SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE-DE-ROUVILLE HYDRO CO-OP
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the President of the Treasury Board.
Quebec's only hydro co-op, in Saint-Jean-Baptiste-de-Rouville, could
go bankrupt if nothing is done to help it recover from the
recent ice storm. The situation is as follows: there are 5,200
subscribers in a rural area spread over four federal ridings,
the damage caused to the power grid totalled $10 million, and
profits are minimal.
Will the government quickly answer the call for help from the
hydro co-op in Saint-Jean-Baptiste-de-Rouville?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for raising the issue of the ice storm. The federal
government is participating in a program to compensate the
province for the costs it incurred as a result of the damage.
The same was done for Manitoba and the Saguenay region.
Of course, the province has primary responsibility for any
damage caused by natural disasters, while the role of the
federal government is to help the province support the costs
involved. This is what we did by paying 90% of the costs in the
Saguenay region and probably also in this case, and we will
continue to do so.
* * *
[English]
JOB CREATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the finance minister.
The minister's rosy portrait of the economy ignores the glaring
condemnation of the council of welfare and now Statistic Canada,
two of our most respected organizations. It is a tragedy that
there are 1.2 million more Canadians living in poverty than in
1990. Hungry people do not need empty speeches. They need jobs
to fill empty stomachs.
When will the minister stop taking credit for jobs that are
substandard or do not exist and initiate a job creation program
that works?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. Canadian people do
not need the kind of empty rhetoric we have heard coming from the
NDP.
In the most recent budget this government brought in the most
comprehensive set of measures possible providing access to
education. What the census numbers demonstrated was there were
jobs lost where people did not have education and there were jobs
created where they did. That is why I ask the hon. member to ask
her leader why, the day after the budget, on Canada AM she
said education does not create jobs. She is wrong.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
seven years ago James Mills was murdered while in Renous prison.
The Mills family has never received a full report on the death
and no charges have been laid even though seven years have
passed.
1455
After I raised the issue in the House six months ago RCMP and
corrections officials promised the Mills family that charges
would be laid by December 20, 1997. That promise has not been
kept. No charges have been laid.
Will the solicitor general honour that promise today and finally
give the Mills family a little peace of mind by pressing charges
as promised?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, surely the hon. member does not believe that in the
House of Commons today I can announce that we are pressing
charges. That is not how the criminal justice system works in
this country.
He did bring it to my attention. I made arrangements for him to
meet with corrections officials and at the end of the day if
charges are laid it will be done by the justice system in the
province of New Brunswick.
* * *
WORKFORCE
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of
Women. The recent census has shown that women are now occupying
22% of the top well paying jobs in Canada. Between 1990 and 1995
the number of men in these occupations dropped by 5% while the
number of women increased 26%. Does this mean that we are
finally closing the gender gap in the paid workforce?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the census did show that women
are making small gains in the highest paying jobs in this
country. But it also showed that women are still stuck in the
lowest paying jobs in terms of clerical, retail and nanny jobs.
That is why the 1998 budget looked to the issue of increasing
access for women to education and training.
The millennium scholarship will help, plus $3,000 a year for low
income persons with dependants, as well as increasing tax credits
and deductions for persons who are attending part time university
and training to be able to access this. This means women and so
I think we are on the right track.
* * *
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in spite of the U.S. control of the NHL, our Canadian teams are
doing us proud. But when we asked what this government was
prepared to do in order to bring protection under NAFTA, it said
it could not be done.
An international trade lawyer in committee yesterday said that
it could be done. Why will the government not give us the tools
to get the job done the same way that our players are getting the
job done for our proud cities?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am most impressed
with the Preston come lately approach of the Reform Party. It
has taken quite a while for the Reform Party to realize that this
is a genuine concern of Canadian people.
We welcome all the submissions to the committee being chaired by
the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood who is doing a noble
job. We will continue to examine each and every one of them and
we await his report.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the smooth talk of the Minister of
Human Resources Development, the government seems determined to
bulldoze ahead and impose its millennium scholarships program.
What is the minister's reaction to the comment last week by his
former boss, Claude Ryan, who said, and I quote “This is a case
where there could be no doubt that Quebec's jurisdiction takes
priority. Quebec should therefore be permitted to exercise its
right to opt out, with full financial compensation”? What does
he say to that?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that we want
to work with the Government of Quebec. That is why we are now in
the process of conducting negotiations.
We are not negotiating in public, as members opposite have
regrettably begun to do.
As soon as the Quebec Liberal Party introduced a resolution in
the National Assembly, it was rejected out of hand by the
Bouchard government, which did not even want to look at the
promising initiative undertaken by the Quebec Liberal Party
through Mr. Gautrin's resolution.
* * *
1500
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of Health said he
shares my concern about any unlicensed or unsafe blood product
on the market.
I know he has been preoccupied with the preparations for
tomorrow's meeting. I certainly hope he has been busy convincing
the Minister of Finance that he needs more money for compensation
for all hepatitis C victims. But any possibility of unsafe blood
products on the market today demands urgent attention.
What has the minister done since these incidents were brought to
his attention on Monday?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have conferred with officials. I have made sure they went over
the questions asked by the member yesterday and the day before.
In fact, my staff has seen a draft response which will be worked
on further.
I would be happy to arrange a briefing between the member and
the appropriate officials if she would like to have that done
because the matters she raises are important. I assure her we
will deal with them on that basis.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to protest in the
strongest terms the actions of the chair of the justice committee
yesterday to bring a report before the House this afternoon.
The committee adopted this report with only one opposition
member present and no notice was given of the intention to
proceed in this manner at yesterday's meeting. The chair and the
Liberal members at the committee knew full well that the
opposition members were intending to attend the briefing that was
called by the Minister of Justice.
Members of the Liberal caucus were given an advanced briefing of
the same material at 1 o'clock yesterday, while the opposition
members were not provided the same information until 3 o'clock.
This activity, I suggest, created a planned conflict for the
justice committee.
The agenda of the justice committee could have been adjusted and
the Liberals' intention, therefore, to adopt the report with a
full committee would have been much more advisable.
1505
The Minister of Justice certainly should have been and I suggest
would have been aware of this conflict and resulting fiasco for
the opposition. The contempt that she showed for the House of
Commons by failing to make her policy statement here in the House
as a ministerial statement rather than a statement to the press
is an attempt to manipulate this House.
I would suggest that a warning to the minister, the
parliamentary secretary and the chair of the justice committee is
in order. All of those individuals have to depend on the
goodwill of the House, including the opposition and the second
House of Parliament, if there is to be a successful disposition
of legislation.
I urge the government to use this coming week to reflect on this
point and I serve warning that the insults shown to the
opposition and the amateur attempts to manipulate the House will
result in the undermining of the government House leader, which
might lead to unforeseen consequences for future good workings in
this parliament.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I agree with my colleague's comments. We had a short discussion
regarding this with the House leaders yesterday and I think it is
appropriate in this House that we start acknowledging and
respecting our colleagues.
I believe that when these ministers have points to make or
reports to table they should be tabled in this House prior to
them going out and worrying about their media friends. They
should be here giving every consideration to their colleagues and
tabling reports prior to media events or any other such events
because these kinds of issues are important to all of us.
The Speaker: My colleagues, indeed, these types of points
have been raised before.
The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough mentions
something that took place in the committee and I firmly believe
that he does have a grievance. However, I think that particular
point should be settled in the committee.
With regard to other statements being made, the House does not
have any rules governing this particular way of disseminating
information. However, I would encourage ministers and, indeed,
all members when they bring reports, if it is at all possible,
that we, the collective parliamentarians of Canada, should have
access to these documents as quickly as possible. I understand
that sometimes that cannot be done when the House is not sitting.
I understand that. But where it is possible I would urge
ministers to consider doing just such a thing in the future.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
[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 33rd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection
of votable items, in accordance with Standing Order 92.
This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
* * *
CANADA WATER EXPORT PROHIBITION ACT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-404, an act to prohibit the export of water by
interbasin transfers.
1510
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is very timely in that we have
heard that a entrepreneur in Ontario wishes to export water from
the Great Lakes to Asia. This bill would prohibit the export of
water by interbasin transfer specifically. It points out that
water is one of Canada's most valuable natural resources and that
Canada is committed to preserving water resources within its
boundaries for future generations. Basically, this bill would
prohibit anyone from exporting water using interbasin transfers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today. The first comes from a
number of Canadians, including those in my riding of Mississauga
South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also agree with the National Forum on
Health which suggests that the Income Tax Act discriminates
against families who choose to provide care in the home to
preschool children.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home to preschool children.
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is also from my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the Food
and Drugs Act is designed to protect Canadians from potentially
harmful effects related to food and drug consumption; that the
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems; and
specifically, that fetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol related
birth defects are 100% preventable by avoiding alcohol
consumption during pregnancy. The petitioners therefore call
upon parliament to require health warning labels to be placed on
the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant
mothers and others of the risks of alcohol consumption.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, due to the negligence of this government
in dialoguing with Canadians on the MAI, I have two petitions to
present to this House.
The petitioners are requesting that parliament impose a
moratorium on Canadian participation in the MAI negotiations
until a full public debate on the proposed treaty has taken place
across the country so that all Canadians may have an opportunity
to express their opinions and decide on the advisability of
proceeding with the MAI.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege for me to present a petition today on behalf of 29,500
people from all provinces and territories in Canada.
The petitioners point out that in Canada individuals convicted
of causing pain and injury to animals face a maximum penalty of
six months in jail, a two year prohibition from having custody or
control of an animal and/or a maximum fine of $2,000, but they
are not ever aware of this penalty being imposed at its maximum.
They point out that a number of states in the United States have
now made cruelty to animals a felony offence and punishment
varies from one year in jail to up to 10 years of hard labour
with fines going as high as $100,000.
They point out a number of horrid situations that have occurred
in our country regarding cruelty to animals. They are asking the
Government of Canada to impose harsher penalties for serious
offences against animals and to establish an educational program
for judges to help them understand society's abhorrence and
condemnation of acts of cruelty to animals.
I present this petition with a great deal of pride.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition
containing approximately 3,200 names of people from right across
the country indicating the petitioners' abhorrence of cruelty
against animals.
1515
They are asking for the enforcement of harsher penalties for
serious offences against animals and the establishment of an
education program for judges to help them understand society's
abhorrence and condemnation of acts of cruelty to animals.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to present on behalf of 113 constituents in my
riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan a very timely petition considering
the events that have occurred in the House.
They ask that the Parliament of Canada significantly amend the
Young Offenders Act, not tinker with it but truly amend it, to
publish the names of violent young offenders and to increase the
maximum three year sentence for all offences except murder to
seven years.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to present a petition signed by hundreds of people from
across the country who are concerned about the proliferation of
nuclear weapons.
The petition is calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. In
particular they are asking that parliament support the immediate
initiative and the conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention which will set out a binding timetable
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons. I table this petition
today on their behalf.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I am presenting a petition on behalf of the family
of Jeff Giles and all of the people of Manitoba. This petition
arose out of the senseless murder of a wonderful young man during
an armed robbery in Winnipeg.
The petition, signed by over 11,000 Manitobans, cries out for
parliament to change the Bail Reform Act, to lengthen mandatory
sentences and to do everything possible to return a sense of
safety to our communities.
[Translation]
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to present a petition signed by some 3,200 people concerned
about cruelty to animals.
These people want the government to impose greater penalties and
to set up information programs for judges so they will
understand exactly what the problem of cruelty to animals
entails.
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions to present.
I have 1,800 signatures on the brutal murder of Jeff Giles. The
petitioners pray that government will amend the Criminal Code so
that violent crimes result in stiff sentences and that those
guilty of violent crime are not eligible for parole or
conditional release of any kind.
THE SENATE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in another petition the petitioners pray that parliament
fill future vacancies in the Senate through elections.
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition deals with the Canadian Wheat Board delivering
its grain shipments to the port that offers the most advantageous
cost to producers and the requirement for conveyers to guarantee
seamless car interchange between all railways and short lines.
I support all three petitions.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member was doing so well
with his presentations. They were short and succinct. Then he
broke the rules by saying whether he agreed or disagreed. I know
he will not want to do that again.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased you are very diligent; we all appreciate that.
I also want to present a petition about cruelty to animals that
was signed by hundreds of people across the country. It
specifically refers to an incident that took place in
Saskatchewan, another one in Alberta and another one in Gatineau,
Quebec.
The petitioners call for tougher rules and regulations in the
country so that when people commit an offence that is cruel to
animals they have to actually pay for it.
I am very proud to present the petition on behalf of hundreds of
Canadians all across the country.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from numerous citizens in the city and county of
Peterborough who are concerned about hardship in the wake of the
gulf war.
They point out that the sanctions have not personally hurt
Saddam Hussein. They also point out that UN Secretary General
Kofi Annand has negotiated an acceptable peace accord which also
includes an oil for food agreement.
The petitioners call upon parliament to reject any military
action against Iraq, to immediately withdraw Canadian forces from
the gulf and to call for an end to the embargo against
necessities of life for the Iraqi people.
1520
Further, in the interests of gaining the support of the Iraqi
people and relieving their terrible suffering, they ask the
Government of Canada, following the lead of the United Kingdom,
to join in a massive effort to provide medicine and food for sick
and starving Iraqi people.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 55 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. John Reynolds:
With respect to the selection of the “Van Doos”, as the honour
guard at the recent APEC Conference held in Vancouver November
23 to November 26, 1997: (a) why was the originally selected
honour guard the Seaforth Highlanders rejected and replaced by
the “Van Doos” (b) how many individuals including the actual
honour guard were included in the “Van Doos” entourage; (c)
what was the total cost of airfare for transporting the “Van
Doos” and their entourage to and from Vancouver; (d) what was
the total cost of accommodation for the “Van Doos” and their
entourage; (e) where did the actual “Van Doo” regiment stay in
Vancouver and where did the entourage stay and for how long; (f)
what was the total cost for food and other expenses for the “Van
Doos” and their entourage; (g) what was the average working
day, in hours, for the “Van Doo” regiment members and the
remainder of the entourage?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by the
Departments of Foreign Affairs and National Defence as follows:
(a) The Royal 22nd Regiment was selected as the arrival guard
for international delegates at APEC 97 because of their
ceremonial dress of red tunics and bearskin hats, most
recognizable worldwide from their role on Parliament Hill.
This representation should not eclipse the participation of the
B.C. regiment of the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, who should
be recognized for their substantial contribution to APEC 97.
Regimental pipers played a ceremonial role at the Prime
Minister's cultural performance and dinner; as well Seaforth
Highlanders coordinated the APEC 97 tranportation effort.
Canada proudly hosted APEC 97 in Vancouver and both regiments
admirably represented our country.
(b) Fifty-seven.
(c) $45,706.25
(d) $22,520.13
(e) The group stayed at the Travel Lodge Hotel for seven
nights, from November 18 to 24, 1997. A two-person
reconnaissance group arrived three days earlier and stayed from
November 15 to 24, 1997.
(f) $23,964.14
(g) The group worked six days and averaged eight hours per
day. During the last three days, the guard was on standby from
0530 hours to 0030 hours daily. The reconnaissance group worked
an additional two days at eight hours per day average.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I have asked the parliamentary secretary many times this week and
last week about Question No. 21. We have been waiting for an
answer since October 3, 1997.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House right now
whether this question will be answered before the House breaks
for the summer?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. He
has asked me about this question each day and each day I have
looked into the situation regarding the response to Question No.
21.
I think the member will have noticed that we have been cutting
through the backlog. I have high hopes that Question No. 21 will
be answered soon.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that is a hope shared by
all hon. members. Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order concerning my Notice of Motion for the
Production of Papers No. P-8 which deals with a $2 billion
contract awarded to Bombardier.
Motion No. P-8 has been on the order paper for half a year. I
have raised previous points of order on the matter on February
18, March 25 and April 24.
I demand to know from the parliamentary secretary on which
specific date I can expect a response. Could he tell the House
what is so secretive about the government doling out taxpayers'
dollars to Bombardier? After all, the Liberals do it all the
time.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I note the question about
Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-8. I will
certainly look into that matter.
As the member knows, some of these matters take longer than
others. Again I have the highest hopes that he will have a
response soon.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the Notices of Motions for the
Production of Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-36, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament
on February 24, 1998, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member could await the
Chair's ruling on the admissibility of motions.
I think I understand what he wants to do and that is quite
acceptable, but first I would like to render my decision. Is it
agreed?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Agreed.
[English]
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are 107 motions in
amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of
Bill C-36.
[Translation]
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1 to 67.
[English]
Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 68 to 76.
[Translation]
Group No. 3: Motion No. 77.
[English]
Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 78 to 81.
Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 82 and 83.
Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 84 to 87.
[Translation]
Group No. 7: Motions Nos. 88 to 93.
[English]
Group No. 8, Motions Nos. 94 to 96.
Group No. 9, Motions Nos. 97 to 107.
1525
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 67 to the House.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I would like to withdraw Motion No. 77.
The Deputy Speaker: Consequently, Motion No. 77 in Group No. 3 is
withdrawn.
(Motion No. 77 withdrawn)
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): moved:
The Deputy Speaker: Is it necessary to read each of the 66
motions to the House at this point? Perhaps the House would
give its consent to have this entire group deemed to have been
put to the House.
[English]
Can I dispense with reading the other 66 motions?
An hon. member: We want to test your reading skills.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member wants to hear the
other 66 motions, I would be happy to read them out, but I have a
feeling members might get bored.
Is it agreed that Motions Nos. 2 to 67 have been moved and
seconded and are now before the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 16 to
24 on page 1 with the following:
““eligible institution” means
(a) a public post-secondary educational institution in Canada
that grants degrees, certificates or diplomas; or
(b) a private post-secondary educational institution in Canada
that grants degrees, certificates or diplomas in respect of a
program of studies that has been designated by a law of the
province in which the institution is located, as a program whose
students are eligible to receive a scholarship granted by the
government of that province.”
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing line 19 on page 1 with the following:
“certificates or diplomas and that is a specified educational
institution within the meaning of section 2 of the Canada Student
Loans Act,”
(b) by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 1 with the following:
“certificates or diplomas and that is a specified educational
institution within the meaning of section 2 of the Canada Student
Loans Act,”
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 10 on
page 3 with the following:
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 6 and
7 on page 5 with the following:
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 7 on
page 5 with the following:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 17
on page 5 the following:
“(2.1) The Board shall consist of at least one person
representing public post- secondary educational institutions and
at least one person representing private post-secondary
educational institutions.”
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 36
to 39 on page 7 with the following:
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 32
on page 8 the following:
“(4.1) The Foundation shall have at least one member
representing public post- secondary educational institutions and
at least one member representing private post-secondary
educational institutions.”
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 16 on
page 16 with the following:
“appropriate but no scholarship may be granted unless a person
who meets the requirements mentioned in paragraphs 27(1)(a) to
(d), or a person described in subsection 27(2), makes an
application to the Foundation for a scholarship.
34.1 (1) Where the Foundation does not grant a scholarship to an
applicant referred to in section 34 who meets the requirements
mentioned in paragraphs 27(1)(a) to (d) or who is a person
described in subsection 27(2), the applicant may appeal the
Foundation's decision in accordance with the appeal process
established by regulations made under subsection (2).
(2) The Minister of Finance shall, not later than 90 days after
the coming into force of this section, make regulations
establishing an appeal process for the purposes fo subsection
(1). The regulations shall come into force on or before the
expiry of those 90 days.”
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 36, be amended
“year and next year;”
(b) by adding after line 13 on page 17 the following:
“(e) the names of the five highest paid employees and officers
of the Foundation appointed under section 16 and the salary paid
by the Foundation to each of these persons;
(f) a summary of all individuals, and businesses that benefitted
from contracts for professional services with the Foundation
totalling more than $100,000;
(g) any written statement referred to in subsection 168(7) of
the Canada Business Corporations Act that has been requested and
received by a person described in that subsection, from an
auditor described in that subsection;
(h) an executive summary of the findings of any internal audit
that has been carried out at the request of the Board; and
(i) such other information as may, by regulation, be prescribed
by the Minister of Finance.”
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 36, be amended
(a) by replacing line 11 on page 17 with the following:
“year and the next year;
(b) by replacing line 13 on page 17 with the following:
“the granting of scholarships during the year; and
(e) the number of students that were granted scholarships in the
year, the name and location by province, of the eligible
institutions in which each of those students were enrolled and
the program of studies they were pursuing.”
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 14
to 17 on page 17 with the following:
“37. Every five years after the coming into force of this Act,
the Foundation shall cause a review and report to be made by a
person who is independent of the Foundation of its activities and
organization.”
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 18
to 25 on page 17 with the following:
“38. Not later than six months after the end of each fiscal
year, in the case of a report referred to in section 36, and not
later than six months after the report referred to in section 37
has been made, the reports shall be made public and a copy of
them shall be sent to the Ministers and to the provincial
ministers. The Minister of Human”
That Bill C-36, in Clause 38, be amended by adding after line 30
on page 17 the following:
“(3) The reports said before each House of Parliament under
subsection (2) stand permanently referred to the standing
committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters
relating to human resources development and the standing
committee of the Senate that normally considers social affairs.”
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 38, be amended by adding after line 30
on page 17 the following:
“(3) A report under section 36 that is laid before each House
of Parliament under subsection (2) stands permanently referred to
such committee of the House of Commons as is established or
designated to review matters related to human resources and
education.
(4) A report under section 37 that is laid before each House of
Parliament under subsection (2) shall be referred to such
committee of the House of Commons as is established or designated
to review matters related to human resources and education.”
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 1 to
5 on page 18 with the following:
“40. (1) On the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, the
Governor in Council shall appoint an auditor for the Foundation
for the fiscal year, and the members shall fix, or authorize the
Board to fix, the auditor's remuneration.”
That Bill C-36, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 24
on page 18 the following:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 29
to 31 on page 18 with the following:
“(4) On the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, the
Governor in Council may remove an auditor from office.”
That Bill C-36, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 38
to 44 on page 18 with the following:
“(6) On the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, the
Governor in Council shall appoint an auditor to fill any vacancy
in the office of the auditor.”
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing lines 6 to
10 on page 20 with the following:
“46. (1) Subject to subsection (2), from and out of the
Consolidated Revenue Fund there may, on the requisition of the
Minister of Finance, be paid and applied for payment to the
Foundation the sum of two billion five hundred million dollars.
(2) The sum referred to in subsection (1) shall not be paid to
the Foundation in respect of a fiscal year that ended before the
date of the coming into force of this Part.”
That Bill C-36 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 20 the
following new clause:
“46.1 The Access to Information Act applies to the Foundation
as if it were a federal institution.”
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-36 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 20 the
following new clause:
“46.1(1) Where the Foundation enters into an agreement with the
provincial minister of a province whereby
(a) the Foundation shall not carry out its objects and purposes
in the province;
(b) the Foundation promises to pay to the government of the
province the amount that the Foundation would otherwise have
spent in the province in carrying out its objects and purposes;
and
(c) the provincial minister promises to use the amount referred
to in paragraph (b) to address the particular needs of the
province in terms of post-secondary education the Foundation
shall cease to carry out its objects and purposes in the
province.
(2) Within ten days after the signing of an agreement referred
to in subsection (1), the Foundation shall pay to the government
of the province the amount specified in the agreement.”
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, as a member of
the finance committee responsible for reviewing Bill C-36 as it
relates to the millennium fund, I am very pleased to take the
floor today.
In my opinion, the millennium scholarships are as important as
manpower training. It would have been a symbolic gesture on the
part of the government to comply with the consensus that has
been expressed in Quebec, concerning the possibility of opting
out, with full compensation.
I believe that the millennium scholarships are a test of the
flexibility of federalism. This is the kind of attitude we are
up against. We saw 34 groups, 41% of which came from Quebec.
All Quebec groups were in favour of opting out with full
compensation.
Once again, this is a demonstration of the government's bad
faith.
Had it wanted to show good faith in this matter, it would have
amended the Canada Student Loans Act. All that would have
required, as we know, was to add these scholarships on to it,
and then opting out with full compensation would have been
possible.
First, I would point out the bad faith of the government, and
then there is another point to be made as well. They could have
given the current negotiations a chance without rushing to pass
a bill which, as we know, does not give the power to the
foundation and does not allow a province to opt out with full
compensation.
Why do we want to do so? Clearly, as the Prime Minister himself
has said, he needs visibility. He is therefore creating a bill
that does not allow opting out with full compensation.
The board will not have the power to delegate to the provinces.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois will speak today on this Bill
C-36, which we oppose because the millennium scholarships do not
reflect the reality of Quebec.
Had it not been for pressure from the Government in Quebec and
the coalition for Quebec's withdrawal with full compensation, we
would never have had the opportunity to speak for Quebec. Forty
one percent of those who testified through their various
organizations, or 1.2 million people, have been heard by the
committee, including 89,000 small businessmen and women.
1530
We know that the business community, Quebec's Conseil du
patronat and Chamber of Commerce as well as manufacturers and
exporters from both Quebec and Canada came before the committee
to ask that Quebec be allowed to manage education and to opt out
with full compensation, so that funds can be allocated based on
the needs and realities of Quebec.
I am very disappointed. I sat on this committee with a great
deal of good faith. I was able to see once again how little
attention is paid to Quebec's demands, consensus and reality.
These were ignored since the government members, after having
heard all the witnesses, do not have a single amendment to
propose in this place.
I am disappointed as a member of the committee who took part in
the proceedings in an honest and open fashion.
I can say that all witnesses from Quebec were once again
unanimous. I did warn the committee that the people will judge
their performance. It shows just how inflexible this federal
system is. In fact, John Trent, a university professor and a
federalist, told us that this was poor federalism and that, once
again, Quebec's demands were being ignored. This is not a
sovereignist speaking, but a federalist who testified before the
committee.
This is all very disappointing. Many students' associations
outside Quebec came to tell us to listen to Quebec. They
believed Quebec's demands should be listened to for once.
I attended almost every discussion and meeting with the various
representatives, associations and witnesses, and I can tell you
that several witnesses noticed the government's bad faith in
this matter.
The consensus in Quebec includes the education sector and the
unions, but polls have also been conducted. According to one
public opinion poll, 71% of respondents preferred an increase in
the Canada social transfer. They felt that it had been extremely
difficult to go through the period of restraint created by the
cuts and that the surpluses might not be properly managed.
Considering the $2.5 billion to be allocated to a private
foundation which, as we know, will have a rather broad mandate,
I do not think we can expect a great deal of transparency from
that foundation. So I am very disappointed.
I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to postpone
consideration of the bill until we have seen the results of the
negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa. Why not do that?
I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to seek the consent of the House
to postpone the study of this bill. I think the government is
acting in bad faith.
The Deputy Speaker: Could the hon. member clarify the reason why
she is requesting the unanimous consent of the House? Is it to
refer the bill to committee?
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, we are now looking at the
bill. I am asking that this review be postponed.
When one wants to negotiate, one does not rush things. I worked
in the real estate sector for seven years. I know what
negotiating means. One does not sign a contract until both
parties have agreed to it.
1535
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can clarify the situation. It is
the government that determines the order of the items to be
considered during Government Orders. So, we cannot change
things, but the hon. member may want to ask the House for
permission to adjourn the debate on this bill.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to adjourn the
debate on this bill?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the
answer. We see that our colleagues across the way, who were not
on the committee, have not heard everything that people wanted.
Most of those who appeared before us wondered what the point was
of trying to agree on a bill now.
I am therefore disappointed. The government holds a vote on a
motion on distinct society and what does that really mean? We
have always said that we will achieve absolutely nothing by
holding a vote on the motion. In the end, the government is
making grand promises and telling us how very deeply they care
about distinct or unique society, call it what you will.
But this means that it is passing wall-to-wall legislation that
does not reflect the real situation, specific to Quebec. This
bill shows, once again, the government's inflexibility. It was
a test the government could have passed, but one that it is
going to fail.
The people of Quebec, and students in particular, who know what
is going on and are not stupid, know that the real reason for
this bill is to increase the government's visibility, to the
detriment of what happens in the education sector with student
funding.
Students would have liked there to be a better form of
management of the funding than by a private foundation. This
concern is shared by almost all the witnesses that appeared
before us. The auditor general challenged the transparency of
this foundation that will be managing $2.5 billion. I think
this money should have gone back into the social transfer to the
provinces for education, health and welfare.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to
acknowledge my friends in the Reform Party for giving me the
privilege to speak at this point in the discussion and my friends
in the Liberal Party as well. I should also refer to my friends
in the Conservative Party who have agreed to allow me to make a
couple of points.
I might have some different views than my colleagues from
Quebec, but we have concerns about the millennium fund. I first
of all want to acknowledge that in terms of the government
providing some recognition of the serious problem of student debt
relief I think is a step in the right direction although a very
limited step.
We have to acknowledge that the average student debt load now
for Canadian students is at $25,000 and is growing year after
year. Obviously some dramatic measures must be taken.
When it comes to the millennium scholarship fund we have to
acknowledge that this is going to help perhaps somewhere between
8% and 9% of students requiring financial assistance. We still
have a huge group of young people, and perhaps not so young
people, who need financial help and this millennium scholarship
will not be of much help.
We also want to acknowledge that we are concerned that students
who are able to access this fund do so on the basis of need. We
take the position in the New Democratic Party that if a person
seeking post-secondary education is accepted by an institution,
that demonstrates merit. They have qualified for their program;
they have qualified for entrance to a university or college or an
institute of one kind or another. After that it should be based
on need to ensure that no Canadian is kept from pursuing
post-secondary education because of a financial barrier. That is
one point.
Another point is we are concerned that the scholarships be
allocated on a reasonable basis. By that I would suggest that if
a population of a province is for example 12% as in British
Columbia, then British Columbia could expect to receive 12% of
the scholarships operating in that fund.
It would not go to one area of the country over another area,
which unfortunately is the tradition in so many of these federal
government programs. Certain people in certain areas of Canada
receive an overwhelming benefit, often at the expense of other
regions of Canada.
1540
While this fund is limited to certain kinds of institutions,
there are other institutions and other ways of training and
learning that should be considered. I think for example of
apprenticeship programs. We are woefully lacking properly
trained apprentices in a number of areas. They should have
access to this program.
We should also recognize certain institutions. If they qualify
for funding under the present Canadian loans act, students in
those institutions or colleges or whatever they may be called
ought to have access to the scholarship fund. It should
recognize that education is changing in terms of how it is being
pursued by individuals, whether it is on a part time basis in a
small institute, or career planning as opposed to academic
planning. If a person is serious about self-improvement, serious
about becoming better educated, we should use this facility.
Let us also acknowledge that this scholarship fund reflects a
government that does not place a high value on education. If it
actually placed a high value on education, it would do what some
other nations do which in fact place a high value on education.
For example, 16 out of the 29 OECD countries have no tuition
fees. It is their way of saying it is one thing they can do to
eliminate a barrier from some people pursuing post-secondary
education.
It is fair to say that many decades ago we as a country decided
that 12 years of education was an absolute minimum in order for
someone to be a contributing citizen. Therefore we do not have
tuition fees in grade 6 or 10 or 12 but we do at let us say,
grade 13 or 14 or 15. There probably is not a single Canadian
that would not think that they now have to have more than 12
years of formal education. They probably have to have at least
14 or 16 years to enter the workplace and become a contributing
citizen.
In that tradition we should consider eliminating tuition fees as
a barrier, like so many other countries do. As a matter of fact,
even the college system in Quebec does not have tuition fees,
unlike other provinces, as a way to encourage young people to
continue their education in that province.
We have a number of concerns. As the day progresses, various
colleagues of mine will be identifying concerns they have in
various sections of the bill and other concerns regarding the
millennium scholarship fund.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to address the Group No. 1 motions respecting Bill
C-36, the budget implementation act. In particular I want to
speak to the three motions being brought forward by the Reform
Party and explain why we think it is important that the House
consider them seriously and give serious thought to accepting
them. We feel very strongly that they will improve greatly what
is being proposed in the budget.
The first motion I want to speak to is Motion No. 3. This
amendment would ensure that an eligible institution for a
millennium grant would be any institution that currently is
eligible to receive a student loan from the federal government.
In other words, what we would do with this motion is spread the
eligibility from the current proposal which is just for students
who attend publicly funded institutions to all institutions,
including institutions for instance like Trinity Western
University in British Columbia.
We feel very strongly that publicly funded institutions do not
have the monopoly on good education. The federal government in
the past has seen that these institutions, like Trinity Western,
provide a good education which is why it allows student loans to
be used to go to school there.
We think it just makes sense if the government is going to be
consistent that the millennium fund should apply to those
sorts of institutions.
1545
We are suggesting that the government should hear what we are
saying. I also believe that this was supported by witnesses who
came before the committee. We hope the government will hear
what we are saying and adopt this as part of the budget
implementation act.
The second motion we want to address, Motion No. 42, deals
with the establishment of an appeal process whereby a student who
was turned down to receive a scholarship fund would have some way
of appealing the decision. Governments are notorious
for making bad decisions. They do it all the time. They
get information wrong and based on that information they may make
a faulty decision.
We think it makes sense to have an appeal process so if somebody
is turned down because of a bureaucratic bungle, a problem at the
government's end, there is some way for the student to come back
and say “these are the facts, you have it wrong, you made a
mistake, let me have another chance to apply and have access to
the grant”. It is a mechanism that will ensure fairness for
students.
The final motion we want to discuss and the one that is most
important is Motion No. 67. It is a motion to allow a provincial
government to opt out of the millennium scholarship fund and
enter into an agreement where the foundation pays the province
the amount that would have been spent in a particular province.
The province would then use the funds for its own priorities.
There is a bit of history required in order to understand why
Motion No. 67 is so important. In the 1993 leadership debate the
current Prime Minister was questioned by the current Leader of
the Opposition about transfer payments for health care and higher
education. The Leader of the Opposition asked the current Prime
Minister if he would keep them at the current level. The Prime
Minister replied: “I said yesterday in reply to Mr. Bouchard
that I promised that they will not go down and I hope that we
will be able to increase them”. That was a few days before the
election.
What happened after that is history. I think we all know what
happened. There were $6 billion in cuts to the provinces for
health care and higher education. After the Prime Minister
promised they would not go down and in fact might even go up they
were cut by $6 billion. That means the provinces have $6 billion
less to give to their health care systems and higher education.
The impact was devastating. It meant that tuition costs had to
go up dramatically. We know as a result of tuition costs going
up dramatically all of a sudden students had to bear more of the
cost for their education. That is why we have student debt
levels of around $25,000 today. But that is not in all
provinces.
Quebec provides more money for its university system and
education is much more heavily subsidized. Student debtloads are
much lower, about $11,000. We heard that over and over again
from witnesses who came from Quebec. They said their student
debtloads are not nearly as high. They said they do not need the
millennium scholarship fund to address those things.
Once the federal government created the problem
it then stepped in with the millennium scholarship fund, this
great monument to the Prime Minister, and said “now that we have
created this problem and the provinces are taking all the heat
for it we are going to step in and be heroes and get all the
credit for fixing it”. It is like the arsonist who starts fires
so he can come back later to put them out and get credit for
putting out the fire.
So we are saying let us not let the federal government get away
with that. Let us ensure there is a clause that allows the
provinces to opt out and if they so choose to take the money that
would come to their province through the millennium scholarship
fund and use it to lower all tuition costs, not just for the
select few who have access to the millennium scholarship fund.
I think what the government did was duplicitous.
1550
It set out in 1993 to convince Canadians it would somehow fix
all their problems without having to make any cuts of any kind
and then turn around immediately and slash funding to the
provinces for health care and higher education. Then it steps in
with a fund that is clearly in provincial jurisdiction and wants
to get credit for fixing the problem it created.
We do not want to let it get away with that. We want to ensure
the money gets back to the provinces so they can use it in a way
they choose. They may choose to stay in the millennium
scholarship fund and if they do that is fine, it is up to them.
But they know their own priorities a lot better than the federal
government does 2,000 miles away.
Let us give the provinces that option. In a day and age when
the federal government is talking about co-operative federalism
it would take a giant step toward healing rifts if it would adopt
Motion No. 67.
All we are asking is to give provinces the options. The federal
government needs to have some faith in the people of Canada. If
the people of Canada do not want their provinces to use this
money for something else, they will send a strong message to
their provincial governments.
The federal government should have some faith in the people.
That is exactly what they will do. We are encouraging the House
to seriously consider adopting Motion No. 67. I am very
sensitive to the issues raised by my colleagues from Quebec that
over and over again we had witnesses coming from Quebec saying
they did not necessarily need this for scholarships in Quebec.
Student debt levels in Quebec are only about $11,000 compared to
$25,000 elsewhere.
I urge colleagues to consider the good this motion would do in
terms of building bridges with the provinces, in terms of uniting
our country and strengthening the union. I urge members to
support Motion No. 67 and the other motions Reform has brought
forward.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, this
government's approach to budgetary decisions is a patchwork quilt
of interventionist policy that lacks the type of consistency
required for sound economic policy.
We have proposed 19 amendments to Bill C-36. I want to ensure
we have proposed these amendments in a very constructive
non-partisan way because we want to make significant improvements
to this legislation which will benefit all Canadians and which
will be a credit to this House.
Two such amendments we have proposed would see both private and
public institutions treated similarly by the millennium
scholarship foundation. For instance, we believe private
institutions require representation at the board level and at the
membership level of the foundation. It is absolutely essential
that students in private educational institutions across Canada
have that kind of representation.
Private colleges and career colleges are growing across Canada
because they represent the needs of the workplace. They are more
sensitive to labour mobility and a lot of the facts of life of
the late 20th century and the early 21st century in terms of the
needs of Canadian employers.
For this millennium scholarship fund to not recognize the
importance of career colleges and private educational
institutions would be a travesty. One of our amendments calls
for membership at the board of directors level and at the
membership level of the foundation for representatives from
career colleges.
Another amendment we have moved would allow students studying
provincially certified programs at private institutions access to
the scholarships as well. This is consistent with our belief
that career colleges and private institutions and students
studying at those institutions deserve to be treated with respect
and deserve to be thought of with the understanding they are
going to be making a significant contribution to Canada in the
21st century.
1555
Each province currently has standards and criteria for funding
for programs so we do not have to reinvent the wheel. We can
simply rely on the provincial certification process which has
worked extraordinarily well to date. The federal government need
not reinvent the wheel or start a new bureaucratic process to do
this. We can simply rely on the good judgment of the provinces.
Some of the legislation governing federal boards and agencies
must provide a proper framework for accountability and
transparency, and this framework is lacking in this bill. For
boards and agencies functioning with taxpayer money there must be
an accountability to this parliament and to all Canadians.
Transparency means that the stakeholders, ordinary Canadians and
their representatives in parliament, have free access to
information sufficient to enable them to judge the make-up of the
board and the board's conduct of its business. Unfortunately the
arm's length nature of the millennium scholarship foundation and
the lack of transparency denies Canadians that access and denies
Canadians the opportunity to judge whether the millennium
scholarship foundation will meet the needs of ordinary Canadians.
Two and a half billion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money is
going to a private foundation which would not be accessible
through the Access to Information Act, the books of which will
not be available to the auditor general. What the government is
really doing is saying “here is $2.5 billion, do not worry about
screwing up, you operate at arm's length and you are free to run
your own show and the auditor general will not have access to
your books anyway”. The auditor general is the Canadian
taxpayers' watchdog in Ottawa and to deny Canadian taxpayers
access and due diligence over the books of $2.5 billion of their
money is a travesty.
It is debatable to what extent this foundation is at
arm's length given that the government appoints a
chairman and a third of the board. The other two-thirds are
appointed by members who in turn are initially appointed by the
minister. Most of the money will come from the federal treasury
and yet this is considered an arm's length foundation.
The annual report is to be tabled in parliament. The auditor
general questions exactly how arm's length the millennium
foundation will be. In chapter 9 of last month's report he
states: “It relates to what we would call the essential nature
or substance of these types of entities. We will be examining
this matter further and will report separately if significant
findings emerge. Questions that we will address in this study
will include whether, in substance or in fact, such entities
operate at arm's length from the government”.
The auditor general questions the degree to which this will be
an arm's length foundation and I think Canadians require greater
accountability and assurances that this $2.5 billion is to be
invested properly and will benefit all Canadians. That is why we
call in our amendments for a greater level of transparency and a
greater level of accountability for these funds.
We have also put forward an amendment that would require a five
year review to be conducted by someone who is independent of the
foundation. The Liberals do not care if this review is done by
someone with close ties to management who would take a cursory
look around and write a glowing report and then collect a fat fee
for telling management what it wants to hear.
Canadians deserve better than that. Canadians deserve to have
true accountability. We are offering government members an
opportunity to redeem themselves in this instance by supporting
some of these amendments and effectively ensure that Canadians
will have external auditors who will do unbiased evaluations of
the millennium scholarship foundation's activities without the
bias or prejudice of appointment by the board.
I urge members to support this amendment so that all members of
parliament can judge for themselves the success or failure of the
millennium scholarship fund and its value to the Canadian
taxpayer.
Another amendment we have put forward would allow the board to
indefinitely block the release of unfavourable annual reports by
simply refusing to approve them. Under the current legislation
if a report comes forward that would be an unfavourable annual
report the board can indefinitely block it from public viewing.
That is unacceptable.
1600
We propose that effectively any report or any annual report will
be made available to the Canadian public after a reasonable
period of time. Currently these types of negative annual reports
can be shelved indefinitely, denying Canadians the access to
information and the accountability and transparency they need.
There is also an amendment we are proposing which would require
that some directors know something about investments. They are
going to be given $2.5 billion. We do feel that they should know
something about investments. Perhaps they will lend the money to
the provinces, as was done with the Canada pension plan money
resulting in the stellar performance that we have seen in recent
years during a time when we have seen unprecedented growth in the
equities markets around the world.
We believe that there should be criteria for the board members
that include some knowledge of the investment industry and some
knowledge of portfolio management. This can prevent poor returns
in fixed income securities. It can also prevent high risk
situations à la Orange county derivatives or shares in the next
Bre-X.
It is increasingly apparent that the Minister of Finance does
not have a particularly good relationship with the auditor
general. I would venture to say that is probably one of the
greatest understatements made in this House this year. The
auditor general's accounting advice is routinely ignored by the
Minister of Finance.
We are looking to provide the type of accountability through
these amendments to this legislation which will provide ordinary
Canadians with the accountability they need, independent of the
auditor general and independent of the Minister of Finance. We
need to ensure that this money is accounted for properly and that
ultimately the millennium scholarship foundation results in the
betterment of Canadian educational opportunities and
competitiveness in the 21st century.
I do not have time to devote my speech to some of the other
amendments, but we will have some opportunities later today. I
urge all members to take a look at these amendments in a
non-partisan and constructive way. That is the way they were
developed and proposed.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let me start off by saying
that the 1998 budget set up the arm's length foundation to manage
the millennium scholarship fund. It is intended to increase
access to post-secondary education for deserving students from
lower income families. It is a priority that has support right
across Canada. It has been discussed at the first ministers
meeting and in other fora. Federal and provincial officials have
been working together co-operatively to address the issue of
student financing for post-secondary education.
The foundation has been mandated to undertake an extensive
consultation with the various stakeholders, which would include
the provinces, on the definition and administration of the
scholarships. We heard during committee the concern that
individuals have with respect to overlap and duplication. That
is why the foundation has been mandated to take on those
consultations.
Let us be very clear. The millennium scholarship foundation
will not be a federal program. Scholarships will be distributed
from a private arm's length organization which will deal directly
with the students. That means the foundation and the
scholarships will not be under the control of the federal
government, nor will the government be able to dictate to the
foundation the parameters of these scholarships or their
distribution.
The scholarship fund will provide 100,000 scholarships a year to
students in every province and every community, up to $3,000 per
year for full time and part time students. It is about
increasing access to knowledge and skills. It is the country's
dividend for balancing the books. It is the recognition that
Canadians from coast to coast, province to province deserve equal
access to the opportunities that will secure a better future for
them and their families.
I have said it in committee and I will say it again here.
Something as important as this should be taken out of the hands
of politicians and put into the hands of experts. That is what
this millennium scholarship fund is doing. The foundation will
be administering the scholarships and over time will attract
private sector endowments so that it can grow and help even more
young Canadians.
1605
With respect to the motions in Group No. 1, the member for
Kings—Hants talked about his amendment and the idea that private
schools should be designated by provincial law as eligible for
the millennium scholarship fund. Under the current legislation,
universities, community colleges and CEGEPs will be eligible
institutions.
The current legislation also provides the foundation with the
flexibility it needs to determine the eligibility of privately
funded institutions. This flexibility gives it the means to
designate bona fide credible private institutions as eligible
institutions. There is no intent in this legislation to exclude
such institutions.
I go on to the Reform motion that would require the foundation
to establish an appeal process for applicants who do not receive
scholarships. I said it in committee and I will say it again.
There is nothing in this legislation to prevent the foundation
from establishing an appeals process.
We have to understand this is an arm's length foundation. It is
completely within its purview, and the legislation allows for
this flexibility, to establish an appeals process. Establishing
an appeals process pursuant to regulations established by the
government would undermine the arm's length nature of the
foundation. We cannot have it both ways.
The Conservative Party proposed an amendment that calls for the
Auditor General of Canada to be appointed as the auditor of this
foundation. There is really no need for this amendment because
the auditor general could be appointed as the auditor for this
foundation. There is no legal obstacle to naming the auditor
general. It is completely within the purview of the foundation
to choose the auditor general as its auditor.
The same member from the Conservative Party calls for the
Minister of Finance to remove the auditor of the foundation from
office. I could not believe this amendment when I read it. The
hon. member's motion gives the Minister of Finance the power to
remove the auditor chosen by the foundation. This amendment
compromises the arm's length nature of the foundation. It gives
the minister a direct role in the removal of the auditor. That
role properly belongs to the members of the foundation.
What is actually being said is on the one hand there is a call
for transparency and accountability and on the other hand this
amendment says if the Minister of Finance does not like the
particular auditor, the minister can pull him. I do not think we
can support that amendment. We are looking for independence, an
arm's length relationship, accountability and transparency.
Motion No. 65 makes reference to the booking of this foundation.
The auditor general came before the committee. As I have said
before, the accounting issue has also been discussed by the
public accounts committee. In its majority report the public
accounts committee supported the government's accounting policies
with respect to the booking of such non-recurring liabilities. It
is certainly very clear.
The member from the Bloc spoke eloquently at the meeting. I
believe that member is in agreement with me that there is
disagreement within the accounting profession with respect to
this issue. That means professional judgment should be exercised
in such cases, which is exactly what the government is doing and
what it will continue to do.
When the government announces a program and commits to funding a
program, it is incumbent upon the government to pay for that
program. When we came to office there were a number of unfunded
liabilities on the books. There were programs that had been
announced but not funded.
We came to office and there was a $42 billion deficit and
decisions needed to be made.
1610
What we are saying is no more. We are saying that when a
government makes an announcement and makes a commitment to a
particular program, the government should pay for it. I believe
Canadians will support that. Canadians want to know that when an
announcement is made and a program is put in place that the money
is there to pay for it, even if the program is going to begin
down the road, as long as certain criteria is met.
That criteria was certainly discussed at the finance committee.
What we have here is a disagreement within in the accounting
profession. Professional judgment will be exercised as it has
been in the past and as it will be in the future.
The other point brought forward by the hon. member from the
Conservative Party was about access to information. Again the
foundation is an arm's length entity and it is independent of the
federal government. Let us talk about what it is required to do.
Sections 36 and 39 of the bill talk about what the foundation is
required to do with the annual report. It needs to outline its
investment activities. It needs to include the auditor's report.
It needs to include the portfolio on the policies, the statement
of outlook, and the results achieved with respect to the
foundation's scholarships which are placed. Finally it is also
required to hold a public meeting every year. It is required to
provide ample advance notice of the public meeting so the public
can attend, scrutinize, ask questions and discuss what the
foundation has done over the past year. So it is not about
access to information.
I should also say that the annual report which is then tabled in
the House of Commons is certainly open to the auditor general to
review and comment on it, as is any other document that gets
tabled in the House. It is completely within the purview of the
auditor general. There is transparency and there is
accountability.
I will close by saying that this is not a government program. It
is an arm's length foundation. The opting out option is not
there because it is not a government program, it is an arm's
length foundation.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today to this important bill and to the group
of motions we have presented, whose aim essentially is to
eliminate everything to do with the millennium scholarships.
Why are we presenting this group of motions? For one good
reason: with the millennium scholarships the government is not
minding its own business. In the course of three weeks of
hearings before the Standing Committee on Finance, 14
organizations from Quebec all said the same thing, which was
that the federal government has no business meddling in an area
of exclusive jurisdiction.
According to the Constitution these people claim to be
defending, the federal government cannot interfere, and the
organizations are calling for the right to withdraw with full
compensation for Quebec.
Witnesses appeared on behalf of such important organizations as
the FTQ, the CSN and university and college student
associations. An association of former student movement
leaders, who oversaw the changes in the education sector in the
past 11 years, had seven messages for the committee, and
especially the federal government. The first was that, with
these scholarships, the federal government is showing its
ignorance of the situation in Quebec.
Allow me to quote from the brief of the FTQ, which said, about
the proposal as it was formulated in Bill C-36, that “this
proposal illustrates the Canadian government's lack of knowledge
about Quebec's system of loans and grants and its priorities in
education”. The president of the Fédération des cégeps said
essentially the same thing.
1615
The association of former student leaders of Quebec said “With
its millennium scholarships, the federal government is showing
its ignorance and its incompetence in the field of education”.
I do not think they were paying much attention on the other side
of the House because, despite three intensive weeks and the
unanimity of the witnesses from Quebec, the members of the
Liberal majority on the finance committee did not move a single
amendment.
They have the nerve to claim to be in touch with people's needs,
when 14 organizations representing at least 1.2 million adult
Quebeckers with some degree of connection to education or
business have told them to mind their own business. But they
did not get it. They are thumbing their noses at people and at
the democratic system.
Normally, if people had been listened to properly, and if the
business of holding public hearings in the committees had had
any value in the eyes of the parliamentarians, who claim they
are democratic right down to the roots of their hair, they would
have backed off after hearing the representations from Quebec. I
fault the chair of the finance committee for not allowing any
mention of Quebec's unanimous opposition to the millennium
scholarships in the report he tabled last Friday.
The second criticism voiced by all stakeholders is that the
federal government came up with this project solely to gain some
more visibility. Minister of Human Resources Development made no
bones about this either. With his usual candour, he indicated
that this indeed was the reason. The Prime Minister went still
further, as has been his wont since the start of his career in
politics.
This project creates duplication and doubles costs for all
taxpayers. At the present time, the loans and bursaries system
that Quebec has developed since the Ministry of Education was
created in 1964 is without equal, and works impeccably well. We
are not the only ones to say so. It is cited as an example
across Canada. We have all of the structures, all of the staff,
and all of the expertise accorded to us by the Constitution, the
British North America Act.
Adding on a foundation to administer scholarships just creates
duplication and greatly increases costs. The administrative costs
of the millennium fund are double what we have in Quebec.
On the average, Quebec's administration of bursaries and loans
takes about 2.5% of the amounts involved, while the figure for
the millennium scholarships will be twice that, at 5%. Yet they
talk of efficiency. Efficiency, my foot!
The third criticism from Quebec stakeholders at our hearings was
that, far from reducing inequalities, the millennium
scholarships run the risk of increasing inequalities in the
field of education.
The fourth criticism is that the millennium scholarships are not
a solution to student indebtedness.
Ever since 1995, since the Minister of Finance started slashing
federal transfers for higher education, we have been saying that
the answer to the student loans problem is for the government to
stop slashing and start giving back what it has taken from the
pockets of the provinces and was actually used before to finance
the education programs. That would be a positive measure to
reduce student loans.
The fifth criticism put forward by people from Quebec is there
is no need for this in Quebec. That does not mean that we do not
need money, but we do not need a wall to wall policy. That could
work outside Quebec. Some Canadian stakeholders stated that they
were interested in the millennium scholarships, because they are
not organized as Quebec has been since 1964, when it set up its
student loans and grants program. However, the proposed
scholarship fund does not meet the needs of Quebec.
What Quebec needs right now is for the Minister of Finance to
stop playing petty politics with the surplus he hides year after
year, by juggling the figures, and to start giving back what he
has grabbed from Quebec. We would then be in a position to help
students out.
The sixth criticism is a major one. We have grown accustomed,
ever since his appointment, to seeing the Minister of Finance
juggling the figures. He literally juggles all the figures he
brings forward. It has come to a point where we no longer
believe the government's financial statements or the estimates
the minister tables.
With the millennium scholarship program, he has been criticized
three times by the auditor general, who is the watchdog of
public finances and is accountable to Parliament. The auditor
general is impartial; he is accountable to Parliament.
1620
What did the auditor general have to say? He said that, by
charging to the 1997-98 budget these $2.5 billion that he plans
to start spending only in the year 2000, the finance minister is
fixing the books. They no longer mean anything. Amounts that
have yet to be spent cannot be included in the financial
statements. Where will that kind of government accounting lead
us?
A few moments ago, I heard the secretary of state say that
people appreciate this new accounting method whereby all
commitments are included in the books as soon as they are made,
even though the money will be spent only three years later,
because it makes people aware of planned spending. This is not
true.
It is absolutely false. People want to know what the real
figures are. They want to know where they are going. They want
to know that the money they are paying in taxes will be spent in
the current fiscal year. They do not want to know that
expenditures that will be made only in the year 2000 were
charged in full to last year's budget.
These $2.5 billion should not have been included in the books
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998. The auditor general
and chartered accountants are almost unanimous on this issue,
except for those hired by the government, of course, who may be
suspected of being less impartial.
It is not the first time the finance minister pulls such a
stunt. It is the third time. He did it when he concluded a deal
with three maritime provinces to harmonize the GST with their
provincial sales tax.
A compensation package totalling about $1 billion—which is
still being criticized because it means the government bought
those three maritime provinces to get what it wanted—was
included in the books before the agreement between these
provinces and the federal government was even signed.
The second time was when the innovation fund was created. Again,
the minister charged the full amount to the current year's
budget even though he started spending the money only one year
and a half later. Therefore, like all the stakeholders in
Quebec, we condemn this practice.
During this debate, we will have the opportunity to address
other aspects of the millennium scholarship fund that are very
important to Quebeckers.
I will talk about an important federal-provincial conference that
took place on March 31, 1964, in Quebec City. It was a turning
point in the debate on education between the federal government
and the Quebec government.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of
Battlefords—Lloydminster I am pleased to speak today to Group
No. 1 amendments to Bill C-36, the budget implementation act.
Like the budget itself, the act is full of items that may have
good intentions but are badly thought out or whose purpose seems
to be to fool Canadians into thinking the government is managing
taxpayers' money properly.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, the most
glaring example I can see of good intentions gone bad and turning
into a political boondoggle is the Prime Minister's millennium
scholarship fund.
I am sure the thinking in the Liberal cabinet was: Who could
possibly disagree with putting more money in the hands of
deserving students? In principle, no one really disagrees.
However, most of the presenters to the finance committee in the
past weeks all had problems with sections of this fund, including
the student groups themselves.
The Reform Party certainly supports the concept of encouraging
these young Canadians to pursue higher education but, in the time
honoured tradition of its predecessors, this Liberal government
has managed to separate the taxpayer from his money only to offer
it back to him as if it were a favour.
After cutting $6 billion from the amount the provinces were
expecting to help pay for further education, this finance
minister had an embarrassing problem. He had taxed Canadians to
the limit and built up a budgetary surplus.
Why he could not bring himself to leave these excess tax dollars
in the hands of the people who earned them we will never
understand. In any case, he ended up with $2.5 billion to
dispose of, to hide from his fellow colleagues as it were.
The finance minister decided to charge his credit card this year
and start paying for it two years down the road. The benefit of
providing only 7% of Canada's students with $3,000 a year will
not even kick in until the year 2000, but the taxpayer gets to
foot this bill right away. The auditor general says nobody else
could get away with this creative accounting and we certainly
agree with that statement.
Our colleagues in the Bloc have been pressing to allow Quebec to
opt out altogether and to decide how to dispense its share of the
millennium scholarship fund.
1625
I certainly agree in principle since the provinces are
responsible for education and this bill states nothing about how
to approach the various types of schools that each province has
set up to provide a range of education opportunities.
However, in committee we were told that there is no provincial
share because this is not a federal program in the legal sense of
the word. This is a new breed of animal that commits taxpayers'
money to a private foundation. This government sets up an entity
with public money but says it does not need the auditor general
to look after it.
The board will name its own auditor, state its own salaries,
hand out taxpayers' dollars on merit—whatever that might be—or
need, or both, ignoring the fact that provinces and the federal
government and, for that matter, private industry already have
bursaries, loans, grants and award programs in place to help
students who demonstrate that merit and need.
Are we going to reward the poorest of the best or the best of
the poorest? That is one of the comments we heard at the finance
committee the other day. I think it is certainly true.
No wonder this government does not want the millennium
scholarship foundation to be subject to the Access to Information
Act. It is clearly a political ploy to convince Canadians that
the Liberals care about education when what they really care
about is filtering tax money through their offices to get credit
at election time.
To sum up, the Reform Party wants this government to return to
recognized accounting procedures that only book funding in the
year that the project actually takes place. We propose the that
Auditor General of Canada be named in the act that creates this
scholarship fund, that this fund be subject to the Access to
Information Act and that an appeal process be specified to deal
with applications that are turned down.
Further, we propose that each province and territory be allowed
to access scholarship funds based on the system in place and the
needs as determined by the governments based on student
populations.
If we are to assist the next generation in developing the skills
and education they need to build a better Canada we should look
first at how we can leave the maximum resources in their hands
and then how we can provide them with the most flexible and cost
effective ways to support their efforts.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I want to make a brief intervention on the bill before us.
As a member of the finance committee I had an opportunity to
listen to the witnesses who came before us. It is clear that the
millennium scholarship fund was one of the most talked about
aspects of the budget implementation bill.
The member asked: Are we rewarding the best of the poorest or
the poorest of the best? The member well knows that the issue of
merit was well explained by the authors of the millennium
scholarship fund and that acceptance at an institution would
constitute merit. Clearly, for any program to be successful,
obviously the candidates who are eligible should be those who
demonstrate an aptitude to be able to complete a program because
that is the most important part.
The issue of accessibility was more important for many members
simply because we all know that there are many students out there
who have demonstrated aptitude in secondary education but, given
their circumstances, are unable or unwilling to take the economic
plunges needed to pursue post-secondary education. All members
know that is almost a prerequisite to having a good job.
The member's cynicism with regard to a political ploy is
certainly a very weak argument against the federal government
being involved in the education of Canadian youth. There is no
question that there is an appetite to have more students attend
post-secondary education in order to pursue the necessary skills
and training they are going to need to participate fully in the
economy of Canada.
With regard to the funding and the accounting, this issue has
been dealt with very thoroughly. Indeed, the public accounts
committee congratulated and supported the government in terms of
its accounting for the millennium scholarship fund.
When the committee met and discussed briefly the mechanics of
the accounting, it was pointed out that if the millennium
scholarship fund had been designated to be operated through the
foundation for innovation that would have eliminated the need for
the auditor general to comment.
1630
In fact, before the committee, the auditor general did admit
that if the millennium scholarship fund, as proposed, were put
under the umbrella of the foundation for innovation he would not
have made comment with regard to the $2.5 billion.
I would like to table those remarks. It is clear that some
members do not agree with the millennium scholarship fund, but it
appears also that their reasons are more politically motivated
than they are in terms of showing interest in the future of our
young Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-36 at
report stage. This bill makes it possible to implement certain
provisions of the budget.
Our first group of amendments indicates our strong opposition to
this government bulldozing over Quebec's jurisdiction in the
education sector, and not deciding, in the present situation, to
complete negotiations. The Prime Minister of Canada and the
premier of Quebec have given themselves two months to come up
with a solution that will respect Quebec's jurisdiction and
Ottawa's need for visibility.
This is the only reason Ottawa has intervened: to ensure its
visibility on the cheques it may send students.
Not respecting the negotiating process either means the Liberal
majority is ignoring the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister's
promises are worthless. Members of the Quebec education
coalition, who support Quebec's position, were present at a
meeting of the premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of
Canada.
It is important to know who these people are. They are not just
sovereignists. They represent the entire education movement in
Quebec.
We are talking about the following groups: the Alliance des
manufacturiers exportateurs du Québec, the Centrale de
l'enseignement du Québec, the Fédération des travailleurs du
Québec, the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec, the CSN,
the Fédération des associations d'étudiants universitaires
québécois en éducation permanente, the Fédération des cégeps,
the Coalition d'ex-leaders et étudiants québécois, the Fédération
québécoise des professeurs et professeures du Québec.
All these people, 41% of the witnesses heard, came to say the
same thing. The Liberal majority was unable to find a single
witness from Quebec to say that the millennium scholarships made
any sense. Why does Quebec feel this way?
In 1964, there were two men who had a conception of Canada that
was completely different from that of the Prime minister today, Mr.
Pearson and Mr. Lesage. I remember because I was quite young at
the time but my father was a Liberal supporter and he knew that
they were trying to come to an agreement. In the 1964 agreement,
it had been decided to recognize Quebec as a distinct society.
The people of Quebec and Canada were told “There is indeed a
Canada Student Loans Act, but one province wishing to develop a
different model will be allowed to do so”. That is what distinct
society is about. This philosophy worked for 34 years and led to
the best student assistance system in Canada. Many witnesses
agreed on this, not only those from Quebec who were defending
their system or Quebec students who came to speak out in favour
of their system, but also witnesses from the other provinces of
Canada.
It was very clear what was on the table.
The federal government had to choose between two alternatives.
To put in place a student loans and bursaries program like the
one available elsewhere in the country, all it had to do was to
amend the Canada Student Loans Act. This way, the rest of Canada
could have benefited from a loans and bursaries system similar
to the one in Quebec.
Why did the federal government not take that route? Because this
meant automatically allowing Quebec to use its right to opt out
with full compensation. This right is already provided for in
the legislation. Since 1964, Quebec has been using this right to
opt out with full compensation and has apparently been doing so
properly. The system it has developed could be a model for all
Canadian stakeholders.
In Quebec, the average debt load of university graduates is
$11,000.
In Canada, it is anywhere from $18,000 to $25,000. Obviously,
Canadian students are curious about what makes the Quebec system
so successful. The main reason is the fact that there is a
bursaries program within the Quebec system.
1635
The federal government decided, in order to create a scholarship
program, to use a rather extraordinary legal scheme called the
millennium fund. The government claims that it must absolutely
promote students' performance to achieve great results. But the
real reason is that it did not want Quebec to be able to opt out
with full compensation. The federal government wanted to make
sure Quebec would be forced to ask the foundation for the
authority to grant scholarships, according to specific criteria.
This House must realize that if there is one thing on Quebec
will never compromise, it is its jurisdiction over education.
This government's claim that providing financial assistance to
students has nothing to do with education is hogwash.
Any Quebec student or member of the Quebec coalition against the
millennium fund knows full well that financial assistance to
students is part of the balance, part of the whole system in the
education sector. It is what determines accessibility to
education. It is thanks to the financial assistance provided to
students that there are now as many young women as there are
young men in Quebec's universities. This financial assistance
has helped children from low income families complete their
education. The program was established in 1964, because we had
an old and obsolete system which, while quite successful in
producing a high quality elite, did not allow others to succeed.
During the Quiet Revolution—and this was an initiative taken by
a Liberal government—we wanted to make sure we would have an
education system that would be accessible. We are proud of the
model that we developed in Quebec, even though it is not
perfect.
Let me give you an example of what this system allows us to do.
We have a project to recognize students' good performance. One
of the ways to achieve this in Quebec is to forgive part of a
student's debt if that student completes his or her education
within the normal timeframe. This means six semesters for a BA.
If a student completes his or her BA in six semesters, he
or she can get a 15% reduction of his or her debt. This is a
nice way to acknowledge the efforts of someone who works hard to
complete his or her education.
Along with that program, we will now have the millennium fund.
Under that fund, students will get scholarships based on merit,
but not necessarily their financial needs.
Students will be facing the following situation: elsewhere in
Canada, in the nine English-speaking provinces, some students
will be granted millennium scholarships. Good for them, but
several others will have to do without.
However, in Quebec, when a student will be granted a millennium
scholarship, if the legislation is not changed, Quebec will have
to withdraw any financial assistance it was providing that
student, because it will have to take into account this
additional income.
For the student at the receiving end, it does not change a
thing. It only creates a whole new bureaucracy. The members
opposite do not seem to know how education works. To apply for a
loan or a grant, one needs to fill out some forms.
The cegep and university staff who help the students to fill out
the forms and to meet the requirements to get the most out of
the system will now have to learn how the two systems work, to
become familiar with the two different forms, because the
requirements will not all be the same. This total and absolute
duplication.
Obviously, we have to deal with a government that is turning a
deaf ear. It did it in committee, tit gagged us and decided it
would do the same thing at report stage. One thing is clear, in
the end, the people in Quebec will realize by themselves that
the federal government is turning a deaf ear to all Quebec
stakeholders.
I urge the members from the province of Quebec, whether they are
from Brome—Missisquoi, from Anjou—Rivières-des-Prairies, from
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, from Bourassa, from Beauce or from
Saint-Maurice, to reconsider their position.
How can they be silent in the House, not say a word, not rise in
their place to say that Quebeckers are right about this, that
they must be given a chance to continue running their system,
which is a good one?
And to top it all, last week, three of Quebec's major management
associations, the Conseil du patronat, the Chambre de commerce
du Québec, and the Association des manufacturiers et des
exportateurs du Québec came to testify before the committee.
These are not exactly people who are identified with the
sovereignist movement in Quebec.
1640
The representatives of these three associations came to tell the
government to postpone consideration of the bill until
negotiations had been completed. If an agreement is reached, it
will be incorporated into the bill. If no agreement is reached,
the government will assume its responsibilities, as will the
opposition, but there will not be a pretence of democracy such
as that being forced on us today.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois has introduced motions to delete
from this bill any references to the foundation. Quebec will
never agree to the federal government poking its nose into one
of the systems we have developed, the best in the world. We
will never stand for it.
The government will make sure it passes by invoking closure at
every stage, because otherwise this bill will never get through.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is my pleasure again to speak to Bill C-36, the budget
implementation bill, at report stage.
Today there was a report in the newspapers that Canadians are
feeling poor. I can tell the House why Canadians are feeling
poor. It is because their government has become richer at their
expense. Why? It is because of high taxation, not because the
government reduced expenditures. It has been on the backs of
Canadians, raising taxes as well as cutting funding to the
provinces. Funding to the provinces for education has been cut
by $6 billion.
This has created a debtload on students. We all know that
students' debtload has skyrocketed.
I have two daughters who are in university. One has just
completed university and she has a debtload of $15,000. The
other has a debtload of almost at $8,000 and she is midway
through her university degree. They are both very worried about
how they will pay this debt.
Let us talk about what the government is trying to do. It has
come up with what it calls a millennium fund. The irony of this
situation is that Brian Mulroney, a former prime minister, came
up with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords so he could go
into the history books as doing something. Now we have this
Prime Minister who also wants to go into the history books by
bringing in the millennium fund which is not well thought out.
Who will benefit from this millennium fund? We are told that
the fund is targeted toward students. About 7% of students will
receive about $3,000. It is based upon merit. Granted, there
has been talk about need, but the majority of scholarships will
be given on merit. We heard a member opposite talk about how the
merit system will work.
I would like to bring in another point of view. My riding, like
many ridings in Canada, is made up of hard working Canadians,
Canadians who, due to the high taxation of this government, are
struggling to put food on the table. They do not have the money
to send their children to university. Most of their time is
spent trying to put food on the table. Therefore, they have less
time to spend looking after their families.
In my riding, particularly, there are hard working, working
class people. When I visited a high school in my riding the
principal told me that only 10% of the students will go on to
higher education.
What is the solution to that?
1645
I talked to them and explained that they do not have to go to
university for higher education. They do not have to go to
college to get ahead in life. They should look at another
option, trade schools. They can become electricians. They can
become drywallers. They can become carpenters. These are the
options the majority of the students in my riding face.
Where is the millennium fund going, their tax dollars? It is
not going to address these concerns. That is why I call the
millennium fund an elitist fund. Time after time after time many
members have talked about how it will help students in
university. That is fine, but what about the other students?
What about thousands of Canadians who will try to choose a trade
career and be denied access to the fund?
Therefore the amendments the Reform Party have put forward are
worth looking at to address many of the issues I have raised.
First and foremost, Motion No. 3 asks that we take a look at
public and private post-secondary education institutions in
Canada that are designated for Canada student loan purposes. This
will open it up to many students in high school who are unable to
go university but choose a trade as their career.
I emphasize that we must look at the students who choose careers
that are different. We must also help them. We do not want a
shortage of skilled workers in the trades area.
Motion No. 42 is extremely important. Whenever taxpayers' money
is put into something, be it a private foundation or a government
institution, there has to be a mechanism where people can appeal
a decision that at times may not be favourable.
We know that the bureaucracy in these foundations has a tendency
to follow strict rules. There has to be a place where people can
go to someone and say that a wrong decision was made. They have
that right because they are taxpayers. Their parents have paid
money into the fund. That money has not been raised by private
sources. It is public money so the right to appeal should be
there.
I will talk about the provinces. Education is a provincial
jurisdiction. Provinces are the ones most closely associated
with the economy of their regions. They know what is required in
the regions. It is not the federal government sitting 2,000
miles away. Therefore it is important that we look at the motion
which allows the provinces to opt out and use the money in the
way that will address their own needs. It is very important that
they be given flexibility. It is public money. There is no need
for the federal government to have tight control over it although
it talks about the private foundation.
I ask my colleagues across the floor to look at the motions that
are trying to create a better disbursement of the fund and make
it accessible to all Canadians.
1650
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member
for Acadie—Bathurst, Trans-Canada Highway; the hon. member for
Vancouver East, Post-Secondary Education.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak Bill C-36, the Budget
Implementation Act.
I will not go over the litany of problems we have historically
had in our country. I will not go over the 30 years of
mismanagement of our finances by previous Liberal and
Conservative governments. My colleagues have outlined that
specifically and very eloquently.
I look forward to constructive solutions that the government
could have employed but has not. It can employ them in the
future if we are to create a stronger more stable country, a
stronger more vibrant economy, and save our social programs, that
social net which protects many underprivileged people in our
country.
It is instructive for us to look at real world experiences. We
should look at other countries, other provinces and other states
that have employed very specific solutions to problems that have
affected them and are affecting us. Let us look at our own
country, at Ontario and Saskatchewan.
I lived in Ontario for 18 years. It was very sad to see the
economic devastation that took place with respect to the huge
debt load the NDP government foisted upon the people of Ontario
at that time, the high tax rates that crushed the life out of the
economy, and the egregious rules and regulations that prevented
the Ontario economy from being the lion it could be.
The current government took the bull by the horns. It
substantially cut taxes. It streamlined and eliminated
government spending, not by doing fancy accounting or changing
accounting practices but by cutting the fat off the government
beef. It also eliminated rules and regulations that tended to
constrict and restrict the private sector. What has happened?
Ontario is engaging in a boom. Ontario has had more money coming
into its coffers. This is very interesting.
Those who slandered the Ontario government for engaging in its
policy of fiscal conservatism, tax cuts and diminished government
spending said that it would gut social programs. What has
happened to health care? In spite of a $2.7 billion cut in
health care transfer payments to Ontario, the Ontario government
has had an extra $1 billion to spend on health care. That is
very instructive because it dispels the myth that some would put
forth that if taxes are cut social programs are gutted. That is
not true at all. If taxes are decreased what happens? It causes
investment to go into the province. It causes a revamping and a
resurgence of the private sector. By doing so the amount of
money in the public coffers is actually increased.
Mr. Mulroney did it in 1992. He lowered taxes. What happened?
More money went into the public purse. As a result he could have
spent more money on public social programs but instead he
increased taxes.
We have been pushing forward a very constructive plan. We have
given it to the government. To some extent the government has
pursued it and should be congratulated for balancing the budget.
We have been telling the government to do this for many years.
It is also instructive to look at Saskatchewan. An NDP
government in Saskatchewan woke up and said that it should look
at what works, at the reality of the late 20th century economies
of the world and becoming competitive. The NDP government took a
very balanced approach. It listened to the Reform Party and said
that it would cut taxes and balance the budget.
It wanted to give people more money in their pockets, to have a
balanced budget, to cut taxes and to spend intelligently doing
what governments do best.
1655
That government invested in infrastructure, invested in
education and put money where governments should put money to
give people the tools to take care of themselves.
Historically there has been a rule among Liberal thinkers that
government can take care of us better than we can take care of
ourselves. We obviously do not adhere to that rule. We believe
the government's role is to give people the tools, the power and
the ability to take care of themselves. Governments should also
take care of those people who cannot take care of themselves.
Those two can actually work together. Those two are actually two
halves of the same whole.
If we are fiscally irresponsible we are socially irresponsible.
By being fiscally irresponsible and spending more than we take
in, we compromise the social programs we profess to help by
spending more on those programs than we take in. By elevating
debt and interest payments we diminish the amount of money
available to spend on those programs. We do not compromise the
rich because they can go wherever they want. We compromise the
poor.
As my colleagues in the Reform Party have mentioned, the
government is saying that it will take care of people instead of
people taking care of themselves. That is why the government has
increased CPP payments made by individuals by a whopping 75% for
every working man and woman in the country. What does that do?
It takes money out of people's pockets and prevents people from
taking care of themselves. It does not work.
If we look at New Zealand we see very clearly that approach does
not work. In every country that has tried to do this it has
resulted in abysmal failure.
Great Britain and Chile have taken a long pragmatic look at
their pension plans and social programs and have put them on firm
financial ground. They have managed to privatize them while
still ensuring that all individuals will be taken care of. No
one will go without. Those most socially deprived in those
countries will be taken care of. If they did not do that those
in the lowest socio-economic areas would be compromised the most.
We do not try to devise grandiose new plans for the problems
that affect us. The problems that affect us in Canada affect
other developed nations all over the world. If we were to take
those solutions and employ them in Canada we would see a national
growth rate that could rival the provincial growth rates we have
seen in Ontario and Saskatchewan.
If one wants to look at the other side of the coin one need only
look at my province of British Columbia to see what high tax
rates, high debt loads, egregious rules and regulations and
labour laws that constrict and restrict the private sector do to
an economy.
British Columbia, arguably the richest province within the
country, has an enormous amount of natural resources and a well
trained and educated workforce. It is actually 10th in the
nation in terms of development. Who would have thought that
British Columbia would be 10th, the bottom of the barrel, in
economic growth for two years running?
The reasons for it are very simple. I implore the government to
take a look at what we have been trying to convince it to do for
years. The member for Medicine Hat, our finance critic, has been
very eloquent in suggesting this to the finance minister. Why
not adopt most of these solutions when they have been proven to
work all over the world?
We can take a look at the United States, for example the state
of New Jersey which has employed constructive solutions to its
problems. It has right to work legislation. It has used tax
havens. It has decreased taxes and eliminated egregious rules
and regulations.
What happened to the individual worker there? What happened to
the person who works day in and day out slogging on the streets?
Their incomes were increased by over $2,200 per person. This
meant more money in their pockets and better health and welfare
for every individual in those communities.
1700
I implore the government to adopt the policies put forward by
the Reform Party. They have been used in New Zealand, the United
States, in Ontario and Saskatchewan. Decrease taxes. Decrease
debt load. And for heaven's sake remove the egregious rules and
regulations that constrict the private sector. In doing so we
would provide for better socioeconomic circumstances for all and
we would save our social programs.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Madam Speaker, my
colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois who spoke before me had an
opportunity to express all of their objections to the millennium
fund and, since the subject provided lots of fodder, they had
lots to say.
To be objective, all of this should be weighed and some
acknowledgement made of the fund's positive aspects. The
millennium fund to its credit advances the cause of sovereignty.
It will bring home the truth to Quebeckers that the federal
system, regardless of the party in power, will never change,
that it is incorrigible.
We sovereignists know that many Quebeckers are not sovereignist
because they still hope that the federal system will change.
Now, the pretentious millennium fund, which is infringing
provincial rights, has revealed the true colours of the federal
government, and we hope that many Quebeckers, who up to now have
not understood, will now understand that federalism, regardless
of the party in power, will not change.
Such disdain for the people of Quebec to have thought that they
would swallow it holus-bolus because it meant money.
Madam Speaker, you are as familiar with the Bible as I am. You
know that Esau gave up his birthright for a dish of lentils
because he was hungry. We will not do the same for the dish of
lentils the millennium fund represents.
We in Quebec have not stopped advocating and claiming provincial
rights because the federal government is infringing them.
It was wrong to think that we would give up our rights for a
dish of lentils. I understand that it is a rude awakening for
the Liberals to discover that their proposal did not slip
through and that Quebeckers are protesting and indignant at this
unfair fund.
The neat thing in all this is that it is not just the
sovereignists who are complaining. All the various communities
in Quebec are protesting this fund. I have a few examples.
First those from the educational community, obviously.
The CEQ stated that the millennium fund was not the way to
provide young Quebeckers with improved access to a university
education.
Let me give another example among many. The Fédération des
étudiants des collèges du Québec said that student debt was a
big problem, but that the millennium fund was not the answer. We
should not forget that this fund was supposed to lure young
Quebeckers, most of whom are sovereignists. Obviously, it did
not work.
I could go on and on. We also have the general manager of the
Canadian Institute of Adult Education.
Here is what he had to say: “The federal government's budget and
tax decision over the last few years have contributed to the
erosion of the standard of living of students and of the
provincial public education systems. The package contained in
the last budget may well go against what provincial governments
have been trying to do”.
1705
I could give so many examples, but the one that takes the cake
comes from a federalist, John Trent, from the University of
Ottawa. He told us: “The millennium fund will necessarily be a
source of federal-provincial duplication and overlap with
existing programs. Bill C-36 which provides for the millennium
fund is a direct attack against the principles of federalism.”
That is a federalist talking. The millennium fund is an abuse of
the very principles of federalism. It shows contempt for the
parliamentary resolution, proposed by the Prime Minister, to
recognize the distinct nature of Quebec society. One of the
advantages of the millennium fund is that it has shown people
that this distinct society resolution is pure window dressing.
The educational sector is not the only one putting up a fuss, so
is the business sector. This is worth noting. The Finance
Canada experts have estimated that the administrative costs for
the foundation will be around the 5% mark, or twice what they
are in Quebec. The comment by the Alliance des manufacturiers
et exportateurs du Québec was “Duplication must be avoided, and
the millennium fund is definitely one example of this. Existing
provincial structures must be taken advantage of.” That is the
reaction of the business sector.
As for the Canadian taxpayer, the comment by Walter Robinson of
the Canadian Taxpayers Foundation was that this showed “contempt
for accounting standards”. It is unbelievable. Need I go on?
The arrogance of Ottawa's desire to trample over the rights of
the provinces is nothing new, but until now Quebec had managed
to block it as far as student loans were concerned. Earlier on,
one of my colleagues recalled that, back in 1964, the Pearson
government proposed student loans for which it would cover the
interest.
In response, Mr. Lesage, who was not a sovereignist, said that
Quebec would have to go to court in order to have its
constitutional rights respected in this matter. Mr. Pearson then
had to acknowledge that, if a province preferred to have its own
loan program, it would be entitled to an equivalent amount in
compensation. It seems to me that the federal federalists were
brighter than they are now.
This time, the scandal is even greater, because it comes in the
wake of cuts to education which have forced the provincial
government to slash budgets, particularly those allocated to
universities and colleges, which have done them real harm. The
Liberals have, therefore, cut provincial education budgets, to
then use the money merely to increase their political visibility
through the millennium fund, which does not meet any real need
in Quebec.
This is outrageous. The Liberal motto is “Make political hay
while pretending to serve the public”.
This arrogant government, with its contempt for provincial
jurisdictions, thought it could once again pass off as a service
something that was totally focussed on gaining political
popularity. It did not work and, as I have said, it will help
show Quebeckers that the federalist cause is no longer
sustainable. The arrogant, authoritarian, overbearing federal
regime, which is also disrespectful of provincial areas of
jurisdiction regardless of which party is in power, is simply
hopeless. Thanks to the millennium fund, more Quebeckers than
ever now understand that there is but one solution for Quebec,
and that is sovereignty.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in Edmonton—Strathcona and
on behalf of every Canadian taxpayer, I am pleased to rise to
speak against Bill C-36 concerning the implementation of many of
the recent announcements made by the government in the 1998
budget.
1710
My colleagues have dealt thoroughly with this legislation in
committee. I would like to address only the Group No. 1
amendments concerning the millennium fund.
As this House is aware, the passing of this act would bring into
effect the much talked about Canada millennium scholarship
foundation. This fund concerns me for a number of reasons, the
first of which has nothing to do with the world of budgets and
finance at all.
Education is an area of provincial jurisdiction. Any further
meddling by the federal government only helps to enhance the
frustration felt by our provincial partners about the Canadian
federation.
This point is important because the millennium fund will be more
than just another ineffective and wasteful Liberal policy. It
will be a constant reminder to our friends in Quebec, Alberta and
elsewhere that this government refuses to recognize
constitutional division of powers.
I recall very well the Bloc supply day motion which opposed the
millennium fund because it violates provincial jurisdiction.
There were aspects of the motion that were admittedly
objectionable to the Reform caucus, but I share the sentiment
felt by my colleagues in the Bloc that the federal government has
once again overextended its reach.
I would also suggest that the members of the Bloc, like the
members of the Reform caucus, are no less concerned about the
quality of education than the Prime Minister. They simply
appreciate that the federal government should respect provincial
jurisdiction. They also understand that the provincial
governments are better able to administer programs than is a
distant and out of touch federal government.
The premiers of this country are united in their support for a
rebalancing of powers that better reflects the original
constitution. Yet the federal government refuses to respect this
consensus.
I would recommend that if the government is interested in
solving the national unity problem, it should look at the new
Canada act put together by the Reform caucus. This act embodies
many of the concerns felt by our premiers and is a blueprint for
positive change.
I mention this to illustrate a point. There are consequences of
bad policies which are not readily apparent but that must be
addressed fully. We cannot continue to ignore the delicate
political reality in this country.
The millennium fund must be opposed because of the potential
damage it will do to intergovernmental relations. The Prime
Minister is not concerned about national unity or constitutional
matters. He is concerned about his political legacy.
The millennium fund will provide the Prime Minister with a
legacy, but not for being a champion for higher education. Our
Prime Minister will instead join the long list of status quo
federalist politicians who refuse to listen to our first
ministers who are calling on this government to get out of areas
of provincial jurisdiction.
My second concern with the millennium fund is one that has been
addressed many times. It is a concern I alluded to only minutes
ago. This fund, simply put, will not be effective in improving
the financial situation for Canadian students.
Even after billions are spent, 90% of Canadian students will
never see a penny of this money. They will face the same
financial constraints they always have. If the federal
government was concerned about education, it need only to
reinvest money in provincial transfers for education. Maybe it
could look at such things as an income contingent student loan
plan which would ensure adequate funding for students. Or maybe
the Prime Minister could work toward building a partnership
between educators and industry.
My point is that the possibilities for helping Canadian students
are endless. We must look for creative ways to drive down the
cost of education and to ensure access to funds for students in
need. However the millennium fund is clearly not the way to
accomplish this.
While the Reform caucus is opposed to the fund, we have
recommended some changes that will improve the current
legislation.
First, the millennium scholarship fund should be subject to the
Access to Information Act. This is fair. It is hard to argue
why the fund should be shrouded in secrecy. If the government is
confident the money will be properly spent, it should embrace the
opportunity to make the fund open to scrutiny.
Second, eligible institution should mean an institution that is a
public or private post-secondary educational institution in
Canada that is designated for Canada student loan purposes and
grants degrees, certificates or diplomas.
1715
I think this amendment satisfies the principle of equality and
fairness and should be considered by all members of this House.
Third, it is our recommendation that the provinces and
territories be allowed to opt out and enter into agreements with
the foundation to use their portion of the fund to suit their
post-secondary priorities with no strings attached.
I would be very surprised if Liberal members of this House
opposed the amendment, as it is in keeping with Liberal policy on
the procedure for implementing federal programs in areas of
provincial jurisdiction where the provinces are reluctant to
allow federal intervention. This is a part of Liberal policy on
national standards, so I expect the government's support on that
amendment.
Finally, we recommend that an appeal process be established to
consider grant applications which were denied or rejected. Again,
this is a reasonable amendment that entrenches a provision for
fairness.
The millennium fund will not help Canadian students struggling
to pay their way through university. It is a bad program that
should be scrapped. However, if it must remain the recommended
amendments made by my hon. colleague from Medicine Hat should be
given careful consideration and support.
This is only one of the issues that have put a black mark on
Bill C-36. For this reason I will join my colleagues in the
Reform caucus in opposition to it.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House to speak
about Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. There has been
much debate about this bill already in committee and certainly in
the House coming out of the budget that was presented. We have
heard a lot of discussion about the millennium fund and whether
it will improve the situation for post-secondary education.
Having looked at the document in committee where some of this
discussion has taken place it is quite clear that post-secondary
education is in a very deep crisis. One of the reasons that we
are facing a crisis with post-secondary education is the retreat
of public funding to our post-secondary educational facilities.
Although we have heard a lot of talk about the millennium fund,
this grand fund of $2.5 billion, the reality is this fund will
not even begin until the year 2000 and will in reality help only
about 7% of students.
By the time the fund begins in the year 2000 we will have
experienced cuts of around $3 billion from post-secondary
education. So it becomes very clear that the millennium fund
does not even come close to replacing and compensating for the
massive drain and cuts we have experienced in post-secondary
education.
This is causing enormous concern in terms of where public policy
is going but also for the impact it is having on the lives
of individual students. It is because of the retreat of public
funding that tuition fees have skyrocketed. We have seen an
increase of 240% in tuition fees over the last 10 years. We have
all used the figure that average student debt is now at $25,000.
There is a direct relationship between the pain and the debtload
students are facing and the retreat of public funding as a result
of a loss of transfers from the federal government to the
provincial government. There is absolutely no escaping that
fact, and the millennium fund cannot make up and does not make up
for the loss we have experienced.
In addition, the other really serious situation that the
millennium fund creates is it begins to take us down a slippery
slope of privatization.
1720
New Democrats are very concerned that with this foundation, a
private foundation being set up which will have representation
from corporations in the private sector, there will be less and
less control in terms of public administration and public
direction of our post-secondary educational facilities.
For that reason alone, this fund should be rejected and we
should go back to the drawing board and say that the real issue
here is to support publicly administered, publicly accessible
post-secondary educational facilities.
We have already seen examples in Canada where the corporate
influence on board of governors of universities and colleges and
now on this millennium fund is beginning to have an impact on
curriculum of deregulation of tuition fees and deregulation of
programs. All these things are creating an environment where
there is increasing privatization and corporatization of our
post-secondary educational system.
The millennium fund is a part of that direction and for that
reason must be rejected.
The NDP believes very strongly that we must have an open
discussion with the provinces because education is a provincial
jurisdiction. Members of the Bloc Quebecois have pointed out
very well the huge concerns they have with the millennium fund.
It is not only in Quebec. This is echoed across the country in
terms of unilateral decisions being taken by the federal
government with regard to post-secondary education and the
establishment of this private foundation with no consultation
whatsoever with provincial jurisdictions.
The NDP believes we need to have leadership from the federal
government. It needs to be the kind of leadership done in
co-operation and collaboration with provincial jurisdictions to
design a national program of national grants that deals with
different provincial jurisdictions and different provincial
contexts where there is a clear understanding and a principle
that accessibility for all students in Canada is a national
standard.
The NDP believes that is the starting point of ensuring that our
post-secondary education system is protected and strengthened and
not destroyed as we have seen over the last few years.
Canada is one of only two OECD countries that do not have a
national grant system. We need to ensure federal funding is
provided in co-operation with provincial governments to establish
a national system of grants.
In my province of British Columbia as well as in the province of
Quebec there has been leadership shown in terms of trying to keep
education accessible for students even in the face of massive
cutbacks.
In British Columbia we are now in the third year of a tuition
freeze. That has been very difficult to accomplish given the
massive cutbacks we have experienced in transfers from the
federal government.
The NDP is calling on the federal government to show the
leadership that is necessary. We have heard a lot of rhetoric
and concern expressed by government members about the level of
students debt, but there is nothing in this bill that will really
alleviate the pressure and the huge debtload now facing students.
I have talked to students in my riding and here in the Ottawa
area and have been really shocked to hear stories of students who
are now facing debts of $40,000, $50,000, $60,000. What kind of
way is that to start a life?
We need to go back to the drawing board and say clearly that
this millennium fund is taking us down the wrong road. We need a
national grant system. We need accessibility. Most important of
all, we need restoration of federal funding for post-secondary
education in Canada.
1725
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, it
is with great interest that I wanted to speak to Bill C-36,
particularly with regard to the millennium scholarship fund.
There are many reasons for this: first, because I am a father;
second, because I worked in the area of education; and third, to
show that, once again, we are duplicating structures.
I will always remember the farmer who, in 1970, convinced me to
join in the fight for Quebec's sovereignty. He lived on
concession 7 in a small community in my riding. His argument was
quite simple.
He said: “Jean-Guy, take a good look in my barn”. He had a
magnificent herd of Ayrshire cows.
That dairy farmer had a mixed quota: 50% fluid milk and 50%
industrial milk. The part of a cow's production used for
industrial milk was under federal jurisdiction, whereas the part
used for fluid milk, the kind we drink every day, was, and still
is, under Quebec's jurisdiction.
For the same cow, two agriculture ministers: one for industrial
milk and one for fluid milk. All that for the same dairy
producer—
An hon. member: And the same cow.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: And the same cow, of course.
This government is doing the same thing to our students. The
same student will have to send two applications for a loan or a
scholarship: one to the Quebec government and one to the federal
government. We are talking here about the same taxpayers, the
same parents and the same students.
A few moments ago, I heard my friend, the member for
Laurentides, say that 5% of the $2.5 billion will be used to pay
employees, to pay for the forms, and so on. That means $1 out of
every $20. If the federal government really wants to help our
students, why does it not allow former students who are starting
to repay their student loans to deduct the interest on their
loans from their income?
If it were so generous, if it really had the interests of young
Canadians and young Quebeckers at heart, it would accept our
suggestion immediately and would gain from this situation that
opposes it to the Quebec government.
In the early 1960s, under the late Jean Lesage, whom I had the
pleasure to work with in the Liberal Party of Quebec, an honest
man who worked for the well-being of his community, the well-being
of Quebeckers, the Government of Quebec established a loans and
grants program in co-operation with the federal government. It is
working exceptionally well.
Our students are leaving universities with a bachelor's degree,
with an average debt of $11,000, while students outside Quebec,
elsewhere in Canada, have an average debt of $19,000 or $20,000.
In Quebec, tuition fees are almost half those outside Quebec. It
is not surprising that our English universities are filled with
students from Ontario or elsewhere.
Duplication creates unwarranted and unacceptable expenses, and
the result is, in Canada, we pay 27 % more taxes of all kinds
than in the United States for equal services.
A second point that also hurts and offends students, the future
recipients of these scholarships, and they demonstrated this in
all the universities and cegeps of Quebec, is the way the
federal government is getting ready—
1730
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member. You will have about five minutes when the debate on
this bill resumes.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
BANK ACT
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved that Bill C-289,
an act to amend the Bank Act and the Statistics Act (equity in
community reinvestment), be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, you will understand that I have been
waiting for this moment for a long time, since I introduced this
bill in November. This is a somewhat special day, because it is
also my birthday.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I am not saying this simply to get attention, I
just think this might be my lucky day and that my luck will
benefit poor communities.
Let me start off by saying that this bill is a concrete step
against poverty. As MPs, we all know there is a direct link
between poverty and access to credit.
In the United States, a country where, we must admit, capitalism
and free enterprise are thriving, they have had since 1977, that
is for the past three decades, the Community Reinvestment Act,
which makes it compulsory for banks to invest in disadvantaged
communities.
What is this all about? The six major chartered banks listed in
schedule I of the Bank Act have the privilege to earn big
profits using the money deposited by their clients.
What we are asking for is some balance between the deposits they
receive and the loans they make to the community.
We are not challenging the fact that banks are trying to make
profits. If they make money by playing the bond market smartly
or making a wise use of any other financial vehicle, we
understand. What we do not understand is that in 1998 banks are
no longer present in poor communities.
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is a case in point. This once thriving
blue collar community is now hurting. Elderly people there tell
me that in the 1960s there were 10 banks in their community. I
challenge you to guess how many there are today.
There are two. That is what has to change.
The banks, which are making record profits, have entered the
global market, with 40% of their assets coming from foreign
investments at the present time. It is not right that banks are
not present in communities needing their help.
In a community such as mine, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, housing is
where banks could invest and get involved. Eighty-six per cent
of my constituents rent their accommodation. The banks'
requirements are such that it is extremely difficult for anyone
wishing to buy property to get a loan. This must end.
In the United States, the equivalent of our superintendent of
financial institutions tables an annual report in Congress on
the efforts banks make in disadvantaged communities.
This report looks at loans made for community development
purposes, loans to small business and loans to individuals.
1735
In the case of loans to individuals, there are figures for low,
middle and high income earners, by urban census area.
Here is what I am asking of all parliamentarians today. At a
time when the Bank Act is being debated, at a time when a
five-year review is obligatory, at a time when the Minister of
Finance has set up a task force, is it not incumbent upon us as
parliamentarians to send a very clear message in the end to the
effect that we want the philosophy behind the Community
Reinvestment Act to be part of our concerns as parliamentarians?
This is not a partisan issue because, regardless of which side
of the House we are on, there is always a need for banks to get
involved in the community. The Reform Party and the Bloc
Quebecois each represent a part of this constituency. The same
is true of the New Democratic Party and the Progressive
Conservative Party, not to mention the government party.
Why should banks get involved in their communities? The most
obvious reason is of course that they can afford it. My bill
does not call for this social involvement of banks across Canada
to take a specific form. Within each of their communities, banks
should work with industry, community groups, elected
representatives, the bone and sinew of the community, to ensure
that investments can be made which will benefit community
development.
That is the philosophy behind community reinvestment.
Let me remind you that, in 1992, banks made approximately $2
billion in profits. This year, profits will likely be closer to
$8 billion. So, we are in a situation where, as I said, the
effort asked of banks is not an unreasonable one.
Banks should get involved in their communities because they
operate in an extremely sheltered environment. The socio-economic
studies chair at UQAM reported that 90% of loans issued by banks
are secured by one level of government or the other and that 92%
of all banking activities in Canada are conducted by the six
major schedule I chartered banks. In a word, banks make profits
and operate in a sheltered and concentrated environment.
The good news for bank shareholders is that retained earnings
are higher than they have ever been in recent years. The
retained earnings of banks have grown by 18% per year. Few
industries in our society can match that.
UQAM is a breeding ground of ideas, which has enlightened the
Quebec society. A good friend of mine, whom I wish to mention in
passing—his name is Dominic Peltier-Rivest—is a professor of
economics at UQAM and he supports my bill, which is comforting
to me. I would ask my colleagues to some enthusiasm about this.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Also, the socio-economics studies chair at UQAM
has revealed, along with banking specialist professor Bernard
Élie in his latest book, available from the Presses de
l'Université de Montréal for the modest sum of $28, that the
banks are getting rich off people's savings.
Every day in Canada, 2.5 million transaction slips are churned
out by automatic tellers, and the banks get 50 cents for each
transaction. Imagine, a person cannot even take money out of
his own account, his own independent income, without the banks
charging for the transaction.
It cannot be repeated enough, we parliamentarians must tell the
financial institutions, the chartered banks, that they have to
get involved in disadvantaged communities, that they have to do
so because they can afford to, and because they receive a lot
from the community by virtue of their protected situation, so it
is the least they can do.
1740
To give some examples, once again in the United States, the
Community Reinvestment Act has been in force since 1977 and so
we can see what the effects of such an arrangement can be. I do
not want to talk about coercion here, we do not see a bill of
this kind as compulsion. It is a bill that will clarify the
framework within which the banks can act in order to get
involved in their community.
As you know, in recent years the Hispano-American community and
the Afro-American community have seen their access to credit
improve by 30%. That is, of course, understandable.
When a bank is in a predominantly black community, efforts will
be expended to ensure that this community has access to personal
loans and to mortgage money. This is possible because there is
an evaluation of banking business. Bank involvement is assessed.
The monitoring agency makes reports and the consumers and
American consumer groups follow those reports.
The following are a few examples. In some American states,
there are special accounts just for people who write a limited
number of cheques. Some states have said that, in the spirit of
the Community Investment Act, a certain number of free cheques
will be allowed. The banking institution will process a certain
number of cheques without a service charge.
I will quote an example from New York State. As the member for
Quebec, who has always been sensitive to these issues, knows,
some communities passed rules making it impossible to freeze a
client's account for more than two banking days. This is
something important which comes from the Community Reinvestment
Act.
More important yet, as I was saying earlier, in an area like
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, 86% of the population lives in rental
accommodation. If we do not help them a bit, and God knows banks
are not easy to deal with in that respect, they will never own a
home.
Let me give you another example. In a number of American states,
banks absorb part of the mortgage-related costs such as the
appraisal, title search and credit rating costs.
You will no doubt agree with me, Madam Speaker, that all this is
very reasonable. There is nothing outlandish about this. There
is nothing in the examples I just gave that is not consistent
with what banks are all about.
Is there anybody in this House who believes that, if we leave
the banks to their own devices, they will voluntarily invest in
disadvantaged communities? Certainly not. As law-makers, we must
send them a very clear message and tell them exactly what we
expect of them, regardless of our political affiliation. Whether
we belong to the government, the NDP—of course, much to its
credit, the NDP has a long history of social action—the Reform
Party or the Conservative Party, we must tell banks now that we
will no longer tolerate their being absent from large
communities.
I recently gave a press conference with the bishop of Rimouski.
He is highly respected in his community; he received a classical
education and he is an extremely sensitive man. He told me that,
just as in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, banks have deserted his
community. I have to say it, I want this to be very clear, it is
the main thrust of the bill before us today.
For the rest, I can only hope. This bill is very close to my
heart. I want to get this thing going because I know that
several other parliamentarians are sensitive to this problem.
I want to use my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi as an example,
because he has also introduced a bill to better control bank
fees, to ensure that banks will have to appear before a
committee to explain any fee increases and also to establish the
appropriate regulations. I raise that point because there are
obviously, in every political party, members who could work on
this in a non-partisan caucus.
1745
Imagine for a minute how strong we would be in this House if we
were to decide to review the Bank Act and address the issue of
the operations of the banks and our expectations in this area in
a non-partisan way. We would work as parliamentarians in a
non-partisan caucus, where all members who are concerned about
this issue would represent their parties and give their best for
greater social justice.
I see that my time is running out. I just want to stress that
this is a very important bill for me and I am very proud of it.
I am also extremely moved by all the support my caucus
colleagues gave me.
As far as I am concerned, this battle will be over only when
this bill is passed.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will begin by making it
clear that the government fully supports the principles of
community investment.
We are also committed to ensuring proper accountability and
transparency of the banks' small business lending activities. We
will continue to challenge the banks to do a good job of meeting
the needs and in particular the credit needs of consumers and
small businesses across Canada.
It is also important to note that the Task Force on the Future
of the Canadian Financial Services Sector is examining the
responsiveness of financial institutions to community needs as
part of its work. Consequently we believe that it is appropriate
to wait for the task force views before deciding whether any
further action is required.
The issue of community reinvestment involves a number of
important considerations. At the end of the day the task force
will need to assess whether there is a need for a more focused
approach to community investment by the banks. There may be a
number of models that would have to be carefully considered. The
government's primary task, should it decide to move forward on
this matter, is to ensure that the model chosen will accomplish
specific policy objectives in an efficient manner.
Bill C-289 represents one approach to community reinvestment.
While the bill's provisions are intended to promote equity in
community investment, it contains some elements that could have
unintended negative impacts.
Bill C-289 appears to be loosely modelled on the American
community reinvestment act, legislation that was implemented in
the U.S. in response to a unique credit discrimination problem.
This type of credit discrimination does not exist in our banking
system.
It is important to recognize that the CRA was introduced in the
U.S. during the 1970s to discourage financial institutions from
red lining inner city areas, that is, taking deposits from the
entire service area but not lending in certain neighbourhoods.
This practice is believed to be the primary factor underlying the
transformation of many U.S. inner cities into urban ghettos.
While the CRA has been useful in raising U.S. lenders' awareness
of their lending patterns, it remains unclear whether its
benefits, primarily social, outweigh the regulatory costs. This
legislation has been criticized for imposing cumbersome and
expensive data reporting and record keeping requirements on both
the government and regulated institutions.
Bill C-289 will require Stats Canada to produce estimates of
monthly unemployment rates for each federal riding. Statistics
Canada has estimated the initial implementation cost would be $15
million. The ongoing annual cost of the monthly labour force
survey would mushroom to $40 million, triple the current cost. We
would want to explore whether there may be a more cost efficient
method of designating disadvantaged communities and establishing
stress measurements.
Under the provisions of the bill, branches of schedule I banks
located in designated disadvantaged federal ridings would be
required to produce detailed lending statistics for those
specific areas. Disadvantaged ridings would be defined on the
basis of the unemployment rate within the riding. However the
proposed criteria that would be used to assess whether a riding
is disadvantaged is problematic.
Any federal riding having an unemployment rate equal to or
higher than the national average unemployment rate would be
designated as disadvantaged. Furthermore a riding's monthly
unemployment rate need only equal or exceed the national rate
once during the preceding year to be designated as disadvantaged.
Such a loose definition goes far beyond capturing those ridings
with chronic unemployment problems.
Moreover there is a problem with the definition of community in
general. Imposing artificial limits on bank lending based on the
geographic source of deposits presupposes that the market is not
working efficiently.
In considering any potential community investment initiatives,
the government would want to be assured that the model being
examined would not lead to inefficient allocation of capital.
1750
A further area of concern with Bill C-289 is the requirement for
banks to generate detailed lending statistics at the federal
riding level. This could impact negatively on privacy protection
for bank customers.
During its hearings with the banks on small business financing,
the House industry committee explored the concept of requiring a
much more detailed breakdown of lending statistics. In fact the
committee looked at seeing whether we could get the breakdown by
postal code or community. In the end it was determined that the
aggregating of lending statistics to this extent would
potentially result in the breach of client privacy.
I want to re-emphasize the government's commitment to community
investment despite the criticisms I have put forward here. Today
the government is taking action to promote community investment.
The regional development agencies and other government programs
continue to play a big role in financing community needs across
Canada. We are also sustaining efforts to aggressively encourage
the banks to meet legitimate small and medium size businesses'
financing needs in all regions of Canada.
The government is nevertheless sensitive to the fact that many
rural communities have experienced difficulties in accessing not
only credit but banking services in general. Let us be clear.
The banking landscape has changed dramatically in recent years.
The banks must take steps to ensure that rural and remote
communities have sufficient access to banking services.
The government is also keeping a watchful eye on the banks'
lending activities and carefully reviews their lending data in
order to assess progress in meeting the financing needs of small
business. Regular House industry committee hearings with the
banks provide a good opportunity to question the banks on
statistics which may reveal problem areas with respect to access
to capital. While it is recognized that credit decisions are
highly subjective and involve potential considerations, the data
reporting requirements of the banks provide an effective check on
the banks with respect to their efforts to support community
development.
Much of the debate on community reinvestment has focused on the
increasing availability of microcredit to small business. I
would note that there are a number of federal and provincial
microcredit initiatives run by a variety of community
organizations right across the country.
In general these programs offer financial assistance as well as
training, mentoring and counselling services. These programs
serve not only small business operators but also target youth,
aboriginal peoples, women and non-urban rural communities. The
government considers these microcredit programs to be of vital
importance in promoting community development at the grassroots
level and will continue to support and promote microcredit
lending.
In summary, while the government supports the principle of
community investment, Bill C-289 may not be in fact the best
approach. Furthermore, we believe that it would be premature to
take any action in this area before the task force submits its
views to the government this fall. For this and the other reasons
I have outlined in my discussion today, I believe that it would
be incumbent upon the House to reject Bill C-289.
I also want to say that the hon. member, I am sure, is quite
sincere in putting forward the bill and does believe in what he
is doing. I merely want to point out a number of deficiencies
that I see in this particular bill.
In fact the reason we set up the task force was to look at the
changing financial institutions and the changing financial
sector. I do believe that waiting for that report would be the
most effective way of dealing with the change that is going on.
In the end we all want to ensure that Canadians in urban Canada
and rural Canada, Canadians who are involved in small businesses
and Canadians who deal in microcredit are all properly served by
the financial institutions in this country.
I certainly applaud the work of the industry committee and
certainly the work of all members. The outcome is the benefit
that can be achieved by ensuring that small business and
Canadians in general do have the proper access to capital and do
receive the necessary banking services they require so that they
can continue to contribute in a very real and effective manner to
the growth of this country and its economy.
1755
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I feel
privileged to enter the debate on this bill. I think the
motivation that gave rise to the bill is a very commendable one.
I believe at the beginning of the last parliament, the 35th
Parliament, the industry committee undertook a major study on
access to capital for small business. That study has continued
to guide the hon. member who just spoke on behalf of the
government side in this debate. It certainly influenced him and
it influenced a lot of other people.
The issue here is the availability of credit to individuals and
to businesses. We need to be very careful that this credit is
available in a fair and equitable manner and in a competitive
marketplace where the people who are providing the capital do so
in a fair and reasonable manner.
The issue before us is that banks, chartered banks in
particular, be forced. I know the hon. member who is presenting
this bill said that there is no coercion involved. That word
perhaps is false. There is coercion involved in this bill.
At the outset of the bill its summary clearly suggests rather
directly that the banks shall. It says that this enactment
amends the Bank Act and provides that certain branches of banks
must take measures to facilitate access to credit to persons who
have a residence or place of business in the federal electoral
district in which the branches are located.
Throughout the clauses of the bill the words “shall” and
“must” are located. The issue is very clear that there is
definitely an element of coercion involved in this bill.
The purpose of my remarks is not to suggest that the banks are
doing an exemplary job in providing access to capital to small
business or to individuals. That is not the issue. The issue is
that the banks are doing that sort of thing. Are they doing it
as well as they should?
My hon. colleague opposite said that the industry committee
receives quarterly reports from the way in which the chartered
banks are lending money to the various businesses. It is very
interesting. The most recent of those quarterly reports is dated
September 30, 1997. I did a comparison with the first report
dated December 1995. I compared what has happened to the lending
patterns of the chartered banks in that time.
It was very interesting that in December 1995 the banks were
lending more money to small businesses, that is from zero to
$25,000, than they were in 1997. The total number of dollars
available in fact decreased during that time period. The number
of people however who received those loans increased. This
really meant that more people were getting smaller loans than was
the case two years previously.
When we look at the other end of the scale, the number of those
who borrowed $1 million to $5 million dollars had gone down.
However, the total amount available in credit was considerably
higher. Therefore, there were fewer people borrowing more money.
This is all part of the banks' profit picture. It is true that
the banks can argue that they are profitable organizations.
Nobody will debate that. We all know that they are highly
profitable. They are so profitable indeed that many people would
criticize their profitability.
Let us not forget that there are a lot of other profitable
businesses in this country. The issue here is not to criticize
the profitability but rather to look very carefully at whether
their pattern is such that we can take exception to the
accessibility to the lending and the borrowing that we need to do
in order to run our businesses and our own individual lives.
This bill restricts itself only to chartered banks. It also
restricts itself to branches in chartered banks. There are two
difficulties with this.
First of all, there are many other deposit taking institutions
that are not chartered banks. I look particularly at the credit
unions, caisses populaires and trust companies. Those are
probably the most commonly recognized as being deposit taking
institutions.
1800
These institutions are very community centred, very involved in
the community. They take money out of the community and lend
money back into the community. To distinguish one particular
group by saying that it must but others can do whatever they feel
I do not think is quite fair. I do not think that was the
intention either. Perhaps it was; I do not know.
I suppose it could be argued that because the banks have 85% of
the deposits in Canada therefore in each community that is the
case. It may follow or it may not. In fact in many cases it
does not follow. There are other ways of depositing money.
The issue is one of reinvestment. How do we reinvest? If a
bank takes substantial sums of money in deposits from a
particular community, ought it not reinvest in the same
proportion as it receives deposits from the community? The bill
is not clear as to whether that is how it would work or whether
it would not work that way. It is not known.
I would like also to refer to another provision in the bill
which I think has a serious shortcoming. It suggests that a
disadvantaged community is a community in which the unemployment
rate once during the previous 12 month period was equal to or
larger than the national average. This is to be done on an
electoral basis.
An electoral district does not have a constant boundary. It
changes every 10 years, but nevertheless it does change. The
issue now becomes one of being very micro centred. A community
goes beyond an electoral district.
If we take the city of Montreal it can in one sense be
considered a community. If we look at the unemployment
statistics for that community—and I agree there is more than one
electoral district—it would as the larger community certainly
qualify as being a disadvantaged community. Not only that one,
but we could go right across Canada and most of our major centres
would qualify as disadvantaged communities under that definition.
If we break it down small enough into certain sections there
would not be a disadvantaged community in that sense. In other
cases there would be very much the opposite situation.
I suggest that there are some shortcomings in the bill. The
intention may have been reasonable but the way it is worded will
cause us a lot of difficulty.
Also we want to recognize the intent and purpose. Certainly my
purpose on the industry committee and certainly my purpose as a
parliamentarian is to make sure that there is a sound and stable
financial institutional system in Canada. Our chartered banks
have served us very well, but there are some very severe
shortcomings. The issue is that some of our chartered banks are
perhaps moving into areas that are to the disadvantage of the
small borrower, the small lender, the small depositor.
I know the pressures that have come with quarterly reports have
caused the banks to perhaps change their behaviour slightly but
not enough to make a material difference. The intention may be
okay but I think there are some difficulties.
I would also like to suggest that there is a major change
coming. It is happening already in the whole financial
institutions area and in particular with regard to banking and
banking services. We are getting into electronic banking in a
big way. In fact there are electronic banks that have no
branches.
What would the legislation do in that regard? Non-branch banks
also take deposits out of what would have been defined as a
disadvantaged community. Would the same requirements that are
imposed on chartered banks with branches be imposed on them? If
not, one group is being preferred over another and it does not
create fair competition or equality of competition. I do not
think that is fair.
For that reason, if for no other, I would say let us vote
against the bill.
[Translation]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would
first like to say that I support Bill C-289 moved by my friend,
the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. There may be some details
on which I disagree, but this is normal.
1805
It is very important to refer this bill to a committee of the
House to have a debate on the future of the banking system in
our country.
Similar legislation exists in the United States. It is not
something very radical. In the United States, just south of the
border, there is very similar legislation. For this reason, I am
in favour of this bill before us this afternoon.
[English]
The time has come when we should start treating more seriously
private members' initiatives in the House in terms of referring
them to committee more often; giving our committees more power
and independence so that a committee of the House can actually
initiate legislation; reforming our political parliamentary
system to make it more democratic and more independent from the
executive, the government; and making parliament more meaningful
to the people of the country. I think that is a very
non-partisan statement.
I come from Saskatchewan where our party has been in power for
the most part of the last 50 years. I know there and in every
other province that too much power resides with the executive.
There is not enough independence for ordinary members of
parliament who are elected to express their point of view and
initiate legislation that is useful to people of any province or
any country.
The time has come where members on all sides of the House, all
five parties, will have to band together to make sure we get some
meaningful reforms to make parliament more acceptable.
When I look at the cynicism out there today I see it is
increasing. When we look at the turnout in the last election we
see that it is going down. People are more and more turned off
by the political process. If we could somehow make debates like
this one more meaningful, it would serve a great purpose for
Canadian people.
One of the great exercises in democracy that I hope will occur
in the next six months will be to allow the opinion of the people
of the country to be expressed about the bank mergers and the
future of financial institutions.
The Minister of Finance, probably in November, will make a
decision on whether or not he will allow the merger of the Royal
Bank and the Bank of Montreal along with the merger of the CIBC
and the Toronto-Dominion Bank.
As I travel around the country there is a great amount of
concern about megabanks being expressed by a broad spectrum of
the Canadian population that support all parties in the House. It
does not only come from certain groups in society. It comes, for
example, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business
that represents 89,000 small and medium businesses. It recently
did a survey which shows around 75% of its members are in
opposition to these megamergers.
That should tell us something. Small business is the real motor
of our economy. It employs people. It talks to the public. It
has a good sense of what the public wants.
We in parliament should find a way to make sure that point of
view is heard by and expressed to the government. We should be
saying to John Cleghorn, Matthew Barrett and the other presidents
of the banks that they will not hold parliament to ransom by
making their announcement well ahead time and expecting us to
rubber stamp the merger of these four great Canadian banks into
two.
That will not be the case just because the stock market has
reacted and bank stocks have gone up by $19 billion since January
in anticipation of our being trained seals. We will not
necessarily react that way. Parliament should express the will
of the people.
Big is not necessarily better. We can look at the big Japanese
banks that are having trouble today. These two megabanks which
are now four Canadian banks represent assets of over $900 billion
compared to the budget of the Government of Canada in the $120
billion to $150 billion range. We are talking about two huge sumo
wrestler type banks.
They do not want to merge to be a better service to the Canadian
people. It is the bank workers, the customers and the
communities which have built those banks and made them profitable
that will be devastated by these mergers.
1810
The banks want to merge for one reason and that reason is greed.
Those bank presidents have seen their stock options increase by
approximately $100 million since January. In the CIBC and the TD
alone the nine major officers of those two banks have seen their
stock options increase by $142 million since January. No wonder
they want the mergers to proceed. It is good for the big fat
bankers, but is it good for Canadians?
Experts are saying that approximately 20% of the people who work
for those banks will be laid off. They will lose their jobs.
Approximately 30,000 Canadians will lose their jobs. That is a
population of a small city. That is why parliament has to stand
up and say no and represent the Canadian people on this issue.
Those four banks have about 5,000 branches, many of which will
close throughout rural Canada and in city centres. This will
result in a lack of service for the Canadian people. There is
also the issue of corporate concentration. Our banking sector
already is the most concentrated banking sector of any country in
the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.
When we go from five big banks to two megabanks we will see
about 70% of the banking assets in the hands of two banks. In
the United States it would take approximately 100 banks to make
70% of the banking assets of that country.
This should be a great worry to Canadian people in terms of
service, bank service charges, interest on loans, service to the
small business community, farmers and ordinary people. These
mergers will not be in the interest of the people of the country.
They are in the interest of Mr. Cleghorn, Mr. Barrett, Mr.
Baillie and Mr. Flood, the presidents, CEOs and banking
executives of these four big banks.
Those banks have been made very profitable. They have made over
$7 billion in profits in the last year, and they have done that
in Canada. They do not have to get bigger to be more profitable.
Even my Liberal friend from Winnipeg is embarrassed about the
power of these big banks. He knows the electorate in his riding
is very concerned about the layoffs that will ensue, the lack of
competition and the branches that will close throughout Manitoba.
In Lynn Lake, Manitoba, there was only one bank which is the
Toronto-Dominion Bank and it has closed. It is a community
without a bank. This is happening right across the country.
I hope we take advantage of this debate to focus once again on
the power of these banks and to say at the very least that
Canadian banks should be forced to reinvest in their local
communities the money they take from depositors in their local
communities. This is happening now in the United States of
America.
There is nothing radical about it. It is happening in the
United States. Let us make sure it happens here. The banks are
here to serve the Canadian people, not to fatten the pockets of
John Cleghorn, Al Ford and the other big bank CEOs.
I will do whatever I can as a member of parliament to help
channel public opinion against these big mergers. They are not
in the Canadian interest and I say to John Cleghorn “Don't take
parliament for granted. We are not trained seals. We are not a
rubber stamp. You can't blackmail the Parliament of Canada”.
Parliament is supreme in terms of making up its mind whether or
not these mergers go ahead. We reflect the Canadian people. We
will make sure they say no.
There was a survey in the Regina Leader Post about two
weeks ago. It was a survey and not a poll. The question was
“Do you think if these big banks merge you will get better
service or worse service?” Over 2,000 people called the
Leader Post and 93% said the service would be worse and 7%
said the service would be better.
This is another reason we as members of parliament should say
that it is not in the public interest, not in the interest of
Canada, that these mergers go ahead. That is one of the reasons
I support the bill of the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
1815
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for putting
forward this piece of legislation, which I have read. I echo the
comments of my colleague in the NDP that it is very refreshing to
speak to issues that are important to us as individual members of
parliament.
I share some sympathy with the member who submitted this bill
that it is not votable. I find that to be unfortunate. I wish
that all private members' legislation, bills or motions, were
votable in this House. I have had the opportunity to speak to a
number of my own that were not votable, although they were very
important issues. They are very necessary issues for individual
members of parliament, not only for their own constituencies but
for the constituency we all serve, the constituency of Canada.
I was confused as I read the bill because it did not speak a lot
about the bank mergers. I respect the hon. member in the NDP for
his opinion on a number of issues. He has conviction and he is
certainly very dedicated to his cause. However, I am not
prepared to stand here and not speak to the legislation, and I
certainly will not bank bash, which was the soap box given to the
hon. member with respect to this piece of legislation.
I will try to home in on what the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is trying to put forward. As I understand
it, this bill would amend the Bank Act and the Statistics Act to
promote equity in community reinvestment. It is not a bill that
talks about bank mergers and the operations of banking
institutions and how the Americans are either better or worse
than us. What it talks about is a very important issue to all of
us, in particular the smaller communities which have banking
institutions. Moneys are taken from those communities, whether
in deposits, in RRSP contributions, in mutual funds or in other
investment vehicles to be invested in other areas, most of them
being the major financial centres, the larger centres in eastern
Canada.
I understand the theory and practicalities of economy. Let us
be serious about it, perhaps a little more serious than the NDP
member who spoke, who may not quite understand all of the
mechanics of international and national economies.
I believe very seriously that in my own community the banking
institutions are good corporate citizens. They become a part of
our community, but they have a job that has to be done. That job
is obviously to make a profit, which the NDP member would see
slightly as a dirty word. I see it as an opportunity for
corporations to reinvest in themselves and to help those same
employees the member suggested would be impacted by the mergers.
They are and have always been good corporate citizens in my
community. They are certainly there when necessary to help the
community in any number of fashions.
We first talked about reinvestment in the community. The
banking institution is there to help people like members of the
House to maintain the standard of living they have developed over
the past number years in their families. They allow us to
purchase our residences, to purchase our vehicles, to purchase
things for our leisure activities and to purchase the education
that is vital for our families.
They reinvest in the community with respect to commercial and
industrial reinvestment. We have heard constantly about small
and medium size enterprises, the backbone of the Canadian
economy. In most cases the small and medium size enterprises
depend an awful lot on the same financial institutions we speak
about in this legislation. That is not in all cases because
mistakes are made and everything is not perfect in this world.
However, in most cases those small and medium size enterprises
are assisted by the banking industry, which is good, not bad.
This legislation also speaks to those good things. I am very
pleased about that.
The legislation also calls for more transparency in the banking
institutions. It suggests that the banks should tell us how many
dollars are being taken from our communities and how many are
being reinvested.
1820
That is as far as it should go. I do not think there should be
a quota system. I do not believe there should be legislation
saying that if dollar one goes out then dollar one must come in.
That changes the whole dynamics of what we realize as being a
Canadian economy built on a banking system which is probably
second to none in the world.
The PC Party believes in promoting equity in community
reinvestment and in strengthening the corporate citizenship of
the banks in those communities. However, the measures that Bill
C-289 would take to ensure equity are ambiguous and a bit
unclear. Under Bill C-289 banks in different regions would be
held at different standards. Only those banks in a district with
higher unemployment than the national average would be subject to
this bill and the accountability that it would bring.
I would suggest that the bill should be applicable to all
electoral districts, not just to a selected few. Currently the
legislation is not equally applicable to all banks. Judging a
bank in Cape Breton differently than one in Medicine Hat is not a
solution that will promote community reinvestment.
Government intervention in the lending sector is not the
solution to job creation. Lowering payroll taxes and tax relief
should be the first steps in promoting job creation.
However, Bill C-289 does propose a very productive step forward
in promoting accountability in the banking industry that is very
positive. It is a step for which I congratulate the member. But
the accountability brought forward by Bill C-289 should not be
restricted just to electoral districts with unemployment rates
greater than the national average. That same accountability and
transparency should be throughout all electoral districts. There
should not be any criteria with respect to unemployment rates.
It should be applied to all banks across the country.
Currently the Canadian Bankers Association distributes business
credit statistics outlining recent credit extended to small and
medium size businesses. In fact, the banking sector undertook
this practice even before crown corporations began to publish
similar reports.
The bill rightfully pushes the level of accountability and
transparency further than the current reporting practices of the
banking sector. The proposal under section 522.06 where banks
would have to analyse their operations systems, rules and
practices in order to determine their position relative to
community reinvestment is positive.
However, the bill admits that the government would be
hard-pressed to apply specific measures to certain banks which
did not comply with the bill's intention. Nowhere in the bill is
there any mention of how the minister could impose greater
lending practices on institutions that do not meet the ambiguous
and undefined criteria for community reinvestment.
The PC Party is in favour of having a report published and
publicly accessible outlining the commitment the banking sector
has made toward community reinvestment. At this point in time we
believe that simply publishing this information would ensure
greater public accountability in the banking sector. If the
numbers are there the public then has the opportunity to make its
own decision as to whether sufficient dollars are being
reinvested into the community from that one institution and
whether the public should in fact support that institution in
their community.
If this bill is meant to promote accountability in the banking
sector, then yearly reports are the first step in this process.
However, if this bill is meant to strengthen job creation in
underdeveloped employment regions of Canada, the government
should not confuse the issue with accountability in the banking
sector. They are two separate issue. I appreciate the fact that
we should have transparency in accounting in the system because
then we do have a choice, but for the institutions to put that
money back into a region simply because of a high unemployment
rate is not the way to do it. There are other ways.
Instead of intervening in private enterprise the government
should offer small and medium size businesses in Canada the tools
to expand and promote job creation on their own. I touched on
that earlier by suggesting that the government should help
regional development with respect to taxation, which is the major
impediment of any regional development, and provide the
opportunity to develop those industries.
Offering Canadians tax relief and cutting employment insurance
premiums are the first steps the government should undertake to
assist regions with high unemployment.
I thank the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for putting the
bill forward.
1825
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to clarify three points.
First, the government member who said that this legislation
dates back to the 1970s probably does not know that the Clinton
administration has updated the Community Reinvestment Act. The
impact of this legislation and its underlying objectives are
just as relevant today as they were when the bill was first
passed in 1977.
Second, why was the electoral district used as unit of
reference? Simply because it is the unit for which there was the
most data available and because we thought, along with the
drafters who worked on the bill, that it was an interesting unit
of reference.
Now, if a member thinks that another unit of reference should
have been used, in a democracy, the best way to counter an idea
is to put forward a better one. I am very open to any kind of
amendment that would improve this bill.
At the end of my remarks, I will ask unanimous consent to refer
this bill to a parliamentary committee so that we can have a
real debate on this issue.
I will not have unanimous consent. The four opposition parties,
namely the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative
Party, the Reform Party and the Bloc, are willing to give it,
but not the government. Do you know why the government is not
willing to give its consent? Because this government is made up
of hypocrites who speak from both sides of their mouths,
particularly the House leader. They tell us that they support
the philosophy behind the Community Reinvestment Act, but they
back off when the time comes to engage into a real debate.
You know very well, Madam Speaker, that we have a problem with
credit in Canada and in Quebec. The Liberals are hypocrites,
particularly their House leader. They are just short of being
liars.
What is unacceptable is that, yesterday, the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois and I came very close to an agreement with the
government for the bill to be referred to a parliamentary
committee, which is the minimum one can expect in a democracy.
Today, the Liberals are opposed to that. Do you know why?
Because none of them can rise and speak without his hands being
tied by the banks.
If one of these members were to rise and say this is not true, I
would be prepared to table in this House the banks'
contributions to the political parties. You can see these
people cannot be honest and upright. They cannot hope for a
real debate and take a stand on behalf of the disadvantaged, as
in the south centre, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and Winnipeg, because
they have sold their souls. They are owned by the banks. I
find the position of the House leader of this government
insulting, disdainful and unparliamentary, as I do the remarks
of the government members who just spoke.
We are nowhere near a real debate on the banks. I know we
cannot count on the Liberals.
What is interesting today is that the Reformers, the New
Democrats and the Conservatives, with whom we do not agree on
everything, as is to be expected, are giving their consent and
are prepared to meet in committee and call witnesses in order to
have a real debate.
I am sick at the thought of how hypocritical the Liberals are.
Earlier, the deputy whip said to me “No, we will not support
this bill”. They were prepared to give their support,
yesterday, because they thought the Reformers would not.
I would like those watching this evening to know that the
Liberals are deeply dishonest. They lack integrity. If people
do not take to the streets, if there is no groundswell to force
this government to assume its responsibilities, there will be no
debate on the banks.
And what will happen. We will go on as before. How is it that,
yesterday, the National Council of Welfare reminded us of the
five million Canadians living in poverty, when in 1989 we passed
a resolution to have all parties work to fight poverty?
Is there one member in this House who will rise? Is there one
individual among the government members, with their stupid
smiles, who will rise and say there is no relationship between
poverty and access to credit? The Liberals make me sick, and I
want people to know that they will never be honest with the
banks, because of the funding they get. We know, we have the
list. That is the distinction between democracy, between people
who can stand up and speak honestly with their hands untied and
the traditional parties that let themselves be bought by the
banks.
1830
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hour provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired and
this item is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, both
military and civilian employees of the Department of National
Defence are under heavy attack from this government. That was
evidenced by what the federal standing defence committee heard
last week in Halifax.
The committee was told of military families so strapped for
money they were forced to knowingly cash bad cheques to pay for
their children's medicine. There were also horror stories about
people injured while serving their country, only to be thrown on
the scrap heap by DND.
Instead of working to maximize the potential of our armed
forces, this Liberal government has chosen to treat our defence
personnel as second class citizens, sacrificing their jobs and
their families' future to the short term selfish economic gains
of large corporations.
This Liberal government's ASD allegedly stands for alternate
service delivery. It really stands for armed services
destruction.
This shortsighted and destructive strategy of cutting the
civilian workforce in Halifax, Goose Bay, Shiloh, Gagetown and
throughout the country hurts not only those employees sacrificed
but also their families and entire communities.
This offensive against Canada's military reads like a well
crafted government strategic campaign to attack from two fronts.
It was not enough to disrupt the lives and plans of civilian
defence employees by forcing them to all of a sudden compete for
service bids with mega corporations.
When civilian military workers successfully beat the ASD
contract bids of private companies, this government abruptly
changed the rules of engagement to favour large corporations. The
bundling of bids provides for the awarding of contracts on a
national basis, not only a cheap shot at our military but a slap
in the face to small businesses throughout this country.
What is this Liberal government's real agenda, an efficient
military or a privatized and gutted military where there are
enough funds for huge capital purchases but not enough to sustain
the dedicated men and women serving Canada in both civilian and
military roles?
Before rushing blindly into a minefield, will this government
not take time and fully explore what this will mean to the people
of Halifax and elsewhere?
The plan to cut 125 jobs at CFB Halifax is structured to allow
management favourites to keep their jobs while those with better
credentials are fired.
There are close to two and a half thousand civilian defence
employees in Nova Scotia, about 90% of them in greater metro
Halifax.
In 1994 the federal government cut over 50% of the civilian jobs
at CFB Shearwater and has been cutting further through this ASD
fiasco. Just what are the government's plans for Shearwater?
The people of Halifax deserve to know what this government has up
its sleeve for their future.
In Goose Bay, Newfoundland where support services were
privatized to a foreign corporation, jobs and wages were slashed.
The impact on the local community has been dire, with everyone
from the DND workers to the local chamber of commerce denouncing
the shortsighted and selfish deal.
The Minister of Defence has suggested that people would be
treated humanely as this offensive against Canada's military was
deployed. If laying off people and cutting salaries in half is
humane, it is a good thing his portfolio does not include human
rights.
The people of the Halifax region, throughout the province of
Nova Scotia and across Canada deserve answers, answers this
Liberal government seems loathe to provide, as if it is afraid to
jeopardize this backward strategy of taking wages and jobs from
Canada's civilian defence personnel in order to hand over quick
cash to large corporations. Not good enough.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as the Minister of
National Defence has previously stated in this House, the
Department of National Defence has an obligation to meet budget
reduction targets.
The Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence must
deliver the missions defined by the government in the defence
policy in the most cost effective way possible within the
constraints of the budget available.
Achieving cost savings in support activities is something that
can be done with the alternative service delivery program.
At the same time, however, the government has an obligation and a
desire to make sure that employees are treated fairly. We have
demonstrated that with the way we have gone about the downsizing
of the public service. We will demonstrate it again in the terms
of how we treat employees affected by the alternative service
delivery program.
1835
Among the options being considered are various alternative
service delivery mechanisms such as competition, which may at
times include in-house bids, or employee takeover leading to
contractual arrangements and partnering and collaborations
between government and private sector and privatization.
However, the Minister of National Defence directed the
department to ensure that the six sites recently selected for an
alternative service delivery review have the opportunity to
demonstrate whether sufficient savings can be achieved through
internal redesign of the work before a decision is made to pursue
the competitive process.
The review of alternative service delivery initiatives provides
for fair consultation and involvement of all interested parties
including management, employees, unions, industry, local
communities and other government departments.
In cases where there may be personnel cuts resulting from these
initiatives, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian
forces work with the union leadership and affected personnel to
discuss the possible impact of anticipated reductions. In these
cases arrangements can be made to secure employment with the new
employer and remaining—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired.
[Translation]
TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise in
response to the reply provided by the Minister of Transport on
February 24 to my question on the toll highway in New Brunswick.
The Trans-Canada Highway between Moncton and Fredericton was
built with Canadian taxpayers' money. The federal government
joined New Brunswick to fund the construction of that highway.
But at the last minute, the New Brunswick government played
behind the back of the residents of that province and reached an
agreement with Maritime Road Development Corporation. This
agreement creates a number of problems. First, New Brunswick
residents have already paid for the highway, through taxes. To
collect a toll from those who travel from one city to another
violates people's right to move freely.
The tolls collected may not be a problem for someone like Doug
Young, but they represent several hundreds of dollars every year
for those who travel from Moncton to Fredericton a number of
times every week.
The agreement also poses a problem in that the negotiations with
Maritime Road Development Corporation were conducted behind
closed doors. I realize it is common practice for the Liberals
to do things behind the back of Canadians, but this must stop.
Let us not forget that the person behind these negotiations is
Doug Young, the former Liberal Minister of Transport. Mr. Young
is now getting rich at the expense of the residents of New
Brunswick.
Enough is enough. Canadians are sick and tired of seeing
patronage everywhere they look. They are sick and tired of
seeing that their elected officials are only looking after their
friends' interests instead of protecting the interests of
Canadians. Awarding a contract to a former minister of one's own
party and helping him get rich is not only deplorable, but is
clearly a conflict of interest.
Canada's highways should never be subject to tolls, particularly
not to help private contractors get rich.
The situation was best described by the mayor of Salisbury, Ruth
Jackson, who said “Setting tolls on any section of the
Trans-Canada Highway is an abuse of the trust of Canadians,
because it deprives them of a unified transportation network
from coast to coast. Any toll road, whether provincial or
private, must be completely separate from the Trans-Canada
Highway. If such tolls are set up, any commercial haulage in the
region east of Moncton will be deprived of the access to the
national highway network”.
Let us listen to Canadians and do away with the idea of toll
highways.
1840
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let me remind the
hon. member that highway matters fall under provincial
jurisdiction. Lesson one. This means that provincial
governments decide on their alignment, design, construction
standards, tendering process and financing as well as subsequent
operations and maintenance.
The decision to establish tolls on highways is exclusively a
provincial decision. New Brunswick has chosen to operate the 195
kilometre highway project from Longs Creek west of Fredericton to
Magnetic Hill west of Moncton as a public sector-private sector
partnership using tolls.
New Brunswick announced on January 23, 1998 that the Maritime
Road Development Corporation would construct and operate the four
lane controlled access highway which will be opened by November
30, 2001.
The total capital cost of this project is $887 million. This
cost includes new construction at $584 million plus a payment to
the province for work completed or under way on various sections
of $123 million, not including the $32 million federal
contribution plus land costs and construction interest costs. The
overall agreement is for 50 years.
This highway project is not being funded under the
federal-provincial cost shared agreement. The federal government
has no legal basis to prevent New Brunswick from imposing tolls
on this highway.
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, as
the post-secondary education critic for the NDP I have tried to
do my best to press the federal government on concerns about
post-secondary education and the crisis we are facing.
In question period about a week ago I questioned the government
about the skyrocketing tuition fees and deregulation which is
causing a two tier educational system in Canada. I pointed out
to the government that the Americanization and the privatization
of post-secondary education is directly as a result of the
gutting of federal funding.
I was shocked by the response from the Secretary of State for
Children and Youth, who suggested I speak to my colleagues in the
Government of British Columbia to deal with the issue of
skyrocketing tuition fees. I was shocked at this response
because I could not believe a government minister was not aware,
especially the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, that in
the province of British Columbia we have had a tuition freeze not
for one year, not for two years but for three years.
The B.C. government introduced legislation very recently that
will continue the tuition freeze until 1999. The government of
B.C. is doing this to ensure that post-secondary education is
affordable and accessible. The freeze will include tuition fees
for graduate, undergraduate, career, technical, vocational and
developmental programs. It also freezes mandatory ancillary fees
that could increase the cost of tuition, including such items as
library registration or laboratory fees.
I point this out because I really find it appalling that the
federal government apparently has not a clue what is going on in
British Columbia and the leadership that has been taken to ensure
that post-secondary education is still accessible. This tuition
freeze will ensure tuition fees of B.C. are among the lowest in
Canada.
In other provinces such as Ontario tuition fees have increased
by 20% in recent years and enrolment has declined. But B.C. has
increased funding to post-secondary education despite the massive
cutbacks by the federal government, a 20% increase, $39 million
for this year alone. Even today in British Columbia the
government announced that it is removing tuition fees completely
for adult basic education.
I want to set the record straight and call on the government to
issue an apology to the B.C. government in alleging and charging
that tuition fees in B.C. are skyrocketing. That is the case
elsewhere in Canada as a result of the gutting of funds from
post-secondary education and that is something that is of huge
concern to all of us, particularly to students who are facing a
massive debtload.
Let us get the facts straight here. I would like to see in the
government response today and in future responses government
members acknowledging the leadership that B.C. has taken to
ensure that post-secondary education is accessible to students.
1845
We are calling on the federal government to demonstrate and to
show that same kind of leadership across the country by
instituting a national freeze on tuition fees and instituting a
national program of grants for students in Canada.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, at the outset it is
important to recognize some of the key indicators relating to
post-secondary education as outlined in the 1997 education at a
glance report prepared by the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development.
Canada's expenditure on post-secondary education as a percentage
of gross domestic product was 2.6% in 1994, the highest among the
OECD member states. Canada ranks second among the OECD countries
in terms of post-secondary enrolment as a proportion of the 18 to
21 age group. Canada ranks third among the OECD countries in
terms of graduates at the bachelor or equivalent level.
As has been said before, all government have a continued
responsibility to ensure that students have access to
post-secondary education. Clearly the Government of Canada has a
long history of helping students access post-secondary education
and other learning opportunities.
Since its inception in 1964, the Canada student loans program
has helped more than three million students access post-secondary
education.
The Government of Canada has been offering grants to students
across Canada for many years, including those awarded by three
research granting councils, the Medical Research Council, the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council. By funding these
councils the Government of Canada supports advanced research for
graduate students.
The Canada opportunities strategy announced in the recent budget
further confirms the government's commitment to helping Canadians
access learning opportunities and participate in the knowledge
economy.
The Canada millennium scholarships fund will award over 100,000
scholarships to post-secondary students each year. Canada study
grants will provide up to $3,000 a year and will help 25,000 to
50,000 needy students with children or other dependants. Canadian
education savings grants will help families save for their
children's education through registered education savings plans.
Also announced—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry, but I
must interrupt. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)